Sara Sidner & John Berman: John Bolton Arrives At Federal Court a Day After Being Indicted

"John Bolton arrived at federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, on Friday morning. Bolton, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser-turned-adversary, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland on Thursday." 

Source:CNN with a look at Ambassador John Bolton.

From CNN

I will get into the John Bolton story as well. But just on a personal note first: (and since this is Friday, I feel the freedom to do this) isn't great to have the real Sara Sidner back at CNN? 

The Sara Sidner you see in this video, looks a lot like the Sara Sidner in this photo. This is the Sara Sidner from 2022, or even back in 2011 when she was an international correspondent at CNN. Tall, plus-sized, beautiful, long, black hair, and a beautiful babyface. I thought she had the best hair, at least at CNN back in 2022. She's a woman that I would call a beautiful plus-sized baby, because as tall and big bone as she is, she has the face and smile of a little, baby cutie. Her hair is a little shorter now then it was 3 years ago before she got sick and she's lost a lot of weight to help her stay healthy. But she has her hair back and looks absolutely beautiful. 

Source:CNN anchor Sara Sidner.

As far as the John Bolton case: You could look at this case from 3 different ways:

You could look at it from a partisan point of view and not just as a Democrat, but as a Conservative Republican, who simply doesn't like Donald Trump and his MAGA party. (Doesn't like might be generous) Or as a Democrat, who doesn't like John Bolton, but who believes in the rule of law and doesn't want to see even Republicans get prosecuted simply because they oppose Donald Trump. 

You could also make a political lawfare argument here as if you are a defense attorney and saying that if they had the same evidence against someone like Pete Hegeseth, (who just happens to be Secretary of Defense) that DOG would've never brought this case against Secretary Hegseth. Why? Because the Secretary is an ally of President Trump. But since Ambassador Bolton has been in opposition to the President, at least since the President fired him back in 2018, that's the only reason why DOJ is prosecuting him today. 

And then there's the lawyer's-lawyer argument and you heard that in this video from Tom Dupree and Michael Moore (not that Michael Moore) where they're looking at the evidence that DOJ has already made public against Bolton and talking about the case based on that. 

Did New York Attorney General Leticia James prosecute Donald Trump back in 2023-24 because she doesn't like him and wants to put him prison? 

Did Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecute Donald Trump back in 24 because he doesn't like DJT and wants to see him in prison?

The answer to both of my questions is obviously yes. But the point is both the NY Attorney General and Manhattan DA had excellent cases against President Trump. That's why they won those cases. And the Bolton case is not that different, if any different from those 2 Trump cases. 

I'm not a lawyer, don't even pretend to be 1 even in my mind, let alone on TV. But I know enough about the law and juries to know that at the end of the day, if the prosecution has a case for conviction, regardless of the reason or reasons for bringing the case at all, they'll probably get their convictions. And that's what the Bolton case will come down to as well, if it makes it that far. Does the U.S. Attorney have a case for conviction in this case, or not. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.