by
Nathan
Posner/Anadolu
via
Getty
Images)
Tuesday
was
a
big
day
for
Kash
Patel’s
legal
portfolio…
just
not
in
the
direction
he
intended.
As
we
noted
earlier
this
week,
the
$250
million
defamation
complaint
against
The
Atlantic
filed
by
Patel
and
his
lawyer
Jesse
Binnall
was
already
straining
credulity
before
the
ink
dried.
The
19-page
document
opened
with
what
amounted
to
a
LinkedIn
post,
may
have
been
drafted
with
AI
assistance,
and
contained
the
word
“feable”
—
which
is
not,
for
the
record,
how
you
spell
“feeble”
especially
not
in
a
quarter-billion-dollar
lawsuit.
Tuesday
brought
two
new
developments
that
managed
to
make
the
whole
enterprise
look
even
worse.
While
Patel
was
busy
promoting
his
shiny
new
Atlantic
suit,
a
federal
judge
in
the
Southern
District
of
Texas
dismissed
his
other
defamation
lawsuit
—
the
one
against
former
FBI
counterintelligence
assistant
director
Frank
Figliuzzi,
who
said
on
Morning
Joe
that
Patel
had
“been
visible
at
nightclubs
far
more
than
he
has
been
on
the
seventh
floor
of
the
Hoover
building.”
U.S.
District
Judge
George
Hanks
Jr.
was
not
impressed.
The
court
found
that
Figliuzzi’s
comment
“when
taken
in
context,
cannot
have
been
perceived
by
a
person
of
ordinary
intelligence
as
stating
actual
facts
about
Patel.”
A
reasonable
person,
the
judge
continued,
“would
not
have
taken
his
statement
literally:
that
Dir.
Patel
has
actually
spent
more
hours
physically
in
a
nightclub
than
he
has
spent
physically
in
his
office
building.”
In
other
words:
it
was
a
joke.
A
sarcastic,
hyperbolic
quip.
The
kind
of
thing
that
is
not
defamation,
but
is,
in
fact,
just
someone
clowning
on
a
public
official
on
cable
television,
something
Americans
are
constitutionally
permitted
to
do.
Figliuzzi
had
requested
attorneys’
fees
under
the
Texas
anti-SLAPP
law,
but
the
court
denied
that
request,
finding
the
state’s
anti-SLAPP
statute
inapplicable
in
federal
court.
So
Patel
walks
away
empty-handed,
but
without
a
fee-shifting
penalty.
Lucky
him.
Or,
to
adopt
the
Director’s
preferred
legal
framing:
a
complete
layup,
narrowly
avoided.
Now
here’s
where
the
Atlantic
suit
comes
back
into
the
picture.
Patel’s
complaint
explicitly
cites
the
Figliuzzi
litigation
to
support
his
assertion
of
The
Atlantic‘s
actual
malice,
arguing
that
the
magazine
knew
about
the
pending
lawsuit,
knew
that
similar
nightclub-adjacent
allegations
had
been
“retracted”
by
MSNBC,
and
published
anyway.
From
the
complaint:
the
FBI
“warned
Defendants
that
these
allegations
echoed
a
similar
fabrication
previously
aired
by
MSNBC’s
Frank
Figliuzzi
on
Morning
Joe
—
anonymously
sourced
reporting
that
was
later
retracted
by
MSNBC
and
that
is
the
subject
of
pending
defamation
litigation
—
yet
Defendants
published
it
anyway.”
Got
that?
The
Figliuzzi
lawsuit
was
Exhibit
A
in
the
actual
malice
argument
against
The
Atlantic.
The
lawsuit
Patel
just
lost.
The
one
a
federal
judge
just
ruled
was
based
on
protected
rhetorical
hyperbole.
The
precedent
that
the
nightclub-adjacent
criticism
of
Patel
is
the
kind
of
thing
a
reasonable
person
doesn’t
take
literally.
You
might
want
to
take
that
exhibit
out
of
the
binder,
Jesse.
Meanwhile,
on
Tuesday
afternoon,
Patel
and
Acting
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche
held
a
press
conference
to
announce
what
Blanche
is
framing
as
a
sweeping
fraud
indictment
against
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center.
But
it
took
a
notable
detour
when
NBC
News
reporter
Ryan
Reilly
had
some
questions
about
Patel’s
lawsuit
instead.
Specifically,
Reilly
asked
Patel
whether
on
April
10,
Patel
“had
a
routine
technical
problem
logging
into
a
government
system,
which
was
quickly
fixed.”
The
Atlantic
had
reported
that
this
login
issue
triggered
a
“freak-out”
in
which
Patel
believed
he’d
been
fired.
REILLY:
Can
you
explain
the
computer
log
in
issue?
Your
lawsuit
contends
you
were
not
able
to
log
into
the
system
PATEL:
Let’s
have
a
survey.
How
many
of
you
people
believe
that’s
true?
REILLY:
Did
you
communicate
with
anyone
you
thought
you
were
fired?
PATEL:
It’s
an
absolute
lie.
It
never
happened.
You
are
lying.
REILLY:
The
lawsuit
says
the
opposite!
The
lawsuit
denies
the
freak-out
characterization,
but
it
does
not
deny
the
login
problem.
It
admits
it,
right
there
on
the
page,
in
the
document
Binnall
filed
in
federal
court
that
Patel
suffered
a
“routine
technical
problem
logging
into
a
government
system.”
Patel,
it
seems,
does
not
believe
the
allegations
in
his
own
complaint.
When
Reilly,
reasonably,
one
would
think,
pointed
this
out,
Blanche
took
over.
The
Acting
Attorney
General,
sensing
an
opportunity
to
demonstrate
the
administration’s
commitment
to
collegial
discourse,
stepped
forward
and
told
the
reporter:
“Stop.
You’re
being
extraordinarily
rude.
And
I
know
maybe
that’s
part
of
your
profession,
but
please
just
stop.
If
you
ask
a
question,
he
can
answer
it…
Just
a
little
bit
of
respect,
man,
just
a
tiny
little
bit.
Try
it
some
time.”
Ryan
Reilly
was
asking
the
FBI
Director
to
explain
his
own
lawsuit.
That
is
the
rude
behavior
in
question.
As
we’ve
covered
from
the
start,
this
suit
always
looked
less
like
litigation
and
more
like
a
message
to
Trump
that
Patel
is
a
fighter.
Nothing
about
Tuesday
changed
that
read.
It
did,
however,
raise
a
new
question…
has
Kash
Patel
actually
read
his
own
complaint?
Earlier:
FBI
Director
Promises
To
Pound
‘The
Atlantic’
Like
A
Six
Pack
On
A
Tuesday
Kash
Patel’s
$250
Million
Defamation
Lawsuit
Looks
Better
With
Beer
Goggles
Did
Kash
Patel’s
Lawyers
Have
ChatGPT
File
A
$250
Million
Lawsuit?
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email her with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter @Kathryn1 or
Bluesky @Kathryn1