Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch Allegedly Endorsed Fox News Plan to Broadcast 2020 Election Fraud Claims, Court Hears.
In a pivotal legal proceeding on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology company Smartmatic contended that senior executives at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious strategy to adopt baseless claims of voting fraud championed by Donald Trump.
“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, abandoned them,” declared J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “So what do they do? They return back to what they know best: they go back to misinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and fear-mongering. The election narrative and the election fraud claims were the perfect vehicle for them to return to their central messaging.”
A Multi-Billion Dollar Defamation Lawsuit Is at Stake
During courtroom presentations, both parties urged with Judge David B Cohen to decide on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit ahead of a potential trial in the coming year. The company maintains that Fox executives hatched a plan to “shift” to Trump's claims to recapture angry viewers.
Fox's Vehement Denial
K Winn Allen, representing the network, strongly contested these claims. “No disinformation campaign was authorized,” he said. “It is total bunk. It is not supported by the record. It is hogwash. It was fabricated by opposing counsel.”
He further asserted that the Murdochs, who held ultimate control over the network, “issued no directives to cover Smartmatic or the fraud claims.”
The Core Challenge: Proving “Knowing Falsity”
To win its case, the company must prove that important personnel at Fox News were aware the fraud claims were false but allowed them to be aired regardless. Through legal motions, Smartmatic has pointed to private messages showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.
The network's attorney argued that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its value and the estimated damages from the broadcasts. Fox maintains its personalities were simply reporting on newsworthy allegations from the president's associates, not promoting them.
“This lawsuit really isn't about Fox's reporting of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It's about Smartmatic's effort to seize on remarks made by the president's lawyers to rescue its business viability.”
A Precedent Is Highly Relevant
The arguments closely mirror the successful legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's summary judgment decisions proved critical, finding that Fox's statements were untrue and defamatory per se.
That ruling was later cited as a key factor in Fox's decision to resolve with Dominion for $787.5 million. A previous Fox executive noted that the court's initial decisions had “severely limited” the company's ability to defend itself at trial.
The Judge's Position
The presiding judge gave no clear indications of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “hard sell.” He stated he intended to review all relevant television segments before making a decision.
“I believe I have sufficient information, data, briefings, charts, charts and all I need to make my ruling,” he informed the parties in the lawsuit.
