President Donald Trump has openly expressed a desire to see his critics investigated and prosecuted. His past calls for action against figures like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have raised concerns about political influence within the Justice Department. Trump himself has faced multiple indictments following his departure from the White House, and Letitia James also faced charges. Many legal experts have viewed these cases as potentially politically motivated and challenging to win in court.
However, the recent indictment of former national security adviser John Bolton presents a different scenario, according to legal specialists and former prosecutors. Mark Lesko, formerly acting US attorney for the Eastern District of New York, noted that comparing Bolton’s charges to those of Comey and James is like comparing “apples to oranges.” Bolton has been indicted on federal charges concerning the alleged mishandling of classified information. Since leaving his role in 2019, Bolton has become a prominent critic of Trump, even describing him as “stunningly uninformed” and unfit for office in his memoir.
Experts suggest that while political motivations may exist, the procedures followed in Bolton’s indictment and the evidence gathered potentially create a stronger case than those brought against Comey or James. Carissa Byrne Hessick, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, stated that the alleged misconduct is “both more serious and appears to have occurred over a significant period of time.”
While Trump has made critical remarks about Bolton, calling him a “sleazebag” and suggesting he should be jailed, Bolton has also been outspoken against the former president. Jamil Jaffer, founder of the National Security Institute at George Mason University, commented on the timing of Bolton’s indictment, noting that it raises questions about the strength and motivation behind the charges. Nevertheless, Jaffer added that if the Justice Department can prove the alleged facts and the classified nature of the information, Bolton’s actions could indeed be illegal.
Carrie Cordero, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, highlighted that prosecuting high-ranking officials for mishandling classified documents is uncommon but not unprecedented. She stated that such cases are challenging to prosecute but are occasionally brought against both lower and higher-level officials.
The handling of classified documents is governed by strict procedures. For a conviction, the prosecution must demonstrate that Bolton knowingly possessed classified information and intentionally transferred it to someone not authorized to receive it. Jaffer pointed out that specific details regarding the government’s evidence, such as diary entries communicated via email and their classified status, are not yet fully known.
Legal scrutiny is expected regarding the Justice Department’s process, especially given Trump’s public statements about prosecuting opponents. However, Lesko suggested that prosecutors appear to have followed standard protocols in Bolton’s case, citing the indictment as a more “traditional” document compared to Comey’s brief one, detailing the facts and circumstances. He believes the case aligns with historical precedents involving government officials mishandling classified materials.