🔗 Share this article

During a pivotal legal proceeding on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology company Smartmatic argued that top executives at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a deliberate strategy to embrace baseless claims of voting fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, deserted them,” stated J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “What was their response? They return back to what they know best: they go back to disinformation, political propaganda and fear-mongering. The election story and the fraud allegations was the perfect vehicle for them to return to their core messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Case Hangs in the Balance

During courtroom presentations, both parties urged with Judge David B Cohen to rule on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit ahead of a possible trial next year. The plaintiff maintains that Fox leaders devised a plan to “shift” to Trump's claims to win back angry viewers.

The Network's Strong Denial

A lawyer for Fox News, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these accusations. “No campaign of misinformation was authorized,” he stated. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. It is hogwash. It is made up by opposing counsel.”

He added that the Murdochs, who held ultimate control over the network, “didn't give anyone any orders to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”

The Central Legal Hurdle: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that important personnel at Fox News were aware the allegations lacked truth but permitted them to be broadcast anyway. Through legal motions, Smartmatic cited private messages showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also expressing a desire to assist Trump.

Allen, Fox's lawyer countered that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its worth and the projected financial losses from the coverage. Fox maintains its hosts were simply discussing newsworthy allegations from the president's allies, not promoting them.

“This lawsuit really isn't about Fox's coverage of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It concerns Smartmatic's effort to capitalize on remarks made by the president's lawyers to salvage its financial livelihood.”

A Precedent Is Highly Relevant

The arguments strongly resemble the prior defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that case, a judge's summary judgment decisions proved critical, finding that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and inherently damaging.

That ruling was later cited as a major reason in Fox's decision to resolve with Dominion for $787.5 million. A previous Fox legal officer remarked that the judge's pre-trial rulings had “severely limited” the company's legal defense at trial.

The Judge's Position

Judge Cohen offered no clear hints of his thinking but told Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “hard sell.” He said he intended to review all relevant television segments before making a decision.

“I believe I have sufficient information, evidence, briefings, charts, graphs and everything I need to make my ruling,” he informed the two sides in the case.