Dominion’s latest brief against Fox News shows why the voting company should win

We’re getting closer to a possible trial in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against Fox News, and things aren’t looking good for the right-wing TV station.

The latest reminder of this comes in voting technology Company response letter filed Wednesday. One of the important points that was stressed is that “Fox does not dispute the apparent falsity of the statements made by Fox about Dominion”.

In the short version it says:

The unassailable truth is that Dominion did not rig the 2020 presidential election, whether through vote-reversal software, Venezuelan connections, kickbacks, or otherwise. These fundamental truths underpin the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election outcome. They are undeniable historical facts.

Dominion, which is demanding $1.6 billion for Fox News, which allegedly promotes lies about Dominion’s influence in the 2020 election, said the network has refuted “none” of those “undeniable” facts in its own court filings.

Of course, this litigation is taking place against the backdrop of the “actual malice” standard, which requires a public figure to show that the defendant in a defamation case acted with knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth. One thing that makes this an unusual case is the degree of direct Evidence of knowledge within Fox, rather than mere circumstantial evidence that could bring the case closer.

Sure, Dominion makes the arguably aggressive argument that it’s entitled to summary judgment — meaning it should win the case even before trial. Although the company has an unusually strong case, it is not clear that the judge overseeing the matter in the Delaware state court will end the matter without a trial. At the same time, the unusual amount of evidence in favor of Dominion probably means at the very least that Fox (what denies the allegations) should lose It is summary judgment request. That is, the “news” network should at least have to face a trial in order to successfully defend itself.

We’ll hopefully get a better sense of what the judge thinks of all this at hearings later this month, ahead of a possible trial in April. Unless, of course, the matter is resolved. But in another unusual aspect of this case, there seems to be no appetite for it.

Read the edited brief below:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *