🔗 Share this article

In a key court hearing on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology company Smartmatic contended that senior leaders at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a deliberate plan to embrace baseless assertions of election fraud championed 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 revert to what they know best: they return back to disinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and fear-mongering. The election narrative and the election fraud claims was the perfect vehicle for them to return to their central messaging.”

A Multi-Billion Dollar Libel Case Hangs in the Balance

During courtroom presentations, both parties pleaded with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to rule on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit before a possible trial next year. The plaintiff maintains that Fox leaders devised a plan to “shift” to Trump's claims to recapture angry viewers.

The Network's Strong Denial

A lawyer for Fox News, representing the network, strongly contested these accusations. “No campaign of misinformation was ordered,” he said. “It is total bunk. It is not supported by the record. It is hogwash. It is made up by lawyers on the other side.”

He further asserted that the Murdochs, who ultimately controlled the network, “issued no directives to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”

The Central Challenge: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

To win its case, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that important personnel at Fox News were aware the allegations were false but allowed them to be aired regardless. In its filings, Smartmatic has pointed to internal communications showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also showing an interest to assist Trump.

The network's attorney countered that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its value and the estimated damages from the coverage. Fox contends its hosts were merely discussing newsworthy allegations from the president's associates, not endorsing them.

“This suit is not truly about Fox's coverage of the 2020 election,” the Fox lawyer stated. “It's about Smartmatic's effort to seize on comments made by the president's lawyers to salvage its business viability.”

A Previous Case Looms Large

The arguments strongly resemble the prior defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that case, a judge's pre-trial rulings proved critical, ruling that Fox's statements were untrue and inherently damaging.

That legal decision was later cited as a key factor in Fox's choice to resolve with Dominion for $787.5 million. A previous Fox legal officer noted that the court's initial decisions had “severely limited” the company's ability to defend itself at trial.

The Judge's Stance

Judge Cohen offered no clear hints of his thinking but told Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “difficult task.” He stated he planned to review all pertinent broadcasts before issuing his rulings.

“I believe I have sufficient material, data, briefings, charts, graphs and everything I need to reach a verdict,” he informed the two sides in the lawsuit.