Smartmatic Sues Two Trump Lawyers And Three Fox News Hosts For $2.7 Billion-Worth Of Defamation
from the putting-a-price-tag-on-months-of-dipshittery dept
Another day, another multi-billion dollar defamation lawsuit. And like the other lawsuits filed over frothy falsehoods that emerged from the spittle-flecked lips of Trump lawyers and supporters, this one also targets people who definitely should have known better than to engage in the speech they did.
Smartmatic — a voting tech company whose name was dragged into the mud by a number of Fox News personalities and Trump legal team members — is suing three Fox News hosts and two lawyers. Media members and lawyers should definitely know how to stay away from engaging in alleged libel. But everyone sued here (Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, and Jeanine Pirro) abandoned their better instincts to wallow in the lowest-common-denominator toxicity that exemplified Trump’s response to losing a national election.
And Smartmatic had hardly anything to do with the national election. While Dominion Voting Systems — another post-election libel litigant — is in use in nearly half the nation, Smartmatic’s software was used in one single county in the US during the 2020 election.
But conspiracy theorists gotta theorize. So this group of morons in hurry to curry favor with Trump amplified a bizarre claim that Smartmatic was a tool of deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. In reality, Smartmatic is an American company founded by two Venezuelans. Its software was used by the Venezuelan government, but there’s absolutely no evidence the company itself engaged in any voter fraud, vote switching, or anything other illegal behavior Hugo Chavez’s government participated in.
The company’s 285-page(!) lawsuit [PDF] lays down the facts. A lot of the lawsuit’s runtime is given over to recounting the lies told by the two Trump lawyers and three Fox News hosts. Because the lying has been pretty much nonstop since last November, the filing is necessarily lengthy. Much of it highlights statements that were delivered by the defendants that made it clear they were stating facts, rather than simply offering their opinion on perceived election irregularities.
It also points out a long list of facts that would have been verifiable if any of the defendants had felt the slightest inkling to engage in the truth for a change.
Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not widely used in the 2020 U.S. election. They were only used in Los Angeles County.
Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not used by Dominion during the 2020 U.S. election. The companies are competitors.
Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not used to steal the 2020 U.S. election. Nor could they have been, given that Smartmatic’s role was limited to Los Angeles County.
Smartmatic’s election technology and software did not send votes to foreign countries for tabulation and manipulation during the 2020 U.S. election. The votes were tabulated in Los Angeles County.
Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not compromised and hacked during the 2020 U.S. election. No one has identified a shred of evidence that there were cyber-security issues in Los Angeles County.
Smartmatic has not been banned from being used in U.S. elections. Other election technology companies may have been banned but not Smartmatic.
Smartmatic is not a Venezuelan company and was not founded and funded by corrupt dictators from socialist and communist countries. Smartmatic USA Corp is based in Florida, and its parent company is based in the United Kingdom. No dictators – corrupt or otherwise, from communist/socialist countries or otherwise – were involved in founding or funding the company. Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not designed to rig and fix elections.
Smartmatic’s election technology and software were designed for security, reliability, and auditability. No after-the-fact audit has ever found that Smartmatic’s technology or software were used to rig, fix, or steal an election.
At the end of all of this, there’s a $2.7 billion damage demand. This is mostly performative and Smartmatic still has an uphill battle. Truth is the best defense against libel claims but none of these defendants have that option. But they can still bat away this lawsuit by showing the court no one really takes them seriously as pontificators or legal advisors. Admitting they’re nothing more than idiots in the entertainment business might be tough on their egos but it’s far less expensive than being forced to admit they knew they were lying or, at best, unwilling to vet any of these wild-ass claims before airing them publicly.
Filed Under: defamation, election fraud, fox news, jeanine pirro, lou dobbs, maria baritromo, rudy giuliani, sidney powell, voting
Companies: fox
Comments on “Smartmatic Sues Two Trump Lawyers And Three Fox News Hosts For $2.7 Billion-Worth Of Defamation”
'You said it. ... I did too, but you said it in court.'
But they can still bat away this lawsuit by showing the court no one really takes them seriously as pontificators or legal advisors.
When you’re on national tv, host a ‘news’ show on a national level and/or on the ex-president’s payroll as a lawyer ‘no-one takes me seriously’ might be a bit of a hard sell, though if they do go that route I think it’s only fair that they carry that label for the rest of their lives/existences, and any time they speak it should be shoved in their faces that they argued in court that no-one could or should reasonably believe anything they say.
Re: 'You said it. ... I did too, but you said it in court.'
Actually, "No one takes me seriously," worked pretty well for Tucker Carlson.
Re: Re: 'You said it. ... I did too, but you said it in court.'
"Actually, "No one takes me seriously," worked pretty well for Tucker Carlson."
Too well. But he’s an opinion host. But Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo are characterized as news hosts by Fox, so they are up a creek. Jeanine Pirro made false claims of fact, but she might be able to get away with the same defense that Trump and Tucker got away with, which is that they are known liars.
Re: Re: Re: 'You said it. ... I did too, but you said it in cour
Nah, the people dont take us seriously flew out of not just the window but the planet entirely the moment Jan 6 rolled around and the insurrection at the pitol happened thanks in part by these tools convincing thpusands that the election was stolen. Blood of a cop was spilled because many beloeven 9n their misinformation campaign in collusion with the Trump administration.
Bad defense
The Capitol riot would seem to indicate otherwise.
Re: Bad defense
insurrection*
Dominion: 1.3 Billion
Smartmatic: 2.7 Billion
subtotal: 4 Billion
Quite the exposure there, surprised the stock has not adjusted yet as several noted voices in the field of law have said the suit has merit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: but does this have merit?
Maybe the claim that the statements about election fraud were patently false has merit… but the claim that somehow these two companies suffered FOUR BILLION DOLLARS worth of damage? Bunk. Pure bunk. That’s why filing this nonsense hasn’t moved stock prices.
Re: Re: but does this have merit?
"these two companies suffered FOUR BILLION DOLLARS worth of damage?"
They’re asking for punitive damages as well as for lost revenue and loss of business that affects the entire sector.
Re: Re: but does this have merit?
"these two companies suffered FOUR BILLION DOLLARS worth of damage?"
I made no such claim.
Re: Re: but does this have merit?
Its not beyond reasonable as we are talking punitive damages not just lost sales damages. The market for those companies is very limited as it is and the reputational damage caused by Fox’s constant barage of false claims against these companies is enough to potentially bar them from operating in the U.S. as republican officials in all states of the nation are now tainted by the perception that these companies are untrustworthy or biased against them. The arguments that they would lose acces to contracts in future elections if their reputations arent cleared is as solid as can be.
Re: Re: but does this have merit?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Know what's funny?
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=politics_2020-election&linkId=110717147
TIME magazine ADMITTED the election was rigged.
Whoops
MicDrop
TrumpWasRightAgain
Re: Know what's funny?
What that article describes isn’t "rigging". Try again.
Re: Know what's funny?
That’s not what the article stated.
Re:
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. The article notes that a concerted effort from both sides of the political aisle — albeit led by the left wing — did everything they could to prevent not a certain outcome, but “an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding”.
If anything, the “secret bipartisan campaign” talked about in the article was about preventing the election from being rigged or fucked with, especially by “an autocratically inclined President”. The word “rigged” is never once used in the article to suggest the election was rigged. Nothing in the article suggests the election was rigged. Maybe if you read the actual article instead of the one you wanted it to be, you wouldn’t have fucked up this badly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Sad that so many of you are willing to believe whatever you want because of the evil orange man.
Remember, the IRS didn’t target the Tea Party, the NSA didn’t spy on everyone, Obama didn’t have a US citizen executed without a trial, and Assange and Snowden are dangerous criminals according to the same people who wrote that article.
So, yes, dismiss and downvote what you don’t like to hear, but it is the truth.
That article says they "fixed" the election.
Another term for "fixing" something is rigging it.
But I know that’s hard to understand and comprehend for everyone here who supports Fascism and thinks censorship is only a government thing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re taking that out of context. In context, the article clearly means “to fix” as in “to mend; to ensure it works as it’s supposed to”, not as in “to rig; to ensure a specific result through unlawful or rule-breaking means”. Everything specific in the article is about ensuring the accuracy, integrity, verifiability, and lawfulness of the election process.
Unless you have a specific statement from the article that unequivocally says that the election was rigged to ensure a specific outcome, it’s not evidence that supports your claims.
Also, let’s say there was such an effort made, there is evidence that it had no real effect on the results.
Re: Know what's funny?
Reading that article, the "rigging" was to… protect the integrity of the election results? How the hell do you think that proves you right?
Re: Re: Know what's funny?
These are the same shitwits that imagine "Big Tech" "influenced" the election… by not letting Republican/Russian bots and the intellectually-bot-adjacent like them be able to underhandedly use disinformation to influence it to their side.
Re: Know what's funny?
TIME magazine ADMITTED the election was rigged.
You mean the ‘fake news’ ‘mainstream media?"
Re: Re: Know what's funny?
It’s funny isn’t it? "Mainstream" media outlets (which somehow never include mainstream right-leaning outlets) are part of some grand conspiracy and never to be trusted… unless they publish something that the echo chamber agree with, in which case they will proudly share the story as if it’s gospel truth, in the belief that other people blindly believe sources they agree with in the same way they do.
It’s kind of a moot point in this case, given that he’s misrepresenting what the article says anyway, but it’s always notable just how their trust in a source changes based on whether they agree with what it’s saying. It really exposes just how much value they place in facts vs. ideology.
Re: Re: Re: Know what's funny?
"…unless they publish something that the echo chamber agree with, in which case they will proudly share the story as if it’s gospel truth…"
Well, with 73 million americans being such intellectual titans they fail to even realize object permanence it’s no wonder the Qanon crowd is willing to blindly follow the narrative they write in their head no matter what factual reality has to say about it. This isn’t new.
All that matters to those people is whether you are a believer in the satanist child-trafficking ring helmed by Hillary and the Kenyan Muslim on behalf of their jewish lizard overlords in the NWO…or whether you are the enemy.
You can’t talk to them. You can’t cure them. By now the only way left of dealing with them is simply letting civilized society keep them at bay until they choke on their own badly aimed malice. And make sure their spawn are at the very least taught the virtues of basic logic in the hope that this atavistic throwback to 13th century sectarianist cultism dies out within a generation.
If the defendants can convince the court that Smartmatic is a limited purpose public figure, they can also use "we actually believe(d) what we said" as a defense.
Re: Re:
The Fox News hosts might get away with that, but the two lawyers are going to have a much harder time because there is a marked difference between their rhetoric on Fox News where they claimed all sorts of things about smartmatic, and what they filed with courts, which left out their hyperbolic claims about smartmatic if I recall correctly. That damning contrast will clearly show that they did not believe the things they said outside of court were true otherwise they would have included them in their court filings.
Re: Re: Re:
The contrast between what was filed in lawsuits vs what was said to the press applies to Guiliani, but Powell filed some… interesting affidavits in her lawsuits. It might be that she’s just a grifter who doesn’t believe what she’s saying, but if so she went full in on it.
With all the hot air coming from conservatives about being defamed and having no recourse, I’m shocked and dismayed by their apparent lack of outrage with regard to this story, I thought they would be cheering for those defamed.
Re: Re:
One of the few times they’ll be upset about courts siding with corporations.
Re: Re: Re:
Whatever advances their sick agenda.
Poetic justice
If they win the lawsuit, it would be a great way to stop Trump from spreading fake news.
The cool thing is this is already having a decent results. Dobbs is cancelled:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/05/fox-news-lou-dobbs-tonight-canceled
Meanwhile, Newsmax’s reaction this week in the hilarious clip that’s been doing the rounds, where they try talking over the pillow guy to get him to stop alleging fraud until one of the hosts walks out, suggests the lawsuits are having an effect there as well.
This should be fun.
Re: Re:
"This should be fun."
Must see tv
Re: 'Cut the mic damnit, we are not getting sued over this!'
I saw that clip and it was glorious. Judging by how they set him up(‘So tell us about Twitter giving you the boot…’) I’m guessing they wanted to run with the ‘tech is censoring conservatives’ angle and instead he immediately went right off the deep end with the ‘stolen election’ crap, something they very clearly did not want to cover, whether because of the whole ‘insurrection’ thing nicely poisoning that particular well or the ‘multiple people being sued and making clear that continuing with those lies can have consequences’ part.
Re: Re: 'Cut the mic damnit, we are not getting sued over this!'
It’s funny because you know that under normal circumstances, he would have been able to just spout random bullshit for several minutes with no challenge from the hosts, but they’ve clearly got their marching orders and can’t let it happen for a moment. They even tell him directly to whine about "cancel culture" instead of talking about fictional election fraud, but he won’t stop talking for a second to get the message.
Also, IIRC, he tries making a big deal about some sort of major "evidence" he’s going to announce on Friday. But, unless I missed something, this hasn’t happened. Is that because it really doesn’t exist, I wonder, or has he got his own marching orders to cut that crap out now because it’s actually hurting the finances of the people in charge of the outlets that would normally give him a platform? Either way, it’s nice to see that the propaganda outlets might be scared out of spreading some of their more dangerous misinformation, at least for a short while.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The Kraken
Interesting the Smartmatic people do not understand discovery. I guess it’s true as Ron White says: Sometimes you just can’t fix stupid. Reap the whirlwind. Change your name to Dumbmatic.
Re:
The lawyers representing Smartmatic likely understand it. If this suit ever gets to discovery, the Smartmatic team will probably push hard for discovery of the people they’re suing — at which point you’ll likely see settlements happen. If you think Smartmatic actually has something to hide, imagine what the defendants would want to keep out of court, especially given some of their close connections to the most thoroughly corrupt president in modern history (and their roles in pushing that asinine “stop the steal” lie).
Re: The Kraken
I’m sure some rando on the Internet has figured it out much better than highly paid lawyers.
Re: Re: The Kraken
To be fair, they couldn’t do much worse than the theories being presented by the lawyers in this case. Although, "highly paid" might be stretching it, since Trump has famously refused to pay Rudy for anything he did, and I doubt the barely sane cultists heading up the rest of of the hit squad would do anything differently if they’re also not being paid.
Re: Re: Re: The Kraken
Right, but I was referring to the other side and their lawyers appear to a least be competent.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Kraken
Ah, in that case they will be happily raking in the cash for possibly the easiest work in their lives. It’s probably tedious, but I can’t imagine there’s much thought needed to get evidence-free claims thrown out of court, often with the plaintiff not having standing to present to the court in the first place. The only issue is probably how they can’t easily inflate the billable hours since the claims presented to the court often debunk themselves.
Re: Re: Re:3 The Kraken
Having seen the innards of Powell’s lawsuits I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she manages to cause Smartmatic’s lawyers at least a few facepalms and head-deskings. But then being an annoyance is different than presenting any sort of challenge.
Re: Re: Re:3 The Kraken
"…possibly the easiest work in their lives. It’s probably tedious…"
Well, if Powell and Rudy’s spiels indicate the likely trend of how the "evidence" backing the allegations against smartmatic will be presented, smartmatic’s lawyers won’t just have a field day, the stories of this case will be worth a few free drinks any time they meet their peers over a pint or two, for the rest of their lives.
It takes some doing before the bar association takes a lawyers license away but I think Rudy and Powell have surely put the extra hours in to accomplish it. Not sure what Powell’s next career will be but at least Rudy has a leg in as a performance artist. He should be able to rent a space for his act of melting before the camera, right at his old haunts between the crematorium and the dildo store.
Re: The Kraken
"Interesting the Smartmatic people do not understand discovery."
I’m sure they do, and are looking forward to it, since when it comes to that they will get some hilariously bad fan fiction to dissect in court.
"Sometimes you just can’t fix stupid."
Yeah, the people dumb enough to believe in this conspiracy theory, even though no actual evidence has ever been presented to a court, might be beyond saving at this point.
Re: The Kraken
"Interesting the Smartmatic people do not understand discovery."
Or, more likely by far, they actually have nothing to fear from discovery.
You should probably just crawl back into the stormfront forum, restless94110. You’ve made it pretty damn clear a few times too many which side of the swastika your rhetoric comes from, and why you keep clinging to the idea that somehow, somehow Trump actually didn’t lose.
Re: The Kraken
Given the sheer amount of evidence proving Dominion and Smartmatic right on these claims, I’d say it’s highly unlikely that anything unfortunate would come out of discovery for them.
I am highly entertained by the other lawsuits filed by conservatives who supported the "stolen election" gig against the lawyers and PACs who took donations to "investigate" and file lawsuits, and basically didn’t do shit.
It’s disingenuous in the extreme, accurately calling out the defendants as cynical grifters, but being filed by cynical litigants who hoped to assist in perpetrating a fraud through said "investigations" and lawsuits.
Re: Re:
"basically didn’t do shit"
Well, thanks to the small print, it did successfully redirect most of the funds that were supposed to be used to pay for the court cases directly into Trump’s own pocket. Sadly, these grifts work, if you stop looking at them at face value and understand their real aims.
Re: Re: Re:
How to milk sheep:
1) say the election was rigged
2) Ask for donations to fight it
3) Profit
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which why it’s so funny. Grifter v Grifter.
One possible defense strategy
One possible defense tragedy.
FOX could claim that the paper ballots were altered by secret Jewish space laser printers.
Re: One possible defense strategy
"FOX could claim that the paper ballots were altered by secret Jewish space laser printers."
Wouldn’t surprise me. I mean, the various Qanon conspiracy beliefs are deeply rooted in classic old antisemitic blood libel hogwash. And inherited the same "explanations" which have the Big Bad Guys on the one hand possessing reality-warping superpowers, black magic, mind control technology and alien technology to do their nefarious work; and on the other hand must have minds less developed than toddlers in order to swing all that super-science stuff around in so hamfisted a fashion as alleged by these dimwitted fucknuts.
And Fox is just all too eager to profit off those benighted morons. Which, with 73 million of them, makes for a solid base to grift from.
Only in America…