You know what's fun about formal legal proceedings?
Discovery!
Good luck with that you drunken buffoon.
You know what's fun about formal legal proceedings?
Discovery!
Good luck with that you drunken buffoon.
That’s probably why he filed suit. Nobody cares about the lawsuit outcome but he might be able to surface some of the sources or people who talked so he can punish them.
Hes also beholden to discovery, including emails and communications to and about him and his issues.
This is just saber rattling to the MAGA crowd. He will drop the lawsuit in a few months when this falls out of the news cycle.
What's the legal process for a defamation claim that the DOJ would inevitably claim executive privilege on discovery?
In a so called sane world, the defense will be granted a motion to have the case tossed. I haven't read the article, so I don't know if the prosecution carefully filed with a crooked judge or not; so I couldn't tell you what's likely to actually happen.
I'm hoping the idiots forgot they don't own all the judges, cause they actually believe everyone loves them and that their farts don't stink. Of course, even then they'd scream and cry about impeaching the judge after not getting what they want. Cause if you can smell the stinky diaper, you're obviously lying, cause their shit don't smell...or something...
ಠ_ಠ
It feels like the current judicial outcome is a reasonable federal judge getting smacked down by insane appeals court rulings, which turns the whole thing in to a slow crawl to SCOTUS, who eventually rules on one iota of the case, that is probably moot at that point, and the target owes their lawyers a shit load of money while the DOJ/FBI digs in to their background to harass them ad infinitum.
Pretty much. And we all know the whole thing smells like shit, but they just keep getting away with it.
It might even be worth not filing to dismiss the suit just to get to discovery and see what juicy newsworthy nuggets float up.
He's trying to be like his boss. But he doesn't have the pull to intimidate news outlets and discovery will be the end of this lawsuit.
Prediction: they reach the discovery phase and Kash drops the whole thing when he realises how much of his life and character will be exposed.
Not even a prediction really, more like a certainty.
It won’t go that far. He’s a public figure so only actual malice by the reporter and magazine is actionable.
But they got the news out he was fighting, so looks good for them even when the case is dropped. Just like Trump. Though Trump has enough money getting to this part is cheap, wonder how Patel will fare. Though I assume he has income available for this but I'd keep an eye on fbi expenses that will pay for this.
As a public figure, the bar to successfully win a defamation lawsuit requires proof of actual malice. This means that he has to prove by clear and convincing evidence that either the reporter knew the information was absolutely false, or had very good reason to suspect the information was false and still recklessly report it as fact. It's a pretty high bar.
They weren't making statements of fact as a witness themselves, there were people interviewed about things they claimed to witness themselves. Statements in the article that seems to have rattled him go like this:
But Patel, according to multiple current officials, as well as former officials who have stayed close to him, is deeply concerned that his job is in jeopardy. He has good reasons to think so—including some having to do with what witnesses described to me as bouts of excessive drinking.
and this:
“We’re all just waiting for the word” that Patel is officially out of the top job, an FBI official told me this week, and a former official told my colleague Jonathan Lemire that Patel was “rightly paranoid.” Senior members of the Trump administration are already discussing who might replace him, according to an administration official and two people close to the White House who were familiar with the conversations.
They also report Patels response to the claims:
The FBI responded with a statement, attributed to Patel: “Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court—bring your checkbook.”
I mean, it seems like they did a lot of interviewing, found a lot of sources, gave the opportunity for a response, etc. You know... good journalism. Unless the claim is that the Atlantic reporters made up these claims wholecloth or that they had good reason to distrust what seems to be a dozen plus sources from multiple government departments, it doesn't seem like this lawsuit has a leg to stand on.
As a public figure, the bar to successfully win a defamation lawsuit requires proof of actual malice.
There are very, very few things I envy about the US, but this is one of them. Australian defo law is fucked; it so ridiculously favours the complainant that the respondent basically has to prove that they didn't defame them.
I know he's been enjoying his celebrity hobnobbing, I didn't realize he was spending so much time with Barbra Streisand.
It's unbelievable how absurd a country can be.
FBI has been a shit show forever. Hoover blackmailed hundreds while he was a secret transvestite.
E.g. when they blundered the Atlanta Bomber hunt, but the list is a long one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_controversies
...[The FBI] has required the deployment of ‘breaching equipment’ to extract him from locked rooms
Wait, how did I miss this??
Oh my god I want this to be stated in court so bad 😆

$250 million for being an out of control drunk? Only in the USA. The rest of the civilised countries would tell moron to go piss in the wind.
Just another of the pedo's DUI hires.
What’s the saying? Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel?
Reason #3489 US civil law needs a loser pays law like non shit hole countries.
“Actual malice” is the high legal standard that public figures must meet to prevail in a defamation case.
I was curious what side enjoys the benefit here given, y'know... the First Amendment, and it seems like this is definitely a performative move on the government's side.
Adam Steinbaugh, a First Amendment lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, shared a different assessment on Monday.
“Patel said proving actual malice is a ‘lay up’ (no), but the allegations in this complaint don’t even hit the backboard,” Steinbaugh wrote on X. “It will, however, accomplish the primary goal: making media outlets weighing a story think about the cost for attorneys to get a meritless lawsuit tossed.”
I'm not sure this holds up logically. WaPo and NYT did gangbusters during Trump's first term, before their ownership structure and content guidelines pivoted hard toward institutional supplication.

There is value to the credibility that comes from standing up to actual authoritarianism, if you're not captive to the billionaire mindset. I have to imagine that the cost/benefit for publicity like this is pretty attractive to these publications' accounting departments.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.