Closing Arguments in Billion-Dollar CNN Defamation Trial: CNN Just Can't Stop Digging All the Holes

In the billion-dollar CNN defamation trial, the lawyers are offering closing arguments. The judge issued juror instructions just before that.

Nicholas Fondacaro @NickFondacaro

If they find CNN liable and they proceed to punitive damages, they need to determine if CNN engaged in express malice, actual malice, and outrageous behavior.

...

Freedman notes that Axelrod's claim in opening that every word in CNN's report was "true."

He notes that every CNN witness claimed used the same false definition for "black market."

CNN is attempting to weasel its way out of defaming Young as working for the "black market" of human smuggling by now claiming they had no idea "black market" meant an illegal market, and they thought it only meant an... "unregulated market."

That's what CNN has instructed all of its employees to say -- they have suborned perjury, telling their employees to invent a fictitious definition of "black market" which they all claim they always believed.

Allegedly, you understand. I'm sure it's perfectly possible that a bunch of people independently and organically came to believe in a definition of "black market" that appears in literally zero dictionaries. (Until leftwing dictionary editors update their definitions to support CNN's court position, that is.)

He notes that every CNN witness said they had no remorse and they would publish it again.

Freedman recalls that the jury asked Marquardt if he was sorry and he said no.

Freedman says that everyone saw CNN senior editor Tom Lumley's conscience was eating him up on the stand because CNN was forcing him to lie.

Lumley is one of the two editors who ripped the story before CNN went ahead and published it anyway:

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

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

Nicholas Fondacaro @NickFondacaro

Freedman is reminding the jury of who Young was before the CNN report.

Freedman is walking the jury through the timeline of Young's evacuations from Afghanistan.

He save 22 women and a baby.

Freedman notes that Young had warned CNN that they didn't have the facts straight and that "they would face you [the jury]" and they did it anyway.

Freedman says it takes expressed and actual malice for CNN to do what they allegedly did.

Freedman note that CNN's headlines and article said Afghans faced "exorbitant" fees from people like the only person they named, Young. When they weren't paying his fees.

Major corporations like Bloomberg were paying the fees. This is just a complete lie.

Freedman is showing the jury the CNN teases where they set the story up as showing viewers how "desperate Afghans" were being "preyed" on by people who want them to pay up "big"

"We watched as they imposed their hypocritical moral values on Zak," Freedman proclaims, noting that CNN makes money off of war, which they targeted him for.

"Do they think we're all stupid?" Freedman asks.

Freedman points to the comments of CNN's Nicole Gaouette who said their own story's claims "were not fair."

"Do not let CNN tell more lies ... for their own self-righteousness." - Freedman.

Freedman shows the definition of "black market" in several dictionaries and they all call it an illegal market or implies illegality.

He notes that every CNN employee who has testified has used a definition that "cannot be sourced" to a dictionary.

He calls it a "conspiracy."

...

Freedman notes that CNN editor Fuzz Hogan insisted they intended to say Young operated on a black market while all the others said no they didn't.

Freedman argues that it was evidence that the truth slipping out in the face of CNN's "conspiracy" to have the same claims.

"CNN deserves punishment. Look at what they did. Look at what they caused. They did it on purpose. Do not let them get away," said Freedman.

He also urged them to "fight fake news," which I love.

This is amazing:

Jury is back in the courtroom. CNN attorney David Axelrod has taken the stand to deliver the closing arguments for the network.

Axelrod says that throughout his closing arguments he will emphasize the CNN story is" accurate," and "tough but fair."

Axelrod is arguing that the plaintiff should've gone out of his way to try to convince the CNN journalists he wasn't "shady" (putting the burden of proof on the plaintiff). The jurors don't seem particularly convinced about the argument.

CNN's defense hinges entirely on disclaiming responsibility, shifting the burden onto the plaintiff to prove he is not 'extorting' 'desperate Afghans.' However, true journalism operates differently; it's CNN that should have substantiated its allegations, not the plaintiff.

CNN: Where we publish baseless accusations, and our victims are required to prove their innocence to us.

Young's lawyer also pointed out that CNN itself has made a lot of money on the Afghanistan war, so they have no right to complain about an American special forces soldier working there to evacuate people out of that hellhole.

He also points out that CNN "never saved a baby from Afghanistan."

Not even Jake Tapper, who loves the troops and attempts to smear himself in their glory!

I mentioned earlier that CNN's editors found a lot of faults in this story, and did not want to publish it. Let me repeat that:

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

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

So how did Axelrod handle that?

In his closing argument, Axelrod said that CNN's editors are, essentially, nasty little troublemaking bitches who just want to complain and ruin everything:

Jessica Costescu @JessicaCostescu

CNN's lead attorney just threw one of its editors under the bus:

"Does anyone have someone in their lives that just likes to complain?"
"That may have been Mr. Lumley, and you saw that...all of his complaining...Mr. Lumley had a beef with the story, he wanted to go further."

A little more: CNN's lawyer Axelrod showed that he did a great job:

Nicholas Fondacaro @NickFondacaro

Axelrod is apologizing to the jury for being annoying and asking them to not to "take it out" on CNN.

LOL.

Well, at least he apologize for being annoying, unlike Jake Tapper.

Give this man his billion dollars!

posted by Ace at 03:37 PM

| Access Comments