this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
0 points (NaN% liked)

Politics

11495 readers
10 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic after the magazine published an article about his tumultuous and embarrassing tenure as America’s top cop. The article reports that Patel has “alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences,” and it really just gets better from there. I believe every word of it—partially because it confirms my biases, partially because it’s so well sourced (writer Sarah Fitzpatrick spoke to more than two dozen people), and partially because the Trump administration is full of incompetent people who’ve found stunning new ways to express that incompetence.

What’s particularly neat is how the defamation lawsuit itself confirms one of the central claims of the article. Fitzpatrick writes that people who work with Patel are concerned by Patel’s impulsive behavior, and his lawsuit is nothing if not impulsive. It should get thrown out on its ear. And even though there are some Republicans on the Supreme Court eager to follow Trump’s directive to “open up libel laws,” this lawsuit is not going to be that vehicle. It’s way too stupid.

First of all, Patel is a public figure. Undeniably so. As such, he has to meet a higher standard than a private person to prevail in a defamation suit. He has to show that The Atlantic’s story is false, and that The Atlantic showed “actual malice” when publishing the article. “Actual malice” is a bit of legal jargon that generally means that a publication either knew the story was untrue or should have known but published it anyway.

Speaking to over two dozen people is a great way for a reporter to avoid a finding of malice. That’s especially true in this case, where the story is really about what Patel’s colleagues are worried about. The Atlantic didn’t claim that Patel drinks too much; it published an article saying that his colleagues think he drinks too much, and it’s got numerous people backing up that claim. I don’t think there’s any way Patel can prove malice on the part of The Atlantic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 0 points 1 week ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Trying to keep up with all the Trump antics is like trying to watch Avengers Endgame, read The Lord of the Rings, and listen to Game of Thrones at the same time. While riding a roller coaster in a hurricane.

[–] brennesel@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

A day after FBI Director Kash Patel filed a $250 million lawsuit against The Atlantic, he has lost a different defamation claim, against news analyst and pundit Frank Figliuzzi.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 0 points 1 week ago

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

Trying to keep up with all the Trump antics is like trying to watch Avengers Endgame, read The Lord of the Rings, and listen to Game of Thrones at the same time. While riding a roller coaster in a hurricane.

Proving my point. I missed two words in the article.

[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 0 points 1 week ago

God, remember when we had department directors that didn't have two (frivolous) defamation cases?