Kash Patel SUES For MILLIONS Over BOMBSHELL Reporting

Añadido: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]Breaking news.

[00:00:01]I guess if there's one thing that Kash Patel did keep his promise about is the fact that he is going to sue the Atlantic for defamation. This just came through hot off the presses. Kashyap Patel suing The Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick, the author of a bombshell bombshell piece about Kash Patel entitled The FBI Director is MIA. Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences. Lawsuit being filed today in federal court, United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

[00:00:35]And it's 19 pages and it is one count.

[00:00:38]It is one count of defamation and defamation per se. Here's the thing. In the prayer for relief, we all know at Katie Phang News, that's where we go as one of the first places.

[00:00:48]Kash Patel is seeking compensatory, special, and punitive damages in an amount no less than 250 million dollars. Why? Because he's claiming that he has suffered damages including harm to his reputation. I know, control your laughter. He's also seeking disgorgement of all income that The Atlantic and Sarah Fitzgerald have earned by virtue virtue quote of their lies about Director Patel. But what what is this lawsuit about?

[00:01:20]Well, let's get into the specifics. This Atlantic article, if you didn't get a chance to read it, I can kind of boil it down to to to a few critical critical points that are raised by Sarah in this piece. So, the FBI is roughly 38,000 people right now and Kash Patel's job is to oversee all of them. Of course, we know that there are supervisors and heads of departments and divisions, but it's FBI Director Kash Patel's job to make sure that that federal agency is in tip-top shape. Now, earlier this month, as in earlier in April, Sarah and Ashley Parker basically reported that Kash Patel's name is on a short list of people to get canned after Attorney General Pammy Joe was fired by Donald Trump. And as a result, Kash Patel has been running scared. Apparently, he is freaking out that he is about to get fired by Trump and despite all of his bluster and all his bravado, Patel is really his pants about this one. Well, why? Well, here's the thing.

[00:02:26]Sarah Fitzpatrick spoke to more than two dozen people. I want to underscore this as a journalist. She spoke to more than two dozen people about Patel's conduct.

[00:02:38]Quote, "Including current and former FBI officials, staff at law enforcement intelligence agencies, hospitality industry workers, members of Congress, political operatives, lobbyists, and former advisers."

[00:02:51]They all described Patel's tenure as a management failure and his personal behavior as a national security vulnerability. End quote.

[00:03:03]That's a doozy.

[00:03:06]And perhaps a boozy for Kash Patel. So, in advance of this piece getting published by The Atlantic, a few things happened.

[00:03:16]A detailed list of 19 questions were sent to the White House, to the DOJ, and to the FBI.

[00:03:24]And this is what was sent back.

[00:03:27]From the White House and the and the DOJ, not a denial.

[00:03:34]Think about that for a second. What What a tell.

[00:03:37]Not a denial to these allegations, okay?

[00:03:40]The White House, by way of Kuka Carolina Love It, said in a statement that under Trump and Patel, crime has plummeted, blah blah blah. Director Patel remains a critical player on the administration's law and order team. Kind of an unnecessary response and kind of speaks to this idea of Trump either losing people voluntarily who quit or him getting rid of people in a purge.

[00:04:04]Either way, it's kind of interesting that that's the response from the White House. Now, Deputy Attorney General, or excuse me, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's personal lawyer, responded to Sarah's uh detailed list list of 19 questions saying that Patel has accomplished more in 14 months than the previous administration did in 4 years.

[00:04:23]>> [snorts] >> Again, not a denial.

[00:04:28]The only quote denial came from the FBI with an attribution to Patel and that in and of itself is interesting, right? It wasn't a response or a statement from the FBI to Sarah Fitzpatrick. There was an attribution to Kash specifically.

[00:04:42]That, my friends, is plausible deniability, right? That is the FBI separating itself as an agency from Kash Patel.

[00:04:51]And this was the response. Quote, "Print it. All false. I'll see you in court.

[00:04:55]Bring your checkbook." End quote. Again, we'll get into that in a second. But I guess that's the only denial denial that you've seen of these allegations.

[00:05:05]And what are the allegations? Well, according to this Atlantic piece, conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences. For example, Patel is known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication in many cases at the private club Ned's in Washington, D.C.

[00:05:21]He's known to drink to excess at the Poodle Room in Vegas where he frequently spends parts of his weekends. Early on in his tenure as FBI Director, meetings and briefings had to be rescheduled for later in the day because he couldn't get up in time for these meetings. And this is according to six current and former officials and others familiar with his schedule. In addition, and this is the part that really disturbed me.

[00:05:45]Breaching equipment used by SWAT and hostage rescue teams to quickly gain entry into buildings has been requested last year because Patel had been unreachable behind locked doors.

[00:05:58]>> [snorts] >> And as an American, this should concern you as well.

[00:06:02]Some of Patel's colleagues at the FBI themselves worry that his personal behavior is a threat to public safety.

[00:06:09]As an FBI Director is supposed to be available at all times to be able to respond to any and all emergencies that come up, especially when you're when we are at war with a nation that is deemed to be state-sponsored terrorist.

[00:06:23]Now, Chuck Grassley has to own because a lot of stuff has happened on Chuck Chuck Grassley's watch including the following. Quote, "During Patel's confirmation hearing to be FBI Director last year, Grassley said, quote, 'He, as in Kash Patel, is the right change agent for the FBI because the bureau was in need of a big shakeup.' Well, are we talking shake it up like uh like uh the martini shakers? Is that what we're talking? Shake it up?

[00:06:54]Shaken not stirred, is that what we're talking about, Chuck Grassley?

[00:06:58]A pressure campaign by the White House forced the FBI confirmation to occur by a vote of 51 to 49. In addition, Sarah's piece goes on to say that Kash is a is is is in a regular presence is the phrase at FBI headquarters and field offices. He's away or unreachable delaying time-sensitive decisions. He has a reputation for acting impulsively during high-stakes investigations. An example provided is during the Brown University shooting in December, Patel immediately announced on social media that they had, quote, "Detained a person of interest." And then that person was soon released after agents continued to hunt for the killer. We have all seen this. You're seeing it on your screen. This is Kash Patel chugging beer with the US men's Olympic ice hockey team in Italy after that team won the gold medal. Um and now, because Kash Patel is paranoid and freaking out, he is now polygraphing FBI employees to identify leakers. There is a high turnover rate in the FBI and these are as a result of both voluntary departures and Patel-ordered purges.

[00:08:07]Days before the US launched its war with Iran, according to this piece, Kash Patel fired members of a counterintelligence team that was devoted in part to Iran.

[00:08:17]Kid you not. Why? Because they were canned because of their work investigating Trump's classified documents investigation.

[00:08:27]It's just wild, right?

[00:08:30]And recently, Kash Patel expressed frustration with the look of FBI merchandise saying that it isn't intimidating enough. I want to end before we kind of shift over to some of the legal analysis on this defamation stuff. I want to end with this quote that is at the end of Sarah Fitzpatrick's piece.

[00:08:45]This is from an FBI official.

[00:08:47]Part of me is glad Kash Patel is wasting his time on because it's less dangerous for rule of law for the American public, but it also means we don't have a real functioning FBI Director.

[00:08:57]Mic drop.

[00:08:59]Right? Powerful stuff.

[00:09:02]So, that is what Kash Patel is all pissed off about and according to this lawsuit, what Sarah Fitzpatrick wrote and what The Atlantic published are is a quote sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece that the defendants are free to criticize the leadership of the FBI, but they crossed the legal line by by publishing an article replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel's reputation and drive him from office.

[00:09:32]The lawsuit goes on to say the FBI has achieved historic law enforcement results, blah blah blah.

[00:09:38]That The Atlantic has been pursuing an editorial campaign of preexisting animus towards Patel. That they had the chance to not publish this. Um let's see. That there was actual malice because they knew that what they published was not true. They refused to consider giving additional time beyond an arbitrary 2-hour window for Patel and the FBI to respond.

[00:10:06]Uh, I mean, there's a lot of just here. Uh, let's see. Let's see.

[00:10:11]That the sources for Sarah Fitzpatrick were people with access to grind even including allegedly current officials cited in the article and that they chose to republish claims that were already debunked and that they either knew that these allegations in the in the article were false or they acted with reckless disregard for the truth, which is their claim for defamation. I've already mentioned at the beginning of this episode that Patel is claiming that he has sustained damages including reputational harm and he's seeking no less than $250 million.

[00:10:43]And I'm going to tell you again, continue to laugh.

[00:10:46]So, look. This is what Kash Patel said yesterday to Maria Bartiromo at Fox News. And look, he he said he was going to sue today.

[00:10:57]And he did, but just take a listen to what he had to say to Maria. And so they you know what? They can beat their drums and stand next to toxic waste all they want, but that doesn't make it toxic waste. And Maria, I'm happy to announce on your show that we are not going to take this laying down. You want to attack my character? Come at me. Bring it on. I'll see you in court. So, you're going to sue them?

[00:11:18]Absolutely. It's coming tomorrow.

[00:11:20]Tomorrow you will be dropping a lawsuit against The Atlantic magazine.

[00:11:25]Yes. Yes, I will for defamation and because you know what, Maria? We have to fight back against the fake news. It's the one it's one of the many things that President Trump is so successful at in leading out on because no one has attacked as baselessly as he is and as much as he is and our leaders that get attacked under his brilliant leadership must All righty.

[00:11:43]But now I'm going to play for you what Sarah Fitzpatrick said to my former colleague Jen Psaki at MS and MS now I forget what they call it. MS now. This is Sarah Fitzpatrick responding to the claims by Patel and others that what she published wasn't true. And listen very carefully to what Sarah had to say. I say that I am a very careful, very diligent, award-winning investigative reporter with a history of award-winning work across multiple organizations. You and I in fact have worked together previously. I stand by every word of this reporting. Uh, we have excellent attorneys and um, you know, it is a surprise it is a surprising statement, but a very telling statement, I believe uh, from and I would also note we reached out for comment to the White House and to the Justice Department, neither of which disputed anything. We gave multiple opportunities including 19 detailed detailed questions. So, we stand by every word.

[00:12:38]>> All righty. You be the judge.

[00:12:39]You be the judge. Or maybe there will technically be a judge, but I'm going to say this to you. Um, when when Kash Patel was talking to Maria Bartiromo, he talked about how it's, you know, you must be doing your job well because you're under attack and let me give you an example of Donald Trump, you know, everybody's hero in the land of Maga and how, you know, he has gone after the people that have gone after him and, you know, he has set the sterling example of it. Well, let's talk about the sterling example that Donald Trump has offered up. And listen, with regards to Kash Patel, he did sue somebody for defamation. It was a blogger and Kash Patel and his quote foundation, the Kash Foundation, don't even know what the hell that is, got $250,000 in compensatory and punitive damages last August of 2025. But I want to be very clear.

[00:13:25]This was because the person that they sued never responded to the complaint.

[00:13:29]So, Kash Patel and his foundation got a default judgment meaning that they sued, they alleged that they effectively served this guy, this blogger Jim Stewartson, um, and that he failed to respond and under the law if you are served and you do not respond in the time allowed, then a default judgment gets entered against you and then you can proceed on the damages component of your lawsuit and that's what Kash Patel did. So, it's not like a jury heard it and said, "Here you go." A judge looked at it and with nobody to refute the allegations that were raised in the complaint, the judge ended up awarding the $250,000.

[00:14:05]So, this is Kash Patel's kind of running record right now for quote successful defamation lawsuits. But again, he brings up Donald Trump as an example of a successful defamation litigation um, agent. And and let's talk about how well that's worked out for him. Back in 2006, Trump sued in his individual capacity my good friend Tim O'Brien and Warner Books for a book Trump Nation which alleged that Trump had understated his net worth. That lawsuit dismissed and affirmed on appeal of that dismissal. Now, the Trump campaign has brought several lawsuits for defamation and that's The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, all of which have been dismissed. In 2022, Trump sued CNN uh, for the quote big lie language that portrayed him as being like Hitler.

[00:14:50]Dismissed. Uh, then he uh, sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos. Now, that settled. That settled. Right? For a disgusting amount of money, but that had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of that. That was settled in December of 2024. In 2025, Trump sued The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch concerning the Epstein birthday book.

[00:15:11]That case just got dismissed last week.

[00:15:12]We covered it here. And in September of 2025, Trump sued The New York Times Penguin Random House and that was summarily dismissed as well last year in 2025. Somebody might say, "Well, how about that CBS settlement?" which we talk about a lot especially with that pending merger between Paramount and Warner Brothers. And I will tell you that was not for defamation. It was for some bizarre Texas claim of consumer fraud. And that was of course a settlement as well. So, if Kash Patel is using Donald Trump as an example of how successful uh, litigants are uh, in these defamation lawsuits, uh, Kash should look somewhere else for a hero. Another important footnote here, discovery. Assuming arguendo this defamation lawsuit is not immediately dismissed on its face as we just saw happen to The Wall Street Journal article um, concerning the Epstein birthday book, the case will proceed.

[00:16:00]And if it does, and this is Kash Patel suing, right? There is something called the discovery process and that discovery process will be a doozy.

[00:16:09]A doozy. So, the discovery process allows for the exchange of information and the pursuit of information and evidence concerning claims and defenses.

[00:16:19]Okay. So, this is a really important legal point.

[00:16:22]Kash Patel has sued for defamation.

[00:16:24]And the the truth is an absolute bar or defense to a claim of defamation. But when you are being sued, you are allowed to defend yourself by the obtaining of evidence that would prove that you were telling the truth. And the discovery process will include a sworn deposition of Kash Patel as well as several others.

[00:16:42]Now, look, I understand that Sarah Fitzpatrick's article was based on anonymous sourcing. However, however, it is not just based on just those statements of those people from what the um, Atlantic piece suggests and says. So, the discovery process in this lawsuit is going to be a doozy. A boozy doozy?

[00:17:03]I don't know. It is Kash Patel that we're talking about.

[00:17:06]I am going to watch this lawsuit very carefully. I'm going to watch this process very carefully. I do wonder I mean, and also let's be clear, too, right?

[00:17:14]Kash Patel claiming $250 million in reputational harm and damages.

[00:17:20]Mhm. I I want to go back to that defamation lawsuit that he quote successfully won when the blogger did not respond. The judge said that Patel's lawyers offered scant evidence of harm or damages.

[00:17:34]There were no examples of business loss or how Patel was hurt by defamatory statements themselves as opposed to the myriad non-defamatory attacks Patel has suffered as a result of being a public figure. That's really important, right? Because Patel is a public figure and so the legal standard is actual malice, right? And and it is difficult it is difficult for these defamation lawsuits to be sustained when you are a public figure and you're suing for defamation. So, we're going to watch it carefully here. Um, but in the meantime, be mad, be outraged, demand accountability with yet another yet another frivolous lawsuit being brought for defamation this time by Kash Patel walking in the footsteps of his cult leader Donald Trump. Um, I'm off to rattle more cages. We'll watch it carefully and in the meantime, support independent journalism. Like and subscribe. Katie Phang here. We launched the Katie Phang News Channel in partnership with the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you the latest in legal and political news straight, no chaser. So, if you're a fellow truth teller, hit that subscribe button and share the word about this channel so we can build a high information America together.