🔗 Share this article

Former President Donald Trump has consistently expressed his wish to see opponents investigated, applying influence on the DOJ to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

"We can't delay any longer, it's damaging our standing and credibility," the leader stated last month in a Truth Social post.

"They impeached twice, and charged me (five times!)" he said, mentioning the multiple legal proceedings he encountered after departing the White House in 2021 and James's civil case.

Both have subsequently been indicted, in cases that many experts have said seem to be driven by politics and difficult to succeed in court.

But the most recent charges against a presidential opponent, former national security adviser John Bolton, differ significantly, legal experts and ex-prosecutors say.

"I would say, contrasting Bolton's case to Comey's is like comparing two different things," stated Mark Lesko, a former federal prosecutor for the Eastern District of New York.

The Details of the Legal Situation

Bolton has been criminally indicted on national allegations related to the supposed improper handling of classified information. Since departing the White House in 2019, he has emerged as a vocal Trump critic, going so far as to describe him "remarkably ignorant" and unfit for office in his memoir.

Experts say that while there may be political reasons to go after Bolton, the procedures used to secure an indictment and the proof compiled against him indicate a potentially stronger legal argument than the Justice Department brought against James.

"This misconduct that's being alleged is both more severe and appears to have occurred over a considerable duration," said Carissa Byrne Hessick, a academic at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

During his tenure as Trump's security advisor, and following his 2019 White House exit, authorities claimed that Bolton put the nation at risk by improperly retaining and transmitting sensitive documents to family members using unprotected methods, including AOL. Some of the documents were marked top secret.

The charge alleges that at one point a hacker accessed to Bolton's account where documents were kept and transmitted an seeming threat to cause "the biggest scandal since Hillary [Clinton]'s emails were released".

Bolton pleaded not guilty during a hearing on recently to eighteen separate charges of improperly handling sensitive materials.

Retribution or a Strong Legal Argument?

The schedule of his indictment - arriving on the tails of allegations against Comey - has renewed questions about political pressure on the legal system.

Trump once implied Bolton belonged in prison, and called him a "disreputable person". Bolton, for his part, authored a publication about his time in the Trump government that was sharply negative of the president.

"Undoubtedly that the schedule of this indictment, when paired with additional cases, has prompted questions about the validity of these charges, and why these charges are being brought now," said Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute.

Nevertheless, he continued, "should the Justice Department is able to prove the allegations stated and show the information is correctly designated, his conduct may certainly have broken the statute".

Charging such a high-ranking figure for mishandling sensitive materials is "uncommon" but not without precedent, noted Carrie Cordero, a expert at the Center for a New American Security.

"Situations that concern classified information present challenges to prosecute, but they can and are brought against equally junior and senior officials, from time to time," she explained.

Parallels to Examinations into Former President and President

Trump similarly encountered charges of wrongfully keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and obstructing their recovery, but that case was ultimately dismissed by a federal judge and voided by his return as leader.

A independent investigator additionally determined that ex-President Joe Biden improperly maintained sensitive materials from his time as vice president, but did not criminally charge him.

Bolton's situation shares characteristics to Trump's sensitive materials issues, noted Mr Lesko, who also held a top national security role at the DOJ.

Rigorous protocols govern the handling of sensitive materials. To secure a guilty verdict, the prosecution must demonstrate that Bolton knew the information he was transmitting was restricted, and he had to intentionally transmit it to someone without authorization to receive it.

"Because of the sensitive character of the material at issue in this case, we lack a lot of particulars about the reasons the prosecution believes elements like the diary entries and the other information he shared by email, and the reason there were restricted," explained Mr Jaffer.

A More Conventional Prosecution

The procedure by which the Justice Department brought this case will be under scrutiny, following Trump openly posted his desire to see his critics prosecuted and several of those indictments materialized.

But Mr Lesko indicated in Bolton's case, prosecutors seem to have adhered to protocol.

"The Bolton case and eventually the indictment seemed to have followed the regular process including the regulations and norms within the Department of Justice," he stated.

Unlike Comey's brief, concise charge, Bolton's was a increasingly "traditional" filing that "clearly outlines the particulars concerning the facts and situation here," Mr Lesko commented.

"It appears reasonably consistent with a long line of cases... where government officials improperly handled and shared classified material."