• Pof Bolt Catch
• Pof Bolt
• Pof Boston Ma

The Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into whether mustachioed former National Security Advisor John Bolton illegally disclosed classified information in his tell-all memoir, The Room Where It Happened, about his short-lived and tumultuous tenure in the Trump administration, The New York Timesreported Tuesday. While attorneys had roundly condemned Bolton’s failure to complete the mandatory pre-publication review process for the book—exposing Bolton to civil penalties—many in the legal community similarly decried the DOJ’s criminal probe as transparent retaliation against a former official who embarrassed the administration.

Per the report, the DOJ has already convened a grand jury and issued a subpoena for communications records from Bolton’s publisher Simon & Schuster, intensifying the protracted legal battle between the two sides.

The Trump administration in June filed a civil lawsuit to halt publication of the book, accusing Bolton of “compromising national security by publishing a book containing classified information—in clear breach of agreements he signed as a condition of his employment and as a condition of gaining access to highly classified information and in clear breach of the trust placed within him by the United States Government.”

The phrase 'axis of evil' was first used by U.S. President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, less than five months after the 9/11 attacks, and often repeated throughout his presidency, to describe foreign governments that, during his administration, allegedly sponsored terrorism and sought weapons of mass destruction. Home People Ken Bolton. Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick is working remotely and fully operational. Ken Bolton BEng. (Mech) Former POF Attorney. Patents; Trade marks; Designs. Level 16 333 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000 +61 3 9614 1944. Suite 15.02 Level 15 4-6 Bligh Street.

While the legal challenge to stop the book’s publication was ultimately unsuccessful, many legal experts were primarily focused on the seemingly likely prospect that Bolton would be forced to forfeit the proceeds from his memoir.

Notably, though, when rejecting the administration’s attempt to stop publication of the memoir, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberthnoted that the former national security advisor may have left himself open to prosecution.

“This was Bolton’s bet: If he is right and the book does not contain classified information, he keeps the upside mentioned above; but if he is wrong, he stands to lose his profits from the book deal, exposes himself to criminal liability, and imperils national security,” he wrote. “Bolton was wrong.”

President Donald Trump has called for Bolton to be brought up on criminal charges, saying he considered “every conversation with [him] as president [to be] highly classified.”

“Washed up Creepster John Bolton is a lowlife who should be in jail, money seized, for disseminating, for profit, highly Classified information,” Trump tweeted in June. “Remember what they did to the young submarine sailor, but did nothing to Crooked Hillary [Clinton]. I ended up pardoning him – It wasn’t fair!”

Washed up Creepster John Bolton is a lowlife who should be in jail, money seized, for disseminating, for profit, highly Classified information. Remember what they did to the young submarine sailor, but did nothing to Crooked Hillary. I ended up pardoning him – It wasn’t fair!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 23, 2020

Trump also predicted Bolton would face “criminal problems.”

But according to the Times report, attorneys on the National Security Council and in the DOJ “expressed reservations about opening a criminal case [against Bolton], in part because Mr. Trump’s public statements made it seem like an overtly political act, according to two officials briefed on the discussions.” That sentiment was shared by a number of other attorneys, none of whom were sympathetic to Bolton’s cause.

“Bolton deserves nothing but scorn for how he’s behaved, but this is a transparent effort to retaliate against a former senior official for exercising his First Amendment rights and to chill those thinking about similarly coming forward,” wrote University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck.

Bolton deserves nothing but scorn for how he's behaved, but this is a transparent effort to retaliate against a former senior official for exercising his First Amendment rights and to chill those thinking about similarly coming forward.

It's going to take a long time to fix DOJ. https://t.co/XtrSiGTDLR

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 15, 2020

“I have no sympathy for Bolton. I have real concerns about DOJ using the specter of the Espionage Act to chill the speech of former government officials for whom I have more sympathy,” he added.

I have no sympathy for Bolton.

I have real concerns about DOJ using the specter of the Espionage Act to chill the speech of former government officials for whom I have more sympathy.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 15, 2020

Susan Hennessey, a CNN legal analyst and former Intelligence Community attorney, likewise said Bolton’s prosecution was more about retribution than justice.

“This is plainly political retaliation. But General [Paul] Nakasone’s affidavit in June did spell trouble that Bolton may have genuinely included classified information,” she said. “The real mess will be if Bolton did in fact reveal classified information and also that DOJ is pursuing a prosecution for political motives.”

The real mess will be if Bolton did in fact reveal classified information and also that DOJ is pursuing a prosecution for political motives.

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) September 15, 2020

Nakasone, the National Security Agency’s director, told the court that during the review process he had “identified classified information” in Bolton’s manuscript, stating that “compromise of this information could result in the permanent loss of a valuable SIGINT [signals intelligence] source and cause irreparable damage to the U.S. SIGINT system.”

Hennessey further stated that Attorney General Bill Barr was “overseeing the destruction of the Department of Justice,” calling his actions” indefensible.” But she also noted that “John Bolton could have avoided all of this if he just complied with a subpoena to testify during the impeachment trial and gotten it on the record then.”

Bill Barr is overseeing the destruction of the Department of Justice and his actions are utterly indefensible.

And also John Bolton could have avoided all of this if he just complied with a subpoena to testify during the impeachment trial and gotten it on the record then.

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) September 15, 2020

National security attorney Bradley P. Moss, who has consistently denounced Bolton’s refusal to complete the prepublication review process, also referred to the DOJ’s criminal probe as an “overtly political act.”

“It is absolutely an overtly political act, and Bolton’s lawyers will no doubt make several moves along those lines in pre-trial motions if he is indicted,” he wrote. “Whether they will succeed is less than clear, though, given the case law.”

It is absolutely an overtly political act, and Bolton’s lawyers will no doubt make several moves along those lines in pre-trial motions if he is indicted.

Whether they will succeed is less than clear, though, given the case law. https://t.co/pnjd8q2yac

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) September 15, 2020

Republican Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), a lawyer, said that Bolton was given plenty of warning.

Can’t say you weren’t warned.https://t.co/WNIMrMgh7Q

— Rep. Doug Collins (@RepDougCollins) September 15, 2020

Pof Bolt Catch

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that the DOJ’s move could “lay the foundation for a deal to take the profits in exchange for not prosecuting Bolton.”

DOJ just opened a criminal investigation into the Bolton book. https://t.co/xzp1tTOzfq As a wrote earlier, this move could lay the foundation for a deal to take the profits in exchange for not prosecuting Bolton. It has happened before. https://t.co/I3n94M2ge9

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 15, 2020

“It has happened before,” he said.

[image via Alex Wong/Getty Images]

A federal judge on Thursday appeared skeptical of former national security adviser John Bolton's defense against the Trump administration's allegations that he published his new memoir without proper clearance from officials reviewing it for classified information.

Judge Royce Lamberth heard arguments from both sides during a hearing on Thursday, a day after an official said in a court filing that the White House's national security leaders took an 'unprecedented' level of interest in the customary prepublication review of Bolton's book.

But Lamberth, who was appointed to the federal district court in D.C. by former President Reagan, appeared unmoved by Bolton's legal team, who argued that the submission from the official was further evidence that the White House is seeking to harm the book in retaliation for its unflattering portrayal of President Trump.

'I'm very much of the notion that I just let you engage in that whole political diatribe that really has no place in what we are arguing today,' Lamberth said in response to one of Bolton's lawyers who pointed to the filing as evidence of bad faith from the Trump White House.

Pof Bolt

Lamberth had rejected the administration's effort in June to block the publication of 'The Room Where it Happened,' saying it was too late to prevent the release when copies had already been shipped across the country and were widely available.

But he still chided the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for moving forward with the publication without receiving express written authorization from the government.

'In taking it upon himself to publish his book without securing final approval from national intelligence authorities, Bolton may indeed have caused the country irreparable harm,' Lamberth wrote in his June decision.

The Trump administration is now seeking to have Bolton's book royalties seized, alleging that he violated a nondisclosure agreement forbidding him from discussing any classified information from his time in the White House.

Jennifer Dickey, an attorney with the Department of Justice, argued on Thursday that there was legal recourse Bolton could have pursued before rushing ahead with the publication.

'He could have filed a suit at any time during the process if he thought the government was engaging in bad faith,' Dickey said. 'He could have notified the government in any way if he thought there was bad faith, but he did not do so. Instead, he walked away, opted out and sent his manuscript to the publisher.'

The ongoing lawsuit is a civil matter, but the Department of Justice is reportedly investigating whether to bring criminal charges against Bolton.

Bolton's lawyers argue that he was within his rights to proceed with the book when they were notified in April that the official leading the prepublication review notified him that she was satisfied that the manuscript was free of any classified material after a months-long process and was awaiting final confirmation from her superiors.

The official who led the review, Ellen Knight, told the court through an attorney this week that National Security Council officials who didn't have any training in prepublication review launched a second assessment of Bolton's manuscript without her knowledge after she presented findings in April.

Shortly before the legal battle began, she said that the administration's lawyers tried to persuade her into signing a declaration saying that her own review had been flawed. Knight refused to sign the declaration, her lawyer said in the court filing Wednesday.

Bolton's legal team is seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed or, alternatively, to be allowed to gather evidence from the White House about the prepublication review process.

Pof Boston Ma

Michael Kirk, one of Bolton's attorneys, said Thursday that the White House abused that process in order to suppress the book until after the election, 'because the book reports facts that portray the president in an embarrassing and unflattering light.'