Read the Complaint: Trump Sues John Bolton Over His Memoir
"This is a civil action by the United States to prevent Defendant John R. Bolton, a former National Security Advisor, from compromising national security by publishing a book containing classified information," the Justice Department said in its complaint Tuesday in Washington.
June 16, 2020 at 05:29 PM
4 minute read
The Trump administration on Tuesday went to court in Washington in an effort to block the publication of former national security adviser John Bolton's memoir.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, named only Bolton as a defendant. The complaint seeks among other things an order requiring Bolton "to instruct or request his publisher, insofar as he has the authority to do so, to further delay the release date" of the memoir.
"This is a civil action by the United States to prevent Defendant John R. Bolton, a former National Security Advisor, from compromising national security by publishing a book containing classified information—in clear breach of agreements he signed as a condition of his employment and as a condition of gaining access to highly classified information and in clear breach of the trust placed within him by the United States Government," Justice Department lawyers said in the complaint.
The lawsuit, brought by the DOJ's civil division, sets up a potential fiery clash over the scope of the First Amendment, and it comes just weeks before the book is set for public release. News reports indicate Bolton's memoir "The Room Where It Happened" is due out June 23.
A manuscript of Bolton's book was at the heart of the Senate's impeachment trial after The New York Times reported that it detailed conversations in which Trump directly linked Ukraine announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden to lifting a hold on military aid to the country.
Bolton's memoir reportedly presents an "inconsistent, scattershot decision-making process" inside the Trump White House.
Bolton said he would have testified at Trump's impeachment had U.S. senators issued a subpoena. Writing recently at The Washington Post, Trump critic George Conway said Bolton's "fatal misjudgment" was overestimating the willingness of Senate Republicans to vote with Democrats to issue the subpoena.
"The only way to make sense of Bolton's behavior is to recognize that he actually did intend and expected to testify. He wanted to testify, but wanted to appear to be forced to do it," Conway wrote. "Perhaps he thought that, as a reluctant witness, he'd be less open to being caricatured as a disgruntled, discharged adviser, and his credibility would have been enhanced. So he insisted on a court order to appear before the House."
The White House has claimed that Bolton's manuscript contains classified information that cannot be published. "The unauthorized disclosure of classified information could be exploited by a foreign power, thereby causing significant harm to the national security of the United States," a White House lawyer, John Eisenberg, wrote in a letter, according to The New York Times.
Bolton is represented by Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk, a leading attorney in Washington who has represented notable conservative figures. The Washington Post recently cited a statement from Simon & Schuster that Bolton took steps to make sure his book posed no threat to the national security.
Read the lawsuit United States v. Bolton:
Read more:
Chuck Cooper Isn't Yanking Lawsuit Questioning House Impeachment Testimony
|Mike Scarcella contributed reporting from Washington.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250