Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who said he would not file suit:

Told you so. I only wish it were for more $$.

Discovery should be fun. Does he plan to pay his lawyers?

My guess is the ‘ sources close to the situation’ will not come out of their anonymous state to engage in the lawsuit.

Have you heard the word "subpoena"?

In this circumstance it's more like "subpenis" along the lines of micropenis and I think Kash may know something about that.

Anonymous wrote:He's using the Trump gameplan. Claim you were wronged. Threaten to sue. Find a lawyer without scruples to file. Drag it out until people forget. Lawsuit is dropped or dismissed. Claim victory.

Except that we're in 2026, not 2025, and all the organizations who publish such content do their homework, expect lawsuits and have lawyers on standby to fight to the death.

The intimidation does not work anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who said he would not file suit:

Told you so. I only wish it were for more $$.

Discovery should be fun. Does he plan to pay his lawyers?

My guess is the ‘ sources close to the situation’ will not come out of their anonymous state to engage in the lawsuit.

Have you heard the word "subpoena"?

You honestly think this will happen and publicly no less? Nope, it will be ‘so and so said xy in secret - can’t release, classified y’know.’

He's using the Trump gameplan. Claim you were wronged. Threaten to sue. Find a lawyer without scruples to file. Drag it out until people forget. Lawsuit is dropped or dismissed. Claim victory.

Exhibit A: Photo of Patel chugging beer with sportsball team.

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.

Someone needs to tell Kash that it’s not defamation if it’s true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who said he would not file suit:

Told you so. I only wish it were for more $$.

Discovery should be fun. Does he plan to pay his lawyers?

My guess is the ‘ sources close to the situation’ will not come out of their anonymous state to engage in the lawsuit.

On no, you're right. I wonder if the Atlantic has lawyers who do this for an actual living? It being a novel case that the media hasn't faced and all...

Kash’s lawyer misspelled feeble and policies in the filing.

For real!?!
Is Kash paying for his lawyer or are we?

Now that’s funny.

But seriously you’re asking about whether Kash-In Patel is actually paying for his own lawyer? This is the man who has a taxpayer funded security detail tailing his wannabe country music star girlfriend, just because he can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who said he would not file suit:

Told you so. I only wish it were for more $$.

Why do you wish it was for more money?

I would like him to put The Atlantic out of business.

You know he's going to lose over and over, right? Trump's extracted a couple settlements because the defendants feared his Presidential power. Patel has no such advantage. He's blowing money and drawing more attention to his behavior.

I would like the suit to go forward. Discovery would be interesting.

It’s going to be thrown out before discovery. When a famous person sues for defamation, they have to prove something called "actual malice" meaning you can't just prove the story was wrong. You have to prove the publisher KNEW it was wrong and published it anyway.

Don't pop my bubble, PP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who said he would not file suit:

Told you so. I only wish it were for more $$.

Discovery should be fun. Does he plan to pay his lawyers?

My guess is the ‘ sources close to the situation’ will not come out of their anonymous state to engage in the lawsuit.

On no, you're right. I wonder if the Atlantic has lawyers who do this for an actual living? It being a novel case that the media hasn't faced and all...

Kash’s lawyer misspelled feeble and policies in the filing.

For real!?!
Is Kash paying for his lawyer or are we?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who said he would not file suit:

Told you so. I only wish it were for more $$.

Why do you wish it was for more money?

I would like him to put The Atlantic out of business.

You know he's going to lose over and over, right? Trump's extracted a couple settlements because the defendants feared his Presidential power. Patel has no such advantage. He's blowing money and drawing more attention to his behavior.

I would like the suit to go forward. Discovery would be interesting.

It’s going to be thrown out before discovery. When a famous person sues for defamation, they have to prove something called "actual malice" meaning you can't just prove the story was wrong. You have to prove the publisher KNEW it was wrong and published it anyway.

So...in order for the suit to succeed, they'd need to find the kind of internal messages sent by various Fox News people regarding the Dominion voting machines?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who said he would not file suit:

Told you so. I only wish it were for more $$.

Why do you wish it was for more money?

I would like him to put The Atlantic out of business.

You know he's going to lose over and over, right? Trump's extracted a couple settlements because the defendants feared his Presidential power. Patel has no such advantage. He's blowing money and drawing more attention to his behavior.

I would like the suit to go forward. Discovery would be interesting.

It’s going to be thrown out before discovery. When a famous person sues for defamation, they have to prove something called "actual malice" meaning you can't just prove the story was wrong. You have to prove the publisher KNEW it was wrong and published it anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who said he would not file suit:

Told you so. I only wish it were for more $$.

Discovery should be fun. Does he plan to pay his lawyers?

My guess is the ‘ sources close to the situation’ will not come out of their anonymous state to engage in the lawsuit.

On no, you're right. I wonder if the Atlantic has lawyers who do this for an actual living? It being a novel case that the media hasn't faced and all...

Kash’s lawyer misspelled feeble and policies in the filing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who said he would not file suit:

Told you so. I only wish it were for more $$.

Discovery should be fun. Does he plan to pay his lawyers?

My guess is the ‘ sources close to the situation’ will not come out of their anonymous state to engage in the lawsuit.

Gosh, it's going to be hard to crack then.

He did say his visit to Italy was for official security business, so yeah...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there ever been a more unqualified director in the history of the FBI?

What a ridiculous statement.

In just over a year:

40,000+ violent crime arrests - up 112%
2K+ gangs/criminal enterprises disrupted - up 210%
6,300+ child victims located - up 30%
2,500 kilograms of fentanyl seized, enough to kill 180 million Americans - up 31%
8 of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted fugitives captured - double the number captured the previous four years combined

This is the work the FBI should be doing. And, not listed are all the counterespionage investigations and arrests they have made.
Patel has his priorities straight - unlike former FBI directors.

Give me a break. He’s binge drinking with a bunch of twenty year olds on national television. What priorities?

And a lot of these “stats” are probably just how he is measuring things. How exactly does “criminal enterprises disrupted” work and how is that different from an arrest? And WHO exactly captured the fugitives? Sounds like taking credit for other people’s work.

+ 1

No one believes these made up numbers. I am sure that they count every arrest of every Venezuelan immigrant as a "gang disruption."