NYT comment I found interesting: At this initial stages, one can only make reasonable inferences. As a former Main Justice public corruption prosecutor (with t

NYT comment I found interesting: At this initial stages, one can only make reasonable inferences. As a former Main Justice public corruption prosecutor (with the Public Integrity Section), one can reasonably infer that the emails on their face appear pertinent, as otherwise the FBI wouldn't have reopened the investigation (in other words, in DOJ speak, they provide "predication," that is, cause for reopening the investigation). In that these emails weren't produced by Clintons' team of lawyers, this calls into broad question whether Clinton's attorneys selectively produced emails and selectively disclosed information or otherwise intentionally failed to inform the FBI of limitations on their disclosure and thus committed obstruction of justice. This calls into question the thoroughness and integrity of the investigation. There is no doubt in my mind that that initial investigation was conducted in a tepid manner (as evidenced by the lack of the use of a grand jury and side agreement that were struck with Clinton's lawyers that would not have been entered into if a lower-level public official was being investigated). The FBI has a duty to the public to now conduct a vigorous and swift investigation. - William M. Palmer, Esq. Boston http://nyti.ms/2dPL5s3 http://nyti.ms/2dPL5s3