But “Lady of Silences” has. And since she is a former law clerk on a Federal Court of Appeals, she is deemed to be credible. Very credible.
She says thus:
But the retraction here was remarkable because it was, in effect, censorship and what some have characterized as a blatant attempt by the government to try to cover up exactly what its agents did to Mr. Higazy. The court's opinion no doubt had been circulated among the judges and law clerks involved in the case before it was released (almost always the case and almost certainly for a high-profile decision such as this), and apparently none of them perceived any error in the summary of events contained in the original opinion (which the government alleged was information from an appendix that had been placed under seal by the trial court).
Our big post on Higazy-gate appears here. My post about why Volokh elects to let one of the biggest First Amendment stories of the year go appears here. Kerr, on the other hand, finds yet another angle on Waterboardinggate (i.e. that people were fired for offering opinions that the practice was illegal).