Kash Patel UNDERMINES His OWN Lawsuit INSTANTLY?!?!

Well, that was faster than I thought for Kash Patel to wreck his own lawsuit that he's filed against the Atlantic for $250 million for purported defamation. It only took one press conference, 24 hours after he filed the lawsuit, for him to screw the lawsuit. I'm Michael Popock. You're here on Legal AF. Let's get down to the new reporting about Kash Patel's lawsuit. I knew it was a dangerous strategy for Kash Patel to sue The Atlantic because he didn't like their reporting that according to them and their sources, including a couple in the FBI, Kash Patel has an excessive drinking problem, among other issues with his performance.

They also started the article, which they published on the 17th of April, with an event that they say happened in which Kash Patel was locked out of his computer seven or eight times, had a meltdown and a freakout, thinking that he was fired. And that led him to lose his you-know-what until he was convinced that it was an error or an issue with the system and that it wasn't him being fired. So let's tune in to Kash Patel being asked about that particular incident during a press conference. Now remember, we have the complaint. You have it too. It's up on LegalIF

Substack for paid members to read. And in it, in order to explain away the issue that leads off the Atlantic article, they had a paragraph in the complaint, his lawyers, these are his lawyers, these are, remember now, these are his lawyers. We're not making this up. So if we go to paragraph 23 of his own complaint, before we see what he says to the reporters, he says, the article's assertion that on April 10th, 2026, Director Patel panicked frantically, announcing he had been fired, engaged in a freakout, and is deeply concerned that his job is in jeopardy are false.

On April 10th, 2026, Patel had a routine technical problem logging into a government system, which was quickly fixed. Now let's play Cash Patel undermining his own complaint from the podium. Play the

clip.

You in court. Computer login issue. Just explain the computer login issue. You were not able to log into your lawsuit contends that you were not able to log into the system. What did you think after you were unable to log into the system?

Let's have a survey. How many of you people believe that's true? Hang on. Did you communicate you asked the question? true? Hang on. Did you communicate with anyone? You ask the question, let me answer it.

No, no, let me ask.

No, no.

Did you communicate with anyone that you thought you were fired after you were unable to log

into the- The problem with you and your report, don't cut me off. You ask the question. Straightforward question. It was never said, it never happened, and I will serve in this administration as long as the president and the attorney general want me to do so.

And every time you guys report false lies, every time you guys raise baseless questions, when we are here to talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center's $3 million decade-long scheme to fraudulently fleece Americans,

you are off topic.

It's a simple straightforward question. If you talk to anybody about whether you thought

you were a liar. The simple answer to your question is you are lying. And every time you do so, I've answered your question. It's simply as follows. I was never locked out of my systems. Anybody who says.

Your lawsuit says the opposite. Your lawsuit can tell you the truth.

Anyone that says the opposite, you're lost. You can anyone that says the opposite is lying.

Thank you.

You filed says that there is

many. Stop. You're being extraordinarily rude. And I know maybe that's part of your profession, but please just stop. If you ask a question, he can

answer it. And then now you're interrupting me. But just a little bit of respect, man, just a little bit of respect, man. Just a tiny little bit. Try it sometime. Good.

There are many problems with this lawsuit.

That being one of them, he's going to have to prove each and every allegation in his complaint that they're well-sourced allegations of his excessive drinking, including chapter and verse, bars and towns where it happened, is false. He knows that there's at least two members of his FBI, as he's I'm sure going on a mole hunt, have cooperated with the Atlantic in writing the article. He may not want to admit it to his lawyers, but he must know that eventually, and probably sooner rather than later,

there's going to be full disclosure and we're going to be able to see his credit card statements, video recordings of him in various places, and the like. Now, we've already seen public reporting of Kash Patel downing a bottle of beer,

chugging a bottle of beer in public during the locker room celebration for the hockey team, right? Seen that. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Because if the Atlantic is right,

there's gonna be videotape in every public place he's had a drink. Testimony of FBI agents and others around him about him being MIA. They would not have run that article if the First Amendment lawyers inside and outside the Atlantic had checked it. And he's not doing himself any favors in not remembering what's in his own complaint.

That just shows me, because I've had clients like this. First, they try to bullshit the lawyer. And the lawyer is smart and been around the block a few times. You listen to the story of your client and you say a version of, okay, now let me tell you what I'm sure really happened. And then you outline all of it.

And they say, wow, that's amazing. Right, because if I was able to figure it out now, how long do you think it's going to take the other side to figure it out? We're already figuring it out. There's already Freedom of Information Act requests out there to get from Kash Patel, a public figure in the federal government, all of his records about his drinking or not

drinking. And yet he's tripped up, let's call it an unforced error, by not even remembering what's in his own complaint. We know he can't remember what is in his own complaint. We've seen him in action during being cross examined by senators and congresspeople in the house. Who could ever forget the interview or the cross examination of Kash Patel about the Epstein files? Picture this now, what it will be like when he has to defend himself about what he's written in his own complaint. Play the clip.

Is the answer yes or no to whether or not you met with these women who were sexually abused and raped? Yesterday, you testified to Senator Kennedy that there was quote, no credible information that Epstein trafficked girls to anyone else and that you have quote continuously and publicly asked the public to come forward with more information and we'll look into it. Today in response to Mr. Massey's question you appear to say that the survivors were not credible. These are survivors. That's not at all what I said. Okay, great. I'm going to ask you this in a second, but let me tell you about the survivors. And let's bring them up here into the room. These are women who came to the Hill and testified that they were groomed and raped at the age of 14 and 16 years old. And they called to meet with

the president and to meet with the FBI and to have people investigate their claims. Some of them have never testified before. If you are so interested in getting the public to submit any information, why have you not met with them? You said you haven't met with them. Have you met with

them? I'll give you one more chance. My job as the FBI director is to invite all investigative leads.

Is the answer yes or no to whether or not you met with these women who were sexually abused and My job as the FBI director is to invite all investigative leads.

Is the answer yes or no to whether or not you met with these women who were sexually abused and raped?

Any insinuation by you or any people on your side that I am not manhunting child predators and sex traffickers, just look at this stat. Lou, who we we love here on Legal AF once used the Legal AF clip in order to cross examine about the Epstein files. He had this to say about Kash Patel needing to immediately resign and obtain help for what has been alleged in the Atlantic play the clip.

Thank you, Chairman Aguilar. February 25th of this year, Transportation Secretary Duffy posted a picture of Trump's cabinet and arrogantly boasted, best cabinet since 1776.

In less than two months, three of those cabinet secretaries are gone. Pam Bondi, Chrissy Noem, and now Laurie Chavez de Reamer. I know that Laurie Chavez de Reamer can now join Chrissy Noem at a fake position at the shield of the Americas.

The reality is that this cabinet's out of control incompetence and corruption have made it the worst cabinet since 1776, and Kash Patel is next. Kash Patel flew on taxpayers' dime to the Olympics, and on taxpayers' dime, partied and drank at the Olympics.

He's also instilled a culture of fear at the FBI, and he lied about the Epstein investigation when he said that there was no credible evidence that Epstein trafficked any victim to third parties. There's mountains of such evidence. And then this past week, The Atlantic put out an article that shows that Kaspardell appears to be a raging alcoholic. He should not be FBI director.

He should go seek help and treatment. When you put it all together, what are you left with? I think that the lawyers for Kash Patel have a deep, deep problem. If I were them, and I've done this before with certain clients I didn't completely trust, I made sure that the client verified the complaint. Under oath, it's called a verified pleading. And if you do a verified pleading, the reason you do it is that it usually requires

the other side to do a verified answer under oath. Then you can take the two pieces of paper and you can move for summary judgment. So if I'm really confident in my case or I'm not that confident in my client, I have the client, especially with allegations like this, sign it, sign on the dotted line. It helps protect my law license, which of course these people are not trying to protect. And you

know, it also kind of calls out the bullshit of the client. Really? You believe all that? This is all untrue? You never went to the Poodle Club? You never went to Ned's bar? You've never been publicly intoxicated? You've never missed a day of work? All of that? Okay. Sign here. I, Kash Patel, under penalty of perjury, swear and attest as follows. But that's missing here.

And that's, for me, a tremendous tell that the lawyers have made a mistake. One, filing the case and just adopting as gospel all of Kash Patel's arguments here. Now they watch the guy in a press conference. He can't even keep his own facts straight in what he wrote. That's the problem with not remembering, with things that aren't true. They're hard to remember, and they're hard

to remember consistently because they're not true. There are lots of other things in here that can be refuted once discovery opens. The way our system of civil cases work is you file the complaint, that's your initial pleading. The other side can file a motion to dismiss, to test the complaint against the pleading standard for defamation. In this case,

arguing, for instance, that it doesn't make out defamation, actual malice is not properly alleged specifically, and the rest. Then that gives the other side the opportunity, if the motion to dismiss is granted, well, usually one more chance sometimes to do an amended pleading. If they can't fix the problem, the case is over. Discovery, which is the exchange of documents and information and ultimately leading to depositions

in the case and expert testimony. Generally that starts off right now. There's a joint pretrial scheduling conference. There's the rules of federal, the federal rules of civil procedure. We've got a very good judge here in Emmett Sullivan who is very independent minded. And discovery generally starts.

It's not grounds to stop discovery when there's a motion to dismiss pending. Now the parties can agree, if the judge goes along with it, to put discovery in abeyance and just focus on the motion practice. That happens often.

Sometimes courts say, no, prepare your discovery, I'll consider the motion to dismiss and we'll reconvene in six months or so when I rule on it. Here, if I'm the Atlantic, I take a very aggressive action. I would probably do motion to dismiss and set Kash Patel for immediate deposition, especially after seeing his performance just now at a press conference. I'm going to continue to follow it through my lens of a practicing trial lawyer here

on Legal AF and this YouTube channel. Take a minute, hit the free subscribe button, help us to continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. I'm Michael Popock and I got some big news for our audience. Most of you know me as the co-founder of Midas Touch's Legal AF and the Legal AF YouTube channel or as a 35 35 year national trial lawyer.

Now building a what we started together on Legal AF, I've launched a new law firm, the Popak Firm, dedicated to obtaining justice through compassionate and zealous legal representation. At the Popak Firm, we are focused on obtaining justice for those who have been injured or damaged

by a life altering event, by securing the highest dollar recoveries. I've been tirelessly fighting for by securing the highest dollar recoveries. I've been tirelessly fighting for justice for the last 35 years.