‘CNN is so arrogant, they are so used to getting whatever they want,’ plaintiff’s attorney says
PANAMA CITY, Fla.—Jurors in the $1 billion defamation suit against CNN ended deliberations Thursday evening without handing down a decision. They will resume Friday morning, forcing the left-wing network to wait to learn its fate as Navy veteran Zachary Young pushes for 10 figures in damages.
Young alleges that a November 2021 segment that aired on The Lead with Jake Tapper irreparably destroyed his reputation and his business, Nemex Enterprises. The report singled out Young and portrayed him as an “illegal profiteer” who operated in a “black market” when he worked to evacuate Afghans during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal. He testified that he hasn’t worked or made money since the segment ran.
CNN attorney David Axelrod, in his closing arguments, called the story “accurate” and “tough but fair.” He also put the burden on Young, saying the veteran should have gone out of his way to convince the CNN journalists he wasn’t “shady.”
“Mr. Young put himself in the story, not CNN,” Axelrod told the jury. “He inserted himself into it to make a buck.”
“Use your common sense,” he added. “Do you see a conspiracy or do you see people just doing their best?”
Young’s lead attorney, Devin Freedman, told jurors they had the opportunity to stand up to “fake news.”
“This is supposed to be the most trusted name in news,” Freedman said in his own closing arguments. “CNN is so arrogant, they are so used to getting whatever they want.”
“But they stand up here and they talk down to us with bold-faced lies about what the segment’s gist really is, and they expect you to believe it,” he continued. “I mean, do they think we’re all stupid?”
Jurors listened to those arguments before spending hours deliberating. They stopped around 10 p.m. eastern and will return tomorrow morning. If they find that CNN defamed Young, they will determine economic, emotional, and, potentially, punitive damages.
Before jurors began deliberating, some appeared ready to put CNN on the hook. Following CNN reporter Katie Bo Lillis’s testimony Thursday, jurors peppered her with a series of unflattering questions like, “Do you feel Americans are obligated to speak to you?”
CNN has faced a number of setbacks throughout the case, even before the Jan. 7 opening arguments. Days earlier, Judge William Henry ruled that Young’s attorneys could cite Tapper’s disparaging comments about Fox News after its $787 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems.
CNN also faced a series of damaging revelations once the trial got underway. Internal messages showed that Lillis and chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt, who delivered the segment, long planned to center their story on Young. Lillis described herself as a “straight shooter” in her early interactions with the Navy veteran, suggested Young would have the opportunity to “make your case to keep your name out of” any story, and assured him she only wanted to talk to get the “lay of the land” on private Afghan evacuations.
When Young finally learned he was the target of CNN’s report, Marquardt sent him a detailed list of questions and gave him only two hours to respond. Young told him that was “not a realistic deadline” and that “some of your facts/assertions are not accurate, and if they are published, I will seek legal damages.” CNN moved forward anyway.
Marquardt’s inquiry included a question about Young’s ties to the CIA. The Navy veteran was forced to reveal in his testimony last week that he was a former agency operative and testified that he would have needed more than two hours to answer that question alone since he would need guidance on how to respond. Internal messages from senior CNN staffers showed they were also aware that asking about Young’s CIA ties would take longer than the deadline he was given.
Court proceedings also revealed that CNN editors and reporters had serious issues with the article accompanying Marquardt’s segment, with one saying it was “full of holes like Swiss cheese.” He suggested killing it entirely. Another, national security reporter Nicole Gaouette, said the prices Young charged to evacuate Afghans may have been reasonable, given that the costs associated with those efforts were likely “seriously expensive.”
“So the inference running through Alex’s story that these people are just bilking desperate Afghans for their money might not be fair at all,” Gaouette wrote in an email.
Several CNN staffers provided erroneous definitions of the term “black market” during their testimonies, at times contradicting their sworn depositions. They typically described it as an “unregulated market,” though dictionary definitions describe a “black market” as an illegal trade.
CNN eventually removed the term from the online version of the segment. It also issued an apology, though that was delivered by anchor Pamela Brown while Tapper was out. Other CNN reporters and editors said the apology wasn’t necessary.
Marquardt refused to offer Young an apology, as well. But he did boast to the Florida jury about his Emmy awards.
“That’s kind of the main award in television news,” he explained.
This article was originally published at freebeacon.com
