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
From illegal war on Iran to an inhumane fuel blockade of Cuba, from AI weapons to crypto corruption, this is a time of staggering chaos, cruelty, and violence.
Unlike other publications that parrot the views of authoritarians, billionaires, and corporations, The Nation publishes stories that hold the powerful to account and center the communities too often denied a voice in the national media—stories like the one you’ve just read.
Each day, our journalism cuts through lies and distortions, contextualizes the developments reshaping politics around the globe, and advances progressive ideas that oxygenate our movements and instigate change in the halls of power.
This independent journalism is only possible with the support of our readers. If you want to see more urgent coverage like this, please donate to The Nation today.
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.