Bolt-on charges: Trump's former adviser is indicted

0:00Built is the membership for where you live that lets you earn points on rent and as of 2026 mortgage payments too. Now renters and homeowners can earn up to 1.25x points on housing payments each month. Built's new Palladium, Obsidian, and Blue Cards turn your spending into flexible rewards that you can redeem with top airlines, hotels, and more. Apply at joinbuilt.com slash ACAST. That's J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T dot com slash ACAST. Terms and limitations apply. Subject to approval and eligibility, built cards are issued by Column N.A., member FDIC, pursuant to license from MasterCard International Incorporated.

0:37With no fees or minimums on checking accounts, it's no wonder the Capital One Bank Guy is so passionate about banking with Capital One. If he were here, he wouldn't just tell you about no fees or minimums. He'd also talk about how most Capital One cafes are open seven days a week to assist with your banking needs. Yep, even on weekends, it's pretty much all he talks about, in a good way. What's in your wallet? Terms apply. See CapitalOne.com slash bank. Capital One N.A. Member FDIC.

1:13The Economist.

1:20Hello and welcome to The Intelligence from The Economist. I'm your host, Rosie Bloor. Every weekday, we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

1:35Last year, two Britons were accused of spying for China. Recently, the charges against them were dropped, leading to a political storm over whether the British government was trying to appease the Chinese Communist Party. And Saul Zebar was the king of smoked fish. He took over the family delicatessens and consolidated five stores into a single one on the Upper West Side in New York. To many, it was the definitive Jewish deli. Our obituaries editor celebrates his life.

2:12But first...

2:17I think he's a bad guy, yeah, he's a bad guy. It's too bad, but it's the way it goes. Do you think he's against us? That's the way it goes, right? That's the way it goes. In Donald Trump's administration, that does seem to be the way it goes. John Bolton is the latest of the president's foes to be indicted. The former Trump advisor-turned-critic has been charged with mishandling classified information. He denies wrongdoing, but they're serious charges and an escalation in the president's campaign of retribution. Yesterday, John Bolton was indicted and charged with handling information in a way that was against the law.

2:59Adam Roberts is the digital editor of The Economist. He left the White House many years ago, but he's been in the president's mind for years. And he's the third person in the past few weeks to have been indicted, pretty much at Donald Trump's behest. So before we get into what's happened, Adam, just remind us who John Bolton is. So John Bolton is a colourful, charismatic character who was in the first of the Trump administrations. He was the national security advisor. That means he dealt with foreign policy. He was a hawk in foreign policy. He had very strong views about confronting America's enemies.

3:40He didn't like the traditional rivals of the US, the Russians, the Chinese and so on. And in some ways, he was a rival to Donald Trump as well. And so by the time he left the first Trump administration, there was really bad blood between him and his former boss. And what's he been accused of now? He's been accused of doing something that seems remarkably common now with people who are in high office, which is taking sensitive comments and information and data from his time in office and sharing it in an irresponsible way. So in his particular case, he's accused of making notes that he then used to write a book and sharing it with members of his family from really, really sensitive discussions and meetings that he'd had.

4:27he then stored this information, it seems, on a computer, which was hacked. And it appears that the person who hacked it was linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and then potentially tried to blackmail John Bolton over the fact that this person in Iran seemed to have information that was of real sensitivity for the US. This was information, incidentally, that was not then published in John Bolton's book, but was even more sensitive and wasn't allowed to be published. So it seems that John Bolton has gotten himself into more legal jeopardy because of that than other people who've been accused of just being greedy and keeping notes from when they were in office earlier on.

5:10So the FBI had raided his home earlier this year, right? Yeah, that's right. The FBI went to his home in August and searched it and gathered information. So he knew this indictment was coming. The only question was when. The case against him was being built up even before Donald Trump came back to office. And so one of the reasons why this case looks more serious than the recent indictments of James Comey, the former FBI director, or Letitia James, a prosecutor in New York, this case looks more serious because it was being built up over some years. And even under Joe Biden's administration, the Department of Justice was beginning to ask serious questions about what had happened with John Bolton.

5:54And what has Bolton said in response? Bolton unsurprisingly says that he's completely innocent. And what's happening right now is a campaign of intimidation and repression. And this is an attempt by Trump to crack down on his opponents and to use the law in an inappropriate way to settle scores with political enemies. Now, Bolton isn't wrong to say that Trump is doing that. He clearly is doing that. You can see that with the much less robust cases that the Justice Department is trying to bring against Comey and Letitia James and others. The extra difficulty for Don Bolton is that he's been going around in TV studios over recent months and years condemning others for doing just the same thing that he's now accused of himself, which is sharing information in a careless or self-interested way.

6:42And that may come back to bite him now. So let's take that allegation then. He's essentially saying that the Department of justice has been politicized. That is exactly what he's saying. And I think he is correct to say that. We've seen flagrant abuses of what you would have thought of as the traditional appropriate process with Donald Trump demanding that people are indicted. Donald Trump telling his prosecutors, telling his Department of Justice that they need to go and get his enemies. Now, that isn't how the law is supposed to work. And that will make it harder for the prosecutions to actually be conducted successfully, because no doubt the defence lawyers will say this isn't a legal case, this is a political score settling.

7:25So where does this all leave the Department of Justice then? Well, I think the old idea that the DOJ was an independent and a completely unpolitical organisation has been weakened. So if you're on the Republican side of politics, you already thought that because you saw the prosecution of other figures, the fact that Steve Bannon went to prison. Many people on Trump's side were prosecuted. And you thought that was lawfare. You thought that was politically motivated as well. Now, if you're on the Democratic side, you may not worry too much about John Bolton, to be honest, but you see the prosecutions of others.

8:03And you think, yes, this is politicization as well. So all Republicans and all Democrats increasingly believe that the law is being used for political ends. And so the Department of justice is basically having its reputation torn to shreds. So what happens next, Adam? Well, you can look at several other examples of people who've been accused of handling information carelessly or removing it. And one of those people is Donald Trump. He took plenty of information to his home and club in Mar-a-Lago in Florida. He stored it carelessly. He was investigated. but ultimately because he came back into power he was never asked to pay a serious legal price for this and I assume that in the case of John Bolton, James Comey, Letitia James and so on they will have extremely good lawyers they will be able to delay these cases and they will hope that if the political winds change that in a few years time even if they were convicted that the next administration would probably feel that it was wrong to keep them incarcerated if that's what would happen but potentially John Bolton could face 10 years or more in prison.

9:13And given his age, that would be the rest of his life. Adam, thank you very much for talking to me. Thank you.

9:39Capital One Bank guy is so passionate about banking with Capital One. If he were here, he wouldn't just tell you about no fees or minimums. He'd also talk about how most Capital One cafes are open seven days a week to assist with your banking needs. Yep, even on weekends, it's pretty much all he talks about. In a good way. What's in your wallet? Terms apply. See CapitalOne.com slash bank. Capital One N.A. Member FDIC. You want to get your backyard summer ready, but you don't want to break the bank? Wayfair gets it. Planning on dining al fresco or relaxing poolside? Wayfair has everything you need to prep your space.

10:15Shop now and save up to 70 % off during Wayfair's 4th of July clearance. Score huge deals on outdoor furniture, area rugs, and more. We're talking thousands of products for every style and budget. Plus, surprise flash deals July 6th. Don't wait. Shop Wayfair's 4th of July clearance now through July 6th at Wayfair.com. Wayfair, every style, every home.

10:42In Britain this week, there have also been allegations of politicising legal decisions. A case against two people accused of spying for China has engulfed the British government. Exactly as I expected, the Prime Minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions. I don't know what they're laughing at. We are talking about the security of this parliament. Christopher Cash, a former House of Commons researcher, and Christopher Berry, a teacher, both deny allegations of passing sensitive information to a suspected Chinese intelligence agent from 2021 to 2023.

11:25Last month, the Crown Prosecution Services dropped charges against the pair. But amid suspicion that the case collapsed because the British government feared annoying the Chinese Communist Party, this week witness statements at the heart of the case were released. Though they outline active espionage threats by the Chinese state they also made clear the Labour government's commitment to pursuing a positive relationship with China. And let me be clear Mr Speaker about what has happened. A serious case involving national security has collapsed because this government is too weak to stand up to China.

12:00Critics say Prime Minister Keir Starmer is too soft on Beijing. A case against two alleged spies has now turned into a trial of British government intent. This case has made such a stir, not necessarily because the secrets at the heart of it are earth-shattering, but the fact that someone might have been able to spy at the heart of British politics tells us something about Britain and the threats to Britain. Shashank Joshi is The Economist's defence editor. But more importantly, perhaps, the fact that this case was never able to come to trial tells us lots about the machinery of British national security and the complexities of British attitudes towards China over the years.

12:49Right, so as you say, it's actually the case not coming to trial has created even more of a stir than the case itself. We've now had witness statements published. Tell us what they say. So these are three successive witness statements given over time by Matthew Collins. He's the UK's deputy national security advisor. It's a post that deals with intelligence and security issues. The first statement was from 2023 under a previous conservative government. And it's quite long, but basically it describes Chinese intelligence services as highly capable. It says they conduct large-scale espionage operations against the UK.

13:28And it has some pretty damning details about the nature of the information that was passed on to an alleged Chinese intelligence agent. Then there are two statements from this year given under the Labour government, and I think this is the Crown Prosecution Service, that's British prosecutors asking for more, and one of those statements gets at the ideology. It says China is an authoritarian state with different values to the UK, and it also says the government is committed to pursuing a positive economic relationship with China. And then the final statement, which is probably the strongest, says a little more bluntly, Chinese espionage operations threaten the UK's economic prosperity and resilience.

14:09And it talks about the impact on the integrity of British politics. So there's a shift in these statements, Rosie. You can see that in all of them, the prosecutors are asking Collins to be a little bit stronger on the threat from China, which is what they need to show to be able to prosecute this case. But the government is also very keen to show that, as it has done throughout that time, including under the previous government, it wants a strong economic relationship. So it has to temper some of these comments. Shawshank, why is it that Britain can't decide if China's a threat? Well, to be fair, I think that's true of many countries in Europe, many middle-sized powers around the world.

14:44I'm not sure that's unique to Britain. But basically, Rosie, as you know very well. Having been very familiar with China, the pendulum has swung back and forth in the UK, or perhaps it's swung in one direction, you could say. Back in 2015 was the so-called golden age, where famously David Cameron had a pint with Xi Jinping in a pub in the UK. And the focus was on how do we get Chinese investment into the British economy? That was pretty much the entire focus. And then over time, and particularly as different issues arose, such as how do we deal with the presence of the Chinese company Huawei in our telecommunication systems?

15:20How do we deal with Chinese espionage? The pendulum swung closer towards safety. And I think that was also hastened by a shift in American attitudes over that time. And in 2023, Rishi Sunak's government wrote, where tensions arise between objectives in relation to China, national security will always come first. I don't believe that was always the case, but I think that rhetoric showed you where the mood was heading. Now, I think it's harder to say. This government came into office deliberately hoping to lower the temperature on the public commentary around China and to get itself in order. There was an internal cross-government audit of China policy published earlier this year internally.

16:03It wasn't published externally. My understanding is that it concluded the British policy was basically too soft towards China and that the British government didn't really know what it was doing. It needed much more coherence, much more consistency on China policy. But really, it seems to me little of that has actually been addressed. So is this case really showing that Britain is primarily worried about its economic relationship with China? Or is it that something has actually changed in the idea of the threat or the political relationship too? I think the economics is probably part of it. There's clearly a desire to coax more Chinese investment in.

16:42There is a Whitehall aspect of this, Rosie, with the Chancellor, whose responsibility is economic growth. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who has to think about net zero targets and the need to have Chinese technology to meet those targets. They would want to be more careful of upsetting China. They want to keep more Chinese investment flowing. Rachel Reeves went to Beijing in January and secured some Chinese investment. But I don't think it's just about that. I mean, actually, Britain's exposure to China economically is fairly modest. Mainland China is Britain's fifth biggest trading partner.

17:13Its share of total trade is very modest compared to the US and the European Union. I think this case is really about the British government trying very hard to have as much nuance as it possibly can in its relationship with China. And it's worried that if it describes China as a national security threat writ large, it will basically blow up that effort to have a nuanced policy. And so what it's trying to say is Chinese espionage is a threat. China's influence operations are a threat. But China as a whole, well, that's what was called in 2023 an epoch-defining challenge. It isn't a national security threat like Iran or North Korea or Russia.

17:58And that balancing act makes sense in Whitehall. But when it comes up against the reality of a court case, where you have to say China is a national security threat in order to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act, which is a really arcane bit of legislation, the balancing act falls apart and we have this complete chaos that we see today around us. And Shashank, we've got another moment coming up in this tricky balancing act, haven't we, about the Chinese proposed new embassy in London. This is another really awkward political hot potato for the government, Rosie. So China has bought a huge site on the site of the old Royal Mint.

18:35This is a very iconic place. Britain used to make its money there. And it would be the biggest embassy in Europe if it was built. The planning permission has been held up. The government has called it in, which means basically the government gets to decide what happens. They have been intending to deliver a decision by October 21st, but they have delayed that decision again. And this, Rosie, really just tells you all the complexities because on the one hand, critics say this would pose an enormous security risk. The Chinese have certain rooms redacted on the plans. It sits above the site of major fiber optic cables that service the city of London.

19:11And they say China shouldn't be allowed to build this. On the other hand, the British embassy in Beijing, which you've probably been to, is not in great shape, it needs a bit of refurbishment. And the Chinese are holding that up until they get their permission in London, of course, in classic Chinese quid pro quo fashion. And on top of that, they've made this a litmus test for the relationship. They are clearly showing it's a huge priority. It's been raised by Xi Jinping to Keir Starmer at the highest level. And so the government really doesn't want to have to make this call. And if it makes the call in a way that favours China, it could still go to a judicial review, a legal process that could then still blow up the entire decision and go against China.

19:52Now, if these embassy plans go up in smoke, all of the government's efforts to build more engagement with China, understanding with China, diplomacy with China, all of that could very, very easily just go up in smoke. Shashank, thank you so much for talking to me. Thank you, Rosie.

20:25Tomorrow on the Weekend Intelligence, musicians spend years practicing to achieve perfection. But the orchestras they seek to join are built on tradition and deference, and that doesn't always lead to harmony. Sometimes they preserve entrenched hierarchy over equality, which makes it hard to speak out about harm, including and particularly sexual misconduct. Tomorrow you can hear the story of Discord in the orchestra, Me Too and music. You'll have to be a subscriber to listen.

21:09The most vital tool you saw on Zabar's trade was a paperclip. Anne Rowe is the Economist's obituary's editor. And with one of these in his pocket, he would go round the smokehouses of Brooklyn and Queens inspecting all the smoked fish there. He would wear an apron and a hairnet and take a cart around, hook down the sides of freshly smoked sturgeon, salmon, whitefish, and press the flesh first just to see if it wasn't too dry or too mushy. And then he would take out the famous paperclip and he would unfurl it to get into the flesh and just take a little sample and think about it. And not that many were good enough, in fact.

21:59About 50 % of the fish that was delivered to his store he didn't think was great. And there was one occasion where he actually stamped on a batch of white fish because he didn't think it was good enough. Everything for Zabars had to be perfect.

22:19And it is indeed a perfect place. It was somewhere that about 40 ,000 customers would surge into every week looking for olives and cheese, 800 types of cheese. The smell when you walked in was a wonderful combination of the fish, the various pastries that were being baked at the time. The coffee was another particular interest of Saul Zeebaz. He had decided that Zabar should buy direct, not through coffee brokers, and that all the tasting and cupping and roasting of each batch of coffee should happen in his office. So a sample was taken from every batch, and he would pour the boiling water on the ground beans and let them wash over his tongue and think, is this good enough for Zabar's special blend?

23:20Saul was almost always around in Zaybars. He'd wear a dark polo shirt and rather worn khakis. And he'd often be standing by the smoke fish counter because that was his favorite. That was his place. But he'd never really intended to go into the delicatessen trade. The business had been set up by his parents, Louis and Lily, who'd come over as Jewish refugees from the pogroms in Eastern Europe in the 1920s. They set it up in 1934, and at one stage, about 1940, there were five branches of Zabar's all along Broadway. One of the first things that Saul Zabar decided to do was to consolidate, just put everything into one big store, which eventually took up almost a city block between 80th and 81st streets in Manhattan.

24:18The consolidation was because he wanted to be sure he could do one thing well. He compared it to having five children and suddenly you focus on just one. And this idea of children was very typical of Zaybaz because it was a family business. It was one of the very last independent family businesses on the Upper West Side. And family ran it and worked in it for four generations, and probably still will be extra generations. The 250 staff who worked there too were treated as family, because Saul used to say that what was good for the staff was good for Zaybaz. They're now mainly Dominican, and he would help them, partly with college tuition for their children.

25:05He'd give them interest-free loans. It was a very good place to work.