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.



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.”

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


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?

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?

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


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

Quote:


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 !!!

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



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.

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


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.

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


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 5:20pm:

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.