Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch Reportedly Blessed Fox News Strategy to Broadcast 2020 Election Fraud Claims, Court Hears.

In a key court hearing on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology company Smartmatic argued that top leaders at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious strategy to adopt false assertions of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, deserted them,” declared J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “What was their response? They return back to what they know best: they return back to misinformation, political propaganda and xenophobia. The election story and the election fraud claims were the perfect tool for them to return to their core messaging.”

A Multi-Billion Dollar Defamation Case Hangs in the Balance

During courtroom presentations, both sides urged with Judge David B Cohen to rule on essential elements of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action before a possible trial next year. The company argues that Fox executives hatched a plan to “pivot” to the former president's allegations to win back disaffected viewers.

Fox's Vehement Rebuttal

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

He further asserted that the Murdochs, who held ultimate control over the network, “issued no directives to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”

The Central Legal Hurdle: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

To win its case, the voting firm must prove that key figures at Fox News knew the allegations lacked truth but allowed them to be broadcast regardless. Through legal motions, Smartmatic has pointed to private messages showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also showing an interest to assist Trump.

Allen, Fox's lawyer countered that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its value and the projected financial losses from the coverage. Fox maintains its personalities were simply reporting on newsworthy claims from the president's associates, not endorsing them.

“This suit is not truly about Fox's reporting of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It concerns 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 closely mirror the prior defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's pre-trial rulings were decisive, finding that Fox's statements were untrue and inherently damaging.

That ruling was later cited as a major reason in Fox's choice to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A previous Fox executive remarked that the court's initial decisions had “severely limited” the company's legal defense at trial.

The Judge's Position

The presiding judge offered no clear indications of his thinking but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a summary judgment would be a “difficult task.” He stated he planned to examine all relevant television segments before making a decision.

“I believe I have more than enough information, evidence, briefings, diagrams, graphs and everything I need to make my ruling,” he informed the two sides in the lawsuit.