Judge rules on Kash Patel’s lawsuit against ‘activist’ blogger who called FBI director ‘blatantly incompetent’ and a ‘googly-eyed Kremlin’ asset

FBI Director Kash Patel‘s $10 million defamation lawsuit against a blogger who questioned his fitness to lead the bureau, insulted him and suggested he was aligned with Moscow has been dismissed, Wonderwall.com can report.

Judge Andrew Gordon of the U.S. District Court in Nevada determined he did not have jurisdiction over Patel’s complaint, voiding a previous default judgment against Jim Stewartson, a self-described “anti-disinformation activist.”

The FBI boss first sued Stewartson in June 2023 over posts on social media platform X calling him a “blatantly incompetent ch**” who had “attempted to overthrow the government” and was “guilty of sedition” as part of a premeditated plot to incite the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol.

Stewartson did not respond to the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment awarding Patel $250,000 in August 2025.

The blogger and podcaster challenged the decision on the grounds he had no meaningful ties to Nevada as a California resident whose posts were not aimed at residents of the Silver State.

In later posts on X, Stewartson referred to Patel as a “googly-eyed Kremlin b****” and said he was prepared to “explain in full detail” why he was “dead serious” when he called him a “ch**” — a derogatory term generally used for a rude, crude or unpleasant person, particularly someone with far-right or reactionary political views.

After the language appeared in a footnote of Judge Gordon’s July 28 order, Stewartson shared an X post that read, “PSA: Now that my case is settled, you are free to refer to @FBIDirectorKash as a ‘ch**,’ a ‘googly-eyed Kremlin b****’ and a ‘traitor’ without fear of legal repercussions!”

The dismissal marks the latest legal setback for Patel, who’s filed at least six defamation suits against media outlets and commentators in recent years.

A Texas judge threw out Patel’s case against former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi in April, calling remarks made by Figliuzzi protected hyperbole. Figliuzzi had claimed Patel had “been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of” the FBI’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The Atlantic argues case should be thrown out

Patel also sued The Atlantic and one of its journalists, Sarah Fitzpatrick, for $250 million over an article published earlier this year. The piece cited current and former FBI special agents discussing Patel’s conduct in office, including allegations that his alcohol use affected his work.

The outlet argued for the defamation lawsuit to be thrown out in a scathing motion filed on July 27 in U.S. District Court in Washington.

Patel’s attorneys said the magazine published “a sweeping, malicious and defamatory hit piece” against the FBI chief complete with “obviously fabricated” allegations.

The publication responded with a scorching brief, charging that Patel “brings this defamation action against The Atlantic for publishing an undeniably newsworthy article about his job performance that he finds politically inconvenient.”

Patel’s ‘tactics strike at the very foundation of the First Amendment’

The Atlantic‘s brief further said, “It is an assault, by a man who swore to uphold it, on the core constitutional value that ‘debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

The brief, which called the FBI director’s allegations “meritless,” noted that Patel had filed five defamation lawsuits against media organizations in recent years and had yet to win one.

“By filing these suits, Director Patel sends an ominous message to the press: Publishing reporting that he does not like comes at a high cost,” the brief said. “These tactics strike at the very foundation of the First Amendment, which was adopted to prevent powerful government officials — like Director Patel — from controlling the public narrative by ‘punish[ing] the dissemination of material that is embarrassing to the powers that be.”