Bolton may be in hot water as FBI investigation expands beyond controversial book

The FBI's raid on John Bolton's home and office is tied to an investigation that reaches beyond his controversial book, a source told Fox News Digital, fueling speculation that the former Trump adviser could face criminal charges.

The scope of any potential charges against Bolton, who served under President Donald Trump before falling out of favor with him in 2019, is uncertain, but experts tend to agree that Bolton has some legal exposure.

Prominent D.C.-based attorney Mark Zaid, who specializes in national security, said that while there are many unknowns about the Department of Justice's investigation into Bolton, his memoir, "The Room Where It Happened," could be an area of vulnerability for him.

"With respect to Bolton's book, he is potentially vulnerable if he maintains any copies of early drafts which were determined to contain 'voluminous' amounts of classified information when it was first submitted to the White House for review," Zaid told Fox New Digital. "Those drafts were likely disseminated, per normal course of business, to his literary agent, publisher and lawyer."

Zaid added that those transmissions could be unlawful under the Espionage Act, a serious set of charges used throughout history to punish spies and leakers of government secrets.

The DOJ alleged in the lawsuit that Bolton skipped over normal prepublication review processes and allowed his publisher to move forward with printing a book that contained several passages of classified national security information.

In court papers, Bolton said he did not initially believe his memoir contained classified information, but then he edited some information out of the book after consulting with the National Security Council. Bolton never received a final signoff from the National Security Council before moving forward with publishing. He argued in court papers that the Trump administration's refusal to approve the memoir's contents violated his First Amendment rights and that the National Security Council's review process "had been abused in an effort to suppress" the book, which contained harsh criticisms of Trump.

Judge Royce Lamberth, a D.C.-based Reagan appointee, denied the Trump DOJ's request to block publication of Bolton's book because, among several reasons, it had already been exposed to publishers. Still, Lamberth faulted Bolton.

"Defendant Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States," Lamberth wrote in an order at the time. "He has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability."

Lamberth found it was likely Bolton "jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information" in violation of various nondisclosure agreements he signed as part of his national security role.

While Bolton's book controversy has been at the forefront since the raids at his home and office, one well-placed source familiar with the investigation told Fox News Digital on Monday the investigation is far more expansive than the book. 

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of Virginia suggested the line between honest scrutiny of potential wrongdoing and political revenge has become blurred.

"Trump DOJ targeting enemies of Trump - Letitia James, Adam Schiff, Federal Reserve Governor [Lisa] Cook and now John Bolton. Trump appears to want them harmed for personal/political reasons but if they broke the law are the investigations justified?" Fishwick told Fox News Digital in a statement. "That question is putting an incredible stress test on our legal system."

Zaid noted that Bolton could bring claims of a selective or vindictive prosecution if he were indicted but that those are difficult to prove.

Attorney Jason Kander, an Army veteran and former secretary of state of Missouri, said on the podcast "Talking Feds" that even if the DOJ does not secure a conviction against Bolton, the legal process itself is punishment.

"It's not just harassment. It's potential financial ruin," Kander said. "When they come after you like this it doesn't matter if there isn't a scintilla of evidence. It's a minimum half a million bucks in legal fees in a situation like this."