Staff Reports
A Navy veteran has taken a giant leap into the courtroom, filing a whopping $1 billion defamation suit against CNN, claiming the network’s sensational reporting painted him as the villain of a modern-day Robin Hood tale—only this Robin Hood charged a pretty penny for extracting desperate Afghans from Taliban rule. Zachary Young, who decided it was time to stop taking the slings and arrows of outrageous media slander, filed the suit on June 12. At the heart of this legal battle lies a November 2021 segment aired on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” where reporter Alex Marquardt allegedly claimed Young was profiting off the misfortunes of those trying to escape the horrors of a Taliban takeover.
In an engaging twist of courtroom drama, CNN’s own National Security Editor Thomas Lumley, testified that the original segment was “full of holes like Swiss cheese.” This immigrant fiasco of journalistic integrity reportedly saw a colleague call the story “80% emotion,” a statement that might as well come with a side of jaded sarcasm. Despite the barrage of emails questioning the report’s credibility, Lumley seemed to have a case of selective memory while on the stand, asserting that the story was accurate. This prompted a valid question: is accuracy merely a state of mind for CNN?
🚨ICYMI: There is currently a $1B defamation lawsuit against CNN in court right now.
Zachary Young, a navy vet involved in evacuating people from Afghanistan, was portrayed as a "black market profiteer" charging "exorbitant fees" on a Jake Tapper segment.
CNN retracted the… pic.twitter.com/4AL8Xv7XEw
— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) January 13, 2025
As the trial commenced on January 6, Young’s legal team channeled their inner courtroom dramatists, informing the jury in Bay County, Florida, that CNN brazenly aired narratives without confirming facts—an act that would make even the most seasoned fiction writers blush. And to add a cherry on top, Judge William A. Henry ruled that Young was not acting illegally or criminally in his rescue operations. One can only wonder whether this relieves the entire media circus from their gnawing guilt—or at least sets an interesting precedent for when they bumble their way through fact-checking in the future.
In what could be summarized as the “Great CNN Defender Conspiracy,” Marquardt bizarrely found himself amidst accusations of wanting to “nail this Zachary Young mfucker.” This confession emerged from court documents, which might as well be tucked between great philosophical debates. Oddly, even after acknowledging a lack of evidence against Young, Marquardt proclaimed him a mere “small part” of the story, while insisting he never intended to take anyone down. One cannot help but notice the glaring contradictions—far more juicy than any scripted drama on cable.
Meanwhile, one Army major general threw a verbal grenade in the courtroom by declaring that he wouldn’t be willing to hire Young because doing so would be “way too risky.” This makes one wonder how far the damage from the hacks at CNN reaches, affecting not only an innocent veteran’s life but possibly any future role he hoped to take on. And, in a bizarre spin of journalistic loyalty, multiple CNN employees reportedly rejected the idea that the network should apologize for the segment, proving that standing by a story—quality and accuracy be damned—is still the bread and butter over at CNN.
In a half-hearted moment of contrition, CNN later admitted to an error by using the phrase “black market” to describe Young’s activities and publicly apologized, only to further complicate matters by trying to hide Marquardt’s promotion to chief national security correspondent from the jury. One must wonder, had CNN taken headlines like “Why Fact-Checking is for Chumps” as their editorial guideline, would they have avoided the courtroom tango entirely? It seems the only thing more convoluted than their storyline would be the legal arguments being laid out in court.
