BREAKING: Suspect in Charlie Kirk shooting not in custody according to school officials 

A Wednesday email blast from President Donald Trump told followers their "supporter status" had been canceled, directing them to donate in order to restore their standing in the MAGA movement.

The post Trump Fundraising Email Warns Recipient’s ‘Supporter Status’ Is Canceled Unless They Pay Up first appeared on Mediaite.

FBI Director Kash Patel has five days to respond to a motion arguing his own public record proves The Atlantic's drinking allegations are 'inherently plausible.'

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan set the Aug. 17 deadline after granting a joint extension request, according to the court docket. The Atlantic filed its motion to dismiss on July 27.

The Atlantic's April story, "The FBI Director is MIA," reported that Patel drank to excess, missed work, and posed a national-security risk. Patel called it false and sued for $250 million.

"Print it, all false, I'll see you in court—bring your checkbook," Patel told the magazine through his spokesman before it published.

The Atlantic's lawyers argue Patel cannot meet the legal standard required of public officials in defamation cases. That standard — called actual malice — requires proof that a publisher knew a story was false or strongly suspected it was, according to the filing.

"The Complaint does not come close to satisfying this demanding constitutional standard," the filing said. "It does not allege a single fact showing that any statement in the Article is false, much less that Defendants had 'serious doubts' or 'actual knowledge of falsity' for any of these statements."

The filing goes further, arguing Patel's own public behavior undercuts his suit, according to the motion.

"The Article itself shows that the Allegedly Defamatory Statements are not implausible," the filing said, "but rather inherently plausible."

The filing said reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick spoke to more than two dozen sources, according to the motion. They included current and former FBI officials, members of Congress, and hospitality workers.

Six sources confirmed that briefings had to be rescheduled because of Patel's alcohol-fueled nights, the motion said.

Nine sources confirmed he panicked when a computer malfunction led him to believe he had been fired, according to the filing.

The story described officials telling Fitzpatrick that Patel's security detail had difficulty waking him on multiple occasions, and that a request was made for specialized breaching equipment — tools normally used by SWAT teams — because he was unreachable behind locked doors, according to the filing.

The filing noted that Patel's drinking was already a matter of public record before the story ran.

In February, Patel was filmed chugging beer in the U.S. men's Olympic hockey team's locker room in Milan. FBI headquarters was simultaneously managing a cartel violence outbreak in Mexico, CNN reported.

Days after The Atlantic published, a 2005 letter from Patel's Florida Bar application — obtained by The Intercept — disclosed he had been arrested twice on alcohol-related charges, once for public intoxication in 2001 and once for public urination after leaving a bar in 2005.

The story's fallout reached Capitol Hill the following month, according to Senate records.

At a May budget hearing, Patel agreed to take an alcohol use disorders test after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) demanded it. Patel called the allegations "a total farce."

The Atlantic suit is the latest in a long line, according to the motion.

A federal judge in Texas dismissed Patel's defamation suit against MS NOW analyst Frank Figliuzzi the day after Patel filed against The Atlantic. The judge called Figliuzzi's comment about Patel's nightclub visibility "rhetorical hyperbole."

None of Patel's five defamation suits has succeeded, according to the filing.

Patel's response is due Aug. 17. The Atlantic's reply is due Aug. 31.

A lawyer who stood up to the Department of Justice and won in a high-profile case expressed shock when talking about it being revived.

During an appearance on CNN on Tuesday night, lawyer Norm Eisen spoke about the possibility of President Donald Trump's DOJ bringing back the case against Olympic canoer David Hearn, who was accused of vandalizing the Reflecting Pool. The case was dismissed last week, as the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, led by Jeanine Pirro, said that the damage happened during installation.

CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins asked Eisen about the possibility of the Trump DOJ bringing the case back, despite Pirro saying that the evidence pointed to a botched installation by the Interior Department, not Hearn, who constantly denied allegations that he ripped up the pool's liner.

"If there are charges brought against him again, I mean, would you use Jeanine Pirro's filing to fight those charges?" Collins asked. "Wouldn't that be the word of the DOJ versus the DOJ?"

Eisen laughed, agreeing with the absurdity. "It's so unbelievable," Eisen said. "They said in that filing that there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt because the damage was caused by a botched and rushed installation."

If the DOJ follows through, "The very first thing that the judge, if charges are brought again, is the words of the U.S. attorney's office blaming the Department of the Interior," Eisen said.

Eisen brought up that he used to work as President Barack Obama's special counsel and recalled a memo that said, "The president could not interfere with or intervene in enforcement cases precisely to avoid this kind of thing."

He continued, "So the outrageousness of it, it won't stand in a court of law if it comes back, and I assume the reason we read about it today in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere is because people in the DOJ are as horrified as I am."