Eleven days.
That was all that remained before Americans would choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton when FBI Director James Comey sent a three-paragraph letter to Congress that instantly transformed the closing days of the presidential campaign.
The FBI, Comey announced, had discovered additional emails that “appear to be pertinent” to its investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state.
The announcement was explosive.
But there was something extremely important buried inside Comey's short letter.
The FBI didn't yet know what the emails meant.
Comey explicitly acknowledged that the bureau “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.”
Nevertheless, with Election Day approaching, the existence of the emails was now public.
And Donald Trump immediately seized on the news.
The Investigation Had Already Been Completed
The announcement was so dramatic because Americans had been told months earlier that the Clinton email investigation was essentially finished.
On July 5, Comey publicly announced the FBI's conclusions.
Investigators had determined that Clinton and her aides had been “extremely careless” in their handling of classified information.
But the FBI did not recommend criminal charges.
Comey explained that investigators had not found the kind of evidence that historically supported criminal prosecution in comparable cases.
The email controversy certainly hadn't disappeared politically.
Trump continued hammering Clinton over it.
His rallies regularly featured chants of:
“Lock her up!”
But as a criminal investigation, the FBI's work appeared to have reached its conclusion.
Then came October 28.
An Unrelated Investigation
The new development didn't begin with Hillary Clinton.
It began with former Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner.
Federal investigators were examining Weiner in an unrelated case involving sexually explicit communications with a teenage girl.
Weiner was then married to Huma Abedin, one of Hillary Clinton's closest aides.
Investigators seized electronic devices during the Weiner investigation.
On a laptop used by Weiner and Abedin, the FBI discovered a huge collection of emails.
Some appeared potentially relevant to the previously completed Clinton investigation.
Suddenly, the FBI had a decision to make.
Comey Writes Congress
Comey had previously testified before Congress about the completion of the Clinton investigation.
He concluded that discovering potentially relevant material created an obligation to update lawmakers.
So on October 28 he sent congressional leaders a letter.
“In connection with an unrelated case,” Comey wrote, “the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”
The FBI, he continued, would review the emails to determine whether they contained classified information and assess their importance.
Then came the crucial qualification:
“Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant...”
The distinction was enormous.
Comey wasn't announcing that the FBI had discovered incriminating Clinton emails.
He wasn't announcing that Clinton had committed a crime.
He wasn't announcing that the bureau had reversed its July conclusion.
The FBI had discovered emails.
Investigators needed to examine them.
That was essentially all the bureau knew publicly.
But the political impact of those distinctions was another matter entirely.
The News Explodes
Within hours, the story dominated political coverage.
The Clinton email investigation was suddenly back.
Cable television erupted.
News websites pushed alerts.
Republicans celebrated.
Democrats demanded answers.
And with only eleven days remaining before Election Day, voters were confronted with the words FBI, Clinton and investigation once again.
The details were uncertain.
The headline was devastatingly simple.
Trump Seizes the Moment
Donald Trump wasted no time.
Speaking at a rally in New Hampshire, Trump announced the news to his supporters.
“Perhaps, finally, justice will be done,” he said.
The crowd erupted.
Trump portrayed the development as vindication of his long-running attacks on Clinton.
He called the email controversy “the biggest political scandal since Watergate.”
The FBI had said nothing remotely that definitive.
Comey's letter hadn't accused Clinton of a new crime.
It hadn't said investigators had discovered damaging evidence.
It specifically said the FBI didn't yet know whether the newly discovered material was significant.
But those qualifications were competing against an extraordinarily powerful political narrative:
The FBI was looking at Clinton's emails again.
Even Comey Recognized the Danger
Comey understood the problem.
In a message to FBI employees explaining his decision, he acknowledged that the bureau normally did not tell Congress about ongoing investigative work.
But because he had previously testified that the Clinton investigation was complete, Comey believed failing to update Congress could itself mislead the public.
Then he acknowledged the other side of the dilemma.
Because the FBI didn't yet know the significance of the emails, Comey wrote that he did not want to create a misleading impression.
He admitted there was a “significant risk of being misunderstood.”
That risk became reality almost immediately.
The mere existence of the letter became far more politically powerful than its carefully qualified contents.
The FBI Hadn't Yet Read the Emails
Later examination of the FBI's handling of the case revealed an extraordinary detail.
At the time Comey's October 28 letter went to Congress, investigators from the Clinton email team had not yet reviewed the actual contents of the newly discovered emails.
The Justice Department's inspector general later concluded that the FBI's expectations about the potential significance of the laptop had been overstated.
Investigators believed it might contain previously missing Clinton communications from the beginning of her tenure as secretary of state.
But when Comey's letter was issued, the team had limited information about what was actually there.
The wording of the letter itself reflected that uncertainty.
The emails did not “are” pertinent.
They “appear to be pertinent.”
The FBI still had to determine what they actually contained.
The Investigation Moves at Extraordinary Speed
Two days after Comey's announcement, the FBI obtained a search warrant allowing investigators to examine the material.
Agents then began processing and reviewing an enormous collection of emails.
They had little time.
Election Day was approaching.
For six days, investigators worked through the material.
Then, on November 6 — just two days before Americans voted — Comey wrote Congress again.
The FBI had completed its review.
And after all the extraordinary attention surrounding the October 28 announcement, the conclusion was remarkably simple.
Nothing had changed.
No Change to the July Conclusion
Comey informed lawmakers that investigators had reviewed the relevant communications.
“Based on our review,” he wrote, “we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”
The FBI still wasn't recommending criminal charges.
Much of the material on the laptop turned out to consist of personal communications or duplicates of emails investigators had already examined.
The enormous political explosion triggered on October 28 ultimately did not produce a different FBI conclusion.
But the second letter arrived only two days before Election Day.
The first had been circulating through the political bloodstream for more than a week.
Democrats Were Furious
Clinton and her campaign strongly criticized Comey's handling of the announcement.
Their argument wasn't simply that the FBI shouldn't investigate potentially relevant material.
The issue was announcing the discovery publicly before investigators knew what the material contained.
Comey's initial letter was sufficiently vague that it invited speculation about what the FBI might have discovered.
Democrats argued that making such an announcement immediately before an election risked influencing voters without providing enough information for them to understand what was actually happening.
Republicans, meanwhile, argued that Comey had an obligation to correct his previous congressional testimony once potentially relevant material had surfaced.
Comey himself later explained that he believed remaining silent would have effectively concealed a major development after he had repeatedly told Congress the investigation was finished.
It was an extraordinary institutional dilemma.
And Comey chose disclosure.
Did It Change the Election?
That question would become one of the most fiercely debated issues after the election.
Clinton herself later argued that Comey's October 28 announcement damaged her campaign.
Political scientists and election analysts have continued debating the extent of any effect.
There is no way to rerun the 2016 election without Comey's letter and observe what would have happened.
Many other forces were simultaneously shaping voters' decisions.
The Access Hollywood recording had been released weeks earlier.
WikiLeaks was publishing hacked Democratic emails.
Trump was facing allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denied.
Clinton had years of political baggage and significant unfavorable ratings.
Russia was conducting an election-interference operation.
And millions of Americans had already formed strong opinions about both candidates.
Comey's letter was one event in an extraordinarily turbulent election.
Its precise electoral effect cannot be established with certainty.
Eleven Days
What can be established is the chronology.
October 28: Comey tells Congress that newly discovered emails appear potentially relevant.
The FBI cannot yet determine whether they are significant.
October 30: Investigators obtain authority to examine the emails.
November 6: Comey tells Congress the review has not changed the FBI's previous conclusion.
November 8: Election Day.
Nine days separated Comey's two letters.
The first announced uncertainty.
The second announced that the uncertainty had produced no change in the FBI's conclusion.
But those nine days happened during the most consequential possible moment.
The final stretch of a presidential election.
A Three-Paragraph Letter
The October 28 letter was remarkably short.
It did not charge Hillary Clinton with a crime.
It did not say investigators had uncovered damaging new evidence.
It did not reverse the FBI's previous decision.
It didn't even say the newly discovered material was significant.
Comey specifically said the FBI did not yet know whether it was.
But politics rarely waits for an investigation to finish.
Within hours, Donald Trump was telling cheering supporters that perhaps justice would finally be done.
The Clinton email controversy was back at the center of the presidential campaign.
Eleven days remained before Election Day.
And one of the most consequential political controversies of 2016 had been triggered by a letter announcing something the FBI itself had not yet figured out.