By John Q. Hosedrinker 
FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, labeling her report as a “sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece.” The article, citing unnamed sources, alleged Patel’s job was in jeopardy due to concerns including bouts of excessive drinking. Patel publicly stated he views the “actual malice” standard, required for public figures in defamation cases, as a “legal lay up,” despite its historically high burden of proof. This lawsuit emerges as part of a broader conservative effort to challenge or overturn the Supreme Court’s precedent on the actual malice standard.
Read the original article here
Kash Patel’s assertion that his defamation case against The Atlantic is a “legal lay up” might be a bit more aspirational than accurate, and frankly, it doesn’t quite hold up under scrutiny. The very idea of calling a defamation lawsuit, especially one brought by a public figure against a reputable news organization, a “lay up” suggests a misunderstanding of the legal landscape and the significant hurdles involved.
This kind of confident declaration often signals a disconnect between perceived strength and the reality of legal proceedings. The “actual malice” standard, which public figures must meet in defamation cases, is notoriously difficult. It requires proving that the publication knowingly printed false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Simply believing something is false or that it damages one’s reputation isn’t enough; concrete evidence of intent or extreme carelessness is needed.
The Atlantic, as a long-standing and respected publication, is unlikely to have published a story of this nature without a substantial degree of due diligence. Their legal team would have meticulously vetted the reporting, ensuring they had credible sources and solid evidence to back up their claims, especially in anticipation of a potential lawsuit. This isn’t the kind of organization that would haphazardly throw accusations into the public sphere without significant backing.
Furthermore, the notion of a “legal lay up” completely ignores the discovery process, a critical phase in litigation. This is where both sides exchange information, documents, and take depositions. For Patel, this process is likely to be far from a simple score. Depositions, in particular, can be intense, with sworn testimony scrutinized under oath. Any inconsistencies or lack of substantive evidence on his part would be laid bare.
The comments from various observers suggest that Patel’s own conduct might be a significant factor. Mentions of excessive drinking and potential substance use, if they become relevant and are substantiated, could severely undermine his credibility and ability to argue that he was harmed by untrue reporting. If witnesses describe such behavior, and it’s even tangentially related to his fitness for his role or the reporting in question, the discovery phase will likely unearth a wealth of potentially damaging information.
The comparison to a basketball player like Ben Simmons, known for his hesitancy to shoot, or even Charlie Brown anticipating kicking a football that Lucy will inevitably pull away, paints a picture of someone who might be overconfident or ultimately set up for disappointment. The Atlantic, in this analogy, is Lucy, and Patel is the one about to be left with nothing.
There’s a distinct possibility that Patel’s motivation isn’t solely about winning a legal victory in court, but rather employing a tactic common in certain political circles. This involves filing lawsuits, not necessarily with the expectation of prevailing, but to generate negative publicity for the outlet, potentially intimidate other media organizations from pursuing similar stories, or to extract a settlement through prolonged legal harassment. However, this strategy often backfires when the opposing side is well-prepared and unwilling to be intimidated.
The idea that a public figure might file a lawsuit and then strategically withdraw it before discovery, especially if they anticipate damaging revelations, is a recognized, albeit often unsuccessful, tactic. This strategy, however, can also open them up to counterclaims for filing in bad faith, adding another layer of legal complexity that does not resemble a simple “lay up.”
Ultimately, the claim of a “legal lay up” is likely a mischaracterization, possibly born out of overconfidence or a misunderstanding of the rigorous legal standards and investigative processes involved in defamation law. The reality for Kash Patel is that this lawsuit is poised to be a complex and potentially revealing legal battle, not a swift and easy victory.