'Desperate' CNN Torn to Shreds Over Flimsy Taliban Law Argument in Navy Vet's $1B Defamation Suit: 'Sinks to a New Low'
A federal judge ruled in Navy veteran Zachary Young's favor ahead of the billion dollar CNN defamation trial.
Aug. 30 2024, Published 2:45 p.m. ET
CNN is getting raked over the coals for its flailing defense in a $1 billion defamation battle with a military veteran.
Lawyers for ex-Navy member Zachary Young tore into the network after it argued a Taliban law justified its controversial report, saying the tactic "sinks to a new low" when it comes to "desperate measures".
In a scathing 26-page filing exclusively obtained by RadarOnline.com, Young's legal team wrote: "Faced with a clear record of misconduct, punitive damages, and a January trial, CNN's response is a masterclass in absurdity and desperation."
CNN hired two new lawyers to beef up its legal team ahead of the civil trial.
Young, who helped evacuate women from Afghanistan when the Taliban took hold of the region in 2021, alleges CNN falsely branded him as a profiteer of the "black market" refugee trade on an episode of The Lead With Jake Tapper.
Most recently, the vet's attorneys asked the Florida court to make an official ruling agreeing the term "black market" is defined as an "illegal market". In a rebuttal, CNN, argued the term can be defined as an "unregulated market" and claimed it was referring to Sharia law in its assertions about Young.
The defendants argued Young's actions were "almost certainly" illegal under the Taliban-imposed standards, which they said ban the movement of women without a male relative present.
Young's attorneys took CNN to task over its abrupt pivot to this narrative, saying in their response: "[T]hrough two years of litigation and 17 depositions across all ranks of CNN from journalists to executives, 'Sharia' was never mentioned, not once."
They called the maneuver not only "frivolous" and "irrelevant", but also "deplorable and offensive", writing: "CNN's defense still falls flat because the common mind would never have interpreted CNN's statement to mean illegal under the oppressive, backward, and barbaric Sharia law implemented by Taliban terrorists — especially as the statement was made to an American audience in a segment highlighting the plight of Afghan people suffering under the Taliban.
"In sum, CNN's proposed interpretation isn't reasonable."
In the footnotes of their filing, Young's lawyers also highlighted an exchange between a CNN attorney and a judge during oral arguments on April 9. The judge said the “first definition for 'black market' in all the dictionaries is criminal activity, and you know if you’re accusing someone of criminal activity and they’re not involved in a crime that’s usually defamation per se, correct?”
CNN’s counsel responded: “Yeah under the law where we would be looking at the defamatory meaning, perhaps it would be.”
But the lawyer added: "Regardless of what the meaning may be in the dictionary, which is an objective definition, what [Young] neeed to show is that subjectively, CNN intended that meaning."
Young's defamation case is scheduled to go to before a civil jury in January.
Young's lawyers said in their rebuke: "Condemning numerous Afghans to die by defaming Young wasn't enough for CNN. It now mocks those who suffered and perished under the Taliban's brutal regime by asking this Court to consider, enforce, and apply the Taliban's rules as law — rules that treat women worse than animals."
They also argued their client's actions did not actually violate Sharia law, because "the Islamic law of necessity trumps other Sharia prohibitions if a life is threatened by death or serious injury from an oppressor."
Their filing said: "CNN cannot seriously deny that the women and children Young helped escape the Taliban were threatened by death or serious injury."
The report at the center of the suit was presented by Alex Marquardt on 'The Lead With Jake Tapper'.
Furthermore, the network's own reporting may have undermined its latest defense strategy. An article CNN published last week noted the Taliban's formal restrictions on women’s movement were just implemented on August 21 of this year.
Young's legal team said: “Therefore, even if they would now be illegal (it’s not), Young’s acts were certainly not illegal at the time CNN made its defamatory remarks.”
They concluded bluntly: "CNN should be ashamed of itself."
In response, the news organization filed an emergency motion asking for a hearing on Young's motion to be postponed, or for his 26-page filing to be stricken from the record. The court has yet to rule.
A CNN spokesperson previously defended the Sharia law argument in a statement to RadarOnlne.com, saying: “Acknowledging the state of local law is a necessary part of the legal analysis.”
They claimed the story at the center of the case, reported by chief national correspondent Alex Marquardt, was "substantially the truth."
Court documents submitted by the defendants read: "Young’s company, Nemex, suddenly found itself rapidly making a ton of money, and in turn, Young—lined his pockets at an astounding rate. Yet Young didn’t personally evacuate anyone. Instead, at all relevant times, he sat at his computer in Vienna, acting as a middleman to another middleman, overseeing evacuations carried out by unknown people half a world away."
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Powered by RedCircle
In a last-ditch bid to avoid trial, the network unsuccessfully moved for the case to be dismissed on this basis earlier this month. And in yet another setback for the network, the Florida judge ordered Jake Tapper to sit for a deposition after suggesting the anchor lied under oath.
A civil jury trial is scheduled for January 6, 2025.
Have a tip? Send it to us! Email RadarOnline.com at tips@radaronline.com.
