Some of the headlines this afternoon have said the case against Clinton has been “re-opened,” and while that’s the phrasing Republicans are pushing, that’s not quite what Comey’s letter says.In fact, part of the problem with today’s apoplexy is that Comey’s brief, three-paragraph letter doesn’t offer much in the way of clarity. In the first paragraph, for example, the FBI director alerted several congressional committee chairs that he’s “supplementing” previous testimony.In the second paragraph, Comey added, “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation…. I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”And in the third paragraph, the bureau’s Republican director concluded that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant,” and Comey “cannot predict how long it will take” for the bureau to complete its work.If you’re counting on some kind of resolution in the next 11 days, you’re likely to be disappointed.And while a vague letter – at this stage, from the director of the FBI, about this “controversy” – is inherently problematic because it practically encourages baseless speculation, additional reporting on the matter suggests the freak-out may not be entirely warranted.Let’s do a little Q&A:No. In fact, technically, that review was never closed.Apparently not. NBC News’ Brian Williams, among several others, reports that the messages in question weren’t withheld and are unrelated to the stolen emails published by Wikileaks.According to multiple press accounts, no.According to multiple press accounts, including NBC News, no. According to the New York Times, this refers to Anthony Weiner – remember him? – who’s facing scrutiny for allegedly sexting with a minor, and the FBI collecting electronic devices belonging to him and Clinton aide Huma Abedin.I’ll leave it to others to speculate.I’m not sure “funny” is the right word for it.Update: The Brookings Institution’ Ben Wittes has a good piece on the story this afternoon, noting among other things, “The relevance of this letter [from Comey] is likely not that explosive new evidence of Clinton criminality has suddenly emerged.”