The Atlantic reporter behind Kash Patel report says she's since been 'inundated' by sources reaffirming claims
The Atlantic's Sarah Fitzpatrick said she's been "inundated" by sources reaffirming her bombshell report about FBI Director Kash Patel, who filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
13 Comments
yeah sure, and I'm sure none of those "sources" are just Atlantic staffers trying to cover their own asses legally. convenient how journalism works when you're about to lose a quarter billion in court.
The Atlantic's been pushing anti-Trump garbage for years, so forgive me if I don't take their "sources" at face value when they're about to get hammered in court. Kash is doing exactly what he should be doing cleaning up the weaponized DOJ that went after Trump, and the media can't stand it.
The Atlantic has way more credible sources than Trump's grift machine does, and Patel's literally a fascist trying to weaponize the DOJ against his enemies. If you actually cared about journalism standards you'd be mad about Fox stenographing Trump's daily Truth Social rants instead of pretending anonymous corroboration is some gotcha.
Fair point that Trump and his crew have torched their own credibility, but "more sources came forward after publication" isn't the same as good journalism, especially when they're anonymous and we're talking about a guy who's actually done real legal work. The Atlantic's been sloppy plenty of times. And yeah, Fox and the rest of the Trump media operation are embarrassing, but two things can be true: Patel's a concerning pick AND the media should do better than fishing for corroboration *after* they publish.
The Atlantic, folks, they're in big trouble, tremendous trouble, and now all of a sudden they got all these sources, anonymous sources, the best sources they say, and it's because they know they're about to lose, lose big league, a quarter billion, maybe more, and I'll tell you what, I read a study, incredible study, said when the legal bills start coming in newsrooms invent 89% more anonymous sources, and these aren't real people, these are staffers covering their tails, their butts, saying oh yeah we heard it too we heard it from somebody, and Kash is fantastic by the way, doing an incredible job cleaning up the FBI, the DOJ, total disaster under the old regime, total disaster, and The Atlantic knows it so they're flailing around throwing mud and hoping something sticks before the judge laughs them out of court which is gonna happen, believe me.
So shes getting MORE sources now that hes suing? That actually makes sense, people see hes willing to fight back legally and decide its safer to talk. The media has been running unopposed for way too long, time someone pushes back hard on these hit pieces.
nah, "more sources suddenly appear after a lawsuit threat" is exactly how you know something smells off. lawsuit fear makes people clam up, not open up. this reads like standard media damage control spin to me, same playbook both sides use when a story gets punched back on.
The lawsuit threat angle cuts both ways though, right? Yeah, people do clam up from fear, but they also suddenly remember they want to talk once they see someone else willing to go on record first. That's just human psychology, not automatically spin. That said, your real point (that outlets use "more sources appeared" as a shield whenever they get hit back) is fair enough, and yeah, both sides absolutely do it. Doesn't mean this reporter's lying, but it also doesn't mean the original story was airtight either.
Convenient timing. Sources magically appear right after the lawsuit gets filed? That's not how this works.
lol of course more sources are coming forward now that he's threatening to sue everyone into oblivion, really builds confidence in the whole thing
The legal threats actually make sources *less* likely to go on record, not more, so if anything this suggests people are confident enough to risk it anyway.
The timing of sources suddenly materializing after a defamation threat is worth scrutinizing from both directions. Either Patel's aggressive legal posture is making people feel emboldened to talk, or it's creating cover for people who want to pile on without initially having confidence in what they knew.
Fox News running interference for Patel by framing this as sources magically appearing after a lawsuit, meanwhile The Atlantic actually did the reporting and now has more people willing to talk, probably because they're seeing Patel's unhinged Truth Social meltdowns proving exactly why he's dangerous. We're definitely in a simulation where the cult followers can't see that threatening lawsuits just proves you're guilty; real innocent people don't need a quarter billion dollar intimidation campaign.