Back in 2017, John Bolton remarked, “If I was doing what Hillary Clinton did at the State Department, I would be wearing an orange jumpsuit by now.” Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security adviser and has since become a vocal critic, has now been indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland.
The indictment lists a troubling 18 felony counts—8 for transmitting classified information concerning national security and 10 for unlawfully retaining such information. This indictment stands out as one of the most serious actions taken by the Trump administration’s Justice Department, mainly due to the gravity of the violations involved and their implications for national security.
The charges detail how Bolton used his personal email account to send classified messages to two unauthorized recipients, identified as his wife and daughter. Allegedly, in 2021, his AOL account, which contained sensitive national security information, was accessed by hackers believed to be linked to the Iranian government. When Bolton informed federal authorities about the hacking, he argued that the information was crucial to national defense and should have been kept secret.
It’s worth noting that Bolton’s situation is decidedly more serious and intricate than those of Letitia James or James Comey. Unlike those politically charged cases, Bolton’s actions involve a direct threat to national security and the conscious sharing of some of the U.S. government’s most sensitive information by someone who should be aware of security protocols.
John Bolton has held several high-ranking government roles, including Under Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, and Ambassador to the United Nations. His use of an unsecured network and the casual sharing of top-secret information represent a significant lapse in judgment and duty, posing potential risks to the American public. This indictment highlights two main areas of misconduct: intentional sharing of confidential details and failing to properly report and seek resolution after a security breach.
The gravity of his crimes is amplified by his previous position within the national security framework, where it was his responsibility to prevent such breaches. According to the Department of Justice, Bolton had over 1,000 pages of personal notes containing top-secret information from government briefings intended solely for high-ranking officials. This encompassed classified data about adversaries, secret government operations, and weapons programs.
Amid ongoing criticism directed at Trump regarding the misuse of the Justice Department against political opponents, the specifics of Bolton’s case differ significantly from the seemingly unfounded charges in the James-Comey situation.
While it seems improbable that another case should have been made, Bolton’s case has been thoroughly investigated over several years. It involves the release of active intelligence, which the law aims to protect. Unlike the Trump and Clinton dossier cases that revolved around mismanagement and negligence, Bolton’s indictment claims that he, as a current national security adviser and lawyer, transmitted classified national security information through insecure channels, coinciding with a poorly managed foreign cyberattack.
If both Trump and Clinton face accusations of mishandling classified material, Bolton’s charge is about actively disseminating it. Notably, others have faced much harsher consequences for lesser offenses. This case serves as a crucial test of accountability within the national security framework and deserves attention beyond mere political implications in Maryland’s district court or the public debate.
David S. D’amato is a lawyer, businessman, and independent researcher. He serves as a policy advisor to both the Heartland Institute and the Future of Freedom Foundation.
