FBI director contends judge has little choice but to accept his lawsuit, complains he was 'never interviewed' before 'ongoing' effort to 'destroy' him

In a late-night response to the Atlantic's motion to dismiss his defamation lawsuit, FBI Director Kash Patel emphasized that a federal judge "must" draw "all inferences" in his favor "at this stage" of the case. Recent history suggests, however, that this may not be enough to conclude his complaint is sufficient.

The Atlantic in July formally moved to throw out the $250 million lawsuit, arguing that Patel had failed to state a claim when he categorically denied and sued over various allegations of "excessive drinking" and instances of being "unreachable behind locked doors."

That is the same dismissal strategy that MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) analyst and former FBI counterintelligence assistant director Frank Figliuzzi successfully employed to defeat a separate Patel lawsuit over "nightclub" claims in April.

The judge in the Figliuzzi case granted the dismissal. Federal rules require that when considering a motion to dismiss, the judge must take the allegations "as true and viewed [them] in the light most favorable" to Patel, and the Texas jurist concluded the allegations did "not state a claim that is plausible on its face."

Notably, Patel cited the Figliuzzi case to claim that the Atlantic and staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick willfully "avoid[ed] receiving information that would refute their narrative" and published "pure fantasy" about him that "echoed a similar fabrication previously aired by […] Figliuzzi on Morning Joe[.]"

The FBI director's attorneys with Binnall Law Group on Monday asserted that his complaint against the Atlantic "plausibly alleges falsity" and a plot to "destroy" him, and as a result Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan "must" move the Washington, D.C., case forward.

The high-profile plaintiff essentially alleged that the Atlantic didn't believe his denials and published its "hit piece" anyway because it has an ax to grind against the director.

"Defendants manufactured a narrative to destroy Dir. Patel. One that they knew to be a lie. Each statement is a lie, and provably so. While Dir. Patel has a profound and deep respect for the Constitution, Defendants' lies are not protected under the guise of the First Amendment. At this stage, where all inferences must be drawn in Director Patel's favor, Defendants' motion must be denied," the response said, claiming that the publication "had motives to lie, and never interviewed Director Patel himself."

Prior to the story's publication, Patel told the Atlantic, "Print it, all false, I'll see you in court—bring your checkbook."

Patel attorney Jesse Binnall did not immediately respond to Law&Crime's request for comment. Neither did a spokesperson for the Atlantic.

The Atlantic's Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg previously said in a statement that the lawsuit is "politically motivated retaliation" and a "meritless" action that "should be dismissed as a matter of law."

Separately, the magazine has sought to halt discovery until the judge rules on the motion to dismiss, except for discovery of "purported internal DOJ and FBI information" that the director's complaint "repeatedly relies on […] to attempt to refute the Article's reporting[.]"

Patel's team responded by calling that "discovery for me but not for thee."

"They seek to open the flood gates of discovery on their end, while shielding themselves from any discovery in the other direction. Additionally, they fail to carry their burden to establish good cause for any stay of discovery. Time is of the essence in this case, which involves the ongoing defamation and damage to the Director of the FBI. Staying this case now would only delay its ultimate resolution, which is not in the interest of this Court, Dir. Patel, or the public," the filing said.