The Bolton Indictment

The John Bolton indictment is a substantive document. If the claims about classification levels stand up, it is as substantive as the indictment against Trump (though with less sensitive documents and none of the obstruction).

For each of 8 charged documents (each was charged twice, once for transmission and once for retention) it describes Bolton sending the information to one of his family members via an AOL account that got hacked by Iran, then keeping it such that it was found when the FBI searched his house earlier this year.

Importantly, none of these are marked classified documents, like Trump’s stolen documents were. They are his excerpts. So there will be an enormous contest over the classification determinations, especially since Kash and John Ratcliffe were involved.

There are ten charged retained documents (that is, the same 8, plus two more). The latter two may be marked — they may be the old Iraq documents Bolton referred to.

The indictment describes someone — presumably from Iran — attempting to blackmail Bolton (at which point he told the FBI that he had been hacked).

It also quotes Bolton mocking Pete Hegseth for sharing classified information on Signal.

There are defenses to this case (including that Trump won’t prosecute Hegseth). But it is a solid case.

Update: Bolton is quoted referring to “diaries” throughout this indictment.

One of the FBI Agents on this case reportedly was involved in the Joe Biden case.

In that case, Biden fairly argued that DOJ was applying a different standard to him than DOJ had applied to Reagan in Iran-Contra.

It’s Hur’s analysis of Biden’s diaries that I find most interesting, and troubling. Hur’s approach to these diaries is one of the most obvious flags of political bias in a report full of them.

Take his use of language. The word “diaries” appears 103 times in the report [note: someone with interns should replicate this work, as it is inexact]. In about five of those instances, Hur quotes the people around Biden referring to these notebooks as diaries. Two instances discuss the Presidential Record Act’s language treating diaries as personal records, exempt from PRA. Maybe ten or so appear in a section where Hur envisions that Biden would describe these as diaries as a defense, but the word is always put in Biden’s mouth. Hur adheres to using “notebooks” here.

Mr. Biden will likely say, he never believed his notebooks, which he thought of as his personal diaries, fell within that arrangement. He treated the notebooks markedly differently from the rest of his notes and other presidential records throughout his vice presidency, for example, allowing staff to store and review his notecards, but not his notebooks. 914 This treatment, he will argue, and the extremely personal content of some of the notebooks, shows that he considered them to be his personal property. Mr. Biden’s notebooks included gut-wrenching passages about his son’s death and other highly personal material. 915 His claim that he believed he did not need to send what he considered to be his personal diary to be stored at a government facility will likely appeal to some jurors. 916

We expect Mr. Biden also to contend that the presence of classified information in what he viewed as his diary did not change his thinking. As a member of the exclusive club of former presidents and vice presidents, Mr. Biden will claim that he knew such officials kept diaries, and he knew or expected that those diaries-like Mr. Reagan’s-contained classified information. 917 He also understood that former presidents and vice presidents took their diaries home upon leaving office, without being investigated or prosecuted for it. [all emphasis mine]

But the overwhelming bulk of those remaining 85 or so uses of the word “diaries” describe Reagan’s (or in two cases, other Presidents’) diaries.

By contrast, there are 461 uses of the word “notebook” in Hur’s report. That’s the word Hur uses to refer to what he quotes people around Biden calling the President’s diaries.

Reagan had diaries. And as a result, when DOJ discovered them, they remained untouched.

Biden has notebooks. By calling these notebooks, Hur permitted himself to do with Biden’s most private thoughts what DOJ did not do with Reagan’s: review them all.

Mr. Biden’s notebooks, which contained, among other things, his handwritten notes taken during classified meetings as vice president, presented a challenge. None of the pages contained classification markings but investigators assessed some of the content was potentially classified. Classification review by intelligence agencies of unmarked information is more challenging and time-consuming than for marked documents. We therefore reviewed all of Mr. Biden’s handwritten notes and selected thirty-seven excerpts totaling 109 notebook pages to submit for classification review. Investigators selected entries they believed were most likely highly classified and that a jury of laypeople would find was national defense information under the Espionage Act. [my emphasis]

I assume Bolton will make a similar argument.

Update: Because people are asking, here’s a really rough comparison of Bolton’s indictment with Trump’s.

image_print
Share this entry
35 replies
    • Rayne says:

      Wondered that, too, and if the “drug deal” Bolton referred to with regard to the Ukraine quid pro quo might get dragged out in court again, further exposing Trump’s corrupt effort to create evidence against Hunter Biden.

  1. Patrick Carty says:

    AOL? Just wow, I thought that went out 20 years ago.

    But this happened under Trump’s first administration. Had it been under Biden there would be a second indictment.

    • Matt___B says:

      AOL never really went away. They were acquired by Time Warner in 2001, then acquired by Verizon in 2015, then acquired by Yahoo in 2021. I have a client who has kept his same aol.com e-mail address for decades at this point…

    • e.a. foster says:

      AOL is alive and well. When I started to use e mail approx 23 yrs ago I signed on to AOL and here we are 2025 and I still use AOL. for emails. I’ll probably have 10 yrs left in me and I’ll be staying with AOL.

      • Bugboy321 says:

        Really?

        Because of the deluge of spam and scam email I had to stop using my old bellsouth.com account, and can barely use my Comcast email because Comcast reused it from someone else with my name, in Texas. I still get emails for that guy, I even know he was a radiologist, and that he was big on rescue dog orgs.

        My conclusion was that the longer an email exists, the more prone to spam and scam it is? I had AOL decades ago but I don’t remember anything special about it. Maybe it has more to do with me visiting dodgy websites? IDK.

        • Quinn Norton says:

          I’ve had the same email for 27 years. (omg I just scared myself) There’s some truth to that point about getting more spam, though a lot of that has to do with how often you use it to register for other services. But also at this point I get very little true spam because filtering/grey listing has gotten a lot better. PR spam from people who have me on journalists-to-harass lists is the bane of my life; I can’t filter them, I can only try voodoo curses, and they don’t seem to work.

        • e.a. foster says:

          I’ve always been careful about where I go on my computer. I don’t sign up for anything. don’t answer anything I don’t know who it is, don’t go to weird websites, etc.

  2. depressed chris says:

    It is pretty common to find handwritten notes and marginalia of meetings — just look at declassified documents from every president or NSC meeting. It is also pretty common to find that they are without classification markings, mostly because it is a PITA to stop listening just to figure out the markings. One can just make a note on the top with the highest classification of the meeting so that if you see the notes weeks later, you don’t assume that they are unclassified. Bolton might have made this error, but the only way to get them to AOL was to image the (forgotten) classified notes to an unclassified machine or to move the imaged notes from a classified machine to an unclassified one. The first possibility is a bonehead mistake, while the second is hubris — there are special people designated who would do that, and Bolton probably thought that he could too.

    The classifications listed in the indictment were either (ex-post-facto) applied to the documents based on the overall meeting classification, subject matter / context, actual contents of the notes, partner relationships, intelligence sources and methods revealed, or classified documents referenced. It is possible that the redacted parts refer to “sub-compartments”, special access programs (SAP), or the bureaucratic nothingness term “alternative compensatory control measures” (ACCM) — usually ongoing operations. If Bolton wrote certain words or phrases, it would indicate the classification of his notes.

    If the allegations are true, Bolton is going to jail.

  3. StillHopeful says:

    Well,
    I lived through 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan.
    I lived through the Weapons of Mass Destruction planning assault on our intelligence to use lies to attack Iraq.
    Here we are.
    Maybe schadenfreude….
    Still hopeful that Bolten and the current leader (and lawyers) will have a legal Pyrrhic battle to the end.

    • e.a. foster says:

      I remember the events which you listed. I’d add we in Canada also lived through Pierre Trudeau invoking the War Measures Act when the FLQ kidnapped a British diplomat and a Quebec politician. Then to add to it his son Justin Trudeau invoked the new act regarding such matters.
      Now as we enter this phase to “lets get even” in the U.S.A. I’d really appreciate it if they stopped. No one is going to win this game, so they might as well get down to work, the type they were elected to do. Many of these people are well paid with health insurance, etc. Americans are now faced with this continuing soap opera and no one is coming out clean. There are approx. 340 million americans. perhaps some one could put their ego in their pockets and get on with ensuring their health and safety.

    • Bugboy321 says:

      As I told my young, scared Fiscal Specialist, when she asked me how we are going to make it through this: “I lived through the Reagan Administration. The first thing is a positive attitude, which you have in spades!”.

      I can tell you having been through all of those and more, these are not the stuff of legends.

      • P J Evans says:

        I was a freshman in college when Nixon was elected. Most of my life has been putting up with the GOP trying to ruin the country.

        • phichi174 says:

          my assessment exactly: i believe that the rampant lying of the Repukes began with Congressman Nixon in 1948 in regards to Alger Hiss.

          things have certainly snowballed to the point that the WH press secretary actually said that the democratic party was made up of “Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals”

          and this from a woman who works for a felon

  4. Bugboy321 says:

    I have to say that, while John Bolton is a shithead extraordinaire, he is in no way a stupid shithead extraordinaire. I’m disappointed he was so undisciplined to write his book using relatives as “editors” and passing them work via unsecured email. Especially when there was dispute over the book review process.

    Unless that’s part of his plan?

    Q: What’s the possibility this case has been through the meat grinder to a great extent already due to the book review dispute between Bolton and the Feds? That might explain the quality of work product here: it was from back when they had real prosecutors, and not cosplay prosecutors.

  5. wa_rickf says:

    Reagan had diaries. And as a result, when DOJ discovered them, they remained untouched.

    Biden has notebooks. By calling these notebooks, Hur permitted himself to do with Biden’s most private thoughts what DOJ did not do with Reagan’s: review them all.

    Today’s Rwingers don’t play by the same rules as Rwingers of yesteryear. Today’s Rwingers are much more partisan and attack their enemy ruthlessly. Should a Rwinger today be caught doing the very same as their enemy – it’s ok if the Rwinger does it. That’s partisan.

    The Nixon era was during my early childhood. From what I gather, Nixon would not suffer the same investigative fate today as he did during his era. Rs would circle the wagons around him today. That’s partisan.

    Rwingers back then ‘seem’ to be more intellectually honest and honorable from what I understand.

    • wa_rickf says:

      This article from Politico.com exemplies exactly what I wrote about above. Politico reported earlier this week detailing the Young Republican leaders’ Telegram chats that included racist, antisemitic and homophobic comments, rape fantasies, and suggestions on how to drive their opponents to suicide.

      …and suggestions on how to drive their opponents to suicide.

      https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly/2025/10/16/the-leaked-young-republicans-messages-could-be-the-future-of-politics-00612737
      ======
      If Trump wants to call out “mean and nasty people,” pehaps Trump should look no further than his own backyard to find them.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      Look at through a lens that might have changed somewhere in the 1980s-90s.

      For the period proceeding, the Republican party included both conservatives and radicals – but they tried to work within the current system.

      At some point there was a winner-take-all, loser-be-damned change and everything became extreme. Gingrich of course. NRA ownership by the russians. Cable news networks and Sinclair/Clearchannel type propaganda.

      Somewhere in those years influences outside of the normal voter issues became dominant, especially with the (R)epublicans. The only thing that makes sense is that bribery, blackmail, extortion, etc. became dominant. Russians? Kochs? Murdochs? So many weak politicians, and so many enemies of the US system.

  6. Zinsky123 says:

    I have to dig in and read this indictment in more detail, but I find it ironic that Republicans use foreign hackers to skewer Democrats. In 2016, they used the Russian hackers who infiltrated the DNC and John Podesta servers and thanks to Julian Assange’s Wikileaks, helped Trump barely squeak by Hillary Clinton. Now, nine years later, the GOP appears to be using Iranian hackers to do in John Bolton. I have never been a big fan of the Grumpy Walrus but I hope he prevails in his criminal defense…

  7. IndieGuy says:

    CIPA should be interesting. No idea if this is the case, but Bolton could successfully argue that while the overall documents of concern were classified, the individual sections/paragraphs quoted in his diaries were marked (U) for unclassified.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME EMAIL ADDRESS and username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment using a different email address triggering auto-moderation. We don’t even ask for a valid/working email address, only that you use the same one each time you commet. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]

Comments are closed.