In this week’s Elie v. US, our justice correspondent deconstructs Patel's preposterous defamation arguments. Plus: a fascinating gun-control lawsuit. And: All hail The Onion!
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel testifies during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)
FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic after the magazine published an article about his tumultuous and embarrassing tenure as America’s top cop. The article reports that Patel has “alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences,” and it really just gets better from there. I believe every word of it—partially because it confirms my biases, partially because it’s so well sourced (writer Sarah Fitzpatrick spoke to more than two dozen people), and partially because the Trump administration is full of incompetent people who’ve found stunning new ways to express that incompetence.
What’s particularly neat is how the defamation lawsuit itself confirms one of the central claims of the article. Fitzpatrick writes that people who work with Patel are concerned by Patel’s impulsive behavior, and his lawsuit is nothing if not impulsive. It should get thrown out on its ear. And even though there are some Republicans on the Supreme Court eager to follow Trump’s directive to “open up libel laws,” this lawsuit is not going to be that vehicle. It’s way too stupid.
First of all, Patel is a public figure. Undeniably so. As such, he has to meet a higher standard than a private person to prevail in a defamation suit. He has to show that The Atlantic’s story is false, and that The Atlantic showed “actual malice” when publishing the article. “Actual malice” is a bit of legal jargon that generally means that a publication either knew the story was untrue or should have known but published it anyway.
Speaking to over two dozen people is a great way for a reporter to avoid a finding of malice. That’s especially true in this case, where the story is really about what Patel’s colleagues are worried about. The Atlantic didn’t claim that Patel drinks too much; it published an article saying that his colleagues think he drinks too much, and it’s got numerous people backing up that claim. I don’t think there’s any way Patel can prove malice on the part of The Atlantic.
And the malice standard should be the easiest standard for Patel to meet because the other one—actual falsehood—would involve the FBI director getting a breathalyzer installed on his phone (something the Democrats in Congress seem willing to do for him, by the way). Just check out this line from his complaint about whether he “drinks to excess” at private clubs: “Director Patel does not drink to excess at these establishments or anywhere else, and this has not, and has never been, a source of concern across the government.”
Buddy… it’d be one thing if you were claiming you don’t drink. You could prove that. But what you’re saying is that you don’t drink “to excess,” and I don’t think that’s a thing you can prove, hoss. I also don’t drink to excess, according to me. My colleagues might have a different view. You’d have to ask them.
I almost wish this case wouldn’t be dismissed, because then The Atlantic would be entitled to discovery. I might have to start freelancing for TMZ if we got access to information about how much Kash Patel really drinks.
Alas, it won’t get that far. This impulsive defamation suit will be thrown out. Soon. In the meantime, if you haven’t read the Atlantic story… enjoy the Streisand effect.
The Bad and the Ugly
Inspired Takes
Worst Argument of the Week
With the midterm elections now firmly upon us, the question is whether Democratic candidates will do more than merely occupy ballot lines as mild alternatives to the red-hot crisis that is Donald Trump.
As Trump spends over $1 billion a day on a globally destabilizing war on Iran and admits that he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation,” millions across the country are struggling with the surging costs of essentials. Democrats must seize this moment and advance bold, small-“d” populist ideas—not settle for cynical caution that once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Nation elevates progressive ideas, movements, and elected officials achieving real change across the country into the national conversation. At the same time, our journalists are exposing how crypto and AI-funded super PACs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to knock out candidates they oppose, reporting on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and sounding the alarm on attempts by red states to quickly redraw electoral maps, disenfranchising Southern Black voters.
We can play this critical role because of support from readers like you. This June, we’re raising $20,000 to power The Nation’s independent journalism in the run-up to November’s immensely consequential elections.
It’s in our power to build a more just society, and your support at this critical moment brings us closer to that bold vision. I hope you’ll donate today.
Onward,
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation
The 11th Circuit shot down (zing!) Florida man Maxon Alsenat, who tried to claim a constitutional right to own a device that turns his gun into a machine gun.
Alsenat was convicted of selling machine gun conversion devices (MCDs) to undercover agents in June of 2023. Alsenat’s lawyer argued, no joke, that machine guns are constitutional because old people who are too crumbly and frightened to aim need to be able to… indiscriminately spray an area with bullets in hopes of hitting something. Here’s the relevant quote from Courthouse News: “‘Now, I imagine that most folks hear machine gun and clutch their pearls,’ Ta’Ronce Stowes told a three-judge panel. ‘But let me be clear: What we’re talking about here is a machine gun conversion device, or MCD. An MCD is typically no bigger than the tip of your thumb. MCDs make small arms more useful for elderly householders and others who are too frightened to draw a careful bead on an intruder.’”
This argument is patently ridiculous. Like, what are we even doing here? How are we living in a Quentin Tarantino movie?
The 11th Circuit rejected this argument (thank Zeus), but it’s worth noting the reasoning of the chief judge of the circuit, William Pryor, a Republican who was once on the short list for a Trump Supreme Court appointment. Pryor argued that the reason there is no Second Amendment right to a machine gun is that machine guns were not in “common use for lawful purposes” at the founding of the country. He then went on to detail the rise of the machine gun after World War I, the Tommy-gun era, sealing his argument for why machine guns should not be protected by the Second Amendment.
Pryor is right. The problem is that everything he said about machine guns could also be said about AR-15s or any modern handgun. A revolutionary-era rifled musket has no legitimate analogue to anything on the market today. It is insane to compare a weapon that had to be loaded one ball at a time to anything available to the next guy who wants to shoot up an elementary school.
I find it hypocritical and intellectually dishonest that Republican judges are able to see that machine guns, tanks, and tactical nuclear weapons are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment but pretend that assault rifles and hand-cannons are just like what the founders owned. Their machine gun rulings prove that they know better; they just don’t care enough about dead schoolchildren to carry their logic to its inescapable conclusion, which is that the Second Amendment is no bar to reasonable gun regulation.
What I Wrote
In News Unrelated to the Current Chaos
The Onion has a new plan to take over Infowars. The satirical news site tried to purchase the conspiracy website in bankruptcy proceedings two years ago, following the implosion of Infowars founder, Alex Jones. While a bankruptcy court blocked the sale, The Onion has now come back with another idea: Pending the approval of a Texas judge, The Onion will license the site from its court-appointed temporary manager.
Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.
That’s it. That’s the blurb. I just wanted you all to know that Tim Keck, founder of The Onion (better known as “Tim Onion”), is just about to gain control of one of the jewels of the white-wing misinformation sphere. Enjoy.
***
If you enjoyed this installment of Elie v. U.S., click here to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Friday.
Elie MystalTwitterElie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent and a columnist. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author of two books: the New York Times bestseller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution and Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America, both published by The New Press. You can subscribe to his Nation newsletter “Elie v. U.S.” here.