featured
The Mustachioed Walrus of War // Mike Benz
The Mustachioed Walrus of War: Bolton, the FBI, and America’s Endless Security Battles
The news that former National Security Advisor John Bolton — nicknamed by Trump as the “mustachioed walrus of war” — was visited by the FBI sparked a wave of commentary. Bolton’s hawkish legacy has long been a lightning rod, but this latest development highlights the deeper issues at play: the politicization of intelligence, selective justice, and the enduring reach of America’s foreign policy establishment.
Bolton and the Trump Years
Bolton clashed bitterly with Donald Trump during his tenure, with Trump joking that if Bolton had stayed in office longer, he would have dragged the U.S. into “World War VI.” Those tensions resurfaced as the FBI raid raised questions about disputes over Bolton’s memoir and whether he mishandled classified information. This wasn’t just about Bolton’s book; it reflected years of battles between Trump, his advisors, and the intelligence community over secrecy and leaks.
The Espionage Act and Bipartisan Abuse
Critics noted the irony of Bolton’s defenders warning about abuse of the Espionage Act. Liberal whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid pointed out that Trump himself had used the law aggressively, including against Julian Assange. As Mike Benz observed, the bipartisan establishment has treated the Espionage Act as a political weapon, wielded by both parties against their opponents when convenient. In this context, Bolton’s situation looks less like a legal anomaly and more like the continuation of a troubling pattern.
The D.C. Jury Problem
Analysts like Hans Manke expressed skepticism that any prosecution of Bolton could succeed, given the makeup of a D.C. jury — roughly 97% Biden voters. Benz argued this political skew explains why Biden escaped charges for mishandling classified documents; prosecutors assumed a jury would sympathize with his “genteel” nature and refuse to convict. The implication is clear: in Washington, outcomes are shaped as much by jury demographics as by the law itself.
Selective Justice and Political Cover
The contrast is stark. Trump faced relentless scrutiny over documents at Mar-a-Lago, while Biden was spared. Bolton, meanwhile, sits in a gray zone — disliked by grassroots Democrats but embraced by the party’s foreign policy elites. Whether charges proceed will depend less on evidence than on political calculations about optics, precedent, and the risks of exposing intelligence disputes in court.
Beyond Bolton: The Intelligence Establishment
For Benz and others, the raid on Bolton is part of a broader struggle to “depoliticize” the intelligence community. He called for revoking clearances for entrenched figures in the “deep state,” arguing that the national security bureaucracy has insulated itself from accountability. The irony, of course, is that Bolton himself was one of the establishment’s fiercest hawks — a man who embodied the very interventionist mindset that sustains America’s endless wars.
A Radical Proposal: Change the Jury Pool
In a provocative aside, Benz suggested Trump should call for conservatives to move to Washington, D.C., to shift the jury pool balance. Even an influx of 100,000 right-leaning residents, he argued, could dramatically alter the justice system’s dynamics. While unlikely, the idea underscores the frustration many feel about the structural imbalance of justice in the nation’s capital.
The Bolton raid is less about one man and more about America’s security state. It highlights the selective application of justice, the weaponization of the Espionage Act, and the difficulty of holding insiders accountable in a politicized environment. Bolton, once a champion of preemptive war, now finds himself entangled in the same machinery of surveillance and prosecution he so often endorsed. The “mustachioed walrus of war” may not face prison, but his case is a reminder that in Washington, law and politics are never far apart — and the fight over who controls intelligence power is far from over.
//
