Secrets and Laws Profile picture
Sep 15, 2020 11 tweets 3 min read Read on X
I seriously doubt a prosecutor would want to charge Bolton for what's in his book. Even if it contained classified, the fact that the lead NSC classification official told him she did not believe it contained classified info would be enough to tank a successful prosecution. 1/
Instead it looks like DOJ may be focused on going after Bolton for what he shared with S&S in the early draft manuscripts, which presumably contained much more class info.  This may be facially legitimate since it's an unauthorized disclosure, but it would be unprecedented. /2
To my knowledge DOJ has never prosecuted someone for sharing with their publisher (or a ghost author) too early in the pre-publication review process. The dirty secret is that this happens ALL THE TIME, esp. with former senior officials, and the gov't turns a blind eye to it.  /3
To be clear, the government tells authors not to share drafts with publishers or co-authors prior to clearance, but it still happens ALL THE TIME and the gov't doesn't do anything.  These former officials aren't writing these books on their own. /4
Thus, going after Bolton for disclosing classified info to his publisher would be unprecedented and would raise serious selective prosecution issues (combined with everything Trump has said), even if that's normally a losing defense. /5
Also curious to know whether DOJ followed the media guidelines in issuing a subpoena to S&S for its communications with Botlon. It would depend on whether DOJ considered them to be "news media" under its regs. Arguably they are, but DOJ presumably determined otherwise.  /6
If Simon & Shuster was considered to be "news media," Barr would have to sign off on the subpoena, and DOJ would need to show that it couldn't obtain the records from other sources (otherwise they would be cumulative and not essential as required by regs).  /7
Here, Bolton should have copies of what he shared with Simon & Shuster -- so unless he destroyed them, DOJ could get them from him without going to S&S.  This leads me to believe DOJ is not applying the media guidelines, not faithfully at least. /8
Although the possibility that Bolton may have destroyed those records and therefore Simon & Shuster is the best source should not be completely dismissed. /9
To be clear: Bolton has acted in a dishonorable and inappropriate manner, both with impeachment and in the publication of his book. But disgorgement of profits is the appropriate remedy for the latter, unless we are going to start prosecuting every former who does the same thing.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Secrets and Laws

Secrets and Laws Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @secretsandlaws

Jul 14
I've been obsessed with Trump saying he "wished her well" regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, and how neither the media nor Dems have made an issue about it. It turns out @jonathanvswan did ask him about back in 2020, and holy shit, his answer then is even worse. Follow along.
Here's the full video. Jump to the 25:40 mark & prepare to be amazed. It's worse than you could imagine. Rather than taking Swan's invitation to clarify, Trump doubles down, repeatedly expressing sympathy for her in light of her boyfriend's demise.

"I'm not looking for anything bad for her," Trump notes, while also stating that we need to let the criminal process play out. It's classic Trump - he's always sympathizing with the plight of criminals & never pre-judges their cases.

Here's the full transcript. It's something. Image
Read 6 tweets
Jul 7
I finally had time to analyze the recent CIA report about the "ICA" regarding Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.

It's a very important document, as it shows that the leadership of the CIA's Directorate of Analysis is now engaging in politics, undermining all trust in it.
People like @DCIARatcliffe and @DDCIAEllis have used the report to reinvigorate all their favorite grievances about the "Deep State" and the 2016 election. They are doing this even though the report itself does nothing to undermine the conclusion that Russia actively sought to harm Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, an unprecedented attack on our sovereignty by an enemy of the United States.

x.com/DCIARatcliffe/…
Ratcliffe and Ellis have also touted the fact that the report was written by "career" CIA officers -- the head of the Directorate of Analysis, normally a career official, is listed as the author. That may be the case. But if true, it shows that the leadership of that office has now chosen to be pawns in a partisan political debate. Given this, I'm not sure we can trust any future analysis coming out of that office. If they'll bend their standards for Trump and Ratcliffe here, why wouldn't they do it on any other topic?
Read 17 tweets
Jul 7
Nothing to see here. Just the CIA Deputy Director, @michaeljayellis, promoting a Breitbart article suggesting that former Director Brennan be prosecuted for perjury. Rather than rise to the office he holds, it looks like Ellis has decided to be a political hack. Amateur hour. Image
Another reason it's amateur hour is that neither the recent CIA paper nor the Breibart article actually mention what Brennan told SSCI. They'd both get an F if one was grading their work, as would Ellis for promoting it.
Here's the evidence; you can judge for yourself. On the left is what the recent CIA paper says (which, notably, is unsourced). The next two screenshots are from @SecRubio's very detailed report about the ICA.

So it looks like Brennan told SSCI that while he had some concerns about including it, he ultimately decided to relent to Comey and the FBI, who insisted on including it for the sake of completeness. I'm having trouble seeing how that's perjury if the allegation in the CIA paper is that Brennan ultimately supported its inclusion. That's what he told SSCI. Relenting = a decision to include it.Image
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 29
There's a myth spreading in the MAGA-sphere saying that since Hegseth is an Original Classification Authority (OCA), whatever he says goes in terms of classification. That's a red herring, for reasons I'll explain.

The war plan information was likely first classified by CENTCOM.
CENTCOM officials would classify this information derivatively, using the CENTCOM classification guide, which is required by DOD classification policy. As explained below, the CENTCOM classification guide would have treated this information as SECRET.

So once this information reached Hegseth's desk, it would have already been classified as SECRET. There was no "original" classification decision to be made at this point. The only action he could have taken at this point was to affirmatively declassify it.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 26
On the left: Hegseth's message.

On the right: the applicable CENTCOM classification guide provisions.

This is all very plainly classified at the SECRET level.

They all lied. They should all lose their jobs. Image
As @BradMossEsq points out, this message from Walz reveals that the USG had real-time coverage of one of the targets at a very time. If this came from an IC asset, this would be classified at the SECRET or TOP SECRET level, per the ODNI classification guide. Image
Image
@BradMossEsq While I don't think it would be controlling necessarily, the ODNI classification guide also makes it pretty clear that information about military planning like this is classified, at the TOP SECRET level. Image
Read 4 tweets
Oct 9, 2024
It took a while, but I finally got the For You tab to look less like Stormfront & more like a regular feed. I spent two days clicking "Not Interested in this post" on over 100 right-wing accounts that Elon kept resurfacing. After an epic battle, I finally defeated the algorithm.
It really was a battle. As you've experienced, prior to doing this I usually saw some combination of Elon, Vivek, Vance, CatTurd, or some other freak of the week in three of the first four posts, and then it the feed became more mixed between incel & regular content after that.
This was especially strange for me, because I follow only one or two right-wing accounts. I don't look like a good target. Anyway, the algorithm did not make it easy. I'd click "Not interested" in several Elon posts in short succession, and the algorithm kept resurfacing them.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(