FBI director Kash Patel has sued The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick over a narrative that alleged Patel has “alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.”
The defamation swimsuit, filed Monday morning in US District Court within the District of Columbia, seeks $250 million in damages.
The Atlantic known as the swimsuit “meritless.”
“We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit,” a spokesperson informed NCS.
Patel threatened to sue The Atlantic each earlier than and once more after the story was revealed final Friday. He was quoted by the journal as saying, “I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook.”
Fitzpatrick stated in an interview on MS NOW on Friday evening, “I stand by every word of this reporting. We have excellent attorneys.”
The lawsuit says statements in Fitzpatrick’s article “falsely assert” that Patel “is a habitual drunk, unable to perform the duties of his office, is a threat to public safety, is vulnerable to foreign coercion, has violated DOJ ethics rules, is unreachable in emergencies, has required the deployment of ‘breaching equipment’ to extract him from locked rooms, allows alcohol to influence his public statements about criminal investigations, and behaves erratically in a manner that compromises national security.”
The Atlantic “published these statements with actual malice,” the swimsuit states.
“Actual malice” is the excessive authorized commonplace that public figures should meet to prevail in a defamation case. It implies that the creator both knew a declare was false or displayed “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Defamation instances typically collapse as a result of the plaintiffs fail to show “actual malice.” In this case, Patel’s legal professionals say The Atlantic ignored pre-publication denials, “failed to take even the most basic investigative steps” that “would have easily refuted their claims” and confirmed “clear editorial animus” against Patel.
Fitzpatrick wrote that she interviewed “more than two dozen people” about Patel’s conduct, “including current and former FBI officials, staff at law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, hospitality-industry workers, members of Congress, political operatives, lobbyists, and former advisers.”
The sources spoke on situation of anonymity “to discuss sensitive information and private conversations,” they usually “described Patel’s tenure as a management failure and his personal behavior as a national-security vulnerability.”
NCS has not independently corroborated the anecdotes reported in The Atlantic’s article.