This, of course, will go nowhere.

There's no way he'll want the Atlantic to get hold of discovery or put witnesses on the stand.

He'll do a TACO, or rather, a PACO.

https://media.tenor.com/_UAP4xIZTC0AAAAM/weird-stare.gif

FBI Director Kash Patel sues the Atlantic claiming false reporting about drinking, absences

April 20 (Reuters) - FBI Director Kash Patel filed a defamation lawsuit against the Atlantic and its reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick following the publication of an article on Friday alleging the director had ​a drinking problem that could pose a threat to national security.

The magazine's story, initially titled “Kash Patel's Erratic Behavior Could Cost Him His Job," cited more than two ‌dozen anonymous sources expressing concern about Patel’s “conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences” that “alarmed officials at the FBI and the Department of Justice.”

The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic.

There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named.

Leroy wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 2:01pm:

The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named.

Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege.

Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4]

Ever get the feeling you've been farmed?

Leroy wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 2:01pm:

The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named.

Reputable news orgs stand by their ethics in protecting their sources…

All Patel has done is alert the entire world about the issue.

Given his time on Rogan where he expressed his surprise that he’d been offered the job, indicates that even he didn’t think he was qualified for worthy of it…

Kash is on the way out, leftards, so deal with it.

There he goes, see you later.

It may not happen overnight, but it will happen, no?

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 2:51pm:

Kash is on the way out, leftards, so deal with it. There he goes, see you later. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen, no?

Oh, it's happening alright.

His head is on the chopping block and his DL is walking over towards the axe.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/clipart-illustration-chicken-head-on-600w-36674.jpg

Crazy Eyes is panicking too.

He knows that once he loses his job his 27 year old girlfriend will drop him like a hot Samosa.

And then it'll be back to long, lonely nights watching Bollywood movies with a box of tissues and a bottle (or two) of Whisky.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 3:01pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:51pm: Kash is on the way out, leftards, so deal with it. There he goes, see you later. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen, no? Oh, it's happening alright. His head is on the chopping block and his DL is walking over towards the axe. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/clipart-illustration-chicken-head-on-600w-36674.jpg Crazy Eyes is panicking too. He knows that once he loses his job his 27 year old girlfriend will drop him like a hot Samosa. And then it'll be back to long, lonely nights watching Bollywood movies with a box of tissues and a bottle (or two) of Whisky.

I know, right? Check out his sucking up on Fox:


Quote:

Bartiromo asked, “Tomorrow, you will be dropping a lawsuit against The Atlantic magazine?” Patel said, “Yes I will, for defamation Because you know what, Maria? We have to fight back against the fake news. Its one of the many things President Trump is so successful at and leading out on.” He continued, “I won’t tolerate their attacks on me because they are indirect attacks on the men and women of the FBI that we have cleaned up.” He added, “If the fake news mafia wants to, you know, ring their drum beat as loud as they can, they’re never going to stop me from completing the mission that President Trump asked me to do, which is safeguarding America. and we are doing it better than ever before.”

To my knowledge, this is the only lawsuit ever taken out with the sole intention of appeasing he.

I don't know about you, Greggery, but I can't see that working too long. The one thing we know as this:

They'll support a podcaster as FBI chief. They'll support a drunk. They'll support someone with no experience in the FBI, and yes.

They'll support a suckhole so obsequious and insincere, he's prepared to use FBI resources to lawfare the free press for reporting the bleeding obvious, a constitutional right in the US of A.

WITCH HUNT !!!

Crazy Eyes will do what Fred-KKK-Trump should have done 80 years ago - he'll pull out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jgP8ZreN_E

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 2:13pm:

Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed?

Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 2:14pm:

Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Reputable news orgs stand by their ethics in protecting their sources… All Patel has done is alert the entire world about the issue.

Indeed.

And that will upset the rapist in the White House.

He'll be "transitioning to a job in the private sector" in the not too distant future, and his girlfriend will be dropping him like a hot Pakora.

Leroy wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 4:53pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court.

You're right, there is no such law.

It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool.

Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office.

Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk.

Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended.

The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things.

Either way, you are now.

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 5:20pm:

Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now.

I didn't expect you to wave the white flag so early.  ;D ;D

Leroy wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 5:33pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:20pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now. I didn't expect you to wave the white flag so early.  ;D ;D

And you didn't expect the Atlantic to prevail.

Their article is still online for Kash to huff and puff and get ever so offended about.

SO UNFAIR !!!

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 6:06pm:

Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:33pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:20pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now. I didn't expect you to wave the white flag so early.  ;D ;D And you didn't expect the Atlantic to prevail. Their article is still online for Kash to huff and puff and get ever so offended about. SO UNFAIR !!!

He'll be demanding to see the manager.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-img/img/2025/05/28/optimize/Kash_Patel_height_memes_1748471644119_1748471673055.jpg

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 5:20pm:

Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now.

You might also have to weave the absence of malice into journalistic reporting as part of the media's defence. A news outlet cannot print something as true where there is reason enough to doubt its veracity.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 6:11pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:06pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:33pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:20pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now. I didn't expect you to wave the white flag so early.  ;D ;D And you didn't expect the Atlantic to prevail. Their article is still online for Kash to huff and puff and get ever so offended about. SO UNFAIR !!! He'll be demanding to see the manager. https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-img/img/2025/05/28/optimize/Kash_Patel_height_memes_1748471644119_1748471673055.jpg

He'll be gone by July.

Come January, he'll be on the stand with Pam.

LAWFARE !!!

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 6:15pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:20pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now. You might also have to weave the absence of malice into journalistic reporting as part of the media's defence. A news outlet cannot print something as true where there is reason enough to doubt its veracity.

As Fox knows all too well, dear.

They were hardly sued by the government, now were they?

Mind you, if you think Fox have the same editorial standards as the Atlantic, you really are suffering from the both-sides delusion that drove you to defend Elon for so long.

They're all as bad as each other, no?

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 6:25pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:15pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:20pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now. You might also have to weave the absence of malice into journalistic reporting as part of the media's defence. A news outlet cannot print something as true where there is reason enough to doubt its veracity. As Fox knows all too well, dear. They were hardly sued by the government, now were they? Mind you, if you think Fox have the same editorial standards as the Atlantic, you really are suffering from the both-sides delusion that drove you to defend Elon for so long. They're all as bad as each other, no?

The US government is not suing the Atlantic.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 6:46pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:25pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:15pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:20pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now. You might also have to weave the absence of malice into journalistic reporting as part of the media's defence. A news outlet cannot print something as true where there is reason enough to doubt its veracity. As Fox knows all too well, dear. They were hardly sued by the government, now were they? Mind you, if you think Fox have the same editorial standards as the Atlantic, you really are suffering from the both-sides delusion that drove you to defend Elon for so long. They're all as bad as each other, no? The US government is not suing the Atlantic.

Come come, who's mission do you think Kash is talking about when he goes on Fox and says: I took this job to protect the American people and this FBI has delivered the most prolific reduction in crime in US history. Fake news won’t report it, and their toxicity will never erode nor stop our Mission.

I mean, we all know he's talking to an audience of one, but the fact that he's speaking on behalf of DL and the FBI is there for all to see.

Yes, Meister.

---

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 7:21pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:46pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:25pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:15pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:20pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now. You might also have to weave the absence of malice into journalistic reporting as part of the media's defence. A news outlet cannot print something as true where there is reason enough to doubt its veracity. As Fox knows all too well, dear. They were hardly sued by the government, now were they? Mind you, if you think Fox have the same editorial standards as the Atlantic, you really are suffering from the both-sides delusion that drove you to defend Elon for so long. They're all as bad as each other, no? The US government is not suing the Atlantic. Come come, who's mission do you think Kash is talking about when he goes on Fox and says: I took this job to protect the American people and this FBI has delivered the most prolific reduction in crime in US history. Fake news won’t report it, and their toxicity will never erode nor stop our Mission. I mean, we all know he's talking to an audience of one, but the fact that he's speaking on behalf of DL and the FBI is there for all to see. Yes, Meister.

So he's a blowarse, is the US government a co-complainant?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 7:26pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 7:21pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:46pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:25pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:15pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:20pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now. You might also have to weave the absence of malice into journalistic reporting as part of the media's defence. A news outlet cannot print something as true where there is reason enough to doubt its veracity. As Fox knows all too well, dear. They were hardly sued by the government, now were they? Mind you, if you think Fox have the same editorial standards as the Atlantic, you really are suffering from the both-sides delusion that drove you to defend Elon for so long. They're all as bad as each other, no? The US government is not suing the Atlantic. Come come, who's mission do you think Kash is talking about when he goes on Fox and says: I took this job to protect the American people and this FBI has delivered the most prolific reduction in crime in US history. Fake news won’t report it, and their toxicity will never erode nor stop our Mission. I mean, we all know he's talking to an audience of one, but the fact that he's speaking on behalf of DL and the FBI is there for all to see. Yes, Meister. So he's a blowarse, is the US government a co-complainant?

Sorry, Meister, I didn't think I had to point out that he's speaking on behalf of the US government.

I mean, what damages to an alcoholic podcaster's reputation could possibly be worth $250 mil?

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 7:32pm:

Sorry, Meister, I didn't think I had to point out that he's speaking on behalf of the US government. I mean, what damages to an alcoholic podcaster's reputation could possibly be worth $250 mil?

No, he's not... read the article you posted... he's grandiosely referring to himself bringing safety,  'glory and honour' to the FBI and the American people.

At the core of his complaint: “The Atlantic’s story is a lie. They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway,”

He's claiming malice against himself personally.

As for 250 mil... it wouldn't be a 'real' US lawsuit if it involved petty cash or chump change.

Big Donger wrote on Apr 21^st, 2026 at 6:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:11pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 6:06pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:33pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 5:20pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 4:53pm: Big Donger wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:13pm: Leroy wrote on Apr 21st, 2026 at 2:01pm: The Alantic will have to identify their sources, Patel will find out who made these anonymous stories. It's not about winning the case but identifying who made these stories and sold them onto the Alantic. There will be some nervous people knowing they are about to be named. Incorrect. The US legal system enshrines Reporter's privilege. Furthermore, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes called shield laws protecting journalists' anonymous sources.[3] Wyoming is the only state without a shield law, though the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says this is likely because state courts rarely subpoena news organizations.[4] Ever get the feeling you've been farmed? Yes the Alantic do not have to reveal their source, but hearsay cannot be used as evidence in court. There is no such law that states that journalists sources have to be taken as truth and cannot be challenged in court. You're right, there is no such law. It's called the Constitution, you redeculous old fool. Directors of FBIs are known as fair game - public officials where every US citizen is entitled - nay, empowered - to comment on the conduct of their office. Taking out lawsuits with the intention of silencing the free press is against the law. The Atlantic may respond with an anti-slap suit, and indeed, the consequences of a government department infringing on the rights of a media outlet would be seen as far more serious than any reputational damage to an FBI director/podcaster/drunk. Either way, the Atlantic cannot be held to have libeled an FBI Director as factual reporting is deemed the public's right to know. Journalists are not obliged to reveal their sources under any circumstances, least of all a butthurt DL appointee acting all offended. The public's right to know is the most basic defence in any question of libel. As someone who promotes Google ads on a political website, one would have thought you'd be schooled in such things. Either way, you are now. I didn't expect you to wave the white flag so early.  ;D ;D And you didn't expect the Atlantic to prevail. Their article is still online for Kash to huff and puff and get ever so offended about. SO UNFAIR !!! He'll be demanding to see the manager. https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-img/img/2025/05/28/optimize/Kash_Patel_height_memes_1748471644119_1748471673055.jpg He'll be gone by July. Come January, he'll be on the stand with Pam. LAWFARE !!!

Poor old Pam.

Whatever happened to that repugnant POS?

How's the new job going?

It's gonna be hilarious when the Judge throws out Patel's case.  ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2026 at 1:05pm:

It's gonna be hilarious when the Judge throws out Patel's case.  ;D

Crazy Eyes will back out before it gets to a judge.

He's not gonna risk giving evidence under oath and providing discovery.

A federal judge in Texas just dismissed a lawsuit FBI Director Kash Patel filed against former FBI official and MSNBC analyst Frank Figliuzzi.

The $250 million suit alleged Figliuzzi "fabricated" claims that Patel was frequently in nightclubs rather than being at work.


https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/2046740813573759472

Quote:

FBI Director Kash Patel sues the Atlantic

To me it is simply amazing that cash is probably not their worst performer. In fact it is possible that he isn't in their worst 5. How is that possible?

The Male Lesbian Gaze wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2026 at 9:13pm:

A federal judge in Texas just dismissed a lawsuit FBI Director Kash Patel filed against former FBI official and MSNBC analyst Frank Figliuzzi. The $250 million suit alleged Figliuzzi "fabricated" claims that Patel was frequently in nightclubs rather than being at work. https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/2046740813573759472

“The Court finds that Figliuzzi’s statement is rhetorical hyperbole that cannot constitute defamation,” U.S. District Court Judge George Hanks Jr. wrote in his decision. “Accordingly, Dir. Patel has failed to state a claim against Figliuzzi, and his lawsuit must be dismissed.”    :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2026 at 11:19am:

The Male Lesbian Gaze wrote on Apr 22nd, 2026 at 9:13pm: A federal judge in Texas just dismissed a lawsuit FBI Director Kash Patel filed against former FBI official and MSNBC analyst Frank Figliuzzi. The $250 million suit alleged Figliuzzi "fabricated" claims that Patel was frequently in nightclubs rather than being at work. https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/2046740813573759472 “The Court finds that Figliuzzi’s statement is rhetorical hyperbole that cannot constitute defamation,” U.S. District Court Judge George Hanks Jr. wrote in his decision. “Accordingly, Dir. Patel has failed to state a claim against Figliuzzi, and his lawsuit must be dismissed.”    :)

The judge found that:

Quote:

he's a blowarse

Dnarever wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2026 at 10:11pm:

Quote: FBI Director Kash Patel sues the Atlantic To me it is simply amazing that cash is probably not their worst performer. In fact it is possible that he isn't in their worst 5. How is that possible?

Hard to say, Dnarever. The cabinet is full of recovering addicts/alcoholics. RFK Jnr's been addicted to heroin and crack for most of his adult life, and he's the Health secretary. Kash and Pete are both active alcoholics. If Pete wore a uniform, he wouldn't get past a basic physical. Labor Secretary Lori Michelle Chavez-DeRemer's just been fired for being a drunk, among other things.

Her hubby got himself a ban from her office for touching up the staff. Kristi's hubby was a target of kompromat, "looning" online with other "ladies" like himself.

Sure it's the most amateur administration in history. Sure it's the least qualified. What no one envisaged is how bungling, incompetent and disruptive it could truly be, even with the stated mission to directly sabotage government.

We will make America great again, no?