Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Just Human Profile picture
@realjusthuman
Nov 22 • 19 tweets • 5 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
🧵United States v. Bolton

This case is going to go on for at least another year...

And there could be additional charges. Image
A Joint Status Report filed ahead of a Status Conference (held Friday) indicates that the bulk of discovery in this case will be classified.
That means CIPA (Classified Information Procedures Act) and counsel, plus others involved in the case, will need the appropriate clearances.

It's going to take some time. Months. Image
No trial date is currently set.

A proposed CIPA schedule takes us well into the fall of 2026. Image
At the Friday Status Conference, lead prosecutor Thomas Sullivan, who is the Chief of the National Security and Cybercrime Section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, told Judge Chuang that "potential other charges" are possible. Image
The intelligence community is still going through the classified material related to the case AND...

A "filter team" is needed to go through material that could be attorney-client privileged. Image
Did Bolton also send classified information to his attorney? Or to others via his attorney?

It's a method of transmission we have seen before.
The indictment says he sent the "diary-like entries" to Individuals 1 and 2 (assumed to be his wife and daughter).

But it also mentions a "representative for Bolton" notifying the Gov't of the hack of Bolton's AOL account by the Iranians. Image
The language used can be read to indicate that the "representative" was aware of both the classified information in the email account and that Bolton had shared classified information with Individuals 1 and 2.

But it does not directly state that he was or wasn't. Image
Here's the section of the indictment that describes Bolton's representative alerting the FBI to the hack.

The hacker sent an email to both Bolton and the representative, telling them to

"Contact me before it's too late..." Image
The email included "content" from Bolton's email as attachments, which the representative described to the FBI as potentially containing "sensitive information."
By "recent acquittal," I think the hacker is referring to the stipulated dismissal of the action the US took against Bolton over his book containing classified information.

That dismissal was filed June 16, 2021, just weeks before the hack was reported.
The "expurgated sections of your book" would, I think, be the portions Bolton had agreed to remove from the book per the agreement with the US Gov. Image
Bolton also shared "drafts of portions of his book with his publisher and literary agent "via a non-governmental messaging application." Image
I wonder if the "expurgated sections of your book" the Iran hacker brought up and attached in the email to both Bolton and his representative are those "draft" sections of Bolton's book that Bolton sent the publisher and literary agent.
If true, that would mean he sent classified information to others beyond Individuals 1 and 2.
The representative emailed the FBI on behalf of Bolton, and those communications concern events central to the charges.

The "filter team" will set aside what's attorney-client privileged and what isn't.
But I wonder if Bolton also sent classified information to that representative.

Or to others via his representative.
Links

Indictment
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Joint Status Report
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Hill article
thehill.com/regulation/cou…

• • •

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

Keep Current with Just Human

Just Human 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 @realjusthuman

Just Human Profile picture
Nov 21
🧵United States v. Comey

Another filing from Halligan seeking to clarify the grand jury proceedings that have been the focus of scrutiny over recent days and really, since day one in this case—as the just-filed Transcript of Return of Grand Jury Indictment Proceedings shows. Image
For reference, here are the "no true bill" 3-count and the "true bill" 2-count indictments.

As you can see, Count Two and, uh, the other Count Two of the 3-count are IDENTICAL to Count One and Count Two of the 2-count.

Both were filed, as both were presented in open court. Image
Image
The notice accompanying the transcript says

"The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes [the] claim [that there was an issue with the grand jury voting process] and establishes that the grand jury voted on—and true-billed—the two-count indictment."Image
Read 25 tweets
Just Human Profile picture
Nov 20
🧵United States v. Comey

NEW filing by US Attorney Halligan clarifies that "the foreperson of the grand jury 'reported that 12 or more grand jurors did not concur in finding an indictment' as to proposed 'Count 1 only,'" but did concur on Counts 2 & 3.

So she made an edit. Image
The 3-count indictment was edited into a 2-count indictment, numbers adjusted, and the foreperson signed the new one. Image
"Fed. R. Crim. P. [] Rule 6 simply does not require a successive-voting procedure where there is a mixed return from the grand jury on a multi-count indictment." Image
Read 9 tweets
Just Human Profile picture
Nov 19
🧵United States v. Comey

"There is no indictment."

It appears, based on filings and testimony from Halligan and her office, that the two-count indictment against James Comey was not properly presented and returned by the full grand jury. Image
Covered this issue in this thread beginning here
And in this video

Read 4 tweets
Just Human Profile picture
Nov 18
🧵United States v. Comey

Hours after Mag. Judge Fitzpatrick's Order (see quoted thread for info), prosecutors filed an emergency motion to STAY the Order.

Defense responded in opposition.

Judge Nachmanoff GRANTED IN PART, staying the order and setting a schedule to resolve. Image
It says GRANTED IN PART.

What is the IN PART aspect to this?

Keep reading.
Prosecutors filed the emergency motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Pro 59(a), which allows for a party before a magistrate judge to object to orders within 14 days. The district judge, who is Nachmanoff, must then consider the objection and "modify or set aside any part of the order that is contrary to law or clearly erroneous."

Even though the rule allows for 14 days, prosecutors are asking for just one week.Image
Read 25 tweets
Just Human Profile picture
Nov 17
🧵United States v. Comey

**HUGE WIN FOR COMEY**

Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick once again finds that disclosure of grand jury materials is warranted in this case.

Orders DOJ to turn ALL grand jury materials over to the defense by 3pm today and all audio recordings by 5pm today. Image
What got us here is a bit complicated, but I have covered it in several threads and videos over the past few weeks and am not at all surprised by this order.

If you want to avoid reactionary takes and understand what is going on in United States v. Comey—I'm your guy. : )
There are three judges involved in the Comey case.

Nachmanoff is the district judge handling the criminal case. He has brought in two other judges to handle sensitive issues. This was done in accordance with the rules.
Read 45 tweets
Just Human Profile picture
Nov 17
United States v. Arnold et al.

NEW: Federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment last week in the criminal case against a North Texas Antifa Cell.

The case is remarkable because it is the first time an Antifa group has been hit with terrorism charges. Image
On the night of July 4, 2025, near Alvarado, Texas, the Prairieland ICE Detention Facility, vehicles at the facility, federal agents, and responding Alvarado police officers were attacked by a group of almost a dozen people.

The attack was part vandalism, part ambush. Image
It was a coordinated assault, with several groups of attackers.

One group used fireworks to distract/disorient/suppress law enforcement, while another group vandalized structures and vehicles, and yet another group ambushed law enforcement with firearms. Image
Read 24 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!

Send Email!

:(