October 17, 2025 • 10 mins
Attorney and legal analyst Bill Graham joins Bo & Beth to talk about former National Security Advisor John Bolton's indictment, the challenging of the Voting Rights Act before SCOTUS and upcoming Trump tariff rulings.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
From News Talk eleven ten and ninety nine three Double
e BT.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yeah, the energy in this place is just amazing.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Pure energy.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is Good Morning Bet with bo Thompson and Beth
Trout with what I'm talking about is the pulse of
the collection coming a little percussion.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Boos. I don't lose.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
I win.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
I win.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Home lawyer, That's my job, That's what I do.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Well. Phil Graham knows it's a lot more we can
do together. I can't do it, you can't do it alone,
but together we can do it.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Eight o seven on WBT On this Friday morning, I'm
going to bring in our longtime legal analyst and good
friend of the show from the law offices of Wallace
and Graham. Bill Graham is back with us on this
October seventeenth. Good morning, Bill, Hey, good morning. How you
doing doing well? And lots of things to talk about.
The first thing I want to get to is John Bolton,
(01:02):
President Trump's former national security advisor, yesterday indicted by a
federal grand jury in Maryland. This was President Trump asked
about the happening during one of his news conferences yesterday.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Novel was just indicted by a brand during Maryland.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Do you have a reaction to that.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
I didn't know that you told me for the first time.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
But I think he's, you know, a bad person.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
I think he's.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
A bad guy. Yeah, he's a bad guy, too bad.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
But that's the where it goes against him.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
That's the way it goes, right, that's the way it goes.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Will I what, have you reviewed the case against him?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
No, I have it.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
I have it, but I just think he's a bad person.
He faces eight counts of transmission of national defense information
and ten counts of retention of national defense information. So, Bill,
this is not a surprise necessarily because after the James
Comby indictment, this is probably the next one most people
said would be coming if it did, and now it
has happened. What are your thoughts on the Bolton indictment.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, this indictment has a little bit more meat on
the bone of the indictment itself versus that that we
saw with Komy. Comy is a little bit on the
thin side as far as facts go, And there's some
procedural problems with the Komy indictment that I think bode
well for Comy. Bolton is charging the indictment, as everybody
(02:25):
probably knows at this stage of the game for retaining secret,
top secret documents, and the other part of the indictment
I don't think really has got a whole lot of
legs on it. But the first part probably does is
that he kept a diary. And I don't know why
he did this, but he sent his diary notes through
(02:49):
AOL and his email to family members. Now it's not
illegal to do that. That's fine. Other people have done
that in the past. Writing down your own thoughts about
your work and the diplomatic goings on of the country.
That part's fine. But if included in that any documents
(03:12):
were attached, that might be problematic. If any documents were
shared that were top secret ors, very very sensitive, that's
going to be a problem. So you know, there's a
lot more meat on this indictment bone than that that
we saw with Comy. I would also add, for those
who keep score on this type of thing, which very
(03:35):
few people do, is his lawyer is Abby Lowell, who's
a fantastic lawyer, who also represented none other than John Edwards,
none no other than Ivanka Trump, and none other than
Jared Kushner. So you know he's got a good, good lawyer.
And we'll see what happens with the indictment. I think
this will be a little bit longer in the tooth.
(03:55):
Then you'll see with Comy. I think Comy gets out
on a lot of procedurals and then that'll probably be appealed.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
It's interesting in the last several years, I think we've
probably heard more discussions about the handling of classified documents
than at any time in my memory, at least in
my lifetime of classified document conversations, because of you know,
the conversation surrounding the classified documents that that former President
Biden had, you know, reportedly in his garage, and certainly
(04:23):
the case against current president he was former president at
the time, Donald Trump and his handling of classified documents.
How does this case compare to those.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Well, I'm not sure what it was that they say
was being retained and how old the documents were. You
can still have a top secret document and it be
relatively in an aged capacity, and you know, there's really
not any harm to the country's national security. The issue
(04:56):
is what did he have and what did it say
and who's implicated? Were there any means or methods of
obtaining the information and sources enclosed in the document contained
in the documents, we just don't know, and we may
never know. We'll probably see some redacted attachments to the
(05:20):
bill of indictment, but we'll have to wait and see.
The reason that you don't want to, you know, take
these things home or leave them in your car or
your garage or wherever you're leaving them, is because sometimes
these documents that you have that are originals have names
and sources and methods and means of obtaining intelligence that
(05:44):
you don't want disclosed. I mean, some of the reasons
that we still don't know about Kennedy or Johnson or
things that had happened in the past is because the
people involved in those things are still alive and we
don't want to disclose their activities involved in the matter.
So we just don't know at this stage, Beth, But
(06:06):
we're going to find out pretty soon. I suspect I.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Want to switch gears with you and talk to you
about one other legal issue while we have you on
the line. The Voting Rights Act is certainly making headlines
because of this case. The Supreme Court heard some oral
arguments in Louisiana versus Calais about the last remaining section
of the Voting Rights Act, which is of course a
civil rights law designed to ensure that states could not
(06:31):
get in the way of non white citizens voting. It
was historic when it was passed at the time. What
do you see happening and what does that mean for
voting in this country or the future of how even
you know, districts work.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Yeah, I think the Supreme Court is going to nibble
around at the edges. I don't think they're going to
those provisions of the Voting Right Act Voting Rights Act
that you reference, I think will remain largely intact. I'd
be surprised if they vacate those to any substantial degree.
But I don't think the case is going to have
the impact that some of the commentators have run around
(07:13):
with their hair on fire about. And I don't think
it's going to have anything to do with minorities voting
or it will. I don't think it will have any
impact on them at all, to be honest with you. Now,
the district that we had in here in North Carolina,
I think number one. I think down at the coast
up there in what I call the Northeast Corner, a
lot of independence in that district. So that'll be an
(07:35):
interesting it's a plus Trump district. But we'll have to
wait and see. I'm sure you'll have a court challenge.
It'll probably be upheld. You know. We'll go down the
road on that and maybe have another conversation about that
one sometime later.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
One more thing on the Supreme Court, different case, but
November fifth, the Supreme Court is going to have oral
arguments on that case that centers on whether the law
that President Trump used to impose his country specific tariff
policies actually authorize as a president to take such action.
This is notable because on Wednesday, President Trump said that
(08:12):
he is planning to be the first sitting US president
to attend Supreme Court arguments, at least in modern times.
I mean, first of all, on that itself is kind
of hard to believe. But the idea that he may
actually be there watching this, what do you think about that?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
That's very, very unusual. I've been in the Supreme Court
and it's something to be there, and you just you're
struck by how much power and influence that has had
over the centuries. Here. Now that'll be something to see.
(08:48):
On the merits of it, I cannot imagine that the
Supreme Court is going to let the tariff tariff stay
in place, and that the president has pulinary power to
impose those tariffs on some economic emergency or whatever the
basis was. The tariff power rests with the Congress, and
(09:09):
that's where I think the Supreme Court will leave it.
Now the issue is going to be okay, then what
happens and we'll have to have a rebate of the
tariffs that have already been collected. And there's already people
in the administration in other places that are offering to
pay your teriff receipt. They'll give you ten cents on
(09:33):
the dollar in exchange for a receipt of the tariff
that they think is going to be coming due. So
there's an interesting economic benefit or dynamic that's going on
in DC, in New York and elsewhere where people think
they could make some money on the return or a
rebate of the tariff. I think that's why he's going
to put a little bit more pressure on the bench.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
But we'll see, Bill Graham. We got to stop it there.
We're up against the clock. We appreciate you coming on
the morning, and I hope you have a good weekend.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Y'all have a good weekend.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
This is good morning, peaty
From News Talk eleven ten and ninety nine three Double
e BT.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yeah, the energy in this place is just amazing.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Pure energy.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is Good Morning Bet with bo Thompson and Beth
Trout with what I'm talking about is the pulse of
the collection coming a little percussion.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Boos. I don't lose.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
I win.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
I win.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Home lawyer, That's my job, That's what I do.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Well. Phil Graham knows it's a lot more we can
do together. I can't do it, you can't do it alone,
but together we can do it.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Eight o seven on WBT On this Friday morning, I'm
going to bring in our longtime legal analyst and good
friend of the show from the law offices of Wallace
and Graham. Bill Graham is back with us on this
October seventeenth. Good morning, Bill, Hey, good morning. How you
doing doing well? And lots of things to talk about.
The first thing I want to get to is John Bolton,
(01:02):
President Trump's former national security advisor, yesterday indicted by a
federal grand jury in Maryland. This was President Trump asked
about the happening during one of his news conferences yesterday.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Novel was just indicted by a brand during Maryland.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Do you have a reaction to that.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
I didn't know that you told me for the first time.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
But I think he's, you know, a bad person.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
I think he's.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
A bad guy. Yeah, he's a bad guy, too bad.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
But that's the where it goes against him.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
That's the way it goes, right, that's the way it goes.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Will I what, have you reviewed the case against him?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
No, I have it.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
I have it, but I just think he's a bad person.
He faces eight counts of transmission of national defense information
and ten counts of retention of national defense information. So, Bill,
this is not a surprise necessarily because after the James
Comby indictment, this is probably the next one most people
said would be coming if it did, and now it
has happened. What are your thoughts on the Bolton indictment.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, this indictment has a little bit more meat on
the bone of the indictment itself versus that that we
saw with Komy. Comy is a little bit on the
thin side as far as facts go, And there's some
procedural problems with the Komy indictment that I think bode
well for Comy. Bolton is charging the indictment, as everybody
(02:25):
probably knows at this stage of the game for retaining secret,
top secret documents, and the other part of the indictment
I don't think really has got a whole lot of
legs on it. But the first part probably does is
that he kept a diary. And I don't know why
he did this, but he sent his diary notes through
(02:49):
AOL and his email to family members. Now it's not
illegal to do that. That's fine. Other people have done
that in the past. Writing down your own thoughts about
your work and the diplomatic goings on of the country.
That part's fine. But if included in that any documents
(03:12):
were attached, that might be problematic. If any documents were
shared that were top secret ors, very very sensitive, that's
going to be a problem. So you know, there's a
lot more meat on this indictment bone than that that
we saw with Comy. I would also add, for those
who keep score on this type of thing, which very
(03:35):
few people do, is his lawyer is Abby Lowell, who's
a fantastic lawyer, who also represented none other than John Edwards,
none no other than Ivanka Trump, and none other than
Jared Kushner. So you know he's got a good, good lawyer.
And we'll see what happens with the indictment. I think
this will be a little bit longer in the tooth.
(03:55):
Then you'll see with Comy. I think Comy gets out
on a lot of procedurals and then that'll probably be appealed.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
It's interesting in the last several years, I think we've
probably heard more discussions about the handling of classified documents
than at any time in my memory, at least in
my lifetime of classified document conversations, because of you know,
the conversation surrounding the classified documents that that former President
Biden had, you know, reportedly in his garage, and certainly
(04:23):
the case against current president he was former president at
the time, Donald Trump and his handling of classified documents.
How does this case compare to those.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Well, I'm not sure what it was that they say
was being retained and how old the documents were. You
can still have a top secret document and it be
relatively in an aged capacity, and you know, there's really
not any harm to the country's national security. The issue
(04:56):
is what did he have and what did it say
and who's implicated? Were there any means or methods of
obtaining the information and sources enclosed in the document contained
in the documents, we just don't know, and we may
never know. We'll probably see some redacted attachments to the
(05:20):
bill of indictment, but we'll have to wait and see.
The reason that you don't want to, you know, take
these things home or leave them in your car or
your garage or wherever you're leaving them, is because sometimes
these documents that you have that are originals have names
and sources and methods and means of obtaining intelligence that
(05:44):
you don't want disclosed. I mean, some of the reasons
that we still don't know about Kennedy or Johnson or
things that had happened in the past is because the
people involved in those things are still alive and we
don't want to disclose their activities involved in the matter.
So we just don't know at this stage, Beth, But
(06:06):
we're going to find out pretty soon. I suspect I.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Want to switch gears with you and talk to you
about one other legal issue while we have you on
the line. The Voting Rights Act is certainly making headlines
because of this case. The Supreme Court heard some oral
arguments in Louisiana versus Calais about the last remaining section
of the Voting Rights Act, which is of course a
civil rights law designed to ensure that states could not
(06:31):
get in the way of non white citizens voting. It
was historic when it was passed at the time. What
do you see happening and what does that mean for
voting in this country or the future of how even
you know, districts work.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Yeah, I think the Supreme Court is going to nibble
around at the edges. I don't think they're going to
those provisions of the Voting Right Act Voting Rights Act
that you reference, I think will remain largely intact. I'd
be surprised if they vacate those to any substantial degree.
But I don't think the case is going to have
the impact that some of the commentators have run around
(07:13):
with their hair on fire about. And I don't think
it's going to have anything to do with minorities voting
or it will. I don't think it will have any
impact on them at all, to be honest with you. Now,
the district that we had in here in North Carolina,
I think number one. I think down at the coast
up there in what I call the Northeast Corner, a
lot of independence in that district. So that'll be an
(07:35):
interesting it's a plus Trump district. But we'll have to
wait and see. I'm sure you'll have a court challenge.
It'll probably be upheld. You know. We'll go down the
road on that and maybe have another conversation about that
one sometime later.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
One more thing on the Supreme Court, different case, but
November fifth, the Supreme Court is going to have oral
arguments on that case that centers on whether the law
that President Trump used to impose his country specific tariff
policies actually authorize as a president to take such action.
This is notable because on Wednesday, President Trump said that
(08:12):
he is planning to be the first sitting US president
to attend Supreme Court arguments, at least in modern times.
I mean, first of all, on that itself is kind
of hard to believe. But the idea that he may
actually be there watching this, what do you think about that?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
That's very, very unusual. I've been in the Supreme Court
and it's something to be there, and you just you're
struck by how much power and influence that has had
over the centuries. Here. Now that'll be something to see.
(08:48):
On the merits of it, I cannot imagine that the
Supreme Court is going to let the tariff tariff stay
in place, and that the president has pulinary power to
impose those tariffs on some economic emergency or whatever the
basis was. The tariff power rests with the Congress, and
(09:09):
that's where I think the Supreme Court will leave it.
Now the issue is going to be okay, then what
happens and we'll have to have a rebate of the
tariffs that have already been collected. And there's already people
in the administration in other places that are offering to
pay your teriff receipt. They'll give you ten cents on
(09:33):
the dollar in exchange for a receipt of the tariff
that they think is going to be coming due. So
there's an interesting economic benefit or dynamic that's going on
in DC, in New York and elsewhere where people think
they could make some money on the return or a
rebate of the tariff. I think that's why he's going
to put a little bit more pressure on the bench.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
But we'll see, Bill Graham. We got to stop it there.
We're up against the clock. We appreciate you coming on
the morning, and I hope you have a good weekend.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Y'all have a good weekend.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
This is good morning, peaty
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.