Search results for "Bolton indictment"

'Expect a brawl': Legal expert points out 4 weaknesses in Trump DOJ's Bolton indictment

President Donald Trump's Department of Justice on Thursday indicted former National Security Advisor John Bolton on 18 felony counts. And while Bolton's charging document is meatier than the recent indictments against two of Trump's other political opponents, one prominent legal expert poked several major holes in the DOJ's case.

On Thursday, attorney and former U.S. Ambassador Norm Eisen told an MSNBC panel that while the finer details of Bolton's indictment remain unclear due to them pertaining to classified documents, there are three major weaknesses in the DOJ's case against the former Trump administration official. He said the main argument Bolton's legal team will likely bring up is Trump's "revenge motive."

"Even if these [charges] are valid, that still gives rise to a vindictive prosecution," Eisen said, adding that "Donald Trump's own conduct was more serious" in his own classified documents case.

Eisen also pointed out that Bolton's prosecution was part of a "pattern," noting that both former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) were both indicted after Trump explicitly demanded it.

"This isn't an isolated revenge prosecution: It's the latest in a series," he said.

The former U.S. ambassador's third point was that the indictment is based on Bolton's diary entries, rather than direct transmission of sensitive intelligence. He noted that multiple presidents and presidential advisors have all kept private diaries, and that those diaries are "not the same thing as having documents with classified markings."

"As far as we can tell from this indictment, none of those were found in the house," Eisen said. "The fact that the Biden administration apparently investigated this and passed on the case, that's another reason to question what's going on here."

Eisen concluded that there was still a problem of Bolton being indicted by an "independent counsel." He acknowledged that while more than one DOJ prosecutor signed Bolton's charging documents (compared to Trump's interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia being the only one to sign indictments for Comey and James), the level of independence "should be investigated because of all of those badges of suspicion."

"It must be said: Bolton's very capable Abbe Lowell — one of the toughest fighters in the legal game — has denied the validity of this indictment," Eisen said. "So expect a brawl."


- YouTube www.youtube.com

Intel community can’t find documents Trump wants to use to go after ex-adviser

President Donald Trump wants to prosecute his former national security adviser, John Bolton, by claiming he illegally published classified documents — but his own lawyers just admitted they have no evidence of this.

“[Seven] months after DOJ charged former Trump Natsec Adviser John Bolton with illegally retaining/sharing classified info, the intelligence community has yet to determine classification of much info seized from him,” Politico’s Josh Gerstein reported on Bluesky on Monday.

In the court document that Gerstein cited, Trump’s lawyers admitted that they need an extension to attempt their prosecution of Bolton because they are reviewing such a massive tranche of documents that they logistically cannot review all of them by the previous deadline. Because prosecutors usually press charges when they already have evidence, instead of requesting documents and then fishing for them, the request suggests that Trump’s prosecutors do not have a firm idea already of what crimes — if any — they are alleging they can prove Bolton committed.

“Once the agencies complete the classification review of a diary-like entry, they then analyze whether classified information in the entry can be disclosed to the defendant and cleared defense counsel in classified discovery, or whether the government should seek a protective order authorizing the government to redact or provide summary substitutions in lieu of that information under CIPA § 4,” explained the request for extension signed by United States Attorney Kelly O. Hayes, who was appointed by President Trump last year. “The process of devising suitable proposed redactions and substitutions is especially resource- and time-consuming given the nature of the diary-like entries. Whereas redacting an especially sensitive name or phrase in a single paragraph standing alone might ordinarily be sufficient to protect the national security interests at issue, the lengthy diary-like entries here often contain surrounding context that could otherwise reveal the classified information.”

The statement added, “As a result, the process of devising suitable proposed redactions and substitutions is an iterative process entailing proposals, discussions with relevant agency personnel, revisions, and further discussions.”

Bolton was accused by Trump of misusing documents from his first term to write a book “The Room Where It Happened” in which Bolton accused Trump of executing foreign policy solely with an eye toward his own political and personal advantages. Trump, in turn, tried to suppress the book’s publication by claiming Bolton relied on classified information to write his firsthand accounts and critiques.

“The 18-count indictment contends that Bolton regularly sent more than 1,000 pages of ‘diary-like entries’ to two people ‘related’ to him while he was handling the nation’s most sensitive military, intelligence and diplomatic matters,” reported Politico's Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney in October. “Many of the messages contained information designated as classified up to the ‘Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information’ level, prosecutors allege. Federal prosecutors in Maryland secured the indictment from a grand jury, which met for about three hours to consider the case.”

Gerstein and Cheney also pointed out at the time that “the charges against Bolton come as Trump has pressured his Justice Department to pursue criminal indictments of his longtime political foes. Former FBI Director James Comey was charged in September with lying to Congress after Trump ousted a top federal prosecutor in Virginia who resisted bringing the case. And last week, the same office — now headed by Trump’s former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan — charged another longtime Trump adversary, New York Attorney General Letitia James, with bank fraud. Trump has similarly pressured prosecutors to charge Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), another longtime nemesis, although no charges against him have been filed thus far.”

“For one magic moment, the eyes of the nation were on former National Security Adviser John Bolton,” wrote commentator Cody Fenwick for AlterNet in 2020 regarding Bolton’s then-upcoming book about working with Trump. “The impeachment of President Donald Trump was ongoing, and Bolton was known to have played a critical role behind the scenes of the Ukraine scheme at the heart of the proceedings' charges. Reports indicated that his potential testimony would be explosive.”

He added, “But Bolton refused to testify before the House of Representatives' impeachment hearing, later saying he was only willing to testify for the Senate. Yet the Republican Party that would ultimately acquit Trump in the Senate refused to call any witnesses, so Bolton's voice was never heard. At a critical moment in the nation's history, Bolton chose to withhold potentially vital information from the public and from the officials tasked with adjudicating the president's fitness to serve. Now that cowardice has come back to bite him.”

'Lasting harm': Ex-prosecutor reveals why Bolton is different from other Trump defendants

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton is now the third prominent opponent of President Donald Trump to face criminal charges in as many weeks. But one former federal prosecutor is highlighting one key difference between Bolton's case and the other two cases against Trump's political adversaries.

A grand jury in Greenbelt, Maryland on Thursday returned an 18-count indictment of Bolton on alleged transmission and retention of national defense information. With the indictment, Bolton joins former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) as Trump opponents who have now been targeted by his Department of Justice.

However, During a Thursday appearance on MSNBC, Andrew Weissmann – who was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York — said that there's one key difference between Bolton and others: That he was an "insider." He argued that his charges in particular communicate an ominous signal to everyone else in government.

"This is sending a message. Don't do it. Because in the future this can be the result," Weissmann said. "If you don't want to get indicted, put your head down and don't do your job."

"Now, I think it's particularly significant with respect to now indicting somebody who was an insider, and I think that's the reason that you have this indictment," Weissmann continued. "... One of the things that it accomplishes by doing this, by attacking ... people who used to be inside is to say, 'do not speak ill of Donald Trump. Do not go out and and say anything that is derogatory, particularly if you are on the inside. You must be loyal.'"

Weissmann noted that Trump spoke about the indictments in front of Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, who all were "silent" while the president "violate[d] all sorts of norms."

"And I think that is sort of the way you can tie this all together, in terms of what this president is trying to accomplish and the lasting harm to our country because of the message it sends about what can happen going forward to hold people to account," he added.

Watch the segment below:

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Trump 'polluting' Bolton case — but one thing is 'more important' than conviction: analyst

CNN contributor Ronald Brownstein said Thursday former National Security Advisor John Bolton's indictment should be seen as part of a larger picture, given that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice has "systematically indicted" his biggest political opponents.

Bolton, an outspoken Trump critic, was indicted Thursday by a federal grand jury in Maryland on 18 felony counts related to the alleged mishandling of classified information, including violations of the Espionage Act. The charges focus on his alleged retention and transmission of sensitive documents after leaving his role in Trump's first administration.

Bolton has denied any wrongdoing and is expected to fight the charges in court.

During an appearance on CNN Thursday to discuss the development, Brownstein said: “The case against Bolton will stand or fall on its on its own merits. And if he had a serious violation, he should face serious consequences. But I think for most Americans, the significance here is that we are watching people who the president has deemed as his enemies systematically being indicted by the Justice Department. The merits of each case may vary, may be stronger or weaker, but that pattern is a reality.”

“Why does Trump keep saying this stuff, that he's glad to see this person indicted, or he wants that person indicted when it might weaken the prosecution?" He continued. "That may be less important to him than sending the signal that if you cross him enough, there is a real risk that the Justice Department could come after you.”

“That may be more important to him than not polluting the case with these improper comments, because he is sending that signal to all potential critics,” Brownstein added.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Legal scholars reveal Trump's power is 'trending in the worst direction'

Speaking with the New York Times this week, two legal scholars explained why Donald Trump's presidency appears to be "trending in the worst direction" and warned that the midterms might not stop him.

Jedediah Britton-Purdy and David Pozen are law professors at Duke and Columbia, respectively. In October, the pair published a piece for the Boston Review, "What Are We Living Through?," which broke down how Trump's chaotic presidency was specifically affecting the state of the U.S. government. In it, they concluded that one of three things was happening: "more of the same," a "constitutional regime change" or, in the worst case, a full-on "authoritarian crisis."

In a piece published by the Times on Friday, the two legal scholars followed up on their original analysis, taking into account everything that has happened since. Citing the indictment of John Bolton and the violent immigration crackdown in Minnesota, among other incidents, Pozen concluded that Trump was showing signs of heading in the worst direction, towards authoritarianism.

"All of these episodes have arguable precedents in modern U.S. history, especially the use of military force abroad without congressional authorization," Pozen said. "But the degree of lawlessness and the scale of violence are meaningfully, alarmingly different today. Which is to say, things have been trending in the worst direction — authoritarian — in some ways that are hard to miss. And the more unpopular Trump gets, the more difficult it becomes to sustain the narrative that this is the constitutional change Americans signed up for."

Pozen further explained that there are major concerns, especially among "liberals and centrists," that Trump is directly pulling from the "authoritarian playbook" to guide his presidency: "attacking civil society institutions, persecuting political opponents, sidelining the legislature, declaring endless emergencies, demonizing immigrants, preparing to rig elections and consolidating power wherever he can." He noted that, in this way, Trump is less comparable to past GOP presidents like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, and more like Hungary's Viktor Orban, an authoritarian leader who has become increasingly revered by the global far-right.

Britton-Purdy added that there is now a major worry that Trump's authoritarian streak will not be hemmed in by the expected "Blue Wave" in the 2026 midterms.

"The worry about authoritarianism isn’t going anywhere, even if the midterms go forward more or less normally," he warned.

"We are about to run that experiment with the midterms," Pozen added, referring to fears that Trump will work to rig all future elections in his favor. "And we have plenty of reasons to worry. Trump has already called on Republicans to 'nationalize' elections, railed against a nonexistent epidemic of voter fraud, pardoned people involved in his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, pressured senators to force through a SAVE America Act that would effectively disenfranchise millions, and more."

The major weapon that could tear apart Trump's corruption machine

Back in 2019, Donald Trump pointed at Hunter Biden’s brief “cup of coffee” with a Chinese banker during a 2013 ride on Air Force Two and turned it into the single biggest line of attack he ran against Joe Biden for the next five years.

The grift! The corruption! The selling-out of America! Oh, the humanity!!!

Trump told Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo that Hunter “walked out of China with $1.5 billion” because his father was vice president, even though no evidence ever surfaced that the elder Biden touched his son’s business dealings, nor that Hunter ever pocketed anything close to that sum.

This week, Donald Trump landed in Beijing for a three-day summit with Xi Jinping with his son Eric and daughter-in-law Lara on Air Force One, alongside more than a dozen of the wealthiest CEOs in America: Elon Musk of Tesla, Tim Cook of Apple, Larry Fink of BlackRock, Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone, David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, Jensen Huang of Nvidia, and many others.

The Trump Organization, which Eric runs, has flirted with Chinese business deals for years, and Eric’s American Bitcoin company works directly with Chinese crypto-mining giant Bitmain.

Hunter Biden’s cup of coffee looks like a teetotaler’s glass of water next to this rolling roadshow of self-dealing, where every executive on board is openly there to negotiate his own deal while Beijing’s officials size up the willingness of the family of the most powerful man in the world to sell out America for a few billion dollars.

That’s the thing about Trump. He brags about corruption, lives on corruption, and treats every lever of the federal government as a personal slot machine, yet because he yelled “drain the swamp” loud enough in 2016, half the country still believes he’s the guy fighting the corrupt part of the establishment.

He isn’t fighting it; he is it, only stupider, more openly larcenous, and more contemptuous of the public good than anyone who’s ever held the office.

Consider what he’s done just in recent months.

In January, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and the Treasury Department, agencies he himself runs, over the leak of his tax returns during his first term while his own appointees were running the IRS. He’s suing himself, in other words, for damages he then expects his own Justice Department to pay him out of taxpayer money.

According to reporting in The New York Times and New Republic, Trump’s DOJ is now negotiating a settlement that may include dropping all IRS audits of Trump, his family, and his businesses, which would amount to a get-out-of-tax-fraud-free card signed by the very man whose taxes the IRS is required by law to audit every year.

ABC News is now reporting that he also wants $1 billion to give to the January 6 rioters. Perhaps as prepayment for his “army” that will attack people during this November’s elections?

This is naked corruption on a scale we've never seen. The federal government's now a personal piggy bank for one criminal man and his violent cult.

Senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren rightly called it “a shameless and transparent act of corruption that should make any American’s head spin.”

Trump’s corruption extends to his civil debts too. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied his motion to undo the $83 million defamation judgment won by E. Jean Carroll, whom a jury found Trump had sexually abused and then defamed.

Now Trump’s lawyers are floating a brand new theory: maybe the Department of Justice should substitute itself as the defendant under the Westfall Act, on the theory that defaming a woman he abused “is part of the official duties of the President of the United States.”

Because the federal government can’t be sued for defamation, this would vaporize Carroll’s judgment entirely and let Trump walk away free. Trump’s corrupted DOJ, naturally, is willing to argue it. That’s what happens when you corrupt the Justice Department into your personal law firm.

The same corrupt Justice Department is also doubling as Trump’s cortupt personal revenge machine. There’s been a fresh corrupt indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over a beach photograph of seashells that prosecutors claim, against all credulity, was a coded threat to kill Trump.

The DOJ corruptly raided John Bolton’s home and indicted him on classified documents charges.

They corruptly went after what they called the “Seditious Six,” the Democratic lawmakers who recorded a video reminding service members they have a duty to refuse illegal orders, until a grand jury embarrassingly refused to indict.

Senator Adam Schiff is being corruptly investigated by the DOJ for alleged mortgage fraud that his attorneys call “transparently false, stale, and long debunked,”

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is under a corrupt investigation, New York Attorney General Letitia James is under a corrupt investigation, and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell was under a corrupt investigation until even Trump’s corrupt Republican allies told him the optics were getting bad before the midterms.

That’s the corrupt behavior of authoritarian regimes, not constitutional republics. But corrupt Republicans appear just fine with all of it.

Meanwhile, the Trump family’s corrupt World Liberty Financial crypto empire has cleared something north of $5 billion in valuation after a flood of corrupt foreign and corporate money, including a $2 billion stablecoin deal from a state-owned Emirati fund that, as 60 Minutes reported, corruptly routed itself through a coin issued by the president’s sons.

Shortly afterward, Trump corruptly pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who had pleaded guilty to money-laundering crimes that included moving funds for Hamas, Iranian-linked terrorists, and child sexual abusers. He has apparently helped the Trump family business; former DOJ pardon attorney Liz Oyer called the Zhao pardon, simply, “corruption.”

And the corrupt $400 million White House ballroom? It’s funded by Lockheed Martin (with $33 billion in federal contracts in 2025 alone), BlackRock, Google’s parent Alphabet (after settling a $24.5 million lawsuit/shakedown with Trump), Palantir, Coinbase, and a parade of crypto firms, tobacco giants, and defense contractors whose names the White House corruptly tried to keep secret until a court ordered disclosure.

Every one of those companies has business in front of the federal government Trump personally oversees, and every check is a bribe by any honest definition of the word.

This corruption is the political opportunity of a generation, and I keep waiting for Democrats to wake up to it.

Péter Magyar just defeated Viktor Orbán in Hungary by running a Navalny-style anti-corruption campaign on the single through-line of criticizing the “state capture system” Orbán built with his billionaire cronies.

When I was working in Russia, I watched Alexei Navalny build his political career almost entirely around exposing the corruption of Putin and his oligarchs through his Anti-Corruption Foundation, the same foundation that got Navalny murdered for becoming too effective.

Back in the 1980s, working for a German relief organization in the Philippines, I watched Cory Aquino bring down the entire Marcos kleptocracy by running on corruption alone. They literally bumped me off the plane — several days in a row — in their rush to leave the country.

From Bolsonaro’s first Brazilian victory on the back of his “Operation Car Wash” call for clean government to Volodymyr Zelenskyy riding Ukraine’s anticorruption EuroMaidan “Revolution of Dignity” into the presidency, to Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Nast smashing the Tammany Hall machine, the anti-corruption frame has been the most reliably winning political message of the last 125 years all over the world.

It will work here, too. In fact, it’s already working: Trump’s “drain the swamp” lie was the cynical perversion of a real anti-corruption message, and that lie put him in the White House twice. Democrats now have the much easier job, because the corruption being exposed is real, vast, well-documented, and entirely on the other side.

But, and this is where Democrats keep tripping over their own feet, they have to be willing to clean their own house first.

When John Fetterman takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from AIPAC and its allied PACs and then joins Republicans to demand the US keep arming Netanyahu through a war that killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and ultimately dragged us into a hot war with Iran, that’s the kind of corruption that lets Republicans laugh in our faces every time we accuse them of being on the take.

And it’s particularly disheartening to younger voters who’re awakening for the first time to the impact of politics on their daily lives.

When Senate Democratic hopefuls Haley Stevens and Angie Craig accept tens of thousands of dollars from donors employed by the very corporations (Lockheed, Comcast, Microsoft, Coinbase) that are paying for Trump’s ballroom, the message we’re trying to send on corruption gets muddled.

When AIPAC openly brags that it’s the top donor to the Democratic Party and to the Black, Hispanic, and progressive caucuses on the Hill, that’s not a moral failure on AIPAC’s part: lobbies will lobby, and five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court legalized it. But that doesn’t make it right.

If we want to win on corruption, we have to be willing to refuse it ourselves, or at least make overturning citizens United the declared number one priority of the entire party.

This doesn’t require unilateral disarmament, but it does require bold, public, and loud promises and the initial actions necessary to follow through on them.

Bernie Sanders has shown for decades that in some districts/states you can fund a serious national campaign out of small dollars alone, and a growing group of Democrats have followed his lead in refusing corporate PAC money. That ought to become the rule, not the exception, and it ought to start now, at least with primaries.

Every Democrat in America should be hammering the GOP’s corruption every single day from now through November 2026 and on into 2028.

Consider the opportunities:
— Eric Trump’s seat on Air Force One,
— the $10 billion settlement that’s about to flow from the Treasury into Trump’s personal pocket,
— the DOJ’s attempt to bail Trump out of his E. Jean Carroll debt,
— the revenge prosecutions of Comey and Bolton and James and Schiff,
— the Zhao pardon,
— the ballroom bribes,
— the multibillion-dollar crypto self-dealing,
— and the Kushner-family Saudi sovereign-wealth payouts are all sitting on the public ground in plain sight, and every Republican on a 2026 ballot owns every bit of them.

While we’re naming their corruption every day, we’d better be ready to name the corruption inside our own party too, because the Democrats who run on cleaning up Washington while taking AIPAC checks and ballroom-donor money will never beat Trumpism.

Only an honest, anti-corruption, small-dollar, working-class Democratic Party can do that, and it’s the kind of party Magyar, Aquino, Zelenskyy, and Navalny would all have recognized.

It’s still simple, easy, and powerful: “It’s the corruption, stupid.”

'Revenge tour': Murdoch paper delivers stern 'warning' to anyone working for Trump

On Thursday afternoon, October 16, a federal grand jury in Maryland indicted former National Security Adviser John Bolton on 18 criminal counts for allegedly mishandling government documents. The indictment follows the recent grand jury indictments of two other Donald Trump foes — former FBI Director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James — in cases being prosecuted by Trump loyalist and interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan.

In a blistering editorial published the evening after Bolton was indicted, the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board attacked the indictment as politically motivated.

The board wrote, "Opposing Donald Trump is a perilous business, but working for him can be equally as dangerous. That's one lesson from Thursday's indictment of Mr. Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton for mishandling classified documents. A federal grand jury in Maryland indicted Mr. Bolton on eight counts of transmitting national defense information and 10 counts of retaining such information."

In response to the editorial, the Daily Beast's Ewan Palmer stresses that one of the Journal's big takeaways from the indictment is that people working for Trump are putting themselves at risk for criminal prosecutions if he ever turns against them the way he turned against Bolton.

Palmer noted that the "Rupert Murdoch–owned Wall Street Journal" had "blasted Donald Trump's revenge tour" and "issued a warning to others who dare disagree with the president."

"In a scathing editorial," Palmer observes, "the paper's editorial board said there is 'little doubt' retribution motivated Bolton's indictment over allegations he mishandled classified documents."

Read the full Wall Street Journal editorial at this link (subscription required) and the Daily Beast's analysis here (subscription required).

Former Trump official flags 'question no one is asking' about the president's vendettas

Yet another foe of President Donald Trump was indicted on federal charges when, on Thursday afternoon, October 16, a grand jury indicted former National Security Advisor John Bolton on 18 counts pertaining to alleged mishandling of classified government documents.

The Bolton indictment follows recent U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) indictments of two other Trump foes, New York State Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, on allegations of mortgage fraud. Attorney George Conway, a Never Trump conservative, is attacking the James and Comey indictments as "flimsy" at best.

Former U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official Miles Taylor — himself a Never Trumper who Trump called for a federal investigation of — analyzed the Bolton indictment during a Saturday morning, October 18 appearance on MSNBC's "The Weekend," emphasizing that the possible motivations of federal prosecutors are crucial in this case.

Taylor told an MSNBC panel that also included The New Yorker's Jelani Cobb and hosts Jonathan Capehart, Jackie Alemany and Eugene Daniels, "There's another question that no one is asking here. And it's a rhetorical question, and it's going to be really hard to get in the conscience of these prosecutors. But the question is this: Do those prosecutors, did they know, that if they didn't bring these charges against John Bolton, that they would all be fired?"

Taylor continued, "It's a rhetorical question, because they obviously know that. They have looked just down the street at (another) prosecutor's office, and they've seen if there are cases that aren't brought against the president's enemies, that's it — your career is over. And these aren't superheroes. These are good, honest public servants. But they are people who need a paycheck. These are people who have families. These are people who have to survive, and they are seeing that lives are ruined if they don't bring cases.

Capehart described the indictments against Bolton, James and Comey as a "rolling Saturday Night Massacre," referring to a Watergate-era scandal during Richard Nixon's presidency. And he got no argument from Taylor or Cobb.

Taylor told the panel, "That brings us to John Bolton. I'm not saying there's nothing there, but what I'm saying here is—back to the earlier argument of selective prosecution—would they have brought it under normal circumstances? Because it looks like the Justice Department sat on it for years. That it was a zombie case, and that zombie, incredibly, came back to life this year. Why? Are we to believe that it's a coincidence that Donald Trump started demanding that John Bolton go to jail, and then they resurrect this case?"

- YouTube www.youtube.com

George Conway spotlights the danger of Trump's push to eradicate 'the smart people'

A major bombshell from the Donald Trump-era U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) came down on Thursday afternoon, October 16 when hawkish neocon John Bolton — who served as national security adviser during Trump's first administration — was indicted on 18 federal counts for allegedly mishandling classified government documents.

In a video posted by The Bulwark late Friday night, October 17, conservative attorney George Conway offered legal analysis of the Bolton indictment — which, he told host Sarah Longwell (a conservative strategist and fellow Never Trumper), has more substance than the indictments of two other Trump foes: New York State Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.

But Conway, one of Trump's most scathing critics on the right, also implied that Trump resents Bolton and other foes because he resents "smart people." And the attorney warned that Trump's disdain for intellectualism is a classic "fascist authoritarian" trait.

Conway told Longwell, "The whole attack on immigration is xenophobia, and xenophobia is a classic characteristic of fascist authoritarian movements. But another aspect of fascist and authoritarian movements is anti-intellectualism. They're against smart people who read books and do things. The whole attack on science that we're seeing at the universities, in CDC (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), at the NIH (National Institutes of Health) — there's just this urge to take out the smart people, to take out the people who are hoity-toity, who they think look down on the people who vote for the fascist authoritarian. And it's part of the way that an authoritarian likes to divide people."

Conway didn't mince words when talking about the recent federal indictments of Trump foes.

"In a nutshell, the other two cases — the Comey case and the James case — look like b– – from the get-go. You read the complaints, the indictment, and you said, 'What?!' How does this make any sense?.... The complaints look flimsy, they don't make any sense on their face. The difference with Bolton's is you can see what the charges are."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Trump's 'vindictive' prosecutions of his enemies put his inner circle in a bind: analysis

A major legal bombshell came down on Thursday afternoon, October 16 when a grand jury indicted former National Security Adviser John Bolton on 18 federal criminal charges for alleged mishandling of classified government documents — which, in 2023 and 2024, was the focus of one of then-special counsel Jack Smith's two cases against Donald Trump.

The Bolton indictment follows federal indictments of two other Trump foes: New York State Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. And legal experts fear that more indictments of Trump adversaries are on the way.

In an op-ed published by the i Paper in the U.K. on October 17, columnist James Ball stresses that Trump's thirst for revenge is causing major stress to Republicans in his inner circle.

"Now, Trump is back in the White House, he wants payback — and he's demanding his Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and other senior officials jail his opponents for him," Ball explains. "By longstanding tradition, elected politicians are not supposed to interfere in individual cases."

"Trump is not just interfering in them, he is demanding prosecutions openly, in public, and daring anyone to speak out against it," he continued. "Bondi, who acted as Trump's personal lawyer during his impeachment before becoming attorney general, is not trying to defend the independence of her office. Instead, she and her team are trying to do his dirty work, but they're having difficulties, not least because America is still — for now, at least — a nation of laws.

Trump, according to Ball, "wants results" with Bolton, James and Comey — and the challenge for his allies, Ball observes, is that he either "doesn’t understand how the law works" or "simply doesn't care."

"Trump is a vindictive man and shows no signs of mercy," Ball argues. "For now, America's legal system is holding up, and Trump has not managed to smash it entirely. That leaves his officials ground-down between them. You could almost feel sorry for them — if it wasn't exactly what they had signed up for."

James Ball's full op-ed for the i Paper is available at this link.

Trump's 'petty tyrant' revenge tour is rife with 'supervillain gimmicks': analysis

MSNBC's opinion writer Hayes Brown says that President Donald Trump is not only being a "petty tyrant" in his quest to persecute his perceived enemies, but the allegations he has tossed at them shows a "startling lack of creativity," relegated to "the realm of supervillain gimmicks."

Brown says this is most evident in the recent indictment against Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton, in which "we see a set of charges orders of magnitude less staggering in their blatant criminality than the allegations Trump faced after his first term for hoarding documents at Mar-a-Lago."

New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, Brown says, "are also facing minor-league versions of the big-league crimes and civil infractions Trump was accused of."

"It’s a level of 'I’m rubber and you’re glue' absurdity akin to if Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who successfully secured a 34-count conviction against Trump last year, were to himself be charged with election fraud," Brown says.

The president's pettiness, Brown argues, goes beyond "using the criminal justice system to target" his enemies.

"He’s also been using the ongoing federal government shutdown as an excuse to torment Democrats as a group," he writes.

Trump's brand of pettiness, Brown says, is pure.

"Real pettiness is the refusal to turn the other cheek against purposeful slights, the willingness to cling to a grudge after your opponent has faced defeat," he says. "It’s, say, Kendrick Lamar, making his 2025 Super Bowl halftime show a 13-minute slam dunk against Drake and the (recently dismissed) defamation lawsuit Drake had filed against him."

The problem with Trump's pettiness, Brown says, is that he's "seldom right in his quest for vengeance."

"As The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols noted earlier this year, we’ve had plenty of presidents who had tempers and a penchant for grievances. We’ve even had several of them attempt to use the power of the U.S. government as the engine of their payback," Brown writes.

"What sets Trump apart is how unfettered he is from the shame that keeps pettiness in check. Instead, he is openly willing to use all the might imbued within the presidency for the smallest of reasons, transforming any critic into a target," he says.

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.