Prosecutor drops BAD NEWS on Kash Patel

You're watching The Legal Breakdown, Glenn. It looks like the FBI director, Kash Patel, has found himself in some hot water. In the aftermath of The Atlantic's reporting about his purported drinking problem as director of the FBI, Kash Patel has promised a $250 million defamation lawsuit. And so, first question here, what are the risks? If it turns out that The Atlantic's reporting is correct, what are the risks of Kash Patel continuing on with his own $250 million lawsuit?

Well Brian, I think the most direct risk is that Kash Patel will be put under oath and he will have to answer questions subject to the penalties of perjury about these incidents that were reported by the Atlantic. You know, incidents of excessive drinking, incapacitation, erratic behavior, potential security issues, and you know, if he were to lie under oath,

that would be a federal felony offense. So that is the biggest risk. There's a secondary risk that if it turns out his suit proves to be frivolous you know the court could award him to pay the attorney's fees for the other side. I have a feeling the Atlantic's attorney's fees will be consequential but you know Kash Patel does not have the best track record when

he's been put under oath and he had to testify. And we can talk about that down the road, but you know, as of right now, it looks like Kash Patel is taking a play out of Donald Trump's playbook. Somebody, you know, publishes something that is unflattering and immediately you run to court and try to use the court system to send the signal whether accurately or not that oh no no no this is a bunch of lies this is a bunch of fake news but you know what when it comes to a defamation suit the devil's in the details and when

I see the Atlantic reporting saying that they interviewed more than two dozen sources now it doesn't say whether they were all FBI employees but you know what Brian, he is not a well-liked director of the FBI. He has caused so much upheaval within the organization itself, you know, engendered by him wrongfully terminating so many special agents for simply doing the job that was assigned to them and doing it well and

honestly and faithfully that it wouldn't surprise me if there were lots and lots and lots of sources among the two dozen plus people that the Atlantic says it

bases this reporting on. Now you had mentioned that one consequence of this of Cash Patel losing this case, would be that he would have to pay the attorney's fees for the Atlantic. Is there any way that Kash Patel could try and claim that he's not suing in his personal capacity, but rather that he's represented by the federal government to try and move

that payment over from himself to the taxpayers? You know, he has brought this suit and I haven't read the entire lawsuit, full disclosure, but you know, it smacks of being brought in his personal capacity, even though, you know, he is the director of the FBI. The FBI is not suing the Atlantic. It is Kash Patel. So you know, they will have to argue over

whether he has any kind of a straight faced claim that he is, you know, bringing this defamation suit in his official capacity as director of the FBI. But at the end of the day, if there's a judgment that's entered against him, that this was a frivolous suit, it was a baseless suit,

and the judge is actually considering awarding attorney's fees to the Atlantic, which frankly I think is not terribly likely, but if it happens, I would suspect Kash Patel would be on the hook personally to satisfy any judgment that a judge might issue

directing him to pay the opposing counsel's fees.

You know, Glenn, we have seen instances that kind of back up the general claims that are made in this story. For example, we all watched with our own eyes as Kash Patel took a government jet over to Milan to chug beers like a 19-year-old frat boy

in the locker room of the USA men's hockey team. To what extent does stuff like that have an impact on this case more broadly?

Well, it will be relevant evidence in a defamation suit, whether, you know, he was drinking, whether he was drinking on the job, whether he was drinking to excess, whether the reports are accurate and sort of supported by witness interviews that, you know, one of the allegations is that he couldn't even be sort of, you know, rousted awake in a room behind the locked door. And the reporting is there was a request made for what is basically a battering ram.

It's a device used to breach a locked door the reporting is there was a request made that that equipment be brought for purposes of getting into the room in which Kash Patel was apparently located you know Brian there are going to be records of that you know and there's video of him chugging beers with the Olympic hockey team you know that is you know, at a minimum kind of unflattering and unseemly for the FBI director to be doing, especially if he's using, you know, government

resources to get himself there. But all of that will be relevant evidence in this defamation suit.

Now, you had mentioned before while you were talking about this that if this lawsuit does indeed go forward and Kash Patel is deposed, that if he lies while under oath, it's a federal felony offense. To what extent can Donald Trump offer a pardon to basically absolve him of committing that crime?

Well, you know, even even worse, before you get to the pardon stage, he could just direct his Department of Justice not to pursue any investigation if Kash Patel was suspected of potentially lying under oath during a deposition. You know, when you lie in a court proceeding under oath, that is typically a five-year felony offense.

And yes, you know, the end game would be Donald Trump could always pardon him, but even if this DOJ, Donald Trump's dirty DOJ, at least his dirty DOJ officials, opted not to investigate potential perjury, lying under oath, a future law-abiding administration and Department of Justice could certainly investigate, and if the evidence supported it, indict and prosecute Kash Patel

in the event he lied under oath in a criminal case. So it would require a presidential pardon to sort of cut that off at the pass. But you know, I can't help but mention some of the challenges Kash Patel has had in court previously.

You know, this is probably long since receded from our memories but there was a trial in Colorado where the question was whether Donald Trump had engaged in insurrection and if so should he be disqualified by virtue of the 14th Amendment from being on a presidential ballot, holding an office in the future because you know section 3 of the 14th Amendment from being on a presidential ballot, holding an office in the future because, you know, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says, listen,

if you take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and thereafter you engage in insurrection or give aid and comfort to those who do, you are disqualified. You're ineligible to hold office. You know, Kash Patel testified in that trial out in Colorado on behalf of Donald Trump, and people may not remember, but the judge did not credit Kash Patel's testimony. Now, criminal litigators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, even civil litigators

will understand the implications of that. Somebody who is now serving as the director of the FBI was once found not to be a credible witness by a judge at a trial. You know what that means? That means that prosecutors would be prohibited from sponsoring his testimony in the future.

In other words, he couldn't even be put on the stand as a government witness, a prosecution witness. Why? Because what he would be cross-examined on is, well, wait a minute, Kash Patel or Director Patel, if he was still director of the FBI, a judge previously found your testimony was not credible.

She did not credit your testimony. Why in the world would this jury believe what you're saying today under oath? And on top of that, Brian, our viewers may remember the reporting that Kash Patel was put in front of the grand jury, a federal grand jury investigating Donald Trump's suspected classified documents crimes down at Mar-a-Lago and what did Kash Patel do? He invoked his Fifth Amendment right

against self-incrimination and the law only permits you to do that if your truthful testimony would make it seem like you committed a crime, would implicate you in a crime. So listen, he has not had very good luck when he has, you know, had to raise his right hand, be administered an oath to tell the truth. He really has not performed all that admirably.

Glenn, I want to take like a 30,000 foot view of this whole thing. What does it say more broadly when you have all of these administration officials, including Trump himself, that are relentlessly going after these media outlets and threatening these massive lawsuits? Donald Trump just sued the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion over the publishing of that letter that Trump purportedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his birthday, where it was shaped in in the figure of a young woman that was summarily dismissed by a judge wouldn't even let this thing move forward and now we have something along the very same lines by Kash Patel a massive quarter of a

billion dollar defamation suit where you know look we'll see what happens when this thing if this thing moves forward but it doesn't feel like what Patel is contending here really stands up to scrutiny. So what is, what are your thoughts more broadly about the fact that you have these administration officials who continuously try and chill free speech by, by threatening these massive lawsuits?

Brian, it feels like a potential misuse of the court system, you know, not, not necessarily because you have really been done wrong. I mean, you know, he's gonna have to prove actual malice, that the Atlantic knew that they were publishing these lies about him, and beyond that, if there is actual malice, which is going to be an uphill climb, that his reputation, Kash Patel's reputation, or his financial prospects, financial standing,

have been injured by what the Atlantic published about him to the tune of a quarter of a billion dollars. Can I just ask our viewers if they think Kash Patel's reputation is, you know, so strong and unimpeachable, you know, pristine that damaging it is worth a quarter of a billion dollars.

I mean, it's kind of laughable in my estimation, like Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal. And as you indicated, the court has thrown that out. The court did let him try to amend his complaint, which was woefully inadequate the first time around. But this feels like using the court system,

you know, not as a shield against somebody doing you wrong, but as a sword, just using the process as a sword to put people through all kinds of hell, having to hire lawyers and spend lots of money and maybe spend sleepless nights. It's a little bit of a variation. It feels like a variation on the vindictive prosecution scheme that Donald Trump is forever

perpetrating against his perceived enemies.

And finally, last question here, Glenn, what are next steps in terms of this defamation lawsuit and what happens in the event that a judge comes to the same conclusion in this case as the judge did with the Donald Trump Wall Street Journal case where that was dismissed? What would happen in that instance?

So you know, there will be a first of of all there has to be an answer filed by the Atlantic because right now the complaint the lawsuit itself was just filed by cash Patel and I think they'll have about 30 days to respond and then they're going to fight what's called summary judgment. They're going to try to get this thing thrown out saying it is woefully inadequate on the complaint, on the lawsuit that Kash Patel filed. But if it survives that summary judgment,

that very early summary dismissal of the lawsuit, then discovery is on. And then the Atlantic is gonna be able to propound written questions first called interrogatories, which have to be answered under oath. And then they're gonna depose Kash Patel. They're gonna put him under oath, they're

gonna have a court reporter there, and they're gonna wear him out and I'll tell you my money is not on Kash Patel given some of the struggles he has had testifying. We've also seen his poor performance as a witness before Congress in these congressional hearings. So you know, if I had to bet my one dollar, my betting limit, Brian, I would say this case is probably going to go away well in advance of ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

And ironically enough, that would probably be Cash Patel's best outcome here, that this thing actually gets dismissed so as not to embarrass him even further. But again, like you said, we'll keep an eye on this and for those who are watching right now, if you'd like to stay on top of this and all other legal news, the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm gonna put those links right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video.

I'm gonna put those links right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. It's completely free to subscribe, but a great way to support our work. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen.