Dem
47
GOP
53
For the third time in a month, Donald Trump expressed hope that the Department of Justice would indict someone he regards as an enemy, and the DoJ has granted his wish. The latest target, following on the heels of former FBI Director James Comey and New York AG Letitia James, is former NSA John Bolton.
Bolton, of course, is a man of strong opinions, a fellow who prides himself on "telling it like it is" and "being a straight shooter." In our experience, people who present themselves in that manner are just trying to make a virtue out of "I'm an a**hole," and Bolton certainly is. He stepped on plenty of toes while he was in the Trump White House, which helped lead to his ouster, and then he shared more than a few unvarnished opinions of Trump after leaving. No surprise that the President hates his former underling.
Bolton is charged with eight counts of transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of retention of national defense information. As someone who is already 76 years old, he could be looking at a de facto life sentence if he is convicted. So, yesterday was undoubtedly a pretty unhappy day for the now-defendant.
There are some pretty significant differences between this indictment and the indictments of Comey and James. The first is that it is not the work of Lindsey Halligan, operating in her capacity as a Trump stooge. She's Eastern Virginia, and this indictment was filed in Maryland. The U.S. Attorney who signed off on it is Kelly O. Hayes, who first began working for the Department of Justice during the Barack Obama years, and who is serving entirely legally, having been appointed by the judges of that circuit. The indictment is also countersigned by several careerists from various agencies dedicated to cybersecurity.
Further, the investigation that led to this indictment wasn't a sham, and didn't commence a month or two ago, with someone looking for some crime—any crime—that might be charged. In fact, the investigation began during the Biden presidency. The matter was closed when prosecutors decided there wasn't enough "there" there. However, it was reopened when Iran hacked Bolton's e-mail account. That hacking not only caused more information to come out, but it also triggered a response from Bolton that heightens his legal exposure.
Finally, most importantly, and consistent with the above, the charges against Bolton may have merit to them. The charges against Comey are still somewhat mysterious, and look to be based on the splitting of some very fine hairs. The charges against James may not be legitimate and, even if they are, might not be something the DoJ would pursue, but for Trump's rage. But Bolton really screwed up, possibly to the point of it being criminal.
At issue is Bolton's habit of taking his handwritten notes each day, transcribing them, and then sending them to himself at his home e-mail address. He presumably wanted to have the information available as needed, and he was also clearly expecting to write a book, so he may have wanted it for that purpose, too. The moment he sent the materials to non-secure computers and e-mail accounts, he was already in "Hillary Clinton's e-mails" territory. However, he also made the materials available in a manner that they could potentially be accessed by family members without security clearances. That's worse; now we're into "documents being stored in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago" territory. And then, when Iran hacked Bolton's e-mail, he pointedly did not tell the government that he was keeping some highly classified material there.
That last part is a real problem for the former NSA. First, his failure to disclose that may itself be criminal. More importantly, however, the government does not want to imprison everyone who makes dumb mistakes with classified material. To get popped, you have to either know you were putting classified information at risk, or you have to be so reckless that you should have known you were putting classified information at risk. For Bolton to withhold the full truth when his account was hacked is pretty good evidence that he knew he'd blown it, and was trying to cover his rear end.
It's not hopeless for Bolton, by any means. He's going to argue selective prosecution and, because Trump is so careless in showing his hand, that might work. Bolton will also get his date in court, of course, or an opportunity to make a plea bargain.
Over the weekend, we had a reader write in to opine that, given the DoJ's very high conviction rate (well north of
90%), Letitia James' goose is probably cooked. The large flaw in that argument is that the 90%+ conviction rate holds
when skilled prosecutors with extensive expertise are making dispassionate legal decisions. It doesn't apply when it's
a shyster an insurance lawyer acting U.S. Attorney who is being guided much more by politics than by the law.
Bolton, unlike James, was indeed charged by skilled prosecutors with extensive expertise, and it sure looks like they
are making dispassionate legal decisions, not political decisions. Assuming this is the case, he'd better go find himself
the best counsel money can buy. (Z)