🔗 Share this article

Former President Donald Trump has consistently shown his wish to see critics probed, exerting pressure on the Justice Department to prosecute ex FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

"We cannot postpone any longer, it's killing our standing and credibility," the leader wrote last month in a Truth Social post.

"I was impeached me, and charged me (five times!)" he declared, referencing the four criminal cases he encountered after departing the White House in 2021 and James's civil case.

Both have subsequently been indicted, in situations that many experts have stated appear to be driven by politics and difficult to win in legal proceedings.

But the latest allegations against a Trump critic, former national security adviser John Bolton, differ significantly, legal specialists and ex-prosecutors say.

"I would say, contrasting Bolton's charges to James' is like comparing two different things," said Mark Lesko, a ex federal prosecutor for the Eastern District of New York.

The Details of Bolton's Legal Situation

Bolton has been formally charged on federal charges pertaining to the supposed mishandling of classified information. Since leaving the White House in 2019, he has emerged as a outspoken presidential opponent, even to call him "stunningly uninformed" and unsuitable for the presidency in his memoir.

Specialists say that while there may be political motivations to target Bolton, the procedures used to secure an charge and the proof gathered against him suggest a possibly stronger case than the Justice Department brought against James.

"This misconduct that's being claimed is simultaneously more severe and appears to have taken place over a significant 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 departure, authorities alleged that Bolton put the country at risk by improperly keeping and transmitting classified information to relatives using insecure means, including AOL. Several of the documents were labeled highly classified.

The charge alleges that at a certain time a unauthorized user accessed to Bolton's system where files were kept and transmitted an apparent threat to cause "the largest controversy since Hillary [Clinton]'s emails were released".

Bolton pleaded not guilty during a court appearance on Friday to 18 separate counts of mishandling classified information.

Retribution or a Substantial Case?

The timing of his indictment - arriving on the tails of allegations against James - has renewed questions about external influence on the justice system.

Trump previously suggested Bolton should be in prison, and described him a "sleazebag". Bolton, for his role, wrote a book about his time in the Trump administration that was sharply negative of the leader.

"There's no question that the timing of this indictment, when combined with additional cases, has prompted questions about the validity of these allegations, and why these charges are being filed at this time," said Jamil Jaffer, creator and director of the National Security Institute.

However, he continued, "if the Justice Department is capable to prove the facts stated and show the material is properly designated, his behavior may very well have violated the law".

Prosecuting such a high-ranking official for improperly handling classified documents is "rare" but not unprecedented, said Carrie Cordero, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

"Situations that concern classified information pose challenges to prosecute, but they may and are filed against both low-level and high-level officials, from time to time," she said.

Parallels to Investigations into Trump and President

Trump similarly faced charges of improperly storing sensitive materials at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and hindering their return, but that case was eventually thrown out by a court official and negated by his re-election as leader.

A independent investigator additionally found that ex-President Joe Biden improperly stored sensitive materials from his time as vice president, but failed to prosecute him.

Bolton's situation shares characteristics to Biden's sensitive materials issues, said Mr Lesko, who previously held a senior security position at the Justice Department.

Rigorous procedures govern the handling of sensitive materials. To win a guilty verdict, the government must prove that Bolton was aware 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 question in this matter, we don't have a great deal of details about why the prosecution believes elements like the personal notes and the other material he communicated by email, and the reason there were restricted," said Mr Jaffer.

A More Conventional Prosecution

The procedure by which the DOJ brought this case will be under scrutiny, after Trump publicly posted his desire to see his political opponents prosecuted and some of those indictments came to fruition.

But Mr Lesko said in Bolton's case, authorities seem to have followed protocol.

"The Bolton prosecution and eventually the indictment appeared to have observed the regular procedure including the regulations and standards within the DOJ," he stated.

In contrast to Comey's brief, two-page indictment, Bolton's was a increasingly "conventional" filing that "clearly sets forth the details concerning the circumstances and situation here," Mr Lesko said.

"It appears reasonably aligned with a series of precedents... where government officials mishandled and shared sensitive information."