Ex-NSA Bolton Accused of Mishandling Secret Defense Papers

An 18-count indictment has been filed against John Bolton, former National Security Adviser to ex-President Donald Trump, for allegedly hoarding classified defense documents and sharing sensitive government information. Prosecutors contend that Bolton unlawfully retained top-secret records at his home and disclosed classified details via diary-like notes chronicling his time in office. The indictment also points to a serious security lapse: hackers believed to be connected to Iran gained access to Bolton’s email, potentially exposing classified files. The FBI was reportedly informed by a Bolton representative in 2021 about the email hack, but the notification allegedly omitted the crucial fact that classified information had been compromised. This legal entanglement ensnares a veteran Republican foreign policy expert, known for his assertive stance on national security and his later criticism of Trump. The indictment arrives at a time of heightened scrutiny regarding the Justice Department’s actions, with some observers questioning its impartiality in pursuing cases against Trump’s critics. Bolton has vociferously denied the charges, accusing Trump of weaponizing the Justice Department against his perceived enemies. The indictment was brought by experienced national security prosecutors, unlike some previous politically charged cases. Although FBI searches of Bolton’s properties were reported in August, the investigation predates this. The indictment further alleges that Bolton shared over 1,000 pages of classified material with two relatives between 2018 and August of the current year. This material reportedly included highly sensitive intelligence on foreign adversaries, US operational methods, and details of covert operations, alongside information on missile launch plans. Officials have affirmed that the justice system applies equally to all, emphasizing the need for accountability in cases that risk national security. Bolton’s legal team is expected to argue that the prosecution fails to acknowledge prior instances of similar conduct or perceived laxity regarding classified information by other government officials, including the use of secure communication applications.