"...feels like an abuse of power."

"The idea that this whole book is being held up after an extensive process feels like an abuse of power."

I spoke with @ThePlumLineGS for his great new @PostOpinions piece on the Trump administration's effort to silence John Bolton: https://t.co/tWlMN0DJ4k

— Joshua A. Geltzer (@jgeltzer) June 17, 2020

This is precisely why we have a court system, and hearings, and a trial.

The thin reed of the DOJ suit against Bolton (but not his publisher!) is that the review process has not been completed.  Well, that's an issue for the finder of fact, meaning:  is it true, or is it false?  And, importantly, among other questions, was the review carried out in good faith, or to punish Bolton and/or protect Trump?

In an interview, Joshua Geltzer, a senior NSC official from 2015 to 2017, pointed to serious problems with this account. Geltzer noted that a career government official with experience in this sort of vetting did the first review, and that she cleared the book after an extensive process.

It was only after that, Geltzer pointed out, that the delays suddenly started taking place without explanation. And as Geltzer also noted, the official doing that second vetting — Michael Ellis, the NSC’s senior director for intelligence — is a political appointee.

Importantly, Geltzer points out, the lawsuit itself acknowledges that this second review took place “at the request” of the current national security adviser, Robert O’Brien.

“The claim by the government that the process was still ongoing does not feel in good faith,” Geltzer told me. “The official with genuine expertise had already weighed in. Bolton seemed to be getting the runaround with the goal of simply delay.”

Maybe it is in good faith; maybe not; that's what trials are for.

It doesn’t matter if Bolton’s views are loathsome (which they are), or that Bolton should have disclosed information during impeachment (which he should have). At issue is something much bigger: whether Trump and/or his loyalists are manipulating a process designed to balance competing public-interest imperatives, all to protect him politically.

Given all we’ve seen from Trump, and given the thinness of this lawsuit’s account, that seems more likely than not. And this is crying out for more scrutiny. 

Well, unless DOJ pulls a "Flynn" and decides they don't want to prosecute this case after all (nothing to stop them from dropping the case at any time), those revelations are going to come out.  The curious thing, and what really undermines this effort by the DOJ, is the complete failure to seek an injunction, or any relief that would prevent the publication of this "classified information."  If that were truly a risk, the DOJ would be claiming Bolton's revelations were tantamount of espionage and treason and go hammer and tongs to have the book impounded and shredded instanter.

They aren't doing that.  Instead, they are asking the court to tell Bolton to tell Simon & Schuster to please not release the book and to call it back and to order all copies, wherever located, destroyed, pretty pretty please.  AND TO DO THAT AFTER A TRIAL AND ONLY IF THE DOJ WINS. If that sounds like DOJ is trying to push a noodle, and not trying very hard to pust it at that, it's because that's precisely what they are doing.  If this book represented a true threat to national security, the TRO would already have been delivered to New York.  It doesn't, DOJ knows they can't prove it does, so they wave their hands in the air, get people talking about "prior restraint" (when they aren't restraining anything), and the only relief they ask of the court that could possibly be granted is all the money Bolton got paid or will get paid for this thing.  They aren't even protecting Trump politically:  the book is coming out, there's no reason for it not to.

Maybe that's why they are helping sales like this, hm?  I'm really curious as to how many Amazon has already pre-sold.

In a trial, DOJ has the burden of proof (not unlike a criminal case, Bolton doesn't have to prove anything).  They have to prove the information is classified, that the review process was carried out properly (in good faith, etc.), that security concerns are legitimate, etc.   They will have to do this in court, and they are willing to wait for trial to do it all.  A trial which is probably a year away, at best (civil discovery is a long process; been there, done that, though it was two lifetimes ago).  Bolton will be entitled to seek a deposition of Trump, etc.  This turkey is not meant to be roasted, just to appease the Audience of One.

Which, as I keep coming back to, is the worst part of all.  It's an abuse of power, but it's such a pitiful one.  Then again, Watergate was predicated on a really pitiful idea of breaking into the offices of the DNC.  Stupider things have happened in American political history.