While the liberal media was quick to claim the FBI’s raid of former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s home was another instance of President Trump’s purported ‘campaign of vengeance,’ the details of his indictment by a Maryland grand jury had them back tracking, if only just slightly. According to the Friday edition of CNN News Central, the indictment had some real serious teeth in the form of evidence that Bolton knew he shouldn’t be in possession of the information he had and that some of it was hacked by the Iranians.
Following a report from crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz going over the eight counts of transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information, co-host John Berman brought on former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree who saw this particular case as “a serious situation.”
According to Dupree, the case against Bolton had more teeth that the ones against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James:
Those indictments were short, they were skeletal, they were haiku like. This is long and thorough, 26 pages, very detailed allegations. It's what prosecutors call a speaking indictment that really tells a story and goes into great detail and puts on public display the evidence that the government has gathered much of which I think was actually picked up when they executed the search warrant at John Bolton's house.
“But the government has already put a lot of cards on the table, and the allegations. And at this point, they are just allegations. Do tell a fairly disturbing story about how Bolton allegedly mishandled classified information,” Dupree added.
Pivoting to his other guest, former U.S. Attorney Michael Moore, Berman actually read from the indictment a text exchange between Bolton and couple family members he sent the classified information to, with an apparent acknowledgement that they shouldn’t have it:
BERMAN: Michael, let me read to you in the indictment where it says, “On or about July 23rd, 2018, Bolton sent individuals one and two a 24-page document which described information that Bolton learned while national security advisor. Less than three hours later, Bolton sent individuals one and two a follow up message that stated, ‘none of which we talked about” - three exclamation points. In response, individual one sent a message that stated, “Shhhhh.” So, how does that state of mind, Michael, maybe acknowledge that this needed to be kept quiet? How could that impact the case?
(…)
MOORE: And what he would do is, by all appearances, is he would take some notes while he was in a meeting in his own hand. Those notes may include information which was discussed, which shouldn't have been discussed outside the meeting. He would then send those to family members who were helping him compile his manuscript or his notes to be submitted to an editor.
Seemingly hinting at comparing it to the classified documents case President Trump once faced, Berman noted that what made this case particularly unique, “was a transmission, allegedly, of classified material. It's not just retention, like boxes of records here. He hit send allegedly to these AOL accounts.”
Worse yet, that information Bolton sent was hacked by the Iranians. “He would apparently scan them or take a picture or whatever, and he would have those notes sent over a non-secure program. And that's how ultimately they were subject to hack,” Moore explained. “And apparently they were hacked by Iran or people connected with Iran. And that's the danger of having this information out there.”
According to reports from MSNBC, the only reason investigators knew that Bolton was hacked was because U.S. operations against Iran discovered the hacked information on their hardware. CNN also seemed to give this indictment more wait because the case was opened under the Biden administration.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
CNN News Central
October 17, 2025
9:04:26 a.m. Eastern(…)
JOHN BERMAN: Tom, let me start with you. What jumps out to you? How serious is this situation for ambassador Bolton?
TOM DUPREE: It's a serious situation. And what jumped out at me when I reviewed that indictment was how starkly it differed from the indictments we saw of Jim Comey and Tish James. Those indictments were short, they were skeletal, they were haiku like. This is long and thorough, 26 pages, very detailed allegations. It's what prosecutors call a speaking indictment that really tells a story and goes into great detail and puts on public display the evidence that the government has gathered much of which I think was actually picked up when they executed the search warrant at John Bolton's house.
But the government has already put a lot of cards on the table, and the allegations. And at this point, they are just allegations. Do tell a fairly disturbing story about how Bolton allegedly mishandled classified information.
BERMAN: And if you read the indictment, it seems to suggest he knew there was something in the way he was handling it, at least allegedly. There's this point. Michael, let me read to you in the indictment where it says, “On or about July 23rd, 2018, Bolton sent individuals one and two a 24-page document which described information that Bolton learned while national security advisor. Less than three hours later, Bolton sent individuals one and two a follow up message that stated, ‘none of which we talked about” - three exclamation points. In response, individual one sent a message that stated, “Shhhhh.”
So, how does that state of mind, Michael, maybe acknowledge that this needed to be kept quiet? How could that impact the case?
MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah, well, I'm glad to be with you. Look, this is a serious indictment, and it just tells us how seriously we need to take the handling of national security information. But the bottom line is, this is really a case about him writing a book. And what he would do is, by all appearances, is he would take some notes while he was in a meeting in his own hand. Those notes may include information which was discussed, which shouldn't have been discussed outside the meeting. He would then send those to family members who were helping him compile his manuscript or his notes to be submitted to an editor.
This is not a case where he had a little secret camera and he was taking pictures of the war plane plans and all this, and sending them to China or something. That’s not what this case is. But it's serious nonetheless, because he knows enough, having had the roles that he's had in the U.S. government. He knows enough about how to handle classified and sensitive information. And he didn't do that here.
(…)
9:09:04 a.m. Eastern
BERMAN: And, Michael, a couple of things here that are different from this case. There was a transmission, allegedly, of classified material. It's not just retention, like boxes of records here. He hit send allegedly to these AOL accounts. And there was a hack by a foreign actor into this information. So how does that color the case? Michael?
MOORE: Well, I mean that that makes it and probably as a good example of why it's all the more serious. And that is because he was using a non-secure server, a non-secure system, to transmit information, that is his notes that he had handwritten. He would apparently scan them or take a picture or whatever, and he would have those notes sent over a non-secure program. And that's how ultimately they were subject to hack. And apparently they were hacked by Iran or people connected with Iran. And that's the danger of having this information out there.
(…)
