July 19, 2024
Jake Tapper May Cost CNN $1B in Navy Veteran’s Defamation Lawsuit

Jake Tapper May Cost CNN $1B in Navy Veteran’s Defamation Lawsuit

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) CNN could be forced to pay up to $1 billion in a defamation lawsuit over a report about a military veteran who decided to help people flee Afghanistan when the Joe Biden regime withdrew from the country in 2021 that aired on anchor Jake Tapper’s show.

The news came right before the network’s presidential debate on June 27, 2024, between Biden and Donald Trump, NewsBusters reported. Tapper is expected to moderate with fellow anchor Dana Bash.

This month, a Florida appellate court affirmed that U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young and his company, Nemex Enterprises Inc., could seek punitive damages for the Afghanistan story. Young said that CNN improperly suggested he was an illegal profiteer.

Vel Freedman, Young’s lawyer, said Young lost $40-60 million in economic opportunity and could get up to $600 million if a jury awards him emotional damages. In the end, CNN could be forced to pay $1 billion to Young, if punitive damages would be included.

According to the lawsuit, CNN destroyed Young’s reputation and business after the network’s correspondent Alex Marquardt published the report about Young. Tapper introduced the segment by telling of a “black market” with demands of “exorbitant fees” and “no guarantee of safety or success,” the news source added.

It was revealed in the internal communications produced in the case that CNN employees called Young, the sole operator profiled in the TV and online report, a “sh**bag” and “a-hole,” adding that they were “going to nail this Zachary Young [motherf***er].”

Additionally, other CNN messages showed the discussions about how the story was “full of holes like Swiss cheese” and Young telling the lying correspondent hours before publication that there were errors in the reporting. Despite that, CNN still went and published the report.

In its appeal, CNN argued that it “did not intend to harm,” that its “language was either opinion or ambiguous,” and that the internal communications were “journalistic bravado that reflected a sincere belief in the reporting.”

“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,” the judges said as they affirmed a trial court judge’s ruling that came before it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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