Posted on 10/16/2025 5:42:39 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Each case will be judged on its own merits, but this is part of a pattern of selective prosecution.
President Donald Trump has embarked on a campaign of prosecuting political foes, from ex-FBI director James Comey to New York Attorney General Letitia James (D). On Thursday night, his former national security adviser, John Bolton, became the third high-profile antagonist to face charges in as many weeks. What’s different now is that the Justice Department’s charges, and the evidence underlying them, appear stronger than in previous cases.
A grand jury in Maryland indicted Bolton on 18 counts of transmitting and retaining national defense information. He allegedly included classified material in emails sent from his private AOL account while in government. That account was apparently hacked by the Iranian government. Bolton alerted the FBI in 2021, which then investigated.
Technically the charges against Bolton flow from a Biden-era probe, but The Post reports that “senior Justice Department leaders put pressure on the office in Maryland to charge Bolton quickly."
Bolton insists on his innocence, and he deserves his day in court. “The underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago,” said Bolton’s attorney Abbe Lowell in a statement. “Like many public officials throughout history, Ambassador Bolton kept diaries – that is not a crime.”
Even if the case was as strong as the 26-page indictment suggests, the president’s conduct inevitably casts a cloud over the charges. Trump has made little effort to hide his motives. In a Sept. 20 social media post addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi, which Trump reportedly intended as a private message, the president pushed her to move faster on charging Comey and James. Asked on Thursday about the indictment, Trump called Bolton “a bad guy."
When acting U.S. attorney...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
...says The Editorial Board of the Old Gray Whore without one, single, subatomic particle of self-awareness.
“””Each case will be judged on its own merits, but this is part of a pattern of selective prosecution...””””””””
They said the same thing every time Trump was charged.....Right?????????????
Translation: The WP just lost one of their sources.
I notice NONE of them said the same when Biden’s cronies charged Trump 2000 times and raided his house for NO REASON..but but back then it was totally legit, and lets not forget trying to murder him TWICE
What they call selective political persecution we call justice
So if you want immunity from prosecution, attack the president. Then if you are prosecuted, it’s retaliation and you’re home free.
It just so happens that Trump’s political enemies are criminals and a threat to our republic.
As always dims project
Now, they want to whine and bemoan that Trump is taking revenge against those who plotted and conspired to bankrupt him AND his family, put him in prison for the rest of his life, stain his legacy and, when all that failed, to try to murder him. I have absolutely NO sympathy for any of these traitors. Hit them with the book and hit them hard. Maybe, just maybe, the lesson will be learned that that is NOT how democracy in America is supposed to work!
He’s accused of illegally sharing classified information.
He should get a fair trial and I’m comfortable letting the chips fall where they may, per our justice system.
I won’t deny it would make me sad if he were convicted. I know freeperville has long since decided to add what amounts to a DUmmies neighborhood.
I think John Bolton has always had a good read on foreign policy. But? If he lied? If he broke the law? He should be charged, he’ll have a day in court, and it doesn’t change anything for me.
I have principles. I do not trade them for ANY individual.
I am perfectly capable of simultaneously thinking John Bolton is “right” about a lot things while also saying that if he broke the law? He should be charged, tried, and proven? Pay for breaking the law.
I wish more of the country would feel the same way. Break the law, get charged, pay the price. I don’t care about sides or who said what about whom.
Hunter, Lateesha, now the ‘stach.
Wonder if Abbe is giving a volume discount.
Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.
“No refunds!” Atty Lowell
How do you explain being in possession of classified documents after you were fired in 2019? Since you were fired in 2019, why were those classified document emails still accessible in your AOL account to be hacked by Iran in 2021?
I never thought John Bolton had a “good read on foreign policy.” He made a career out of beclowning himself as a draft-dodging warmonger.
Do statute of limitations expire after two decades?
“If he broke the law? He should be charged”
It’s more right to say if he broke the law he should be convicted.
They passed a special law that temporarily extended the statute of limitations so E Jean Carroll could sue President Trump for an apocryphal rape.
If he’s broken the law
Indicted - tried - convicted - sentenced - incarcerated
I guess that’s the way people look at it now.
Used to be quite different.
But fine, like I said - I just want people to be principled, consistent, and honest.
Bolton’s opinions 20 years ago have nothing to do - to me - with how he lived 40 years ago.
I was a paper pusher - I’d never deny it - but I served my time, I reported where my orders said to report, etc.
Doesn’t matter... I think John Bolton was broadly right about how to handle the middle east. I certainly don’t think he was perfect - I absolutely agree he leaned far too much towards a hands-on, boots on the ground approach. And that was wrong.
But... I DO think he was fundamentally right that radical islam is incompatible with the modern world, the post-communist US had both a role and a *duty* to spread American-style freedom and capitalism in a post-Soviet vacuum, and it was in everyone’s best interests that the monarchies and theocracies of the post cold war world looked to the US as an example and path.
It didn’t work out. 15-20 years ago? We could discuss why. But what’s done is done.
But hating John Bolton because planning and execution didn’t work out?
Sorry. Won’t go there. Like I said, if he broke the law? I don’t care. He should pay for that.
But I’m not going to change my “principles* just because it’s no longer convenient and now, weirdly, the “right” or so-called conservatives hate John Bolton as much as the DUmmies did 20-25 years ago.
You want to say *they* were right? Go for it.
Actually?
No. I would disagree.
I’m not G-d. Nobody else here is, either.
I don’t wear blinders - and neither does our legal system, despite the gal in the blindfold.
We use standards like “reasonable doubt” because it acknowledges the imperfections and mistakes of human beings.
It’s a good system. “Better than all the other options”.
I’m comfortable leaving it to the courts. I might disagree with a verdict - regardless of which way it goes.
But - our system uses a benchmark because it *acknowledges* we aren’t g-d. That’s why we have a “reasonable doubt” standard, not an “absolute certainty” standard.
And now, through the Bolton indictment, it appears that Pence is involved in at least two instances. His name isn’t on the Bingo card, but there’s a good chance it should be there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.