Judge Blasts CNN’s Attorney: ‘Your Credibility With Me…Is About None’

Last week I wrote about the defamation trial brought against CNN by veteran Zachary Young. During Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, Young had a business arranging emergency exits for people stuck in the country. CNN then ran a segment in 2021 which described a “black market” for people trying to leave the country with prices above what the average Afghan could afford. Young was mentioned in that report and later claimed that as a result he hadn’t been able to get any work. 

Young complained about the report several months after it aired and CNN issued a correction saying they never intended to imply he was involved in a black market business. Young then sued CNN for defamation and the case has finally gone to trial this month.

Last week there were various reports suggesting that CNN’s attorney was not connecting with the jury and also that CNN’s upper management was nervous about the possibility for a big payout at a time when the network was struggling with a decline in ratings.

Another thing that happened last week turned into a major courtroom battle today. Last week, CNN’s lead attorney, David Axelrod, (not that one) presented a document which he claimed was a smoking gun.

“Plaintiff’s entire case, sitting right there, is that after the publications, he couldn’t get any work,” Axelrod began — doubly animated — pointing at the plaintiff and raising a copy of the lawsuit into the air.

Axelrod really thought he’d won the case, or seemed to anyway, as he represented the document as proof of employement.

Mr. Young knew, when he filed this lawsuit that he had entered into a new consulting agreement with a government contractor one month after CNN’s publication. This entire lawsuit was a fraud on this court. It was a fraud on CNN. This man knew it. I don’t know what they know. But when his came up in discovery, CNN’s counsel asked Mr. Young about the Helios connection, and he completely lied in his deposition. Over and over again, he made up some incredible ruse that Helios just had his security clearance because it was a company that held security clearances. It makes no sense. He knew at that time that he had a consulting agreement with Helios Global and he didn’t disclose it. It was an outright lie.

But it turned out that document was not a smoking gun. It did not show that Young had secured work after the CNN report, it merely showed that he had applied to maintain his security clearance. And here’s where things get ugly.

Today, Young’s attorney, Vel Freedman, informed the court that in fact Young had lost his security clearance back in 2022, something he hadn’t been aware of until he double-checked after his testimony in the case. Freedman asked for permission to add a witness who would testify about this at trial but CNN’s attorney, David Axelrod, objected. At this point, Judge Henry blew up at Axelrod.

Axelrod insisted that he didn’t mislead the jury, but Judge Henry blasted the “blatant misrepresentation” of CNN’s legal team implying the security clearance document was an employment contract.  

Judge Henry read aloud a transcript of Axelrod’s comments from last week, in which he called the lawsuit a “fraud” and insisted Young “lied” about being able to earn income in the wake of the CNN report. 

“You called him a liar multiple times there,” Judge Henry said.

Judge Henry called for a recess to consider what to do next. When court resumed, the judge told CNN’s attorney he owed an apology to the plaintiff.

“I think an apology from you is clearly in order to Mr. Young for the number of times in front of this court, and streamed around the world, that you called Mr. Young a liar,” the judge continued…

Judge Henry noted that Axelrod previously implied the document was a “smoking gun” in the case but contradicted himself later to suit his argument. 

“Right now, your credibility with me, Mr. Axelrod, is about none,” Judge Henry said.

Axelrod apologized but it’s clear the judge was pretty upset as you can see in this clip.

“This isn’t Kindergarten.” Judge is chewing out the parties. “Right now your credibility with me, Mr. Alexrod, is about none.” #cnndefamationtrial pic.twitter.com/asQaBki8Dw

— Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) January 15, 2025

This isn’t the only bad news for CNN in the trial this week. Yesterday there was testimony that some CNN editors had concerns about the story before it aired which were captured in Slack messages.

“I would suggest this is still very much not ready for prime time,” [national security editor Thomas] Lumley wrote to his superiors about the story reported by CNN national security correspondent Alex Marquardt that appeared during “The Lead with Jake Tapper.”…

Other messages between Lumley and breaking news editor Megan Trimble also display his reservations about publishing the digital version of the story right away.

“The story is full of holes like Swiss cheese,” Lumley wrote.

“Agree. The story is 80% emotion, 20% obscured fact lol,” Trimble responded.

They knew it was junk and they aired it anyway. Why? It sounds like CNN national security correspondent Alex Marquardt was out to get Young.

In an exchange between Marquardt and his assistant managing editor Matthew Philips, the reporter says, “We gonna nail this Zachary Young mfucker.”

To which Philips replies, “Gonna hold you to that one cowboy.”

Jury is again shown text messages where Marquardt says “we gonna nail this Zachary Young mfucker” to a CNN coworker. pic.twitter.com/DKdWAAaxrU

— Jessica Costescu (@JessicaCostescu) January 13, 2025

CNN’s senior VP of news claimed there was nothing wrong with those messages and that they didn’t “impact editorial” which I guess means that they were still completely professional despite planning between them to nail the “mf***er.” 

Honestly, that may be the most revealing thing uncovered in this whole case. These reporters are clearly out to serve up villains for their audience but CNN’s management is happy to pretend those feelings have no impact on what gets aired. I guess this case is testing that assumption. Really, anyone who watches CNN can tell you the clear bias of their on-air talent and staff does shine through pretty regularly.