Almost ten years later, I still remember a text I received from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
It was Saturday, October 29th, 2016, the day after then-FBI Director James Comey had sent a letter to Congress announcing his bureau was reviewing newly discovered Clinton emails. That news had come late on Friday, eleven days before the election. For many people, myself included, it hit like a five-alarm fire: an ultimate October surprise that could upend the entire race. In the wake of that threat, the Clinton campaign sent this text, projecting a breezy, all-in-this-together ethos.
Much appreciation to Eric White, who uploaded the archive to Scribd.
Lest you think I’m being unfair, the caution of that mass text was also reflected in how the campaign publicly handled the incident. "It's not just strange, it's unprecedented,” Clinton said at one rally. "So we've called on Director Comey to explain everything right away, put it all out on the table."
Post-facto studies have repeatedly concluded that Comey’s late interventions (both his initial letter on October 28th and, paradoxically, a second one on November 6th announcing the FBI had found nothing) cost Clinton the election. With that knowledge, it’s worth reflecting on how anemic the Clinton campaign’s response was. The game was on the line. On one side were arguments that Comey’s letter proved their opponent was a criminal. On the other hand, calls for unity, transparency, and adherence to agency protocol.
The memory of that incident was on my mind this week, when California Gov. Gavin Newsom made the surprise announcement that the Justice Department was investigating him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. The video jolted political circles, underscored just how much has changed for Democrats over the past ten years, and provided an early test of how the crop of 2028 candidates will respond to unpredictable events.
First, here are five things to know about the situation.
1. It reportedly began more than a year ago and did not originate in D.C.
Per reporting from multiple outlets, based on direct knowledge of those involved in the probe, the investigation began in 2025. This is not a case of the Trump Justice Department beginning something now. Per that same reporting, the probe was launched by the Sacramento U.S. attorney’s office — not Washington, D.C. officials or DoJ leadership. Ostensibly, this is how these sorts of probes should, and, in the vast majority of cases, do work. That said, investigators in D.C. are now involved in the case.
2. It is not focused on Newsom, but Siebel Newsom.
While Newsom framed the investigation as an effort to target him — “because I’m considering running for president” — all reporting indicates the case is focused on his wife, California’s “First Partner” (she has eschewed the title of First Lady), who has worked in non-profits and documentary film-making, and is about tax-related issues.
3. There’s still no guarantee this is anything.
In the wake of the Trump administration’s blatant weaponization of the Justice Department, it’s reasonable for fair-minded people to be skeptical of the case. More than that, though, the inquiry could be perfectly legitimate and still not go anywhere. Typically, the Justice Department only announces investigations like this after securing an indictment. Newsom leapfrogged that process, breaking the news on his terms. That means we have been introduced to it far ahead of the usual schedule.
4. The announcement was big in the news media. Less so with real people.
Depending on where the investigation goes, there is real potential that Newsom’s announcement could be remembered as a big event in the 2028 primary contest — either as a positive or negative. Correspondingly, cable networks and political outlets covered it heavily. So far, though, it hasn’t broken through in a big way. The full video of his statement on YouTube has fewer than 60,000 views as of this writing — far less than he’s routinely drawn on other videos denouncing the administration. Google search data also shows less organic interest in Newsom this week than multiple other times over the past year, including his book tour in the winter.
5. Newsom did not get an unambiguously positive reception on liberal-leaning platforms.
While many hardcore liberal outlets, including MeidasTouch and Crooked Media hosts, came to the governor’s defense, the waters got murkier the more mainstream you got. On CNN, senior legal analyst Elie Honig told viewers that “it appears that Gavin Newsom’s narrative — that Donald Trump is targeting Gavin Newsom and his family for political reasons — is incorrect.” Over on MSNOW, justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian reported that “it appears to be a little bit more than weaponization, in the sense that some of our sources say there is something legitimate to look at here.” Others noted this is not the first investigation into Newsom’s broader political kitchen cabinet, pointing out his former chief of staff recently took a plea deal in a separate case. Another MSNOW host even displayed the below graphic, labeling Newsom as being “surrounded by scandals.”
Given that Democratic voters are still far more likely to consume mainstream news, the difference in tone was notable.
The “desired effect”
It remains to be seen where the investigation will go, if anywhere. I will confess to being surprised when I learned that the inquiry appears to be, at least on one level, legitimate; I had, upon first seeing the news, immediately slotted it in with other instances of the Trump administration abusing the justice process. No doubt many voters, especially committed Democrats, remain in that camp.
It’s less than clear that they will stay there, something Newsom’s team seems aware of. On Tuesday, Politico reported that “privately among those in his circle, the belief that Trump has handed Newsom a political gift is not unanimous.” That view was shared in some conversations I had. Matt Klink, a Los Angeles-based strategist who runs Matt Clink Strategies, said the announcement largely caught California’s political class off guard. Still, he said Newsom’s team was successful in achieving the “desired effect.”
As to the merits of Newsom’s approach, no one I talked to felt it was a mistake. “For all intents and purposes, he is a lame duck governor right now,” Clink told me. “It keeps him in the news and front and center from a national popularity perspective.” One 2020 presidential campaign veteran provided two-tiered feedback, calling Newsom’s approach both the “best choice” and “only choice” available to him.
Worthy reads
The boomlet around Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff’s potential 2028 campaign has finally reached mainstream media, including the New York Times and Politico. As a result, some are, belatedly, beginning to appreciate the stakes of the Peach State’s gubernatorial race this year, which I first wrote about this past winter.
Nate Trela at The Coloradoan details some of the major legislation vetoed by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis this year. It helps explain why Polis, once a widely popular figure in his state and a potential dark horse 2028 contender, has seen his stock drop significantly among Democrats in recent months, even before his controversial pardon of Tina Peters.
While NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Gov. Kathy Hochul have forged a friendly alliance, Joe Anuta at Politico New York runs through all the ways Mamdani could come back to Albany for more aid in the future ahead — potentially complicating Hochul’s for years.
And Gabe Fleischer at Wake Up to Politics has a good rundown of Pew Research Center’s recent issue polling. The upshot: there’s a lot more agreement among voters on some core issues than many would think.
Got feedback on today’s newsletter? Email me [email protected]