Mediaboss Marketing

Former US national security adviser John Bolton is the latest ex-government official to rebuke the misconduct, ignorance and self-serving behaviour of the president, Donald Trump, in the form of a tell-all book. The Room Where It Happened details Trumps idiosyncrasies, offers of favours to authoritarian leaders, lack of basic knowledge, and obstruction of justice as a way of life.

Promoting the book in a series of interviews, Bolton told one reporter that hehopes it will be a one-term presidency: Two terms, Im more troubled about, he said.

Yet the battle around the publication is more than another Trumpian political scandal. It centres on the disclosure of US national security information, particularly the concept of prior restraint that allows the government to censor speech or expression before it has occurred.

The issues originate in whistleblowing in the 1970s when former officials spoke out against government wrongdoing. Bolton is certainly no whistleblower although the legacy of that era informs an ongoing struggle today around first amendment freedom of speech rights and state secrecy.

Beyond politics

In many respects, the case is emblematic of Trumps White House. Bolton was in post from April 2018 to September 2019, the longest-serving national security adviser under Trump, but now asserts the president lacks the competence to carry out the job and is not fit for office. When the first excerpts from the book emerged, Trump characteristically lashed out with a tweet full of insults and accusations.

The politics are certainly messy. Bolton, a hawkish Republican, is an opportunistic political operative. With the publication of the book, he has angered Trumps supporters. At the same time, his revelations have not won him friends among the presidents numerous opponents.

Boltonsrefusal to testifyduring the impeachment hearings at the beginning of the year, preferring to save his material for his book, has led to accusations that he was puttingpersonal interest before national interestas well as profiteering, andtrying to save his legacy.

Prior restraint

The crux of the matter is not individual politics but whether Bolton was authorised to publish the memoir. On June 20, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia denied a last-ditch Justice Department motion to block its release. Noting that excerpts were already printed and the book widely in circulation, he stated that: the the damage is done. There is no restoring the status quo.

The author nonetheless remains in trouble. Thejudge concluded that: Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States by potentially exposing secrets. The government could still sue Bolton for not following the prepublication review process that applies to everyone who signs a secrecy agreement.

The prepublication review system was created following awave of whistleblowingthat exposed government abuse in the 1970s. The most famous example was Daniel Ellsbergs revelation of thePentagon Papers, a top secret military report on US involvement in the Vietnam War. Other whistleblowers includingFrank Snepp, Philip Agee, and Victor Marchettiwrote books detailing their experiences working for the Central Intelligence Agency. Not all of them revealed secrets but the fact they were speaking publicly raised concerns.

In response, the US government created a process requiring all current and former national security officials to submit material intended for a public audience before it could be published. This vetting process was intended to protect classified information.

John Bolton. Photo: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

The system has beenriddled with problems from the beginning, including lengthy review processes and arbitrary decision-making around what can and cannot be published. The issues have afflicted both works that criticise and support US foreign relations. In 2019 the Knight First Amendment Institute and the American Civil Liberties Unionfiled a lawsuitchallenging the system as dysfunctional and placing too much power in the hands of reviewers.

Authors who refuse to submit work for prepublication review are liable to be prosecuted. After publishing a 1977 book without approval, Snepp wasordered by the Supreme Courtto forfeit all royalties to his former employer, the CIA. The court ruled that the book had caused irreparable harm to national security.

Boltonslegal team claimshe did not violate the secrecy agreement because he had satisfied all issues raised by the National Security Councils senior director for prepublication review.

But the nature of the secrecy system and the review process is nebulous and allows the executive branch significant room for manoeuvre. WhileTrumps assertionthat every conversation with me [is] highly classified is a stretch, the suggestion that Bolton broke the law and must pay a very big price for this, as others have before him is consistent with the broad authority afforded to presidents on national security matters.

The White House recently opened asecond prepublication review processof Boltons book. The outcome of this latest review, which will be overseen by Judge Lambert, will determine his fate. If the courts follow historical precedent and rule in favour of the government, like Snepp before him, Bolton stands to forfeit his reported $2 million advance, and could face criminal liability that includes the possibility of a jail sentence.

Speech rights

While the author remains in legal peril, Boltons revelations continue to receive widespread attention. That the press can report national security secrets is rooted in another seminal whistleblowing case, Ellsbergs release of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other outlets. TheSupreme Court ruledthat prior restraint of the press was unconstitutional.

Daniel Ellsberg. Photo: Reuters

The First Amendment of the US constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press from government interference. But when it comes to discussing national security information, thepress enjoys greater protection than government employees.

In hyper-partisan times, it can be hard to look beyond the immediate political stakes. Yet the issues raised by this episode predate Bolton and Trump and are likely to persist long after them.

This article first appeared onThe Conversation.Read the original here.

Here is the original post:
Bolton's Book the Latest in White House Disclosures to Test US First Amendment - The Wire