We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Fuzz Hogan, a senior editor at CNN, took the stand Friday to defend the outlet and its allegedly defamatory report about a U.S. Navy veteran. Zachary Young has sued CNN, arguing their November 11, 2021 report falsely accused him of exploiting Afghans by offering evacuations on a “black market” following the 2021 U.S. withdrawal.

Hogan testified Friday that the story he green-lit prior to publication did not include the term “black market,” and that it was Jake Tapper who included that term.

“The text of the story did not do that,” Hogan testified. “The banner and Jake Tapper’s lead-in did that.”

Nonetheless, Hogan later testified that he thought describing the situation as a “black market” was “accurate” and disputed the allegation that “black market” has a “negative connotation.”

Young alleges the use of the term “black market” to describe his evacuation efforts “rendered Young permanently unemployable” because it implied Young was involved in illegal conduct. Young later testified that his defense contracts expressly prohibited involvement in “black markets.” Notably, a court also found Young did not commit a crime.

During Thursday’s hearing, Young testified that CNN never included in their story that he had successfully evacuated nearly two dozen individuals from Afghanistan. Alex Marquardt reported CNN could not confirm “whether these operators charging the high fees have successfully evacuated anyone who paid to exit the country, as Young claims.” The segment aired on Tapper’s show included a claim that “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”

Hogan testified Friday “it wasn’t relevant” to the story whether Young had succeeded in other evacuations out of Afghanistan. Jurors were also presented internal CNN emails that show CNN Senior Director Emma Lacey-Bordeaux suggesting Marquardt give Young more than two hours to respond.

“Two hours is a pretty sharp turn around time,” Lacey-Bordeaux said in an email. “I think we should say that’s when we’d like it but we can be flexible.”

Young had previously testified that he needed more than two hours to respond to the inquiry to seek guidance from other individuals and organizations he worked with. Young also said in messages to Marquardt that the two-hour deadline was “definitely not a realistic deadline” but that “in any case, I can tell you for sure, some of your facts/assertions [are] not accurate, and if they are published, I will seek legal damages.”

CNN still aired the segment, shared it on social media and CNN’s website, and re-aired the segment before later issuing an apology months later. Young is seeking punitive damages.

[READ NEXT: Navy Veteran Suing CNN For Defamation Breaks Down At Trial: ‘I’ve Just Been Completely Destroyed’]

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2