A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by FBI Director Kash Patel against former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi. The court ruled that Figliuzzi’s statement, suggesting Patel spent more time at nightclubs than at FBI headquarters, constituted “rhetorical hyperbole” and did not meet the legal standard for defamation. This ruling came shortly after Patel initiated another defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic magazine.
Read More
Claims of FBI Director Kash Patel’s excessive drinking and erratic behavior, as reported by The Atlantic based on anonymous sources, could not be independently verified. Patel has denied these allegations, filing a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the publication, which stands by its reporting. The FBI, Department of Justice, and the White House have not directly addressed the specific claims, though the White House praised Patel’s leadership.
Read More
Despite Kash Patel’s claims that a report on his alleged drinking problem and erratic behavior was entirely false, his own defamation lawsuit appears to confirm a specific detail from the article. The lawsuit acknowledges that Patel experienced a technical issue preventing him from accessing a government system on April 10th, an incident previously described in the report as a meltdown where he believed he had been fired. The article, citing anonymous sources, detailed a severe drinking problem that could “threaten national security” and suggested paranoia. Patel’s legal team has condemned the reporting as a “hit piece” while The Atlantic stands by its story.
Read More
FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick, alleging their recent article contained false claims of excessive drinking and unexplained absences. The article, which cited numerous anonymous sources, described Patel’s behavior as erratic and a national-security vulnerability, including accounts of intoxication and a dramatic misunderstanding about being fired. The Atlantic has stated it stands by its reporting and will defend itself against the lawsuit, while Patel’s legal team claims the publication deliberately engineered a timeline to prevent a proper response and made a “stealth edit” to the article’s headline.
Read More
FBI Director Kash Patel is suing The Atlantic for defamation, alleging the magazine published a “sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece” containing fabricated allegations. The lawsuit seeks to hold the defendants accountable for false claims about excessive drinking, unexplained absences, and the need for breaching equipment due to his unresponsiveness. Patel maintains that these accusations are categorically false and were published with actual malice, despite being warned before publication. The Atlantic, however, stands by its reporting and vows to vigorously defend against the lawsuit, acknowledging the high legal standard required for public figures to prove defamation.
Read More
In defamation cases involving public figures, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a statement was not only factually inaccurate but also that the publisher acted with actual malice. This requires proof that the publisher knew of the falsity of the statement or exhibited a reckless disregard for its truth. Therefore, establishing actual malice is a high bar, demanding evidence of the publisher’s state of mind regarding the accuracy of their claims.
Read More
US civil rights lawyer and activist Nekima Levy Armstrong expressed disgust after the White House digitally altered an image of her arrest to depict her in tears. Levy Armstrong was detained for organizing a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a Minnesota church. This manipulated image has led to significant backlash against the White House.
Read More
In the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against the Pulitzer Prize Board, the defendants have submitted extensive discovery demands in court documents. These demands, outlined in a 12-page filing, require Trump to provide a wide range of documents including tax returns, financial records, and health information dating back to 2015. The defendants are seeking documentation related to Trump’s actions and statements concerning the Pulitzer Prizes and the reporting on the Russia probe, as well as information about other legal actions involving Trump. The board claims their statement defending the prizes constitutes “actionable mixed opinion” as the case continues.
Read More
In a surprising turn of events, the Pulitzer Prize board has demanded President Trump’s medical and financial records as part of a defamation lawsuit he filed in 2022. The board, defending its reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election, has requested all of Trump’s tax returns from 2015 to the present, in addition to health records, including medication history, within 30 days. This move comes as Trump’s physical and mental fitness has been questioned, particularly as he is 79 years old. The case, which Trump’s legal team says is about “correcting the record”, involves the Pulitzer board’s efforts to defend their reporting that Trump alleges is false.
Read More
A federal appeals court panel upheld the dismissal of Donald Trump’s $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, deeming his claims “unpersuasive” and “meritless.” The lawsuit stemmed from CNN’s use of the term “the Big Lie” to describe Trump’s claims of election fraud, a phrase the court found did not constitute a false statement of fact. The court rejected Trump’s argument, stating that the term was a subjective interpretation of his actions. This marks another legal defeat for Trump in his attempts to sue media outlets over their coverage of his claims.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker