The criticism stems from a book Gorsuch recently co-authored with Janie Nitze titled Over Ruled: The Human Toll Of Too Much Law.
Apparently upset that Gorsuch gave interviews to various journalists and podcasters, but not to him, he penned an emotional and tendentious tirade railing against the book and attacking Gorsuch for declining to sit down with him.
"Gorsuch was not willing to speak with me or answer any questions about his book, despite having spent much of the summer doing interviews with friendly conservative media figures to promote his book," Khardori asserted, giving as an example a "Legal analyst who clerked with Gorsuch and gushed over his nomination to the court."
Much of the Politico piece focuses on Khardori's inability to land an interview with Gorsuch.
You can get up to speed on the case, as it turns out, by reading the Politico article from 2014 headlined, "I got busted for catching a few undersized grouper. You won't believe what happened next." Ten years on from that publication date, Politico's Khardori is livid with Gorsuch and Nitze for telling the story without including all of the convoluted facts in the case that dragged on for seven and a half years before being overturned at the Supreme Court.
Similar to Ruth Marcus' complaint, Khardori says that Gorsuch and Nitze left out two key facts in their telling of Yates' story: an employee had testified that Yates ordered fish thrown overboard and he was also convicted under a different statute than the Sarbanes-Oxley charge that the Supreme Court looked at.
Khardori falsely claimed that Gorsuch and Nitze nowhere mention a separate charge under which Yates was convicted, except they did.
No comments:
Post a Comment