‘He went from patriot to criminal’: Lawyer for Navy veteran suing CNN says there’s ‘overwhelming’ evidence network knew ‘hit piece’ was ‘theater’

Inset: Zachary Young in court on the first day of his defamation case against CNN (The Washington Free Beacon/Pool photos). Background: “The Lead with Jake Tapper” being played during Tuesday’s proceedings (The Washington Free Beacon/Pool photos).

Attorneys representing CNN and the U.S. Navy veteran suing the cable news network for defamation addressed jurors for the first time on Tuesday with both sides giving their opening statements.

Plaintiff Zachary Young, a security contractor who specialized in extracting Afghans, claims that a 2021 segment aired on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” falsely painted him as an “illegal profiteer” exploiting “desperate Afghans” with “exorbitant” fees amid the fallout of President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Young has maintained that the network falsely accused him of criminal conduct and operating illegally on the “black market,” allegations he says turned him into an “international pariah” while destroying his business and reputation.

The complaint was filed in June 2022 in Bay County, Florida, where 14th Judicial Circuit Court Judge William Henry is overseeing the case.

Attorneys for Young kicked things off by telling jurors that CNN falsely told viewers that Young was “illegally preying on desperate Afghans in a black market operation,” despite being unable to verify any of the facts in the underlying story.

“The facts didn’t matter. CNN felt that they had a sensational story that would drive ratings and they didn’t care about the truth,” Young’s attorney said. “How do we know that? Because the emails and behind the scenes video footage show that CNN took pleasure in casting Zach as the villain for their hit piece.”

The segment at issue, which aired on Nov. 11, 2021, and featured correspondent Alex Marquardt’s reporting on Jake Tapper’s show, displayed a photo of Young over chyrons that read: “AFGHANS TRYING TO FLEE TALIBAN FACE BLACK MARKETS, EXORBITANT FEES, NO GUARANTEE OF SAFETY OR SUCCESS” and “AFGHANS AND ACTIVISTS REPORT DEMANDS OF $10K-$14K FOR ATTEMPTS TO GET FAMILY MEMBERS OUT OF COUNTRY.”

Plaintiff’s attorney continued his opening by asking jurors to “send a message” to every newsroom in the country, that “reckless journalism is un-American, it’s dangerous, and if media companies engage in theater in the newsroom, Americans will hold them accountable in the courtroom.”

After claiming that Marquardt only gave Young two hours to respond to CNN’s claims before green-lighting the story to air in prime time, Young’s attorney said the evidence that CNN acted with malice was “overwhelming.”

“We intend to show you, it’s not a close call,” he told the jury. “If you think it’s a close call, don’t give us a dime.”

According to the opening, Marquardt and others at the network had been staging the “hit piece” on Young at nearly every turn, even going so far as to film a fake call where Marquardt pretended to be telephoning Young about the story. Other employees at the network also criticized the story before it aired, with at least one comparing the story to “Swiss cheese” because it was “full of holes.”

The attorney closed by discussing how Young’s life was allegedly affected by the CNN report.

“To use Marquardt’s own words, it was ‘Zach’s funeral.’ The career that he had spent two decades building, was decimated,” he said. “After the story aired, Zach’s former intelligence professionals wanted nothing to do with him. Overnight he went from patriot to criminal and his career as a private intelligence and security consultant has not recovered. CNN’s reckless journalism stole Zach’s income and reputation.”

The heart of the lawsuit is the argument that the phrase “black market” implied Young was engaged in something criminal, nefarious, or otherwise untoward and defamatory. Through pretrial motions, the court has already ruled that Young did not engage in illegal activity, with the judge deciding that it will be up to the jury to decide about the definition of the term “black market” and whether CNN was falsely implying that Young’s conduct was unlawful.

The defendant, for its part, has argued that “all the information CNN uncovered in its research supported the gist of what it reported,” and that the network’s “journalists, in fact, believed the truth of what” was reported.

CNN’s attorney David Axelrod gave the opening statement for the defense, summarizing the network’s reporting as “tough,” but adding that it was also “fair and accurate.” He also characterized Young as someone who looked at the “horrible conditions” of the Afghan withdrawal and saw the people’s “desperation” as “a way to get rich.”

According to Axelrod, the evidence will show that Young interacted with individual Afghans on Linkedin, telling them that the cost of being extracted from the country was $14,500, which, according to the lawyer, is “way more than any Afghan could ever pay.”

The reporting that referenced Young was “carefully researched” and written, with numerous experienced journalists at the network “putting eyes” on the story to “make sure they were fair,” Axelrod said, adding that none of the reporting accused Young of doing anything illegal.

The defense emphasized that Young will not be presenting any witnesses that will testify about his reputation before or after the CNN report aired and no one to confirm that his reputation or business prospects were damaged because of the reporting.

“The fact that Plaintiff can’t bring one witness to testify that they thought less of him or that they wouldn’t hire him, tell you all you need to know about this case,” Axelrod said. “It’s just not there.”

Axelrod addressed the internal communications at CNN surrounding the reporting on Young, such as when Marquardt said they were going to “nail this Zachary Young m—–f—–” and when a producer said Young had a “punchable face.” The defense asked jurors to read those messages “in the context” of everything else that was happening, including the “seemingly impossible promises” Young was allegedly making to Afghans dealing with the possibility of impending death.

Axelrod further claimed that reporters at CNN made numerous attempts to contact Young in connection with the reporting, claiming Young often refused to answer the phone or speak with reporters about his prices. He also pushed back against the notion that Young wasn’t given time to answer CNN’s questions.

The defense also said that the term “black market” did not refer to criminal activity, but rather to the covert means which were required to get people out of the country.

“After the brutal Taliban capture of the country, women couldn’t move around [in Afghanistan]. If you wanted to get a woman out of the country, like Mr. Young was doing, you had to use safe houses, you had to use covert moves,” Axelrod said. “If this were a situation where a woman who wanted to get out of Afghanistan because it was brutal, could simply go to the airport…there would be no reason for Mr. Young to have a job. There would be no black market.”

Tuesday’s proceedings will continue with Young taking the stand in the afternoon.

The post ‘He went from patriot to criminal’: Lawyer for Navy veteran suing CNN says there’s ‘overwhelming’ evidence network knew ‘hit piece’ was ‘theater’ first appeared on Law & Crime.

Source link