President Donald has directly weighed in on the White House review of a forthcoming book by his former national security adviser, telling his staff that he views John Bolton as “a traitor,” that everything he uttered to the departed aide about national security is classified and that he will seek to block the book’s publication, according to two people familiar with the conversations.
The president’s private arguments stand in contrast to the point-by-point process used to classify and protect sensitive secrets and appears to differ from the White House’s public posture toward Mr Bolton’s much-anticipated memoir. The National Security Council warned Mr Bolton last month that his draft “appears to contain significant amounts of classified information,” some of it top secret, but pledged to help him revise the manuscript and “move forward as expeditiously as possible.”
“We will do our best to work with you to ensure your client’s ability to tell his story in a manner that protects US national security,” Ellen Knight, senior director of the council’s records office, wrote in a 23 January letter to Bolton’s attorney.
Download the new Independent Premium app
Sharing the full story, not just the headlines
Download now
But the president has insisted to aides that Bolton’s account of his work in president’s White House, “The Room Where It Happened,” should not see the light of day before the November election, according to the two people familiar with the conversations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.
Mr has told his lawyers that Mr Bolton should not be allowed to publish any of his interactions with Mr about national security because they are privileged and classified, these people said. He has also repeatedly brought up the book with his team, asking whether Mr Bolton is going to be able to publish it, they said.
left
Created with Sketch.
right
Created with Sketch.
1/26 Donald
Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails – a key factor in the 2016 election – may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why.
EPA
2/26 The Whistleblower
Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable.
Expected to give eence to Congress voluntarily and in secret.
Getty
3/26 The Second Whistleblower
The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President’s actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community’s inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower.
Getty
4/26 Rudy Giuliani
Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As’s personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the president’s enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a “shadow” foreign policy.
In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on’s behalf and has called himself a “hero”.
AP
5/26 Volodymyr Zelensky
The newly elected Ukrainian president – a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident – is seen frantically agreeing with in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House.
With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation.
He says there was no pressure on him from to do him the “favour” he was asked for.
Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin.
AFP/Getty
6/26 Mike Pence
The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later.
However, announced that Pence had had “one or two” phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with’s actions.
It has been speculated that involved Pence as an insurance policy – if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow.
AP
7/26 Rick Perry
Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didn’t even want to.
The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas – although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year.
Getty
8/26 Joe Biden
The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him’s opponent in the 2020 election.
Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Biden’s son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done.
However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant.
Reuters
9/26 Hunter Biden
Joe Biden’s son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, has yet to produce any eence of corruption and Biden’s lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong.
AP
10/26 William Barr
The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up’s preoccupations with the Biden’s and the Clinton emails.
Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a “cover-up of a cover-up”.
AP
11/26 Mike Pompeo
The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call – but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time.
He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works.
Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was “in the loop” and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president.
AFP via Getty
12/26 Nancy Pelosi
The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: “The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.”
Getty
13/26 Adam Schiff
Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry.
He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a “parody” of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call.
He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint.
The Washington Post awarded Schiff a “four Pinocchios” rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement.
Reuters
14/26 Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman
Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October.
Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine’s gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts.
Reuters
15/26 William Taylor
The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff – later identified as diplomat Da Holmes – overheard a phone conversation in which Donald could be heard asking about “investigations” the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against’s opponents, saying: “It’s one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It’s another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance — security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support.”
16/26 George Kent
A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr’s personal lawyer, of leading a “campaign of lies” against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats.
17/26 Marie Yovanovitch
One of the most striking witnesses to give eence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack “very intimidating”. had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: “She’s going to go through some things.”
Yovanovitch said she was “shocked, appalled and devastated” by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation.
REUTERS
18/26 Alexander Vindman
A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his eence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment.
One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to’s 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank.
19/26 Jennifer Williams
A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it “unusual” because it focused on domestic politics in terms of asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents.
20/26 Kurt Volker
The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving eence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without eence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraine’s reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest.
21/26 Tim Morrison
An expert on the National Security Council and another witness on the Republican list. He testified that he did not think the president had done anything illegal but admitted that he feared it would create a political storm if it became public. He said he believed the moving the record of the controversial 25 July phone call to a top security server had been an innocent mistake.
22/26 Gordon Sondland
In explosive testimony, one of the men at the centre of the scandal got right to the point in his opening testimony: “Was there a quid pro quo? Yes,” said the US ambassador to the EU who was a prime mover in efforts in Ukraine to link the release of military aid with investigations into the president’s political opponents. He said that everyone knew what was going on, implicating vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo. The effect of his eence is perhaps best illustrated by the reaction of Mr who went from calling Sondland a “great American” a few weeks earlier to claiming that he barely knew him.
AP
23/26 Laura Cooper
A Pentagon official, Cooper said Ukrainian officials knew that US aid was being withheld before it became public knowledge in August – undermining a Republican argument that there can’t have been a quid pro quo between aid and investigations if the Ukrainians didn’t know that aid was being withheld.
24/26 Da Hale
The third most senior official at the state department. Hale testified about the treatment of Marie Yovanovitch and the smear campaign that culminated in her being recalled from her posting as US ambassador to Ukraine. He said: “I believe that she should have been able to stay at post and continue to do the outstanding work.”
EPA
25/26 Fiona Hill
Arguably the most confident and self-possessed of the witnesses in the public hearings phase, the Durham-born former NSC Russia expert began by warning Republicans not to keep repeating Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. In a distinctive northeastern English accent, Dr Hill went on to describe how she had argued with Gordon Sondland about his interference in Ukraine matters until she realised that while she and her colleagues were focused on national security, Sondland was “being involved in a domestic political errand”.
She said: “I did say to him, ‘Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, this is going to blow up’. And here we are.”
AP
26/26 Da Holmes
The Ukraine-based diplomat described being in a restaurant in Kiev with Gordon Sondland while the latter phoned Donald. Holmes said he could hear the president on the other end of the line – because his voice was so “loud and distinctive” and because Sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear – asking about the “investigations” and whether the Ukrainian president would cooperate.
REUTERS
1/26 Donald
Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails – a key factor in the 2016 election – may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why.
EPA
2/26 The Whistleblower
Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable.
Expected to give eence to Congress voluntarily and in secret.
Getty
3/26 The Second Whistleblower
The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President’s actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community’s inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower.
Getty
4/26 Rudy Giuliani
Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As’s personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the president’s enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a “shadow” foreign policy.
In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on’s behalf and has called himself a “hero”.
AP
5/26 Volodymyr Zelensky
The newly elected Ukrainian president – a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident – is seen frantically agreeing with in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House.
With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation.
He says there was no pressure on him from to do him the “favour” he was asked for.
Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin.
AFP/Getty
6/26 Mike Pence
The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later.
However, announced that Pence had had “one or two” phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with’s actions.
It has been speculated that involved Pence as an insurance policy – if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow.
AP
7/26 Rick Perry
Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didn’t even want to.
The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas – although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year.
Getty
8/26 Joe Biden
The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him’s opponent in the 2020 election.
Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Biden’s son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done.
However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant.
Reuters
9/26 Hunter Biden
Joe Biden’s son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, has yet to produce any eence of corruption and Biden’s lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong.
AP
10/26 William Barr
The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up’s preoccupations with the Biden’s and the Clinton emails.
Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a “cover-up of a cover-up”.
AP
11/26 Mike Pompeo
The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call – but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time.
He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works.
Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was “in the loop” and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president.
AFP via Getty
12/26 Nancy Pelosi
The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: “The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.”
Getty
13/26 Adam Schiff
Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry.
He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a “parody” of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call.
He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint.
The Washington Post awarded Schiff a “four Pinocchios” rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement.
Reuters
14/26 Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman
Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October.
Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine’s gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts.
Reuters
15/26 William Taylor
The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff – later identified as diplomat Da Holmes – overheard a phone conversation in which Donald could be heard asking about “investigations” the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against’s opponents, saying: “It’s one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It’s another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance — security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support.”
16/26 George Kent
A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr’s personal lawyer, of leading a “campaign of lies” against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats.
17/26 Marie Yovanovitch
One of the most striking witnesses to give eence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack “very intimidating”. had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: “She’s going to go through some things.”
Yovanovitch said she was “shocked, appalled and devastated” by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation.
REUTERS
18/26 Alexander Vindman
A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his eence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment.
One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to’s 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank.
19/26 Jennifer Williams
A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it “unusual” because it focused on domestic politics in terms of asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents.
20/26 Kurt Volker
The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving eence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without eence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraine’s reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest.
21/26 Tim Morrison
An expert on the National Security Council and another witness on the Republican list. He testified that he did not think the president had done anything illegal but admitted that he feared it would create a political storm if it became public. He said he believed the moving the record of the controversial 25 July phone call to a top security server had been an innocent mistake.
22/26 Gordon Sondland
In explosive testimony, one of the men at the centre of the scandal got right to the point in his opening testimony: “Was there a quid pro quo? Yes,” said the US ambassador to the EU who was a prime mover in efforts in Ukraine to link the release of military aid with investigations into the president’s political opponents. He said that everyone knew what was going on, implicating vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo. The effect of his eence is perhaps best illustrated by the reaction of Mr who went from calling Sondland a “great American” a few weeks earlier to claiming that he barely knew him.
AP
23/26 Laura Cooper
A Pentagon official, Cooper said Ukrainian officials knew that US aid was being withheld before it became public knowledge in August – undermining a Republican argument that there can’t have been a quid pro quo between aid and investigations if the Ukrainians didn’t know that aid was being withheld.
24/26 Da Hale
The third most senior official at the state department. Hale testified about the treatment of Marie Yovanovitch and the smear campaign that culminated in her being recalled from her posting as US ambassador to Ukraine. He said: “I believe that she should have been able to stay at post and continue to do the outstanding work.”
EPA
25/26 Fiona Hill
Arguably the most confident and self-possessed of the witnesses in the public hearings phase, the Durham-born former NSC Russia expert began by warning Republicans not to keep repeating Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. In a distinctive northeastern English accent, Dr Hill went on to describe how she had argued with Gordon Sondland about his interference in Ukraine matters until she realised that while she and her colleagues were focused on national security, Sondland was “being involved in a domestic political errand”.
She said: “I did say to him, ‘Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, this is going to blow up’. And here we are.”
AP
26/26 Da Holmes
The Ukraine-based diplomat described being in a restaurant in Kiev with Gordon Sondland while the latter phoned Donald. Holmes said he could hear the president on the other end of the line – because his voice was so “loud and distinctive” and because Sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear – asking about the “investigations” and whether the Ukrainian president would cooperate.
REUTERS
Mr told national television anchors on 4 February during an off-the-record lunch that material in the book was “highly classified,” according to notes from one participant in the luncheon. He then called him a “traitor.”
“We’re going to try and block the publication of the book,” Mr said, according to the notes. “After I leave office, he can do this. But not in the White House.”
“I give the guy a break. I give him a job. And then he turns on me,” Mr added during the West Wing lunch. “He’s just making things up.”
Read more
Mr Bolton’s book has promised to unveil key, first-person moments between Mr Bolton and Mr that were at the heart of the president’s handling of Ukraine, a saga that led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives.
In a recent appearance at Vanderbilt University, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice attacked Mr Bolton for failing to testify in the impeachment hearings and said she “couldn’t imagine” withholding critical information from the American people to preserve it for a book. Mr Bolton insisted his testimony would not have changed the Senate‘s impeachment vote.
No hype, just the advice and analysis you need
As the Senate launched a trial in late January on the House’s charges that Mr abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress, the New York Times reported it had learned a key detail alleged by Bolton in his manuscript: that Mr told him he was conditioning the release of military aid to Ukraine on whether its government would help investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son.
Mr responded to that story on Jan. 27 by tweeting that he “NEVER told John Bolton that aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into the Bidens or Democrats.”
Democrats demanded that Mr Bolton be summoned to testify in the Senate trial, but Republicans rejected those calls.
A person close to Mr Bolton said he has grown concerned in recent weeks that the White House has appeared to claim that broad categories of to are classified, without clearly identifying or articulating the reasons for that level of protection. A separate person close to Mr Bolton said the team anticipates the possibility of a long legal battle over the issue.
Read more
Mr Bolton’s lawyer, Charles Cooper, declined to comment Friday on the claim of classified material and the president’s pledge to block the book’s release.
“The NSC’s pre publication review of Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript is proceeding,” Mr Cooper said. “Ambassador Bolton is continuing to pursue it in good faith. We have nothing to say beyond that.”
In many ways, Mr Bolton remains a captive of the White House review process. He has earned a reported seven-figure advance for his account from publisher Simon & Schuster, which has planned to release the book on March 17.
But Mr Bolton would take a huge legal risk – including the possibility of a criminal investigation – if he published his manuscript without the National Security Council’s final approval.
Former US national security adviser John Bolton speaks during his lecture at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina (Jonathan Drake/Reuters)
There is recent precedent to give Bolton and his lawyers reason to pause. A former Navy SEAL wrote a 2012 book about his role in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, triggering a Justice Department criminal investigation into allegations he published classified details of his work and training as a special operator.
In a 2016 settlement, Matt Bissonnette, who wrote “No Easy Day” under the pen name Mark Owen, agreed to turn over to the government all the profits and future royalties stemming from his book – which amounted to at least $6.6 million (£5.1m) at the time. As part of the deal, Mr Bissonnette acknowledged he failed to get his manuscript properly cleared by the Pentagon. In exchange, the Justice Department agreed to dismiss any other claims and drop any plans to prosecute him for the release of classified information.
Robert Luskin, the lawyer who represented Bissonnette after he came under investigation, said Mr Bolton can challenge the White House review but it is unclear how he might fare.
“The challenge for Bolton is that the president has pretty broad power to classify or declassify; but once the manuscript has actually been submitted for review, Bolton would have the right to challenge undue delay or purely capricious or vindictive exercises of the government’s authority to review and require changes,” Mr Luskin said. “He could get judicial review, but the process would not be fast and the rules not especially clear.”
The Washington Post
