Who doesn't want to read John Bolton's new book?

I have to admit I have been awaiting the arrival of Bolton's new book. I am not a fan of his by any means, but I am certainly not a fan of this Administration. I wanted to hear about the contents of Bolton's new book, but I am determined I will not spend one single penny on it and will not enrich Bolton by any means.

Turns out, it might not be an issue. Like most of you, I learned the District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth denied the government's motion for an injunction to stop the distribution of the book, The Room Where It Happened. Most of the news reports only went so far and I was happy to see that the French media was giving it more attention.  

The Memorandum Order is fairly short and starts off with the conclusion, "[w]hile Bolton's unilateral conduct raises grave national security concerns, the government has not established that an injunction is an appropriate remedy." The Memo gives a quick background, focusing on the fact that Bolton signed several nondisclosure agreements. The violation of Bolton's NDA may result in assigning "all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, . . ."  

In December 2019, Bolton submitted his draft manuscript to the National Security Council and over the next four months, Bolton made edits to the manuscript. On April 27, 2020, the Senior Director for Records Access and Information Security Management Ellen Knight stated she no longer considered his manuscript to contain classified material and that she might prepare a final written authorization for him to proceed. She didn't. Then on June 8th, John Eisenberg, Deputy White House Counsel and Legal Advisor wrote to Bolton, claiming his book still contained classified information. Bolton decided to deliver the "final" manuscript to his publisher without receiving the written authorization or giving notice to the government. He also decided not to seek any relief from the courts.

The Court applied a four-factor test in deciding whether the injunction should issue. The first question was "Is the government likely to succeed on the merits?" The Court said yes, Bolton "likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations."

"This was Bolton's bet: If he is right and the book does not contain classified information, he keeps the upside mentioned above; but if he is wrong, he stands to lose his profits from the book deal, exposes himself to criminal liability, and imperils national security. Bolton was wrong."

As noted by the Court, establishing one factor of the test is not sufficient. The next factor was whether the government would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. It noted that more than 200,000 copies of the book had been shipped domestically, and thousands internationally. The book has already been reviewed and excerpted. As stated by Judge Lamberth, "By the looks of it, the horse is not just out of the barn - it is out of the country." The Court declined to issue an injunction for a nationwide seizure and destruction of the book, noting how the Internet age made such actions futile.

The Court also concluded any injunction "would be so toothless as to not substantially injure anyone" and that the request was untimely. It found the government could not overcome a lack of redressability. Because the government failed to establish three of the four required elements, the request for an injunction was denied.

A new book by Trump's niece Mary Trump is also scheduled for release in July. Trump has raised the possibility of suing her to block the book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man. He claims she signed a NDA over 20 years ago when the family settled Fred Sr.'s estate. Since I wouldn't assume the book to contain classified information, Trump will have to rely on the strength of the NDA. Considering Ms. Trump is a psychologist, it should be an interesting read.