Kash Patel’s ‘Leadership’ Is Pretty Much Just Libel Lawsuits And Lie Detectors
from the failing-upward-administration dept
Kash Patel is one of the rare Trump political appointees who actually has some experience that might be useful in his current position. But it wasn’t his past experience as a federal public defender and prosecutor that prompted Trump to elevate him to the post of FBI Director. Instead, it was his willingness to engage in politically motivated investigations, along with his willingness to host pro-MAGA podcasts when their original hosts were in prison on federal charges.
Patel serves at the president’s pleasure, as all political appointees do. But Trump’s pleasure is more unpredictable than most. Perhaps realizing his time frame for making hay is extremely short, Patel has done very little in terms of leadership, preferring to spend his time (allegedly) partying it up when not (allegedly) failing to gain the trust and respect of the Bureau.
When not saying stupid things on social media or during press conferences, Patel likes to leverage his position to do things like… hang out in the US Olympic hockey team locker room as they celebrated their gold medal win.
Consequently, plenty has been published about Patel’s (alleged) inability to stay sober and/or do his damn job. A shocking expose of Patel’s (alleged) constant insobriety prompted Patel to respond in the fashion he’s been accustomed to during his tenure as FBI Director. He filed a libel lawsuit against The Atlantic over its reporting on his months of (allegedly) unprofessional behavior.
Hilariously, Patel and his lawyers relied on a previous lawsuit he had filed against MSNBC for its earlier reporting on pretty much the same subject, taking particular objection to this statement made by reporter Frank Figliuzzi:
Yeah, well, reportedly, he’s been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover building.
Perhaps he should have waited until his first lawsuit had been fully litigated. The lawsuit he used as part of his arguments in favor of “actual malice” was dismissed, with the judge finding in favor of MSNBC and Figliuzzi.
So, this is one the things Patel seems to be involved in daily, which isn’t actually a part of his day-to-day duties as FBI Director. The other thing he seems to be doing on a regular basis is ensuring the people who still work for him won’t want to work for him for much longer.
FBI Director Kash Patel ordered the polygraphing of more than two dozen former and current members of his security detail, as well as other staff, and has been described as being in panic mode to save his job and find leakers among his team, according to two people briefed on the development.
[…]
The director has also avoided meeting this week with some key operational leaders of the bureau, the people said, raising concerns inside the FBI about Patel’s ability to stay abreast of pressing threats and investigations in order to make the best decisions.
Will this reporting prompt another lawsuit from Kash Patel? I would hope his lawyers are smarter than Patel appears to be, because going back to the same well so quickly following a libel lawsuit loss might add sanctions to the humiliation of another public loss in a federal court.
The funniest thing about this reporting is that the FBI official spokesman, Ben Williamson, refused to deny the use of polygraph tests, instead deciding to deny the assertion that Patel isn’t regularly attending meetings with key FBI officials. It’s not like Williamson couldn’t have just lied about the polygraphs. This is an administration that is willing to lie about pretty much anything at any time. Having their lies exposed doesn’t regularly result in firing, which means blatantly lying has nearly no professional consequences. But Williamson just decided to ignore a question he didn’t want to answer.
The refusal to even address this claim implies that it’s true. And why shouldn’t it be? This is nothing new for Kash Patel and his particular version of the FBI:
Since Kash Patel took office as the director of the F.B.I., the bureau has significantly stepped up the use of the lie-detector test, at times subjecting personnel to a question as specific as whether they have cast aspersions on Mr. Patel himself.
In interviews and polygraph tests, the F.B.I. has asked senior employees whether they have said anything negative about Mr. Patel, according to two people with knowledge of the questions and others familiar with similar accounts. In one instance, officials were forced to take a polygraph as the agency sought to determine who disclosed to the news media that Mr. Patel had demanded a service weapon, an unusual request given that he is not an agent. The number of officials asked to take a polygraph is in the dozens, several people familiar with the matter said, though it is unclear how many have specifically been asked about Mr. Patel.
Those were the (alleged) facts on the ground as of July 2025. Since then, Patel hasn’t done much to distance himself from allegations of misusing his position for personal gain, whether it’s trying to get special treatment from the Bureau itself, or crashing Olympic celebrations just because he can.
I find it hard to believe even Patel himself thinks he’s actually leading the FBI. After all, this is the same guy who (allegedly!) thought he’d been fired when he bungled one too many login attempts. But he’s the perfect guy for the Trump administration: someone who spreads falsehoods, yells “fake news” whenever publicly criticized, files lost-cause lawsuits against people protected by the First Amendment, and will quietly accept his dismissal whenever Trump decides to turn on him.
Filed Under: alliteration, failure, fbi, kash patel, leaks, lie detector tests, polygraphs, trump administration


Comments on “Kash Patel’s ‘Leadership’ Is Pretty Much Just Libel Lawsuits And Lie Detectors”
I’m sure he’ll get to the truth by running lie detector tests on the people who know lie detectors are bunk and only use them to heap further stress on suspects they’re trying to terrorise into confessions.
Re: Lie detectors don't work
I wonder why those people who know that lie detectors don’t work haven’t already told Patel this? Or perhaps they have and he doesn’t believe them?
Re: Re:
There’s certainly no evidence that he listens to people who know what they’re talking about.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure that’s SOP for the entire Trump regime, at least for the people in leadership positions. The only person those chumps listen to has no idea what he’s talking about 95% of the time—and I’m convinced the other 5% of the time is him getting lucky.
Re: Re: Re:2
-> I’m pretty sure that’s SOP for the entire Trump regime
Birds of a feather…
Re: Re:
Eh…. They have some value as an investigative tool. They aren’t accurate enough to be admissible in courts for the vast majority of uses though.
Re: Re: Re:
They’re literally just for pressuring idiots into confessing.
Re: Re: Re: They don't work
They don’t work on people who know about them.
Penn and Teller did a episode on them as part of their “Bullshit” series. They only way they work is that, after the interview, the subject is told that they failed and should confess now. Some people do confess.
It’s just a sophisticated con, using “technology” that looks authentic.
Re: Re: Re:2
The Wire even has a scene where the police use a copier as a fake polygraph machine as part of an interrogation.
Re: Re:
The Trump admin is jam packed with people who see something in an action movie and accept it as real. Movies treat polygraph as real, so it’s real to them.
Re:
Americans love their polygraphs. In almost the whole western world America stands alone in still allowing polygraph “evidence” to be presented at trial.
You’re right, it’s interrogation theatre.
Re: Re:
Polygraph results are not generally admissible in court in the United States. Not sure where you get the idea that America does this. We don’t.
Kash Patel is just a moron who doesn’t know that.
Re: Re:
As far as I’m aware, most courts in the country treat polygraph results as so lacking in credibility that they can’t count as evidence at trial.
Re: Re: Re:
If the defendant or witness gets through the grift and others don’t; meaning they gathered verified evidence against other people by doing their polygraph grift; then they can testify about how they gathered the polygraph evidence on the stand as evidence… often.
The prosecutor, the defense, and the judge usually have to all agree to admit it as evidence. There are some other limited uses of it also.
Imagine having to report to the most epically unqualified, undeserving, incompetent boss you’ve ever had and then being forced to take a polygraph and asked whether you have ever “cast aspersions” on them. LMFAO.
Re:
RFK Jr. ordered polygraphs too or was it one of the other epically unqualified, undeserving, incompetent clowns?
Re: Re:
MAGA. Giving clowns a bad name.
You left out his custom KA$H Woodford Reserve.
Because nothing says you’re not a a taxpayer funded alcoholic on a binge like a generous supply of personalized bourbon bottles.
You forgot something.
You’re so unfair to Kash. He also provides booze and crosseyed memes!
As they say, “a liar won’t believe anyone else.” People who peddle lies for a living don’t want the truth. They just want to know who is disloyal.
His paranoia about how he is perceived by one and all is gobsmacking and extremely childish and petulant. It’s also one huge inferiority complex he’s lugging around.
Re:
Welcome to the Trump regime—that’s how everyone is from the top down. I’d be surprised if Patel, Hegseth, or anyone else in a similar spot cares about how their subordinates perceive them for any reason other than “I need to stay on Trump’s good side”. And Trump is a walking case study in inferiority: He only ran for president because Barack Obama mocked him to his face, and in every metric possible, Obama was a more effective president than him, which would probably eat at Trump even more than it does if the racist son of a bitch wasn’t riddled with dementia.
So a polygraph is a machine, will wonders never cease. I always thought it was a drunk parrot with a pen strapped to one leg wandering around on graph paper.
Re:
That’s about all it’s useful for in court, so they could have saved money and went with the parrot.