FBI Director James Comey is at the center of a news story that threatens to grab control of the presidential election — and not for the first time.

On Friday, Comey sent a letter to members of Congress that on the surface looked like a juicy piece of new information about issues related to Hillary Clinton’s email use when she was U.S. Secretary of State. Comey’s three-paragraph letter was short on detail and specific facts, but offered the tantalizing suggestion that “the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation [of Clinton’s use of a private email server].”

Republican rival Donald Trump and his supporters instantly seized on Comey’s letter as evidence of new emails Clinton had sent or received that contained classified information and demonstrated wrongdoing, perhaps even illegal activity, by the Democratic presidential nominee. Clinton herself has declared that it is “imperative” the FBI release more information to clear up the rumors and innuendo in the wake of Comey’s statement.

It is not yet possible to know exactly what to make of Comey’s letter, but the early indications are that the truth is a lot less dramatic. Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek reported that the information Comey alluded to “has virtually nothing to do with any actions taken by the Democratic nominee,” according to government records and an official with knowledge of the investigation.

FBI reviewing new Clinton emails

Some prosecutors have expressed surprise that Comey would take such an action so close to the Nov. 8 election. One former assistant U.S. attorney said “Comey acted totally inappropriately. He had no business writing to Congress about supposed new emails that neither he nor anyone in the FBI has ever reviewed…This is particularly egregious since Secretary Clinton has no way to respond to what amounts to nebulous and speculative innuendo.”

But Comey has been a similar position before. In the spring of 2004, Comey was the No. 2 official at the Justice Department, and served as acting Attorney General when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was hospitalized. In that role, Comey, along with other Justice Department lawyers, learned that the Bush administration had been operating a secret surveillance program for more than two years without approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The secret program included warrantless surveillance of international communications made by Americans. While the surveillance had been periodically authorized by the Justice Department, Comey and other lawyers concluded the program violated federal law and insisted that it either be modified or ended.

The Bush administration tried to find a way around the Justice Department, going so far as to dispatch White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to visit Ashcroft in the hospital. Gonzales and Card apparently hoped to take advantage of Ashcroft’s illness to persuade him to sign off on the re-authorization that Comey refused to provide.

Comey and other lawyers raced to the hospital and got there before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft refused to provide the authorization the Bush administration wanted. When President George W. Bush reauthorized the program himself without Department of Justice approval, Comey and other lawyers prepared to resign.

Facing the prospect of mass resignation by senior government lawyers during an election year, Bush agreed to some changes to the program (although one aspect of the program that Comey believed was illegal continued.

There are at least two ways to think about Comey’s actions in 2004. One is to say he heroically stood up to what he believed was illegal activity within the executive branch and succeeded in making some changes to the surveillance program.

Another is that Comey knew about activity authorized by the president and other senior administration officials which he believed was illegal, but failed to bring this information to the public’s attention during an election year.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney narrowly won re-election in 2004. The program Comey was concerned about was classified, so he could not have revealed details about it without exposing himself to possible prosecution. But Comey certainly could have signaled his concerns without disclosing classified information — for instance, by resigning and issuing a public statement that he was disturbed about what he believed were illegal activities that he could not discuss in detail because they were classified.

Instead, Comey remained silent in 2004 about these controversial actions by the Bush administration that might have impacted that year’s presidential election.

Not this year. Days before the general election, Comey has issued a cryptic statement that fuels conspiracy theories. Comey should provide details to clear the ambiguity created by his letter. If he does not, his actions could have surely unintended consequences — this time due not to his silence, but to his speaking publicly about information he does not yet fully understand.

Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. His latest book,Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security, was published in May 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press.