1 00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:06,200 --> 00:00:09,720 Speaker 1: You may remember how attorneys Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani 3 00:00:09,840 --> 00:00:15,240 Speaker 1: repeatedly promoted former President Trump's bogus election fraud conspiracy, even 4 00:00:15,280 --> 00:00:19,919 Speaker 1: suggesting that voting machines had been manipulated to rig the election, 5 00:00:20,400 --> 00:00:23,760 Speaker 1: talking about some massive straight lines up in the vote 6 00:00:23,760 --> 00:00:27,080 Speaker 1: tallies in the middle of the night after they've supposedly 7 00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:31,160 Speaker 1: stopped counting, and that's when the dominion operators went in 8 00:00:31,720 --> 00:00:36,320 Speaker 1: and injected votes and changed the whole system. The company 9 00:00:36,600 --> 00:00:40,760 Speaker 1: counting our vote with control over our vote is owned 10 00:00:40,760 --> 00:00:46,520 Speaker 1: by two Venezualens who were allies of Chavez, are president 11 00:00:46,600 --> 00:00:52,600 Speaker 1: allies of Maduro, with a company who's chairman is a 12 00:00:52,680 --> 00:00:57,360 Speaker 1: closet associate and business partner of George Sorrows, the biggest 13 00:00:57,400 --> 00:01:02,080 Speaker 1: donor to the Democrat Party. Well, three lawsuits may seem 14 00:01:02,160 --> 00:01:05,360 Speaker 1: like the revenge of the voting machines. Smart Madock is 15 00:01:05,400 --> 00:01:09,520 Speaker 1: seeking two point seven billion dollars in a defamation lawsuit 16 00:01:09,560 --> 00:01:13,480 Speaker 1: against Fox News, its commentators Lou Dobbs, Janine Pierro and 17 00:01:13,520 --> 00:01:17,160 Speaker 1: Maria bardar Romo, and Trump's lawyers Julian I in Powell. 18 00:01:17,600 --> 00:01:20,760 Speaker 1: This suit follows a pair of similar complaints filed last 19 00:01:20,800 --> 00:01:24,240 Speaker 1: month by Dominion against the attorneys. Joining me is Jonathan 20 00:01:24,280 --> 00:01:28,320 Speaker 1: Peter's media lawn professor at the University of Georgia. Jonathan. 21 00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:31,679 Speaker 1: Fox News is claiming it was protected by the First Amendment, 22 00:01:32,160 --> 00:01:34,959 Speaker 1: basically that it had a right to report the details 23 00:01:35,000 --> 00:01:38,400 Speaker 1: of a sitting president's claims of election fraud. I think 24 00:01:38,440 --> 00:01:41,279 Speaker 1: the keys in this case will be the fault element 25 00:01:41,360 --> 00:01:45,480 Speaker 1: of defamation and the potential assertion of an opinion defense 26 00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:48,559 Speaker 1: in what Fox News seems to be asserting in its 27 00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:51,360 Speaker 1: motion to dismiss, and that would be some use of 28 00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:54,920 Speaker 1: the so called neutral reportage privilege. So I'll unpack that 29 00:01:55,000 --> 00:01:56,840 Speaker 1: with you a little bit here. The Supreme Court has 30 00:01:56,880 --> 00:02:00,520 Speaker 1: set out a high level of protection for statements of opinion, 31 00:02:00,720 --> 00:02:03,240 Speaker 1: and the Court once said that there is no such 32 00:02:03,280 --> 00:02:06,640 Speaker 1: thing as a false idea, and that, however pernicious an 33 00:02:06,640 --> 00:02:09,800 Speaker 1: opinion may seem, we depend on for its correction not 34 00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:12,280 Speaker 1: on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the 35 00:02:12,320 --> 00:02:16,160 Speaker 1: competition of other ideas. But importantly, this protection is not unlimited, 36 00:02:16,240 --> 00:02:19,040 Speaker 1: and it has not created, as the Court has said 37 00:02:19,040 --> 00:02:23,880 Speaker 1: a couple of times, a practical or theoretical wholesale defamation 38 00:02:23,919 --> 00:02:27,200 Speaker 1: exemption for anything that might be labeled opinion. Now, the 39 00:02:27,240 --> 00:02:29,480 Speaker 1: trick in general, and I think the trick in this 40 00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:33,240 Speaker 1: case will be that opinions and facts are not always 41 00:02:33,400 --> 00:02:37,360 Speaker 1: easily distinguishable. Context is going to be critical. Traditionally courts 42 00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:40,639 Speaker 1: that distinguished them with the presumption that facts can be 43 00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:44,520 Speaker 1: proven true or false, while opinions are matters of belief 44 00:02:44,720 --> 00:02:48,440 Speaker 1: or ideas that cannot be so proven. And in my mind, 45 00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:51,640 Speaker 1: that is one of the things that separates the smart 46 00:02:51,680 --> 00:02:55,600 Speaker 1: matic litigation and even the dominion litigation arising out of 47 00:02:55,800 --> 00:03:00,120 Speaker 1: similar facts, from other efforts in recent years where or 48 00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:04,360 Speaker 1: speech related litigation has been weaponized for political reasons. I 49 00:03:04,440 --> 00:03:08,280 Speaker 1: see this litigation as different, as less performative, as less 50 00:03:08,280 --> 00:03:12,239 Speaker 1: politically motivated, because many of the statements of issue are 51 00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:14,840 Speaker 1: provably true or false. So, you know, to put a 52 00:03:14,840 --> 00:03:18,080 Speaker 1: more concrete spin on this, I would distinguish this case 53 00:03:18,160 --> 00:03:22,560 Speaker 1: from those that say, Devin Nunez, Joe are Pio, Roy Moore, 54 00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:25,520 Speaker 1: you know who I think used libel law generally to 55 00:03:25,560 --> 00:03:29,720 Speaker 1: score political points, you know, to settle scores with ideological opponents, 56 00:03:29,880 --> 00:03:33,400 Speaker 1: or to generate publicity. And then the last time I 57 00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:38,280 Speaker 1: make about the invocation of the neutral reportage privilege. So 58 00:03:38,400 --> 00:03:42,280 Speaker 1: what Fox is saying here is that this privilege can 59 00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:48,000 Speaker 1: protect a news organization, in limited circumstances from liability for 60 00:03:48,160 --> 00:03:53,600 Speaker 1: republishing another's defamatory comments. Historically, this privilege has applied where 61 00:03:53,760 --> 00:03:59,040 Speaker 1: four things are true. Number one, a responsible and prominent 62 00:03:59,120 --> 00:04:02,640 Speaker 1: organization or person number two has made a serious claim 63 00:04:02,720 --> 00:04:07,560 Speaker 1: about a matter republicancern, three about another public figure or organization, 64 00:04:07,760 --> 00:04:12,040 Speaker 1: and then four the claim is accurately and disinterestedly reported 65 00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:15,880 Speaker 1: by the descendant. So I think in general there's sensible 66 00:04:16,320 --> 00:04:19,719 Speaker 1: policy reasons that you might recognize and neutral reportage privilege, 67 00:04:19,800 --> 00:04:23,680 Speaker 1: but it's been widely rejected around the country, and generally 68 00:04:23,680 --> 00:04:25,839 Speaker 1: it has not been applied in New York state courts, 69 00:04:25,880 --> 00:04:28,520 Speaker 1: which is where the Smartmatic litigation is tending, even though 70 00:04:28,520 --> 00:04:31,240 Speaker 1: it has been applied some in New York cederal courts 71 00:04:31,320 --> 00:04:34,480 Speaker 1: under the First Amendment in really limited ways. Some kind 72 00:04:34,560 --> 00:04:39,080 Speaker 1: of skeptical that that will work in this case. Should 73 00:04:39,160 --> 00:04:42,520 Speaker 1: Smartmatic be considered a public figure, meaning it has a 74 00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:45,680 Speaker 1: higher burden to meet, That is going to be key. 75 00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:48,440 Speaker 1: And what we're really unpacking here is the fault element 76 00:04:48,560 --> 00:04:51,400 Speaker 1: of liable So if you pointed out, you know, a 77 00:04:51,440 --> 00:04:55,279 Speaker 1: libel point is has to prove that the descendant aired 78 00:04:55,440 --> 00:04:57,599 Speaker 1: in some way that they here she was at fault 79 00:04:57,640 --> 00:05:00,560 Speaker 1: in some way in publishing the defamation at issue, and 80 00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:04,480 Speaker 1: the degree of fault can be this positive. This can 81 00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:08,440 Speaker 1: determine the entire case because the degree that must be 82 00:05:08,560 --> 00:05:11,800 Speaker 1: established depends on precisely who was doing this doing and 83 00:05:11,920 --> 00:05:14,680 Speaker 1: public officials and public figures have the heavy burden of 84 00:05:14,760 --> 00:05:18,320 Speaker 1: showing that the defamation was published with knowledge that it 85 00:05:18,400 --> 00:05:22,240 Speaker 1: was false or in reckless disregard of its truthfulness. Private 86 00:05:22,240 --> 00:05:26,320 Speaker 1: people private organizations usually have the lighter burden of showing 87 00:05:26,560 --> 00:05:29,920 Speaker 1: that the publisher acted negligently. So that's a much lower bar, 88 00:05:30,200 --> 00:05:33,760 Speaker 1: much easier for the plaintiff to get over. So I 89 00:05:33,800 --> 00:05:37,080 Speaker 1: think it's entirely possible it's smart Madic would be deemed 90 00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:40,440 Speaker 1: a public figure. I think that would really depend on 91 00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:45,960 Speaker 1: the extent of smart madics profile and influence before it 92 00:05:46,080 --> 00:05:50,000 Speaker 1: was thrust into the limelight by the descendants in this case. Now, 93 00:05:50,120 --> 00:05:51,960 Speaker 1: the hedge that I would put on that is that 94 00:05:52,080 --> 00:05:54,400 Speaker 1: there are some cases in the country where courts have 95 00:05:54,480 --> 00:05:59,080 Speaker 1: recognized involuntary public figures public figures that are not public 96 00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:02,320 Speaker 1: figures at the time that they become famous or well known, 97 00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:05,480 Speaker 1: but that in fact the defamation is what makes them 98 00:06:05,480 --> 00:06:08,400 Speaker 1: well known, and courts of recognized that that kind of 99 00:06:08,600 --> 00:06:11,640 Speaker 1: plaintifts can be deemed the public figure as well. So 100 00:06:11,800 --> 00:06:14,560 Speaker 1: as a practical matter, if smart Mannich is deemed a 101 00:06:14,640 --> 00:06:16,599 Speaker 1: public figure, I would imagine that it would try to 102 00:06:16,600 --> 00:06:20,120 Speaker 1: show reckless disregard because it is the lower bar of 103 00:06:20,160 --> 00:06:24,440 Speaker 1: the two between that and showing actual knowledge of falsey. 104 00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:29,400 Speaker 1: And what it usually requires is proof that the defamation 105 00:06:29,560 --> 00:06:32,440 Speaker 1: was published with a high degree of awareness of its 106 00:06:32,480 --> 00:06:36,960 Speaker 1: probable falsey, where there would be sufficient evidence to permit 107 00:06:37,040 --> 00:06:40,640 Speaker 1: the conclusion that the descendant did in fact entertain serious 108 00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:43,800 Speaker 1: doubts regarding the truthfulness of whatever it is that he 109 00:06:43,880 --> 00:06:48,400 Speaker 1: or she published. So this requires consideration of a variety 110 00:06:48,400 --> 00:06:52,720 Speaker 1: of factors, including whether you know the company adequately investigated 111 00:06:52,800 --> 00:06:57,080 Speaker 1: facts before making a statement, whether a person ignored clear 112 00:06:57,160 --> 00:07:00,440 Speaker 1: signs that the statement was wrong, whether she made a 113 00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:04,760 Speaker 1: mistake in interpreting phrase or made a mistake and word choice, 114 00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:09,279 Speaker 1: whether sources are reliable if you are relying on unreasonably 115 00:07:09,560 --> 00:07:14,400 Speaker 1: bad sources, and then whether your own statements were informed 116 00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:18,320 Speaker 1: or motivated by bias or by prejudice. All of that 117 00:07:18,520 --> 00:07:22,280 Speaker 1: can come into play when a court makes a determination 118 00:07:22,320 --> 00:07:27,120 Speaker 1: about whether a descendant acted recklessly in publishing defamation. Fox 119 00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:30,320 Speaker 1: took Blue Dabs off the air right after the lawsuit 120 00:07:30,400 --> 00:07:33,520 Speaker 1: was filed. Does that play in anywhere here in the 121 00:07:33,600 --> 00:07:36,320 Speaker 1: legal case. It's kind of regally hard to figure out 122 00:07:36,360 --> 00:07:38,360 Speaker 1: what the significance of that would be. And it looks 123 00:07:38,400 --> 00:07:41,280 Speaker 1: to me like it is in direct response to the litigation, 124 00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:43,920 Speaker 1: But I don't know what the legal effect is. I 125 00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:47,480 Speaker 1: guess maybe in thinking through harm or blame, or if 126 00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:50,480 Speaker 1: you're just trying to present the appearance that you're acting 127 00:07:50,560 --> 00:07:53,239 Speaker 1: in good faith, and to the extent that Fox would 128 00:07:53,320 --> 00:07:56,440 Speaker 1: admit or recognize any mistakes that it has made, which 129 00:07:56,520 --> 00:07:59,280 Speaker 1: it seems so far unwilling to do, you know, based 130 00:07:59,280 --> 00:08:01,720 Speaker 1: on the motion of dismissed that was filed. It is 131 00:08:01,760 --> 00:08:06,280 Speaker 1: important to recognize that plaintiffs consume more than just the 132 00:08:06,320 --> 00:08:09,520 Speaker 1: first person to publish a defamatory statement um, And so 133 00:08:09,680 --> 00:08:12,480 Speaker 1: where that might be relevant, I suppose would be in 134 00:08:12,520 --> 00:08:15,440 Speaker 1: a portioning blame, you know, where courts and juries commonly 135 00:08:15,480 --> 00:08:18,800 Speaker 1: consider the degree of injury and the responsibility for it. 136 00:08:19,120 --> 00:08:21,880 Speaker 1: But again that's a slightly different issue here from the 137 00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:26,920 Speaker 1: legal effect of removing loudops from his show. Now, smart 138 00:08:27,040 --> 00:08:30,240 Speaker 1: Matic claims that there was a conspiracy that Fox was 139 00:08:30,320 --> 00:08:35,280 Speaker 1: part of a coordinated disinformation campaign. Why alled something that 140 00:08:35,400 --> 00:08:38,840 Speaker 1: seems so difficult to prove. They wouldn't necessarily have to 141 00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:41,960 Speaker 1: prove that in order to prevail on the definition claim. 142 00:08:42,240 --> 00:08:45,000 Speaker 1: I'm imagining that what they're trying to do in using 143 00:08:45,040 --> 00:08:48,160 Speaker 1: that language to describe you some sort of conspiracy, is 144 00:08:48,200 --> 00:08:52,520 Speaker 1: that they're trying to show that actors like Juliani and 145 00:08:52,640 --> 00:08:57,319 Speaker 1: Powell they needed a platform to spread their false statements 146 00:08:57,360 --> 00:08:59,800 Speaker 1: and what they found in Fox News, and this is 147 00:09:00,160 --> 00:09:02,360 Speaker 1: mentioned in the complaint in one part. What they found 148 00:09:02,400 --> 00:09:05,240 Speaker 1: in Fox News was a very willing partner, and so 149 00:09:05,440 --> 00:09:08,720 Speaker 1: they all worked together in concert to create this narrative 150 00:09:08,840 --> 00:09:11,960 Speaker 1: about smart Madic. You know that Fox eagerly and willingly 151 00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:14,800 Speaker 1: joined into but all for different reasons. Where the allegation 152 00:09:14,840 --> 00:09:18,480 Speaker 1: and the complaint is that Fox News was a willing 153 00:09:18,480 --> 00:09:20,839 Speaker 1: participant because it needed a way to try to win 154 00:09:20,920 --> 00:09:24,880 Speaker 1: back listeners and viewers from One American News and from 155 00:09:25,040 --> 00:09:28,000 Speaker 1: news Max, which has been nipping at Fox News as 156 00:09:28,040 --> 00:09:31,680 Speaker 1: heels and then began to get even more attention in 157 00:09:31,720 --> 00:09:36,679 Speaker 1: the days after the election, and then the motivation alleged 158 00:09:36,880 --> 00:09:40,040 Speaker 1: on the part of Juliani and Powell is that they 159 00:09:40,040 --> 00:09:44,360 Speaker 1: were simply out for their own ambition and to enrich themselves. 160 00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:46,880 Speaker 1: And so I would imagine that you know that conspiracy 161 00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:50,040 Speaker 1: language is part of the narrative that smart Madi wants 162 00:09:50,200 --> 00:09:53,880 Speaker 1: to argue around the purposes for which all of these 163 00:09:53,920 --> 00:09:56,080 Speaker 1: actors did what they did, and to show that this 164 00:09:56,200 --> 00:09:59,400 Speaker 1: was calculated, that these were not accidents, and the news 165 00:09:59,480 --> 00:10:02,840 Speaker 1: organization and the sources here, we're all doing this in 166 00:10:02,880 --> 00:10:07,000 Speaker 1: a purposeful, strategic manner. What is the possibility here of 167 00:10:07,040 --> 00:10:11,640 Speaker 1: a settlement? I would say overwhelmingly likely. For one, virtually 168 00:10:11,679 --> 00:10:14,800 Speaker 1: no light bulb cases go from cradle to grave to 169 00:10:14,840 --> 00:10:17,199 Speaker 1: a full ball injury verdict. It of course does happen, 170 00:10:17,240 --> 00:10:20,040 Speaker 1: but it's very rare. Most of these cases settled out. 171 00:10:20,120 --> 00:10:22,800 Speaker 1: I would imagine that we will read in some time 172 00:10:22,880 --> 00:10:25,680 Speaker 1: about a confidential settlement agreement that we may not learn 173 00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:28,280 Speaker 1: much about. So I think it's overwhelmingly likely that this 174 00:10:28,280 --> 00:10:32,240 Speaker 1: would be settled out. Smart Matic alleges two point seven 175 00:10:32,320 --> 00:10:37,000 Speaker 1: billion dollars in damages. Does that seem to be a 176 00:10:37,160 --> 00:10:41,680 Speaker 1: very high number. It is very high number. Yes. And 177 00:10:41,760 --> 00:10:45,400 Speaker 1: the basis that is offered in the complaint to support 178 00:10:45,440 --> 00:10:51,080 Speaker 1: it UM is that the the falsehoods made smart Madic 179 00:10:51,720 --> 00:10:57,280 Speaker 1: known nationwide, you even internationally by by voters, but particularly 180 00:10:57,280 --> 00:11:00,640 Speaker 1: relevant here in the United States as a as a 181 00:11:00,760 --> 00:11:05,120 Speaker 1: criminal organization. You know, that stole the u S elections, 182 00:11:05,800 --> 00:11:09,240 Speaker 1: which for smart Madic, um it alleges, you know, led 183 00:11:09,320 --> 00:11:14,560 Speaker 1: to the loss of business partnerships, that strained client relationships 184 00:11:14,640 --> 00:11:18,160 Speaker 1: and according to the company UM and and estimated loss 185 00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:22,040 Speaker 1: of more than five billion dollars in future profits. And 186 00:11:22,080 --> 00:11:24,120 Speaker 1: then some of the other harm that is alleged in 187 00:11:24,160 --> 00:11:29,400 Speaker 1: the complaint is that UM the smart Madic and and 188 00:11:29,440 --> 00:11:31,800 Speaker 1: this this is true of the Dominion litigation as well, 189 00:11:32,280 --> 00:11:36,400 Speaker 1: that you know, the name began, it became synonymous with 190 00:11:36,679 --> 00:11:41,000 Speaker 1: conspiracy theory UM and that as a result of the 191 00:11:41,120 --> 00:11:46,400 Speaker 1: conspiracy theory spreading, employees of smart Madic and employees of 192 00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:50,240 Speaker 1: Dominion as well, is that they they were recipients of threats, 193 00:11:50,600 --> 00:11:53,680 Speaker 1: threats in some cases that were death threats. Uh. And 194 00:11:53,760 --> 00:11:57,240 Speaker 1: they had been noted in the complaint as well. Thanks John. 195 00:11:57,440 --> 00:12:02,120 Speaker 1: That's Jonathan Peters of the University of Georgia. Smart Madic 196 00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:06,480 Speaker 1: has joined Dominion Voting systems ensuing supporters of former President 197 00:12:06,520 --> 00:12:10,200 Speaker 1: Donald Trump who have claimed voter fraud, joining me as 198 00:12:10,280 --> 00:12:15,640 Speaker 1: Cardike Morotra Bloomberg News cybersecurity reporter. It's a two hundred 199 00:12:15,679 --> 00:12:19,160 Speaker 1: and seventy six page complaint. Tell us about some of 200 00:12:19,200 --> 00:12:22,839 Speaker 1: the main allegations. Well, Smart madick is is one of 201 00:12:22,880 --> 00:12:26,719 Speaker 1: two companies that ud Fox and its personalities in the 202 00:12:26,800 --> 00:12:29,960 Speaker 1: last couple of weeks, and the primary claim here is 203 00:12:30,040 --> 00:12:33,680 Speaker 1: defamation right there saying that for the better part of 204 00:12:33,679 --> 00:12:37,360 Speaker 1: the last two and a half three months, Fox News, 205 00:12:37,760 --> 00:12:42,840 Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, along with the company's anchors, 206 00:12:42,960 --> 00:12:46,800 Speaker 1: have been attacking these companies falsely over their ability to 207 00:12:47,240 --> 00:12:53,160 Speaker 1: influence the results of the presidential election. Claims that smart 208 00:12:53,200 --> 00:13:00,440 Speaker 1: Madic has allegiances to UH Venezuelan leadership UH and UH 209 00:13:00,559 --> 00:13:03,120 Speaker 1: is embedded in all the dominion machines it was used 210 00:13:03,120 --> 00:13:06,960 Speaker 1: to manipulate votes to turn votes have been peddled widely 211 00:13:07,480 --> 00:13:12,000 Speaker 1: since the election with no basis of fact and UH 212 00:13:12,040 --> 00:13:16,040 Speaker 1: and so these companies are are finally pushing back with 213 00:13:16,160 --> 00:13:20,920 Speaker 1: multibillion dollar lawsuits. Are they trying to prove that the 214 00:13:21,040 --> 00:13:25,840 Speaker 1: Fox News hosts were part of a campaign a disinformation 215 00:13:25,880 --> 00:13:30,360 Speaker 1: campaign that they were working in any way with Juliani 216 00:13:30,520 --> 00:13:36,640 Speaker 1: and and Powell. It's the implication in these lawsuits. When 217 00:13:36,640 --> 00:13:40,120 Speaker 1: I spoke with the Smartmatic attorney, I asked that specific question, 218 00:13:40,480 --> 00:13:45,240 Speaker 1: and he said, Look, you don't bring these actors on 219 00:13:45,320 --> 00:13:50,200 Speaker 1: your show repeatedly, dozens of times without knowing exactly what 220 00:13:50,240 --> 00:13:54,319 Speaker 1: they're going to say. And so if you can't plead 221 00:13:54,360 --> 00:13:58,120 Speaker 1: ignorance after the first three or four times they've been 222 00:13:58,120 --> 00:14:00,439 Speaker 1: on your show, and they've been on social media peddling 223 00:14:00,480 --> 00:14:04,320 Speaker 1: this disinformation. And they go on to state in the 224 00:14:04,320 --> 00:14:08,120 Speaker 1: complaint as well that lou Dobbs in particular, would at 225 00:14:08,160 --> 00:14:12,080 Speaker 1: the end of these conversations with Juliani and Powell um 226 00:14:12,360 --> 00:14:17,400 Speaker 1: offer a summation of their claims, which was tantamount to 227 00:14:17,400 --> 00:14:22,120 Speaker 1: to um agreeing with them, or at least uh, you know, 228 00:14:22,360 --> 00:14:26,680 Speaker 1: implying that there was some coordination here between Fox and 229 00:14:27,120 --> 00:14:31,480 Speaker 1: its personalities to promote this conspiracy. I also read that 230 00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:35,800 Speaker 1: they alleged that some of the language the host used 231 00:14:36,240 --> 00:14:40,320 Speaker 1: was language that the lawyers used, like cyber Pearl Harbor, 232 00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:45,040 Speaker 1: so they episoded what the lawyers were saying. Yeah, exactly, 233 00:14:45,320 --> 00:14:49,720 Speaker 1: So this lawsuit will be all about planest ability to 234 00:14:49,880 --> 00:14:54,480 Speaker 1: convince the judge that there was a coordinated campaign here 235 00:14:54,840 --> 00:14:59,520 Speaker 1: to UH peddle disinformation about the results of the election. 236 00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:01,440 Speaker 1: And in yes, that is one of the claims that 237 00:15:01,840 --> 00:15:07,160 Speaker 1: that the hosts themselves, we're using the exact same scripted 238 00:15:07,240 --> 00:15:10,520 Speaker 1: language as as the attorneys who are representing the president 239 00:15:10,560 --> 00:15:13,920 Speaker 1: at the time to push this conspiracy. And I think 240 00:15:13,920 --> 00:15:17,800 Speaker 1: anybody who watched Fox News or news Max or O A. 241 00:15:17,960 --> 00:15:20,760 Speaker 1: N in the last couple of months did hear a 242 00:15:20,800 --> 00:15:24,360 Speaker 1: lot of that rhetoric over and over and over again, 243 00:15:24,760 --> 00:15:28,320 Speaker 1: um to to push the conspiracy until the end of 244 00:15:28,360 --> 00:15:32,320 Speaker 1: December and early January when some of the networks finally 245 00:15:32,360 --> 00:15:35,240 Speaker 1: started to pump the brakes a bit. I'm wondering why, 246 00:15:35,680 --> 00:15:39,960 Speaker 1: instead of having to prove this coordinated disinformation campaign, why 247 00:15:40,000 --> 00:15:45,960 Speaker 1: they didn't just sue Fox separately and claimed defamation. So 248 00:15:46,720 --> 00:15:50,240 Speaker 1: that is what they've done. They have sued and claimed 249 00:15:50,240 --> 00:15:55,320 Speaker 1: defamation against Fox. They've also named these other characters as 250 00:15:55,440 --> 00:16:00,480 Speaker 1: as people who peddled the disinformation UH and then piracy 251 00:16:01,280 --> 00:16:04,200 Speaker 1: is simply a wrinkle that is part of the lawsuit 252 00:16:04,560 --> 00:16:07,640 Speaker 1: that that says that they were all in cahoots. But 253 00:16:08,200 --> 00:16:11,000 Speaker 1: the reality is in the surface of this litigation is 254 00:16:11,000 --> 00:16:15,680 Speaker 1: exactly how you describe it. It is about Foxes disinformation 255 00:16:15,760 --> 00:16:21,080 Speaker 1: campaign and UM the defamation of these two companies, m 256 00:16:21,480 --> 00:16:26,560 Speaker 1: accusing them of of conspiring to UM change both. In December, 257 00:16:26,600 --> 00:16:31,560 Speaker 1: Smartematic demanded a retraction from Fox. What happened with that? 258 00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:35,520 Speaker 1: That's right, So in mid December, actually both companies, Mathematic 259 00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:41,920 Speaker 1: and Dominion both demanded retractions from Fox News, max O, 260 00:16:42,040 --> 00:16:44,800 Speaker 1: A N and and the individuals are named of the complaint. 261 00:16:45,320 --> 00:16:48,720 Speaker 1: And a few weeks after that, the networks came out 262 00:16:48,880 --> 00:16:54,640 Speaker 1: with these packaged segments where they had experts election security 263 00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:58,080 Speaker 1: experts go on the air and say there is no 264 00:16:58,120 --> 00:17:02,400 Speaker 1: conspiracy here. They that as as a news story or 265 00:17:02,440 --> 00:17:06,240 Speaker 1: almost an investigation to show that this did not occur. 266 00:17:06,400 --> 00:17:09,480 Speaker 1: But it did not as far as the attorneys for Dominion, 267 00:17:09,520 --> 00:17:13,920 Speaker 1: them and Partomatic or Concerns amount to a correction and 268 00:17:14,040 --> 00:17:17,960 Speaker 1: admission that what they were stating for months was false. 269 00:17:18,640 --> 00:17:21,840 Speaker 1: And so because they did not get the apology they 270 00:17:21,840 --> 00:17:25,160 Speaker 1: were looking for, here we are with this defamation state. 271 00:17:25,720 --> 00:17:29,360 Speaker 1: Now Fox called it a merit less lawsuit. I mean, 272 00:17:29,359 --> 00:17:31,080 Speaker 1: does it appear as if Fox is going to try 273 00:17:31,119 --> 00:17:36,879 Speaker 1: to defend its coverage. That's an interesting question. So Fox's 274 00:17:37,040 --> 00:17:41,240 Speaker 1: argument is always that they have a line between UH, 275 00:17:41,320 --> 00:17:45,800 Speaker 1: their guests opinion, some of their personality's opinions, and and 276 00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:48,800 Speaker 1: fact and news, and they'll probably try to tell that 277 00:17:48,880 --> 00:17:53,720 Speaker 1: line if this case, ever UH goes to trial or 278 00:17:53,760 --> 00:17:56,639 Speaker 1: anywhere close to it. I do not expect this case 279 00:17:56,680 --> 00:18:00,159 Speaker 1: to go anywhere close to trial. Um for Fox to 280 00:18:00,240 --> 00:18:03,760 Speaker 1: allow it to go even to discovery would be shocking 281 00:18:03,880 --> 00:18:07,000 Speaker 1: because you know, obviously there's a lot more to be 282 00:18:07,119 --> 00:18:11,400 Speaker 1: learned about the potential for a conspiracy here in coordination 283 00:18:11,480 --> 00:18:16,200 Speaker 1: between Fox and and it's personalities that I would be 284 00:18:16,280 --> 00:18:19,600 Speaker 1: surprised if they let out in the public. Smart Matock 285 00:18:19,720 --> 00:18:22,920 Speaker 1: is looking for damages of two point seven billion dollars, 286 00:18:23,119 --> 00:18:25,359 Speaker 1: But where are they getting that two point seven billion 287 00:18:25,359 --> 00:18:30,200 Speaker 1: dollars number? Yeah, it's interesting. So so they have calculated. 288 00:18:30,400 --> 00:18:34,399 Speaker 1: They're saying that that the companies and the governments that 289 00:18:34,480 --> 00:18:37,720 Speaker 1: they work with, the governments that they work with, have 290 00:18:37,880 --> 00:18:41,080 Speaker 1: been asking them a lot of questions about their relationship 291 00:18:41,520 --> 00:18:45,480 Speaker 1: with election venors and this conspiracy, and that because of 292 00:18:45,480 --> 00:18:48,639 Speaker 1: those questions, there are clients that there's around the world 293 00:18:49,119 --> 00:18:53,120 Speaker 1: who are UH pulling out of contracts or deciding not 294 00:18:53,320 --> 00:18:57,080 Speaker 1: to conduct business with spartmatic explicitly. And and so they 295 00:18:57,119 --> 00:19:00,679 Speaker 1: believe that there's there's half of the million dollars and 296 00:19:00,720 --> 00:19:05,000 Speaker 1: damages there along with reputational harm that amounts to two 297 00:19:05,000 --> 00:19:09,760 Speaker 1: point seven billion dollars. Now, whether that's going to prohibit 298 00:19:09,760 --> 00:19:12,760 Speaker 1: a settlement or not is unlikely. Actually, so there have 299 00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:18,640 Speaker 1: been cases in the past where planets have demanded billions 300 00:19:18,640 --> 00:19:23,840 Speaker 1: of dollars of news channels who have allegedly defamed them, 301 00:19:24,000 --> 00:19:25,879 Speaker 1: and those cases have settled for a fraction of the 302 00:19:25,880 --> 00:19:28,240 Speaker 1: amount um. And and so that's not entirely out of 303 00:19:28,280 --> 00:19:30,400 Speaker 1: a realm of possibility. Here they're asking for two point 304 00:19:30,440 --> 00:19:33,399 Speaker 1: seven billion dollars. They could settle for a few hundred million, 305 00:19:33,680 --> 00:19:36,080 Speaker 1: which for a voting machine vendor is actually not a 306 00:19:36,080 --> 00:19:40,040 Speaker 1: small sum of money. Powell's affidavit tell me about that. 307 00:19:40,119 --> 00:19:42,720 Speaker 1: What she attached to her affidavit's something that had been 308 00:19:43,240 --> 00:19:48,880 Speaker 1: submitted to courts and rejected. Yeah, so she has been 309 00:19:48,920 --> 00:19:54,199 Speaker 1: touting affidavit since the days after the election, which she 310 00:19:54,320 --> 00:19:59,560 Speaker 1: claims have been produced by industry experts voters as evidence 311 00:20:00,040 --> 00:20:03,639 Speaker 1: of the conspiracy to undermine the results of the election. 312 00:20:03,720 --> 00:20:08,719 Speaker 1: And she shared with us one of them on you know, 313 00:20:08,800 --> 00:20:13,040 Speaker 1: late last week, which which was authored by a person 314 00:20:13,040 --> 00:20:15,800 Speaker 1: whose name was redacted in the affidavit, but the person 315 00:20:15,840 --> 00:20:20,280 Speaker 1: claims to be an election expert and a former military 316 00:20:20,280 --> 00:20:25,320 Speaker 1: official who has intimate knowledge of the origins of Smartmatic 317 00:20:25,640 --> 00:20:30,720 Speaker 1: and their relationship with the Venezuelan government twenty years ago. 318 00:20:31,000 --> 00:20:35,159 Speaker 1: And the affidavit claimed that nothing happens in Venezuela without 319 00:20:35,160 --> 00:20:38,960 Speaker 1: the government's blessings, which a sant amount of evidence that 320 00:20:38,960 --> 00:20:43,760 Speaker 1: that smart Madock is in cahus with UH the socialist 321 00:20:43,840 --> 00:20:48,119 Speaker 1: leaders in in Venezuela, and and so this paints a 322 00:20:48,160 --> 00:20:53,119 Speaker 1: picture of their motives. UM. The affidavit was submitted in 323 00:20:53,200 --> 00:20:58,320 Speaker 1: multiple lawsuits in which she sought to UH question the 324 00:20:58,320 --> 00:21:02,960 Speaker 1: credibility of results UH. None of those lawsuits succeeded. Interesting 325 00:21:03,000 --> 00:21:06,480 Speaker 1: that smart Madic claims that its case is supported by 326 00:21:06,480 --> 00:21:10,600 Speaker 1: the fact that it has limited exposure to US elections. 327 00:21:10,680 --> 00:21:15,040 Speaker 1: So it was only California, only Los Angeles, so the 328 00:21:15,280 --> 00:21:19,320 Speaker 1: biggest voting jurisdiction in the United States. UM came out 329 00:21:19,359 --> 00:21:22,800 Speaker 1: with a new set of voting machines a couple of 330 00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:26,440 Speaker 1: years ago, and smart Madic learns the software on those 331 00:21:26,520 --> 00:21:30,160 Speaker 1: voting machines. That is the only jurisdiction in the United 332 00:21:30,200 --> 00:21:34,400 Speaker 1: States where smart Madic provides software services. UM. The claim 333 00:21:34,440 --> 00:21:37,280 Speaker 1: has been made that smart Madic provides software services to 334 00:21:37,440 --> 00:21:41,760 Speaker 1: dominion that is pavenly false. UM. And so their argument 335 00:21:41,840 --> 00:21:44,640 Speaker 1: here is that, look, if we can just convince the 336 00:21:44,720 --> 00:21:47,720 Speaker 1: judge or a jury that there's no way we have 337 00:21:47,800 --> 00:21:52,560 Speaker 1: this undue influence um, because we only work in one jurisdiction. 338 00:21:52,880 --> 00:21:56,080 Speaker 1: That's that's all we need to to prove. And and 339 00:21:56,119 --> 00:21:58,359 Speaker 1: as long as the judge can understand that and everything 340 00:21:58,359 --> 00:22:02,760 Speaker 1: else that is followed by Fox um and personalities amounts 341 00:22:02,760 --> 00:22:06,960 Speaker 1: to defamation. So it seems like they have a plausible 342 00:22:06,960 --> 00:22:10,600 Speaker 1: case of defamation. But what about the fact that this 343 00:22:10,680 --> 00:22:13,720 Speaker 1: is a matter of public interest right there? The higher 344 00:22:13,800 --> 00:22:19,000 Speaker 1: standard apply here reckless disregard. Yeah, that's the question. If 345 00:22:19,000 --> 00:22:24,680 Speaker 1: this does go to trial, the question become whether Fox 346 00:22:24,920 --> 00:22:29,119 Speaker 1: can be held accountable um or if it's simply raising 347 00:22:29,440 --> 00:22:34,280 Speaker 1: the specter of these questions. UM. And that's when we 348 00:22:34,320 --> 00:22:37,160 Speaker 1: come back to this issue. Was there truly a conspiracy 349 00:22:37,280 --> 00:22:42,359 Speaker 1: here to defame these companies or was it simply a 350 00:22:42,800 --> 00:22:48,560 Speaker 1: news outlet um stating uh what what some of the 351 00:22:48,720 --> 00:22:52,880 Speaker 1: attorneys of the president were old peddlink um. And that's 352 00:22:52,880 --> 00:22:55,240 Speaker 1: the question for a judge in jury to determine. It's 353 00:22:55,280 --> 00:23:00,360 Speaker 1: a tough hurdle. Fox Business canceled lou Dubs Show, It's 354 00:23:00,440 --> 00:23:06,359 Speaker 1: biggest show. Where does that fit into this? That's a 355 00:23:06,359 --> 00:23:10,600 Speaker 1: good question that has garnered much speculation on the social 356 00:23:10,640 --> 00:23:15,760 Speaker 1: media's UH it's unclear if you know this is part 357 00:23:15,800 --> 00:23:23,000 Speaker 1: of their campaign to distance themselves from UH, the alleged 358 00:23:23,040 --> 00:23:27,359 Speaker 1: defamation UM they sent. They obviously haven't said that UM. 359 00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:30,399 Speaker 1: It will be interesting, UH if this came out as 360 00:23:30,560 --> 00:23:32,880 Speaker 1: as possible terms of a settlement. I have no way 361 00:23:32,880 --> 00:23:37,040 Speaker 1: of knowing exactly the case, but the timing certainly raises 362 00:23:37,080 --> 00:23:41,000 Speaker 1: a lot of questions about why Dobbs Show was canceled 363 00:23:41,560 --> 00:23:44,520 Speaker 1: weeks after these lawkers were filed. The Dominion is is 364 00:23:44,560 --> 00:23:49,040 Speaker 1: suing as well? Are this lawsuits basically the same? They 365 00:23:49,080 --> 00:23:53,320 Speaker 1: echo each other, The lawsuits are similar. There's actually three lawsuits. 366 00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:57,760 Speaker 1: So there's one against Rudy Giuliani, and there's one against 367 00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:01,800 Speaker 1: Powell filed by Dominion, and then there's a third filed 368 00:24:01,840 --> 00:24:08,520 Speaker 1: by Smartmatic against UH Giuliani and Powell and Fox and 369 00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:13,840 Speaker 1: it's um It's anchors. So the complaints are are all 370 00:24:14,040 --> 00:24:18,200 Speaker 1: largely similar. It's just that Dominion has a much wider 371 00:24:18,240 --> 00:24:22,160 Speaker 1: spread across the United States. They work in a lot 372 00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:24,960 Speaker 1: of the Swing States, Their systems are used all over 373 00:24:25,000 --> 00:24:28,640 Speaker 1: the country and so UH and and as we discussed, 374 00:24:28,800 --> 00:24:33,640 Speaker 1: smart Maddox case is largely limited to one county in California. 375 00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:37,760 Speaker 1: So while the claims are the same, they're standing is 376 00:24:38,160 --> 00:24:41,040 Speaker 1: slightly different. That's why we're talking about a series of 377 00:24:41,040 --> 00:24:45,240 Speaker 1: different complaints. And is a dominion or or smartmatic or 378 00:24:45,280 --> 00:24:51,280 Speaker 1: both that are asking social media platforms to preserve information? 379 00:24:53,200 --> 00:24:56,800 Speaker 1: That's a good question. I believe it is dominion that 380 00:24:56,960 --> 00:25:00,320 Speaker 1: is asking UH for social media to preserve this and formation. 381 00:25:00,359 --> 00:25:03,479 Speaker 1: They're concerned being that you know, UH that a lot 382 00:25:03,520 --> 00:25:06,000 Speaker 1: of these social media platforms that promised to delete or 383 00:25:06,000 --> 00:25:09,280 Speaker 1: remove this content from their their platform so as not 384 00:25:09,359 --> 00:25:12,280 Speaker 1: to amplify it. And they're worried that in that process 385 00:25:12,280 --> 00:25:15,879 Speaker 1: that it just gets uh thrown out with the dishwater, 386 00:25:16,240 --> 00:25:18,800 Speaker 1: and so they want to make sure that that that 387 00:25:18,960 --> 00:25:23,560 Speaker 1: evidence is readily available. Did you talk to any legal experts, 388 00:25:23,560 --> 00:25:27,920 Speaker 1: I mean, do they think that this lawsuit is strong? Yeah? 389 00:25:27,960 --> 00:25:31,680 Speaker 1: So it's it's for the reasons that you raised earlier. 390 00:25:32,600 --> 00:25:38,760 Speaker 1: These news networks have um license to um to often 391 00:25:38,800 --> 00:25:44,199 Speaker 1: speculate and raise concerned, especially when they're coming from attorneys 392 00:25:44,240 --> 00:25:47,680 Speaker 1: that is the president. And so it becomes hard to 393 00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:53,639 Speaker 1: too nail down defamation when it's uh, when it's rooted 394 00:25:53,680 --> 00:25:56,080 Speaker 1: in news, and that is going to be a major 395 00:25:56,200 --> 00:26:01,400 Speaker 1: challenge for these planets to show that, uh, the defamation 396 00:26:01,560 --> 00:26:04,520 Speaker 1: was part of a conspiracy and that the news organizations 397 00:26:04,520 --> 00:26:08,399 Speaker 1: were part of it. Um. So what happened if this 398 00:26:08,440 --> 00:26:11,359 Speaker 1: case goes to trial is a bit of a toss 399 00:26:11,440 --> 00:26:16,199 Speaker 1: up um. But again, uh, these lawsuits, defamation cases have 400 00:26:16,560 --> 00:26:18,960 Speaker 1: a right history of being settled. I would put my 401 00:26:19,000 --> 00:26:21,639 Speaker 1: money on that being the ultimate resolution here. And just 402 00:26:21,640 --> 00:26:24,560 Speaker 1: to clarify, did Sidney Powell tell you that she was 403 00:26:24,600 --> 00:26:28,879 Speaker 1: going to fight this on the merits? She did? She 404 00:26:28,960 --> 00:26:32,080 Speaker 1: did in a statement she told my colleague Eric Marsin 405 00:26:32,160 --> 00:26:34,760 Speaker 1: but that these are unfounded claims. She's going to push back, 406 00:26:34,800 --> 00:26:37,560 Speaker 1: and that's when she shared with us the affidavit which 407 00:26:37,680 --> 00:26:42,440 Speaker 1: she believes this proof of a conspiracy involving Startmatic. As 408 00:26:42,440 --> 00:26:45,720 Speaker 1: you mentioned in your in your story, the threat of 409 00:26:45,760 --> 00:26:50,080 Speaker 1: defamation suits seems to be, at least in one instance 410 00:26:50,119 --> 00:26:53,560 Speaker 1: with the my Pillow founder, seems to have a restraining 411 00:26:53,600 --> 00:27:00,080 Speaker 1: effect of some sort. Yeah, so the channels have of 412 00:27:00,840 --> 00:27:05,920 Speaker 1: pump the brakes a little bit on the disinformation campaign Newsmax, 413 00:27:06,080 --> 00:27:11,480 Speaker 1: which which gained him popularity when Fox News stopped being 414 00:27:12,160 --> 00:27:16,680 Speaker 1: as conspiratorial as the President wanted them to. Actually, um 415 00:27:16,920 --> 00:27:22,159 Speaker 1: told Mike Lindell, the CEO of My Pillow, that his 416 00:27:22,240 --> 00:27:28,840 Speaker 1: conspiracy about the election being fraudulent was not rooted in fact. 417 00:27:29,320 --> 00:27:32,600 Speaker 1: And and there's a popular clip going around where where 418 00:27:32,640 --> 00:27:37,000 Speaker 1: he is, you know, really digging in on this claim, 419 00:27:37,160 --> 00:27:40,400 Speaker 1: and the anchor tries to interrupt him repeatedly. And when 420 00:27:40,440 --> 00:27:43,960 Speaker 1: he declined to to stop with this information campaign, the 421 00:27:44,000 --> 00:27:47,240 Speaker 1: actually the anchor actually gets up a league. So there 422 00:27:47,359 --> 00:27:50,640 Speaker 1: there appears to have been some sort of cooling impact 423 00:27:50,840 --> 00:27:56,360 Speaker 1: after the companies sent these letters of retraction, these demands 424 00:27:56,359 --> 00:28:00,320 Speaker 1: of retraction in late December, which then followed with politic ation. 425 00:28:00,480 --> 00:28:03,480 Speaker 1: So um, it'll be interesting to see if the if 426 00:28:03,520 --> 00:28:06,159 Speaker 1: the news outlets then say, look, we've done everything they 427 00:28:06,240 --> 00:28:08,840 Speaker 1: wanted us to, We're not peddling this anymore. Just laws 428 00:28:08,840 --> 00:28:13,119 Speaker 1: to go away. Thanks Cardike. That's Cardike marocha Bloomberg News 429 00:28:13,200 --> 00:28:16,399 Speaker 1: Global security reporter. And that's it for this edition of 430 00:28:16,400 --> 00:28:19,639 Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Lawn Show. Please join us every weeknight at 431 00:28:19,680 --> 00:28:22,440 Speaker 1: ten pm Eastern, right here on Bloomberg Radio.