In a new wrinkle exposed in the defamation lawsuit brought against CNN by a private contractor and former military veteran, a deposition filing was made with unredacted content that may expose the network further. As we covered recently, the news network is facing a lawsuit that may match – or exceed – the defamation settlement FoxNews reached with Dominion Voting Systems.

This stems from a report made on “The Lead With Jake Tapper” by Alex Marquardt where he covered a component of the extraction efforts from Afghanistan. Security contractor Zachary Young worked as a private evacuation expert in the region, and Marquardt’s report carried the supposition that Young was an illegal operator. Judges have determined there is enough revealed to bring to a jury the charge that CNN knew there was a lack of factual basis and may have acted with malicious intent. 

In a new revelation found by Nick Fondacaro at Newsbusters, a recent filing of a deposition may have been made with redactions missing, showing more evidence that insiders at CNN were discussing the lack of tangible evidence for the story being reported. In this new document reveal, Marquardt himself asserts that there was a lack of criminality found in his reporting.

As a preamble, the basis for defamation in this case had become established. Judge L. Clayton Roberts had this question for CNN’s legal team.

When they were talking about Mr. Young, they had his picture on the thing and there was a chyron that says he was involved in a black market. And, you know, I've looked in a couple of dictionaries –  three or four – and the first definition for black market in all the dictionaries is criminal activity. And you know, if you are accusing someone of criminal activity and they're not involved in a crime, that's usually defamation per se. Correct?

By way of an answer, CNN lawyer Charles Tobin responded with this assertion:

Under the law where we would be looking at the defamatory meaning, perhaps it would be.

With that foundation, the newly discovered interview portion exposes even more knowledge inside CNN that they did not possess sufficient factual elements for the story declaring Young as a black market operator. The aspects were seen in the deposed interview with Alex Marquardt himself.

• Q: Did your reporting ever discover anything illegal that was going on with regards to the evacuation process? 
• A. No, it didn't.

• Q. Did you think Mr. Young was committing a crime? Let me ask it that way. 
• A. I don't know. And we -- I don't know and we didn’t report that. I don't know.

• Q. I'm not saying you did. I'm just asking the question. So – 
• A. No. As far as I knew he was -- he was charging -- sorry to interrupt. As far as I knew, he was simply asking for large amounts of money to get Afghans out of the country.

• Q. You found no evidence of Mr. Young committing a crime, correct? 
• A. No.

As we explained in the earlier coverage of this case, internal communications from CNN supplied during discovery showed that there were plenty of misgivings about the veracity of the reporting seen between various producers and editors. In one instance the editors from the digital side of the network announced they would not run the report due to these concerns. One message from Marquardt attests to this, and he does not appear to be battling the reasoning for the decision: “They told me it was bc we could not answer the question ‘is this a scam?’”

Some exchanges between editors and Marquardt in particular are showing hostility and targeting of Young, indicating a strong probability that malice could also be found. 

This new revelation continues to show the strength of this particular case and why it is that judges have so far not sided with most attempts by the network to dismiss or diminish the impact of this suit. Based on what has been exposed through this case it would be understandable if CNN begins pushing hard for a settlement. What has been exposed to this point has been rather damning.