logo
Alex Marquardt's exit from CNN 'obviously' tied to network's costly defamation trial, insiders say

Alex Marquardt's exit from CNN 'obviously' tied to network's costly defamation trial, insiders say

Yahoo2 days ago

CNN parted ways with its chief national security correspondent, Alex Marquardt, Monday and many of his now-former colleagues say it's "obviously" tied to the network's costly defamation trial earlier this year.
"Obviously, the court case is a core reason why, that is obvious," one CNN insider told Fox News Digital.
Marquardt was at the center of a defamation case brought against him and CNN in January by U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young. A Florida jury found that CNN defamed Young and ruled that he could seek punitive damages as a result of a November 2021 report by Marquardt. The report branded Young as a shady profiteer who exploited "desperate Afghans" trying to flee Afghanistan during the Biden administration's chaotic military withdrawal from the Taliban-run country, implying Young was operating on a "black market."
Alex Marquardt Out At Cnn After Eight Years; Reporter Was As The Center Of Costly Defamation Trial
The jury had initially awarded Young $5 million in financial and emotional damages before Young and CNN reached an undisclosed settlement, suggesting the network gave Young significantly more money. The jury foreman later told Fox News Digital they were prepared to make CNN pay "somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million to $100 million" in punitive damages.
Cnn Defamation Trial: Losing Case Expected But Still A Bad Bruise For The Network, Insider Says
Read On The Fox News App
"He has not done anything else that is wrong. So if he was terminated, that has to be a core reason why. It's just the logical thing," the CNN staffer said.
Despite the certainty among CNN staff that Marquardt's departure was directly linked to Young's settlement, they remained puzzled by the timing since it came nearly five months after the trial.
The first staffer said, "I'm not sure how much strategizing is going into things these days."
It seemed like Marquardt was in good standing with CNN even after the trial as he continued making regular on-air appearances, most recently last Tuesday. He even served as a fill-in anchor on Memorial Day.
"Alex is on our air because he is an experienced, veteran reporter with valuable insights on the news," a CNN spokesperson told Fox News Digital in late January after the trial.
But according to the Status newsletter, Marquardt's dismissal was the result of a "post-settlement ethics compliance review" launched by CNN earlier this year in which he and others involved in the defamatory report were interviewed. Marquardt was informed about the network's decision on Friday, citing "unspecified editorial differences."
The bar for proving defamation in court is historically high as many lawsuits are either dismissed or result in a settlement before going to trial. Young's lawsuit against CNN was a rare instance where a jury did find the network liable for defamation, yet a settlement was later reached. Perhaps it was because of the damning evidence Young's legal team gathered during discovery, much of it involving Marquardt himself.
"[W]e gonna nail this Zachary Young mf---er," Marquardt told a colleague in a 2021 message exchange before finishing the report. That comment was repeatedly referenced by Young's attorneys throughout the trial.
"I always thought he was a professional. But those internal messages left CNN with no other choice," a second CNN staffer told Fox News Digital.
Cnn's Alex Marquardt Hesitant To Admit He Made Money Covering War Zones: 'I Don't Go There To Get Paid'
The second CNN staffer insisted, "It's hard in my mind not to make a connection" between Marquardt's abrupt exit and the defamation trial.
"He was a chief correspondent. A chief. There was no send off. Nothing like that at all. It all went into the quiet goodnight," the second CNN insider said. "He was a great reporter in the field, really good in war zones. That's what makes it a shame."
Marquardt was vague about his sudden exit from CNN, posting on X, "Some personal news: I'm leaving CNN after 8 terrific years. Tough to say goodbye but it's been an honor to work among the very best in the business. Profound thank you to my comrades on the National Security team & the phenomenal teammates I've worked with in the US and abroad."
CNN declined to comment, citing a policy not to discuss "personnel matters." The network did not respond to additional requests for comment. Marquardt did not respond to requests for comment.
In a post-trial interview, Young said he hadn't forgiven Marquardt, calling him out for remaining defiant on the witness stand at the trial.
"We've given Mr. Marquardt plenty of opportunities during deposition and then again at trial to apologize. And, you know, the answer was no," Young told Fox News Digital. "He still stands behind his work. He's very proud of what he did. His hit piece on me to destroy my life."
"He's not my biggest fan," Young added.
On the witness stand, Marquardt insisted his report was not a "hit piece" on Young and that he was proud of his work.
"I wasn't looking to take anyone down. I didn't take anyone down," Marquardt testified.
Cnn Defamation Trial: Plaintiff Accuses Network Of Faking Critical Phone Call For 'Theater'
CNN issued an on-air apology in March 2022 after Young threatened to take legal action. But throughout the trial, Marquardt and several CNN staffers testified they didn't feel the apology was necessary. CNN senior vice president Adam Levine admitted to the jurors that the apology was merely a legal decision.
"Alex Marquardt had put in an email, 'I'm going to nail this Zachary Young.' At that point it seemed as though he had put a target on Mr. Young's back, and he was not going to let up until he reached his goal… It was obvious to the entire jury that he was out to get him," jury foreman Katy Svitenko told Fox News Digital in February.
That was the moment Svitenko decided it was defamation with malice.
"The jury pretty much agreed… those emails among the CNN employees were pretty bad. And not just one, it was several, at various levels throughout the corporation," she said.
Fox News' Brian Flood contributed to this report. Original article source: Alex Marquardt's exit from CNN 'obviously' tied to network's costly defamation trial, insiders say

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Hollywood Stars Make Bank On Broadway—For Producers
Why Hollywood Stars Make Bank On Broadway—For Producers

Forbes

time7 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Why Hollywood Stars Make Bank On Broadway—For Producers

George Clooney could not have asked for a much bigger or better Broadway debut. Good Night, and Good Luck—the show he cowrote, produced and stars in—is nominated for five Tony Awards at this Sunday's ceremony, including Clooney for Best Actor, and has broken weekly box office records as the highest-grossing non-musical play in history. Its penultimate performance on Saturday will be broadcast live on CNN and HBO Max, a first for a Broadway show. Through 12 weeks of its 13-week run, the stage adaptation of the showdown between journalist Edward R. Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy has grossed more on Broadway ($44 million) than its source material. The 2005 film of the same name cowritten and directed by Clooney, earned just $32 million at the domestic box office despite earning six Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Director. But this much is clear—Clooney didn't come to Broadway for the money. Forbes estimates the 64-year-old Clooney will earn $6 million in salary and gross royalties for his numerous roles in the show, more than any other theater performer over that span, but a fraction of what Hollywood's highest-paid actors can expect to make on each movie project. For last year's Wolfs, for instance, Forbes estimates Apple paid Clooney and his co-star Brad Pitt $30 million each. Whether it's the purity or the prestige of acting on stage—"Movies will make you famous, television will make you rich, but theatre will make you good," the Broadway stalwart Terrence Mann famously quipped—A-list stars like Clooney have become a vital of the Broadway ecosystem. Denzel Washington and Jake Gyllenhaal currently headline Othello, while Kieren Culkin, Bob Odenkirk and Bill Burr lead Glengarry Glen Ross. In April, Gladiator II star Paul Mescal wrapped up a run in A Streetcar Named Desire. And the 2024 theater season included Robert Downey Jr., Rachel McAdams, Steve Carrell, Eddie Redmayne and Jeremy Strong, all leading non-musical plays that ran 10-16 weeks with a hard closing date to accommodate the actors' busy schedules. While Hollywood stars have made appearances on Broadway for decades, in recent years, producers and investors have been increasingly eager to stage these short-run, star-driven productions, which considerably lower their financial risk. A play typically requires a $6 to $9 million investment to get to opening night, compared to $20-25 million for new musicals, according to Forbes estimates. Weekly operating costs run in the $400,000-$600,000 range for plays versus $800,000-$900,000 for musicals. 'Your likelihood of losing all your money [as an investor] is near zero, because of the projections of sales based on that actor," says Jason Turchin, a Tony-winning producer and founder of the Broadway Investors Club. 'You may not make multiples back but you should get a healthy return.' Good Night, and Good Luck, for example, recouped its initial $9.5 million investment just seven and a half weeks into its run. Othello and Glengarry Glen Ross made their money back ($9 million and $7.5 million respectively) in nine weeks. Reputation, Reputation, Reputation: Stars such as Othello's Jake Gyllenhaal and Denzel Washington can sell out limited-edition runs on Broadway and then return to the more lucrative world of movies. While the upside of these shows is capped by the limited run, investors can expect to make 10-30% return on their capital, Turchin says. Considering only about a quarter of all Broadway shows fully pay back their investors, or less, it's the kind of safe bet he believes producers will lean into even more in future years. A-list stars meanwhile, some of whom are paid upwards of $20 million per movie, are typically given a minimum weekly salary—around $100,000 per week for the highest-level talent—as an advance against a percentage of the show's net gross, after expenses such as credit card fees and theater restoration charges are deducted from the raw receipts. An actor's gross royalty points are highly variable, but the top end can reach 10%. Other significant members of a show, such as the writers, producers, and directors, are either paid royalties from a small percentage of the gross or a larger percentage of a show's profits after recoupment. For ongoing shows, almost all have moved toward paying out of the profits to mitigate risk, but for sure-thing star vehicles—say, Hugh Jackman's year-long run in the 2022 revival of The Music Man—the standard is gross participation. Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck deal would include net gross points for starring, cowriting, producing and owning the underlying IP, adding up to his impressive total. Until this year, a Broadway actor's gross percentage only modestly exceeded the weekly minimums. Most hits gross just over $1 million per week, and over the run of a show, a star performer could expect to earn between $1-3 million. But if you're the type of actor who has made a fortune playing a superhero (Jackman), selling a tequila company (Clooney) or being one of the most bankable box office draws of the last 30 years (Washington), the money matters less. What's changed in the 2025 season is that producers are realizing just how far they can push the ticket pricing with a bankable star, particularly for the most expensive seats. Average ticket prices for Good Night, and Good Luck, Othello and Glengarry Glen Ross hover between $250-$400, and premium seats have routinely sold in the $700-$900 range, more than double the cost of top tickets to last year's star-driven plays or long-running hits like Wicked and Hamilton. Of the shows that started their runs in March, they account for three of the top four highest-grossers on Broadway, with Good Night, and Good Luck and Othello averaging more than $3 million per week, and Clooney's show cracking the previously untouchable $4 million threshold for non-musicals on three occasions. For deep-pocketed theatergoers, the appeal of seeing a movie star perform live has proven immune to traditional hurdles for other shows, such as negative reviews. According to Broadway review aggregator Did They Like It?, Good Night, and Good Luck received eight positive reviews, 9 mixed reviews and four negative reviews from major critics. Othello logged two positive reviews, 15 mixed reviews and three negative, and was completely shut out at the Tony Awards. Yet ticket sales remain robust. Last year's Robert Downey Jr.-led McNeal—his Broadway debut—was one of the worst reviewed shows of the season (one positive, five mixed, eight negative) and grossed $14 million across its 12-week run. Compare that to a play like John Proctor Is The Villain—a revisionist telling of Arthur Miller's The Crucible starring Sadie Sink of Stranger Things—which received 17 positive reviews, three mixed and one negative, plus seven Tony nominations, but averages less than $500,000 in weekly grosses, and one can quickly see the disconnect. "It does seem that theatergoers want to see Hollywood celebrities, in the same space at the same time. They crave that experience,' says one major Broadway dealmaker. 'And for the star? A standing ovation from a thousand people every night doesn't hurt the ego.'

Trump has demolished the liberal myth. Migrants shouldn't be treated equally
Trump has demolished the liberal myth. Migrants shouldn't be treated equally

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump has demolished the liberal myth. Migrants shouldn't be treated equally

Sometimes the best policies are the ones that produce the shrillest wails from the Left. Such may be the case with Trump's latest travel ban, which by rights should spark serious soul-searching in Britain. Overnight, the President announced restrictions on the citizens of 12 countries. This was a response to the recent terror attack on Boulder, Colorado, in which an Egyptian national, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, is alleged to have thrown firebombs and sprayed burning petrol at a Jewish vigil on Sunday in support of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Although Egypt is not on the list, Homeland Security officials said Mr Soliman was in the country illegally, having overstayed a tourist visa, but that he had applied for asylum in September 2022. So far, so Trumpian. (He took similar measures during his first term, after all, and they were repealed by Joe Biden who called them 'a stain on our national conscience'.) But then came the kicker. 'We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America,' Trump said. Ouch. If the months of Trump 2.0 have so far shifted the Overton window across the West, allowing even the likes of Sir Keir Starmer to contemplate – at least rhetorically – tackling immigration, then such a travel ban should be welcomed on these shores as well. Already, the usual suspects are accusing Trump of being 'racist'. But a glance at the range of countries on the list shows that this is not a question of race, or even religion. Rather, it is a question of homeland security, and that holds a stark lesson for Britain. A few months back, official data revealed that though foreigners comprise just 15 per cent of the population of our country, they commit 41 per cent of all crime and up to a quarter of sex crimes. In the first nine months of 2024, almost 14 per cent of grooming suspects were Pakistani, five times their share of the population. Two nationalities – Afghans and Eritreans – were more than 20 times more likely to account for sexual offence convictions than British citizens, according to the data. Overall, foreign nationals were 71 per cent more likely than Britons to be responsible for sex crime convictions. Based on convictions per 10,000 of the population, Afghans with 77 convictions topped the table with a rate of 59 per 10,000, 22.3 times that of Britons. They were followed by Eritreans, who accounted for 59 convictions at a rate of 53.6 per 10,000 of their population. In March 2025, data from the Ministry of Justice revealed that foreigners, who claim £1 billion a month in benefits, were also responsible for large proportions of violence, robbery, fraud and drug offences, between 2021 and 2023. There was no data for terrorism offences or acts of anti-Semitism. But does anybody want to hazard a guess? Which brings us to a fundamental question. Why? Why does Britain need to allow the criminals of the world to come to our shores to abuse women and girls, run criminal enterprises, foster terrorism and anti-Semitism, and claim benefits in the process? Obviously not all foreigners from these countries behave in this way. But facts aren't racist. Large numbers are pulling down our pants, spanking our buttocks and pulling them up again. In fact, the problem is not one of race but one of politics and culture. In my new book, Never Again? How the West Betrayed the Jews and Itself, which is coming out at the end of September, I look at groundbreaking research published in April by cognitive scientists Scott Barry Kaufman and Craig Neumann. They found that 'citizens in democratic countries have more benevolent traits, fewer malevolent traits, and greater well-being' than those living under autocratic regimes. Based on a study of 200,000 people from 75 countries, people living under autocracies were found to be much more likely to exhibit the 'Dark Triad' of negative personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. In democracies, by contrast, more people displayed the 'Light Triad' of humanism, faith in humanity and 'Kantianism', or treating people with dignity in their own right rather than viewing them as a means to an end. Obviously, this is not related to race. Russians are hardly black, but they hardly live in a democracy either. It is a case of cognitive development. The problem occurs when, in an age of global travel, 'Dark Triad' migrants who grew up in despotic regimes encounter gullible 'Light Triad' officials in the democracies, whose empathies are easily played upon. That is why we find British judges ruling that an Albanian convict should avoid deportation because his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, a Pakistani drug dealer could stay so he could teach his son about Islam, and a paedophile of the same nationality should not be sent home since it would be 'unduly harsh' on his own children. These real-life cases, reported by the Telegraph, provide a clear collision of the 'Dark Triad' traits in the criminals and the 'Light Triad' tendencies in the judges. It is a chemical reaction waiting to happen, and the vast majority of the population, wherever they are born, are suffering the consequences. In other words, we are being taken for fools. No foreign criminal has a God-given right to set up home in Britain just because he fancies it. This is our home, and although we are delighted to welcome strangers, that generosity should be withdrawn from those who nick our television and threaten our children – even if their own happen to like the chicken nuggets in our fridge. Trump has now thrown down the gauntlet. What is the British Government going to do to set our own house in order? Will it take an anti-Semitic outrage like the firebombing in Colorado before the Prime Minister takes action? Will he take action even then? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

The Trump administration revives an old intimidation tactic: the polygraph machine
The Trump administration revives an old intimidation tactic: the polygraph machine

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

The Trump administration revives an old intimidation tactic: the polygraph machine

A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. When President Ronald Reagan's White House threatened thousands of government officials with polygraph exams, supposedly to protect classified data (but probably also to control press leaks), his Secretary of State George Shultz threatened to resign. Reagan's White House backed down and agreed to impose the tests only for those suspected of espionage, according to a 1985 New York Times report. In terms of catching spies, polygraph tests failed spectacularly in key moments. More on that in a moment. First, consider the second Trump administration, which is leaning in on polygraphs, presumably to ferret out leakers, but also as an apparent method of intimidation. 'The polygraph has been weaponized and is being used against individuals who have never had a polygraph requirement, whether pre-employment or security, in their entire federal careers,' said Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in representing people who work in national security, after a slew of published reports about polygraph threats throughout the Trump administration. The tests are frequently being used to identify not leaks of classified information but rather 'unclassified conversations regarding policy or embarrassing decisions that have made their way through the rumor mill or directly to the media,' said Zaid, who has previously testified before Congress about the use of polygraphs and sued federal agencies for their practices. ► At the FBI, the New York Times reports, an increased use of polygraphs has 'intensified a culture of intimidation' for agents. ► At the Pentagon, officials publicly threatened to conduct polygraph tests as part of an effort to figure out how the press learned that Elon Musk was scheduled to get a classified briefing about China, which a billionaire with business interests in China probably should not get. It's not clear if polygraph tests were ultimately administered as part of the probe, according to CNN's report. ► At the Department of Homeland Security, according to CNN, polygraph tests have been used on FEMA and FAA officials in addition to those in more traditional national security roles. Administration officials have defended the practice as a way to protect government information. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem defended the use of polygraph tests during an interview on CBS in March. 'The authorities that I have under the Department of Homeland Security are broad and extensive,' she said. Previously, per Zaid, polygraphs have been used as a sort of 'weeding device,' not unlike a physical fitness test for large pools of applicants to national security and law enforcement roles. After that, some employees — particularly in the intelligence community — may be given exams every five or 10 years, sort of like a random drug test. What's happening now is something different. Polygraph tests are 'being used against individuals who have never had a polygraph requirement, whether for pre-employment or security, in their entire federal careers,' Zaid said. Most Americans have never been subjected to a polygraph, and that's in large part because Congress acted to largely outlaw them from use in the public sector in 1988, a time when millions of Americans were being polygraphed each year and companies were using them to bar people from jobs and conduct coercive internal investigations. For an example of why polygraphs were problematic, look back at an old '60 Minutes' segment in which Diane Sawyer submits to an exam and hidden cameras are used to show how the bias of the examiner affects results. 'If you're trying to find one leaker in an organization of 100 people, you could end up falsely accusing dozens of people,' according to Amit Katwala, author of the polygraph history Tremors in the Blood: Murder, Obsession and the Birth of the Lie Detector. 'And you might not even catch the culprit — there's no evidence to suggest that an actual lie detector is even scientifically possible,' he told me in an email. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act was signed into law in 1988 by Reagan, years after his showdown with Shultz. But the law kept polygraphs for the public sector, particularly for national security and law enforcement. In the national security world, the principle of protecting the innocent is 'flipped on its head,' according to Zaid. 'We would rather ruin 99 innocent people's careers than let the one new Ed Snowden, Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen get through,' he said. If polygraphs have a spotty record in detecting lies, they have a horrible record in detecting spies. A Senate Intelligence Committee report from 1994 explores how the CIA officer Aldrich Ames, who spied for the KGB, evaded detection for years in part because he passed multiple polygraph exams. At the same time, the same report describes how another CIA employee who aided the KGB, Edward Lee Howard, did so in part because he felt jilted by the CIA after he was fired for failing a polygraph exam. Then there was the shocking trial of FBI official and Russian spy Robert Hanssen, who had never been given a polygraph in his career, there was an uptick in their use at some agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Energy. At the turn of the 21st century, the US government commissioned a large-scale report on the efficacy of the polygraph undertaken by a special committee at the National Research Council. They found the scientific evidence on polygraphs to be more than lacking. 'As a nation, we should not allow ourselves to continue to be blinded by the aura of the polygraph,' Stephen Feinberg, the Carnegie Mellon professor who led the study, testified before Congress. Ames offered his assessment of the polygraph machine in a letter from prison published in 2000, calling the polygraph 'junk science that just won't die' and saying it is most useful as an instrument of coercion. 'It depends upon the overall coerciveness of the setting — you'll be fired, you won't get the job, you'll be prosecuted, you'll go to prison — and the credulous fear the device inspires,' he wrote. Polygraphs are frequently used in criminal investigations, but rarely used in court. The idea behind the polygraph, which was first developed in the '20s, is that lying causes stress. The examiner hooks a person up to monitors that gauge things like blood pressure and fingertip sweat. A pre-interview helps formulate common questions that create a baseline and reactions to more probing questions are compared to that baseline. But it's not a scientific process, and it can be beaten, or misled, since at its core the machine is simply measuring physiological responses. Frequently, incriminating information is offered by nervous exam-takers who don't understand exactly how the process works. Pop culture often suggests that when a person is hooked up to a polygraph machine, their lies will be detected. But that is not exactly true. 'The polygraph works because we think it works. It's a tool of psychological coercion in an already intimidating environment—particularly when it has the weight of the federal government behind it,' Katwala told me. But the intimidation is probably the point. 'Using the polygraph may not help you catch the leakers, but the idea of it could well scare any potential future leakers into keeping their mouths shut,' Katwala said. The man credited with fully developing the polygraph, a Berkeley police officer named John Larson, who also had a PhD in psychology, would later turn on his invention as unreliable, according to Katwala. Larson was inspired by the truth-telling machine of William Marston, himself a psychologist, but one with an active imagination and a flair for the theatrical. Zaid described him as the PT Barnum of polygraphy. Here's a video of Marston using a polygraph-like machine and claiming to identify the varying emotions of blonde, brunette and redheaded women. His conclusion was that redheads like to gamble, brunettes are looking for love and blondes are easiest to scare. Okay. Marston also invented the comic book hero Wonder Woman, with her Lasso of Truth. Katwala warns that there are new technologies being developed with the help of AI or revolving around brain waves, but he argues they should be viewed just with the same skepticism as the polygraph machine. 'None of them get past the Pinocchio's nose problem — everyone's different, and something that works for one person might not work for everyone,' he said. But they could all be used in the same coercive way as the polygraph machine.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store