Reply to Krash-Out Patel is Directing Under the Influence

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Krash-Out Patel is Directing Under the Influence "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]https://abovethelaw.com/2026/04/kash-patels-250-million-defamation-lawsuit-looks-better-with-beer-goggles/

Kash Patel’s $250 Million Defamation Lawsuit Looks Better With Beer Goggles

The complaint asks the question: Could FBI agents do their jobs if the director was drunk? Not sure Patel is going to like the answer.

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.

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.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics