How the John Bolton Legal Situation Differs Substantially from Other Trump Opponents

Ex-President Donald Trump has repeatedly shown his wish to see opponents investigated, exerting influence on the DOJ to charge ex FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

"We can't delay any longer, it's damaging our reputation and credibility," the president wrote last month in a social media post.

"They impeached twice, and charged me (5 times!)" he said, mentioning the four criminal cases he faced after leaving the White House in 2021 and James's civil case.

Both have since been charged, in situations that many experts have stated seem to be driven by politics and challenging to succeed in legal proceedings.

But the most recent allegations against a Trump critic, former security advisor John Bolton, differ significantly, legal experts and former prosecutors assert.

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

The Details of Bolton's Case

Bolton has been criminally indicted on federal charges related to the supposed improper handling of sensitive materials. Since leaving the White House in 2019, he has emerged as a vocal Trump critic, even to call him "remarkably ignorant" and unsuitable for the presidency in his memoir.

Specialists contend that while there may be political motivations to target Bolton, the methods used to secure an indictment and the evidence gathered against him suggest a possibly stronger case than the DOJ brought against Comey.

"These actions that's being claimed is simultaneously more severe and seems to have occurred over a considerable duration," said Carissa Byrne Hessick, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

Throughout his tenure as Trump's national security adviser, and after his 2019 White House exit, prosecutors alleged that Bolton put the nation at risk by improperly keeping and transmitting classified information to relatives using insecure means, including AOL. Several of the materials were marked highly classified.

The charge alleges that at a certain time a unauthorized user gained access to Bolton's account where documents were kept and sent an apparent warning to cause "the biggest scandal since Hillary [Clinton]'s emails were leaked".

Bolton entered a not guilty plea during a hearing on recently to eighteen distinct counts of improperly handling classified information.

Retribution or a Substantial Legal Argument?

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

Trump once suggested Bolton belonged in jail, and described him a "disreputable person". Bolton, for his part, wrote a publication about his experience in the Trump administration that was sharply negative of the president.

"Undoubtedly that the schedule of this charge, when paired with others, has raised questions about the strength of these allegations, and the reason these charges are being filed now," stated Jamil Jaffer, creator and director of the National Security Institute.

However, he added, "if the DOJ is capable to prove the facts stated and demonstrate the information is properly classified, his conduct may very well have broken the law".

Charging such a senior official for improperly handling sensitive materials is "rare" but not unprecedented, noted Carrie Cordero, a expert at the Center for a New American Security.

"Situations that concern sensitive materials present challenges to prosecute, but they can and are filed against both junior and high-level personnel, from occasionally," she explained.

Similarities to Investigations into Trump and President

Trump likewise faced allegations of wrongfully keeping sensitive materials at his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida and hindering their return, but that case was ultimately dismissed by a federal judge and voided by his re-election as president.

A special counsel also found that ex-President Joe Biden wrongfully stored sensitive materials from his time as second-in-command, but failed to prosecute him.

Bolton's case bears similarities to Biden's sensitive materials matters, said Mr Lesko, who also held a top security role at the DOJ.

Strict protocols govern the handling of classified documents. To win a conviction, the government must demonstrate that Bolton knew the information he was transmitting was restricted, and he had to knowingly transfer it to someone without authorization to receive it.

"Because of the classified character of the material at question in this case, we don't have a lot of particulars about why the government believes elements like the diary entries and the other information he communicated by email, and why there were restricted," said Mr Jaffer.

A Increasingly Conventional Legal Action

The procedure by which the DOJ initiated this legal action will be under scrutiny, following Trump openly expressed his wish to see his critics charged and several of those indictments came to fruition.

But Mr Lesko indicated in Bolton's situation, authorities appear to have adhered to standard procedure.

"The Bolton prosecution and ultimately the charge seemed to have observed the regular process including the rules and standards within the Department of Justice," he stated.

In contrast to Comey's short, concise charge, Bolton's was a increasingly "conventional" filing that "explicitly outlines the particulars involving the facts and circumstances in this instance," Mr Lesko said.

"It seems fairly consistent with a series of precedents... where public servants mishandled and transmitted sensitive information."