Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch Allegedly Blessed Fox News Strategy to Air 2020 Election Fraud Allegations, Hearing Reveals.

During a key court hearing on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology firm Smartmatic argued that top executives at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious strategy to embrace false assertions of voting fraud championed by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their primary audience, deserted them,” declared J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they return back to misinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and fear-mongering. The election narrative and the fraud allegations was the perfect tool for them to get back onto their central messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Case Is at Stake

In courtroom presentations, both parties pleaded with Judge David B Cohen to decide on critical aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action before a potential trial in the coming year. The company maintains that Fox executives devised a plan to “shift” to Trump's claims to recapture angry viewers.

Fox's Vehement Denial

A lawyer for Fox News, representing the network, vigorously denied these claims. “No disinformation campaign was ordered,” he stated. “It is completely false. The evidence does not support it. It is nonsense. It was fabricated by opposing counsel.”

He further asserted that the Murdochs, who ultimately controlled the network, “didn't give anyone any orders to cover Smartmatic or the fraud claims.”

The Central Challenge: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that key figures at Fox News were aware the allegations lacked truth but permitted them to be aired anyway. In its filings, Smartmatic cited internal communications showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also showing an interest to assist Trump.

The network's attorney argued that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its worth and the projected financial losses from the coverage. Fox maintains its hosts were merely discussing newsworthy claims from the president's allies, not promoting them.

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

A Previous Case Is Highly Relevant

Smartmatic's case closely mirror the successful legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's summary judgment decisions proved critical, ruling that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and defamatory per se.

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

The Judge's Position

Judge Cohen gave few indications of his leaning but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a summary judgment would be a “difficult task.” He said he intended to examine all pertinent television segments before making a decision.

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