+0

From here :

But Lamberth's decision also keeps alive major risks for Bolton, such as the administration's effort to claw back proceeds from the book, including from any movie and TV rights, and other consequences for disclosing classified information.

My first question is about usage of claw back in this context. Clawing back involves recovering and getting back money the government somehow disbursed.

But since the administration has never funded/spent money on this book in the first place how does clawing back money from proceeds make any sense?

I would also like to understand why the administration may claw back book proceeds due to movie and TV rights. Does it have to do with copyright taxation? Does it imply the book includes quotes from TV and movies?

Thanks!

+1
Ricardo Germanohow does clawing back money from proceeds make any sense?

It is pure conjecture.

They are assuming that Bolton will be tried in a court of law and receive a prison sentence, along with high fines and penalties for publishing classified information without permission from the government.

The government will recover these penalties from the profits made off of the book (including selling the rights to film an enactment) that caused the case to be brought to trial.

+1

Your understanding of 'claw back' is correct. It looks to me like the author of the article misused the term. He seems to mean that Bolton could have any money he makes from the book and other rights confiscated as a kind of fine or penalty.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Comments  

Thanks, AlpheccaStars and MalRey! Always so helpful Emotion: wink

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies