Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Bolton's Lawyer volunteered in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that Bolton had violated both his NDA and perhaps a few criminal laws like the Espionage Act. Well, that's an interesting book publicity strategy   (thedailybeast.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Classified information, Security clearance, National security, Need to know, Espionage, classified information, John Bolton, prepublication review process  
•       •       •

2832 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 15 Jun 2020 at 10:04 AM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



80 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-06-15 9:46:05 AM  
Meh.  Laws are for chumps.

/and black people
 
2020-06-15 9:49:45 AM  
Maybe Biden will pardon him.
 
2020-06-15 9:52:54 AM  
His NDA is of very questionable legality
 
2020-06-15 9:54:18 AM  
I'm reading this as intentional.  Bolton is playing chicken with Trump and will probably win.
 
2020-06-15 9:58:08 AM  
Also, any prosecution under the espionage act would essentially be an admission to the facts that Bolton lays out in the book.  There might be some bluster but an actual prosecution will never happen.
 
2020-06-15 10:05:37 AM  

OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality


It's really not.
 
2020-06-15 10:07:23 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:07:35 AM  

OptionC: Also, any prosecution under the espionage act would essentially be an admission to the facts that Bolton lays out in the book.  There might be some bluster but an actual prosecution will never happen.


Which means that Trump is going to go ahead with it because he only cares about his ego right this second. And Bolton is saying mean things about him.
 
2020-06-15 10:09:03 AM  

Dork Gently: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

It's really not.


Yes, it is.
 
2020-06-15 10:09:40 AM  

OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality


The NDA he signed is with the federal government in order to have access to secrets. It is not questionable.
 
2020-06-15 10:10:22 AM  
There's no NDA for government service. That's a non-starter.

If Daniel Elsworth didn't commit espionage -- and he didn't -- it's doubtful if Bolton did. Embarrassment isn't a security issue, and the seeds of policy aren't state secrets.
 
2020-06-15 10:10:45 AM  

OptionC: Dork Gently: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

It's really not.

Yes, it is.


No, u.
 
2020-06-15 10:11:03 AM  
Hmmm...the old "have your lawyer preemptively admit to His client committing crimes"gambit.

Bolton is a completely corrupted human being who doesn't know which side is up.
He's the living embodiment of what George Orwell warned us about.
He's pathologically inverted.
 
2020-06-15 10:11:22 AM  

wejash: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

The NDA he signed is with the federal government in order to have access to secrets. It is not questionable.


The US does not have an Official Secrets Act.
 
2020-06-15 10:11:36 AM  

wejash: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

The NDA he signed is with the federal government in order to have access to secrets. It is not questionable.


Looks like they'll have to arrest him, then.
 
2020-06-15 10:12:58 AM  

OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality


As is the Espionage Act
 
2020-06-15 10:14:01 AM  

OptionC: Dork Gently: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

It's really not.

Yes, it is.


Everybody who gets a US security clearance signs at least one NDA as part of that process.  I understand that some control systems require people to sign additional NDAs to get access to the information in those control systems.

Why do you think is at all questionable?
 
2020-06-15 10:14:08 AM  

OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality


A lot of NDAs associated to Donald Trump, both as President and in his personal capacity, are dubious as all get out.

However, SF 312 is a different grade of beast entirely. That one's not a Trump NDA; it's Uncle Sam's very own NDA, with very, very big teeth.
 
2020-06-15 10:14:38 AM  

yakmans_dad: There's no NDA for government service. That's a non-starter.

If Daniel Elsworth didn't commit espionage -- and he didn't -- it's doubtful if Bolton did. Embarrassment isn't a security issue, and the seeds of policy aren't state secrets.


OFFS, there REALLY is an NDA for government farking service if you get access to classified info.

It is an SF-312.

It is on the farking internet.

You can go read it snd the booklet about it.  This is not complicated, unless you learn shiat only from comment boards.

https://fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html
 
2020-06-15 10:15:29 AM  
Who's his lawyer?  Rudy Giuliani?
 
2020-06-15 10:15:39 AM  
Bolton's Lawyer

We're capitalizing "Lawyer" now?
 
2020-06-15 10:17:13 AM  

Dork Gently: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

It's really not.


Absolutely is.  The idea that you can require the signing of what is a personal contract between Trump and Bolton as a condition precedent for a federal job, even a schedule C presidential appointment, is INCREDIBLY questionable.   To say nothing that I could make an excellent argument that such an NDA should be declared as "void as against public policy" given the value we place on government transparency
 
2020-06-15 10:18:26 AM  
So the lawyer supposed to be working FOR Bolton says that Bolton broke the law by having him (the lawyer) deliver the manuscript to be reviewed. Because the lawyer cannot legally see it before review.

Is that what I just read?

Who has just paid the lawyer a lot more money than Bolton could pay?
 
2020-06-15 10:19:26 AM  
Counterpoint: What if Bolton's revelation demonstrates treason on the part of the president? It seems to me that corrupt motive has always been considered deadly to executive privilege.
 
2020-06-15 10:20:26 AM  

abb3w: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

A lot of NDAs associated to Donald Trump, both as President and in his personal capacity, are dubious as all get out.

However, SF 312 is a different grade of beast entirely. That one's not a Trump NDA; it's Uncle Sam's very own NDA, with very, very big teeth.


The SF 312 covers classified information.  It isn't particularly clear that policy discussions are classified and the government is going to have a very hard time prosecuting if the administration is denying the discussions happened at all.
 
2020-06-15 10:20:38 AM  
Which Michael?  Checks article...crap.
 
2020-06-15 10:21:01 AM  

Magorn: Dork Gently: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

It's really not.

Absolutely is.  The idea that you can require the signing of what is a personal contract between Trump and Bolton as a condition precedent for a federal job, even a schedule C presidential appointment, is INCREDIBLY questionable.   To say nothing that I could make an excellent argument that such an NDA should be declared as "void as against public policy" given the value we place on government transparency


That's not the NDA in question.  The primary NDA in question is between the US government and anybody who wants access to classified information.  There is only one exception to needing to sign that NDA: the President.

And that NDA has real teeth.
 
2020-06-15 10:21:05 AM  

Magorn: Dork Gently: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

It's really not.

Absolutely is.  The idea that you can require the signing of what is a personal contract between Trump and Bolton as a condition precedent for a federal job, even a schedule C presidential appointment, is INCREDIBLY questionable.   To say nothing that I could make an excellent argument that such an NDA should be declared as "void as against public policy" given the value we place on government transparency


Now do the SF-312 since the artjcle isn't talking sbout a private NDA with Trump at all...
 
2020-06-15 10:21:32 AM  

dragonchild: Bolton's Lawyer

We're capitalizing "Lawyer" now?


As is only appropriate and overdue.

/iaaL
 
2020-06-15 10:21:35 AM  
Well, what do you expect from a war criminal?
 
2020-06-15 10:23:12 AM  

Magorn: As is the Espionage Act


Wait, what?

I mean, I'd pay money (...ok, not a lot...) to watch Bolton's lawyer try to use a Criminal Defense of Necessity on the violations; but maybe you have something else in mind?
 
2020-06-15 10:23:46 AM  

Magorn: Dork Gently: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

It's really not.

Absolutely is.  The idea that you can require the signing of what is a personal contract between Trump and Bolton as a condition precedent for a federal job, even a schedule C presidential appointment, is INCREDIBLY questionable.   To say nothing that I could make an excellent argument that such an NDA should be declared as "void as against public policy" given the value we place on government transparency


To clarify, since a lot of people seem to be arguing about 2 different things here:

The NDA Trump made his entire administration sign is likely legally unenforceable.

The SF 312, (Government's NDA), which Bolton had to sign to get security clearance, is legally enforceable and could get Bolton in a lot of trouble if he violated it.

The article doesn't seem to differentiate between the two very well, as it does appear at points to be talking about the SF 312 as the NDA, and at other points it looks to reference the Trump NDA.
 
2020-06-15 10:24:34 AM  

wejash: yakmans_dad: There's no NDA for government service. That's a non-starter.

If Daniel Elsworth didn't commit espionage -- and he didn't -- it's doubtful if Bolton did. Embarrassment isn't a security issue, and the seeds of policy aren't state secrets.

OFFS, there REALLY is an NDA for government farking service if you get access to classified info.

It is an SF-312.

It is on the farking internet.

You can go read it snd the booklet about it.  This is not complicated, unless you learn shiat only from comment boards.

https://fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html


As I said: political embarrassment is not a national security issue and policy discussions aren't state secrets.  There are stacks of political memoirs as tall as Terminal Tower. Do a Google search on the books of Richard Clarke.
 
2020-06-15 10:27:17 AM  

Magorn: The idea that you can require the signing of what is a personal contract between Trump and Bolton

wejash: Now do the SF-312 since the artjcle isn't talking sbout a private NDA with Trump at all...


The SF-312 being a contract between the signatory and the US Government; again, text of such contract appears to be here.
 
2020-06-15 10:28:06 AM  
As much as I'd like to see the Hate Walrus jailed with the rest of them, and it's likely that members of the transition team and administration have sold state secrets, the Espionage Act is not without an incredibly troubling history.

It's got similar foundations as the Patriot Act, and was used thousands of times to prosecute and jail Americans whose only "crime" was criticizing the government. It was so successful in punishing anti-war advocates during and after World War 1 that it was essentially the legal precursor to the McCarthy communist scares.

Long story short, if we're going to jail Bolton, do it on something real and verifiable, not just because his book criticized Trump a little. This seems like a quasi-legal PR move that his lawyer is doing to set Bolton up as a martyr in case of a legal battle with Trump, et al.
 
2020-06-15 10:29:16 AM  
I don't really understand how the fark Trump or anyone in his administration could have ever possibly even put a pen to an SF86 without it bursting into flames but sure. Let's worry about Bolton's book.

What a bunch of jackasses.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:00 AM  

OptionC: abb3w: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

A lot of NDAs associated to Donald Trump, both as President and in his personal capacity, are dubious as all get out.

However, SF 312 is a different grade of beast entirely. That one's not a Trump NDA; it's Uncle Sam's very own NDA, with very, very big teeth.

The SF 312 covers classified information.  It isn't particularly clear that policy discussions are classified and the government is going to have a very hard time prosecuting if the administration is denying the discussions happened at all.


LOL, it's great that the NDA didn't exist and now it does but it isn't relevant because the Internet knows what can and cannot be classified -- and is confident that a policy discussion did not involve actual, you know, factual information.

Door #3 is that Bolton is gambling he can cash in enough that losing his clearance (possibly forever) is worth it and that they won't really go after him for failing to fight the declassification battle the way the law is designed.  (Since he can't sell that book in 2 years to anyone except historians.)

While being a sanctimonious ass about others who release classified info for ideological or ethical reasons.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:03 AM  

Magorn: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

As is the Espionage Act


How so? (Regarding the espionage act)
 
2020-06-15 10:31:47 AM  
It amazes me how many expert national-security lawyers we have here as Fark members who know so much more than someone who does this for a living and wrote the opinion piece.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:50 AM  
So, as I read this:  Trump has damaging information published about him by a right-wing icon.

Bolton goes to jail.

What's not to like?
 
2020-06-15 10:35:34 AM  

OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality


The validity is not questionable - it is completely invalid.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:56 AM  

yakmans_dad: wejash: yakmans_dad: There's no NDA for government service. That's a non-starter.

If Daniel Elsworth didn't commit espionage -- and he didn't -- it's doubtful if Bolton did. Embarrassment isn't a security issue, and the seeds of policy aren't state secrets.

OFFS, there REALLY is an NDA for government farking service if you get access to classified info.

It is an SF-312.

It is on the farking internet.

You can go read it snd the booklet about it.  This is not complicated, unless you learn shiat only from comment boards.

https://fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html

As I said: political embarrassment is not a national security issue and policy discussions aren't state secrets.  There are stacks of political memoirs as tall as Terminal Tower. Do a Google search on the books of Richard Clarke.


Betcha a dollar Clarke's books were cleared by the agencies that he worked for.

Because in your world "policy debates" occur without ANT information?

I mean, I guess in your world where you can declare there is no government NDA, sure.

The absence of actual facts seems not to deter your debating but, bluntly, not all "policy discussions" are as devoid of facts as the Internet.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:18 AM  

wejash: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

The NDA he signed is with the federal government in order to have access to secrets. It is not questionable.


There is no such NDA.  There is the NDA Trump got some people to sign an then there is US law and work directives and policies guided by said law.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:47 AM  

yakmans_dad: There's no NDA for government service. That's a non-starter.

If Daniel Elsworth didn't commit espionage -- and he didn't -- it's doubtful if Bolton did. Embarrassment isn't a security issue, and the seeds of policy aren't state secrets.


This.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:11 AM  

wejash: SF-312


That's not what we are talking about.  They are talking about personal NDAs Trump got people around him to sign.  Those are completely invalid.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:29 AM  

Driedsponge: The SF 312, (Government's NDA), which Bolton had to sign to get security clearance, is legally enforceable and could get Bolton in a lot of trouble if he violated it.

Oh, goodness.  Susan Collins might get deeply concerned.  Pelosi's House might even issue a subpoena!  Good thing the DoJ is on top of things.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:45 AM  

wejash: yakmans_dad: wejash: yakmans_dad: There's no NDA for government service. That's a non-starter.

If Daniel Elsworth didn't commit espionage -- and he didn't -- it's doubtful if Bolton did. Embarrassment isn't a security issue, and the seeds of policy aren't state secrets.

OFFS, there REALLY is an NDA for government farking service if you get access to classified info.

It is an SF-312.

It is on the farking internet.

You can go read it snd the booklet about it.  This is not complicated, unless you learn shiat only from comment boards.

https://fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html

As I said: political embarrassment is not a national security issue and policy discussions aren't state secrets.  There are stacks of political memoirs as tall as Terminal Tower. Do a Google search on the books of Richard Clarke.

Betcha a dollar Clarke's books were cleared by the agencies that he worked for.

Because in your world "policy debates" occur without ANT information?

I mean, I guess in your world where you can declare there is no government NDA, sure.

The absence of actual facts seems not to deter your debating but, bluntly, not all "policy discussions" are as devoid of facts as the Internet.


Bolton's book has been vetted for a long time now.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:24 AM  

OptionC: It isn't particularly clear that policy discussions are classified


That's an argument that might be made, but I doubt the courts would buy that. Further, FTA:
Which brings us to the key argument: Bolton says the manuscript contained no classified information, while the White House says it did. This might be enough to allow Bolton to defeat an Espionage Act charge, but that's not a sure thing. Some aspects of the Espionage Act do not require active knowledge that information is classified, but instead include a lesser standard which is best summed up as "they should have known better." And it is extremely difficult to defeat an Espionage Act charge based on the argument that "the information should not have been classified." It has been done, but it is exceedingly rare and requires almost a perfect storm of mistakes on the government's part. The reason is that courts almost religiously defer to the executive branch on classification matters, so a judge will almost always overrule a defendant who challenges the classification of information, primarily because the actual scope of what can be classified is much broader than most people realize. Additionally, it should not be overlooked that the Espionage Act does not actually mention "classified information," but only "national defense information," which does not always have to be classified.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:55 AM  

OptionC: Dork Gently: OptionC: His NDA is of very questionable legality

It's really not.

Yes, it is.


No it's not.

i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:46:11 AM  
My dream scenario: The book hurts trump AND Bolton goes to jail for writing it.
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.