Official word has already come out today: A lawsuit has been filed against the media outlet The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick. FBI Director Kash Patel has now filed the suit, delivering on his promise made over this weekend that he would do so in response to a hitpiece article published by the outlet on Friday, April 17.
In the article, Fitzpatrick alleged that Patel is frequently intoxicated on the job, has a horrific job performance, and that this has led to a morale problem throughout the Bureau. There has been word that this story was somewhat circulating around D.C., but that no outlet was willing to risk running such speculation. The Atlantic, however, was more than willing to do so, and as I will show in moments, this is in line with the character of that outlet.
READ MORE: Another Day, Another Journalist Steps on a Rake in an Attempt to Take Out FBI Director Kash Patel
The talk over the weekend that this had been a passed-around story that few outlets would touch is hinted at by Fitzpatrick's teaming up with Jonathan Lemire from MS NOW for the piece. They claim they based this reporting on speaking with some White House officials, and as Sarah explained, it is “according to the more than two dozen people I interviewed about Patel’s conduct.”
Who these people are and what their positions entail for them to deliver empirical wisdom on these matters is a complete mystery, for, as we have become more than accustomed to, this is all relying on anonymous sourcing. This is just the beginning of the flaws in this hit piece. How is it you speak to 25 or more people, and not one of them has the stones to admit to their status?
Let us take a look at these people Fitzpatrick and Lemire relied upon for their reporting. Those White House contacts? A complete mystery, as they are nameless. So too are all of the officials at the FBI slamming Patel’s character. But more than these ciphers are cited. We are also hearing from former FBI figures, staffers from different agencies (hardly high-placed sourcing), as well as political operatives (about the least valid of the lot), lobbyists (excuse me, but what?!), and hospitality-service work. So…bartenders and waitresses are part of your sourcing?!
Meanwhile, it was more than Kash Patel objecting to this report. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shot down these claims and touted Patel’s accomplishments. Ben Williamson from the FBI official public affairs office, the assistant to that office, Erika Knight, Patel’s legal counsel, and the man who worked alongside Patel during his confirmation, Clint Brown, each disputed the claims made.
The difference? All of those people are named because they were on the record, yet those people are all discounted because we see how Fitzpatrick and Lemire were on an agenda. Williamson alluded to the common practice we see from the press these days, which I describe in my Townhall media column as The Deadline Gambit.
This is the tactic of a full report on an individual being worked on for weeks, with multiple sources and deep background established, and then the main focus of the piece is given a brief window to “respond” to the report. Try to conjure the amount of time spent by Fitzpatrick to craft this report, from over two dozen sources, then look at Williamson saying they had just two hours to respond to all of that before publication.
They sent off the letter to The Atlantic, warning of impending litigation if they went forward, and this appeared to at least generate some changes. At The Daily Beast, they felt they had another “gotcha” moment, revealing a lack of cerebral processing heft when they breathlessly reported:
“Kash Patel’s legal team has revealed more allegations were leveled against him than were published in a bombshell report by The Atlantic—and said what they were. That means that the letter, which came from a personal attorney for Patel rather than from the FBI’s own counsel, effectively put what it describes as false and defamatory statements into public circulation.”
Allow me to help you folks out here. You see, after the lawyer contacted them with this letter, it is clear that Fitzpatrick, and/or her editors, pulled some items from the piece out of fear of further litigation. This was not a case of mistakenly exposing something; they were being transparent in showing the flawed reporting taking place.
Sarah Fitzpatrick appeared with Jenn Psaki on Sunday, and she displayed a high level of false bravado when asked about her article and the lawsuit that was threatened at the time.
It is unclear how she can say the White House did not refute things when, in her piece, she quotes Karoline Leavitt responding to her questions. And again, there were the complete blanket denials from Patel and his lawyer.
But there is more amusement: As she holds up the reputation of The Atlantic, let’s remember what this outlet is all about.
READ MORE: Performing an Autopsy on The Atlantic Expose Reveals the Anatomy of a Manufactured Scandal
This is the same outlet whose managing editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, put out the slanderous stories of President Trump calling fallen soldiers “suckers and losers.” Goldberg was also the one who claimed Trump insulted a fallen female Marine and reneged on paying for funeral expenses, as her family completely called the story a lie. Yep, just a sterling publication, that.
Better still is how Fitzpatrick touts the mastery of their lawyers, as there is a small detail needed to be overlooked. It was just last September when that outlet settled a $1 million defamation case with a former writer. This was a rather clear case of guilt, as Ruth Shalit-Barrett asked for that very sum in her filing.
So, for those rubbing their hands in glee over what may be exposed in discovery, this is not exactly a news outlet with a rock-solid reputation.
https://redstate.com/bradslager/2026/04/20/the-kash-patel-hit-piece-in-the-atlantic-is-inviting-attention-on-that-outlet-they-will-not-want-n2201486
No comments:
Post a Comment