Every accusation seems more plausible if compared to the most notorious cases of federal prosecutorial overreach in American history.
Fair point. 
The Atlantic sums it up in a way that does not look good for Bolton (hope the gift link works, the Atlantic is not always good at that):
It’s chickenhawks all the way down.
Very last line of that article:
Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.”
I know someone I’d describe that way, but it’s not Bolton.
Well, rocks and glass houses aside, it’s not an unfair description of Bolton.
I just tried the following prompt in at least four AI’s to see if there is any precedent for what they are doing to Bolton. Here is my prompt:
“Prior to John Bolton, was anyone ever charged with retaining classified information when the classified information was limited to notes sent to friends or family and the notes did not quote from the classified documents?”
Looking at everything I can see, I think the answer is no.
I think this is the first time that Trump used the legal system to target a prominent enemy, and it worked.
I’m not aware of anything Bolton put in his book that should have been secret. If anything, he should have revealed his findings earlier.
It could be that in this case it worked because Trump targeted someone who was actually guilty.
Here’s an article discussing his plea deal, and comparing it to others who were charged with similar (or much worse) crimes. The upshot is, this deal is far worse than what others got for worse offenses. You have to wonder what they were telling him that made him accept a deal that is so disproportionate to similar precedents.
Presumably that he had personally offended the Dear Leader more than those other people, so he would make sure his enforcers made Bolton suffer proportionately more if he didn’t grovel and accept his punishment. No one is pretending this is about things like precedent and the rule law. This about vindictive deluded fascist dictator getting retribution against people who have wronged him.
It was just like with any plea bargain. They were telling him that if he didn’t give up his right to a fair trial, he might do fine, but also might spend the rest of his life in prison.
The jury would not have been looking at the precedents where cases like this were not prosecuted. The jury would instead have been looking at whether he literally broke the law.
From that article:
Sure, it’s a plea deal. And sure, it’s a Republican. And sure, it’s one of President Donald Trump’s own first-term Cabinet members. But hey, gotta take those vindictive prosecution wins where you can
They say that like the average person prosecuted by the Trump admin isn’t a Trump selected compatriot and/or Republican.
On the Democratic side, I think they went after the DA from Georgia who was overseeing the False Electors case, and Perkins Coie.
The Trump associate / Republican side, you’ve got (just off the top of my head):
- Elliott Broidy
- Michael Cohen
- Steve Bannon
- John Bolton
- James Comey
- Paul Manafort
- Rick Gates
- Michael Flynn
- Roger Stone
Not to mention smaller and lesser known people like Stephen Calk, Bijan Rafiekian, Sam Patten, and a dozen more.
Jack Smith
Letitia James
Mark Kelly
Elissa Slotkin
Maggie Goodlander
Jason Crow
Chrissy Houlahan
Chris DeLuzio
Jerome Powell
Lisa Cook
Adam Schiff
Eric Swalwell
That’s…a list of names.
Jack Smith hasn’t been charged with anything, Adam Schiff hasn’t been charged with anything.
Jerome Powell was appointed by Trump and was investigated by the DOJ but hasn’t been charged with anything.
Mind telling us what the linking factor is?
They didn’t actually commit any crimes?
Which is why Trump has had such a hard time getting any of his “vindictive prosecutions” to work. With the exception of Comey and Bolton and Republicans you listed committed actual crimes, and were convicted in his first administration before he took complete control of the DOJ, and most were later pardoned by him. So they certainly can’t be called vindictive prosecutions on his part. However in spite of over a dozen people (almost all Dems) he’s targeted, Bolton is the sole exception where his weaponized DOJ actually scored a hit again because he may have actually done something wrong.
You can’t seriously be suggesting that Trump is going after more Republicans and Dems.
I didn’t realize we were only talking about people criminally charged. Are vindictive investigations not enough to rise to the level of attempted prosecutions?