The Press Continues to Pour Out Accusations Against Patel, but the Shots Remain Empty – RedState

It has become as clear as a bottle of 12-times column-distilled gin that the press is intent on bringing down FBI Director Kash Patel. And by “press,” I basically mean two outlets. For months, the tag-team at MS NOW of Ken Dilanian and Carol Leonnig has been focused on Patel, using his appearance in the locker room with the USA Hockey team as their springboard. Joining in the past few weeks has been Sarah Fitzpatrick at The Atlantic, and the ensuing hysteria is enough to make any cogent-thinking individual reach for the hooch.

So at MS NOW, the dysfunctional duo detailed that Kash Patel is acting irrationally and calling for polygraphs to be performed on two dozen individuals at the Bureau. Ken & Carol also state that Patel has “walled himself off from senior bureau leaders” following the press reports. 

And with these charges, we now have the all-too-familiar pattern seen. Who told them about his call for the truth detectors? “Two people briefed on the development.” And who is it claiming Patel has shut off the leadership figures in the agency? That is “according to three people familiar with his recent actions.” 

Okay, now, let’s review. Kash Patel is supposedly so paranoid about people leaking at the FBI that he is conducting investigations – according to the leakers inside the FBI. That these reporters do not even process this reality is a bit amusing, but this is what we have come to expect. How do you ridicule the man for actions that you ultimately justify within your own report?!

This next brings us to The Atlantic. The Patel-focused writer Sarah Fitzpatrick has a new BREAKING detail to report. It seems Patel has been gifting people with bottles of bourbon, which bear the FBI logo, as well as his name.

Exclusive: FBI Director Kash Patel has distributed “Ka$h”-branded bottles of bourbon to bureau staff and civilians, multiple people in Patel’s orbit tell @S_Fitzpatrick. https://t.co/tTWqxTEYus

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) May 6, 2026

This is all delivered with the tone and certainty that something untoward and illicit is taking place, yet at no point do we see the alleged problem displayed. Fitzpatrick says the FBI spokesperson never explains how Kash has not committed a violation: “The spokesperson declined to clarify which ethical rules Patel was following.” Umm, Sarah? The burden of showing which ethics violations might have taken place is on you. You do understand that the denial of wrongdoing is not proof that he did something wrong, correct?

Then we see how strained the implication of wrongdoing gets with this passage she delivers about Kash’s bourbon deliveries. It is said that if Patel makes the gesture of giving one of his commemorative bottles to an agent, it becomes something of a purity test, and the agent is being analyzed by their reaction.

Another former agent described the bottles as “demoralizing,” because they suggest one set of standards for the director and another for the rest of the bureau. This person said he believes that many agents would worry that if the director offers you a bottle, and “you aren’t on board on receiving it enthusiastically, you are getting polygraphed for loyalty.”  

Just bathe in all of the supposition at play here. These bottles “suggest” something. “He believes” agents feel this stress, but that is only “if” they were to be offered these bottles. It is layers of hypotheticals, delivered by someone outside the Bureau, and we are never told what position they held to maybe witness or simply to speculate on what is possibly transpiring. Yet Fitzpatrick delivers this as a damning indictment.

Today, we see the press lighting up with these reports, and all manner of interpretational context is delivered along with them. It is being done when nothing substantive has been established, with the sole exception that Patel is, in fact, giving bourbon out as a token gift. (This is such a scandalous act that The Atlantic procured its own bottle, via an online auction.)

READ MORE: The Press Serves Up ‘New’ Evidence That Patel Has a Drinking Problem, but It’s Low in Proof 

As I covered last week, the hit jobs on Kash Patel are rolled out and then become treated as gospel in the press, despite not a single objectionable detail being established. As Fitzpatrick stated in a podcast at her outlet, after her scathing report on Patel’s work issues, she has been inundated with even more accounts from nearly the same number of people, and now we have two additional reports with more of the gauzy sourcing.

For ease of detailing, let us just run with the case that, at this point, the reporters have collected impressions from 50 people. (Hey, if they can deliver unsubstantiated figures, then so can we.) After weeks or months of these scathing accusations, not a single person out of 50 has gone on the record. This simply does not track.

Not a single person inside the FBI has filed a report. Fitzpatrick has claimed some of her sources derive from other agencies, and yet none have provided communications, documents, or other pieces of proof of Patel’s alleged misbehavior. She also stated having lobbyists, political operatives, and service industry individuals delivering reports of his alleged antics. How is it we have not seen a single audio recording, photograph, or cell phone video offered up?

Just consider that with all of the tongue wagging and lip-shaking revelations being given, there is a clear intent to string up the FBI Director. Yet none of these 50 whistle-blowhards has endeavored to collect actual damning evidence to bring him down? One tell here is that we are dealing with the top police force in the country, and all we have is take-my-word-for-it testimony that would not justify an investigation by Barney Fife in Mayberry, R.F.D.

But there is an even bigger tell in all of this hysteria. Most of the claims revel in classifying Patel as a preeminent paranoid. We hear that he is “in panic mode,” fearful of losing his job, hysterical, and exhibiting other hyperbolic reactions, and this is presented as a disqualifying characteristic. And to repeat, these are all claims by nameless people whose positions are never shown and lack any evidence of their having witnessed these actions. 

The reason given: There is concern about reprisals and loss of their career.

So let’s suss this out. Kash is said to be unfit due to being untethered and panicky about retaining his job – according to those who refuse to go on the record out of fear of losing their job. By extension, then, this should disqualify the words from any of these linguini-spined informants fearful of losing their jobs. That is according to the standards of these reporters.

Now, let us extend this further. As Fitzpatrick stated, she supposedly had commentary from those who are former FBI workers; what would be their fear of going on the record? How about the non-FBI sources, those from the other agencies, all the way down to the service staff at establishments? Are ALL of these disconnected sorts incapable of giving a viable testimony for their claims?

The most revealing aspect is that these are members of the media who are supposedly reliant upon facts. To this point, every story about Kash Patel’s unacceptable behavior is rooted in rumor. There have been several people going on the record who are completely refuting the claims, but they are given little more than a passing mention; it is rote inclusion, buried under paragraphs of supposition copy.

In reaction to this latest expose we are performing our diligence in trying to reach out to the Bureau for the proper contact. We would love to get a bottle of Patel’s Woodford Reserve.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.