Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“John Bolton, President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, was charged on Thursday in a sweeping indictment that accuses him of sharing sensitive government information with two of his relatives for possible use in a book he was writing. The indictment marked the third time in recent weeks the Justice Department has secured criminal charges against one of Trump's critics…
“The two relatives referred to in the indictment are Bolton's wife and daughter, two people familiar with the matter said. In a statement, Bolton said, ‘I look forward to the fight to defend my lawful conduct and to expose his abuse of power.’…
“The investigation of Bolton was opened in 2022, predating the Trump administration… The indictment of Bolton, filed in federal court in Maryland, charges him with eight counts of transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of retention of national defense information, all in violation of the Espionage Act.” Reuters
Here’s our coverage of the James Comey indictment. The Flip Side
The left argues that these charges appear more robust than those against other Trump opponents.
“Bolton allegedly disclosed to outsiders information about ‘future attack’ plans by foreign adversary groups; details of impending missile launches by foreign adversaries; information about sensitive intelligence sources; and assessments about leaders of foreign countries. Apparently, Bolton would type up notes…
“He’d then use his personal AOL account (which was eventually hacked by Iran) to email ‘diary-like entries’ to two people — both relatives of his — who had no security clearances… The Bolton case appears to differ in kind from the recent prosecutions of Comey and [NY AG Letitia] James.”
Elie Honig, New York Magazine
“The 18-count criminal indictment, filed yesterday, was compiled by experienced prosecutors, not political lackeys. It is detailed and precise, and relies on Bolton’s own words to implicate him. You should question whether these charges would be brought if Trump weren’t president. Officials in Joe Biden’s administration passed on the chance to do so… But political animus doesn’t make the government’s charges baseless.”
Shane Harris, The Atlantic
“When I did advocacy work for Chelsea Manning, Bolton suggested that if found guilty, she should be punished by death. In 2013, Bolton famously said of another client: ‘My view is that [Edward] Snowden committed treason, he ought to be convicted of that, and then he ought to swing from a tall oak tree.’ My cup of schadenfreude should be running over right about now. It is not, however, because President Donald Trump’s trademark rambling and ill-advised statements could very well tank the [case]…
“I’m not talking about the president’s pot-kettling insults in which he called Bolton ‘dumb,’ a ‘wacko’ or ‘a disgruntled boring fool.’ I’m talking about Trump’s own words when he learned Bolton had written a tell-all book, describing Bolton as ‘treasonous’ and calling for his imprisonment… Trump’s words more than suggest that the prosecution — whatever its merits might be — is selective and vindictive, a factor that could end the case well before it reaches plea negotiations or a jury trial.”
Jesselyn Radack, Salon
“Bolton is charged with possessing information relating to the national defense that he knew could be used to injure our country if transmitted to a foreign country. It’s impossible to ignore the specter of Pete Hegseth’s Signal chat, with its release of information while pilots were still in the air, hanging over all of this. Why charge Bolton and not Hegseth, the sitting Secretary of Defense? It looks like we have two layers of justice, one for friends of Donald Trump and another for his enemies.”
Joyce Vance, Substack
The right is divided.
The right is divided.
“It’s true that Bolton has had some unkind things to say about Trump since leaving his political orbit, and it’s also true that Trump is using any means necessary to target his political enemies, real or perceived. But unlike James Comey and Letitia James, Trump’s other two most powerful recent lawfare targets, Bolton’s indictment actually has a chance to stick… The law tends to be biased against a guy who’s ‘hoarding strategic government communications’ for his memoir…
“Let’s keep in mind that Bolton was a key architect of one of the biggest government deceptions of our time, or any time, the absolute insistence of the George W. Bush administration that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which led to one of the most pointless wars in American history… John Bolton as the ultimate defender of free speech, dissent and disagreement feels like a bit much to me.”
Neal Pollack, Spectator World
Others argue, “The lesson is that if you work for the President, he then sours on you and you criticize him, you are not safe… Mr. Bolton will get his day in court, and we look forward to his defense. In our experience he is a patriot who would do nothing to compromise national security. He never leaked classified information to us. If Mr. Bolton had praised Mr. Trump in his book, it’s safe to say he wouldn’t have been indicted.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“If this case was to be prosecuted at all, it should have been brought by the Biden Justice Department. Not only are the crimes charged weighty ones; as the indictment sedulously details, Bolton himself has been scathing in his condemnation of Hillary Clinton, Pete Hegseth, and other government officials for mishandling highly classified information, the very misconduct he is now accused of…
“Yet, I’ll be darned: for Democrats, Bolton had been an especially valuable Trump critic in the 2020 campaign, and 2024 figured to be no different — especially given Bolton’s frequent, blistering criticisms of the classified-information offenses for which Trump was indicted in the Mar-a-Lago case… While Democrats (like everyone else doing so) are right to decry Trump’s practices, they didn’t mind lawfare much when prosecutions happened, or didn’t, based on their own partisan expedience…
“As we’ve seen with the Democrats’ Trump prosecutions, lawfare is a mixed bag. Some of it is frivolous, some of it is based on real misconduct that would nevertheless have been excused had it not been for the political value of prosecuting. The case against Bolton is lawfare. If the allegations in the indictment are true, it is also based on real misconduct — meaning he’d better have a defense more compelling than ‘This is lawfare!’”
Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
