Patel's lawsuit against The Atlantic claims allegations of heavy drinking are "easily refuted," but then doesn't do it -- leaving an argument that mostly meanders

Kash Patel's lawsuit over a magazine article that portrays him as a heavy drinker who has been known to pass out on the job might never leave a mark on the world of law. But it already has left a mark on the world of journalism by inspiring a headline for the ages, one that sits atop a story that includes enough snark and wise cracks to earn an engagement at one of Howard Stern's Sirius XM studios. 

The headline and story are the handiwork of writers and editors at the Above the Law (ATL) legal website, which started as a gossipy blog that specialized in "inside baseball" reporting on courts, law firms, and the like. That earned it the No. 1 ranking in a survey of the "Top 50 independent law blogs in North America," conducted by Cision, a Chicago-based media-relations software and research company. (For the record, Legal Schnauzer was No. 37 on the survey, and best I could tell, we were the only truly independent blog to make the list -- with no connections to a law firm, university, publishing company, or interest group.)

Above the Law now takes a slightly more mature approach to legal reporting than it did in its infancy -- and it has graduated from a "blog" to a "Legal Web Site." It also has become part of Breaking Media, which describes itself as "a network of websites, e-newsletters, events, podcasts, and social media channels for influential, affluent business communities." ATL might be a bit more corporate and frumpy than it was in the old days, but the editorial staff, which includes several lawyers, remains quick with a quip. Its coverage of Kash Patel -- the Trump FBI director with an alleged drinky poo problem and a penchant for filing defamation lawsuits at a rapid-fire clip, is proof of that.

Consider ATL's April 20 piece under the headline "Kash Patel's $250 million defamation lawsuit looks better with beer goggles; The complaint asks the question: Could FBI agents do their job if the director was drunk? Not sure Patel is going to like the answer." The headline about "beer goggles" is enough to elicit guffaws, and the story itself contains no shortage of classic ATL snark. Joe Patrice writes:

The complaint is finally here, and it’s more or less exactly as loony as we expected. FBI Director Kashyap Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick over the April 17 article alleging excessive drinking and erratic behavior. The 19-page complaint, filed by Patel’s lawyer and Big Lie aficionado Jesse Binnall, strikes a perfect balance between responding to the allegations of the article with “nuh uh” and lengthy accounts of how successful the FBI’s individual agents have been while Patel’s been busy doing the important work of slamming brews with the U.S. Olympic hockey team.

The complaint veers off the rails early, opening the “Factual Background” with what Scott McFarlane of Meidas Touch described as a LinkedIn post. Patel devotes 11 lettered bullet points to the “historic law enforcement results” achieved while he’s technically had an office in the Hoover building. The capture of 8 of the FBI’s Most Wanted (twice as many as under Sleepy Joe Biden, he notes!), big decreases in homicide rates (what does this have to do with the FBI?), seizure of fentanyl that would’ve otherwise killed “189 million people” or about half the population of the United States (wha?).

Patrice speculates about the real driver of the FBI director's lawsuit spree, possibly an effort to save his own professional skin. The analysis also addresses Patel's curious spin on the "actual malice" standard where the defamation plaintiff is a public official/figure. Patrice writes:

Could veteran FBI agents have pulled any of this off if the director was buying drinks at the Poodle Room? Well, yeah, probably. But what this factual account lacks in value to his defamation claim, it makes up for as a cheap resume refresher for Donald Trump in case the boss might be considering dropping Patel.

Actual malice? Well, The Atlantic previously reported that Patel was on the chopping block. The complaint spins this as “an editorial predisposition to cast his tenure as failing.” You miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take.

Numerous Atlantic pieces over the past two years have characterized Director Patel as unqualified, dangerous, corrupt, or mentally unstable. 

Apropos of nothing in particular, we would remind readers that truth is a defense to defamation. Seriously though, opinion is protected speech and is not an element of actual malice. Whatever The Atlantic thinks about Patel’s qualifications, that’s not particularly relevant to establishing that the publication went forward with reckless disregard for the truth.

Patrice examines the Patel complaint and finds that it does not deliver on its promises. That is a sure sign of a complaint that is just begging to be dismissed, particularly in the pothole-filled world of defamation law: 

The complaint keeps declaring the allegations are “easily refuted” or his contrary claim “easily verified” and then just… doesn’t do it. Look, a complaint doesn’t have to — nor should it really — lay out a detailed factual record, but it should at least endeavor to put the defense on guard that explicit factual support is forthcoming. Also, as a practice point, adverbs in legal filings set off red flags. If it can be so easily refuted, then write “this is refuted by [insert support here].” Whenever a formal filing includes a specific adverb, my spidey-sense tells me it’s going to turn out to be the exact opposite.

To a lesser extent, the same goes for adjectives:

Even after stealth-editing their headline over the weekend, in a feable attempt to reduce the appearance of partisan animus, Defendants have doubled down… 

Patrice quickly takes note of sloppiness present in the Patel document, which indicates that despite his braggadocio in the press, he is not all that serious about this case:

“Feable”?!? A $250 million lawsuit and no one is running spell check? Adjectival editorializing is inappropriate. Misspelling it is unforgivable. For the record, The Atlantic changed “Kash Patel’s Erratic Behavior Could Cost Him His Job” to “The FBI Director Is MIA,” which does not seem like a “stealth edit” as much as A/B testing to maximize internet traffic.

The Article’s assertions and implications that Director Patel’s alleged alcohol consumption negatively impacted law-enforcement investigations (including the Charlie Kirk murder investigation), violated DOJ ethics rules against habitual intoxicant use, rendered him vulnerable to foreign adversary coercion, and constituted a threat to public safety and national security—including in the context of a domestic terrorist attack—are false. Prior to publication, the FBI expressly informed Defendants that these claims were “100% false,” and that under Director Patel’s leadership, the FBI has just delivered its most successful year in decades, with a historic drop in violent crime, a 20% drop in the national murder rate, a 31% increase in fentanyl seizures, and the successful disruption of multiple terror plots.

Patel's claim is not devoid of merit, Patrice concludes, but the complaint fails to present language in a tight, ordered way that might actually achieve the difficult task of winning a defamation case. In short, the claim is not a total loser, but the complaint does a poor job of stating the claim. That might be because Patel was in a hurry to file the complaint, but his lawyer should have advised him to slow down:

I guess he’s never heard the phrase putting the fun in functional alcoholism. This is a recurring format: “The article says X… we say that’s false… because the rank-and-file FBI agents continue to do their jobs.” There’s a lot of hubris in the idea that the director has to be sober as a judge for the Dallas field office to close its cases. Saying Patel is bad at his job is opinion. The claim that he’s bad because of drinking is potentially actionable. To that end, it doesn’t support a defamation claim to say, “but I’m good at my job,” the only claim that’s relevant is “I’m not a drunk.” The final sentence of this paragraph is a non sequitur.

The Article’s assertions that Director Patel is “often away or unreachable,” causing delays that made agents “lose their shit,” and that he has “unexplained absences” and “spotty attendance at the office,” are false. Director Patel is at FBI headquarters nearly every single day, and when he is not at headquarters, he is visiting field offices—which he has done more frequently than any of his predecessors, a fact independently verifiable through his public social media account that Defendants were specifically directed to review.

Which field office is in the Olympics locker room? Also, presumably the FBI keeps better records of the director’s location than relying on what he posts on Twitter. A serious defamation complaint — one not rushed out on Monday morning to keep ahead of the news cycle — might include detailed claims of his whereabouts throughout his tenure, with an implied promise that this itinerary comes from official FBI records that will back up all these dates in discovery. This complaint is loosey-goosey by any standard, and notably underwhelming coming from a government official whose daily activity is tracked.

Furthermore, Director Patel has taken significantly fewer personal days than either of his two immediate predecessors. In calendar year 2025, Director Patel took approximately 17 personal days—fewer than Director Wray averaged in any single year of his 7.5-year tenure, during which Wray accumulated roughly 242 personal days (including approximately 37 in 2024 alone, 31 in 2023, and 33 in 2022). Director Comey likewise took approximately 130 personal days over his 4-year tenure, including roughly 63 in 2014 and 42 in 2015, when he routinely traveled home to New York every weekend or every other weekend. Put simply, Director Patel’s personal-day usage in 2025 is less than half of Wray’s yearly average and a small fraction of Comey’s peak years. 

Is this supposed to be effective argument? The alleged defamatory article states that Patel's heavy drinking left him impaired on the job and interfered with FBI operations. Are personal days in any way relevant to those issues?  I don't see how, yet Patel wastes time and space trying to connect the two. That leads to other irrelevant connections that fill the complaint with pure nonsense. Raising the issue of personal days takes the complaint to places Patel probably does not want to go, Patrice notes:

If this is true, then is he counting the private jet trips to golf in Scotland, going to concerts with his girlfriend, and the aforementioned Olympics trip as official business? Because, like, that would be worse. He understands that would be worse, right?

“Director Patel has not targeted political or personal adversaries,” the complaint says, even though Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is on record bragging that the FBI has been purged of anyone who worked on the Trump investigations. Before dropping the complaint, Patel even went on Bartiromo to pledge that he’s about to start making arrests over the repeatedly debunked claim that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump because he was “never going to let this go.” From a lawyer perspective, it’s suboptimal to have a defamation client saying he’s about to use his power to pursue a conspiracy theory he’s never letting go of — and written children’s books about — right before filing a complaint alleging that he’s never targeted political or personal adversaries.

The tone of Patel's complaint is a classic example of what might be called "change the subject lawyering." Patrice provides examples, and some of them are downright laughable:

In addition to FBI OPA’s pre-publication denial, Defendants received on-the-record statements from senior administration officials that contradicted the Article’s core premise.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Defendants that under President Trump and Director Patel, “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,” and that “Director Patel remains a critical player on the Administration’s law and order team.”

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Defendants that “Patel has accomplished more in 14 months than the previous administration did in four years” and that “[a]nonymously sourced hit pieces do not constitute journalism.”

Do the Leavitt and Blanche statements include words to the effect that "Director Patel never has been impaired on the job due to drinking"? They clearly do not, and thus fail to address the main point of The Atlantic's article. As such, they are useless to the plaintiff's argument.

Patrice points out other ways the Leavitt and Blanche statements fall flat:

“A critical player on the Administration’s law and order team.” Damn, that’s cold. That’s the reference you get from a former boss who really doesn’t think you should hire a guy. If these are the statements Patel sent the magazine to talk them out of publishing, it’s no wonder they smashed the publish button. The answer to “is the director drinking too much at Ned’s?” is not “he’s still a critical player on our law and order team.”

That’s not to say there aren’t a few colorable allegations in this complaint. The truncated opportunity to respond at least hints at setting Patel up for failure. Reporting based on documents is one thing, but when it’s just a series of witness accounts, the subject of the story probably needs more time.

Especially if the publication has it in their heads that he’s “often away or unreachable.”

Still, Patel didn’t really help his case here:

They included only a generic, truncated denial attributed to Director Patel (“Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court – bring your checkbook”).

Bro. Threatening litigation is not displaying the level of good faith effort to corroborate your denials that the court will want to see down the road. This is the moment where you write, “these allegations are false, if you can afford me until Monday morning, I can compile ample documentation to refute each point in turn.”

As is, the complaint seems tailored to generate a lot of attention through sticker shock. But as a serious legal argument, it’s… “feable.” 

(Complaint available at this link…)

As Kash Patel's latest defamation gambit sits, a federal judge tosses another out of court in Texas -- showing why defamation claims can be a real bee-atch to win

We wrote yesterday about FBI Director Kash Patel and his $250-million lawsuit against The Atlantic for an article containing allegations that his heavy drinking had caused problems on the job. Patel filed his lawsuit on Monday (April 20), just three days after the story was published. That suggests Patel and his lawyer had barely had time to read it -- and perhaps had not given their complaint much thought before filing. It might also suggest Patel took considerable umbrage with -- and maybe was even yugely pissed off about -- The Atlantic's journalism. 

Now, we receive news indicating that taking umbrage with an article -- even being yugely pissed about it -- does not mean you are going to win a defamation lawsuit. That's a lesson Patel should have learned  before filing a lawsuit that was pending when he filed a complaint in The Atlantic matter. You might be thinking, "Are you telling us Patel already had one lawsuit on the books when he filed suit against The Atlantic?" Yep, that's what we're saying. And in a case of fortuitous timing, we found out yesterday -- less than 24 hours after our first post -- that a federal judge in Texas had dismissed Patel's defamation lawsuit in that jurisdiction. That means Patel has an 0-1 record in recent court cases, and unless he manages to pull a judge who is corrupt or incompetent, we look for him to be 0-2 when The Atlantic case is decided. It probably will also be dismissed, likely on grounds similar to those cited in the Texas case. 

We should note that readers of the Legal Schnauzer blog were not caught off guard by the Texas matter. That's because we mentioned it in yesterday's post. Here is the relevant passage: 

This is the second lawsuit that Patel has filed in connection with media reports about allegations of his drinking and partying.

Last year, he sued Frank Figliuzzi, an MSNBC analyst and former FBI agent, over a claim suggesting Patel was spending more time in nightclubs than the FBI's headquarters. That case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, is still pending.

It's not pending anymore -- and we expect The Atlantic case will have a similar outcome once a competent, non-corrupt judge in the District of Columbia (where Patel filed it in a hurried state) has found time to read the complaint. Why do we say that? Defamation cases can be tricky boogers, filled with potential potholes just waiting for someone to step in them. What makes them hard to win -- to the point that lawyers often advise clients not to pursue them? A query to AI Overview provides excellent insight into why defamation cases can be a bee-atch to win -- and many good lawyers try to avoid them. Here are key points from AI:

Yes, lawyers frequently advise clients against filing defamation lawsuits. While defamation causes real damage, these cases are difficult to win, expensive to pursue, and risky to reputations. Attorneys often suggest alternatives because litigation can worsen a bad situation rather than resolve it.

Key reasons for caution include:

• The Streisand Effect: Filing a lawsuit can draw massive public attention to the very statements the client wants hidden, exacerbating damage to their reputation.
• High Burden of Proof: The plaintiff must prove the statement was false, caused actual damage, and, for public figures, was made with "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).
• Significant Costs & Low Returns: Litigation is expensive, and statistics indicate fewer than 10% of victims receive monetary compensation for their harm.
• "Truth" and "Opinion" Defenses: Truth is an absolute defense, and statements labeled as "opinion" or "hyperbole" are often protected speech.
• Anti-SLAPP Laws: Many jurisdictions have laws that allow for rapid dismissal of lawsuits aimed at intimidating or silencing speech, potentially leaving the plaintiff responsible for the defendant's legal fees.
• Anti-SLAPP Laws: Many jurisdictions have laws that allow for rapid dismissal of lawsuits aimed at intimidating or silencing speech, potentially leaving the plaintiff responsible for the defendant's legal fees.
• Difficult to Collect: If the defendant has limited assets, winning a judgment may not result in actual payment, and these claims are rarely covered by insurance.

Lawyers often prefer to use cease-and-desist letters to negotiate a private settlement and retraction, which is usually faster, cheaper, and less disruptive than a lawsuit. 

What issues of fact and law were central to dismissal of Patel's case in Texas? CNBC has answers under the headline "Judge dismisses Kash Patel's defamation lawsuit over claim he frequented 'nightclubs," where Dan Mangan writes:

A Houston federal court judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by FBI Director Kash Patel alleging that former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi defamed him by saying Patel last year had “been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of” the bureau’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

“The Court finds that Figliuzzi’s statement is rhetorical hyperbole that cannot constitute defamation,” U.S. District Court Judge George Hanks Jr. wrote in his decision. “Accordingly, Dir. Patel has failed to state a claim against Figliuzzi, and his lawsuit must be dismissed.”

The dismissal came a day after Patel filed an unrelated $250 million defamation lawsuit in D.C. federal court against The Atlantic magazine over a new article that alleged he has abused alcohol.

While ruling on the key question of defamation in Figliuzzi’s favor, the judge denied his request that he be awarded court costs and attorneys’ fees under Texas’ anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.

Figliuzzi’s lawyer, Marc Fuller, in a statement to CNBC, said, “This is a victory for press freedom and the First Amendment.”

“Director Patel’s claim against Frank was baseless, and we are pleased that the court dismissed it,” Fuller said.

Patel’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Patel, of course, can seek recourse from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which might be the worst federal court in the country -- even worse than the horrifically awful 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which covers Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. (How bad is it? See here, here, and here.)  We have more from CNBC on  the comment that prompted Patel to file a defamation lawsuit in Texas:

Figliuzzi, former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, made his crack about Patel on May 2, 2025, on the MS NOW show “Morning Joe.”

“Yeah, well, reportedly, he’s been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover building,” said Figliuzzi.

Patel sued him in June, accusing Figliuzzi of “fabricating a specific lie” about the FBI director because of Figliuzzi’s “clear animus” toward him.

How are we supposed to know Figliuzzi had "clear animus" toward Patel? We don't because the case never got to that point; the judge dismissed it on hyperbole grounds -- one of those defamation potholes I mentioned earlier.

A note of caution: There is no way Patel can prevail on the facts and law in the Texas case. But there is no telling how the Fifth Circuit will rule on an appeal involving Donald Trump's FBI director. Here is how the Balls and Strikes website describes the Fifth Circuit:

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has historically been among the nation’s most conservative federal appeals courts. This is particularly true where abortion is concerned: Well before President Donald Trump’s nominating spree stacked the court with fringe right-wingers, it was instrumental in enabling the efforts of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi lawmakers to undermine reproductive rights. Today, 12 of the court’s 17 members are Republican appointees, and 6 of those 12 were nominated by Trump. With numbers like these, oral arguments have become genuinely unhinged of late, as evidenced by the latest go-round over Texas’ six-week abortion ban earlier this month. 

A quick refresher: In December, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed abortion providers to move forward with a small portion of their federal challenge to SB8, the state’s latest dystopian bid to legislate Roe v. Wade out of existence. Although SB8 remains in effect, the Court allowed abortion providers to sue a limited number of state medical licensing officials involved in the SB8 enforcement process. The state, unsatisfied with this outcome, quickly asked the Fifth Circuit to decide whether the Texas state Supreme Court should review the case before any federal litigation can continue. 

For a state court to perhaps second-guess the U.S. Supreme Court like this is so rare that the lawyer for the state of Texas admitted to the Fifth Circuit that she couldn’t think of another time it had happened. But for Texas lawmakers, this is less about substance than it is about running out the clock: If the state were to succeed in diverting this case from federal court, the abortion providers’ lawsuit—and, thus, access to abortion care for millions of Texans—would stall a little longer. As expected, the Fifth Circuit didn’t take long after oral argument to side with Texas, punting the case back to the state supreme court on January 17.

Bottom line: Kash Patel's Texas case is a loser, but the Fifth Circuit could turn it into a winner -- at least temporarily. And if that happens, it will be a clear sign that appellants with ties to Donald Trump receive special treatment in federal courts -- and that could be a huge story, indicating our constitutional framework is on the verge of collapse -- with only John Roberts' U.S. Supreme Court to save it. That hardly is a comforting thought, but we will be on the lookout for a Patel appeal in the Texas case -- and we invite you to stay with us. 

FBI Director "Crazy-Eyes Kash" Patel files a $250-million lawsuit against The Atlantic for its story about heavy drinking that caused him to go AWOL on the job

FBI Director Kash Patel sues The Atlantic (TMZ)

Of all the pain Donald Trump has inflicted on our government, what have been the two most damaging assaults? My vote goes to the following:

(1) Trump's utter disregard for the U.S. Constitution, which he swore to protect and uphold. This perhaps has been most brazenly reflected in his determination to seek investigations and prosecutions of his perceived political enemies. The Fourth Amendment holds that criminal charges be based on probable cause. But Trump has ignored that constitutional requirement and replaced it with prosecutions based on presidential whims. Public reports show that Trump has targeted roughly 470 individuals, organizations, and institutions for retribution, including numerous investigations and prosecutions aimed at political opponents, former officials, and critics.  

(2) Instead of filling his cabinet and other high-level positions with experts and distinctly qualified individuals who have demonstrated strong ethics and judgment, Trump has gone a different route. He has filled critical roles with sycophants and loyalists, many of whom tend to be corrupt and almost laughably incompetent. 

What Trump appointee best personifies the president's worst instincts? There is a lot of competition for that "honor," even though "strong candidates," such as former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and former Attorney General Pam Bondi, recently have been forced out of their jobs. But we are reserving this honor to those still serving in the administration -- and with apologies to Pete Hegseth, RFK Jr., J.D. Vance and a seemingly endless list of candidates -- we must give the nod to FBI Director Kash Patel. The man with the perpetually bugged eyes (known by some as "Crazy-Eyes Kash") has been a contender all along, but recent events helped him nail down the honor.

A report in The Atlantic magazine revealed that Patel has alarmed colleagues with excessive drinking that caused him to miss meetings and go AWOL on the job. Sources said Patel drinks to the point of intoxication, requiring his security detail to wake him.

Patel denies the allegations and claims in a lawsuit the story is false and defamatory. The Atlantic story and other recent revelations, raise questions about Patel's judgment and fitness to serve as head of the FBI. We will examine those questions in upcoming posts. But first, let's look at issues that are central to the lawsuit, which was filed on Monday (April 20), indicating Patel was determined not to waste any time. In a jointly published article at CBS News and Yahoo! News, under the headline "Kash Patel sues The Atlantic for $250 million over story on alleged drinking." Jacob Rosen writes:

FBI Director Kash Patel filed a defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic magazine on Monday, saying a recent story about his alleged frequent drinking and absences included "false and obviously fabricated" claims.

The 19-page lawsuit, filed in the District of Columbia, is seeking $250 million in damages. Sarah Fitzpatrick, the reporter who wrote the story, is also named as a defendant.

Patel and the FBI have repeatedly denied allegations in the story, which included allegations that Patel often drinks to excess. The piece, which cited multiple unnamed current and former officials, also said that Patel's "irregular presence at FBI headquarters and in field offices" has delayed "time-sensitive decisions" that require the FBI director's input.

The lawsuit listed 17 allegations in the article that Patel's legal team alleges were "false and defamatory statements of fact," including that he "is known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication."

"Each of the foregoing statements and implications is false. They are so demonstrably and obviously false, or easily refuted, that it was at best reckless to publish them," the suit said.

In a statement posted on X, The Atlantic said, "We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists from this meritless lawsuit."

Patel never has been one to cozy up to the press. In fact, he has threatened to go after journalists both criminally and civilly -- the First Amendment be damned. Not surprisingly, The Atlantic lawsuit is not Patel's first go-around with a media organization in court. CBS' Rosen writes:

CBS News has reached out to Patel's lawyer, Jesse Binnall, for additional comment.

This is the second lawsuit that Patel has filed in connection with media reports about allegations of his drinking and partying.

Last year, he sued Frank Figliuzzi, an MSNBC analyst and former FBI agent, over a claim suggesting Patel was spending more time in nightclubs than the FBI's headquarters. That case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, is still pending.

Patel has faced plenty of criticism in the press, as we noted in a May 2025 post. From that report:

FBI Director Kash Patel has come under fire on several fronts recently. Perhaps the most searing accusation against Patel is that he isn't serious about his job. In fact, a former FBI official said Patel has been seen more at nightclubs than at work. Is it a problem if Patel would rather boogie at clubs than show up on the job? One of my journalism brethren has concluded it might be a good thing.

Matt Ford, of The New Republic (TNR), explains, under the headline "Please Stop Trying to Get Kash Patel Fired; The last thing this country needs is an FBI director who wants to show up for work and zealously enact Trump’s agenda." The headline, on its own, is a hoot, and Ford proceeds to make a well-reasoned argument. He also points out that Patel is not just a nightclub hound; he also shows up regularly at sports events, sometimes with famous guests. Ford writes:

Last month, Washington Capitals captain Alex Ovechkin scored his 875th goal in the National Hockey League, surpassing Wayne Gretzky’s long-standing record. Gretzky himself was present for the away game against the New York Islanders. When the cameras cut to Gretzky in the stands, a slightly less familiar face was seated with him: FBI Director Kash Patel.

As the recipient of such coverage, Patel should be used to feeling heat from the press. So what was it about The Atlantic story that got him so riled up? And was Patel wise to file a defamation lawsuit against the magazine? 

We will examine those and other questions in upcoming posts. We invite you to stay tuned.

Mary Trump: Her uncle Donald misfires, turning Iran from a non-factor to a menace in the Middle East, while he seeks an easy exit that is a mess in the making

Mary Trump and her best-selling family memoir (Politico)

How many ways has the war in Iran been a disaster for Donald Trump? One, he has been reduced to using his failing social-media site to sell weight-loss drugs. Two, after poking Iran hard enough and long enough to turn it from an afterthought into a genuine menace in the Middle East, Trump now is trying desperately to wriggle out of a war he started. He is so desperate, in fact, that he is threatening to commit war crimes against Iran if it does not reach a deal to end the war on U.S. terms. That is the assessment of Mary L. Trump, Donald's niece. As a licensed psychologist and best-selling author, Mary probably knows how Donald's brain works better than anyone on the planet.

Trying to think along with Donald Trump cannot be a pleasant task. But Mary, in an effort to warn the public about a clear and present danger, has been willing to take it on -- and a review of "Too Much and Never Enough," her best-selling family memoir, can be read at this link. Lord knows, Mary probably could write a new book just on the cow pies Donald has stepped in over the past 8-10 days while trying to extricate himself from a war that never should have started -- and likely wouldn't have if he had even two or three competent people on his staff. Alas, Donald thought he needed loyalists instead of qualified people around him, so now he is left to flail about, trying not to drown in the kind of political doo-doo created by cratering approval ratings.

At this point, Donald Trump might not care what happens to the United States, as long as he doesn't wind up wearing an orange jumpsuit in the post-Republican era that hopefully awaits us. It's hardly a comforting thought that an American president might not care if the U.S. sinks or swims. But to borrow a metaphor from his beloved world of golf, that is par for the course for Donald J. Trump; he's a malignant narcissist, and that's how such a personality disorder presents itself.

Thankfully, Mary Trump knows far more than her uncle about matters of the mind and of government, as quickly becomes apparent in "The Daily Wrap Up" post yesterday at "The Good in Us," her Substack page. Mary writes:

This weekend, after Donald’s fake ceasefire was threatened by Iranians firing on an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, he went on his failing social media site, where he is now also trying to sell weight loss drugs. But mostly, he was interested in threatening more war crimes.

He wrote, “Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz, a total violation of our ceasefire. My representatives are going to Islamabad Pakistan. Iran recently announced that they were closing the strait, which is strange because our blockade has already closed it.” To which I must say, as myself, you cannot close something that was already closed.

But let me continue with Donald’s very well considered, measured, and sane social media post.

They are the ones that, with the closed passage, lose $500 million a day. The United States loses nothing. In fact, many ships are headed right now to the US.

Here is more of what he had to say:

Iran, always wanting to be the tough guy. We are offering a very fair and reasonable deal, and in the spirit of being reasonable and fair, I hope they take it.

And then he continued with this:

I hope they take it because if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant and every single bridge in Iran. No more Mr. Nice guy. If they don’t take the deal, it will be my honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran by other presidents for the last 47 years. It is time for the Iran killing machine to end. 

Donald uses the phrase "No more Mr. Nice guy" -- and in addition to being an apparent tribute to another golf aficionado, rock star Alice Cooper -- it also raises this question: When has Donald Trump ever been a nice guy? (Trivia Time: Has Donald Trump ever played golf with Alice Cooper? The Answer: Yes, and Coop says both he and the prez have been known to cheat at golf.)Then Donald refers to American presidents playing political softball with Iran, raising this question: Are we supposed to believe Donald Trump actually has studied presidential history? While we ponder that question, let's return to Substack for more insights from Mary Trump, who writes:

I think it is important to make the subtext clear, because we know what he is saying. He is threatening to commit war crimes if his demands are not met.

The reason he has to make those demands is because he, single-handedly, has rehabilitated Iran as a factor in the Middle East. Iran is now more powerful than it was before the war and probably than it has been in decades.

Well done, Donald.

The only way he can get himself out of the corner he has painted himself into is to blow the whole country up. Remember the threats of genocide?

Donald has hinted at peace talks this week as the end of a ceasefire draws near. But the process has been so filled with chaos and mixed messages, no one on either side seems to know who might, and who might not, appear. That brings us to Donald's curious "Board of Peace" and his tanking approval ratings. Mary tackles both subjects -- and more:

According to Iran state media, they have not yet decided if they will send a delegation to Pakistan to negotiate with Donald’s representatives. And here is the thing. Why would they?

What they are doing is working. Their propaganda campaign against Donald in particular, and the American government in general, is working. It is driving Donald crazy. It is getting under his skin.

And despite Donald’s protestations to the contrary, by controlling the Strait of Hormuz and starting to impose a toll on every ship allowed through, Iran is getting richer and American taxpayers are suffering.

Last I checked, gasoline is still roughly $3.50 a gallon more expensive than it was before Donald’s illegal and unconstitutional war of choice.

Turns out that, speaking of the American taxpayer, we are going to be providing Donald with $10 billion more for his completely corrupt and inconsequential Board of Peace.

Here is what Donald had to say this weekend:

The Board of Peace is showing how a better future can be built, starting right here in this room. I want to let you know that the United States is going to make a contribution of $10 billion to the Board of Peace. Thank you.

One, with whose authorization? And two, for what?

Mary seems to be catching a whiff of Donald-style corruption. My nose has picked up the same scent. Mary writes: 

Have you noticed that none of the countries on the so called Board of Peace, of which Donald is the chair in perpetuity, is doing anything to help resolve the problems in the Middle East.

Let us check in on Donald’s polling.

Here is what Steve Kornacki has to say:

Donald Trump’s standing with the public now is an approval rating in our poll of just 37 percent. The last time this poll reported out a couple of months ago, it was 39 percent. The big change from then to now, of course, is the launch of the war in Iran and everything that has continued to happen there. So down to 37 percent approval for Trump. Mention Iran and look at this. A big driver of that clearly is how the war is going. Only a third of adults approve of Trump’s handling of the war in Iran. There is a quarter, I should say, one quarter of Republicans say they disapprove. Those who call themselves Republicans. That might be something to keep an eye on. This continues to be a problem for the president -- inflation, the cost of living.

On top of that, somebody in Donald’s administration just told a journalist that gas is most likely going to be above $3 a gallon for the foreseeable future, maybe into 2027, which, by the way, is probably overly optimistic.

So Donald’s polling numbers are in free fall across the board. He is underwater in every single category.

In Mary's estimation, a large segment of the American public -- with a helping hand from the "liberal media" -- is quick to prop up Donald Trump, even when he least deserves it. Here is how Mary puts it: 

We have to act like [Donald's polling numbers are OK], because Americans have very short-term memories. What we need to worry about is what happens if a deal is made in Iran that the American media pretends is some kind of win for Donald.

Because let us be real. No matter what happens, this has been an epic disaster of his making. But if it can be spun differently, it will be spun differently.

One reason for such misplaced optimism is because, let us say for the sake of argument, the Strait opens tomorrow and 100 percent of pre-war traffic is allowed through. Do you know how many weeks it is going to take for us to catch up? Do you know how many weeks, if not months, it is going to take for prices to come down?

As is often the case, oil and gas prices go up quickly, but it takes a very long time to bring them down. So this should be an issue at least through the midterms. Thankfully, this is a bad issue for the Republicans and, of course, for Donald.

But let us not get complacent, because there is a chance that Donald might be able to come to some deal with Iran that is not completely disastrous for the United States, even though it will still be bad for us and good for Iran.

Republicans have griped for so long about a liberal bias in the mainstream media that many Americans have come to believe it. Mary Trump is not one of those believers:

It is the American media’s knee-jerk reaction to turn anything into Donald’s benefit. So we have to worry that the media is going to spin any kind of deal in a way that makes him look good. And because American voters have very short-term memories, they may just think that everything is fine.

In a way, of course, that they did not when Biden was in office.

Why?

Because the American media’s default position is to support Republicans and make them look better than they are, or at least less bad than they are. So we are going to keep an eye on these polls, because they are epically bad for Donald, and they are in free fall. He is underwater across the board. So my advice?

Let us keep it that way.