We noted here that CNN and Jake Tapper are on trial in Florida, in a defamation case brought by former serviceman Zachary Young. Young helped people escape from Afghanistan; CNN smeared him as an “illegal profiteer” operating within a “black market.” Apparently it is now conceded that this was false. Young alleges that CNN’s smear destroyed his business.
We noted in the post linked above, at the jury selection stage, that there were six prospective jurors who said they think CNN purveys fake news, and only one who said he regularly watched CNN. The trial is now nearing its conclusion, and things have not gotten better for the cable network:
CNN reporter Katie Bo Lillis conceded she was intentionally vague when she messaged Navy veteran Zachary Young about his efforts to evacuate Afghans fleeing their home as the Taliban took control of the country in 2021. In response, jurors on Wednesday asked Lillis a series of unflattering questions, suggesting they may be poised to put CNN on the hook for defaming Young through a piece he says destroyed his business.
***
Lillis defended her conduct, telling the court, “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.” She also said she stood by the story and did not “mislead” Young. Jurors, however, didn’t appear to agree. They peppered Lillis with questions like, “Do you feel Americans are obligated to speak to you?” and, “To what length must someone go to in order not to speak to you?” Another juror asked, “At what point do you accept someone not wishing to speak or comment?” A fourth said, “A chance to make your case to keep your name out of it sounds akin to guilty until proven innocent.”
I assume the jurors “peppered” the witness with questions by writing them out and submitting them to the judge, who then read them. Allowing jurors to ask questions is an innovation; I think I only tried one jury case, in Colorado, where this was done. If there is a court where jurors are literally permitted to question witnesses, it is a whole new world of trial practice.
The questions suggest the jurors are hostile to CNN and sympathetic to Young, a troubling development for the left-wing network as it awaits a conclusion to the trial that is expected to come on Friday. Young argues that the report irreparably harmed his reputation and ruined his business, Nemex Enterprises, and is seeking a 10-figure payout—one that jurors appeared open to during jury selection last week.
There are good reasons why CNN is in trouble. The network sent Young a series of questions and arrogantly told him he had two hours to respond. One of them was about whether he had a prior relationship with the CIA. He did, but he would not have been able to answer that question without getting clearance from the Agency, which he couldn’t possibly do in that time frame.
And some at CNN knew the segment was bad:
Senior CNN editor Tom Lumley said Marquardt’s story was “full of holes like Swiss cheese” and suggested killing it entirely.
CNN’s lawyer is not popular with the judge, either:
And it wasn’t just the jury that heckled CNN on Wednesday. [Judge] Henry scolded the network’s lead attorney, David Axelrod, for repeatedly calling Young a “liar” and said he owed the veteran an apology.
“Now your credibility with me, Mr. Axelrod, is about none,” Henry said.
Ouch. Based on news reports, it sounds as though CNN is in line for a large judgment. Young’s lawyer suggested in voir dire that he might ask for a billion dollars in punitive damages. He won’t get that much, but it seems possible that CNN could face bankruptcy, depending on the extent of its insurance coverage for defamation.
UPDATE: The Free Beacon has more, some of which is laughable.
The key CNN employee in this case is Alex Marquardt, the network’s chief national security correspondent. He has testified in the Florida trial:
“I don’t feel the need to apologize to him,” Marquardt said repeatedly on the stand Monday. Shortly after, he touted his various honors. “I’ve won a few Emmy awards. That’s kind of the main award in television news.”
I am sure the jury was deeply impressed. Marquardt’s story turns out to be mostly fiction:
He called Young a “war profiteer” during his testimony and said “everything” in his story was “factual,” “accurate,” and “fair.” But he also admitted he had “no evidence” of Young taking advantage of any Afghans and said the veteran was “exploiting the situation and not the people.”
Marquardt also admitted that he did find evidence of legitimate scams targeting Afghan evacuees, but he didn’t follow up on those scams because they weren’t related to Young.
Marquardt is a self-parody of an out of touch lefty:
In 2022, Marquardt married his fiancée Amanda McClements in Mallorca, Spain, on his family’s 400-year-old estate, People reported. The couple met on Raya, a dating app reserved exclusively for the rich and famous, and were engaged on an uninhabited island in Greece.
Sure. Just like you and me.
“I don’t do hit pieces,” Marquardt testified. Jurors were later shown a message in which Marquardt told a CNN assistant editor, “we gonna nail this Zachary Young mfucker.”
Marquardt also agreed with a text that described the veteran Zachary Young as having a “punchable face.” Some observers might disagree as to whose face is “punchable.” Some of those observers might be on the jury.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment