Stolen documents are going to be the least of our national security problems, the chief one being, well, the president. By wasting our personal and national resources and gutting federal agencies dedicated to protecting our sovereignty, he has thrown the door wide open to any adversary who wants to come in. Although, why they would want to take over a failed nation with a mountain of debt and no future, I don't know.
It's hard to work up sympathy for John ("I never met a war I didn't like") Bolton, but I can't escape the feeling that he's being singled out because he told us the truth about Don the Con.
When it comes to John Bolton, there should be no temptation to say (facilely and inaccurately) "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I have no sympathy for him whatsoever; he knows the rules very well, he brought this upon himself and he has no excuses.
Great points. There's no doubt that the DOJ has gone after Bolton because he criticized/ offended the president. So he's a "bad guy." If Hegseth had done the same thing, he'd probably be untouchable. There also seems little doubt that Bolton disregarded, even defied, rules he felt entitled to disregard. To prevail, Bolton will have to find security lapses as serious as his were, but not prosecuted because the offender was on the president's "good guy" list.
That might not get him off. It's like when you get a ticket for speeding-- you can try to defend yourself before the judge by saying "everyone around me was speeding but I was the only one they stopped. The judge will look at you and say "were you speeding", and you have to answer "yes" to which the judge will say "guilty as charged"
It's true that if I say to the judge, "But Your Honor, lots of other cars were speeding but didn't get ticketed," it won't work. (I've tried that.) This is a little different from demonstrating that two similarly situation persons were treated substantially differently by the law on impermissible grounds. The officer targeted women but not men; the officer let those who paid a bribe go free; the officer charged someone with speeding from a motive of personal revenge. A hard bar to clear but it's a valid legal theory.
Thank you for an insider explanation of this situation. Seems to me all involved, starting with the chief resident of The White House and members of Congress, need a "relentless" refresher course on the rules concerning classified information. We seem to have a real problem here. I appreciate you pointing out the hypocrisy and political theater surrounding Bolton's indictment, while also highlighting that, if true, is necessary. Here's to hoping we live to see the day when these standards are applied to all.
Certainly, under non-authoritarian governing, the author could stand tall with this article. Unfortunately, his acceptance of Bolton saying, "I never admired Bolton as a policymaker—his views often struck me as unbalanced and unsettling..." Much like all of the current phrasing of those involved in this coup, I am not sure that this description aptly or even faintly describes who Bolton is and what he thinks of democracy!
A very short list of Bolton's actions includes insistence on Reagan's executive privilege during William Rehnquist's chief justice confirmation hearings, when Congress asked for memos written by Rehnquist as a Nixon Justice Department official, shepherding the judicial nomination process for Anthony Scalia, and the framing of a bill to control illegal immigration as an essential drug war measure. Additionally, he was involved in the Iran-Contra affair! He also denied that Trump's involvement in the January 6th US Capitol attack amounted to an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government! The list is endless on this guy, and he is by no means merely unbalanced and unsettling!
While the issue of releasing "confidential" materials may be important, it would have been more accurate and had more power behind this article had the author presented Bolton as the traitor to our country and democracy that he is. This is what is lacking in today's journalist community. Until we can use words that accurately describe actions and those involved in those actions, in non-politically correct or whitewashed language, we may never win this battle we are in.
"By the time FBI Director Kash Patel took office in February, the investigation into whether John Bolton mishandled classified information had been in the works for roughly three years."
Stolen documents are going to be the least of our national security problems, the chief one being, well, the president. By wasting our personal and national resources and gutting federal agencies dedicated to protecting our sovereignty, he has thrown the door wide open to any adversary who wants to come in. Although, why they would want to take over a failed nation with a mountain of debt and no future, I don't know.
It's hard to work up sympathy for John ("I never met a war I didn't like") Bolton, but I can't escape the feeling that he's being singled out because he told us the truth about Don the Con.
Thank you, Mr. O'Neill, I think you nailed it.
When it comes to John Bolton, there should be no temptation to say (facilely and inaccurately) "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I have no sympathy for him whatsoever; he knows the rules very well, he brought this upon himself and he has no excuses.
His bio on Wikipedia is worth reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bolton
No, it's the blatant hypocrisy - coming from those who are condemning him the loudest - that is *really* offensive.
Safeguarding classified documents has become a national joke in the age(s) of Rumpalzheimer's regimes. Look at all the boxes at Maralago. What a joke.
Actually, it seems to have started before then, but has really taken off since 2017.
Great points. There's no doubt that the DOJ has gone after Bolton because he criticized/ offended the president. So he's a "bad guy." If Hegseth had done the same thing, he'd probably be untouchable. There also seems little doubt that Bolton disregarded, even defied, rules he felt entitled to disregard. To prevail, Bolton will have to find security lapses as serious as his were, but not prosecuted because the offender was on the president's "good guy" list.
"If Hegseth had done the same thing, he'd probably be untouchable."
He has already done far worse, IMO. He is far more stupid and ignorant than Bolton, but that's no excuse.
That might not get him off. It's like when you get a ticket for speeding-- you can try to defend yourself before the judge by saying "everyone around me was speeding but I was the only one they stopped. The judge will look at you and say "were you speeding", and you have to answer "yes" to which the judge will say "guilty as charged"
It's true that if I say to the judge, "But Your Honor, lots of other cars were speeding but didn't get ticketed," it won't work. (I've tried that.) This is a little different from demonstrating that two similarly situation persons were treated substantially differently by the law on impermissible grounds. The officer targeted women but not men; the officer let those who paid a bribe go free; the officer charged someone with speeding from a motive of personal revenge. A hard bar to clear but it's a valid legal theory.
Next up: a deep dive into his mortgage documents.
:))
hillary, hegseh, bolton...none smart
secure lines exist for a reason people
Thank you for an insider explanation of this situation. Seems to me all involved, starting with the chief resident of The White House and members of Congress, need a "relentless" refresher course on the rules concerning classified information. We seem to have a real problem here. I appreciate you pointing out the hypocrisy and political theater surrounding Bolton's indictment, while also highlighting that, if true, is necessary. Here's to hoping we live to see the day when these standards are applied to all.
Certainly, under non-authoritarian governing, the author could stand tall with this article. Unfortunately, his acceptance of Bolton saying, "I never admired Bolton as a policymaker—his views often struck me as unbalanced and unsettling..." Much like all of the current phrasing of those involved in this coup, I am not sure that this description aptly or even faintly describes who Bolton is and what he thinks of democracy!
A very short list of Bolton's actions includes insistence on Reagan's executive privilege during William Rehnquist's chief justice confirmation hearings, when Congress asked for memos written by Rehnquist as a Nixon Justice Department official, shepherding the judicial nomination process for Anthony Scalia, and the framing of a bill to control illegal immigration as an essential drug war measure. Additionally, he was involved in the Iran-Contra affair! He also denied that Trump's involvement in the January 6th US Capitol attack amounted to an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government! The list is endless on this guy, and he is by no means merely unbalanced and unsettling!
While the issue of releasing "confidential" materials may be important, it would have been more accurate and had more power behind this article had the author presented Bolton as the traitor to our country and democracy that he is. This is what is lacking in today's journalist community. Until we can use words that accurately describe actions and those involved in those actions, in non-politically correct or whitewashed language, we may never win this battle we are in.
"Inside the quiet, yearslong investigation into John Bolton"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/inside-the-quiet-yearslong-investigation-into-john-bolton/ar-AA1OGCje
The opening sentence:
"By the time FBI Director Kash Patel took office in February, the investigation into whether John Bolton mishandled classified information had been in the works for roughly three years."