Bolton2 bak rcvr

1 25 TRUMP RETALIATION

main 2 grey tags

===

AN 1 25

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has denied the Department of Justice’s request to share Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on his investigation into Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents with Congress. Her order came just hours after now-President Trump signed an executive order to hold former government officials accountable for “unauthorized disclosure” of “sensitive” information, and “for election interference.”

Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee whose rulings have been highly criticized, refused to allow members of Congress to review Smith’s final report. Trump was investigated for alleged unlawful removal, retention, and refusal to return sensitive, classified, and top secret documents, reportedly including nuclear and defense secrets. The FBI executed a lawful search warrant on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence to retrieve some of the documents.

Part of her reasoning, Politico’s Kyle Cheney reports, is that Congress “hasn’t asked for it and it’s not clear they need it, she says.”

“The ruling will make it easier for Trump to bury the report on the special counsel’s criminal probe,” Politico adds.

Late Monday night, one of the reportedly dozens of executive orders President Trump signed also addressed sensitive and classified information.

In it, he revoked the security clearances of dozens of former federal government officials, including some who had worked in his first administration, like former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton, whom he criticized.

The list includes the 51 former U.S. intelligence officials who signed a letter reportedly stating that the disclosure of emails purportedly from Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

“Many of the former officials are long retired and no longer hold active clearances — meaning that the move may have limited practical impact on their careers — but the order nevertheless suggests that Trump intends to act on threats he’s made to penalize national security and intelligence professionals whom he deems to be his enemies,” CNN reported.

“They should be prosecuted for what they did,” Trump had said.

“National security is … damaged by the publication of classified information,” the executive order reads. “Former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton published a memoir for monetary gain after he was terminated from his White House position in 2019. The book was rife with sensitive information drawn from his time in government. The memoir’s reckless treatment of sensitive information undermined the ability of future presidents to request and obtain candid advice on matters of national security from their staff. Publication also created a grave risk that classified material was publicly exposed.”

In 2023, Bolton commented on the classified documents criminal case against Trump, at the time 37 felony charges, most of which were under the Espionage Act.

“Trump appeared to have a ‘pattern’ of wanting to collect materials ‘of interest to him,’ including classified documents,” Bolton said, as The Hill reported. He also “knocked Trump’s behavior as ‘very disturbing.'”

Bolton told MSNBC, “there were some [documents] that we did get back. Others, the most famous, to me, it demonstrates why I don’t need to read the indictment or believe its allegations are true, although I’m pretty confident they are — was the famous tweet that he did after getting an overhead picture of a failed Iranian missile launch, which he was shown during an intelligence briefing. [He] didn’t give [it] back, and it was tweeted before the intelligence officials got back to their office.”

Bolton was “referring to a 2019 tweet from the then-president.”

Trump’s order on Monday also stated: “It is the policy of the United States that individuals who hold government-issued security clearances should not use their clearance status to influence U.S. elections.”

Among the intelligence professionals the order revokes security clearance from are well-known cable news commentators, and political and national security experts.

In addition to Bolton, some on the list include: James Clapper, Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta, John Brennan, Jeremy Bash, and Nada Bakos.

Margaret Brennan, CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent and “Face the Nation” moderator noted that Trump revoking “the security clearances of a long list of former intelligence officials … makes it hard for his own team to seek informed counsel from them.”

Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in national security issues, including security clearances, noted, “no President has ever done this before.”

Watch video of Trump below or at this link.

===

8 22 iran put out hit after sulimani?

an 8 22

During an appearance on Newsmax on Saturday, former United States National Security Advisor and Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton refused to elaborate on his confession to CNN's Jake Tapper that he had personally been involved in foreign coups d'état.

Anchor Eric Bolling was curious about the specifics.

"Care to elaborate?" Bolling asked Bolton.

"Well, Venezuela's a good example. I wrote about it in my book. You know, this is something that some of the snowflakes on the left really were kinda shocked at but when you're looking out for America's best interests you do what's necessary to protect those interests," Bolton replied.

He called for toppling the governments of some of the United States' most prominent adversaries.

"So, take the current threat of countries getting nuclear weapons or engaged in international terrorism like Iran and North Korea. To protect the United States against the threat of nuclear weapons, would a coup d'état with regime change against their governments be appropriate? I think the answer is entirely yes," Bolton continued. He did not mention Russia's genocidal invasion of Ukraine.

"Okay, you mentioned coup d'état in the plural form. Can you tell us some of the others?" Bolling pressed Bolton, who avoided answering the question.

"Well, I'm just saying if you're looking for examples of what the United States has done over the years under presidents, Democratic and Republican..." Bolton said. But he was cut off by Bolling, who repeated his request for Bolton's experience.

"No sir, no sir, sir, sir sir, I'm asking for your examples. You said you had been involved in coups d'état in other places," said Bolling.

"Well and as I said, as I said, I'm obviously not gonna get into details because I did write about the Venezuela example at some length in my book..." Bolton noted as Bolling interjected for a second time.

"That's what I want to do. I want to talk about the details. I get Maduro, I get the whole Venezuela thing, but, I dunno, was, would you consider Iraq a coup d'état?" Bolling wondered.

Bolton defended former President George W. Bush's war in Iraq.

"No I wouldn't consider Iraq a coup d'état although it had the effect of regime change and I think that was the right thing to do, and I think George W. Bush pursued the right policy to protect America and its national interests," Bolton said, again hocking his book.

"I'm not going to get into the others because the chapter on Venezuela went through a very rigorous pre-publication review process as did my entire book to make sure there's no classified information in it. So I'm not gonna talk about it here without that."

Bolton's dodges began to visibly fluster Bolling.

"You don't have to talk about specifics. You can tell us where the United States was involved in behind-the-scenes support for coups d'état," he insisted, although he changed the subject to the January 6th insurrection.

Watch below or at this link.

https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/john-bolton-newsmax-host-afghanistan/

trump's deal

an 7 22

Anchor Eric Bolling was curious about the specifics.

"Care to elaborate?" Bolling asked Bolton.

He called for toppling the governments of some of the United States' most prominent adversaries.

"So, take the current threat of countries getting nuclear weapons or engaged in international terrorism like Iran and North Korea. To protect the United States against the threat of nuclear weapons, would a coup d'état with regime change against their governments be appropriate? I think the answer is entirely yes," Bolton continued. He did not mention Russia's genocidal invasion of Ukraine.

"Okay, you mentioned coup d'état in the plural form. Can you tell us some of the others?" Bolling pressed Bolton, who avoided answering the question.

"No sir, no sir, sir, sir sir, I'm asking for your examples. You said you had been involved in coups d'état in other places," said Bolling.

"That's what I want to do. I want to talk about the details. I get Maduro, I get the whole Venezuela thing, but, I dunno, was, would you consider Iraq a coup d'état?" Bolling wondered.

Bolton defended former President George W. Bush's war in Iraq.

Bolton's dodges began to visibly fluster Bolling.

Watch below or at this link.

https://www.americanoversight.org/ginni-thomas-republican-connections-raise-ethics-concerns-for-scotus

The activism of prominent conservative Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has for years raised questions about partisan influence on the judicial system and ethics in the Supreme Court. American Oversight is actively investigating Ginni Thomas’ connections and influence in right-wing networks and their potential impact on Justice Thomas’ ethics decisions. Records we have obtained through public records requests reveal Ginni Thomas’ ties to the Trump administration as well as evidence of Justice Thomas’ contact with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

As detailed in a recent :{update:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}:, emails between Ginni Thomas and DeSantis, obtained by American Oversight and reported on by *Politico*, suggest that Justice Thomas may have been in :{regular contact:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: with the Republican governor. On June 10, 2021, Ginni Thomas :{reached out:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: to DeSantis’ scheduling office to invite him to speak to a “coalition” of “conservative patriots.” Thomas :{explained:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: that the governor would know her because her “husband has been in contact with him … on various things of late.”

Ginni Thomas said the “cone of silence coalition” of “about 83 national leaders” was formerly known asGroundswelland included former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows among its attendees. The group, now called the :{Third Century Group:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear;background-color:#ffff66;"):}: (TC Group), was focused on “the greatest threats and opportunities to constitutional governance,” Thomas :{wrote:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: in her email, “and admittedly we are weary about the GOP divisions, lack of courage and lack of leadership.” Thomas also wrote that the group met “through the help of [conservative organization] Judicial Watch.”

DeSantis was eventually :{scheduled:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: to present during the group’s July 21 virtual meeting. According to an :{email:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: from a vice president at the Heritage Foundation who was planning to introduce the governor at the meeting, DeSantis was invited to speak “about whatever is on his mind in terms of national politics” and the attendees were “very concerned about [critical race theory], election integrity and immigration.”

:{The Coalition Formerly Known as Groundswell

}:Formerly known as Groundswell, TC Group is a secretive right-wing strategy group led by Ginni Thomas and others, which has been bringing together conservative activists for :{nearly a decade:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}:. Members have :{included:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: former Trump chief strategist Stephen Bannon and former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, among others. The network was :{well-connected to the Trump administration:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: — in 2019, Thomas and others :{compiled lists:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: of anti-Trump officials in executive agencies for the administration to dismiss and replace with Trump allies.

Public records obtained by American Oversight show the degree of access Thomas and her coalition had in the Trump administration. A calendar entry from :{March 5, 2020:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}:, showsRuss Vought, then the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, was scheduled to have “Breakfast with Ginni Thomas.”

On :{Dec. 10, 2018:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}:, Thomas, on behalf of her lobbying firm Liberty Consulting,invited a Department of Health and Human Services official — likely :{Steven Wagner:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}:, the director of the Administration for Children and Families — to a “Conversation and Strategic Discussion” with conservative commentatorJordan Peterson. The invitation noted that the event would be “closed to press and off the record” and that “a primary goal of this meeting is to determine specific action steps/solutions for winning back the next generation.” The reception was hosted by Thomas along with conservative Christian activist Bill Dallas and the Heritage Foundation’s Bridgett Wagner. The :{list of participants:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: included prominent conservatives.

On :{Aug. 22, 2018:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}:, Neomi Rao,then the administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, was scheduled to have a “Groundswell Mtg.” It is not confirmed whether this is Ginni Thomas’ Groundswell. Early in her career, Rao served as a law clerk for Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court, and in 2019, she was appointed by Trump to serve as federal judge in Washington, D.C.

:{Thomas’ Activism Raises Judicial Ethics Questions

}:Ginni Thomas’ career as a prominent conservative activist, more heavily involved in politics :{than any other spouse:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: of a Supreme Court justice in history, has for years raised concerns among :{legal experts:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: who note that justices typically avoid even being seen as partisan. Through her activism, Ginni Thomas has taken stances on issues that have come before the Supreme Court, such as on abortion, gun rights, and the :{Affordable Care Act:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}:, and recently took on major role in challenging Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. Justice Thomas’ repeated :{failure to recuse himself:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: on multiple matters relevant to his wife’s advocacy, especially as the court hears increasingly politically polarized cases, has been the subject of scrutiny.

Recently, Ginni Thomas was among the conservatives who :{signed a letter:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: criticizing the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. A month later, Justice Thomas was the only Supreme Court justice to support Trump’s request to block that committee from accessing White House records.

Ginni Thomas also played a role in challenging the 2020 election results as a leader of the conservative Council for National Policy (CNP), according to the *New York Times*. Following the November 2020 election, CNP directed its members to :{spread misinformation about the election:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: and pressured Republican lawmakers in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania to challenge the election results by awarding their states’ electoral votes to Trump. In a newsletter, CNP’s political advocacy arm :{advised:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}:, “There is historical, legal precedent for Congress to count a slate of electors different from that certified by the Governor of the state.” :{Fake electoral certificates:(style="box-sizing:inherit;transition-duration:0.2s;transition-property:background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform;transition-timing-function:linear"):}: submitted by Trump allies in swing states to Congress to dispute Biden’s victory were obtained by American Oversight last year.

American Oversight continues to investigate Ginni Thomas’ connections and influence. We have filed records requests seeking communications between Thomas and federal agencies during the Trump administration, and in January 2022, we submitted public records requests to attorneys generals and governors across the country for communications with both Ginni Thomas and Justice Thomas.

===

https://www.alternet.org/2022/03/bill-barr-john-bolton-trump/

https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/john-bolton/

enemies list

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/john-bolton-rudy-giuliani/

When Former National Security Adviser John Bolton received a warning about President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani due to his suspected ties to Russian operatives, he wasted no time heeding the warning and urged his staff to steer clear of having any involvement or interactions with

The Daily Beast compiled a report based on what the publication described as "interviews with 11 knowledgeable sources" detailing Bolton's repeated attempts to maintain distance between his department and Giuliani.

It has been reported that in January of 2019, the intelligence committee warned Capitol Hill and the White House that Giuliani was "a target of Russian intelligence operation to feed disinformation to Trump." As months passed, the warnings about Giuliani are said to have "intensified."

"Officials said the warnings about Giuliani intensified in the spring and summer of 2019 as the president's personal attorney appeared on television propagating disinformation about the Bidens and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Masha Yovanovitch. One ex-NSC official said that Giuliani, as a U.S. citizen, was neither named nor referenced in contemporaneous intelligence reports about Russian disinformation efforts. But Giuliani's alarming role was the subject of informal discussions between White House and intelligence officials." - The Daily Beast

A former official also raised concerns about Russia's server hack of the Ukranian energy company Burisma—where Hunter Biden once served on the executive board. It reportedly led to "informed speculation among professionals that this would be the entrée to fabricate material connecting Hunter Biden to corruption inside Burisma, and it wouldn't take more than 10 percent truth."

Bolton even warned his subordinates to refrain from being in meetings with Giuliani present. In fact, Bolton's directives were so specific he even advised against his staff attending Trump's Oval Office meeting May 23, 2019 following the Ukrainian inauguration of President Volodymyr Zelensky.

An unnamed Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee also weighed in as he admitted that Giuliani had been a big topic of discussion.

"Rudy's been the topic of conversation a lot," said the other source, a Democratic member of the House intelligence committee. "Wittingly or unwittingly, Rudy seems to care more about what he can gain politically from his relationship and discussions with Russian assets than he does about how he might be being used."

When contacted about the latest debacle, Giuliani claimed he was unaware of Bolton's opposition toward him.

"I didn't find out that John was unhappy with me or opposed to me until he left [the administration]…I've known him for ten years," and claimed that "when I was being considered for Secretary of State, I told him I'd consider him for deputy."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Retaliatory abuse’: Legal experts slam Barr DOJ for opening ‘politically-motivated’ criminal inquiry into John Bolton

David Badash / The New Civil Rights Movement September 17, 2020

The Dept. of Justice is opening a criminal inquiry into John Bolton, allegedly to determine whether or not he disclosed classified information in his book, which discusses his 17 months serving…

an 920

no lnx

Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened a criminal investigation into whether President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton disclosed classified information in his recent book.

The DOJ convened a grand jury, which issued subpoenas to Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Bolton’s memoir “The Room Where It Happened,” according to The New York Times. The grand jury also issued a subpoena to Bolton’s literary agency Javelin, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The Trump administration previously tried to block the release of the book — which was highly critical of the president — over claims that it contained classified information. The move was ultimately unsuccessful. Nevertheless, Trump’s handpicked director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe referred the matter to the DOJ’s national security division last month, which opened a criminal investigation, according to The Times.

Bolton has denied that his memoir contained any classified information. Though he agreed to let the administration review its contents in order to make sure it did not contain classified intelligence, the DOJ accused Bolton of allowing Simon & Schuster to release the book ahead of final approval. The agency unsuccessfully attempted to block the book’s release.

AD REMOVED FOR SUBSCRIBED USER

“With hundreds of thousands of copies around the globe — many in newsrooms — the damage is done,” D.C. Circuit Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in June.

But the opinion left open the possibility that Bolton could be criminally charged if he allowed the memoir to be released before final approval.

“Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States,” Lamberth wrote. “He has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability. But these facts do not control the motion before the court.”

Lamberth also said he was “persuaded that defendant Bolton likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations.”

An attorney disputed the conclusion that Bolton “did not fully comply” with his obligations and accused the administration of slow-walking the approval process in an attempt to prevent the release of the highly-critical book. According to The Times, the National Security Council’s (NSC) top official for prepublication review also said in an email at the time that she was “satisfied with the edits that Mr. Bolton made to address her concerns about classified information.”

But the White House launched another review without notifying Bolton, and the official involved cited multiple instances of classified information, according to the report. Though Bolton did not receive final approval from the White House, he approved the memoir for publication.

The grand jury subpoenas came after Trump repeatedly called for Bolton to be prosecuted over the book’s release. The president has claimed that Bolton “broke the law” and “should be in jail” for “disseminating, for profit, highly Classified information.” At the same time, he simultaneously argued that the book was a “compilation of lies and made up stories, all intended to make me look bad.”

The memoir detailed Trump’s alleged attempts to pressure Ukraine and China to investigate Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, as well as his behind-the-scenes dealings with Turkey and North Korea.

Attorneys at both the DOJ and the NSC expressed concerns about launching a criminal investigation, because Trump’s statements “made it seem like an overtly political act,” The Times reported.

National security attorney Bradley Moss described the criminal probe as “absolutely an overtly political act,” but said it was unclear whether that would be enough to beat back potential criminal charges for Bolton.

Bolton also faces separate civil litigation, which could require him to forfeit the proceeds of the book for violating the prepublication review agreement.

Lamberth, who is overseeing the case, said in June that Bolton should have sued the government rather than prematurely approve the memoir for release before the process was complete.

“This was Bolton’s bet: If he is right and the book does not contain classified information, he keeps the upside mentioned above; but if he is wrong, he stands to lose his profits from the book deal, exposes himself to criminal liability, and imperils national security,” Lamberth said at the time. “Bolton was wrong.”

Some legal experts, however, expressed concerns about the DOJ pursuing a former official who has criticized the president.

“Bolton deserves nothing but scorn for how he’s behaved,” wrote Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, “but this is a transparent effort to retaliate against a former senior official for exercising his First Amendment rights and to chill those thinking about similarly coming forward.”

an 620

Trump threatens John Bolton with ‘criminal liability’ to keep him quiet

Jon Queally / Common Dreams

President Donald Trump on Monday claimed that any conversation between himself and former National Security Advisor John Bolton is “highly classified,” threatening his far-right former top advisor with “criminal liability”…

https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/trump-has-filled-the-government-with-his-corrupt-lackeys-spoiler-that-hasnt-worked-out-well-for-the-rest-of-us/

no lnx

Trump has filled the government with his corrupt lackeys. Spoiler: That hasn’t worked out well for the rest of us

Written by Heather Digby Parton/ Salon March 27, 2020

In February of 2017, in the very early days of the Trump administration, Steve Bannon, then the White House strategic adviser, appeared at the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee and described the new administration’s three “lines of thought.” The first had to do with sovereignty or “America First.” The second was what he called “economic nationalism” ( Trump’s trade war). And the third he called “the deconstruction of the administrative state.”

At the time it was assumed that this meant deregulation, a long-held goal of the conservative movement, by another name. And in fact the Trump administration has taken a wrecking ball to environmental and workplace regulation, mostly under the radar. Even the coronavirus pandemic has been used as an opportunity to drastically reduce regulations on pollution.

But whatever Bannon may have thought, “deconstruction of the administrative state” wasn’t part of any ideological “line of thought,” because Donald Trump doesn’t think that way. What it really meant was the degradation and delegitimization of the nonpolitical career officials who run the federal government on a daily basis. This had nothing to do with some theoretical commitment to small government. It was all about a commitment to Donald Trump.

These officials, whether in the intelligence community, the Department of Justice, the Pentagon, the EPA, Homeland Security or the State Department, are all tasked with seeing that rules, norms, regulations and laws are followed and impartial facts and data are produced so the government and the private sector can make rational decisions. They had to be marginalized in order to protect this inept, impulsive, narcissistic president, who had no understanding of how government works and no knowledge of what his job entailed.

Trump’s allies have been relentless in their mission. The turnover in the first three years of this administration has been staggering. When agency heads weren’t forced to leave because of blatant corruption they were pushed out ignominiously for anything from perceived personal slights to jealousy over too much positive attention from the press to differences over his reckless policy decisions. And he has most often decided not to name permanent replacements but to leave “acting” heads in charge, ostensibly because he likes the flexibility. The truth is that he has taken to placing unqualified cronies in important jobs who probably couldn’t get Senate approval, and leaving a large number of jobs unfilled.

This has left the Justice Department in a state of near-mutiny under the leadership of top Trump henchman Bill Barr, while the intelligence community tries to avoid telling Trump anything he doesn’t want to hear and the State Department is staffed by people who have no idea what American foreign policy is from one day to the next.But I think most Americans assumed that the workings of the federal public health agencies would be beneath the notice of the president and would therefore hum along without much interference. That turns out to be wrong too, and for obvious reasons. The agencies are interlocking, and if one is being undermined they all are.The New York Times recently reported that Trump’s propensity for hiring loyalists without experience and leaving many positions unfilled has made the response to the coronavirus pandemic erratic and incompetent at all levels of government.

At Homeland Security, 20 senior positions are either vacant or filled by acting officials, including acting secretary Chad Wolf, who appeared completely clueless in a recent Senate hearing. Workers in the Department of Veterans Affairs had to order medical supplies from Amazon because their leaders are so inexperienced in disasters they didn’t plan ahead for patients at VA hospitals during the pandemic.And if you’re wondering what went wrong at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ProPublica reported on Thursday that from the beginning that agency was in total chaos trying to deal with the pandemic, a crisis that is specifically in its wheelhouse. It wasn’t just that the tests they developed didn’t work or that they inexplicably refused to use the test German scientists had developed for the World Health Organization. The agency was failing at its most basic function.:

On Feb. 13, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent out an email with what the author described as an “URGENT” call for help. The agency was struggling with one of its most important duties: keeping track of Americans suspected of having the novel coronavirus. It had “an ongoing issue” with organizing — and sometimes flat-out losing — forms sent by local agencies about people thought to be infected. The email listed job postings for people who could track or retrieve this paperwork.

Trump has insisted over and over again that no one could have predicted that something like this, which of course is complete nonsense. The Obama administration had set up a pandemic team within the National Security Council, which ran potential scenarios for the incoming administration in January of 2017 as part of a legally required transition exercise. Roughly two-thirds of the Trump representatives who attended that meeting are no longer serving in the administration anyway, another example of how the huge turnover has contributed to the botched response. In any case, former national security adviser John Bolton disbanded the team when he joined the White House, so there is hardly anyone around who would have benefited from those briefings anyway.

But according to Politico, the Obama folks left a “playbook” behind that outlined everything the new administration needed to know to begin the coordination of the various agencies and distribution of materials as well as other helpful guidance. Apparently, that guidance was thrown onto a shelf somewhere, and has been gathering dust ever since.

None of that is surprising. When Trump was asked at one of his White House coronavirus campaign rallies if he’d called any of the former presidents for advice, he replied that he thinks he’s doing an incredible job and said, “I don’t think I’m going to learn much.”

On Thursday, he blamed the Obama administration for his own lack of preparation, garnering this response:

https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1243299159890894854

Trump’s habit from the beginning has been to fire anyone who follows the law or science if he feels that threatens him in any way. So this Washington Post story about the “cadre of right-wing news sites” who are agitating for the firing of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases chief Dr. Anthony Fauci is all too predictable, considering Trump’s track record. They object to Fauci’s insistence that the data and the course of the virus must determine when the guidelines for social distancing can be lifted. Why? Because he is “an agent of the ‘deep state’ that Trump has vowed to dismantle.” Of course.

And so the administrative state continues to be deconstructed, one dead American at a time.

new

https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/

Bolton is a longtime hardline foreign policy apparatchik of the Republican Party who briefly served as President Donald Trump’s third national security adviser and as ambassador to the UN in the George W. Bush administration. Bolton has also been an enduring figure in the neoconservative think tank world, having served in posts at the American Enterprise Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, among others.

Bolton left the Trump administration in early September 2019 amidst a public spat with President Trump over the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Trump said that he fired Bolton in part over disagreement with his policy suggestions, saying that “others in the administration” also disagreed with his ideas.”[[1]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn1) Bolton, however, claimed that “he had resigned rather than being fired.”[[2]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn2)

Not long after he was removed from the NSC, Bolton became embroiled in the impeachment trial of President Trump.Testimony from his former colleague in the NSC, Fiona Hill, placed Bolton close to conversations between Trump officials concerning the alleged “quid pro quo” effort by Trump aimed at pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s son. According to Hill, Bolton advised her to report concerns about any pressure campaign and its subversion of U.S. foreign policy. Bolton referred to the campaign as a “drug deal” that was being cooked up.[[3]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn3)

However, Bolton refused to testify during the House of Representatives’ impeachment trial of President Trump, threatening to pursue legal action if called that would tie up any decision over his testimony in the courts. House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who led the trial, criticized the former national security adviser, saying that Bolton should have the “courage” to testify and arguing that if he opted not to testify Bolton would have to explain to the public why he waited to tell his story in a forthcoming book instead of “when it mattered.”[[4]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn4)

Prior to his Trump appointment, Bolton was a senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the chairman of the anti-IIslamic Gatestone Institute. An extreme national security hawk, Bolton is a former board member of the Project for the New American Century and a past adviser to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. He was a frequent contributor to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, and other right-wing media outlets.

Bolton’s government career dates back to the early 1980s, when he was tapped to serve in the Reagan administration, where he held a series of posts at USAID before joining a team of Federalist Society lawyers under Attorney General Edwin Meese.[[5]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn5) He later worked in several high-level positions in the George W. Bush administration, including as the State Department’s chief diplomat on arms control and as ambassador to the United Nations.

When Bolton was appointed national security adviser in March 2018, it prompted alarm across a broad spectrum of the political universe. Bolton was one of the primary actors in perpetrating the myth that Iraq, in 2003, was amassing weapons of mass destruction, and he remains unapologetic about bringing about a war that had enormous consequences for Iraq, the United States, and the entire Middle East.

Reacting to Bolton’s appointment, François Heisbourg of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and former French military analyst who worked with Bolton during the administration of George W. Bush said, “He’s not a neoconservative and has no interest in democracy promotion. He is a man of the Trumpian world—no allies, no multilateralism.” In contrast, Naftali Bennett, the far-right Education Minister of Israel in 2018, called Bolton “an extraordinary security expert, experienced diplomat and a stalwart friend of Israel.”[[6]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn6)

Bolton’s appointment coincided with a scandal involving his super PAC working with Cambridge Analytica, a research firm accused of using tens of millions of people’s data without their permission to craft targeted political campaign ads.

Bolton has long dismissed the legitimacy of the United Nations and other international institutions.In a 1994 speech at the World Federalist Association, Bolton declared, “If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”[[7]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn7) He has also dismissed international treaties as nonbinding “political obligations”[[8]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn8) and was a leading opponent of the International Criminal Court, which he once claimed would turn the “senior civilian and military leaders responsible for our defense and foreign policy” into “potential targets of the politically unaccountable Prosecutor in Rome.”[[9]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn9)

A pro-Trump neocon?

During the 2016 election campaign, Bolton broke with neoconservative pundits like Robert Kaganand Bill Kristol in praising Donald Trump‘s foreign policy positions. He commended Trump for saying that Islamic militants are waging an “ideological war” on the West, for calling the planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq “reckless,” and for urging more military action against ISIS.[[10]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn10)

Shortly after Trump’s election, press accounts reported that he was eyeing Bolton for secretary of state. He subsequently became a contender to replace the controversial retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who was forced out of his position as national security adviser (NSA) only weeks after Trump’s inauguration because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials. The idea of Bolton as NSA, overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats, divided Republicans, with the hawkish Sen. Ted **Cruz**(R-TX) pushing the candidacy[[11]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn11) and libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) calling him a “bad choice” who could end up promoting “secret wars.”[[12]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn12)

In March 2018, Bolton’s name again surfaced as a candidate for the NSA position. H.R. McMaster was rumored to be seeking an exit from the Trump administration, and Bolton met with Trump in the Oval Office while these rumors were circulating.[[13]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn13)

Bolton used his frequent appearances on Fox News to promote his policy ideas, bringing them to the attention of frequent Fox viewer, Trump. He expressly called for regime change in Iran, for example.[[14]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn14)

He also expressed other radical ideas, such as resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict by having Jordan annex the West Bank, something the kingdom has made clear it would never do.[[15]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn15)

Bolton’s long track record of aggressive promotion of military action and disdain for diplomacy prompted Mieke Eoyang, the vice president for foreign policy at the center-left think tank Third Way to say, “Bolton is so much of an ideologue that I don’t think he would accurately portray consequences [of policy options] to the president. … If Bolton becomes the national security adviser, the United States has not hit rock bottom in our international relations. We could go lower.”[[16]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn16)

Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar voiced similar concerns after Bolton’s appointment as national security adviser was announced. “Given that a key function of [the national security adviser] is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty,” opined Pillar. “Bolton’s method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy that does not subscribe to his personal agenda and bully away any part of the truth that does not serve his objectives.”[[17]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn17)

Several top National Security Agency officials resigned, some under pressure, shortly after Bolton assumed his post.[[18]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn18) In May 2018, Bolton brought in one of his long-time compatriots and an extreme Islamophobe, Frederick Fleitz, as his chief of staff.[[19]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn19)

Pressing his agenda in the Trump administration

Pressing an attack on Iran was immediately at the forefront of Bolton’s agenda when he was named Trump’s national security adviser. He had an ally in this effort in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and the president frequently portrayed Iran as a grave threat to the United States. But Trump had also campaigned on criticism of U.S. involvement in long term wars in the Middle East. The result of these contradictory positions was that Trump was apparently open to the idea of an attack on Iran in some form, but the case would have to overcome some level of resistance.

In early 2019, it was revealed that Bolton had recently requested that the Pentagon draw up plans for an attack on Iran. The request came just after an Iraqi militant group known to be sympathetic to Iran had launched mortars in the vicinity of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, followed two days later by another group firing a missile close to the U.S. consulate in Basra during anti-Iran protests where the Iranian consulate was set ablaze. No one was harmed and there was no evidence to connect Iran directly with either attack—or even any certainty that the U.S. installations were the intended targets—but Bolton requested the attack plans, perhaps seeing an opportunity to use these incidents as a pretext to escalate tensions with Iran.[[20]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn20)

The Wall Street Journal reported, “The request, which hasn’t been previously reported, generated concern at the Pentagon and State Department, current and former U.S. officials say. “’It definitely rattled people,’ said one former senior U.S. administration official. ‘People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.’” It was not clear whether Bolton ever reported on this to Trump, the president even knew about these plans, or whether more serious planning for a strike on Iran took place at that time.[[21]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn21)

As 2018 drew to a close, Bolton found himself in a tug of war within the Trump administration over the U.S. presence in Syria. In mid-December and seemingly unprompted, Trump announced that he was pulling U.S. troops out of Syria. The withdrawal of some 2,000 soldiers was apparently decided on without consultation with U.S. allies or with any of the president’s advisers.[[22]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn22) The fallout was considerable. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis resigned almost immediately in protest, and both traditional hawks and neoconservatives were extremely critical of Trump’s decision.

Jonathan Schanzer of the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies tweeted, “With his decision on Syria, Trump has effectively handed Syria to Russia, Iran, Assad, Hezbollah and Turkey.”[[23]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn23)

Bolton could not publicly rebuke his boss, but he was surely displeased by the announcement, as it eliminated one potential avenue of confrontation with Iran. In September, Bolton had told reporters, “We’re not going to leave [Syria] as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders and that includes Iranian proxies and militias.”[[24]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn24)

In the wake of Trump’s surprise declaration, Bolton scrambled to consolidate his position, recognizing that the departure from Syria would set back plans for a more aggressive stance toward Iran. In Israel—where he had gone to reassure an Israeli government that felt betrayed by Trump’s decision—he stated that “The timetable flows from the policy decisions that we need to implement,” leading Trump to imply agreement with him, saying, “I never said we’re doing it that quickly.”[[25]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn25)

Bolton also tried to dodge objections raised by many observers and some members of Congress about the fate ofSyrian Kurds—whom Turkey regards as terrorists and who would very likely be attacked by Turkey after the U.S. withdrawal—by stating, “We don’t think the Turks ought to undertake military action that’s not fully coordinated with and agreed to by the United States, at a minimum so they don’t endanger our troops.”[[26]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn26)

Turkey was Bolton’s next destination after Israel, and President Recip Tayyip Erdogan did not respond kindly to Bolton’s statement. Calling Bolton’s words a “grave mistake,” Erdogan stated, “It is not possible for us to swallow the message Bolton gave from Israel.”[[27]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn27) Erdogan refused to meet with Bolton, a strong message to him and the Trump administration.[[28]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn28)

To help bolster his position on Iran, Bolton brought in Richard Goldberg—a major Iran hawk and former staffer for Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who had since become a senior adviser at theFoundation for Defense of Democracies—in the role of “director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction.”[[29]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn29) Observed one analyst, “Goldberg’s obsession with confronting Iran has no moral limits. After Saudis linked to Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman murdered Washington Post columnist and American resident Jamal Khashoggi, he defended the Trump administration for going easy on the Saudi regime in response. ‘US sanctions on Iran return Nov 5,’ he tweeted in October (his twitter feed is now locked), adding that Saudi Arabia ‘is a critical part of Iran strategy: using its market leverage for sanctions compliance AND oil production to offset lost Iranian crude.’”

Ben Armbruster also pointed out that Bolton was among those who were “furious with Trump’s announcement to pull out of Syria, largely because it throws a wrench in their plans for the U.S. military to attack Iranian targets inside the war-ravaged country and beyond,” and that Bolton “has also kept his plan for war with Iran on track by hiring allies like. … Goldberg with the sole purpose of, according to Jewish Insider, “countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction.””[[30]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn30)

Bolton also brought on an old colleague, Charles Kupperman, a former Boeing and Lockheed Martin executive, who had previously served on the board for the Center for Security Policy, a far-right think tank founded by Islamophobic conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney. Kupperman, who like Bolton got caught up in Trump’s 2019 impeachment trial and sough to challenge his need to testifym was named deputy national security adviser, further cementing Bolton’s wall of allies at NSC. The hiring of Kupperman and Goldberg was a clear sign that, as reporters at Al-Monitor observed, Bolton “intends to double down on his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran.”[[31]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn31)

In January 2019, despite Bolton’s claims that troops would not leave until the conditions were “right,” the U.S. started pulling its troops out of Syria.[[32]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn32) “The shock waves from Donald Trump’s surprise announcement that US troops in northern Syria would step aside and allow a Turkish offensive to obliterate its long-term Kurdish partners rippled out of Washington and shook America’s allies across the region. From Israel to the Gulf, officials, diplomats and commentators expressed fears – in private and in public – that the Trump administration would ultimately prioritise isolationism over loyalty to all his regional partners.”[[33]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn33)

Bolton was widely seen as the driving force behind Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.This treaty—signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union Premier Mikhail Gorbachev—eliminated US and Russian land-based short- and medium-range missiles, both nuclear and conventional. It was a key staple of the non-proliferation regime.[[34]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn34)

Commenting on the decision to pull out of the INF and Bolton’s role in it, Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, wrote, “Just in time for Halloween, John Bolton emerges from the basement of the White House to continue his serial killing spree of arms control agreements. … Bolton is about to dismember [the INF]—for no good reason. He apparently has convinced an uninformed and uninterested president that a likely Russian violation of the INF Treaty is reason to destroy the agreement.”

Cirincione noted that there was a legitimate basis for accusing Russia of violating the INF, but that this was not nearly enough reason to withdraw from a treaty that was, on the whole, still achieving its purpose. Instead, Cirincione contended, the decision to withdraw was based on a desire for new missiles called for in Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review, issued early in 2018.

Cirincione argued, “In order to field these new weapons, Bolton needs Trump to quit Reagan’s treaty. But there is no need for these new instruments of mass destruction. Even if the Russians have violated the agreement, the United States already has thousands of long-range nuclear weapons trained on Russia. Additional weapons would be redundant, providing no new capability.”

On Bolton’s role, Cirincione stated, “Bolton does not try to mask his identity or his right-wing ideologue. He does not issue his threats in raspy phone calls, but boldly proclaims that U.S. military power should not be constrained by any treaties, under any circumstances. Like a recycled horror movie, he presents nuclear war-fighting ideas from the 1950s as if they were bold new concepts.”[[35]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn35)

Europeans expressed concerns that Washington might deploy new missiles on the continent without the INF. But, Reuters noted, “Bolton said Washington was ‘a long way’ from making any such deployments in Europe and said grim warnings about the dangerous consequences of Washington quitting the treaty were wide of the mark and reminded him of similarly hollow warnings when the United States left the Cold War-era Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002.”[[36]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn36)

Bolton’s appointment ensured that Trump would stay the course in abandoning the Iran nuclear deal, and he did. His support for military action against Iran is well known, and he has held that position for many years. In 2015, he penned an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” In it, he made clear that he envisioned not only a military attack, preferably by Israel, on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also a U.S.-engineered regime change in Iran.

“The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required,” opined Bolton. “Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed. … An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”[[37]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn37)

Bolton retained both the tone and substance of that op-ed in his role as national security adviser. Speaking to the militant pro-regime change group, United Against Nuclear Iran in September 2018, Bolton warned that Iran would face “serious consequences” if it did not accede to U.S. demands. “According to the mullahs in Tehran, we are ‘the Great Satan,’ lord of the underworld, master of the raging inferno,” Bolton said. “So, I might imagine they would take me seriously when I assure them today: If you cross us, our allies, or our partners; if you harm our citizens; if you continue to lie, cheat, and deceive, yes, there will indeed be hell to pay. … The United States is not naive. We will not be duped, cheated, or intimidated. The days of impunity for Tehran and its enablers are over. The murderous regime and its supporters will face significant consequences if they do not change their behavior. Let my message today be clear: we are watching, and we will come after you.”[[38]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn38)

Bolton’s presence was also powerfully felt in Trump’s dealings with North Korea. In one notable incident during his tenure, Bolton sent shock waves through the U.S.-North Korea talks when he raised the spectre of Libya in the context of Korean de-nuclearization. The mention of Libya—whose former leader, Muammar Qaddafi, had agreed to give up its fledgling nuclear weapons program and, some years later, saw the United States help oust him from power and eventually to his death—undermined whatever faith there might have been in the Trump administration working with North Korean leader Kim Jung Un rather than trying to push him out.

“We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004,” Bolton told Fox News. “There are obviously differences. The Libyan program was much smaller, but that was basically the agreement that we made.”[[39]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn39)

Peter Baker of the New York Times observed, “Mr. Bolton, who served under President George W. Bush, views Libya through the experience of those heady days in 2003 and 2004 when Colonel Qaddafi agreed to transfer his nuclear equipment to a facility in Tennessee. Mr. Kim may remember what came later, when President Barack Obama and European allies launched military action against Libya in 2011 to prevent a threatened massacre of civilians, in the process enabling rebels not only to topple Colonel Qaddafi but also to hunt him down and kill him.”[[40]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn40)

Bolton shifted some of his positions to suit his new boss. He helped set up the summit between Kim and Trump, despite his apparent efforts to undermine it. However, after leaving the administration, Bolton “comprehensively repudiated the Trump administration’s North Korea policy, warning that the Pyongyang regime is becoming more dangerous with every passing day.”[[41]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn41)

Bolton also reversed himself on Russia,which he had previously accused of committing an “act of war” against the U.S. with its meddling in the 2016 election. In announcing the postponement of a potential second meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bolton stated, “The president believes that the next bilateral meeting with President Putin should take place after the Russia witch hunt is over, so we’ve agreed that it will be after the first of the year.”[[42]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn42) New Yorker journalist Susan Glasser observed in a tweet, “Reminder: last year John Bolton called the Russian election interference ‘an act of war.’ Now as national security adviser he puts out an official statement calling investigation of said act of war ‘witch hunt.’”[[43]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn43)

In September 2018, Bolton spoke at a Federalist Society event in Washington where he bluntly declared that the United States would not only refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC)—something the United States had never done—but would, if the United States was to be investigated by the ICC, “respond against the ICC and its personnel to the extent permitted by U.S. law. We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States. We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and, we will prosecute them in the U.S. criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans. We will take note if any countries cooperate with ICC investigations of the United States and its allies, and we will remember that cooperation when setting U.S. foreign assistance, military assistance, and intelligence sharing levels.”

Bolton further stated that these same protections would be extended to cover Israel as well. At another point in the speech, Bolton also announced that the United States would be closing the office of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington.[[44]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn44) The speech took place just as the ICC was considering investigations of both Israeli activities in the Palestinian Territories and of U.S. actions in Afghanistan for potential war crimes.[[45]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn45)

Bolton declared that Palestine was not a state, and elaborated on the point, saying, “Of course it’s not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood. It doesn’t control defined boundaries. It doesn’t fulfill the normal functions of government. There are a whole host of reasons why it’s not a state. It could become a state, as the president said, but that requires diplomatic negotiations with Israel and others.” [[46]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn46)

Alex Whiting of Just Security noted that while Bolton’s general themes were very much like those he had espoused for many years, “it would be a mistake to believe that this sequel has such a predictable plotline. This time, the consequences for the court and the rule of law in the world will likely be far graver, and the return to a constructive relationship with the ICC in the future much harder. This is one of those areas in which Trump administration policies may cause irreversible damage.”

Whiting pointed out that, while there is no obvious legal mechanism for the U.S. to follow through on this threat, “such language demonstrates a willingness by this administration—which has shown a remarkable disregard in the past for law, institutions, and norms—to go very far in its efforts to break the court.” He also noted that the administration’s attitude will have a chilling effect on support for the ICC around the world.

“The new rhetorical framing and policy positions genuinely risk serious damage to the ICC and the rule of law around the world, and these steps will be difficult, if not impossible, to undo. The court, for instance, may no longer be recognizable by the time a new U.S. administration makes the effort to pick up the pieces,” wrote Whiting.[[47]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn47)

In late 2018, Bolton moved to widen the scope of his influence on U.S. policy. He brought a new focus to Africa, a continent that had long been at the bottom of the list of U.S. foreign policy priorities. Speaking at the right wing Heritage Foundation, Bolton outlined a plan which, he said, was meant to counter China’s aggressive influence in Africa. According to a report in The Atlantic, “Bolton’s remarks suggest that Africa is likely to become the latest battleground between the United States and China, which have clashed on a range of issues over the past two years. The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Trump administration was planning to call out China for a campaign of economic espionage and hacking; add to that a costly trade war between the two countries and U.S. concern over China’s military activity in the disputed South China Sea, and it’s a recipe for a great-power competition with implications that will extend far beyond Africa.”[[48]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn48)

Bolton told the Heritage audience, “Under our new Africa strategy, we will target U.S. funding toward key countries and particular strategic objectives. All U.S. aid on the continent will advance U.S. interests, and help African nations move toward self-reliance.” Those objectives would include countering both Chinese and Russian influence in Africa, fighting militant groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, and “ensuring that all U.S. assistance dollars sent to Africa are used efficiently and effectively to advance peace, stability, independence, and prosperity in the region.” Bolton suggested that the U.S. would pursue these goals through a combination of investment and guidance, with few details on just what these broad tactical outlines would entail.[[49]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn49)

Alluding to the insulting attitude President Trump expressed previously toward African countries,[[50]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn50) Grant T. Harris, a former adviser on Africa to President Barack Obama, opined, “You can’t counter a multifaceted, long-term Chinese play just by increasing investment. Washington needs to understand that China is investing in relationships, not just infrastructure.”[[51]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn51)

Presidential aspirations

Bolton’s involvement in politics has included serving as a foreign policy surrogate for the 2012 Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan presidential campaign, as an informal adviser to 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX),[[52]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn52) and repeatedly suggesting that he will run for president.

In October 2013, he launched an eponymous PAC and Super PAC, anointing them with a mission to “seek out and support candidates for nomination and election to federal office who are committed to restoring strong American national security policies.” Seeking to roll back an increasing libertarian influence on the GOP’s foreign policy, Bolton said in a statement that “We must be prepared to do what it takes to protect the idea of American exceptionalism and our basic Constitutional priorities—the preservation of which are essential not only to our security, but to our prosperity as well.”[[53]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn53)

In March 2018, just after Bolton’s appointment as national security adviser was announced, the connection between the John Bolton Super PAC and Cambridge Analytica – a corporation that was under fire for mining the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users without permission to target them for political campaigns – came to light. In the election cycles of 2014 and 2016,Bolton’s super PAC paid Cambridge Analytica approximately $1.1 million for research.

The super PAC denied any knowledge of Cambridge Analytica’s unscrupulous practices. But according to the Washington Post, the Mercer family – a very wealthy family which funds many far-right causes and whom Bolton is known to be very close to – “set up Cambridge Analytica as a U.S. spinoff of the British company SCL in partnership with conservative strategist Stephen K. Bannon.” In fact, the Post continued, “Hedge fund executive Robert Mercer, who financed the data-science firm with at least $10 million, has been the largest donor to Bolton’s super PAC, giving $5 million since the 2014 cycle, according to FEC records.”[[54]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn54)

Bolton’s PAC and SuperPAC raised a total of $7.5 million during the 2014-midterm elections and contributed to the campaigns of 87 Senate and House candidates.[[55]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn55) The PACs made contributions to Republican candidates who espoused aggressive foreign policy positions and sponsored numerous hawkish online advertisements.[[56]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn56) The advertisements were described as “customized national security messages intended to sway distinct clusters of swing voters,” relying on tactics such as positing that “President Obama is a better strategist for aiding ISIS than eliminating it.”[[57]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn57)

Bolton was mentioned in an April 2015 New York Times piece that examined why Republicans are “more fervently pro-Israel than ever.” The article linked such sentiment to being “partly a result of ideology, but also a product of a surge in donations and campaign spending on their behalf by a small group of wealthy donors.” The piece revealed how Bolton’s PAC is partly financed by “major pro-Israel donors” like Irving Moskowitz and that it “spent at least $825,000” to support the successful 2014 Senate bid of Tom Cotton (R-AL).[[58]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn58)

In February 2015, Bolton launched the Foundation for American Security and Freedom (FASF), an advocacy organization that describes itself as “committed to restoring and protecting our vital national security interests and preserving our way of life for our children.”[[59]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn59) FASF states on its website that it aims to “strengthen our public discourse, making clear the inextricable links between strong foreign and domestic national policies.”[[60]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn60) The conservative Breitbart reported of FASF’s launch: “The staunchly pro-American diplomat explained that the FASF was designed to help America avoid the mistake of electing a president who doesn’t care that much about America’s national security, as it did when electing Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.”[[61]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn61)

In August 2015, FASF ran a TV ad attacking comments made by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)about a hypothetical Iranian nuclear weapon. The ad featured an American family happily sitting down to dinner when suddenly a nuclear explosion apparently occurs. The ad then transitions to a speech where Paul states that U.S. “national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.” The ad ended with the caption: “It only takes one. A nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security.”[[62]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn62)

Bolton was rumored for a time to be considering a bid for president in 2016, and he made visits in 2013 to early primary states as part of what journalist Robert Costa described as “an informal national tour” to “give speeches, huddle with GOP leaders, and push back against the party’s libertarian shift. He’ll make the case for a muscular foreign policy.”[[63]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn63) In May 2015, however, Bolton ruled out running. “While I’m not a candidate, I am certainly not going to sit this election out,” Bolton said in a statement. “I’m also going to focus on the 2016 presidential race, to make certain that foreign policy is critical to winning the nomination.”[[64]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn64)

Bolton had previously considered running in 2012, a move he ultimately decided against even as he hinted that he viewed himself as the only “ideal conservative” in the race.[[65]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn65) “I hope he runs,” said MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at the time, “to remind the country of what everybody voted against in 2006 and 2008, and the ideology that led us into attacking a country that never attacked us, an ideology that wants to make some sort of permanent garrison in the Middle East.”[[66]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn66)

In the Obama era

Bolton was among the Obama administration’s most strident critics, particularly on Middle East issues, and repeatedly accused the Obama White House of “weakness” and “fecklessness.”[[67]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn67)

Bolton was a particularly vocal proponent of the claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite U.S. intelligence judgments to the contrary, and has accused the Obama administration of enabling Tehran by engaging with it diplomatically. “By negotiating with Iran,” Bolton wrote in April 2014, Obama “has not only allowed it a path to legitimize its nuclear-weapons program, but objectively facilitated the deadly global menace in Tehran.”[[68]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn68) While nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States were ongoing in late 2013, Bolton insisted “Iran’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs will proceed unimpeded in unknown, undisclosed locations.”[[69]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn69) Bolton later added that “we shouldn’t trust and can’t verify Iranian promises not to fabricate nuclear weapons,” concluding that “We have only two very unpleasant choices: either Iran gets nuclear weapons in the very near future, or pre-emptive military force, fully justified by well-established principles of self-defense, must break Iran’s control over the nuclear fuel cycle and prevent (or, at least, substantially delay) weaponization.”[[70]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn70)

Bolton says that Iran should not be permitted to have an indigenous uranium enrichment program.“The right amount is zero. Iran should not be permitted to conduct any nuclear-related activity as long as the ayatollahs remain in power, given their record of dissimulation and obstructionism and their obvious intention of becoming a nuclear-weapons state,” he wrote in September 2014.[[71]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn71)

In a March 2015 op-ed for The New York Times, published just before Iran and the P5+1 reached a political framework agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, Bolton explicitly called for military strikes against Iran. Titled, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” Bolton’s op-ed claimed that, “President Obama’s approach on Iran has brought a bad situation to the brink of catastrophe.” Bolton further asserted that “the inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required.”[[72]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn72)

He added: “The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”[[73]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn73)

Responded Sally Kohn of The Daily Beast, “Would that be the same evidence you relied on to assert that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs—the same intel the Bush administration used as the justification for going to war in Iraq? Bolton provides little solid evidence of his sky-is-falling assertions. We’re just supposed to trust him, I guess, based on his reputation.”[[74]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn74)

After Iran and the P5+1 group of nations reached a comprehensive nuclear agreement in July 2015, Bolton vociferously denounced it and reiterated his call for U.S. military action against Iran. “Obama’s deal is a born failure for reasons we need not elaborate further here,” he wrote in an August 2015 op-ed for the conservative National Review. “Accordingly, as of today, only a preemptive military strike can block Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapons state.”[[75]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn75) Bolton then expressed support for Israel launching a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and stated that the United States should support if it does so.[[76]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn76)

In 2009, speaking before an audience at the University of Chicago, Bolton suggested that Israel should consider a nuclear strike against Iran and chastised the Obama administration’s position that Iran could be deterred from using nuclear weapons as “a dangerously weak approach.” Bolton declared “we’re at a very unhappy point—a very unhappy point—where unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future.”[[77]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn77) Commented Inter Press Service blogger Daniel Luban: “An Israeli strike, nuclear or otherwise, without U.S. permission remains unlikely. But as is often the case, I suspect that Bolton’s intention is less to give an accurate description of reality than it is to stake out positions extreme enough to shift the boundaries of debate as a whole to the right.”[[78]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn78)

Bolton was also critical of the Obama administration’s position on Syria, writing in September 2013 that Obama had “failed in his stated objective to oust Syria’s Assad regime from power; failed to impress Assad that his ‘red line’against using chemical weapons was serious; failed to exact retribution when that red line was crossed; failed to rally anything but small minorities in either house of Congress to support his position; and failed to grasp that agreements with the likes of Syria and Russia prolong, rather than solve, the chemical-weapons problem.”[[79]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn79) Yet Bolton later said that he himself “would vote against an authorization to use force here,” adding, “I don’t think it is in America’s interest. I don’t think we should in effect take sides in the Syrian conflict.”[[80]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn80)

In April 2014, Bolton called the Syrian civil war a “strategic sideshow” and wrote that the United States should instead be preparing for war with Iran.“The Assad regime, loathsome as it is, couldn’t survive without substantial Iranian assistance,” Bolton wrote. “And it is Iran, through its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its decades-long role as international terrorism’s central banker, which poses the central danger. Instead of focusing on overthrowing Assad or aiding his enemies, we should be vigorously pursuing regime change in Iran.”[[81]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn81) Bolton accused Iran of “relentlessly” pursuing a nuclear weapon despite evidence that Tehran had reduced its stockpile of enriched uranium in accordance with an interim agreement it had made with international negotiators earlier that year.[[82]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn82)

After Russia’s decision in October 2015 to bolster its military presence in Syria and launch airstrikes against Syrian rebel groups, Bolton stated in a Washington Times piece that the United States should pursue the goal of defeating ISIS and forming a new state in the territory of Syria and Iraq currently controlled by ISIS. Calling for a “forceful U.S.-led effort to destroy ISIS” that excludes Russia and Iran, Bolton stated that “our objective should be a new Sunni state where ISIS now rules, carved from Iraq and Syria, one that is either democratic or led, to paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt, by one of our SOB’s.” He also added that “sooner or later, we should recognize the reality that an independent Kurdistan now exists, even if not declared de jure.”[[83]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn83)

In a November 2015 New York Times op-ed, Bolton reiterated his call for an independent “Sunni state” to be formed out of Syrian and Iraqi territory, stating it “could be a bulwark against both Mr. Assad and Iran-allied Baghdad.”[[84]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn84)

Bolton has been a steadfast supporter of the right-wing Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuand an opponent of Palestinian statehood. Claiming that it “would inevitably lead to a terrorist state on the other side of the border with Israel,”[[85]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn85) Bolton has fervently criticized the Obama administration for seeking a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, Bolton has echoed the arguments of some Israeli nationalists that the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza—which he called “bits and pieces of the collapsed Ottoman Empire” with “no particular history either of national identity or of economic interdependence”—should be ceded respectively to Jordan and Egypt rather than incorporated into an independent Palestinian territory. “The only logic underlying the demand for a Palestinian state,” Bolton has claimed, “is the political imperative of Israel’s opponents to weaken and encircle the Jewish state, thereby minimizing its potential to establish secure and defensible borders.”[[86]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn86)

In late 2009, Bolton joined a chorus of neoconservative voices—including UN Watch and the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg—in attacking the UN Human Rights Council’s “Goldstone Report,” which detailedwar crimes committed by Israel as well as Hamas during Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip. Bolton called the report’s conclusion, that Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza, an attempt “to criminalize Israel’s strategy of crippling Hamas.”[[87]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn87) Bolton’s comments echoed earlier remarks he had made about Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, when he said there was “no moral equivalence” between Lebanese civilian casualties of Israeli bombing and Israelis killed by “malicious terrorist acts.”[[88]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn88)

Bolton has also remained unapologetic about the U.S. war in Iraq. “Despite all the criticism of what happened after Saddam’s defeat,” he argued in February 2013, it is “indisputable” that the U.S.-led coalition “accomplished its military mission with low casualties and great speed, sending an unmistakable signal of power and determination throughout the Middle East and around the world.” Dismissing critics who said the war was unnecessary or disproportionate, Bolton claimed that Saddam Hussein “would have immediately returned to ambitious WMD programs” in the absence of international action, adding that if anything, the United States should have toppled Hussein in 1991 and then immediately “turned its attention to the regimes in Iran and Syria.” Bolton quipped that anyone who claims that Iraqis were better off under Hussein than they were in the tumultuous decade that followed his ouster must have “a propensity to admire totalitarianism,” but in any case, “the issue was never about making life better for Iraqis, but about ensuring a safer world for America and its allies.” Invoking World War II, Bolton added, “we didn’t wage war after Pearl Harbor to do nation-building for our enemies.”[[89]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn89)

After the November 2015 Paris attacks, Bolton called for more leeway to be given to U.S. intelligence agencies. “We need a more sensible national conversation about the need for effective intelligence gathering to uncover and prevent such tragedies before they occur,” he opined in a Fox News op-ed. “Knee-jerk, uninformed and often wildly inaccurate criticisms of programs (such as several authorized in the wake of 9/11 in the Patriot Act) have created a widespread misimpression in the American public about what exactly our intelligence agencies have been doing and whether there was a ‘threat’ to civil liberties.” He added: “Now is the time to correct these misimpressions.”[[90]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn90)

In the Bush administration

In the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, Bolton worked in collaboration with his former boss James Baker to block recount efforts in Florida. According to the Wall Street Journal, after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a halt to the recount, Bolton entered a venue where the count was still taking place and declared: “I’m with the Bush-Cheney team, and I’m here to stop the count.” This marked Bolton’s entrée into the administration of George W. Bush. At the time, Vice President-elect Dick Cheney commented: “People ask what [job] John should get. My answer is, anything he wants.”[[91]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn91)

As undersecretary of state representing the administration in various international fora, Bolton gained a reputation as an arrogant and hawkish unilateralist willing to redefine U.S. positions in the global arena, diplomatic consequences notwithstanding. In an exemplary display of what the Wall Street Journal described as his “combative style,” Bolton warned an international conference on bio-weapons that a hotly disputed verification proposal, widely supported by arms control experts, was “Dead, dead, dead, and I don’t want it coming back from the dead.”[[92]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn92)

Among Bolton’s more notable actions during this period was withdrawing the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.This bilateral treaty with the Soviet Union was the bedrock of efforts to reduce nuclear brinksmanship, but Bolton dismissed it as a relic that impeded the development of a U.S. national missile defense system. Also significant was Bolton’s effort to block progress on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, viewed as a cornerstone of the global nonproliferation regime.[[93]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn93) Bolton was also given the task of officially rescinding the U.S. signature on the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, which he later called “the happiest moment in my government service.”[[94]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn94)

Bolton was a key proponent within the Bush administration of taking military action against the so-called “Axis of Evil,” or countries identified by the Bush administration as “rogue state” rivals of the United States. Two months before the Iraq invasion, Bolton met with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to discuss strategies for “preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction,” focusing on the Bush administration’s disarmament targets following the planned invasion of Iraq. Shortly after the visit, Bolton said once regime change in Iraq is complete, “It will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea.”[[95]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn95)

Speaking before an audience at the Heritage Foundation in May 2002, Bolton argued that Cuba should also be included among the “axis of evil”countries because of its alleged development of bio-warfare capacity. Cuba is world-renowned for its biomedical industry, but Bolton claimed that the industry was concealing a WMD project. Providing no evidence, he insisted that Cuba was involved in the sales of illicit bio-warfare technology to boost its cash-short economy. Other administration officials declined to support Bolton’s accusations.[[96]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn96) A congressional investigation of Cuba’s alleged WMD program found no evidence supporting Bolton’s assertions.[[97]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn97)

Bolton was also one of the administration’s leading hawks on Asia policy and one of its strongest advocates of Taiwan. According to a 2001 Washington Post investigation, Bolton had been on the payroll of the Taiwanese government before joining the Bush administration.[[98]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn98) Bolton also received $30,000 for “research papers on UN membership issues involving Taiwan” at the same time he was promoting diplomatic recognition of Taiwan before various congressional committees.[[99]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn99) “Diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for,” wrote Bolton in a 1999 Weekly Standard article. “The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy.”[[100]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn100)

Bolton’s penchant for intemperate statements often compromised his work as a diplomat. In July 2003, during the run-up to the six-party talks with North Korea, Bolton characterized North Korean President Kim Jong Il as the “tyrannical dictator” of a country where “life is a hellish nightmare.” North Korea responded in kind, saying that “such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks. … We have decided not to consider him as an official of the U.S. administration any longer nor to deal with him.” The State Department had to send a replacement for Bolton to the talks.[[101]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn101)

After Condoleezza Rice became U.S. secretary of state at the outset of Bush’s second term, Bolton expressed an interest in becoming deputy secretary of state. However, Rice selected Bolton as ambassador to the UN, “thus appointing to this unique post the U.S. official most publicly contemptuous of the world organization,” wrote Brian Urquhart.[[102]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn102)

Bolton served as UN ambassador from August 2005—when President Bush gave him a recess appointment after the Senate blocked his nomination—to January 2007. His resignation, announced in December 2006, came at the end of a controversial tenure marked by severe criticism from U.S. senators and international diplomats. His resignation also came less than three weeks after President Bush resubmitted Bolton’s nomination for Senate confirmation—the second time in six months.

During his first confirmation hearings, Bolton’s record as undersecretary of state came under intense criticism, particularly regarding his contacts with Israel. According to The Forward and other news sources, Bolton had met with officials of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, without first seeking “country clearance” from the State Department.[[103]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn103)

There was enormous domestic and international opposition to Bolton’s nomination. In late July 2006, the New York Times reported deep scorn for Bolton among UN ambassadors. According to the Times, “[M]any diplomats say they see Mr. Bolton as a stand-in for the arrogance of the administration itself.” Rather than furthering his stated mission of UN reform, according to the Times, “envoys say he has in fact endangered that effort by alienating traditional allies. They say he combatively asserts American leadership, contests procedures at the mannerly, rules-bound United Nations, and then shrugs off the organization when it does not follow his lead.” One unnamed UN ambassador “with close ties” to the administration said: “He’s lost me as an ally now, and that’s what many other ambassadors who consider themselves friends of the United States are saying.”[[104]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn104)

One of Bolton’s more controversial acts as ambassador came in 2005, when he sabotaged efforts to complete a joint UN declaration in connection with the organization’s 60th anniversary. According to Brian Urquhart, “UN delegations, including the United States and the Secretariat, had for the previous six months been working on this document, which originally contained a fairly ambitious mixture of global objectives and UN reform proposals. Bolton’s seven hundred or so amendments, designed, he believed, to increase the influence and reflect the interests of the United States, caused considerable confusion and resentment and reopened many disagreements that had previously been resolved. Among other things, he insisted that there be no mention of the Millennium Development Goals to eradicate global poverty, which the US had supported in 2000. (Condoleezza Rice overruled Bolton on this at the last minute.) Bolton also insisted on the elimination of any mention of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the ICC, and global warming.”[[105]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn105)

Controversies

Bolton has been closely associated, both in and out of government, with several political and financial controversies.

As an assistant attorney general under Edwin Meese, Bolton thwarted the Kerry Commission’s efforts to obtain documentation, including Bolton’s personal notes, about the Iran-Contra affair and alleged Contra drug smuggling. Working with congressional Republicans, Bolton also stonewalled congressional demands to interview Meese’s deputies regarding their role in the affair.[[106]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn106)

In 1978, as an associate at the high-powered Covington law firm, Bolton worked with Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) and the National Congressional Club, the senator’s campaign-financing organization, to help form a new campaign finance organization called Jefferson Marketing. According to the Legal Times, Jefferson Marketing was established “as a vehicle to supply candidates with such services as advertising and direct mail without having to worry about the federal laws preventing PACs, like the Congressional Club, from contributing more than $5,000 per election to any one candidate’s campaign committee.” After its formation, Jefferson Marketing became a holding company for three firms—Campaign Management Inc., Computer Operations & Mailing Professionals, and Discount Paper Brokers.[[107]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn107)

In 1987, the National Congressional Club reported a debt of $900,000. Its major creditors were Richard Viguerie, Charles Black Jr., Covington and Burling, and the DC law office of Baker & Hostetler—all of which maintained good relations with the right-wing PAC despite its failure to pay. Jefferson Marketing was the Congressional Club’s largest creditor, with more than $676,000 owed. By the end of the decade, FEC documents showed that Helms’ PAC owed Covington $111,000. But this was not considered a major concern for Covington, according to firm spokesman H. Edward Dunkelberger Jr.[[108]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn108)

A decade later, Bolton was again entangled in controversial schemes to support Republican candidates, this time involving money channeled from Hong Kong and Taiwan via a “think tank” linked to the Republican National Committee (RNC). In 1995-1996 Bolton served as president of the National Policy Forum (NPF), which according to a congressional investigation functioned as an intermediary organization to funnel foreign and corporate money to Republicans.[[109]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn109)

The NPF had been established in 1993 in anticipation of the 1994 general election. Founded by then-RNC chair Haley Barbour, the forum was organized as a nonprofit, tax-exempt education institute, although the IRS later ruled that as a subsidiary of the RNC, NPF was not entitled to tax-exempt status. A 1996 congressional investigation brought to light the role of the NPF, which reportedly channeled $800,000 in foreign money into the 1996 election cycle—after having used similar tactics to fund congressional races in 1994.[[110]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn110)

When Bolton became NPF president in 1995, the forum began organizing “megaconferences” with a fundraising hook. These events brought together Republican members of Congress, lobbyists, and corporate executives to discuss matters that were frequently the object of pending legislation. An NPF memo laid out the funding strategy: “NPF will continue to recruit new donors through conference sponsorships. … In order for the conferences to take place, they must pay for themselves or turn a profit. Industry and association leaders will be recruited to participate and sponsor those forums, starting at $25,000.” Corporate representatives professed surprise at the size of the contribution requests. “It’s pretty astounding,” said one invitee. “If this doesn’t have ‘payment for access’ [to top GOP lawmakers] written all over it, I don’t know what does.”[[111]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn111)

In another NPF memo, two NPF employees told Bolton that, in return for a $200,000 donation by U.S. West, the telecommunications company should be assured its top policy issues would be incorporated into the agenda for NPF’s upcoming telecommunications “megaconference.”[[112]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn112) Bolton left his position at the NPF shortly before Congress launched its probe into whether the group illegally accepted foreign contributions. No charges were ever filed because of the congressional hearings.[[113]](https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/john-bolton/#_ftn113)

SOURCES

pow

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/05/iran-coronavirus-medicine-sanctions/

DESPITE A MASSIVE coronavirus-related public health crisis, an anti-Iran pressure group with close ties to the Trump administration is urging major pharmaceutical companies to “end their Iran business,” focusing on companies with special licenses — most often under a broadly defined “humanitarian exemption” — to conduct trade with Iran.

With a novel strain of coronavirus rapidly spreading around the world, Iran has been hit particularly hard, with 107 deaths and 3,515 infections recorded so far. Yet the pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran, is carrying on with its campaign targeting medical trade with Iran despite the Trump administration’sspecial financial channels for humanitarian goods and medicine to reach the beleaguered country.

“U.S. sanctions have had a long-term impact on Iran’s ability to freely import medical supplies,” said Tyler Cullis, an attorney specializing in sanctions law at Ferrari & Associates. He pointed to “outside groups” that seek to bolster the Treasury Department’s investigatory heft and provide information on companies doing trade with Iran. “In tandem with U.S. sanctions,” Cullis said, “these groups have sought to impose reputational costs on companies that engage in lawful and legitimate trade with Iran, including humanitarian trade.”

:{

“These groups have sought to impose reputational costs on companies that engage in lawful and legitimate trade with Iran, including humanitarian trade.”

}:

The medical and humanitarian trade are carved out of crippling sanctions against Iran through special licenses issued by the Treasury Department. But companies must apply for the licenses then carry out the trade — something United Against Nuclear Iran, known as UANI, seeks to discourage.

“Their efforts are not insignificant,” Cullis said. “It is, after all, not an altogether lucrative enterprise selling medical supplies to Iran, so the name-and-shame operations of outside groups have a significant impact on the cost-benefit analysis associated with doing business with Iran.”

Joshua Silberberg, a spokesperson for UANI, declined to respond to questions about the group’s effort to name and shame companies doing medical trade with Iran. “UANI has a long history of expressing support and solidarity with the Iranian people,” he said, pointing to a statement applauding the finalization of the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Arrangement, an agreement arranged by the U.S. and Swiss governments.

UANI says it aims to persuade “the regime in Tehran to desist from its quest for nuclear weapons, while striving not to punish the Iranian people.” (The U.S. intelligence community does not believe that Iran has any desire or plans to build nuclear weapons.) UANI’s efforts, however, have extended beyond sanctions into pressuring companies that do legal trade with Iran, often under the Treasury Department’s humanitarian exemptions to sanctions — including medical-related trades that would presumably aid in combating a massive public health crisis like this coronavirus outbreak.

UANI operates an “Iran Business Registry” that provides an online database of companies it believes are conducting business in or with Iran — a name-and-shame strategy to increase Iran’s economic isolation. The pressure campaign has targeted multiple medical companies with Treasury Department licenses to conduct trade with Iran. Nine pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical-device corporations, all with special licenses, are listed on UANI’s business registry. Companies urged by UANI to “end their Iran business” include Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Genzyme, AirSep, Medrad, Becton, Dickinson & Company, Eli Lilly, and Abbott Laboratories.

The legal channels for humanitarian trade are widely reported to be failing to provide a sufficient flow of medicine and other humanitarian goods.

UANI’S EFFORTS ARE particularly notable in light of the group’s close ties to the Trump administration; Iran’s regional adversaries Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel; and the Republican Party’s biggest donors, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson.

Senior UANI adviser John Bolton worked for UANI both before and after his stint in the Trump administration as national security adviser. UANI’s umbrella group, Counter Extremism Project United Inc, paid Bolton $240,000 between 2016 and 2017.Bolton’s appointment as national security adviser was quickly followed by Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran.

Besides Bolton, the Trump administration twice sent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to UANI’s annual conference, held during the United Nations General Assembly. Pompeo used the occasions to promote outlandish claims about Europe purportedly financing Iranian terrorism and to present the administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy to UANI’s audience, which included senior diplomats and intelligence officials from the Persian Gulf and Israel.

The group’s last summit, held in September, featuredU.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, who is now Trump’s acting director of national intelligence, as well as a who’s who of the Trump administration’s hawkish Middle East partners, including top diplomats from Persian Gulf monarchies and Israel. (UANI and its affiliated organizations have a number of links to Gulf monarchies, including a 2014 email from a UANI advisory board member soliciting “support” from the United Arab Emirates.)

UANI’s top funder, billionaire Thomas Kaplan — an investor whose companies have looked to profit from “political unrest” in the Middle East — was also in attendance at the summit.

Finally, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson’s financial support for UANI closely tracks the Republican megadonors’ hawkish views toward Iran.In 2013, Sheldon Adelson told an audience at Yeshiva University that Obama should launch a nuclear strike on Iran and threaten that Iran will be “wiped out” if it doesn’t dismantle its nuclear program. The Adelsons were Trump’s biggest funders in the 2016 election and the GOP’s biggest funders in the 2018 cycle. They are expected to contribute at least $100 million to Trump’s reelection efforts and Republican congressional candidates in the 2020 cycle.

While the Trump administration’s extreme financial pressure against Iran is coinciding with the coronavirus outbreak, Tyler Cullis, the sanctions lawyer, was careful to note that issues with ensuring a robust trade of medical and humanitarian supplies to Iran began under previous administrations. “While those problems have been exacerbated under the Trump administration,” Cullis said, “their origination takes place more than a decade ago when prior administrations first started imposing enormous sanctions pressure on Iran’s financial sector.”

new

BRITTANY KAISER: Absolutely. So, the files on Ambassador John Bolton show the work that Cambridge Analytica was paid to undertake for the John Bolton super PAC. That was work that started in 2013. It was actually one of the biggest first projects that Cambridge Analytica undertook in the United States. And that was to find five different psychographic groupings of voters and target them with psychographic messaging meant to resonate with your psyche and engage you, depending on whether you’re open, conscientious, extroverted, agreeable or neurotic.

And those videos were targeted over television and YouTube pre-roll in order to convince people, one, that national security was the most important political issue; two, that Ambassador John Bolton was the biggest authority on these topics; and, three, that whoever John Bolton was endorsing — for example, Thom Tillis — would be a better candidate — than Kay Hagan, for example, in that specific race. So, these ads were paid in order to manipulate people into being more interested in his hawkish foreign policies than in their own best interest.

AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about the ad, that is not radio-friendly because it’s mainly music with script over it? But this is an ad for Thom Tillis, right?

BRITTANY KAISER: Yes. And it was an ad targeted at a group of people identified as being highly neurotic, and, therefore, it is black and white. It’s eerie. You get very emotional music, that shows surrender flags on all of America’s most prominent landmarks.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me play it, and I’ll read what it says on the screen. So we’ll listen to that music and play the ad, and you can then comment further.

There’s white flags going up, white flag on the Brooklyn Bridge, over the White House — over Congress. And it says, “America’s never surrendered before. What happens if we start now? On November 4, vote Thom Tillis.”

An ad paid for, 2014, by the John Bolton super PAC. The ad was titled “White Flags.” Tillis went on to win his Senate race.

BRITTANY KAISER: Yes, he did, indeed. And they used these tactics in a very successful manner. In fact, the John Bolton super PAC paid for a third party to rate how successful Cambridge Analytica had been. And they saw, on this ad specifically, that there was over a 36% uplift in engagement on these ads versus the communications that they had already been running.

And so, what scares me so much is that I know that these tactics are being used right now.We are being manipulated in order to support going to war with Iran. We are being manipulated in order to believe that this type of violence is acceptable and that we should support candidates that support this violence.

AMY GOODMAN: There are some who have suggested that President Trump did this, possibly in part because he’s so deeply concerned about his impeachment trial, and this specifically could be targeted for John Bolton, the former national security adviser, who almost immediately tweeted, “We have been working on this for a long time,” talking about the assassination,and that Trump is afraid of what he might say, and so this would appease him.

BRITTANY KAISER: Another important tranche of documents that I released are in the Iran folder, which actually shows that Cambridge Analytica and other right-wing organizations, like America Rising, that does all of the opposition research for the GOP, were polling to see how many people in the United States were interested in the Iran deal, to drop sanctions, or if they were against the Iran nuclear deal and more interested in war.So you can see the types of questions that were asked, and that they were using that to model and identify people who could be persuaded to go against Iran, and whether or not that would be favorable for electoral fodder, I should say. And right now that same polling is happening. So, if you are identified as being a persuadable, you are going to see more of this propaganda in order to convince you that war is in our best interest, when it obviously is not.

AMY GOODMAN: Emma Briant, what makes this different from regular polling? Why do you see this as evil?

EMMA BRIANT: It’s not polling I think is evil; it’s what it’s being used for. I’d like to put this in a little bit of a wider context, if I may, and talk a little bit about what I know about SCL and —

AMY GOODMAN: You have 30 seconds, and then we will do Part 2.

EMMA BRIANT: — Iran. Oh, OK, sure. So, basically, they were working also in the Gulf from 2013. And it’s really important to note that the Saudis and the UAE were also very keen to oppose the Iran deal, and Trump’s election was followed by a huge spike in arms sales to the Saudis. And I think that this being a military contractor is extremely important to remember in the light of these recent developments on Iran.

no lnx

John Bolton is not a hero of the #resistance — not even in Trump’s gritty mob-thriller

Written by Andrew O'Hehir / Salon October 27, 2019

In the forthcoming movie version of the downfall of the Trump administration — which may be more fun than watching the actual event in real time — no character will be more compelling, or more coveted by name actors, than John Bolton. (Who do you like for the role? I mean, if for some reason Jeff Bridges turns it down.) President Trump’s former national security adviser has evidently turned against the boss, and the consequences could be devastating. It seems clear that Bolton has already played a pivotal backstage role in exposing the Ukraine scandal, and that sooner or later he will be a star witness at impeachment hearings.

As Shakespearean or “Game of Thrones”-style revenge drama, this makes for an irresistible narrative. As a political power struggle in the real world, it’s so full of contradictions and so overloaded with irony that it’s much harder to read. Two truisms may be helpful here, which are overused because they are true: The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and not every story has a good guy and a bad guy.

Is John Bolton now a hero of the anti-Trump “resistance”? Well, the short answer is, Ha ha ha, oh hell no. Anybody who is trying to sell that line, even with a nod and a wink, is either trolling themselves or trolling the rest of us.

Bolton is only slightly more likely to support the Democratic Party on anything, ever, than he is to sign up with ISIS — and in his heart of hearts, he might think the latter course of action was less cowardly.

But the longer and more truthful answer is more like, Hmm, it depends what those words mean. If the principal or primary goal of “resistance” is to get rid of Trump by whatever means necessary, and worry about the other stuff later, and if you see this as one of those plot points in a comic-book movie where superhero and supervillain must forge a temporary alliance to battle a galactic menace, then, sure, I guess the walrus-mustached warmonger is one of the Avengers now.

Bit of a puzzler, am I right? I think where I come down is in a different film genre: Bolton is like the renegade antihero of a mob thriller, who is now plotting a hit on his corrupt former overlord, knowing full well he is likely to go down in the crossfire. His motives and worldview are almost entirely reprehensible, and the world is much better off with him far away from the levers of political and military power. Yet within that frame, it’s fair to say that Bolton has conducted himself with integrity and honor, as he understands those things. He has certainly never been dishonest about his principles or goals, which are largely about reasserting American hegemony everywhere in the world, at almost any cost.

Bolton was reportedly outraged by the Trump administration’s back-door amateur-hour diplomacy with Ukraine, partly on policy grounds and partly on process grounds. In an NPR interview last week, former Bolton aide Mark Groombridge described him as a stickler for proper procedure, as a way of forcing weak-willed libtard foes to engage him on policy. That’s an important key to understanding his recent decisions.

Although it does not appear that Bolton was the whistleblower who eventually alerted Congress to Trump’s infamous July phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky, I’d be shocked if he didn’t know it was coming, and not the least bit surprised if he orchestrated it. He urged subordinates and diplomats — including Fiona Hill, then the National Security Council’s Russia expert, and Bill Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador in Ukraine — to create paper trails to protect themselves. Those two people have already given congressional depositions that were immensely damaging to Trump. According to Hill, Bolton described Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, as a “hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.” (Admittedly, that falls under the heading of “no shit, Sherlock.”)

Writing what sounds like Aaron Sorkin’s next screenplay in advance, Bolton also supposedly told his staff he wanted no part of “whatever drug deal [Gordon] Sondland and [Mick] Mulvaney are cooking up.” That was a reference to the malevolent but idiotic scheme, personally directed by the president and his most loyal underlings — including his EU ambassador and acting chief of staff, respectively — to use $391 million in military aid to arm-twist the Ukrainian government into launching phony investigations of Joe and Hunter Biden, the Democratic National Committee’s mythical server and God knows what else.

This is undeniably delicious material: You can hear the withering contempt in the phrase “whatever drug deal.” Bolton is encrusted with many hardened layers of neocon ideology, but he also went to Yale Law School, and no one has ever suggested he was a low-grade crook or a dumbass.

I’m quite sure he has zero problem with the “unitary executive” theory holding that the president of the United States is essentially an elected monarch. But he found this particular elected monarch unbearably stupid, sloppy and underhanded, and resented seeing his “muscular” foreign policy goals — staging a coup in Venezuela, invading Iran and nuking North Korea into smoldering ruins — undermined by a global snipe-hunt conducted by untrustworthy morons. So Bolton got out of the burning building with his head held high (according to him), and now he’s gonna make those bastards pay.

Beyond the appealing concept that karma is a bitch and that what goes around comes around, and beyond the delightful irony that Trump’s decision to hire the most hawkish commentator on Fox News may have been a fatal mistake — well, where the hell are we? Some commentators on the left have suggested that after his Trump divorce Bolton could become the next object of liberals’ long-running romance with foreign policy hawks (and/or war criminals) like Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Anything’s possible, in an upside-down world where Democrats have somehow convinced themselves that the CIA and FBI are their friends. But Bolton would probably tell you that Kissinger and Albright were insufferable hypocrites on the subject of human rights. (He would have a point.) As mentioned above, he might rather self-deport to Tajikistan than knowingly consort with liberals.

Bolton might fit in slightly better, actually, as a fringe member of what Salon columnist Bob Cesca has dubbed the “coalition of normals” — that is, a short-term alliance of liberals, moderates and NeverTrump conservatives determined to address two near-term goals: Getting Trump out of the White House and correcting the failures of constitutional democracy that allowed him to get there in the first place. Bolton’s critique of Trump, as far as I can tell, is perfectly aligned with the CoN agenda: Trump is an embarrassing clown who breaks the rules and commits dipshit little crimes. (Whereas John Bolton has his paperwork in order, and prefers crimes on a global-historical scale.)

I grasp the pragmatic impulse at work behind the CoN project, which is no doubt admirable: We have to repair the machinery of democracy before it gets wrecked for good, and can get back to fighting over policy and ideology after that. I also don’t trust it. NeverTrumpers like Bill Kristol, George Will and Tom Nichols (and most certainly John Bolton) were not innocent bystanders during the process by which the Republican Party transformed itself into an authoritarian, white supremacist cult of personality. At best, they politely ignored the racist paranoia, the woman-hating, the gay-bashing, the pandering to religious fundamentalism, the know-nothingism and all the rest of it. There is no reason to believe they are now less duplicitous and self-serving because they couldn’t stomach the vulgarity of Donald Trump.

What fully-online NeverTrumpers like Nichols and Rick Wilson want, to be fair, is no secret: They want to rebuild or rebrand the conservative movement, either by reconquering the post-Trump Republican Party, or if they can’t do that, by constructing a new party from its ruins, or if they can’t do that, by pulling the Democratic Party as far in their direction as it’s willing to go, which based on recent history is pretty fucking far. It goes without saying that they’re welcome to advocate for their views and support whomever they like — but it’s hopelessly naive to claim that any coalition that includes that faction has no ideology or no policy goals. I see no reason why leftists or progressives who have a dramatically different vision of post-Trump America and its priorities should play along.

Furthermore, I can’t help perceiving an implicit (and ambitious) policy goal behind the entire conception of a return to “normal,” which is the same policy goal behind Joe Biden’s presidential campaign: Restoring the unquestioned validity of the “Washington consensus,” meaning the set of interlocking economic and foreign-affairs policies that have dominated the Western world since at least the end of the Cold War.

One accidental byproduct of the Trump presidency has been the revelation that U.S. foreign policy largely is conducted by “unelected bureaucrats,” according to principles that are hardly ever discussed in public, and almost never debated in election campaigns. None of which is even remotely an endorsement of Trump’s erratic drift from one photo-op to the next, his incoherent trade wars, his on-again, off-again relationship with traditional U.S. allies or his bromances with tyrants of all persuasions. But I don’t think anyone would deny that he’s making these decisions himself.

Do you and I understand why the United States is so deeply involved in sustaining the precarious, corruption-plagued Ukrainian government, and supporting its border war with Russia? Because I definitely don’t remember getting to vote on that, or any presidential candidate explaining to us why it was a matter of urgent national security. Whatever you make of Russian intervention in the 2016 election and whether it made a decisive difference in electing Trump (something we will never know for sure), most Americans appear unaware that it didn’t come out of nowhere, and from the Russian point of view was partial payback for a long campaign of aggression and subversion conducted right on Vladimir Putin’s doorstep.

Maybe this newer, quieter version of the Cold War is necessary to maintain international order, and maybe it’s not.My point is that people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Jim Clapper, and John Bolton and the NeverTrumpers, whatever their internal disagreements, all believe they belong to the class of people qualified to make such decisions, and the rest of us do not. If a return to “normal,” following the defenestration of the Idiot King, means returning that mandarin caste to power in the secret rooms at the top of the castle, so the peasantry can Netflix-and-chill in peace, I’d have to say I’m not down.

In fact, I think the greatest respect I can show to John Bolton, at this moment, is to suggest that he’s far too intelligent not to view that entire line of reasoning with contempt, and not to understand that, in walking away from the Trump White House, he has almost certainly surrendered power for the last time. (Yes, there’s an argument that President Mike Pence might be more congenial to Bolton’s dreams of world conquest. I don’t think Bolton is shallow enough to put all his chips on that number.)

If I’m writing Bolton’s character from here on out, he tells the #resistance and the NeverTrumpers and the can’t-we-just-get-along Democrats to kiss the fine Corinthian leather of his entire ass. If they want to run American foreign policy by girly-man consensus where everyone gets an orange slice, they are welcome to it. If I’m not misusing the expression, he is fresh out of fucks. He just wants to shiv the incompetent orange lard-ass in the prison yard and stand over him while he bleeds out and his henchmen disappear into the shadows.

What happens after that is anyone’s guess. But at the end of the movie, after the credits roll, we might get one of those coda sequences: John Bolton, in a bar somewhere on the other side of the world. Buy him an expensive brandy and a good cigar — a Cuban, for Christ’s sake — and he’ll tell you the whole story. OK, yeah, his version of it anyway.