Intense argument between Jake Tapper and attorney of Navy veteran

Share and Follow

Inset: Jake Tapper during a deposition shown in a defamation trial on Jan. 14, 2025 (Law&Crime). Background: Zachary Young in court during his defamation trial against CNN on Jan. 8, 2025 (Law&Crime).

A Florida jury saw a tense exchange between one of CNN’s star anchors and an attorney representing a U.S. Navy veteran who claims the network defamed him during a broadcast on that anchor’s show.

Plaintiff Zachary Young, a security contractor who extracted people from Afghanistan, claims a November 2021 segment on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” falsely painted him as an “illegal profiteer” exploiting “desperate Afghans” with “exorbitant” fees amid the fallout of President Joe Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from the country.

The journalist who uttered the disputed words during the broadcast in question, Alex Marquardt, took the stand on Monday.

On Tuesday, Bay County jurors heard from Jake Tapper himself — by way of some key selections from a previously-recorded deposition. During the lengthy pretrial stage of the case, both CNN and Young agreed that Tapper would not take the stand during the trial.

Young’s attorney began by eliciting some information from the witness about his biography before quickly shifting to a series of statements Tapper made that were not from the broadcast at all.

Those statements have, however, assumed a certain level of importance in the case. Earlier this month, Tapper’s words were the subject of voluble, hard-charging arguments away from jurors’ ears.

The court previously relayed the comments as follows:

If all you care about is clicks, the newsstand sales, and circulations, you don’t care about truth and facts, you wind up getting sued or settling with Dominion … there’s nothing wrong with wanting people to read your newspaper, wanting people to watch your show, but if that’s all you care about is that, and you don’t care about the responsibility — the grave responsibility — we have to be fair and honest, then you are a cancer on the democracy we have. Which is, I think what you see, when you have what we have.

During his deposition, Tapper appeared to ascertain the plaintiff’s interest but suggested it was much ado about nothing.

“I’m just talking here about whether or not a news organization that tells willful lies is a cancer on society?” the plaintiff’s attorney asked. “Can you answer that question?”

“I mean, you can think whatever you want,” Tapper said.

As the witness continued, Young’s attorney interrupted him to say it was his testimony. A small amount of cross talk ensued.

Tapper picked the thread back up.

“I made a statement about the months — the non-hypothetical monthslong campaign against Dominion Voting, against Smartmatic, against all the people that participated in the process in 2020,” he said. “It was [a] monthslong campaign that was undermining democracy. For the benefit of one particular political leader. And that comment I made? I made. And I stand by it. But I don’t have answers to extend the metaphor to every single person, organization and situation in journalism. So, I just don’t even know what you want me to say here.”

The upshot was telegraphed by the questioning.

“You and your counsel claimed you answer the question but I don’t think you did,” Young’s attorney continued. “The question was straightforward. And it was: ‘Does a media organization that tells willful lies that’s not about an election, is that a cancer on society?’ Let me say it cleanly: Is a media organization that publishes willful lies about things — other than an election — a cancer on society?”

Tapper did not budge.

“You’re asking me to comport with a metaphor that I used a year ago specifically about one specific news — or purported news — organization. And the opinion I had about how damaging those lies were to the American democracy. And you’re asking me to take that metaphor and extend it to any other time that any other media organization that lied willingly,” the witness replied — repeatedly using his raised left hand to emphasize his responses.

The referenced comments are about a case in which Fox News paid out $787.5 million to Dominion Voting Systems in order to settle a defamation lawsuit over pro-Donald Trump conspiracy theories and lies the network allegedly peddled about the 2020 election.

Young is allowed to refer to those comments in order to elucidate theories and arguments about journalistic ethics. The overarching case, on the other hand, especially the eye-catching sum paid out to the voting machine vendor, is verboten territory.

On Tuesday, jurors heard Tapper more or less ridicule the notion that there’s any connective tissue between the matters.

“I just don’t have an opinion on it,” he continued. “I haven’t thought about it. I haven’t contemplated it. I haven’t been marinating over it. So, I don’t have an opinion to offer.”

Young’s attorney then moved on to a series of questions about how advertising and budgeting works on the anchor’s eponymous show.

Young rested his case late Tuesday. Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge William Henry previously said he wants the jury to begin deliberating by Thursday.