Media Research Center writer Nicholas Fondacaro’s previews of the defamation trial against CNN was already highly biased due to his collusion with the attorneys of the plaintiff, Zachary Young, who claims CNN defamed him in a story. The bias ramped up even more in a Jan. 7 post on the trial’s start:
Tuesday, Day Two of the $1 billion defamation trial against CNN and it was an eventful one. Opening arguments took up most of the morning, followed by testimony from Navy veteran and Plaintiff Zachary Young that took the rest of the day. Meanwhile, repeated objections from CNN resulting in several asides with Judge William Scott Henry, which frequently disrupted the flow. But still, the jurors seemed receptive to what Young and his counsel had to say.
Opening arguments began with one of Young’s lawyers, Kyle Roche, telling the jury about how CNN approached telling the story about his client’s work in helping rescue women from Afghanistan for corporate sponsors. “The facts didn’t matter,” he said.
“CNN felt they had a sensational story that would drive ratings and they didn’t care about the truth,” Roche said. “CNN chose theater over truth and destroyed the life of an American Patriot.”
Delving into the life of that American patriot, Roche told the jury the story of a young Young who succeeded in school and sought to join the Navy SEALs. Tragedy struck during his BUD/s training to become a SEAL as an inflatable raft crashed Young against the rocks and damaged the disks in his back. From there, he was recruited by Blackwater (the well-known private security contractor), eventually joined the CIA, then started his own private contracting firm.
Fondacaro then hurled more hate at CNN’s lawyer:
After a brief recess, the jurors heard the opening statement from CNN’s lead counsel David Axelrod (no relation to their senior political commentator and former Obama aide), who repeatedly claimed to the jury that CNN’s reporting was “tough and fair and accurate.”
To echo CNN’s pre-trial filings, Axelrod had complained Young wasn’t “cooperating” with their reporting efforts and “stonewalling” their investigation, as if private individuals have some sort of legal obligation to talk to CNN.
Which was not true.
Axelrod played the offending report for the jury, but kept interjecting to make comments. He claimed he would replay it uninterrupted when he’s finished, but that never happened. He also insisted there’s “nothing sensational about the story.” Further, he argued that, since the segment was just a sliver of time in a two-hour show outside of prime time (4:00 p.m. to 6:0] p.m. Eastern), it was not a “sensational” story.
When Young took the stand, Fondacaro made sure to frame him sympathetically, even his behavior was questionable:
In testimony about his evacuation work in Afghanistan, and to head off what Roche said would be CNN’s attempt to portray him as “sitting in Austria in his underwear,” Young explained that — unlike in the movies — the so-called secret agent man doesn’t personally go into the hot zones. “You need local resources,” he said.
Fondacaro also helped Young complain about “the hostile messages he received from ‘activist’ Jill Kornetsky, the source for CNN,” whining in particular that Kornetsky called him a “mercenary.”
Fondacaro ratcheted up the pathos in his Jan. 8 post:
U.S. Navy veteran and Plaintiff Zachary Young continued his testimony Wednesday in the $1 billion defamation trial against CNN. The morning’s testimony featured the jurors being shown fairly damaging messages between Young and CNN reporters Katie Bo Lillis and Alex Marquardt. The messages showed Young was lied to about the nature of CNN’s reporting and Young warning them what they were about to air on TV was factually inaccurate. The jurors looked on intently and were taking copious notes.
[…]CNN ended up blindsiding Young and publishing their allegedly defamatory report, giving him only two hours to respond, which came up later with Young’s interaction with Marquardt. “To me it feels like something is being hidden,” Young said of his mind set at this point in their conversation, seemingly picking up on the deception.
“We’ve been doing a series of stories on evacuations and the various different models folks are following…and just want to talk about the lay of the land,” Lillis lied to Young.
[…]All six jurors and two alternates watched intently as Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman showed them teasers from Jake Tapper’s show The Lead, where he told viewers they would hear a news report about people who “preyed” on Afghans and wanted them to “pay up big time to get out.” In a second teaser, Tapper falsely claimed Afghans need to “pay the price” for evacuation.
There was similar language used against Young in all six airings of Marquardt’s report, both domestically and internationally on CNN International. All of them claimed Young was operating a “black market” operation. One CNN International anchor said people like Young were “unscrupulous.”
Multiple jurors took notes about how often CNN played the allegedly defamatory report from Marquardt; and the repeated use of “black market.” One juror also didn’t seem to appreciate CNN’s lead counsel David Axelrod calling comments on CNN’s Facebook video of Marquardt’s report “irrelevant.”
This was followed by more anti-CNN bias:
CNN’s cross-examination took up the rest of the day and didn’t seem to go well for them judging by the reactions from the jury.
Axelrod spent a lot of time going over Young’s tax returns and the large carryover of losses in the years prior to the CNN report. Only a couple of the jurors were taking notes during that dense conversation and a couple more were glancing around the room, one of them even yawned.
A lot of that conversation revolved around Young’s classified work for the U.S. government as a contractor, which the jury was not privy to, thus it was filled with allusions to what was in documents. Some of the jurors seemed confused as they tried to keep up. Some were trying to take notes.
Toward the end of the day, the cross-examination seemed to be dragging and, from inside the courtroom, it was evident in the body language of the jury with a few rocking in their chairs. Another had a hand over their eyes; that juror also yawned.
Fondacaro seems to be unaware that he was setting up an avenue of appeal for CNN if it lost the lawsuit, hyping how the jury was interested in Young’s side of the story and bored with CNN’s side.
Fondacaro contiued his unprofessional cheerleading for Young — reminding us that he a partisan right-wing activist, not a real journalist — in his Jan. 9 post:
Thursday was the most eventful day in the $1 billion defamation trial against CNN – so far – as the testimony of Navy veteran and Plaintiff Zachary Young concluded. The previous day’s emotional testimony from Young seemed to temper the ability for CNN’s lead counsel David Axelrod (not to be confused with CNN commentator David Axelrod) to be combative and accusatory. With a night of rest after the testimony, Axelrod felt confident unleashing his rage at Young; at one point shouting at him about his time in the CIA, and drawing Judge William Scott Henry’s anger with an ambush document and repeatedly insulting Young on the stand.
The fate of the defamation case against CNN even hung in the balance at one point.
[…]The interactions between Axelrod and Young were tense throughout. At one point, Axelrod accused Young of being a war profiteer taking advantage of desperate people. “Were you profiting off of desperate Afghans desperate to get out,” Axelrod repeatedly attacked. Young pointed out that he only took money from corporations for Afghanistan evacuations.
“The way I word it or the way you word it, it doesn’t matter,” Axelrod raises his voice.
Axelrod’s anger boiled over as he tried to get Young to answer about his relationship with the CIA, even shouting at him over it. “What’s your relationship with the CIA?! I’m asking you now!” This outburst drew an objection from Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman, which drew a sidebar between the lead counsels and Judge Henry.
When the sidebar concluded, Judge Henry ordered that information about Young’s history with the CIA off limits since it was classified.
Axelrod even had an attitude against Young’s methods of running his evacuation operations, without ever coordinating one himself.
[…]Axelrod drew Judge Henry’s wrath again when he again insulted Young on the stand. Judge Henry threatened a “$100 fine” for personal aspersions going forward. The money would go toward North Florida Legal Services. Axelrod wanted to pay $100 right then and there in “good faith.”
But while Axelrod put on that show for Judge Henry, that bravado was largely absent when the jury returned; gone was that shouting and arm waving. And for all the suggestions that the document would blow up Young’s case, Alexrod didn’t hammer it the same way that he did with Young’s contracts and tax documents.
Axelrod didn’t give Young the proper opportunity to explain the contract with Helios.
Too bad Fondacaro didn’t face any fines for his personal aspersions of Axelrod and CNN.
Fondacaro whined in his Jan. 10 report under the screeching headline “CNN’s Defamation Lawyer SMEARS Decorated Army General in Open Court to Jury”:
On Friday, CNN’s lead counsel in the $1 billion defamation trial against them, David Axelrod (not to be confused with the CNN commentator of the same name) had yet another angry outburst at a witness on the stand. After going berserk on Navy veteran and Plaintiff Zachary Young the previous day, decorated Army Major General James V. Young (no relation to the plaintiff) was in Axelrod’s sights; accusing Gen. Young of being willing to let a “hypothetical” little girl die rather than save her from the Taliban.
Under the direct examination of plaintiff’s counsel Kyle Roche, Gen. Young testified to his background in the intelligence field and his board/case officer positions with AA21, a non-profit that also getting Americans and allies out of Afghanistan during the collapse. He recounted the gripping story of Operation Baby Bus, which involved getting two buses loaded with people (including a mother who was nine-months pregnant) evacuated.
It was that testimony that Axelrod decided to focus on and direct his rage during his cross-examination.
[…]That desperation became overtly apparent when Axelrod tried to use that scenario to smear and morally blackmail Gen. Young into saying he would hire Z. Young to save her that very day in trial. Axelrod started shouting and accusing him of being willing to leave that fake 16 y/o girl to a horrific fate to the Taliban rather than hire Z. Young. Gen. Young said they would “try other methods” to extract the girl:
[…]Axelrod started shouting again when pressing Gen. Young about not speaking with anyone about Z. Young’s reputation, despite repeatedly objecting to Z. Young’s testimony about others’ thoughts on his reputation. Gen. Young countered by explaining he answered in his professional capacity and anyone who had a CNN story like that was “a risk.”
Seemingly under the impression he had found a viable avenue of attack, Axelrod tried to suggest that since Z. Young still had his security clearance that the federal government had deemed him not a risk in seeming contradiction to Gen. Young. “I think you’re conflating two different things,” Gen. Young said, noting there’s a difference between “reputational risk and national security risk.”
During redirect, Gen. Young testified “sure” he would have hired Z. Young anytime before the CNN report aired.
It’s worth noting that General Young was the same expert witness CNN wanted to kick off the case because he was just too good and brought too many facts to the jury.
The MRC, of course, knows a thing or two about smearing decorated military officers. It repeatedly attacked Alexander Vindman, a highly decorated Army lieutenant colonel who told the truth about Donald Trump, helping to lead to the first impeachment of him. Fondacaro himself sneered in a November 2019 post that “the liberal media fell in love” with Vindman’s testimony, complaining further that “All three of the networks were enamored with Vindman’s family history [as Soviet emigres], alluding to it adding some kind of weight to his testimony. Another Fondacaro post complained that CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin pointed out that Republicans hadn’t “succeeded” in discrediting Vindman.
Would Fondacaro like to walk back his attacks on Vindman now that he finds military men unimpeachable? We’ll see what happens.