Judge slammed CNN in one head-turning lawsuit that could cost the network $1 billion

CNN cannot use the “most trusted name in news” moniker with a straight face.

The network has destroyed its credibility in the Donald Trump era.

And a judge just slammed CNN in one lawsuit that could cost the network $1 billion.

CNN and other Democrat-controlled outlets mocked Fox News after the network settled its lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems for $787 million.

But CNN itself could be on the hook for $1 billion amid its own legal troubles.

CNN getting sued

Navy veteran and security contractor Zachary Young sued CNN for defamation, claiming that the network slandered his company regarding the evacuation of Afghanistan.

CNN referred to his firm as “black market,” implying illegality and internal communications proved that the network was eager to “nail” Young.

Judge L. Clayton Roberts wrote in a court ruling, “Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages.”

Alex Marquardt, the “primary reporter” on the Afghanistan story, sent a message to a colleague that said he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mf***er.”

Marquardt added that the story would be Young’s “funeral.”

CNN editor Matthew Philips replied to Marquardt: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!”

The internal messages got worse.

CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan—a member of CNN’s self-styled “Triad” of editorial, legal, and standards and practices oversight personnel—said that Young was “a s***.”

During court proceedings, Judge Roberts pressed CNN counsel Charles Tobin on the network’s use of the term “black market.”

Judge Roberts asked, “[W]hen they were talking about Mr. Young, they had his picture on the thing and there was a chyron that says he was involved in a black market. And, you know, I’ve looked in a couple of dictionaries –  three or four – and the first definition for black market in all the dictionaries is criminal activity. And you know, if you are accusing someone of criminal activity and they’re not involved in a crime, that’s usually defamation per se. Correct?”

CNN admits to defamation

Tobin responded, “Under the law where we would be looking at the defamatory meaning, perhaps it would be.”

That is a shocking admission from CNN’s own lawyer.

Tobin countered by saying that the definition was irrelevant.

He argued, “Here, we’re on a question of actual malice, express malice, and outrageous conduct measured by objective standards. Under that criteria, your honor, regardless of what the meaning may be in the dictionary, which is an objective definition.”

Judge Roberts already ruled that CNN’s internal communications met the malice standard for the case to move word.

The judge then asked about CNN’s “Triad.”

Tobin responded, “The Triad, your honor, is a group of three different departments at CNN. It’s the Standards and Practices Department, it’s the Legal Department, and it’s the Editorial Department, they come together—”

“So these are lawyers and professional writers that, you know, are used to dealing with words and have dictionaries and know how precise—what words mean?” Judge Roberts interjected.

Tobin answered, “One would presume, your honor, that they’re educated people that they’ve been in the business for a while. But your honor, there is nothing in the record discussing the word “blackmail” [sic] at all among any of the CNN journalists. And it is plaintiff’s burden.”

Young’s counsel Vel Freedman hammered CNN for playing word games.

Freedman argued, “So what CNN is claiming is they took a word from the English language that has one definition and they meant when they said ‘black market,’ they actually meant ‘gray market,’ but they said ‘black market’ that has one definition. . .CNN can’t get up there and say, ‘Hey, Mr. Young is a serial killer,’ but actually mean that he was a good Samaritan, but they only knew that in their head.”

Thus far, the court proceedings do not seem to be going very well for CNN.

After sneering at Fox News, CNN could have egg on its face if the network gets hit with a massive judgment.

*Pants on Fire News Official Polling*

141 - Will the unwarranted ban of James O’Keefe trigger backlash? (1)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *