CNN defamation trial: Jurors ask harsh questions over reporter’s brutal surveillance of Navy veteran

Panama City, Florida – Judges at High defamation trial On CNN, she spared the reporter some tough questions for her aggressive treatment of the plaintiff in the case, U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young.

In a November 2021 report by reporter Alex Marquardt, first aired on “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” CNN pointed to illegal profits from desperate people trying to flee Afghanistan. The Biden administration Discharged from the military, he was involved in “black market” business and thereby tarnished his professional reputation.

Intelligence and national security reporter Katie Bo Lillis, who collaborated with Marquardt on the story, was peppered with questions about her character in her zealous efforts to get Young to meet with CNN.

The jury’s written submissions were read aloud to Lillis by Judge William Henry.

CNN defamation trial: Judge slams CNN leader’s advice, orders plaintiff to apologize: ‘This is not kindergarten’

“Do you feel Americans have an obligation to talk to you or CNN?” Henry read the first question.

“No, no one is obligated to talk to us,” Lillis replied. It is their free choice if they choose or not.

“How far does someone have to go to keep you from talking? Do they tell you not to talk?” The judge read the next question.

“That’s a very good question,” Lilly responded with a smile.

CNN defamation trial: Defense of network chief’s controversial report at crime center

After a lengthy hearing, Lillis told jurors she had a “responsibility to the people in the story” as well as “to the American people, the American taxpayer, especially when I’m writing about the actions of the government.”

“In this situation, we had someone who was benefiting from a tragic situation in Afghanistan. I felt the highest priority was to push for answers from Mr. Young. Rather than going back and hunting for answers here,” Lillis said. has been. And I was thinking about the many, many service members and former, you know, agency officers, CIA officers, officers that I know who this is for. Incredibly personal and incredibly painful, this notion is that there are people left behind.

Lillis then asked, “When do you accept someone who doesn’t want to talk or comment?” For that, she said, “it’s very, very contextual,” and she has a “high focus” on exploring youth movements in depth.

The same judge asked the follower, “Do you lose this right when you express your discomfort or avoid questions?” Lillis said anyone has a “right” not to talk to her, but Young pointed out that she initially approached her as a customer, but only after Lillis was notified that he had viewed his LinkedIn profile.

“He could have stopped answering my questions anyway. He could have stopped completely. He didn’t do any of those things. He kept talking to me,” Lillis told jurors.

CNN’s defamation trial: Reporter pressed for heavy pursuit of Navy SEAL as defense

One of the jurors cited an exchange Lillis had with Young, who will remain anonymous in any report, talking off the record as an “opportunity to understand what we’re doing … and keep your name off the record.”

“The possibility of making a case to exonerate your name is tantamount to guilt until proven innocent,” wrote Judge Henry as he read it aloud. “Can you explain how your approach is the opposite and innocent until proven guilty?”

“Well, first of all, you know, we’re not a court of law,” Lillis replied. “You can tell by your standards whether someone’s behavior is newsworthy, whether or not it’s illegal to appear in a news article. The tragedy of Afghanistan,” he added, adding, “We had enough evidence in the form of these text messages, basically, to suggest that there was a reason to ask these questions, and so we continued to ask them.” But you know, if there was a case that there was a lot here, we would have gone back.

“No answer,” said Judge Henry with a laugh, then moved on to the next question. He also explained that it is a follow-up to the previous question.

Lillis admitted that hypothetically a person might be “scared of being approached by a reporter,” but dismissed the notion that Young publicly advertises his services on LinkedIn and messages her first.

“Does someone have an obligation to talk to you if you feel you’re being taken advantage of by victims?” Another judge asked, to which Lillis responded by saying that no one had an “obligation” to talk to her.

“Do people have a right to anonymity in news stories?” a judge asked, interrupting a CNN reporter.

Click here to access the FOX NEWS app

After a moment of reflection, Lily said she was struggling with the word “right.”

I believe that it is the responsibility of news organizations and journalists to think carefully about whether the behavior we expose and the individual we name is good for the news or the public. “That this act is being committed or that this named person committed it,” Lillis said. “And I feel very strongly that that bar has been met in this case.”

The final judge’s question concerns her judgment of Yang, whether he stays silent or turns away clients when he knows they can’t afford to hire him, and asks, “What do you think is the appropriate way to say goodbye?” “A simple ‘I can’t,'” Lillis responded, perhaps an appropriate response, because what Young did “seemed a little difficult to me.”

The trial will continue on Thursday and will be broadcast live Fox News Digital.