EXCLUSIVE: Questions emerge about the John Bolton indictment

Donald Trump's third indictment of personal foe is jam-packed with peculiarities and outright corrupt double standards.

Yesterday, former National Security Advisor John Bolton became the third prominent critic of Donald Trump charged with a crime. So I thought I’d start asking the questions that need to be asked about this case. You won’t find this list anywhere else, but it’s just a starting point in probing the extraordinary peculiarities and convenient coincidences in this case.

So let’s start here:

• First, should we assume that the president’s accidentally-posted direct message to his Attorney General on September 20 — urging prosecution of his critics — had nothing to do with the charges brought less than a month later?

• Should we assume it’s unrelated to Donald Trump’s years of public attacks on John Bolton — calling him a “liar,” a “traitor,” “incompetent,” and saying “he should be in jail” — or to his fury that Bolton’s book made him look reckless, unstable, and unfit for office?

• Has Attorney General Pam Bondi or FBI Director Kash Patel had any conversations with the president about prosecuting John Bolton? If so, what were the nature of those conversations and when did they begin?

• Should we assume the Justice Department, after years of inactivity about the information it had regarding John Bolton, suddenly and independently came to the conclusion that it should resurrect a dead case and prosecute a man known to be an enemy of the president?

• Given that the information in the indictment has been known to the Justice Department for years and some of it dates back as far as seven years, what “new evidence” gave the Justice Department reason to pursue these criminal charges?

• If Bolton’s conduct was so egregious, why did DOJ previously settle with him on his book, close this particular case, and then walk away? Did anyone in the Justice Department mention that none of the “classified” material described in the indictment ever appeared in Bolton’s book?

• So what exactly changed between then and now — besides the name of the man sitting behind the Resolute Desk?

• Did the search of John Bolton’s home turn up significant information not previously known to the government? If so, why was that not the focus of the indictment?

• Is there anything else in John Bolton’s diaries that the Justice Department found that might be damaging to the president? Like the Epstein files, was Donald Trump briefed on this information?

Given the above, what assurance can the administration provide that this is not a vindictive prosecution?

• If the administration is committed to the notion that “no one is above the law,” as the Attorney General and FBI Director have said repeatedly, then why has the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth not been investigated for the same offense?

• Did Pete Hegseth not intentionally retain classified and national defense information using his personal cell phone?

• Did he not transmit that information to a journalist and multiple other people without authorization?

• Did Pete Hegseth not use the same encrypted messaging application as John Bolton?

• Did Pete Hegseth tell the truth to the public when he claimed the information was not classified?

• Has the FBI ever opened a probe into this conduct, given that multiple former national security officials claimed the information the Defense Secretary shared was classified?

• If not, why not?

• Is the Justice Department similarly contemplating criminal charges for this conduct, which was arguably more reckless?

• Or are some people, in fact, “above the law” in the administration’s eyes? If so, which people can we safely assume are “above the law”? Does the administration have a list?

• And while we’re at it, is the FBI demanding to review the private diaries, notes, and drafts used to write books by Kash Patel, Peter Navarro, Jared Kushner, and Kellyanne Conway — all of whom appear to have shared accounts of sensitive deliberations and activities within the government?

• If not, why not?

Given the above, what assurance can the administration provide that this is not a selective prosecution?

• As National Security Advisor, John Bolton would have been exposed to exceptionally voluminous amounts of classified documents. Were any of those actual documents found in his possession?

• Were any of those documents found in his diary along with the classification markings?

• Or did they only find diary pages and private reflections, the same way historians and public servants have documented their work for generations?

• Does the Trump administration have any evidence that John Bolton knew that the specific passages it claims were classified in his diary were actually classified?

• Did the Trump administration attempt at any point to first recover this information by directly asking John Bolton to return it, as Donald Trump was given the opportunity to do when it was discovered he held classified documents unlawfully in his basement and bathroom at Mar-a-Lago?

• Did it approach John Bolton with the knowledge that he retained such information and request it be given back to the National Archives?

• If not, why not?

• Does the Trump administration have any evidence that John Bolton was attempting to conceal classified information from federal investigators? If so, why was this fact not included in the indictment?

• If not, then why was this investigation conducted using a different standard than the investigation into Donald Trump’s unlawful retention of classified and national defense information?

• Who made the determination to use a different standard?

Given the above, what assurance can the administration provide that there are not two tiers of justice when it comes to the handling of cases involving classified information?

• The indictment used as evidence the fact that John Bolton’s diaries referenced conversations he had in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs). Is the administration making the case that any conversations held in a SCIF are classified? If John Bolton recited a recipe for caramel brownies inside of a SCIF, would that automatically render that recipe protected national defense information?

• If not, then how did the administration determine that such conversations were classified? Who made that determination?

• If none of the information found in John Bolton’s diaries that was “deemed” to be classified ever appeared in his book, then why does the Trump administration think he retained it? Do they have any evidence that it was retained intentionally for some other, undisclosed purposes?

• Did the FBI interview John Bolton about his diaries? If not, why not? Wouldn’t such an interview give them better insight into the sources of the content? Or did they not want John Bolton’s explanations to influence the possibility of bringing criminal charges?

• If John Bolton’s diaries did not contain any actual classified documents or classification headers (like the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents or Hillary Clinton’s emails), and only recollections of events, what process was used to determine that his diary entries and recollections of his time in the Trump administration were classified?

• Who was involved in that process? Were any of the officials or agents involved in that process the same officials involved in blocking the release of John Bolton’s book?

• Were those agents and officials aware that the Attorney General and FBI Director have fired scores of lawyers and agents for failure to align with the administration’s agenda?

• Did any of those officials feel pressure to reach conclusions that were contrary to standard classification guidelines? When was the information determined to be classified? Was it based on information at the time or retroactive classification?

• Like the controversial review of John Bolton’s book, were political appointees of the president involved in the classification review? If so, which political appointees of the president, and what were their qualifications to make national security determinations? Was anyone in the White House involved?

Given the above, what assurance can the administration provide that the information in John Bolton’s diaries was actually properly determined to be classified?

• Speaking of resurrecting a dormant investigation, in light of the FBI’s decision to re-open an inquiry into Bolton, has it done anything to carry forward inquiries into Donald Trump’s reported disclosure of sensitive intelligence to Russian officials in the Oval Office?

• Has the FBI looked into Donald Trump’s alleged posting of classified satellite images of Iranian facilities on social media?

• When Donald Trump bragged to a journalist about nuclear weapons systems nobody has “seen or heard about,” was this a planned revelation of highly classified national security information? Or an off-the-cuff one?

• Was Donald Trump aware that John Bolton previously highlighted the president’s preference for using unsecured methods of communication for sensitive information?

• Was Donald Trump aware that John Bolton contradicted the president’s denial that he’d never heard of “burner phones” and that Trump, in fact, kept several burner phones with which to engage in unsecured communications?

• Was Donald Trump aware that John Bolton criticized him repeatedly for his tendency to blurt out sensitive information during meetings or phone calls?

• Was Donald Trump aware that John Bolton and other officials were constantly worried about his mishandling of sensitive information and the fallout from the president’s public and reckless disclosures of classified information?

• Is there anything else in John Bolton’s diaries that has not been publicly revealed about his boss’s public mishandling of classified information?

• Did any of the above influence the Justice Department’s decision to pursue this case?

• Will the FBI release the Jack Smith case files related to Donald Trump’s unauthorized detention of classified information at Mar-a-Lago? If the president retained nothing classified, as he claims, then why can’t they disclose the records?

Given the above, what assurance can the administration provide that the president himself is responsibly handling classified information — and not simply going after people who’ve exposed his misconduct?

• The director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), John Ratcliffe, reportedly came upon this dormant information in his agency’s files and put it on the FBI’s radar — how did this coincidence happen?

• Was CIA Director Ratcliffe simply digging through the agency’s files and stumbled upon it, or was he ordered to review his agency’s files for intelligence on the president’s enemies? If so, when was that order given and how was it transmitted?

• Is the White House aware that the same official who previously stopped the publication of John Bolton’s book that was critical of the president is now the Deputy CIA Director? Was he involved at all in this process? If so, why and what role did he play?

• Alternatively, did the FBI Director specifically request information from the CIA Director about John Bolton?

• If so, why was the FBI Director seeking derogatory information from spy agencies about a private American citizen who happened to be critical of the president?

• Are the CIA Director and FBI Director regularly reviewing foreign intelligence about other American citizens for potential federal prosecutions?

• If so, under what pretext? And how are these searches being conducted consistent with the U.S. Constitution?

Given the above, what assurance can the administration provide that officials are not exploiting sensitive information to spy on or punish the president’s critics?

• If this is such a delicate national security investigation involving classified information, why have Justice Department and FBI officials been leaking about it to the press?

• Did Attorney General Pam Bondi or FBI Director Kash Patel personally provide the leaks about this investigation to the press?

• If so, on what basis did they leak information about a sensitive federal investigation to the press when they are currently prosecuting another former official, James Comey, for such disclosures?

• If not, did either of them authorize others to provide such leaks?

• Will they both testify under oath that they did not leak, or authorize leaks, about the John Bolton investigation to the press?

• If they did not provide or authorize such leaks, will they open a leak investigation into the agents and administration officials who have apparently been doing so?

• Or are leak investigations only opened when it’s into the president’s enemies?

• If this case was initiated by an Iranian hack of John Bolton’s personal account, as the indictment itself admits, then why is the focus on prosecuting the victim of a cyberattack instead of the foreign adversary that launched it?

• Has the administration taken any steps to make sure the president and his aides’ reported use of unsecured communications have also not been compromised? If so, what steps?

• If the unsecured communications of the president and his aides have been collected by a foreign power, is the CIA planning to refer those findings to the FBI for investigation as well?

Given the above, what assurance can the administration provide that it is focused on the protection of classified information and not cherry-picked retribution?

Just a few more questions…

• If John Bolton is being charged for keeping a private diary yet Donald Trump kept actual classified documents with classified headers stashed away in his home, does that not mean Donald Trump is more guilty?

• If John Bolton did not knowingly retain classified information yet Donald Trump was warned and still did so willingly, does that not mean Donald Trump is more guilty?

• If John Bolton was willing to cooperate with authorities yet Donald Trump intentionally obstructed justice and lied to investigators, does that not mean Donald Trump is more guilty?

• If John Bolton is facing decades in prison for a comparatively minor offense, why is Donald Trump sitting behind the Resolute Desk?

Maybe the real question isn’t whether John Bolton broke the law. Maybe it’s this: in Trump’s America, does the law mean anything at all anymore?

Anyway, I’m just asking questions.

P.S. WHAT’S HAPPENING ON TREASON

Here’s what’s coming up.

1. TOMORROW / CNN - I’ll be on Abby Phillip’s CNN show Table for Five at 10am ET — tune in. We’ll be talking about the Bolton indictment and more.

2. TOMORROW / NO KINGS PROTESTS - I’ll be a part of rolling coverage with my friend

   Jim Acosta
   .

3. NEXT WEEK / STAY TUNED - We’ll have more interviews, news, and exclusives to bring your way.