So Sarah Fitzpatrick, a writer for The Atlantic who calls herself a journalist, made a huge mistake when she wrote that hit piece against the Director of the FBI, Kash Patel. What she did not appear to realize is that basing an entire story on anonymous whistleblowers—or sources, or whatever you want to call them—does not hold up when the facts contradict their assertions.
The Breach Allegation
The first issue involves the allegation that Patel was unresponsive and that officials had to use breaching equipment to ensure he was okay. Essentially, they claim they had to smash the doors down. This can be easily verified by any examination of personnel records regarding the requisition or use of such equipment.
The “MIA” Claim
The second issue involves the broader allegation that he is “MIA” (missing in action). First of all, nobody works harder than Kash Patel; this is well known from his reputation. All one has to do is check his work emails—the timestamps and the content. If they are substantive in both quantity and quality, it would directly contradict the assertion that he is missing.
Allegations of Alcohol Abuse
The third point concerns claims that he is an alcoholic or abuses alcohol. There are plenty of people who would have gone on the record to say that Patel is “with it,” yet none of those people appear in the article.
Conclusion
The purpose of this article is to paint him as a danger to national security, but Patel has been a steadfast public servant. On his watch, crime has appreciably decreased, which suggests that Fitzpatrick was simply out to get him. Her story is malicious. She claims to be an award-winning journalist, and while lawyers are ready and willing to take action, she wouldn’t even provide the name of her editor when asked.
I suspect The Atlantic believes they can damage his reputation and spark an investigation to finish the job, but I think they have made a significant miscalculation.
Personal opinion, time, device, premises.
Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal 