Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch Reportedly Endorsed Fox News Plan to Broadcast 2020 Voting Fraud Claims, Hearing Reveals.

In a pivotal legal proceeding 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 embrace false 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 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 return to their central messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Case Hangs in the Balance

During oral arguments, both sides urged with Judge David B Cohen to decide on critical aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7bn legal action before a possible trial next year. The company maintains that Fox executives hatched a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to recapture disaffected viewers.

The Network's Strong Rebuttal

A lawyer for Fox News, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these claims. “No disinformation campaign was ordered,” he said. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. It is nonsense. 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 election fraud allegations.”

The Core Challenge: Proving “Actual Malice”

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 cited private messages showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also expressing a desire to assist Trump.

The network's attorney argued that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its value and the projected financial losses from the broadcasts. Fox contends its personalities were simply discussing newsworthy claims from the president's associates, not endorsing them.

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

A Precedent 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, finding that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and inherently damaging.

That legal decision was later cited as a major reason in Fox's choice to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox legal officer noted that the judge's pre-trial rulings had “severely limited” the company's ability to defend itself at trial.

The Judge's Position

The presiding judge gave few hints of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a summary judgment would be a “difficult task.” He said he planned to examine all pertinent broadcasts before making a decision.

“I think I have more than enough information, evidence, legal briefs, diagrams, charts and all I need to make my ruling,” he told the two sides in the case.