'Selective and vindictive': Legal expert explains how John Bolton can beat Trump

Former White House national security adviser John Bolton arrives at U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, in Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S., October 17, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis REFILE - QUALITY REPEAT TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

A prominent national‑security lawyer has cautioned that a high‑profile prosecution could become a case study in unequal justice under America’s classification laws.

In an article for Salon published Sunday, attorney Jesselyn Radack argued that the indictment of former United Nations ambassador and national security adviser John Bolton — who faces 18 counts under the Espionage Act of 1917 for allegedly mishandling classified information — highlights a dangerous double standard in how U.S. government prosecutions of national‑security related disclosures are pursued.

Radack, who represents Edward Snowden and several other individuals charged under the Espionage Act, noted that Bolton’s count total is more than three times that of comparable Espionage Act cases over the past 15 years and traces his past statements attacking whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning and Snowden to underscore his credibility for rule‑following.

She wrote that what complicates the prosecution in Bolton’s case is not just the severity of the charges but the potential for successful defense motions arguing selective and vindictive prosecution — a challenge she says may be unusually strong here given public statements by President Donald Trump denouncing Bolton and proclaiming he should “go to jail” for disclosure of classified information.

“Bolton’s case, however, might be the rare instance in which a selective and vindictive motion is successful. Trump’s public statements about Bolton have been numerous, vociferous and laced with antipathy. I’m not talking about the president’s pot-kettling insults in which he called Bolton 'dumb,' a 'wacko' or 'a disgruntled boring fool.' I’m talking about Trump’s own words when he learned Bolton had written a tell-all book, describing Bolton as 'treasonous' and calling for his imprisonment," she wrote.

Radack further argues that Bolton is benefiting — at least in the rhetorical sense — from precedent showing lenient treatment for far more serious leaks by senior officials, such as David Petraeus and Sandy Berger, both of whom received probation and fines rather than lengthy prison terms despite far more sensitive disclosures.

She contended this two‑tiered justice system undermines the integrity of the rule of law when power and status influence whether the government treats a leak as a crime or as a public interest issue.

Radack argued that even someone like Bolton, whose politics and style she clearly finds unappealing, “deserves a fair shake” if the legal system is meaningful. She stated that if the American democracy is worth defending then the same standards must apply to all defendants in cases of classified‑information disclosure, regardless of whether the individual is a whistleblower, a critic of government policy, or a former senior official.

From Your Site Articles