PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA – Expert witnesses were called to the stand last week in the high-stakes CNN defamation trial brought by U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young, capping off the first week of the courtroom showdown.
Young alleges CNN smeared him in a November 2021 report that first aired on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” suggesting he illegally profited on desperate people trying to flee Afghanistan following the Biden administration’s military withdrawal, implying he was involved in “black market” dealings and ruined his professional reputation as a result.
The first expert witness, Major Gen. James V. Young (no relation to the plaintiff), testified that he thought the prices the plaintiff was charging corporations for evacuations were “reasonable” after CNN labeled such pricing as “exorbitant.”
“We couldn’t have done what we did for free,” Maj. Gen. Young said.
Maj. Gen. Young suggested he would have hired the plaintiff since he would be seen as the “best of the best” if he had working relationships with high-profile intelligence leaders such as Leon Panetta and Jeremy Bash, who were listed as leaders of a project Young testified to having worked on. But after the CNN report, he testified he wouldn’t have hired him.
“I would see someone like this as way too risky for our operation to be associated with,” Maj. Gen. Young said.
CNN’s lead counsel David Axelrod (not to be confused with CNN commentator David Axelrod) grilled Maj. Gen. Young over whether he inquired about the plaintiff’s qualifications with anyone in the military or in the intelligence community before the trial, which he admitted he had not. He also testified that he had never met or had any knowledge of the plaintiff and was being paid to speak as an expert witness on Zachary Young’s behalf.
The second expert witness, Richard Bolko, a Florida-based certified public accountant hired by Young’s legal team to estimate his financial losses after the CNN report, estimated the Navy veteran lost over $21 million in income in the time since.
Axelrod disputed Bolko’s methodology in his number-crunching and grilled him on his lack of knowledge of Young’s financial prospects he had lined up before the CNN report aired. He also had Bolko admit there is a lot of “uncertainty” with his own model.
The third expert witness, University of Houston professor and clinical psychologist Dr. John Vincent, was paid by Young’s legal team to conduct a “psychological evaluation” on him. Vincent said he concluded Young had been suffering from “Major Depressive Disorder” and “Other Specified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder.” He testified the diagnoses were caused by the “impact” of CNN’s on-air report.
Vincent said Young had “panic-related behavior” following the CNN segment and testified he didn’t think the plaintiff was exaggerating or faking his trauma.
“He was really freaking out,” Vincent testified. “I think he’s been devastated by this experience … He clearly still struggles to this very day.”
Axelrod kicked off his cross-examination by stressing that Vincent diagnosed Young far after CNN first ran its report in November 2021, and he was taking Young’s word regarding his symptoms.
CNN’s lead counsel later went into a series of questions implying Vincent knew why Young’s legal team hired him, which was to conclude the network caused the plaintiff trauma. Vincent acknowledged the underlining intent by Young’s lawyers. He also conceded to Axelrod that patients could be incentivized to exaggerate their symptoms if involved in a lawsuit like Young’s case against CNN.
Additionally, Vincent acknowledged he had only talked with Young once virtually for roughly “four to five hours.”
Alex Marquardt, the correspondent who led the CNN segment at the center of the defamation case, is expected to testify on Monday.
A CNN spokesperson said last week regarding the trial, “When all the facts come to light, we are confident we will have a verdict in our favor.”
The trial is being streamed live on Fox News Digital.
