In a recent development, a judge presiding over a defamation lawsuit against CNN has granted permission for the network's show host, Jake Tapper, to be questioned under oath.
The lawsuit was filed by a company that assisted in the evacuation of victims from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of American troops under President Joe Biden's administration, a move that effectively handed control of the country to the Taliban. The judge's decision came amidst doubts about Tapper's veracity.
As reported by Gateway Pundit, the lawsuit was initiated after CNN allegedly misrepresented Navy veteran Zachary Young and his company, which was involved in the evacuation efforts during Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan. The network had labeled Young a criminal, a characterization it defended by arguing that Young's actions would be considered criminal under Shariah law, the religious legal system associated with Islam known for its extreme regulations.
Shariah law is infamous for its severe penalties, including the amputation of a thief's hands, the execution of individuals who criticize the Quran, deny Muhammad's prophethood, lead a Muslim away from Islam, marry a Muslim woman as a non-Muslim man, or engage in homosexual acts. It also permits "taqiyya," or lying to non-Muslims.
A report by Revolver highlighted CNN's stance, stating, "They're actually legitimizing (and defending) Sharia Law, which routinely abuses women, sometimes to death, in an effort to try and win that billion-dollar lawsuit. In the process, they're also branding the Navy Vet at the center of the defamation suit a 'criminal' for trying to save women's lives."
Jonathan Turley, a constitutional expert and law professor at George Washington University, noted that the crux of the dispute lies in CNN's attempt to portray Young negatively. This was done through a report on "The Lead with Jake Tapper," where CNN's Alex Marquardt claimed that "desperate Afghans are being exploited," specifically naming Young.
The judge has already ruled that Young can seek punitive damages, as he has "sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages." This includes internal communications at CNN indicating the network's desire for the story to be Young's "funeral" and its derogatory descriptions of Young.
The judge's decision to permit Tapper's deposition was influenced by his skepticism towards Tapper's declaration, as Turley reported. "Since that is a sworn declaration made under penalty of perjury, it was a stinging rebuke," Turley commented.
Depositions have already laid out the evidence in the case, and the next step is to evaluate the network's financial standing. Turley stated, "The court clearly believes that Tapper could have some relevant information since he holds one of the most lucrative contracts at CNN and is familiar with the corporate finances in relation to his show."
CNN maintains its stance, arguing that it was justified in suggesting criminality in Young's actions because, "To get women out, the operators on the ground were required either to break the law directly or to find someone to break the law for them." This refers to Shariah law. This case continues to unfold, shedding light on the complexities of journalistic integrity, defamation, and the interpretation of international law.
Login