Leahy: FBI Director Kash Patel Has A Strong Defamation Case Against The Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick

Kaitlin Housler
Kash Patel

Michael Patrick Leahy, CEO and editor-in-chief of The Tennessee Star, argued that a new $250 million defamation lawsuit filed by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel against The Atlantic magazine and its reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick meets the high legal threshold required for public figures to prevail.

Patel’s lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleges that The Atlantic published false claims about his conduct, including accusations of excessive drinking and erratic behavior. The magazine has said it stands by its reporting.

During Monday’s edition of his talk radio show, Leahy criticized the article’s reliance on unnamed sources and lack of verifiable evidence.

“The author [of the piece], Sarah Fitzpatrick, wrote [the] story based upon two dozen ‘anonymous sources’ and no evidence whatsoever. That’s a smear piece,” he said on The Michael Patrick Leahy Show.

Leahy and The Star’s lead reporter, Tom Pappert, repeatedly questioned the journalistic practices behind the article during Monday’s show, particularly its dependence on anonymous sources.

“It seems to me that the only sources that Sarah Fitzpatrick and the Atlantic have for this story… is anonymous sources, verbal statements from about two dozen anonymous sources,” Leahy stressed.

Pappert added that such sourcing would not meet basic editorial standards in most newsrooms, including for The Star.

“How come none of these sources… are willing to go on the record? That’s a red flag,” he noted.

They also criticized the timeline given to Patel for comment before publication, noting the outlet gave Patel less than two hours to respond.

“It is completely absurd to give the FBI director less than two hours to respond to the Atlantic’s 10,000-word magazine article,” Pappert said, noting how the typical rule of thumb is giving parties 24 hours to respond to media requests for comment.

Because Patel is a public figure, his case hinges on the standard established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which requires proof of “actual malice” – that false statements were published knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Leahy argued that the standard may be met in this case.

“I think Kash Patel has a very strong case here for defamation. It requires a false and defamatory statement of fact, not pure opinion, publication to a third party. They have actual malice, which includes reckless disregard for the truth,” he said.

Pappert further pointed to the publication’s decision to proceed despite receiving a detailed rebuttal from Patel’s legal team.

“When they have an email from Patel or they have a response from his office and then they have a letter from his lawyer saying that it’s completely and utterly false, then yes, I do think that’s a reckless disregard for the truth because they should have changed the lead paragraph,” Pappert said.

“In fact, the entire thesis for the story should be changed. When you have such a fundamental rejection of your narrative, you essentially have to go back and forth the entire story,” he added.

Another key issue raised by Leahy and Pappert was the potential bias of anonymous sources cited in the article. Pappert suggested some sources may have been former employees with grievances.

“These sources… are described specifically as somebody with an ax to grind,” he pointed out. “Maybe there was a good reason they got fired and then they ran to the Atlantic to make their case to the media.”

Leahy echoed those concerns.

“These are claims based upon anonymous sources, some of whom may have been fired from the FBI. Some of them may be holdovers from the Biden era-FBI…This seems to me to meet the standard of reckless disregard for the truth,” he stressed.

Watch:

– – –

Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Kaitlin on X / Twitter.

 

 

 

Related posts

Comments