Legal experts say that they have uncovered a “smoking gun” in the case against Fox News

The Murdochs and Fox Corporation in the midst of the Mueller investigation of the 2020 midterm election: A pedagogical ruling against Dominion

The court filings in this case have offered the most vivid picture to date of the chaos that transpired behind the scenes at Fox News after Trump lost the election. And viewers rebelled against the right-wing channel for accurately calling the contest in President Joe Biden’s favor.

The Murdochs and other top Fox Corporation officials will have their day in court on April 17 after Fox News reported that the Murdochs and other company officials will have to testify at the trial. Fox lawyers said the Murdochs only have “limited knowledge of pertinent facts” and argued that Dominion should instead rely on the “lengthy depositions” they gave.

In a ruling yesterday, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis affirmed that Dominion should receive the contracts – the point of contention in Tuesday’s hearing.

The Trump camp was criticized by Fox News execs and hosts for pushing the claims of election fraud. Hannity even said Giuliani was “acting like an insane person” and Ingraham described him as “an idiot.” Murdoch said that it was bad for Giuliani to advise Trump.

In his exchanges with the judge, Keller drew a line distinguishing between a host or producer “who are sometimes pre-scripting material for the show, that is going to be tethered to a specific channel’s telecast” and a network executive.

Senior journalists at Fox News who were focused on reflecting facts were fired because of the erosion of viewers to smaller right-wing rivals. In a note to the network’s top publicity executive, Fox News CEO Scott denounced Sammon, the former Washington managing editor. Scott wrote that Sammon did not understand the impact on the brand and the arrogance in projecting Arizona for Biden.

Nelson, the Dominion attorney, retorted by citing a document obtained from Fox that “talks about the daily editorial meeting that occurs, including almost all of these executives that we’re looking at right now.”

Murdoch’s bombshell deposition — in which he acknowledged that some Fox hosts endorsed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen — could be a game-changer for Dominion’s case, which hinges on meeting a high legal bar known as “actual malice.” To fulfill that standard a lawsuit has to show that the defendants knew the statements were false or that they were reckless disregard for the truth.

Demonstrating actual malice is a requirement under U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Failing to abide by the truth is either knowingly broadcasting false and damaging information or doing so with reckless disregard.

Baier released a statement saying he was not happy with how his objections were framed. A person with knowledge of Fox’s election coverage toldNPR that a technical glitch in their control room caused the delay in calling the full White House win for Biden.

In hosting Fox’s first post election interview with Trump that November, Bartiromo went as far as to say that the United States cannot be allowed to be corrupted by electoral fraud. She said in December that an intel source told her that Trump had won the election. Bartiromo, officially designated as a news anchor, never returned to explain on what grounds the source made that statement. She was a news anchor on the News side of Fox, which caused them to no longer call her an opinion host.

► Murdoch said he “suggested or urged” the firing of host Lou Dobbs because he “was an extremist,” but allowed him to continue hosting a program at the network until after the election. Dominion argues that’s because Dobbs was popular with Trump and his supporters and the network was fending off viewer defections to Newsmax.

According to the legal team for Dominion, Fox invoked a reporter’s privilege to shield her from some questions during her deposition and asked the court to compel more testimony from her. A ruling on whether Pirro must return for questioning has not been made public.

“We err on the side of speech because the more and more speech you have, the better chance of having people actually getting the opportunity to point out what’s right and what’s wrong,” attorney Erin Murphy, one of the senior figures on Fox’s defense team, tells NPR in an interview. “And that’s why we don’t suppress the speech that we don’t think is right.”

Instead, Murdoch, the network’s controlling owner, followed the lead of the network’s senior executives in sidestepping the truth for a pro-Trump audience angered when confronted by the facts.

Murdoch is accusing a media outlet of defamation. He has forced the site to pay out for highly critical commentary several times previously; Crikey says it intends to use the suit as a test case for recent changes in libel law in that country. In Australia, media outlets have less legal cover than in the U.S.

The fate of a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News lies, for the moment, in the hands of a plainspoken judge known for his unflinching poker face.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis, a 12-year veteran of the state’s bench and former corporate attorney, has often sought to temper emotions in the contentious proceedings between the broadcasting giant and Dominion Voting Systems, a voting-technology company. The other side accuses the other of acting in bad faith.

“If he were to be given a name in culture, it would be Cool Hand”, says Joseph Hurley, a criminal defense attorney who has argued before Davis but has no involvement with the case. “In court, he never shows any emotion, and I mean that in a good way.”

The Newsmax High-Energy Correspondence: Circuit Court Judge David Davis ruled in favor of the Investigating Investigation of the 2020 Election

The cases have come near each other many times. According to Davis, Newsmax received evidence that showed that the election was not stolen.

Dominion said in court filings that its experts will describe how it would’ve been literally “impossible” for its software to flip millions of votes from Trump to Biden, which is precisely what many Fox hosts and guests suggested it did in 2020.

“Smartmatic’s allegations support the inference that Newsmax’s reporting was neither accurate nor disinterested, or even biased,” Davis said.

John Culhane, a professor at the Delaware Law School, says that the judge did not have any of the Newsmax arguments.

Culhane cautions against drawing too strong of a conclusion from the Newsmax ruling, but he says Davis is step-by-step when it comes to the law.

The most prominent stars and highest-ranking executives at Fox News privately ridiculed claims of election fraud in the 2020 election, despite the right-wing channel allowing lies about the presidential contest to be promoted on its air, damning messages contained in a Thursday court filing revealed.

Smartmatic’s suit for $2.7 billion is just as far along as the ones by Dominion and Fox. Fox News tried to get the Smartmatic case against it and several of its stars dismissed, but the state court in New York turned down the motion. The ruling dismissed claims against parent company Fox Corp, saying no cause was stated.

Connolly said he would file an amended complaint to detail the involvement of Murdoch and his sons.

Newsmax lawyers cite a legal privilege known as neutral reportage that allows it to presentcedented allegations without adopting them as true to allow the public to draw its own conclusions.

While he notes the First Amendment protects reporters in order to guarantee a “robust and unintimidated press,” he also states the “First Amendment is not unlimited.” He said a neutral reportage principle does not protect a publisher who “deliberately distorts” statements to “launch a personal attack of [its] own on a public figure.”

The stakes are very high in the two cases. Davis does not want to amplify his profile. (Indeed, his court declined to make a photo of him available for this story.) And the judge has repeatedly sought to ensure an air of comity around the proceedings, a hallmark of the Delaware legal bar.

In a Feb. 8 court hearing in Dominion’s suit against Fox, Davis apologized to the rival legal teams, saying he had been surprised to re-read an email in which he said he came off as snarky.

He used a pat phrase and pinned it on it. “You know that typical sarcastic thing that judges say?” Davis asked what he should do. “‘Tell me if I’m wrong…’ Which means, don’t tell me I’m wrong. It means that I’m making some kind of statement. But that wasn’t why I was doing it.”

Fox News’ Jacqui Carlson, the White House Critique of a Fact-checked Tweet from Mr. Trump, was a Pseudo-Trump Campaigner

The depth of it is best summed up in this account by The Times last week of an exchange dated Nov. 12, 2020: “In a text chain with Ms. Ingraham and Mr. Hannity, Mr. Carlson pointed to a tweet in which a Fox reporter, Jacqui Heinrich, fact-checked a tweet from Mr. Trump referring to Fox broadcasts and said there was no evidence of voter fraud from Dominion. Mr. Carlson was of the opinion that she should be fired. He said it needs to stop immediately. It is hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke. She deleted her account by the next morning.

Sidney Powell, an attorney for the Trump campaign, was called a bit nuts by Ingraham. Carlson used a profanity for women to describe her. An executive at a network wrote to another executive that he didn’t think Carlson’s show were a good source of news.

Many internal Fox News emails and text messages have already played a role in the case, by exposing how top executives and talent did not believe the claims of vote-rigging that were made in the 2020 election.

This lawsuit is about “protecting the integrity of our public discourse itself,” Dominion lawyer Rodney Smolla said, adding cases like these “protect the public from deliberate falsehoods.”

After the election, a furious Trump attacked Fox News and encouraged his followers to switch to Newsmax. The presidential contest was called in the days and weeks that followed. Newsmax gained significant viewership while Fox News lost some of their audience.

There were attempts to fact-check election lies. On one occasion, Carlson demanded that Fox News White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich be fired after she fact-checked a Trump tweet pushing election fraud claims.

According to a person with direct knowledge of the matter, she was not aware that top hosts were trying to get her fired until she read the legal filing.

In that case, senior Fox News leadership was told that cutting away from the press briefing where election misinformation was being promoted was a brand threat.

Behind the scenes, however, Fox News chief executive Scott had been wooing Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder, major advertiser and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist, according to Dominion’s filing. Scott sent Lindell a personal note and a gift while encouraging Fox shows to book him as a guest to “get ratings.”

Rupert Murdoch is the Responsible for Fox News: A Threat to American Democracy? A Response to an AP Comment on the Courts of the Investigative Investigation

Slaven Vlasic ofGetty Images; Carolyn Kaster ofAP; Michael Brochstein ofSOPA Images; and Alex Brandon ofAP.

Off the air, the network’s stars, producers and executives expressed contempt for those same conspiracies, calling them “mind-blowingly nuts,” “totally off the rails” and “completely bs” – often in far earthier terms.

“[Rupert Murdoch] is responsible for Fox News. In the amplification of political hate, Fox News has played the largest part. I would challenge anyone … to nominate which individual alive today has done more to undermine American democracy than Rupert Murdoch.”

The cable network’s attorneys told the public in a separate filing that the damages request was designed to generate headlines and enrich the company’s controlling owner.

The day after the Capitol attacks, President Donald Trump asked Fox News to stop calling Lou Dobbs, and the Fox News staff refused to call him

Baier said there was no evidence of fraud just days after the election. None. Allegations – stories. Twitter. Bulls—.

His departure two months later was termed a retirement by Fox News; through an intermediary, Sammon has declined to comment on that, citing the terms of his departure.

According to court papers, former President Donald Trump tried to call Fox News after his supporters attacked the US Capitol but the network refused to put him on air.

The source familiar with the panel’s work said that the House Select Committee did not know that Trump had made the call.

The panel sought to piece together a near minute-by-minute account of Trump’s movements, actions and phone calls on that day. The committee faced obstacles and some of the gaps in the record still exist.

The day after the Capitol was attacked, then President Trump tried to speak to Lou Dobbs on the air, according to their legal brief.

“But Fox executives vetoed that decision,” Dominion’s filing continued. “Why? Not because there is not enough newsworthiness. January 6 was an important event by any measure. President Trump not only was the sitting President, he was the key figure that day.”

Fox hosts and the Murdoch family were okay with denigrating the core engine of America’s democracy, which is our ability to peacefully and legitimate transfer power, if it would increase their audience and boost their stock.

Haley, Raj, and Fox News: How Do Do we know Dominion is going to defend against the Fox News defamation lawsuit?

From afar, it seemed that Haley had a pretty good story to tell, as the daughter of an Indian immigrant and a successful South Carolina governor. Raj studied law at the University of New Delhi, and after immigrating to South Carolina she earned a master’s degree in education. Her father taught biology at Voorhees College for more than two decades after earning a doctorate from the University of British Columbia. They opened a clothing boutique on the side.

“It’s a major blow,” renowned First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said of Dominion’s motion for a summary judgment, adding that the “recent revelations certainly put Fox in a more precarious situation” in defending against the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.

“It’s a major blow,” attorney Floyd Abrams of Pentagon Papers fame said, adding that the “recent revelations certainly put Fox in a more precarious situation” in defending against the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.

The newsletter “Reliable Sources” has a version of this article. You can sign up for the daily digest to keep you up to date with the changing media landscape.

RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor and media law scholar at the University of Utah, described the evidence as “pretty voluminous” and said that she too had never seen evidence like it collected in a high-profile defamation case against an outlet as enormous as Fox.

Tushnet said that in all of her years practicing and teaching law, she had never seen such damning evidence collected in the pre-trial phase of a defamation suit. Tushnet said that he didn’t recall anything similar to this. “Donald Trump seems to be very good at generating unprecedented situations.”

The filing showed that the case against Fox News has serious teeth and was made by an attorney who teaches First Amendment law.

“The dream for a plaintiff’s attorney is what Dominion claims to have here,” Jones said, “smoking-gun internal statements both acknowledging the lie and deciding to forge ahead with perpetuating it.”

The Murdochs and the Fox News Era: Investigating Donald Trump’s Corrupt Action against Joe Biden Using Fox News News Stars

Murdoch sought to differentiate between the two in his remarks. When asked whether Fox News embraced the idea of election fraud, he pointed instead to his own stars: “No. Some of our commentators were in favor of it.

Murdoch told Ryan that Sean Hannity was scared to lose viewers because he was disgusted by Trump. In other words, Hannity, who always claims to say the same things on camera as when he’s off camera, was not being up front with his loyal audience for fear they’d rebel against him.

Murdoch wrote in an email to the New York Post’s Col Allan after the election, describing election lies as bulls**t and damaging.

Murdoch gave Kushner a sneak peak at Biden’s ads before they were public, and also gave him information about Trump’s debate strategy. At most news organizations, this type of action would result in an investigation and disciplinary measures.

The documents show that the channel’s business model is not based on getting the audience informed but instead feeding them content that keeps them happy and watching.

Asked whether he could have told Fox News’ chief executive and its stars to stop giving airtime to Rudy Giuliani — a key Trump campaign attorney peddling election lies — Murdoch assented. “I could have,” Murdoch said. I didn’t.

Emails and other communications introduced into the case by Dominion reflect deep involvement by the Murdochs and other Fox Corp. senior figures in the network’s editorial path.

“I’m a journalist at heart,” the elder Murdoch, who is just two weeks shy of his 92nd birthday, said in his deposition. I like to be involved in these things.

On election night, he was steadfast in his defense of Fox News coverage of the state of Arizona for Joe Biden. Murdoch testified that he could hear Trump shouting in the background as the then-president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, told him the situation was “terrible.”

Scott forwarded his recommendation to Meade Cooper, the top executive. She canceled her show that weekend because she was concerned that guests would say that the election was rigged and if she pushed back, it would be just a token.

By Nov. 13, Raj Shah, a senior vice president at Fox Corp., was advising Lachlan Murdoch, Scott and Dinh of the “strong conservative and viewer backlash to Fox that we are working to track and mitigate.” He said that after election day, Fox News watchers had the lowest level of positive impressions they have ever seen.

Ryan is on Fox’s board of directors. He said he told the Murdochs “that Fox News should not be spreading conspiracy theories.” And he testified that he advised them that the post-election period represented an inflection point in which Fox could pivot away from its prior support for Trump.

Rupert advised Lachlan, “Just tell her … Fox News, which called the election correctly, is pivoting as fast as possible. We have to lead our viewers which is [] not as easy as it might seem.”

Tucker Carlson had a guest on his show. Murdoch told the lawyers for Dominion that he was not going to take money for MyPillow ads.

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen said on Monday that the deposition was one of the most devastating he had ever seen. “When you go beyond reporting and your chairman admits there was endorsement, then that opens you up to liability under the actual malice standard.”

The Delaware lawsuit alleged that the “concerted efforts and actions” from Fox’s legal team ultimately caused Grossberg to testify in a way that portrayed the facts “in a false light” in order to “shift culpability” away from senior Fox News executives and “away from Fox Corporation.”

Murdoch, meanwhile, conceded that Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Maria Bartiromo, and former host Lou Dobbs promoted falsehoods about the presidential contest being stolen.

Who is he? Murdoch is a mogul and the owner of the Fox News Channel which was depicted in Succession.

Defaming the Media: How should you respond when you’re told to be or if you have been warned about alleged election fraud?

“How often do you get ‘smoking gun’ emails that show, first, that persons responsible for the editorial content knew that the accusation was false, and also convincing emails that show the reason Fox reported this was for its own mercenary interests?” says Rutgers University law professor Ronald Chen, an authority on Constitutional and media law.

Murdoch, Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott, and other top executives told each other they wouldn’t confront viewers with facts because of the way it could be used to get them to watch more shows.

Even with that record, some media lawyers say that Fox’s attorneys may be right in predicting that a loss would restrict the media’s freedom.

“No matter how much I might personally deplore what Fox is alleged to have done, I worry a lot more about the longer term-ramifications,” says University of Minnesota media law professor Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Americans should have the right to make mistakes when discussing public officials and politics in order to ensure free and robust debate according to Brennan.

Two current Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, have indicated they would be open to making it easier for plaintiffs to prevail in defamation suits. A third, Elena Kagan, published her own musings years before she joined the court that the protections for the press might be too strong.

Murphy says that the idea of actual malice is required if it is to be believed that certain people knew statements they aired were wrong. She says Murdoch’s sworn statements about dismissing the claims of election fraud, as well as the fact that some of his stars had endorsed them publicly, carries no legal weight.

Murphy says “anything that the president or his lawyers were doing was news in and of itself regardless of whether they could prove anything or not.” She invoked what journalists consider the safe ground of “neutral reporting” – just telling their audiences what others are saying.

Yet Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum also were deeply concerned about the loss of viewers and deliberated about how to win them back, evidence uncovered by Dominion’s attorneys and separate reporting by the New York Times’ Peter Baker show.

News outlets that have lost defamation cases usually end up with apologies or settlements even though they are still on appeal. The two most popular defamation cases resulted in different outcomes.

In 2017, Rolling Stone magazine settled separate cases filed by a University of Virginia dean and a campus fraternity after a collapse of standards in reporting on what turned out to be a source’s fabricated account of campus rape.

In the summer of 2007, The New York Times got revenge on former Alaska Governor SarahPalin after she was wrongly linked to a mass shooting months later.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/06/1161221798/if-fox-news-loses-defamation-dominion-media

Fox Media Protected Precise Information from a “Sunday Mornings Futures” Host Abby Grossberg

“The Dominion case is such a strange case it provides an exception to the general rule,” Goodale says. “Let us hope we don’t see such a strange case again.”

“Ms. Grossberg has threatened to disclose FOX News Media’s attorney-client privileged information and we have filed a temporary restraining order to protect our rights,” the network said in a statement.

In a statement to The Daily Beast’s Confider, Grossberg’s attorney wrote: “Having just received and read Fox News’ frivolous attempt to silence Abby Grossberg, we are happy that the full story regarding her case will now be heard by three separate courts in each of which we are confident she will receive the justice she deserves and certainly the fair treatment which she hasn’t experienced thus far from her employer Fox News.”

In its lawsuit against her, Fox’s legal team said it informed her attorney that information in her complaint against the network was protected by privilege. Fox said that Grossberg’s law firm shared the drafts of the lawsuits on Monday.

The memo Powell delivered detailed allegations of fraud without providing evidence. It was written by a woman named Marlene Bourne, who admitted her claims were “pretty wackadoodle.”

In the legal documents, Grossberg alleges that Fox attorneys “coerced, intimidated, and misinformed” her before she sat for a questioning by a Dominion attorney last September.

She stated that she trusted the people at Fox with whom she worked. She now would answer: “No, I don’t trust all of [the] producers at Fox.” She added: “They’re activists, not journalists, and impose their political agendas on the programming.”

“Fox just does not care,” Grossberg added. “It summarizes everything perfectly. They don’t care about employees or viewers.

Grossberg, who indicated she was passed over for a top job on Bartiromo’s show because the network preferred it be filled by a male, said Fox News executives referred to the “Sunday Mornings Futures” host as a “crazy b**ch” and “menopausal.”

When she began work on Carlson’s show, Grossberg said the environment was horrific. On her first day, she said she learned the show’s workspace was decorated with large photos of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “in a plunging bathing suit revealing her cleavage.”

The lawsuit continued to describe a culture at Carlson’s program in which women were subjected to crude terms and in which jokes about Jewish people were made out in the open. Grossberg named Carlson and members of his staff in the lawsuit filed in New York.

The Ethics of Coverage: A Benchmark on the 2020 Fox News Comes Issued by Senator Lou Davis, Judicial Director of the ABC News Investigating Investigations

“It’s constant,” she added. “Ratings are very important to the shows, to the network, and to the hosts. It is a business and that is what drives coverage.

The proceedings took longer than expected as a result of lengthy procedural arguments in the morning. There is a high bar for either side to succeed at this time, as the judge doesn’t know when he will issue a ruling.

“They made the decision to let it happen,” Nelson said, referring to the litany of baseless claims about the voting company that got airtime on Fox News in late 2020.

“Compelling live testimony at trial will add nothing other than media interest,” lawyers for the right-wing network wrote in a Monday filing. This is not a public relations campaign.

He said one of Fox’s arguments “doesn’t seem to be intellectually honest.” He questioned if Fox News could argue that Lou had engaged in legal reporting when he signed many of his questions with aMAGA.

“It could have been a bigger story that a President who lost an election was making all these unsubstantiated false allegations” about widespread fraud, Davis mused from the bench.

Instead, “all we ever did was provide viewers with the true fact that those allegations were being leveled by the siting President and his lawyers, all throughout the country,” she told the judge.

Ray Epps, the attorney for an FBI agent, has spoken publicly about the events at the Pentagon, and is facing disciplinary action against right-wing politicians

In previous court filings, Dominion has said that its calculation are proper. The company hired expert to evaluate its books and lost business opportunities and reached the $1.6 billion figure.

An attorney for Ray Epps demanded a public apology from Fox News and its right-wing host Tucker Carlson on Thursday, after they made false statements about him.

Conspiracy theorists suggested after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol that it was a staged operation by the federal government to cause Trump’s supporters to look bad.

Some right-wing figures baselessly claimed that Epps was part of a secret FBI plot to plot the attack as part of a conspiracy theory. Carlson has repeatedly breathed life into those conspiracies by giving them attention on his highly rated program. On many occasions Carlson has mentioned the subject of Epps on his show, and has included footage from January 6 of him at the Capitol.

In a private deposition with the House committee that investigated January 6, Epps denied that he ever worked for the FBI or for federal law enforcement, according to a transcript of his interview. He told the committee he supported Trump in 2020 and attended the DC protest because he was concerned about widespread voter fraud.

According to the attorney for the Epps, the conspiracy theories about his client have been dismissed by those at theJanuary 6th events.

This isn’t the first time that Teter has been involved with the legal ramifications of January 6. He has pushed for accountability against lawyers who spread election lies. He is the managing director of the 65 Project, a group that is trying to take disciplinary action against Trump-aligned attorneys who pushed bogus falsehoods about the election.

A Deposition of a Star Witness for Fox News in Dominion’s Defamation Suggestions and Challenges to Fox’s Laws

A former senior producer for Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo is offering herself as a star witness for Dominion Voting System’s $1.6 billion defamation suit against the network.

Grossberg claims that Fox attorneys encouraged her to give false information during her deposition. She offered more thorough and potentially damaging answers in an errata sheet with her amended complaint in Delaware.

Grossberg’s filing states that there was no evidence to link the reporting of the Dominion to the events that took place.

She claims that Clark passed her over for promotion and denied her requests for support, instead favoring male colleagues.

She acknowledges receiving many messages from the company trying to correct the misrepresentations, but she says she didn’t read all of them because they all looked the same.

Dominion’s potential witness list, which is not final and will surely face legal challenges from Fox’s lawyers, is part of the routine process of haggling over witnesses while both sides prepare for trial.

Both Fox News and Dominion previously asked the judge to declare them the outright winner without a trial. The judge has yet to rule on the matter, but most legal experts believe the case will ultimately proceed to a jury trial if the two sides do not reach a settlement. The jury selection will start on April 13.

Fox previously told the judge it would be a “hardship” for Murdoch to testify in-person, and said Dominion’s bid to compel his testimony should be rejected because it presents an “undue burden” on the 92-year-old media mogul.

Murdoch has claimed that traveling is an inconvenient thing, Davis said. I also have people who tell me he is fit enough to travel around and that he got engaged on St. Patrick’s Day.

Matthew Carter of Fox argued that Murdoch should be relied on for the deposition because he is infirm or unable to travel.

During Tuesday’s virtual court hearing, Davis became annoyed with Fox’s lawyers for what he called legal “gamesmanship”. He was taken aback by the fact that Fox objected to all of the exhibits that were planned to be used at the trial.

Voting in a Scenario: Analysis of the Mueller’s Observation on Election Security and Election Security: A View from the Experts

Both sides are hoping to get testimony from their experts who specialize in election statistics, the security of voting machines, journalism ethics, and more.