Episode 305: Let's Make Some Careful And Legally Bulletproof Jokes About Kash Patel (ALLEGEDLY) Being An Alcoholic

Summary

Blocked and Reported – Episode 305 Summary

"Let's Make Some Careful And Legally Bulletproof Jokes About Kash Patel (ALLEGEDLY) Being An Alcoholic"
April 24, 2026 – Hosted by Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal

---

Overview

In this episode, Katie and Jesse dive deep into the much-discussed Atlantic article alleging excessive drinking and erratic behavior by FBI Director Kash Patel. The hosts deconstruct the origins and implications of these allegations, unpack Patel’s history of lawsuits against journalists, and critique the broader trend of using litigation as a tool to chill media scrutiny—especially under the current MAGA-aligned government. The discussion naturally weaves through the state of political appointments in the Trump era, the evolving nature of defamation law, the media’s use of anonymous sources, and journalistic ethics, all peppered with signature Blocked and Reported banter.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. iPhone vs. Android and Bear Encounters

[00:10 – 06:20]

• Jesse’s Tech Update: Jesse has finally switched from Android to iPhone, prompting playful ribbing from Katie about anti-Android bigotry.
• Hot Tub Anecdote: Jesse narrates how he destroyed his phone in a hot tub after witnessing (and Instagramming) a bear cub incident, setting the comedic and personal tone for the episode.

Notable Quote:

“There’s like two forms of bigotry that are still acceptable in the States. One of them, anti Italian bigotry… and then there’s this anti Androidism.”
– Jesse, [00:54]

2. Throuple Talk and Icebreakers

[05:03 – 06:20]

• Katie discusses her fleeting hope of meeting a unicorn (two men, one woman throuple), using it as a segue to more topical content after some light, meandering chit-chat.

3. Kash Patel – Rise and Persona

[06:20 – 09:17]

• Role and Reputation: Patel, as the ninth FBI director, garners attention for blending brash public antics (custom Nikes, partying with athletes) with MAGA politics.
• Pop Culture Jog: Katie and Jesse mock Patel’s custom shoes and his proclaimed associations (e.g., referencing his name as "Kash App").

Notable Quote:

“He’s allowed to have that be his logo. I’m not allowed to call him Cash App?”
– Jesse, [07:05]

4. The Atlantic Story – Allegations of Drinking and Erratic Behavior

[09:17 – 16:18]

• Article Recap: The Atlantic’s Sarah Fitzpatrick details serious allegations: repeated episodes of excessive drinking, unexplained absences, and overall managerial instability.
• Government Reaction: White House and DOJ issue strong, non-specific denials, focused on performance metrics, not addressing the substance.

Notable Quote:

“They describe Patel's tenure as a management failure and his personal behavior as a national security vulnerability.”
– Katie quoting the Atlantic, [13:29]

• Suitability for Office: The hosts discuss how, in the Trump era, loyalty supersedes competence, likening the shift to “Soviet-style” political appointments.

5. Patel’s Litigiousness and History of Suing Journalists

[16:18 – 29:45]

• Pattern of Lawsuits: Patel regularly threatens and files defamation cases against media outlets and pundits (CNN, The Atlantic, Politico, New York Times reporters, etc.).
• Purpose: These lawsuits rarely succeed and seem designed more to intimidate and chill negative coverage than to win in court.

Notable Quote:

“He is not good at suing journalists. Basically, all of these suits have either petered out or been rejected by the courts.”
– Jesse, [25:37]

• Chilling Effect: Both hosts reflect on their own experiences with legal threats and the disproportionate power of the affluent to use the legal system as a cudgel against journalists.

6. Anatomy of the Latest Lawsuit Against The Atlantic

[36:03 – 53:50]

• Complaint Review: Jesse reviews the 25-page filing, noting its odd focus on Patel’s “accomplishments” as tangential defenses against allegations of personal misconduct.
• Defamation Law Context: The bar for defamation is high, especially for public figures; most complaints hinge on proving actual malice—something largely absent in Patel’s case.
• Use of Anonymous Sources: The hosts defend The Atlantic’s reliance on unnamed witnesses given the risk of professional reprisal for open whistleblowers in Patel’s orbit and espouse trust in the vetting processes of legacy media.

Notable Quote:

“If Sarah Fitzpatrick says, I talked to five anonymous people who said XYZ, she talked to five anonymous people who said XYZ.”
– Jesse, [23:10]

• MAGAsphere Reaction: MAGA figures amplify the lawsuit on social media, irrespective of legal merit—indicating the symbolic function such filings serve in the movement.

7. Retractions, Rhetoric & Media Literacy

[43:55 – 49:15]

• Comparisons with Prior Lawsuits: The show discusses how similar prior claims (e.g., MSNBC's "visible at nightclubs" remark) were dismissed as rhetorical hyperbole, not actionable falsehoods.
• Confusion Over Headlines: The hosts explain how the Atlantic’s use of two different online headlines reflects basic digital publishing practices (A/B testing), not a “cover-up.”

8. Media Intimidation, Litigation, and Press Freedom

[50:36 – 54:45]

• Escalation: Katie reads a report about the FBI allegedly investigating a NYT reporter after publishing a negative Patel story, underscoring the administration’s antagonism toward the press.
• Chilling Effect Evaluation: Jesse notes that while major outlets like the Atlantic can withstand intimidation, smaller or less-funded journalists might self-censor to avoid costly legal battles.

9. Reflections on Journalistic Practice

[51:31 – 53:50]

• Fair Chance to Respond: The hosts discuss whether the Atlantic provided enough time for Patel to comment before publication, agreeing that while ideally more time would be better, the administration's adversarial approach often justifies journalistic caution.

Notable Quote:

“If they acted more decently toward journalists and more traditionally, I think there’s maybe less of a chance they would have done that constricted timeline.”
– Jesse, [51:50]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “A very expensive press release designed to punish true but hurtful stories…”
  – Quoting Andrew Fleischman, [53:50]

• “They don’t need a—they don’t want to quash the Free Press. They want to quash the free press.”
  – Jesse, [51:25]

• “What do sorority girls drink in 2026?”
  – Jesse, [55:18]
  (Katie: “Energy drinks and Ozempic.” [55:20])

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Android/iPhone, Bear Story: 00:10 – 06:20
• Kash Patel Background & Persona: 06:20 – 09:17
• Atlantic Allegations Recap: 09:17 – 16:18
• Patel’s Lawsuit Habit: 16:18 – 36:03
• Deep Dive: The Atlantic Lawsuit: 36:03 – 53:50
• Press Freedom, Retaliation, and The Chilling Effect: 50:36 – 54:45

---

Final Thoughts

This episode spotlights the intersection of media, politics, and the law in the Trump era, illustrating how wealthy and powerful figures can attempt to stifle investigative reporting through the legal system. The hosts connect these tactics to broader trends in eroding trust in institutions and the weaponization of populist grievances. Through humor and skilled analysis, Katie and Jesse demystify both journalistic processes and the realities facing the American press, serving up hard truths alongside the jokes.

---

For additional information, visit: blockedandreported.org

Transcript

[A]

Jesse, you've changed.

[B]

How so? Taller? Handsomer?

[A]

No, no, you actually.

[B]

More gravelly voice. Getting shorter and uglier.

[A]

Yep. But we were texting the other day, and for the first time in the six plus years that we've been working together, seven years that we've known each other, when you texted me back. You text me back the first time. And your. Your message, your circle was not green. The mark of the Android user.

[B]

It was the Star of David.

[A]

It was blue.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You got an iPhone. What happened? And I have to admit, as soon as I saw that blue, that blue text come back, I. I hate to admit this, I. I started to think more highly of you.

[B]

There's like two forms of bigotry that are still acceptable in the States. One of them, anti Italian bigotry, which is totally understandable.

[A]

And then there's this anti Androidism.

[B]

Okay, I can explain what happened. This ties into what I want to talk about. Anyway, can I get just a brief

[A]

story now that you're an iPhone user? Yes, you can say what you want.

[B]

There's no way to say this without sounding even less relatable, but, you know,

[A]

you were swimming in your cargo shorts in your own personal pool.

[B]

What happened was this. Ignoring.

[A]

You went to Wii Spa.

[B]

I went to Wii Spa. Well, that's in la, unless they've opened one up here.

[A]

Maybe.

[B]

I was in a place called Mammoth Lakes. Eastern Sierra. It's crazy. Crazy landscape. Have you ever been there? You've been the Eastern Sierras?

[A]

I've been to Tahoe.

[B]

No, so you haven't. Tahoe's not the easier anyway. It's. It's like a really cool sort of Martian arid, high country landscape. But then Mammoth Lakes is like the ski town. It's blah, blah, blah. Anyway, got a. Got a cheap deal because they had a horrible winter stay by the mountain. And one day after I ski, I go to the hot tub. There's a gross communal disease infested condo complex hot tub. And I see someone right at home. Right at home. I'm gonna add my diseases to it. I see these two people filming something out the window. They're filming.

[A]

And you grab your phone, you're like, whatever it is, I'm filming too.

[B]

There's a like. And you might have. I posted on this on Instagram. I'll include a link. 20, 25ft from the hot tub. And these two hot tubs are filled with Californians who don't give a shit. There's a bear cub that climbed the tree and got stuck in the tree.

[A]

It catted itself.

[B]

It catted itself. Just like that guy I told you all about. Now, where I'm from, Massachusetts, a single bear in a single tree close to any people would be like a week long news story, like second page of the globe. It's a bear, dude. It's not supposed to be around people. But all these Californians in the hot tub were total plus or non plus. Non plus means, I think non plus, nonchalant or chalant. They were not chalant about it. They were non plus. Like they were. Everyone was filming it and they thought it was cool. But like, I was good content. I was terrified. Like, you can't go that close to a bear.

[A]

You're scared of a cup of a bear cub.

[B]

Well, eventually I went in like the sideway and I joined all these people in the hot tub and I took multiple videos and I posted about on Instagram, as one does. You'll hear other people in the hot tub who sound like they're like 20, 20 something kids. And that's who they are. I wasn't, I wasn't with them, but they were actually kind of funny. They were my bros.

[A]

So was there a mama cub or a mama bear near? Because the cub, that's the issue.

[B]

Someone calls a nearby restaurant and I don't know what they thought they were going to accomplish, but they call the restaurant. They're like, there's a bear cub. What should we do? And the restaurant's like, why'd they call a restaurant? Because it's like the only person we knew how to call, we knew to call it. The restaurant was across the street.

[A]

Like, you don't know how to. Wait, is the restaurant, like specialized in bear jerky?

[B]

No, we've got a bear cub that looks pretty vulnerable. I don't know why, Katie. They just wanted to call. They wanted to call somebody.

[A]

Okay. They were ordering food and they were like, while we're at it, there's. Okay, got it. I got it.

[B]

Anyway, the bear's still in the tree. The bear cub's still in the tree. And the people at the restaurant are like, well, just make sure there's not a mama bear around. And I hadn't even thought of that. I was like, jesus. And I'm looking around. Anyway, eventually the cub gets down, blah, blah, blah. Two days later, I'm still upset about the bear. I'm still scared about the bear cub. And I get into the hot tub and my phone is still in my pocket. That's the whole. I couldn't figure out a Way to connect those two parts of the stories. I drowned my phone 15 minutes into my hot tub. I pull it out.

[A]

It took you 15 minutes to realize 10 to 15. Yeah.

[B]

I go to. I go to my friend Claude. I'm like, hey, Claude. Claude's like, hey. I'm like, my. My Android is waterproof. Will it survive water? And Claude's like, maybe. Tell me more.

[A]

You needed Claude to tell you that your iPhone was broken or not your iPhone, your Android was. Was drowned.

[B]

I wanted Claude to tell. No, I wanted Claude to tell me it was going to be okay and that because it was waterproof.

[A]

Did Claude tell you to stick it in a bag of rice?

[B]

No, that's a. That's a myth, apparently.

[A]

Oh, interesting.

[B]

Was that story worth the payoff overall? I saw a bear and then I got an iPhone.

[A]

It was a tenuous connection. But I'm glad to hear that you finally have been in a hot tub.

[B]

I met a couple in the hot tub too.

[A]

Oh, interesting. Was this. Was it Lindy and Aham and Royal. Was it a throuple?

[B]

A throuple met a throuple.

[A]

I thought. I thought that I met the unicorn the other day, which was a female, two male throuple.

[B]

Wait, sorry, all three. All three people of them?

[A]

No, it was a female and two guys.

[B]

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant they transitioned. You mean a female and two guys in a throuple?

[A]

Yeah, I thought that.

[B]

Which science thinks is. Cannot exist.

[A]

Yes. And I was like, so I walk on the beach a couple times a week with this group of elderly people. We all have dogs. Most of us have dogs. And this group, this. This threesome had joined the walk this day, and they were all very attractive and they like. And, like, their vibes were just, like, sexual. I was like, these three people are fucking.

[B]

Wow. That was really. Spoken like someone who knows a lot about sex. I could just be like, they were, like, sexual. They were fucking. Yeah.

[A]

Yes. I was so convinced of this that when we left, I asked Jen, I was like, did you meet the throttle? It turns out it was a. It was three friends, so. Still. Still. There's no documented two male, one female throuples.

[B]

It was just friends, you know, I feel like this episode's off to a slow start, and I take partial responsibility for it. Should we move on to the subjects du jour?

[A]

What are we talking about today?

[B]

Well, today I mostly want to talk about Kash Patel and his dust up with a journalist at the Atlantic. Not only that, but his history of. He's very litigious with journalists. So let's just. Let's just go back to the beginning. Kash Patel, Director of the FBI. What comes to mind when I say that?

[A]

Name two words. Nikes and hockey.

[B]

Why? Oh, because hockey. Because he chugged beers with the. The winning American hockey team right during the Olympics.

[A]

Spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

[B]

Hell yeah.

[A]

To go to. Where were the Olympics?

[B]

Paris.

[A]

That was the Summer Olympics.

[B]

Where were the Winter Olympics? Jesus, what is wrong with us?

[A]

Somewhere in the Alps, I think.

[B]

Oh, yeah. Milani Cortina d'. Ampezzo.

[A]

So we've narrowed it down. Uh, so he spent tens of thousands of dollars to go listen to shitty jingoistic country music with the hockey team. Um, for some reason. So that's the first thing. And the second thing is that he, I believe, designed himself some Nikes, which you can do. You can, like, order custom Nikes that. Just look them up. Look up his. Look up Cash Patel Nikes.

[B]

Uh, those are. Wait, William. Who's William Turton? Is he a real journalist? Oh, he is. ProPublica. ProPublica Pubes. Why do I mispronounce it?

[A]

I don't know. All right, read the tweet.

[B]

A source sent me this photo of Cash Patel's customized Nikes. The shoe features a number nine. Patel is the ninth FBI director. There's only been nine. A Punisher, a Punisher Skull, a vigilante killer from Marvel comics, and his personal logo, K$signH. So he's allowed to have that be his logo. I'm not allowed to call him Cash App. The. The backs of the shoes. The backs of the shoes show the FBI motto, Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. Patel was photographed wearing them at an FBI academy event that featured UFC fighters.

[A]

And they look like. They're like low top Nike sneakers that truly, truly look like something my. Like my 8 year old nephew would be like, these are too childish.

[B]

They do. It's like if you took your kid to a shoe store and couldn't find anything that fit and you're just rifling through the bargain bin, you're like, these. These will be fine. Whatever. You're. You're. You're.

[A]

And you're in. Your kid would be like, that's too gay.

[B]

Your kid would say that. Your kid would definitely say, that's too my. Yeah, yeah.

[A]

They're just extreme. They're like extremely child issues.

[B]

Did you know. Do you know what his first name is?

[A]

Kashmir.

[B]

Cash App.

[A]

No, it's not Cash.

[B]

Yeah. No. Yes. K a K a S H Y A P. Which if you Bungle the pronunciation a little is Kash Appel.

[A]

Okay, so that's not actually his name, but go ahead.

[B]

Cash Appel. The. The one time Cash Patel's come up at any length in on this show, it was because he's been part of this amazing subplot involving the Jeffrey Epstein. So we've played these clips before, but briefly. Here he is on The Blaze in 2023. Who is currently holding this way off the topic, but who has Jeffrey Epstein's black book.

[C]

Black book, FBI.

[B]

But who that is. I mean, there's.

[C]

That's under direct control of the director of the FBI. Just like the manifesto from the Nashville school shooting of the Catholic school. We still haven't seen that. Right? It's not the Nashville police or PD saying we don't want this out. The FBI air mailed into that operation and said, this is not getting out.

[B]

And here he is talking to Benny Johnson that same year. Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederast, the largest scale pederast in human history?

[C]

Simple. Because of who's on that list. You don't think that Bill Gates is lobbying Congress night and day to prevent the disclosure of that list? What the hell are the House Republicans doing? They have the majority. You can't get the list. Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are.

[A]

I got. I am so glad finally somebody who is taking Epstein seriously is at the highest reaches of government.

[B]

As we all know, when Trump and Cash Patel. When Trump was reelected in Cash Patel, Kashat Patel, when he was installed as FBI director, the government immediately released everything it had on Jeffrey Epstein. And this is no longer a political issue.

[A]

It did sort of. It did sort of disappear. Michael Tracy, I think, is being shadow banned. He's no longer every tweet on my timeline.

[B]

What has become an issue, apparently is Cash Appel's erratic behavior and his propensity for a wee bit of the old happy juice. This is from. We're talking about booze, Katie. This is a thing. You don't drink anymore. This is from a recently published article in the Atlantic by Sarah Fitzpatrick headlined or this is one of the headlines as we'll get to. The FBI director is MIA Subhead. Cash Patel has a alarm colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.

[A]

You know what this is? This is once again an Indian taking a white man's job. It is Pete Hegseth's job to be the town drunk.

[B]

Who do you think? Actually, I know who would win in either a drinking contest or a fight. I think Pete Hegseth would destroy Cash Patel. Like, not even close.

[A]

No question.

[B]

Yeah, no question.

[A]

He wears toddler shoes.

[B]

This is like a pretty. I gotta say, if it weren't for the sort of somewhat scary national security ramifications. Although I'm not. I don't even. Does the director of the FBI do anything other than order shoes and go to Italy?

[A]

I think the director is the one who is in charge of coercing illiterate extremists into planning bombs against various state officials. Is that the FBI's job?

[B]

This is an amazing story. It starts with Kasper Tal being unable to log into his work system earlier this month, at which point he. Katie, just read the spit.

[A]

All right, so he's trying to log into his computer. What do you think they use in the government? Lenovo.

[B]

What do you think his password is? His password? Okay, I know what special. I know what special character he used in his password. It's a dollar sign.

[A]

Yes, it's cash, dollar sign. That's his password. It's cash, dollar sign 69. Patel quickly became convinced that he had been locked out, and he panicked, frantically calling aides and allies to announce that he had been fired by the White House, according to nine people familiar with his outreach. Two of the people described his behavior as a freak out.

[B]

I just want. I just want to pause for a minute because, like, you think of all the characteristics you'd want in a director of the FBI. Someone whose job is to, like, sift through unverified tips and understand the national security landscape. So you want someone who.

[A]

That's. His job is probably not to sift through unverified tips, but I get your point.

[B]

Well, you want someone who's like. Like, he seems to be demonstrating the opposite of everything you'd want. Like, he immediately jumps to a conclusion. He immediately announces to everyone he's been fired. He wasn't fired. It was just a technical difficulty.

[A]

Although it is in his defense. It is. That is how Trump would fire someone.

[B]

Oh, well, no. Trump would announce on Twitter before telling him that he was fired. Okay, just read this one. Sort of. This is the core bit of the story. So just read this and then we'll. We'll explain the aftermath.

[A]

The IT lockout episode is emblematic of Patel's tumultuous tenure as director of the FBI. He is erratic, suspicious of others, and prone to jumping to conclusions before he has necessary evidence. According to more than two dozen people I interviewed about Patel's conduct, who wrote

[B]

this Sarah Fitzpatrick, a national security reporter

[A]

at the Atlantic, including current and former FBI officials, staff at law enforcement, intelligence agencies, hospitality, hospitality industry workers. The baristas are talking members of Congress, political operatives, lobbyists and former advisors.

[B]

Circus midgets.

[A]

Clouds speaking. Yeah. The. The retailer at the Nike store. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information and private conversations. They describe Patel's tenure as a management failure and his personal behavior as a national security vulnerability. Several officials told. Several officials told me that Patel's drinking has been a recurring source of concern across the government. They said that he is known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication in many cases at the private Club NEDs in Washington D.C. while in the presence of of White House and other administration staff. He's also known to drink to excess in the Poodle Room. That sounds fun. In Las Vegas.

[B]

Have you ever brought Moose to the Poodle Room in Las Vegas?

[A]

He's, he belongs to the Doodle Room where he frequently spends parts of his weekends. Do you think taxpayers are paying for those private jet flights? 100.

[B]

I mean he might, yes. And he must have a security detail. And who knows?

[A]

I mean, and he brings his girlfriend who also has a security detail. Early in his tenure, meetings and briefings had to be rescheduled for later in the day as a result of his alcohol fueled nights. Six current and former officials and others familiar with Patel's schedule told me. Okay, so this does sound like me in my 20s. The problem was like I was still expected to go work at Whole Foods in the morning. I should have been director of the FBI.

[B]

Exactly. A less pressure intensive job.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

So Fitzpatrick points out that one of the big reasons Patel is in this position in the first place as head of the FBI, is that he's a very loyal Trump soldier. He's been all in both on spreading the conspiracy theory that like shadowy deep state forces somehow provoked the January 6th attack on the Capitol. And he also helped to SPEARHEAD the Trump 2.0 effort to purge the agency of anyone who worked on the January6 case or other Trump related cases and prosecutions. And it's this very strange and disturbing thing where like traditional qualifications for these very high level jobs have just been replaced with one very idiosyncratic qualification, which is loyalty to Trump and to the Mago movement. So I'm sure I've said this before. It's very Soviet. And hiring people for their political commitments rather than their competence at the thing they're doing doesn't tend to end well.

[A]

It doesn't tend to end well for

[B]

the country or the. I mean, does it tend to end well any for anyone other than Trump? In the case, like, Trump usually comes off okay.

[A]

Like even. Well, like even his most loyal soldiers, like Christine, like you make one.

[B]

Oh, Pam Bondi.

[A]

Pam Bondi. Yeah. Yes. And you're out.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

If anything you do reflects poorly on him.

[B]

So. And in Patel's case, according to therapist Fitzpatrick, things got pretty bad. One more little quote. On multiple occasions in the past year, members of his security detail had difficulty waking Patel because he was seemingly intoxicated. According to information supplied to Justice Department and White House officials, a request for breaching equipment, usually used by SWAT and hostage rescue teams to quickly gain entry into buildings, was made last year because Patel had been unreachable behind locked doors, according to multiple people familiar with the request.

[A]

God, dude, can you imagine having a brutal hangover and instead of your alarm going off, you're woken up by a SWAT team busting down your door.

[B]

Your annoying, needy boss sends a SWAT team. Have you ever considered doing that? When I was late to sign on to record a podcast, which I usually am daily. And I just want to tie this briefly to a recent book announcement from one time racist and now MAGA foil and frenemy of the podcast, Richard Hanania, who actually joined us last year to talk about Chuckie Johnson. We'll link to this in the show notes. But Kate read this description from the Amazon page for his new book why Populism Ends in Disaster, which was actually just announced, so the timing is perfect.

[A]

Why does turning away from elite rule and institutions so often lead to corruption, instability, illiberalism, and economic decline? In castocracy, Richard Hanania dissects the dominant political story of our era, the global rise of populism. The United States is one among many nations shifting from a political spectrum of conservatives versus liberals to populists versus institutionalists, opening the door for the least honest and competent figures to take power and often be rewarded for failure. His turn, his rebrand is amazing, especially

[B]

because he voted for Trump.

[A]

I mean, he didn't just vote for Trump. Some of his writing was instrumental in the Trump administration and some of the Trump administration's anti DEI executive orders.

[B]

Yeah, he, he was a contributor to Project 2025. So he was one of the policy architects of Trump 2.0, and the publicity materials refer to him as a, quote, repentant Trump voter. Yeah, Kak democracy is a great word, but I think I last heard it in college. It just means rule by the worst

[A]

People, you know, Jesse, every time we mention Richard on this podcast, we'll get at least one email from someone saying, like, why are you citing the Nazi? Richard Hanania is like occupied Democrats level liberal these days. He is like, he is. He's wearing a pussy hat right this second. He's, I mean, I think repentant. Repentant Trump wrote her. Puts it mildly. He is.

[B]

Well, he wasn't all we've talked. We're not. We don't hide this. He was a. He was an online racist.

[A]

He doesn't hide.

[B]

He's written about it. He doesn't hide either.

[A]

No, he doesn't hide it. And, and I think a lot of people assume that his heel turn isn't sincere. And in fact, I assume that for a while, but I think it is sincere. And this is a point that you've made and a point that Richard has made it himself. His dislike for stupid people.

[B]

And I'm sure the, I'm sure the overrides overrides whatever. His racism. Absolutely. He liked racism until he realized racists are stupid or most of them. Yeah, they're not all dapper, dapper intellectuals like Richard Spencer.

[A]

He is an elitist, to be sure. He is an repentant Trump voter, but an unrepentant elitist. Anyway, why are we talking about. Why are we talking about Richard?

[B]

I don't know, Katie, can we get back to the magazine article? You're really robbing this episode of its momentum. Okay, so, so, yeah, the Trump administration was not happy with this article. A magazine article like this, especially if it's about a powerful person or institution, the writer and editor will often like, really try to show, like, look, these were our attempts to reach out to them and get their comment. Look how much of a chance we gave them to respond. So read that graph here.

[A]

In response to a detailed list of 19 questions, the White House spokesperson, Caroline Levitt told me in a statement that under Donald Trump and Patel, quote, crime across the country has plummeted to the lowest level in more than 100 years, and many high profile criminals have been put behind bars. Director Patel remains a critical player on the administration's Law and Order team, end quote. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told me in a statement, quote, patel has accomplished more in 14 months than the previous administration did in four years. Anonymously sourced hit pieces do not constitute journalism.

[B]

Do you notice any responses to the

[A]

actual specific accusations that seems very absent from these statements?

[B]

Yeah, now the piece is basically anonymous sourcing and we should. I don't want to Sort of gloss over that fact from that bit you read a little while ago, quote, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information, private conversations, they describe Patel's tenure, blah, blah, blah. Explain to our pod listeners why, I mean, or tell me if you disagree. To me, this is a paradigmatic example of when you probably do need to use anonymous sources and when doing so is probably okay.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, we're talking about the head of the FBI, the top law enforcement official in the country who has the power to, and honestly probably would punish critics. Anonymity is completely. It's not, like, ideal, but I think anonymity is totally fine and to be expected in a case like this. And if you can't offer people anonymity, they're not going to talk to you.

[B]

They won't talk.

[A]

Right, right.

[B]

Yeah. And there's two different levels here. One is people. People in the FBI, obviously, if they, you know, as a journalist, you want them to do something they're not supposed to do, which is speak out against their boss or tell you the truth about what they view as the truth about their boss, they would. They would get fired and get in tr. There could be ethics issues on top of getting fired. Now, I think ideally she mentions talking to, like, former FBI people. Ideally, some of those would be. Not be anonymous, but it's not. This is not like a case she mentions repeatedly, like, talking to a lot of people. And so I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with anonymity here. That is something obviously critics of the article have pointed out.

[A]

Right. And what they're probably trying to imply is that these anonymous sources don't exist or they're lying.

[B]

Yeah, no, no, exactly. And this is jumping the gun a little because I want to mention later, but I. A lot of the sort of MAGA responses to this piece, people confuse two very different things. One is like, do journalists regularly screw things up or get things wrong?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Yes. How likely is it that a staff writer at the Atlantic is fabricating sources?

[A]

Extremely unlikely. I mean, there have been Stephen Glass. There have been cases of this Stephen Glass.

[B]

It's like a once every 15 to 20 event.

[A]

Right. And in a story like this, it's going to go through layers of editors, it's going to go through lawyers, they're going to have every T crossed and I dotted. Because a story like this is high risk and it would be just so embarrassing to fuck this up.

[B]

Yeah, I just. I think people lump in a lot of shitty commentators and like Jezebel level journalism with the few remaining legacy institutions left like the Atlantic that they do. I'm not saying they always get everything right or I agree with everything. But the. The idea that if Sarah Fitzpatrick says, I talked to five anonymous people who said XYZ, she talked to five anonymous people who saidXYZ, it's very unlikely that that's not the case.

[A]

Okay, what did Patel himself say?

[B]

Well, pop quiz, Katie. What is the first thing an incompetent figure will do when their incompetence has been exposed in an embarrassing fashion? Guess.

[A]

Margaritas at TGI Fridays. Get a Bloomin Onion, take pics, post them of Instagram and say, suck it, haters. That's what I would do.

[B]

These are all really good ideas. There's no wrong ideas in brainstorming. What I was referenc seeing was threatened a lawsuit.

[A]

Oh, yeah.

[B]

So quote, this is from the Atlantic piece, quote the FBI, but he probably

[A]

did it from TGI Fridays or from the Poodle Lounge. Vegas.

[B]

He's just furiously typing out a lawsuit threat while half blacked out at the Poodle. The poodle room, Katie, not the poodle app. Wait, Poodle room. Actually, wait, guess if I Yelp the poodle room. Let's. I want you to guess the Yelp rating before I pull it up.

[A]

All right, I'm gonna say 4.3, 4.6,

[B]

but only on 27 ratings.

[A]

All right, we're gonna have to do a. Do a bar pod meetup at the PO Room in Vegas.

[B]

A cash app, Patel themed.

[A]

Where your Nikes.

[B]

Anyway, yeah. Quote from the story. The FBI responded with a statement attributed to Patel. Print it all false. I'll see you in court. Bring your checkbook. And the Atlantic went ahead and printed it.

[A]

Did he then. Did he write mic drop after that?

[B]

He's very much. It seems like he's trying to sound like Trump. Yeah, well, I guess all. All lawsuit threats sound basically similar, but yes, sure enough, Cash Patel subsequently sued the Atlantic.

[A]

All right, so do we have the complaint?

[B]

We do. I found it, I downloaded it, I printed it out, and then I realized.

[A]

Do you think that he used ChatGPT

[B]

to file the suit for reasons we'll get to? I think it's very Unlikely he used ChatGPT to file a suit. But when I printed it out, I actually realized. I printed out another Cash Patel lawsuit. This one against Politico and national security reporter Natasha Bertrand in 2019. That one was for 25 million million. His latest one is for 250 million. I did successfully print the correct lawsuit. The Second time. But that's lucky, because I could have made the same mistake again and again because he keeps suing journalists over and over and over. He sues a lot of journalists. He really does, Katie.

[A]

Okay, so what happened with those other cases?

[B]

Kash Patel might be good at certain things, like passing out drunk at the Poodle Room or the Poodle Lounge or whatever it's called after parties at the Olympics, designing sneakers. He has a lot of skills. He is not good at suing journalists. Basically, all of these suits have either petered out or been rejected by the courts. We'll get into the specifics of the latest one, but oftentimes it just isn't a close call. Like, he just isn't good at this. He's not good at filing. Or his lawyers aren't good at filing defamation claims. Unless. Unless the point is just to scare people into not writing about him negatively.

[A]

Have you. Have you ever been bullied out of

[B]

reporting on someone by lawsuit threat? I have not. The most memorable incident of Someone trying was 2016. This neuroscientist I was writing about, because he was pushing these, like, scammy supplements, he threatened to sue me, and that caused New York magazine's lawyer to become more engaged in the story. We went through it carefully, but of course, that just became part of the story that he tried to sue me. But if I hadn't been on staff at New York magazine, maybe that would have deterred me. Have you ever deterred from a story in that manner?

[A]

Yeah, I have. So once when I was at the Stranger, I was working on a story about a rape allegation from someone connected to, like, in the stat and like, in the employ of Dan Bilzerian. The guy who. Can you explain who he is?

[B]

I. I can picture him. He.

[A]

Tiny legs, giant torso.

[B]

Oh, he's like a big fitness influencer. Did he become. See, now I don't want to get sued.

[A]

He's like.

[B]

He's like, oh, my God, dude. This is the first thing that came up. Up. I'm running for Congress. I was about to ask you, did he become radically right wing? And then the. One of the first Google results. I'm running for Congress in Florida District 6 against the Fat Jew, Randy. Fine.

[A]

He's become.

[B]

I don't. I think there's some subtle dog whistles in that.

[A]

He's like the child of a. He's actually going to come up in another story later next month. There's. So he's a. He's the child of a very wealthy man for Basically posting on Instagram photos of himself with, like, hot women on yachts with lots of guns.

[B]

Hell, yeah.

[A]

And he has since pivoted to hardcore anti Semitism. And someone connected, someone in his employee was accused of assault of a sexual assault by a local weed influencer in Seattle. And I was working on that story, and I got a call from a lawyer that was enough to, like, scare me off of the story, which I did feel like a. About, but it was one. It was very much a he said, she said story. There wasn't going to be, like, there was no evidence, no police complaint. There was never going to be a way to, like, adjudicate it. And then. And then more recently, there's a story that I want to do about someone who has come up on the show before. Who. It's a crazy story. And it, like, it's about a character. We did it. We did a. A story on. And she was involved. Has been involved in one of these, like, roommate from hell stories. You know what I mean? Like, someone moves into a house, won't leave, and like, makes the existing homeowner or roommate's life. Lives absolutely, like, absolute hell. And she is really litigious. And so I'm. And like, she has. She would sue us if we did this story. And so I want to do this story someday, but I have to wait until she's dead. So here's open.

[B]

But yes, part. Part of the theme here is that, like, these sorts of lawsuits, they don't need to be good to have their desired chilling effect. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. And like, even if you, like, even if you are well within your rights, like, if, if this woman sued us, we would win the lawsuit.

[B]

Doesn't matter.

[A]

We don't want to get involved in a lawsuit. Like, being involved in a lawsuit is so expensive, it could bankrupt a company. You know, it's just like, it's such a risk that you just avoid it at all costs. And. And that's. And that's the good thing about American defamation laws. They really are weighed in favor of journalists. But the threat of a lawsuit itself can be enough to make you, or maybe not you, but me, at least not pursue something.

[B]

There's probably, like, no area of American life where rich people have more of an advantage over poor ones than the legal system, like, both civil and criminal. It's just. It's insane. Anyway, Patel, like I said, like, these might have the desired effect, chilling effect, but he's just not. These lawsuits are bad. So after he sued CNN at one point, for example, CNN's attorneys fired back with what is known as a demure motion. This is basically the legal equivalent of like, you're not even wrong. It's basically like the argument your claim, as you laid it out, isn't even really a defamation claim. Even if we take everything you said at face value. And first the Circuit court of Virginia agreed, dismissing the suit with prejudice. Patel's side appealed this ruling and then the appeals court upheld it. We'll link to that decision. But it's a little bit of a smackdown. It's just like your, your lawsuit just failed to even state a claim. Even if we like accept your factual claims at face value, it's like this vague, there was nothing there.

[A]

What was the story over?

[B]

Patel alleged in an amended complaint that CNN defamed him by reporting that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had uncovered evidence that connected, that's a quote, him to President Trump's effort to spread conspiracy theories about Biden and coerce Ukraine into announcing an investigation into Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden. So what he'll do, he'll do this thing where a reporter will report on this has happened, I think a couple times, like a closed door hearing. They'll just report on what some witness testified and then he'll sue them for reporting on what the witness said.

[A]

Okay, got it.

[B]

So it's like not, not a strong basis for a defamation claim because it's not bulletproof as a journalist to report what someone else said. But like it makes it harder to prove actual malice if you're just like this person testified this way and I'm reporting on that. Right?

[A]

Yeah. Okay. So what about the other cases?

[B]

So 2024 AP article says on a podcast in 2022, he Bo Ki Patel boasted of having filed several defamation law, including one against reporter for the New York Times. But court records show Patel did not take any necessary steps to proceed in that case after filing it in 2019. It was dismissed two years later. That story also says, quote, such lawsuits suggest a broader strategy pursued by Patel, Trump and others to file often meritless lawsuits that seek to grind down political opponents and journalists. And Mark Zaid, who has represented defendants in such cases, including one funded by Patel's charity. Quote from Zaid, they use it.

[A]

What's his charity?

[B]

The first result? Cynical Cash grab FBI chief nominee Cash Patel's profitable links in the nonprofit world. Patel's nonprofit Cash foundation is linked to MAGA merchandise firms and spends much more on fundraising than it does on charity. That's from the Guardian. We are not no defamation. We are not, we have not evaluated that claim. Mark Zaid, who's a, who is an attorney who I talked to for this segment, represented defendants. Patel is targeted, quote, they use it to show that they're tough and aggressive to their base, raise money. So I do think, like, you'll see some of the announcements of these lawsuits reverberating through the magasphere. I think that does directly allow people like, yeah, but the announcement itself gets the base fired up that like the deep state is about to be brought to heal or whatever.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So that's the CNN one. The threat of Times reporter one that didn't bear out. There was also the time he sued a former FBI official and pundit named Katie. I want you to try to pronounce his name.

[A]

Cesar. Frank Figli. Figliozi.

[B]

Figliozi. So Figliuzzi went on Morning Joe last year and he had an exchange with a co host of Morning Joe where he said, actually, I want you to read what Figliosi said in your most offensive Italian American accent.

[A]

Are you gonna read the first part?

[B]

Oh, yeah, I'm the host. I actually forgot to check which Morning Joe host is. So I'll do a mix of Micah and. Are Micah and Joe still on Morning Joe? I never watch Morning Joe.

[A]

Is it Micah?

[B]

Mika? Mika Brzezinski. So, Frank, let's turn to FBI Director Cash Patel, who has sort of taken a surprisingly backseat role, at least at this.

[A]

So you were amica and now you're Joe.

[B]

Yeah, I'm switching. You're Non Biden transitioning mid sentence, at least to this point in the first 102 or 103 days, wherever we are right now. What do you make of that? That he's been just a little less visible than I think a lot of people in Trump observers expected him to be.

[A]

So I'm Figly.

[B]

Uzi Fig Loozi.

[A]

Yeah. Well, reportedly he's been visible at night.

[B]

No, mop it up. Mop it up a little.

[A]

Okay. Yeah. Well, reportedly he's been visible at night.

[B]

My people are hearing far more than

[A]

he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building. And there are reports that the daily briefings to him have changed from every day to maybe twice weekly. So this is both a blessing and a curse because if he's really trying to run things without any experience, things could be bad. And if he's not playing level, level, things could be bad. If he's not plugged in, things could be bad. But he's allowing agents to run Things. So we don't know where this is going.

[B]

Forget about it. You forgot to read forget about it. He didn't say forget about it. So Patel sued Figliuzzi over that one sentence. The one sentence where he says he's been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building. So let's table that lawsuit cuz it's gonna come up later. But just the last example of the way these peters out. Peter out. I mentioned he sued Natasha Bertrand and Politico. That was also cause Natasha Bertrand reported on what a witness in a hearing said. This one bounces around slightly. Eventually it ends in what's known as a non suit. Katie, just read this definition of non suit from a legal dictionary.

[A]

Non suit is a judgment given against the plaintiff in which the court dismisses a case because the plaintiff either was unable to make an adequate showing or is unwilling to continue with the case. A non suit may be voluntary or involuntary.

[B]

So he just basically like gave up on this case and this is what he does over and over and over. He files these cases and they get tossed or he gives up. They never, they never go anywhere. But that. That doesn't matter if you're the person who has to pay for. Yeah, exactly.

[A]

I wonder. Okay, so do we know if he. Are he paying? Is he paying for the. For his own lawyers out of pocket or is this my money? Your money, Our money paying for this bullshit.

[B]

Most of these cases preceded his. Or a number of them preceded his time in government. Well, this. No, these must be private. He must be paid for it. That there's no way he can charge that to the. The government. I would think. You think? Think.

[A]

Okay, so he's filed a lot of these lawsuits in the past. What. Or threaten to file or threaten to. What about this one against the Atlantic? Is this any stronger?

[B]

Yeah, let's get into that. But first, why don't you do housekeeping while I go to the bathroom?

[A]

All right, well, Jesse's gone. I assume that we're going to hear a toilet flush in a moment, hopefully. And then maybe some water. Hopefully he'll wash his hands. This is a podcast. We are blocked and reported. You can reach out to us with tips, with feedback at blocked and reported podcast gmail.com you can also check us out@blocked andreported.org that's where you be and become a primo subscriber. A primo. For $7 a month you get access to our comment section. You get three point something extra episodes a Month. You get access to our live chats. I'm doing one on April 28 with Benoit Denizet Lewis. He is an author, he's a magazine writer, and he has a book coming out about change, about how people change or don't change their lives. So you can access that through our substack page. Again, this is the best and only way to support the show. So please do it. Blockchainreported.org I'm back.

[B]

What'd I miss?

[A]

I. I mentioned that I'm doing a live with Benoit.

[B]

Benoit. I wish I had a name that cool.

[A]

Do you know what his middle name is?

[B]

Denizet.

[A]

No, that's his hyphenated name. His. His full name is Benoit Lancelot.

[B]

Cash app.

[A]

Do you think his parents wanted him to be gay?

[B]

It's so awesome. Oh, man. Probably Katie, before you. So I was gonna say, before you so expertly did housekeeping, I don't know how you did. I haven't listened to it yet, but I assume it was really good.

[A]

Did you wash your hands?

[B]

I washed. I washed everything. I just. I gave myself a very quick but thorough sponge bath. While you were doing housekeeping, did you

[A]

ever install your tushy?

[B]

I did. Not everyone.

[A]

I Do you still have it?

[B]

I think back in New York for a while, I was using it to, like, elevate my monitor.

[A]

Okay. Next time I have the misfortune of going to New York, I'm going to bring Janet to your apartment and she's going to install your tushy for you.

[B]

That's a very dirty sounding sentence. I did not like hearing that.

[A]

She's done this at homes all across America. She can install your tushy.

[B]

Okay. But before all that, before all the sponge bath, you were asking me about this latest complaint and if it was different. Yes. Now the tldr is no. The longer version is I actually had a surprising amount of fun reading it. It's a 25 page legal complaint. Not usually fun, but I almost don't know where to. But just a few things. Part of what I found enjoyable about this is like, you know how they're used. Well, I guess there still is that thing where like a Trump official or a Trump adjacent official goes on Fox News. And really they're doing their appearance to directly talk to Trump.

[A]

Yeah, absolutely.

[B]

That you sort of get the sense in the Patel complaint that he's like, trying to save his job by being like, look how good I am at my job. So part of the complaint is just an attempt to, like, overwhelm the reader who's not going to be some moron, but. But a judge who knows how defamation works with claims like, how could I be drunk if the FBI did such an amazing job while I was ahead of it? Which doesn't really make sense.

[A]

Well, it also doesn't make. It's not like Trump is going to read this complaint.

[B]

Yeah, I don't really. It's. It was very strange. Now, I told you I talked to Mark Zaid and I was like, how unusual is this? And like, he's sort of demure. Like people can put all sorts of stuff into complaints. But it jumped out because he has this long list of his supposed achievements and he accuses the, the Sarah Fitzpatrick of having, quote, ignored or willfully avoided an extensive public record, directly contradicting their narrative. A responsible reporter, a competent editor, or a non reckless fact checker would have taken notice of, among other things, the following that he refers back to paragraph nine, which is his long list of his supposed achievements. So just, just read this one. We don't need to get too deep into this. I just want to make one point about this.

[A]

Under Director Patel's leadership, the FBI has achieved historic law enforcement results, including the seizure of more than 2,500 kilograms of fentanyl, up 31%, enough to kill more than 189 million people, contributing to a nearly 20% decline in the US opioid overdose deaths compared to 2024. Is this true? Let's do a fact check.

[B]

Well, well, no, it's not. But like, even, even if it was, of course none of that Cash Patel is not out here. He saved ceasing fentanyl.

[A]

He saved one. Like, over half of Americans were saved

[B]

by Cash app, by Kash Appetel. As soon as I saw this, I was like, that doesn't make sense. Because usually the way these sorts of mortality statistics work, you have to get pretty far into 2026 before you even have the full data for 2025. Also, there is a significantly bigger percentage decrease in opioid deaths under the previous administration. So none of this doesn't really make sense. At another point, he mentions how the Atlantic had previously reported that Patel was, quote, on the chopping block, which, like, okay, that doesn't mean anything. That doesn't prove defamation. And also, the article in question wasn't about Patel. It was about a ton of other people. The other weird thing in this complaint is, like, he keeps pointing out that he and his team, when the Atlantic reached out to them, they were like, no, that didn't happen. And then the Atlantic published it anyway. Katie, is that defamation to publish something even though someone says it didn't happen?

[A]

That's not defamation. Did the Atlantic say that he denied these allegations? That's something they should have done.

[B]

Yeah. The Atlantic included various quotes from people sort of denying it, although.

[A]

So they didn't take him at his word. Is that the issue?

[B]

Yeah, that seems to be. Which is also is similar to a tactic Trump has used in his own bullying defamation lawsuits, which is, like, I told you, this didn't happen, and yet you printed it. How dare you.

[A]

Right, right.

[B]

Elsewhere in the complaint, Patel's team, they whined that the Atlantic never sought out information they obviously could not have gotten. So, quote, they never asked for any documentation of the supposed need to breach the director's office, even though such an incident would have generated multiple written records. They never contacted Neds or the Poodle Room for corroboration, nor sought credit card records, photographs, or witness statements.

[A]

Do they know that?

[B]

First of all, they don't know that.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Yeah. It's impossible for Patel's team to know that that is the case. Unless he, like, secretly wiretapped the Atlantic, which. Why not? It's cash appetell. But that's not defamation. Like, the Trump White House is so hostile to journalists, first of all, and so hostile to FOIA requests where there's been noticeable slowdowns. The idea that it's defamation, that they. They had multiple anonymous sources saying there was that need to breach the office, but they didn't file a FOIA request. It's just. There's nothing here. It's just a very strange complaint.

[A]

I mean, filing a. For getting the FOIA request, getting that documentation would, I think, have made the piece stronger. Yeah, but it's not.

[B]

But they wouldn't have gotten it. The Trump administration would not have handed that. Oh, I think would have been one

[A]

piece of paper with every line blocks out.

[B]

Of course, the complaint mentions the anonymity thing, but throughout, like, the piece, we have language, like several officials, six current and former officials, and others familiar with Patel's schedule. There were a lot of people who said this stuff, and we mentioned this earlier, but, like, an experienced reporter, like Sarah Fitzpatrick is not. Not. Is just very unlikely to be this sloppy with anonymous reporters. You agree that, like, if she says an anonymous reporter is someone and said something, that's probably true, right?

[A]

Yeah, I think at. At this caliber, it's probably very trustworthy. And again, and I'm sure that this was vetted by multiple layers of editors and lawyers.

[B]

And they are writing about someone who those lawyers and the editors at that. And surely know that Patel already had a history of suing journalists. So that would even be more front of mind for them. So look, even if some of the stuff turns out to not be factually true, like that does not rise to the level of defamation. Again, defamation, you need reckless disregard for the truth or actual malice in the case of a public figure. There's really basically nothing in the lawsuit that suggests that. Anyway, circling back to the Figliuzi lawsuit. You remember that?

[A]

I do.

[B]

From 5 minutes ago. Read this from Patel's lawsuit.

[A]

The article's assertions that Director Patel drinks to the point of obvious intoxication at NEDS in Washington D.C. into excess at the Poodle Room in Las Vegas, and that his drinking has, quote, has been a recurring source of concern across the government are false. Director Patel does not drink to excess at these establishments or anywhere else. We all saw the fucking locker room video. That was me, not Patel. And this is not and has never been a source of concern across the government. Prior to publication, the FBI expressly informed defendants that each of these allegations was, quote, totally, totally false.

[B]

Totally false. Prop.

[A]

The FBI further warned defendants that these allegations echoed a similar fabrication previously aired by MSNBC's Frank Figluzzi on Morning Joe anonymously source reporting that was later retracted by MSNBC and is the subject of pending defamation litigation yet to finish. Yet defendants publish it anyway. Did MSNBC retract this?

[B]

That. That's an overstatement. This is Figlus. He said Patel had been seen drinking more than you've been seen at FBI headquarters. A Morning Joe co host said at the end of that segment. Figliosi said the that FBI Director Casper Tell has been more visible at nightclubs than the FBI headquarters. This was a misstatement. We have not verified that claim. So not quite a retraction. But. But does that sound. Do you interpret that as figlus? He literally meaning that.

[A]

I would not have interpreted. Well, I don't know. I mean, I didn't hear his tone of voice, but that sounds like. It sounds like. Like. Like a. Like an exaggeration. He's been seen more at the bar than he has at work.

[B]

Yeah, that's why. Right. Depends on his accent too. Was it like, hey, this guy over here has been seen? It depends on how you interpret that. It is a factual statement. That's where you need to be really careful, especially when you're dealing with litigious assholes. It was sloppy anyway. Patel is Saying in his lawsuit against the Atlantic, look, we told you, be careful. We've already sued somebody about this. In any case, this turned out to be very bad timing for Patel because he filed his lawsuit Monday, April 20th. Just yesterday, April 21st. Katie, please read.

[A]

This is Kyle Chaney. Justin. A federal judge has tossed a defamation suit Cash Patel brought in against former FBI official slash pundit Frank Figliuzi. Figliuzzi's claims that Patel spent more time at nightclubs than at FBI HQ was rhetorical hyperbole. The judge rules.

[B]

So that is another failed lawsuit. Again, this guy is really bad at suing journalists. Despite all this, after the lawsuit was filed, this, there was this feverish excitement on the part of MAGA Twitter. And again, this gets to the argument that part of the reason for filing this lawsuit is to just generate excitement and support and maybe even money. So read this one example.

[A]

All right? This is Michael Patrick Leahy breaking as an award. They always say fucking breaking.

[B]

Breaking.

[A]

As an award winning journalist, it is my view that Kash Patel has a very strong defamation claim against the Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick. Patrick, this morning he filed a 250 million dollar defamation case against him. Was the breaking part that he's an award winning journalist or is that he has an opinion?

[B]

He just won the award and he wanted to want to squeeze in that breaking.

[A]

And who is he?

[B]

This is, he is just some guy, like, it's so sad that, like, is

[A]

he an award winning journalist?

[B]

Yeah, I mean he is, he's award winning in that he, he's connected to some award for conservative media. But to say it's my view that Cash Patel has a very strong defamation case is just, just, it's nonsensical. But it got him 2000 retweets and 11,000 likes.

[A]

I'm looking at this. So the award that he won was, it's called the Dow Prize, Rewarding truth seeking journalism since 2023. Very young. So this is, yeah, this is a, this is a, a conservative foundation that bestows this award. But here's the funny thing. The Dow Foundation's description of itself. We fund research into and practice universal values in today's public sphere, conserving the values of liberal liberty, equity, ooh, fairness, justice and love, which we believe are the bedrock. This sounds, this sounds woke. I think it's woke.

[B]

Super woke.

[A]

Unless they mean equity. Like, like mortgage equity.

[B]

There was like the other thing on MAGA Twitter, which again got to just like a lack of media literacy. Just read this one from someone named Jorge Bonilla.

[A]

Nothing says we stand by our reporting like ye old ghost. Edit title swap on the Atlantic's Operation Get Cash at piece. I saw this one. This guy does not understand what a B testing is.

[B]

No.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You want to explain why?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

AB test. So first of all, I'll just read the two headlines, because the first one, Cash Patel's erratic behavior could cost him his job. Subhead, the FBI director has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking, unexplained absences. And the second one, the headline switches the FBI director's MIA with the exact same sub headline mentioning the drinking. So one possibility is sometimes people just change online headlines. Editors just decide to change them. There are a lot of reasons. The other is, is yes, AB testing, where you do different headlines to different audiences to see which one gets a better click through rate. Which is also. That's a feature Substack has at this point, but it makes just it. All you would have to do is actually look at both headlines, be like, whatever's going on here, both these headlines accuse them of having episodes of excessive drinking. Like there's not any attempt to like cover their tracks here. It makes no sense.

[A]

Right. My guess is that this is AB testing. This is extremely common. They're looking for what works best on social media. And then later, generally they choose one headline, the one that performs better and go with that.

[B]

I thought there's like something a little bit just because Trump World is just this ongoing decades long scam or like a bunch of scams on every level dating back to like Trump University and stiff contractors at Trump State. No, Trump Stakes was actually an excellent product to me. Like, the slightly poignant aspect of this is like, Patel really does seem to file these lawsuits to get positive attention and to be seen as, as this proud, brave MAGA warrior. And it doesn't matter that the lawsuits are dumb and always fail. He always gets the same like trained SEAL response from people who are like, yes, fuck you, Atlantic. It's just there's something a little bit sad about that. Well, first of all, Streisand wise, Streisand effect wise. Far more people now know that. The Atlantic reported Cash Patel's a little drinky drinky than would have known if he hadn't filed a lawsuit. So obviously it feels I'm going to

[A]

send him my book.

[B]

Look, you should. That'd be really. Should we get them on to discuss. I guess I'm skeptical. Well, I'm a little bit skeptical this will actually have any chilling effect. On the other hand, the Atlantic has the resources to deal with this in a way. You know, if some. One of the two remaining State House reporters uncover something about Cash Patel, maybe they'll be a little bit scared to report on it now. I guess it could still have the Chile effect. I'm just skeptical it'll actually work.

[A]

But like I just opened Twitter a second ago. Here's. This is. Is Michael Schmidt from the New York Times. New and breaking. The FBI began investigating New York Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson early this year. Earlier this year after she published a story about how Cash Patel was using FBI personnel to provide his girlfriend with government security and transportation. FBI agents interviewed Patel's girlfriend about Williamson queried databases for info on the reporter and recommended moving forward to determine whether the reporter broke federal stalking laws. So this. They're. They are.

[B]

Jesus Christ. Stalking. They're trying to. A reporter did reporting on Patel. They're going to accuse her of stalking laws.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So it's absolutely disgusting.

[A]

The administration is doing what they can. And this. There's a million examples of this. To quash the free press.

[B]

Yeah, not the free press, but the free press.

[A]

No, the free. The free press.

[B]

They don't need a. They don't want to quash the free press. They want to quash the free press.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

The only part of Patel's lawsuit that made me at least a tiny bit sympathetic. And I got a tinge of that too from. From Mark Zaid. When I talked to him, he mentions the Atlantic supposedly only giving him in his office a couple hours worth of time to respond. I'll talk about. I'll talk about the legal side first. But journalistically, what do you think?

[A]

Yeah, that's not good.

[B]

To me, the counterpoint is someone like Patel and this administration who are incredibly aggressive and incredibly. On social media. I think their behavior gives journalists an excuse to be like, I don't want you to fucking launch a Twitter war against. Against me and my publication before we even publish. I think you're. If they acted more decently toward journalists and more traditionally. I think there's. I can't look inside the Atlantic's head, but I think there's maybe less of a chance they would have done that. Constricted timeline.

[A]

Yeah. I mean. And there's always the risk that you're going to lose your big scoop to someone else. Like if they knew that the New York Times or whatever was working on a similar story. But I don't think that's. I don't think giving people a couple hours to respond is fair. I mean. Though. But then again, like, there is a. There is a White House Department of Communications. It's someone's job to respond immediately, quickly.

[B]

Yeah. And they did. And they did get a lot of responses. One of. One of the responses being a lawsuit threat. I mean, yeah, I do think also just in this.

[A]

I'm surprised they didn't just send back the shit emoji like Twitter does, like Elon does.

[B]

The. It's also like, if you have all these anonymous sources who have told you the same thing and you feel like your reporting's pretty buttoned up, there's not. It's unlikely the FBI is going to come back in a way that actually debunks what you have. So it's, I don't know, a little pro forma. For what it's worth, Mark Zaid, who is very helpful, he said that something like the two hour thing would not really bear on the question of whether this was defamation. But if it was, if the courts found it was defamation, something, details like that could then be used to exacerbate the damages that would be awarded to Patel. So it could matter on that front. But I don't. I did not get the sense from any the, the legal experts I read or talking to Zaid. And again, Zade is. Mark Zade is a partisan. He's gone up against Patel's lawyers, but no one seems to think this is a strong case. I did think, is Andrew Fleischman a friend of the pod? He's an honorary friend of the pod. Right.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I found him to be very useful. He's. He's. He's a public defender, not specifically versed in this area of law, but he does know a lot about it. So, Katie, just read this a little bit from his very useful tweets.

[A]

From a link to Andrew says, I suspect this lawsuit will be dismissed before discovery is conducted because actual malice is such a heavy lift that at least will make it relatively inexpensive for the Atlantic's insurer. Still, we should not ignore what this lawsuit is, a very expensive press release designed to punish true but hurtful stories about officials in this increasingly opaque administration. The lawsuit survives dismissal, makes it to summary judgment, it will likely be because of the section where the FBI allegedly refused the story. But at the next phase, Patel will have to show the refutation happen by clear and convincing evidence.

[B]

So all this just comes down to how difficult it is to prove defamation and how little convincing evidence there is in the complaint that the Atlantic aired. Seriously. But, yeah, man, if you like, if you like a free press, this stuff should really worry you because you really can use money to bully journalists. At least journalists who don't have the backing of an outlet like the Atlantic. Anything else, Katie? Any other questions about this?

[A]

What does he like to drink? Drink?

[B]

Well, what was he chugging in the. In the. It was beer in the. Hockey.

[A]

Chugging beer in there?

[B]

Yes. What's the. You chug in a hockey locker room?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Kvasi. I could see me a Kravi guy when he's at the Poodle. The Poodle club.

[A]

I was thinking something a little baggier.

[B]

You can't say. Well, can you can say that?

[A]

Yes, I can.

[B]

Like what?

[A]

I was thinking like espresso martini.

[B]

Cash McDowell's an espresso martini guy.

[A]

You know what, White Claw?

[B]

It'd be funny if Pete Hegseth was an espresso. Oh, my God. I'm guessing it is not White Claw. Something heavier.

[A]

He drinks whatever sorority girls are drinking in 2016. In 2020. Whatever year is it 2026.

[B]

What do sorority girls drink in 2026? Just off the top of your head,

[A]

Katie, energy drinks and Oz. Epic.

[B]

This has been blotch important, as always. Reproduce. With help from Jessica the 80s, baby. Thank you for listening.

[A]

Bye.