Nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin Tuesday, calling on him to cancel funding to a left-wing environmental group accused of training and lobbying judges on climate policy, Fox News Digital exclusively learned. 

‘As attorney general, I refuse to stand by while Americans’ tax dollars fund radical environmental training for judges across the country,’ Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital of his push to encourage the EPA to end its funding of the Climate Judiciary Project. 

‘The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project is using woke climate propaganda, under the guise of what they call ‘neutral’ education, to persuade judges and push their wildly unpopular agenda through the court system,’ he said. ‘I commend President Trump’s efforts to cut waste and abuse during the first eight months of his presidency, and I am optimistic that his Administration will do the right thing and halt all funding to ELI.’ 

Knudsen spearheaded the letter sent to Zeldin Tuesday, which included the signatures of 22 other Republican state attorneys general, calling for the EPA to axe its funding to the left-wing environmental nonprofit, called the Environmental Law Institute, which oversees the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). 

The Environmental Law Institute founded the Climate Judiciary Project in 2018, which pitches itself as a ‘first-of-its-kind effort’ that ‘provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.’ 

The group, however, has been accused of trying to manipulate judges to make them more amenable to left-wing climate litigation. 

The letter sent Tuesday called on the EPA specifically to end any grants and awards endowed to the group. 

‘We write to bring to your attention grants made by EPA to the Environmental Law Institute (‘ELI’),’ the letter reads. ‘According to its 2024 financial statements, ELI received approximately 13% of its revenue in 2023, and 8.4% in 2024, from EPA awards. ELI also apparently still expected to receive funds from the federal government; its financial statement warned that the collectability of federal grant funds ‘is subject to significant uncertainty related to collectability and continual funding due to (the federal grant) funding freeze or other federal actions.”

The Environmental Law Institute received $637,591 from the EPA in 2024 and $866,402 in 2023 from the EPA, according to nonprofit tax documents published by ProPublica detailing the group’s federal expenditures that year. 

‘The Climate Judiciary Project’s mission is clear: lobby judges in order to make climate change policy through the courts,’ 23 state attorneys general wrote in the letter. ‘An alumni magazine profile said the quiet part out loud, writing that the Climate Judiciary Project co-founder was ‘explaining the science of climate change to a group of people with real power to act on it: judges.’ The Climate Judiciary Project’s tampering raises serious legal and ethical questions.’ 

The Environmental Law Institute, however, in a recent comment to Fox News Digital, has maintained that its educational programs through Climate Judiciary Project are in accordance with the standards established by national judicial education institutions. 

Climate Judiciary Project educational events are done ‘in partnership with leading national judicial education institutions and state judicial authorities, in accordance with their accepted standards,’ a spokesperson for the group said in an emailed statement in July. ‘Its curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards.’

‘CJP’s work is no different than the work of other continuing judicial education organizations that address important complex topics, including medicine, tech and neuroscience,’ an Environmental Law Institute spokesperson previously told Fox News Digital when asked about its educational programs.

The call for EPA to slash any funds to the Environmental Law Institute was celebrated by leading groups such as the American Energy Institute and the Alliance for Consumers, who lamented in a comment to Fox Digital that taxpayer funds should not be used to fund the group and that ‘courtroom maneuvering’ threatens day-to-day life. 

‘The State Attorneys General are right to call for the elimination of taxpayer funding for the Environmental Law Institute and its Climate Judiciary Project,’ Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Fox Digital. ‘This is a coordinated campaign to advance the Green New Deal through the judiciary using so-called climate litigation in the courts. Its curriculum is developed by climate alarmist allies of the plaintiffs and delivered to judges behind closed doors. Public funds should never be used to finance political advocacy disguised as judicial education.’

O.H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance for Consumers, which is a nonprofit focused on advocating on behalf of American consumers, remarked that ‘as we have long warned, the left has a plan to reshape American society by using lawsuits in courts all across the country, especially in places like Hawaii and other coastal enclaves.’

‘The new wave of revelations about ELI is further concerning evidence of how committed the left is to imposing mandatory Progressive Lifestyle Choices through this courtroom maneuvering and how big a threat it really is to all our ways of life,’ Skinner added. 

The Tuesday letter specifically argued: ‘State consumer protection laws prohibit deceptive and misleading statements to market a product. ELI is representing its training as objective when reality shows that it is not. State Attorneys General are responsible for protecting consumers, and we are concerned by ELI’s statements.’

The EPA has taken a hatchet to millions of dollars doled out under the Biden administration to left-wing groups and other programs deemed a waste of taxpayer funds upon Zeldin’s Senate confirmation as EPA chief in January. 

The EPA under the Trump administration has canceled $20 billion in grants under the Inflation Reduction Act — which has led to an ongoing court battle. Zeldin said in March that the $20 billion in U.S. tax dollars were ‘parked at an outside financial institution in a deliberate effort to limit government oversight, doling out your money through just eight pass-through, politically connected, unqualified, and in some cases brand-new NGOs.’

The state attorneys general reflected on the previous cuts in their call to Zeldin to do the same to ELI funding. 

‘Under President Trump’s bold leadership, federal agencies and the Department of Government Efficiency have saved an estimated $190 billion, including terminating more than 15,000 grants that saved approximately $44 billion,’ the letter states. ‘You have heeded President Trump’s directive and achieved monumental savings for taxpayers. You canceled $20 billion in climate grants under the Inflation Reduction Act. You canceled another $1.7 billion in diversity, equity, and inclusion grants.3 And you canceled 800 environmental justice grants.’ 

Climate Judiciary Project and the Environmental Law Institute previously have come under fire from lawmakers such as Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who accused the groups of working to ‘train judges’ and ‘make them agreeable to creative climate litigation tactics.’

The Texas Republican recently has argued there is a ‘systematic campaign’ launched by the Chinese Communist Party and American left-wing activists to weaponize the court systems to ‘undermine American energy dominance.’

Climate Judiciary Project is a pivotal player in the ‘lawfare’ as it works to secure ‘judicial capture,’ according to Cruz, Fox Digital has previously reported. 

Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro tore into John Bolton for ‘profiteering off America’s secrets’ on Tuesday after the FBI raided his home last week in a reported classified document probe.

‘I served with Bolton, and he was far too frequently a loose cannon, bent on bombings and coups — Doctor Strangelove with a mustache,’ Navarro, who also advised Trump on trade during his first term, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill.

‘He agitated for airstrikes, pushed regime-change fantasies, and obsessed over military solutions when diplomacy was working. Then, instead of honoring executive privilege and confidential debate, Bolton acknowledged that in writing his memoir he relied on the ‘copious notes’ he had conspicuously taken inside the White House.’ 

Bolton published a book in 2020, ‘The Room Where it Happened,’ reportedly receiving a $2 million advance for a tell-all of his time in the Trump administration. He served as Trump’s national security advisor starting in 2018 but fell out with the president and left the position in 2019. 

Navarro accused Bolton of ‘sharing information about Oval Office conversations and national security that should have stayed secret — either by law or under executive privilege.’

‘That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets.’

Navarro noted that Bolton had described confidential U.S. deliberations on how to fracture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s control and prompt military defections. 

‘That kind of blueprint isn’t something you hand to the public — or to Maduro’s intelligence services.’

He noted that disclosing national defense information without authorization could violate U.S. code. 

‘If evidence is found and indictments made, Bolton may one day go to prison for shredding that Constitution, defying executive privilege, and trampling safeguards meant to protect America’s security,’ Navarro said. ‘If that happens, Bolton won’t be remembered for his book tour. He’ll be remembered for the sequel he writes in prison.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to a spokesperson for Bolton for comment. 

Navarro spent four months in prison last year after being convicted of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

The FBI executed a search warrant on Bolton’s home and office on Friday. 

Democrats have also fumed about Bolton’s book: when the former national security advisor refused to serve as their star witness during the first Trump impeachment related to Ukraine, they accused him of saving the juicy details for his memoir. 

In June 2020, Judge Royce Lamberth found Bolton had ‘likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations.’ 

He’d submitted the 500-page manuscript for a national security review, but when the review wasn’t completed in four months, he ‘pulled the plug on the process and sent the still-under-review manuscript to the publisher for printing,’ according to the judge. 

Lamberth allowed the book to hit the shelves because ‘the horse is already out of the barn‘ – the book’s excerpts had already been leaked and 200,000 copies had been shipped.

The FBI’s raid on John Bolton’s home and office is tied to an investigation that reaches beyond his controversial book, a source told Fox News Digital, fueling speculation that the former Trump adviser could face criminal charges.

The scope of any potential charges against Bolton, who served under President Donald Trump before falling out of favor with him in 2019, is uncertain, but experts tend to agree that Bolton has some legal exposure.

Prominent D.C.-based attorney Mark Zaid, who specializes in national security, said that while there are many unknowns about the Department of Justice’s investigation into Bolton, his memoir, ‘The Room Where It Happened,’ could be an area of vulnerability for him.

‘With respect to Bolton’s book, he is potentially vulnerable if he maintains any copies of early drafts which were determined to contain ‘voluminous’ amounts of classified information when it was first submitted to the White House for review,’ Zaid told Fox New Digital. ‘Those drafts were likely disseminated, per normal course of business, to his literary agent, publisher and lawyer.’

Zaid added that those transmissions could be unlawful under the Espionage Act, a serious set of charges used throughout history to punish spies and leakers of government secrets.

During the first Trump administration, Attorney General Bill Barr opened an investigation into Bolton and brought a civil lawsuit against him over the book days before it was set for release.

The DOJ alleged in the lawsuit that Bolton skipped over normal prepublication review processes and allowed his publisher to move forward with printing a book that contained several passages of classified national security information.

In court papers, Bolton said he did not initially believe his memoir contained classified information, but then he edited some information out of the book after consulting with the National Security Council. Bolton never received a final signoff from the National Security Council before moving forward with publishing. He argued in court papers that the Trump administration’s refusal to approve the memoir’s contents violated his First Amendment rights and that the National Security Council’s review process ‘had been abused in an effort to suppress’ the book, which contained harsh criticisms of Trump.

Judge Royce Lamberth, a D.C.-based Regan appointee, denied the Trump DOJ’s request to block publication of Bolton’s book because, among several reasons, it had already been exposed to publishers. Still, Lamberth faulted Bolton.

‘Defendant Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States,’ Lamberth wrote in an order at the time. ‘He has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability.’

Lamberth found it was likely Bolton ‘jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information’ in violation of various nondisclosure agreements he signed as part of his national security role.

The DOJ never brought charges against Bolton, and the investigation was closed under the Biden administration. The Biden DOJ dismissed the civil lawsuit against Bolton over his book in June 2021.

While Bolton’s book controversy has been at the forefront since the raids at his home and office, one well-placed source familiar with the investigation told Fox News Digital on Monday the investigation is far more expansive than the book. 

The search warrants, which were authorized by a judge, were based on evidence collected overseas by the CIA, the New York Times reported.

Critics note Bolton is the latest target of the Trump DOJ, which despite pledging to end ‘weaponization’ has pursued several of the president’s political rivals. The department has launched grand jury probes into New York Attorney General Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and is examining Obama-era national security officials who Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says tried to undermine Trump’s 2016 victory. Trump has also urged an investigation of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, citing ‘criminal acts’ tied to the George Washington Bridge lane-closure scandal.

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of Virginia suggested the line between honest scrutiny of potential wrongdoing and political revenge has become blurred.

‘Trump DOJ targeting enemies of Trump — Letitia James, Adam Schiff, Federal Reserve Governor [Lisa] Cook and now John Bolton. Trump appears to want them harmed for personal/political reasons but if they broke the law are the investigations justified?’ Fishwick told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘That question is putting an incredible stress test on our legal system.’

Zaid noted that Bolton could bring claims of a selective or vindictive prosecution if he were indicted but that those are difficult to prove.

Attorney Jason Kander, an Army veteran and former secretary of state of Missouri, said on the podcast ‘Talking Feds’ that even if the DOJ does not secure a conviction against Bolton, the legal process itself is punishment.

‘It’s not just harassment. It’s potential financial ruin,’ Kander said. ‘When they come after you like this it doesn’t matter if there isn’t a scintilla of evidence. It’s a minimum half a million bucks in legal fees in a situation like this.’

Nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin Tuesday, calling on him to cancel funding to a left-wing environmental group accused of training and lobbying judges on climate policy, Fox News Digital exclusively learned. 

‘As attorney general, I refuse to stand by while Americans’ tax dollars fund radical environmental training for judges across the country,’ Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital of his push to encourage the EPA to end its funding of the Climate Judiciary Project. 

‘The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project is using woke climate propaganda, under the guise of what they call ‘neutral’ education, to persuade judges and push their wildly unpopular agenda through the court system,’ he said. ‘I commend President Trump’s efforts to cut waste and abuse during the first eight months of his presidency, and I am optimistic that his Administration will do the right thing and halt all funding to ELI.’ 

Knudsen spearheaded the letter sent to Zeldin Tuesday, which included the signatures of 22 other Republican state attorneys general, calling for the EPA to axe its funding to the left-wing environmental nonprofit, called the Environmental Law Institute, which oversees the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). 

The Environmental Law Institute founded the Climate Judiciary Project in 2018, which pitches itself as a ‘first-of-its-kind effort’ that ‘provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.’ 

The group, however, has been accused of trying to manipulate judges to make them more amenable to left-wing climate litigation. 

The letter sent Tuesday called on the EPA specifically to end any grants and awards endowed to the group. 

‘We write to bring to your attention grants made by EPA to the Environmental Law Institute (‘ELI’),’ the letter reads. ‘According to its 2024 financial statements, ELI received approximately 13% of its revenue in 2023, and 8.4% in 2024, from EPA awards. ELI also apparently still expected to receive funds from the federal government; its financial statement warned that the collectability of federal grant funds ‘is subject to significant uncertainty related to collectability and continual funding due to (the federal grant) funding freeze or other federal actions.”

The Environmental Law Institute received $637,591 from the EPA in 2024 and $866,402 in 2023 from the EPA, according to nonprofit tax documents published by ProPublica detailing the group’s federal expenditures that year. 

‘The Climate Judiciary Project’s mission is clear: lobby judges in order to make climate change policy through the courts,’ 23 state attorneys general wrote in the letter. ‘An alumni magazine profile said the quiet part out loud, writing that the Climate Judiciary Project co-founder was ‘explaining the science of climate change to a group of people with real power to act on it: judges.’ The Climate Judiciary Project’s tampering raises serious legal and ethical questions.’ 

The Environmental Law Institute, however, in a recent comment to Fox News Digital, has maintained that its educational programs through Climate Judiciary Project are in accordance with the standards established by national judicial education institutions. 

Climate Judiciary Project educational events are done ‘in partnership with leading national judicial education institutions and state judicial authorities, in accordance with their accepted standards,’ a spokesperson for the group said in an emailed statement in July. ‘Its curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards.’

‘CJP’s work is no different than the work of other continuing judicial education organizations that address important complex topics, including medicine, tech and neuroscience,’ an Environmental Law Institute spokesperson previously told Fox News Digital when asked about its educational programs.

The call for EPA to slash any funds to the Environmental Law Institute was celebrated by leading groups such as the American Energy Institute and the Alliance for Consumers, who lamented in a comment to Fox Digital that taxpayer funds should not be used to fund the group and that ‘courtroom maneuvering’ threatens day-to-day life. 

‘The State Attorneys General are right to call for the elimination of taxpayer funding for the Environmental Law Institute and its Climate Judiciary Project,’ Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Fox Digital. ‘This is a coordinated campaign to advance the Green New Deal through the judiciary using so-called climate litigation in the courts. Its curriculum is developed by climate alarmist allies of the plaintiffs and delivered to judges behind closed doors. Public funds should never be used to finance political advocacy disguised as judicial education.’

O.H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance for Consumers, which is a nonprofit focused on advocating on behalf of American consumers, remarked that ‘as we have long warned, the left has a plan to reshape American society by using lawsuits in courts all across the country, especially in places like Hawaii and other coastal enclaves.’

‘The new wave of revelations about ELI is further concerning evidence of how committed the left is to imposing mandatory Progressive Lifestyle Choices through this courtroom maneuvering and how big a threat it really is to all our ways of life,’ Skinner added. 

The Tuesday letter specifically argued: ‘State consumer protection laws prohibit deceptive and misleading statements to market a product. ELI is representing its training as objective when reality shows that it is not. State Attorneys General are responsible for protecting consumers, and we are concerned by ELI’s statements.’

The EPA has taken a hatchet to millions of dollars doled out under the Biden administration to left-wing groups and other programs deemed a waste of taxpayer funds upon Zeldin’s Senate confirmation as EPA chief in January. 

The EPA under the Trump administration has canceled $20 billion in grants under the Inflation Reduction Act — which has led to an ongoing court battle. Zeldin said in March that the $20 billion in U.S. tax dollars were ‘parked at an outside financial institution in a deliberate effort to limit government oversight, doling out your money through just eight pass-through, politically connected, unqualified, and in some cases brand-new NGOs.’

The state attorneys general reflected on the previous cuts in their call to Zeldin to do the same to ELI funding. 

‘Under President Trump’s bold leadership, federal agencies and the Department of Government Efficiency have saved an estimated $190 billion, including terminating more than 15,000 grants that saved approximately $44 billion,’ the letter states. ‘You have heeded President Trump’s directive and achieved monumental savings for taxpayers. You canceled $20 billion in climate grants under the Inflation Reduction Act. You canceled another $1.7 billion in diversity, equity, and inclusion grants.3 And you canceled 800 environmental justice grants.’ 

Climate Judiciary Project and the Environmental Law Institute previously have come under fire from lawmakers such as Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who accused the groups of working to ‘train judges’ and ‘make them agreeable to creative climate litigation tactics.’

The Texas Republican recently has argued there is a ‘systematic campaign’ launched by the Chinese Communist Party and American left-wing activists to weaponize the court systems to ‘undermine American energy dominance.’

Climate Judiciary Project is a pivotal player in the ‘lawfare’ as it works to secure ‘judicial capture,’ according to Cruz, Fox Digital has previously reported. 

For the first time, U.S. fighter pilots took direction from an AI ‘air battle manager’ in a Pentagon test that could change how wars are fought in the skies.

The Air Force and Navy ran the August test using Raft AI’s Starsage tactical control system on F-16s, F/A-18s and F-35s during a joint military exercise designed to evaluate new weapons systems, advanced communications and battle management platforms, Fox News Digital has learned. 

In a typical combat mission, fighter pilots communicate with human air battle managers on the ground. These managers monitor radar, sensor feeds and intelligence to direct pilots on where to fly and how to position their aircraft.

‘We haven’t seen our enemies test any similar technology, so I think this is groundbreaking,’ Raft AI CEO Shubhi Mishra told Fox News Digital in an interview.

She said Starsage both speeds up response time and improves accuracy, allowing pilots to make decisions that once took minutes in just seconds. ‘In the air battle manager’s case, it’s not a one-to-one ratio: one air battle manager is helping several pilots,’ Mishra explained. ‘The autonomous agent we built is one-to-one, at the beck and call of each pilot.’

Air battle managers operate somewhat like air traffic controllers at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), ensuring aircraft don’t collide and remain within safe air corridors. Mishra argued that Starsage could also have prevented the collision between a regional airliner and a Black Hawk helicopter near Ronald Reagan National Airport earlier this year.

‘If the FAA had this technology, that never would have happened,’ she said. ‘It’s just data, and then execution on the data.’ An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board revealed that the Black Hawk’s pilots never heard the command to ‘pass behind the [commercial regional jet]’ because the transmission was stepped on. The airliner’s pilots were not warned there was a helicopter nearby.

During the test, fighter pilots checked in with Starsage, confirming they were on track with the mission plan. Starsage cross-referenced their reports with its simulated sensor feed and the day’s Air Tasking Order, then announced that the minimum force package had been met, signaling that the required number of aircraft were airborne and ready. Behind the scenes, the AI prepared to digitally update the mission commander and other command-and-control agencies.

A battle manager monitored each scenario, and pilots were able to direct Starsage to call them as needed for human direction. 

Later in the scenario, when pilots requested a threat assessment, Starsage analyzed its feed and issued what’s known as a ‘picture call’ — a snapshot of enemy aircraft formations. In this case, Starsage identified a single heavy group of five adversary aircraft, marking the first time an AI system has provided real-time tactical awareness in the air battle space.

The development comes as defense aviation leaders debate how much longer humans will remain in the cockpit of combat aircraft, and how many future generations of fighter jets the Pentagon will ultimately need. To an AI expert like Mishra, ‘if it’s a life-or-death decision, humans should always be in the loop.’

‘But in terms of the technology being capable of doing this, I think it’s already here,’ she said. ‘The question is, do we let it?’

Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro tore into John Bolton for ‘profiteering off America’s secrets’ on Tuesday after the FBI raided his home last week in a reported classified document probe.

‘I served with Bolton, and he was far too frequently a loose cannon, bent on bombings and coups — Doctor Strangelove with a mustache,’ Navarro, who also advised Trump on trade during his first term, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill.

‘He agitated for airstrikes, pushed regime-change fantasies, and obsessed over military solutions when diplomacy was working. Then, instead of honoring executive privilege and confidential debate, Bolton acknowledged that in writing his memoir he relied on the ‘copious notes’ he had conspicuously taken inside the White House.’ 

Bolton published a book in 2020, The Room Where it Happened, reportedly receiving a $2 million advance for a tell-all of his time in the Trump administration. He served as Trump’s national security advisor starting in 2018 but fell out with the president and left the position in 2019. 

Navarro accused Bolton of ‘sharing information about Oval Office conversations and national security that should have stayed secret — either by law or under executive privilege.’

‘That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets.’

Navarro noted that Bolton had described confidential U.S. deliberations on how to fracture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s control and prompt military defections. 

‘That kind of blueprint isn’t something you hand to the public — or to Maduro’s intelligence services.’

He noted that disclosing national defense information without authorization could violate U.S. code. 

‘If evidence is found and indictments made, Bolton may one day go to prison for shredding that Constitution, defying executive privilege, and trampling safeguards meant to protect America’s security,’ Navarro said. ‘If that happens, Bolton won’t be remembered for his book tour. He’ll be remembered for the sequel he writes in prison.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to a spokesperson for Bolton for comment. 

Navarro spent four months in prison last year after being convicted of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

The FBI executed a search warrant on Bolton’s home and office on Friday. 

Democrats have also fumed about Bolton’s book: when the former national security advisor refused to serve as their star witness during the first Trump impeachment related to Ukraine, they accused him of saving the juicy details for his memoir. 

In June 2020, Judge Royce Lamberth found Bolton had ‘likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations.’ 

He’d submitted the 500-page manuscript for a national security review, but when the review wasn’t completed in four months, he ‘pulled the plug on the process and sent the still-under-review manuscript to the publisher for printing,’ according to the judge. 

Lamberth allowed the book to hit the shelves because ‘the horse is already out of the barn‘ – the book’s excerpts had already been leaked and 200,000 copies had been shipped.