Bolton’s been indicted
We knew this was coming:
John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser-turned-adversary, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland.
He now faces 18 charges: eight counts of transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of retention of national defense information.
Prosecutors wrote in the indictment that during the time he was national security adviser to Trump, Bolton shared “more than a thousand pages of information about his day-to-day activities” with two unauthorized individuals. Both of those people were related to Bolton and didn’t have the authority to access classified information, prosecutors said.
He pleads persecution and Trump-vengeance, of course. But why should he not be subject to the rules? Did he violate them or not? I don’t know the answer, but I certainly don’t assume he didn’t. I find it fascinating that he claims this as evidence that he did nothing wrong [my emphasis]:
He said that his book, “The Room Where It Happened,” was reviewed and approved by “the appropriate, experienced career clearance officials” and that the FBI was made fully aware of his email hack in 2021. In the four years of the prior administration, he said, no charges were filed against him.
You mean, when Bolton was dumping on Trump, Biden’s FBI and Biden’s DOJ didn’t indict him for anything? Well then, since we know how very evenhanded they were, that must mean Bolton is innocent.
Bolton goes on to add:
“Then came Trump 2 who embodies what Joseph Stalin’s head of secret police once said, ‘You show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,’” Bolton said.
Funny thing, we used to say that about Trump’s prosecutors/persecutors. And what did Bolton say about them? Well, let’s see what Bolton said back in August of 2022 about the FBI’s search of Mar-al-Lago for classified documents:
Former national security adviser John Bolton on Thursday said the Department of Justice (DOJ) is “overwhelmingly” professional, pushing back against claims the agency conducted a politically motivated search of former President Trump’s Florida estate this week.
On CNN’s “New Day,” Bolton told hosts John Berman and Brianna Keilar he’s had “long experience” with the DOJ and believes in the integrity of the department.
“Overwhelmingly, they are professional in carrying out of their duties,” he said. “I don’t recognize a lot of the criticisms that are being made of these institutions.”
I guess he “recognizes” those criticisms now.
Also, in February, 2024, Bolton had a curious evaluation of Trump’s pursuit of the presidency, in light of the fines levied on him through lawfare:
In an interview with MSNBC’s Jen Psaki on Sunday afternoon, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton said the former president’s growing debt amid his legal cases makes him vulnerable to foreign influence and unfit for office. …
“I think this is one of the demonstrations why Trump is really not fit for office because he is consumed by these troubles, his family is consumed by them, and I think foreigners will try to take advantage of it one way or another. They may be doing it already.”
Bolton added that the financial impact will affect Trump as he could see the former president needing to liquidate some of his properties.
Unfit for office because ridiculous and vindictive lawsuits in deep blue venues might bankrupt Trump. Sounds like justice, right?
With only superficial knowledge, I thought Bolton was on the same page with Trump during the ’45 term. Clearly mistaken; but I am not sure what his sins amounted to.
I wonder if Trump sees the irony of Bolton’s indictment following his excusing Hillary of much worse? He, Trump, has a proclivity for gratuitously making enemies.
But, I think ABC, CBS, et al are financing Trump’s legal bills.
My overall reaction to Bolton is that he is likely as ridiculous as his looks: that walrus mustache is bizarre. He looks uncomfortable, like he is in over his head, and I suspect that is true. I have never understood why a person in his position would talk to the press and tell stories about his experience with various consequential people and confidential situations. If he gets out of this predicament, it will be because of a gracious judge or prosecutor who essentially awards him a medal for being a “loyal public servant.” Never trusted that guy.
My guess would be that he’s guilty of an offense of modest significance driven by arrogance and carelessness. If that is true, he should get a short prison term.
Art, and Oldflyer, he is not a innocent babe in the woods. He was in high positions, and duty bound to act professionally. He did not, willfully violating laws. He deserves a long prison sentence, at least longer than some of the J6 people.
But, having said what I said, with the Judges today, he will walk. He should at least have to shave the Stash.
Where are all the ” No one’s above the law” people?
“He was in high positions, and duty bound to act professionally. He did not, willfully violating laws. He deserves a long prison sentence… ” SHIREHOME
“George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley estimated that Bolton could face a significant prison sentence of
five to twenty years in prison if convicted of possessing classified information.”
If all he gets is a slap on the wrist, trust in our justice system will take another hit and the left will have added another straw to the camel’s back…
I hear he’s going to mount the Sandy Berger defense and hope for the same sentence: a fine, probation and loss of clearance.
If my daughter, who has top secret clearances, were to email me about the content of her work, and her emails were discovered, she’d go to prison, probably for a significant term; not as long as if I were a foreign agent, but still, it’s illegal and she knows it. Bolton knew it too.
Kate (7:47 pm), the same applies to me. I did top secret work more than four decades ago, and much of what I “know” from back then may well be *utterly* obsolete (but who knows?). No matter. I’d go to prison, probably for a significant term, exactly like Kate’s daughter. It’s *still* illegal to disclose or discuss in any way, and I know that quite well.
Are we to understand this is something he did (or allowed) that is or was outside of the review process for allowing him to publish his book?
We have had prior conversations about the fuzzy lines around some classifying efforts as excessive and potentially merely CYA, etc. So are there grounds for clarifying those criteria, or the review process required prior to publishing a book that discusses tangentially classified information or actions and events dependent upon that information?
This evening the NBC analyst being interviewed about this suggested this type of case could take years to resolve. I do want to believe that the grand jury process resulting in this/these indictments was above board, even granting the one sided nature of such evaluations prior to going to open court.
MJR, your comment suggests we really need a sunset period on the classification of classified materials, even if it is 50 years. Or a mandatory review for continuing a prior classification after some period.
(Not saying it applies to you) but we could also have elderly people with dementia or other mental issues who inadvertently expose classified material late in life, with either no or significant impacts. They would logically no longer be held accountable for divulging such material, but if the information was that important it might still arrive in enemy hands.
Not sure how we protect against that? But people should not be facing legal jeopardy after an extended time span. At least for the vast amount of classified material.
Late,
I agree with you, your daughter is one of the little people, it must be galling!
Kate not Late!
Agree with most of the above, esp. Ty Rex. Bolton “served” the president while simultaneously recording high level info for a book he planned to publish about his experiences. Sleazy. He was another Trump first term personnel mistake.