Since Friday afternoon, the political world has been convulsed by the decision of James Comey, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to release a three-paragraph letter to congressional leaders, announcing that the F.B.I. had found additional evidence that might be relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton for improper handling of classified information. Was Comey’s letter appropriate, because it disclosed an important development to Congress, especially since he had earlier told them that his investigation was complete? Or did Comey’s letter represent unjustified meddling in the Presidential election, less than two weeks before election day?

These questions, in a way, miss the point. The issue is not the propriety of Comey’s letter. The issue is the propriety of Comey’s letter and the leaks that followed it. It is worth noting, at the outset, that Comey’s letter said only, “I­n connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Within moments of the release of Comey’s letter, though, government sources leaked that the “unrelated case” was that of Anthony Weiner, who is being investigated for sexually explicit correspondence with an underage girl. Weiner, of course, is the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, a close aide to Hillary Clinton, and the leaks suggested that the new evidence consisted of e-mails found on computers that Weiner and Abedin may have shared.

But what was the actual evidence that prompted Comey’s letter, and what do the e-mails say? The answer depends on the news source. “The emails were not to or from Clinton,” according to the Los Angeles Times. But the Washington Post said, “The correspondence included emails between Abedin and Clinton.” And, according to the New York Times, “Senior law enforcement officials said that it was unclear if any of the emails were from Mrs. Clinton’s private server.” This muddled issue is crucial, because if none of the e-mails were to or from Clinton—who is the person running for President—then this new chapter of the investigation amounts to very little. (If the e-mails are duplicates of e-mails that the F.B.I. has already seen, or if they are simply irrelevant personal e-mails, then the story may also amount to little.)

No one likes to talk about law-enforcement leaks. Journalists (present company included) rarely discuss the issue for fear of burning existing sources or discouraging future ones. If asked, Comey would no doubt affect to be shocked that leaking was taking place at the F.B.I. But the issue is critically bound up with the current controversy. The journalistic follow-up to Comey’s bombshell letter was predictable, even inevitable.

Even if Comey did not specifically make or authorize the leaks himself, he had to know that they would take place—and he must take responsibility for them. In other words, Comey wasn’t just releasing a letter. He was beginning a process that was certain to include many more disclosures from the F.B.I., but in the haphazard and deniable form of leaks. The F.B.I. can keep secrets when it’s in its interest to do so. There are almost never any disclosures from the bureau’s national-security investigators, who deal with terrorism and related matters. But when it comes to criminal investigations, especially high-profile political matters like this one, the bureau has long been a semi-open book.

Because of Comey’s announcement, the days leading up to the election will now feature piecemeal disclosures of fragments of the investigation. If Comey heeds the calls from both the Clinton and Trump campaigns to elaborate on his cryptic letter, he will likely succeed only in generating more leaks, as reporters seek to answer the central questions of whose e-mails are at issue and if they incriminate anyone, especially Clinton. The inevitability of leaks is one reason why the Justice Department (of which the F.B.I. is supposedly a part) has a formal policy of avoiding public law-enforcement activity on the eve of elections. As my colleague Jane Mayer wrote, this policy exists because the activity itself—like the issuance of indictments or even subpoenas—can affect the outcomes; but it also exists because the activity sets off a process that amounts to even greater interference than the official actions themselves.

On Friday night, Comey sent a peculiar and unusual memorandum to F.B.I. employees, purporting to justify his decision to write to Congress on the eve of the election. Alternately self-righteous and self-pitying, the message portrayed Comey’s decision as obligatory under the circumstances. He wrote:

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood . . .

Comey says that he didn’t “want to create a misleading impression,” but that’s precisely what he did. He had to know that his vague letter to Congress virtually demanded elaboration from “senior government officials,” who would apply their own gloss, in the form of leaks. The responsibility for the confusion sown by these leaks, if not for the leaks themselves, belongs only to Comey. If the outcome of the Presidential election turns on Comey’s action, that’s his burden, and the nation’s, too.