CNN’s Alex Marquardt had ‘no evidence’ of on-air hit job as vet sues for $1 billion
In an unredacted transcript, CNN’s Alex Marquardt admitted he had “no evidence” linking a Navy veteran to black market human trafficking before airing a controversial report.
July 24, 2024, published at 10:47 PM ET
CNNs chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt testified that he had “no evidence” linking a decorated Navy veteran to the black market trafficking of Afghan refugees before airing a report that led to a $1 billion defamation lawsuit against the embattled network.
RadarOnline.com has obtained an unredacted transcript of Marquardt’s deposition in the ongoing case brought by Zachary Young, who alleges that the a struggling network wanted viewers to believe he was “operating on a black market”.
Young’s allegations stem from a November 2021 episode Starring Jake Tapper who showed his photo during a discussion about the consequences of America failed withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Article continues below advertisement
Marquardt said during the deposition that the segment, which aired on Jake Tapper’s show, was intended to falsely “expose” Young for “participating in this black market that exploited Afghans at their most vulnerable time.”
“The clear effect of the first few seconds of the Segment is to set up a false narrative in which Young serves desperate Afghans in an illegal market – which he never did,” according to the lawsuit filed in Florida.
Young’s lawyers argued in a recent filing that the show’s producers “intended to target Young,” and that “Marquardt, the author and architect of the Segment” — “admitted it during deposition.”
When asked, “Did your reporting ever detect anything illegal going on regarding the evacuation process?” Marquardt responded, “No, that didn’t happen,” the transcript shows.
Article continues below advertisement
The photo of the military vet was broadcast during a discussion about America’s failed withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Article continues below advertisement
The correspondent was then asked, “Did you think Mr. Young committed a crime?” to which he replied: “No. As far as I knew… he was simply asking for large sums of money to get Afghans out of the country.”
“You found no evidence that Mr. Young committed a crime, right?”
“No.”
Marquardt testified that CNN “used Mr. Young as an example of what was going on here: this black market, the exorbitant fees, the taking advantage of these Afghans — the exploitation.”
Article continues below advertisement
According to the lawsuit, CNN “aggressively shared” the allegedly defamatory statements on numerous social media platforms.
MORE:
CNN
Article continues below advertisement
He explained during the deposition that he and the show’s producers wanted to do the story as a way to expose Young “for participating in this black market that exploited Afghans at their most vulnerable time.”
Young complained that the resulting report listed the alleged “defamatory statements about black markets” in “photos of LinkedIn messages he sent” and in a photo of Young’s face.
After the segment aired, CNN “aggressively shared the same statements on numerous social media platforms,” the complaint alleges.
Article continues below advertisement
CNN issued a correction five months after the broadcast stating that the term “black market” was being used “incorrectly.”
Text messages visible The lawsuit revealed that show staffers called Young a “s—bag” and “a——” while admitting that the story was “full of holes like Swiss cheese” and “not at all ready for prime time” .
Marquardt even reportedly joked to a colleague, “It’s your funeral bucko,” referring to Young, before the broadcast.
Article continues below advertisement
The struggling network could be ordered to pay out $1 billion if the court agrees they defamed Young, his lawyers predict.
Article continues below advertisement
The Military Vet Lawyers have predicted they could win up to a billion dollars if the court agrees that “CNN published defamatory statements that harmed Mr. Young, ruined his reputation and destroyed his business.”
The network has said it did not intend to cause harm, argued that the language used was opinionated or ambiguous, and called the internal communications “journalistic bravado that reflected a genuine belief in the reporting.”
Article continues below advertisement
CNN’s lawyers recently did too moved to block the veteran’s bid to oust the host Jake Tapper in this case, arguing that this would cause “annoyance and embarrassment” to Tapper while “providing little useful information.”
In a motion for “partial summary judgment” filed last month, Young’s attorneys asked the court to agree that their client “has never operated in an illegal market,” and that CNN’s statements about the Afghan black markets during the report were ‘of and concerning’ Young. .
The next hearing is scheduled for August 12, and a civil jury trial will begin in January 2025.
