Williams/CQ-Roll
Call,
Inc
via
Getty
Images)
The
complaint
is
finally
here,
and
it’s
more
or
less
exactly
as
loony
as
we
expected.
FBI
Director
Kashyap
Patel
has
filed
a
$250
million
defamation
lawsuit
against
The
Atlantic
and
reporter
Sarah
Fitzpatrick
over
the
April
17
article
alleging
excessive
drinking
and
erratic
behavior.
The
19-page
complaint,
filed
by
Patel’s
lawyer
and
Big
Lie
aficionado
Jesse
Binnall,
strikes
a
perfect
balance
between
responding
to
the
allegations
of
the
article
with
“nuh
uh”
and
lengthy
accounts
of
how
successful
the
FBI’s
individual
agents
have
been
while
Patel’s
been
busy
doing
the
important
work
of
slamming
brews
with
the
Olympic
hockey
team.
The
complaint
veers
off
the
rails
early,
opening
the
“Factual
Background”
with
what
Scott
McFarlane
of
Meidas
Touch
described
as
a
LinkedIn
post.
Patel
devotes
11
lettered
bullet
points
to
the
“historic
law
enforcement
results”
achieved
while
he’s
technically
had
an
office
in
the
Hoover
building.
The
capture
of
8
of
the
FBI’s
Most
Wanted
(twice
as
many
as
under
Sleepy
Joe
Biden,
he
notes!),
big
decreases
in
homicide
rates
(what
does
this
have
to
do
with
the
FBI?),
seizure
of
fentanyl
that
would’ve
otherwise
killed
“189
million
people”
or
about
half
the
population
of
the
United
States
(wha?).
Could
veteran
FBI
agents
have
pulled
any
of
this
off
if
the
director
was
buying
drinks
at
the
Poodle
Room?
Well,
yeah,
probably.
But
what
this
factual
account
lacks
in
value
to
his
defamation
claim,
it
makes
up
for
as
a
cheap
resume
refresher
for
Donald
Trump
in
case
the
boss
might
be
considering
dropping
Patel.
Actual
malice?
Well,
The
Atlantic
previously
reported
that
Patel
was
on
the
chopping
block.
The
complaint
spins
this
as
“an
editorial
predisposition
to
cast
his
tenure
as
failing.”
You
miss
100
percent
of
the
shots
you
don’t
take.
Numerous
Atlantic
pieces
over
the
past
two
years
have
characterized
Director
Patel
as
unqualified,
dangerous,
corrupt,
or
mentally
unstable.
Apropos
of
nothing
in
particular,
we
would
remind
readers
that
truth
is
a
defense
to
defamation.
Seriously
though,
opinion
is
protected
speech
and
is
not
an
element
of
actual
malice.
Whatever
The
Atlantic
thinks
about
Patel’s
qualifications,
that’s
not
particularly
relevant
to
establishing
that
the
publication
went
forward
with
reckless
disregard
for
the
truth.
The
complaint
keeps
declaring
the
allegations
“easily
refuted”
or
his
contrary
claim
“easily
verified”
and
then
just…
doesn’t
do
it.
Look,
a
complaint
doesn’t
have
to
—
nor
should
it
really
—
lay
out
a
detailed
factual
record,
but
it
should
at
least
endeavor
to
put
the
defense
on
guard
that
explicit
factual
support
is
forthcoming.
Also,
as
a
practice
point,
adverbs
in
legal
filings
set
off
red
flags.
If
it
can
be
so
easily
refuted,
then
write
“this
is
refuted
by
[insert
support
here].”
Whenever
a
formal
filing
includes
a
specific
adverb,
my
spidey-sense
tells
me
it’s
going
to
turn
out
to
be
the
exact
opposite.
To
a
lesser
extent,
the
same
goes
for
adjectives:
Even
after
stealth-editing
their
headline
over
the
weekend,
in
a
feable
attempt
to
reduce
the
appearance
of
partisan
animus,
Defendants
have
doubled
down…
“Feable”?!?
A
$250
million
lawsuit
and
no
one
is
running
spell
check?
Adjectival
editorializing
is
inappropriate.
Misspelling
it
is
unforgivable.
For
the
record,
The
Atlantic
changed
“Kash
Patel’s
Erratic
Behavior
Could
Cost
Him
His
Job”
to
“The
FBI
Director
Is
MIA,”
which
does
not
seem
like
a
“stealth
edit”
as
much
as
A/B
testing
to
maximize
internet
traffic.
The
Article’s
assertions
and
implications
that
Director
Patel’s
alleged
alcohol
consumption
negatively
impacted
law-enforcement
investigations
(including
the
Charlie
Kirk
murder
investigation),
violated
DOJ
ethics
rules
against
habitual
intoxicant
use,
rendered
him
vulnerable
to
foreign
adversary
coercion,
and
constituted
a
threat
to
public
safety
and
national
security—including
in
the
context
of
a
domestic
terrorist
attack—are
false.
Prior
to
publication,
the
FBI
expressly
informed
Defendants
that
these
claims
were
“100%
false,”
and
that
under
Director
Patel’s
leadership,
the
FBI
has
just
delivered
its
most
successful
year
in
decades,
with
a
historic
drop
in
violent
crime,
a
20%
drop
in
the
national
murder
rate,
a
31%
increase
in
fentanyl
seizures,
and
the
successful
disruption
of
multiple
terror
plots.
I
guess
he’s
never
heard
the
phrase
putting
the
fun
in
functional
alcoholism.
This
is
a
recurring
format:
“The
article
says
X…
we
say
that’s
false…
because
the
rank-and-file
FBI
agents
continue
to
do
their
jobs.”
There’s
a
lot
of
hubris
in
the
idea
that
the
director
has
to
be
sober
as
a
judge
for
the
Dallas
field
office
to
close
its
cases.
Saying
Patel
is
bad
at
his
job
is
opinion.
The
claim
that
he’s
bad
because
of
drinking
is
potentially
actionable.
To
that
end,
it
doesn’t
support
a
defamation
claim
to
say,
“but
I’m
good
at
my
job,”
the
only
claim
that’s
relevant
is
“I’m
not
a
drunk.”
The
final
sentence
of
this
paragraph
is
a
non
sequitur.
The
Article’s
assertions
that
Director
Patel
is
“often
away
or
unreachable,”
causing
delays
that
made
agents
“lose
their
shit,”
and
that
he
has
“unexplained
absences”
and
“spotty
attendance
at
the
office,”
are
false.
Director
Patel
is
at
FBI
headquarters
nearly
every
single
day,
and
when
he
is
not
at
headquarters,
he
is
visiting
field
offices—which
he
has
done
more
frequently
than
any
of
his
predecessors,
a
fact
independently
verifiable
through
his
public
social
media
account
that
Defendants
were
specifically
directed
to
review.
Which
field
office
is
in
the
Olympics
locker
room?
Also,
presumably
the
FBI
keeps
better
records
of
the
director’s
location
than
relying
on
what
he
posts
on
Twitter.
A
serious
defamation
complaint
—
one
not
rushed
out
on
Monday
morning
to
keep
ahead
of
the
news
cycle
—
might
include
detailed
claims
of
his
whereabouts
throughout
his
tenure,
with
an
implied
promise
that
this
itinerary
comes
from
official
FBI
records
that
will
back
up
all
these
dates
in
discovery.
This
complaint
is
loosey-goosey
by
any
standard,
and
notably
underwhelming
coming
from
a
government
official
whose
daily
activity
is
tracked.
Furthermore,
Director
Patel
has
taken
significantly
fewer
personal
days
than
either
of
his
two
immediate
predecessors.
In
calendar
year
2025,
Director
Patel
took
approximately
17
personal
days—fewer
than
Director
Wray
averaged
in
any
single
year
of
his
7.5-year
tenure,
during
which
Wray
accumulated
roughly
242
personal
days
(including
approximately
37
in
2024
alone,
31
in
2023,
and
33
in
2022).
Director
Comey
likewise
took
approximately
130
personal
days
over
his
4-year
tenure,
including
roughly
63
in
2014
and
42
in
2015,
when
he
routinely
traveled
home
to
New
York
every
weekend
or
every
other
weekend.
Put
simply,
Director
Patel’s
personal-day
usage
in
2025
is
less
than
half
of
Wray’s
yearly
average
and
a
small
fraction
of
Comey’s
peak
years.
If
this
is
true,
then
is
he
counting
the
private
jet
trips
to
golf
in
Scotland,
going
to
concerts
with
his
girlfriend,
and
the
aforementioned
Olympics
trip
as
official
business?
Because,
like,
that
would
be
worse.
He
gets
that
that
would
be
worse,
right?
“Director
Patel
has
not
targeted
political
or
personal
adversaries,”
the
complaint
says,
even
though
Acting
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche
is
on
record
bragging
that
the
FBI
has
been
purged
of
anyone
who
worked
on
the
Trump
investigations.
Before
dropping
the
complaint,
Patel
even
went
on
Bartiromo
to
pledge
that
he’s
about
to
start
making
arrests
over
the
repeatedly
debunked
claim
that
the
2020
election
was
rigged
against
Trump
because
he
was
“never
going
to
let
this
go.”
From
a
lawyer
perspective,
it’s
suboptimal
to
have
a
defamation
client
saying
he’s
about
to
use
his
power
to
pursue
a
conspiracy
theory
he’s
never
letting
go
of
—
and
written
children’s
books
about
—
right
before
filing
a
complaint
alleging
that
he’s
never
targeted
political
or
personal
adversaries.
In
addition
to
FBI
OPA’s
pre-publication
denial,
Defendants
received
on-the-record
statements
from
senior
administration
officials
that
contradicted
the
Article’s
core
premise.White
House
Press
Secretary
Karoline
Leavitt
told
Defendants
that
under
President
Trump
and
Director
Patel,
“crime
across
the
country
has
plummeted
to
the
lowest
level
in
more
than
100
years
and
many
high
profile
criminals
have
been
put
behind
bars,”
and
that
“Director
Patel
remains
a
critical
player
on
the
Administration’s
law
and
order
team.”Acting
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche
told
Defendants
that
“Patel
has
accomplished
more
in
14
months
than
the
previous
administration
did
in
four
years”
and
that
“[a]nonymously
sourced
hit
pieces
do
not
constitute
journalism.”
“A
critical
player
on
the
Administration’s
law
and
order
team.”
Damn,
that’s
cold.
That’s
the
reference
you
get
from
a
former
boss
who
really
doesn’t
think
you
should
hire
a
guy.
If
these
are
the
statements
Patel
sent
the
magazine
to
talk
them
out
of
publishing,
it’s
no
wonder
they
smashed
the
publish
button.
The
answer
to
“is
the
director
drinking
too
much
at
Ned’s?”
is
not
“he’s
still
a
critical
player
on
our
law
and
order
team.”
That’s
not
to
say
there
aren’t
a
few
colorable
allegations
in
this
complaint.
The
truncated
opportunity
to
respond
at
least
hints
at
setting
Patel
up
for
failure.
Reporting
based
on
documents
is
one
thing,
but
when
it’s
just
a
series
of
witness
accounts,
the
subject
of
the
story
probably
needs
more
time.
Especially
if
the
publication
has
it
in
their
heads
that
he’s
“often
away
or
unreachable.”
Still,
Patel
didn’t
really
help
his
case
here:
They
included
only
a
generic,
truncated
denial
attributed
to
Director
Patel
it,
all
false,
I’ll
see
you
in
court
–
bring
your
checkbook”).
Bro.
Threatening
litigation
is
not
displaying
the
level
of
good
faith
effort
to
corroborate
your
denials
that
the
court
will
want
to
see
down
the
road.
This
is
the
moment
where
you
write,
“these
allegations
are
false,
if
you
can
afford
me
until
Monday
morning,
I
can
compile
ample
documentation
to
refute
each
point
in
turn.”
As
is,
the
complaint
seems
tailored
to
generate
a
lot
of
attention
through
sticker
shock.
But
as
a
serious
legal
argument,
it’s…
“feable.”
(Complaint
available
on
the
next
page…)
Earlier:
FBI
Director
Promises
To
Pound
‘The
Atlantic’
Like
A
Six
Pack
On
A
Tuesday
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.