Former FBI counterintelligence official turned MSNBC commentator Frank Figliuzzi claimed that Kash Patel had been “reportedly visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor” of FBI headquarters during a May 2025 morning broadcast. It was clearly the language of political commentary rather than an investigative finding, but it was the kind of phrase that resonates differently depending on your preconceived notions about Patel.
Patel sued in federal court in Texas for slander. Judge George Hanks Jr. of the U.S. District Court dismissed the comment on April 21, 2026, citing it as “rhetorical hyperbole”—a legal classification that indicates it represented an opinion or perception rather than a proven claim of fact. The initial gate was not reached by the case.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kash Patel — FBI Director, appointed 2025 |
| Defendant | Frank Figliuzzi — former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence, MSNBC contributor |
| The Comment | Figliuzzi said on Morning Joe (May 2025) that Patel was “reportedly visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor” of FBI headquarters |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas — Judge George Hanks Jr. presiding |
| Ruling Date | April 21, 2026 |
| Ruling | Dismissed — comment classified as “rhetorical hyperbole,” not a statement of fact; a person of ordinary intelligence would not take it literally |
| Anti-SLAPP Fee Request | Denied — Figliuzzi’s request for attorney fees was rejected alongside the dismissal |
| MSNBC’s Role | Previously issued an on-air correction stating the nightclub claim had “not been verified” |
| Separate Litigation | Patel has a $250 million defamation suit against The Atlantic — ongoing and unrelated to this case |
In the US, the threshold for defamation is purposefully high, especially for popular figures. A plaintiff must demonstrate that a false statement of fact was made with genuine malice, which means the speaker either knew it was untrue or disregarded the truth recklessly. Since courts have consistently maintained that public conversation must allow for harsh critique without every critical statement being actionable, comments that a reasonable person would read as opinion, exaggeration, or rhetorical flourish typically do not qualify.
Applying that test in this case, Judge Hanks came to the conclusion that Figliuzzi’s nightclub remark could not be interpreted by a person of average intellect as a literal account of Patel’s recorded locations. The court determined that it was the kind of sharp jab that political discourse has long used.
By admitting that the assertion had “not been verified” in an on-air correction, MSNBC had already considerably muddled the situation. This type of journalistic hedging simultaneously admits a problem and attempts to limit it.
Given the verdict, it doesn’t really matter if that adjustment improved or worsened Figliuzzi’s legal standing, but it did raise concerns about how the comment initially surfaced. The choice to publicize the assertion without that qualifier was a mistake if it hadn’t been confirmed. Although it seems that the network realized the comment was based on dubious facts, the correction does not remove it.
In an anti-SLAPP motion, Figliuzzi’s legal team had asked for legal fees. Anti-SLAPP statutes are intended to punish plaintiffs who bring lawsuits with the intention of intimidating or silencing critics rather than pursuing legitimate legal claims. Notably, Judge Hanks turned down that motion. A court dismissing a case is one thing, but paying fees to the plaintiff is a greater indication that the litigation was wrong in the first place.
This denial implies that the court did not determine that Patel’s filing fell under the category of using litigation as a harassment technique, but rather that the dismissal was justified. Even if Patel’s conclusion was the same in each case, that is a significant contrast.
It’s important to note that this case is distinct from Patel’s $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic, which is still underway and is a much larger and more complicated legal action. Since a $250 million amount suggests a different kind of claim than a morning show quip about nightclubs, observing how courts handle that case will disclose something more significant about the legal strategy at work.
Even if the individuals involved are anything but typical, the Texas dismissal is currently seen as a fairly conventional application of the hyperbole doctrine—routine, at least by the standards of defamation law.
