Major General testifies he would have hired Zachary Young before on-air segment, not after.

An Army major general stated on Friday that he would have hired Zachary Young, the plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit against CNN, before the network's report on him, but not after it aired, as it made him "too risky."

CNN accused Young of profiting off desperate people trying to flee Afghanistan in a November 2021 report that aired on "The Lead with Jake Tapper," suggesting he was involved in "black market" dealings and damaging his professional reputation.

The first expert witness to testify was Major Gen. James V. Young, who had no connection to the plaintiff, and shared his military and intelligence expertise, particularly regarding Afghanistan prior to the withdrawal and his insights on the aftermath.

On Thursday, a document showing the plaintiff renewed his security clearance caused courtroom chaos when CNN's legal team implied that it contradicted testimony that the plaintiff hasn't worked since the CNN segment aired.

Maj. Gen. Young stated that he frequently deleted messages regarding evacuations, which has been criticized by CNN's legal team. Furthermore, he believed that the prices the plaintiff charged corporations for evacuations from Afghanistan were reasonable, despite CNN characterizing such pricing as excessive.

"We couldn't have accomplished what we did without payment," he stated.

After viewing the CNN segment, he stated that he would not hire the plaintiff. This prompted an immediate objection from CNN's legal team, resulting in a sidebar with Judge William Henry.

Kyle Roche, the plaintiff attorney, was instructed by Henry to revise the question to inquire about the reasons behind Maj. Gen. Young's firm not hiring the plaintiff. Roche replied that the CNN segment posed a risk and could negatively affect the reputation of anyone who employed the plaintiff.

Maj. Gen. Young stated that someone like this would be too risky for our operation to be associated with.

If Maj. Gen. Young had working relationships with high-profile intelligence leaders such as Leon Panetta and Jeremy Bash, who were listed on a document describing a project he testified to working on, the plaintiff would have been seen as the "best of the best" prior to the CNN report.

The witness, who is not the CNN political commentator, was questioned by CNN's lead counsel David Axelrod about whether he had inquired about the plaintiff's qualifications with anyone in the military or intelligence community before the trial. The witness admitted that he had not done so. Additionally, the witness testified that he had never met or had any knowledge of the plaintiff and was being paid to speak as an expert witness.

Maj. Gen. Young was questioned by Axelrod after a recess about his remarks regarding not hiring the plaintiff following the CNN segment. Axelrod posed a hypothetical scenario, asking whether the general would allow a 16-year-old girl to die in Afghanistan due to not wanting to hire the plaintiff solely because of the report.

"We'd try other methods," Maj. Gen. Young responded.

Maj. Gen. Young stated that he would not hire the plaintiff despite CNN's on-air correction. However, Axelrod questioned him about whether he had consulted with anyone regarding his hiring decision after the CNN report. The witness responded that he was providing his own "professional opinion."

During a brief redirect line of questioning from Roche following the cross-examination, Maj. Gen. Young was asked if there was anything "unethical" about the plaintiff's work in Afghanistan, and he responded with a negative.

Maj. Gen. Young responded "sure" when asked if he would have hired the plaintiff even if the CNN segment had not been aired.

On Monday, the CNN correspondent who led the segment at the center of the defamation case, Alex Marquardt, is anticipated to give testimony.

The trial is being streamed live on Planet Chronicle Digital.