Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch Allegedly Endorsed Fox News Plan to Air 2020 Voting Fraud Allegations, Hearing Reveals.

During a pivotal legal proceeding on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology company Smartmatic contended that senior leaders at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a deliberate plan to adopt false assertions of election fraud championed by Donald Trump.

“Their core 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 return back to disinformation, political propaganda and fear-mongering. The election narrative and the fraud allegations were the ideal vehicle for them to return to their central messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Case Is at Stake

During courtroom presentations, both sides pleaded with Judge David B Cohen to rule on critical aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action before a potential trial next year. The company maintains that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “pivot” to Trump's claims to win back angry viewers.

The Network's Strong Rebuttal

A lawyer for Fox News, representing the network, vigorously denied these accusations. “No campaign of misinformation was authorized,” he said. “It is total bunk. It is not supported by the record. It is nonsense. It was fabricated by opposing counsel.”

He added 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 voting firm must prove that key figures at Fox News were aware the fraud claims lacked truth but allowed them to be broadcast anyway. In its filings, Smartmatic cited internal communications showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also expressing a desire to assist Trump.

The network's attorney argued that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its value and the projected damages from the coverage. Fox maintains its personalities were simply discussing newsworthy claims from the president's allies, not endorsing them.

“This suit is not truly about Fox's coverage of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It's about Smartmatic's effort to capitalize 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 case, a judge's pre-trial rulings proved critical, ruling that Fox's statements were untrue and defamatory per se.

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

The Judge's Stance

Judge Cohen offered few hints of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “knowledge of falsity” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “difficult task.” He said he planned to review all pertinent television segments before issuing his rulings.

“I think I have more than enough information, evidence, briefings, diagrams, charts and everything I need to make my ruling,” he informed the parties in the lawsuit.