court documents revealing how
the most prominent Fox News
stars and executives privately
mocked Donald Trump's election
lies while promoting them
publicly.
It is part of dominion voting
systems 1.6 billion dollar
lawsuit against fox an echo
network.
CNN's brodd Brian Todd takes a
closer look at the damaging
message and testimony.
>> Immediately after Joe
Biden's 2020 victory, Fox News
hosts were unabashed in
promoting a false declaration
that the election had been
stolen from Donald Trump.
>> Electronic voting machines
didn't allow people to vote,
apparently.
And, that whatever you think,
that the cause of, it shakes
peoples faith in the system and
that is an actual threat to
democracy.
It will be impossible to ever
know the true fair accurate
election results.
>> But new court filings show
that in private fox host tucker
Carlson, Lauren, Ingram and
Sean hannity will really
revealing the claims of
election fraud in the people
who are making.
Their private messages in a
legal filing that's part of
dominion voting systems 1.6
billion dollar lawsuit against
Fox News.
One person they insulted, trump
campaign lawyer Sydney Powell,
of --
>> What we are really dealing
with here and uncovering more
by the day is the massive
influence of communist money.
>> In one text revealed in the
court, filing tucker Carlson
texted Laura Ingraham saying,
quote, Sydney Powell is lying.
I caught, here it is insane.
Ingram responded, quote, Sydney
is a complete nut.
Nobody will work with her.
Ditto with Rudy.
A reference to trump lawyer
Rudy Giuliani and his post
election claims.
>> There was a plan to
essentialized and execute these
various acts of voter fraud.
>> In other messages, Sean
hannity said Giuliani was,
quote, acting like an insane
person.
Ingram described Giuliani as an
idiot.
Fox corporation chairman Rupert
Murdoch says it was, quote,
really bad that Giuliani was
advising trump.
>> This tells you a lot about
Fox News, their internal
machinations.
It tells you that they have one
version of the world.
That they keep to themselves.
And another version of the
world that they broadcast to
their viewers.
The two are entirely
incompatible.
>> But fox kept promoting
election denialism.
Why?
He followings in the dominion
suit showed that fox executives
were worried about losing
viewers to Newsmax.
A smaller conservative channel
that was constantly pushing
election denial?
Trump himself furious that fox
had called Arizona for Biden,
he had encouraged his followers
to switch to Newsmax.
>> Since 2002 Fox News is
basically been the preeminent
ratings champion in cable news.
And you see here the moment
that they see any sign that
that might be slipping away, it
is panic.
>> But the dominion filings
also say that when then
president trump tried to call
into fox on January 6th, the
day his supporters attacked the
capitol.
Fox executives refused to put
trump on the air.
>> Fox News denies dominion's
claims of the lawsuit.
Says it is proud of its 2020
election coverage.
And says those court filings
contained cherry-picked quotes
that lacked context.
In a statement fox accused
dominion of creating, quote,
noise and confusion.
And said the core of this case
remains to be about freedom of
the press and freedom of
speech.
Brian Todd, a CNN, Washington.
>> CNN's senior legal analyst
and former federal prosecutor
Elie Honig joins me now.
The man never stops, working
his new book is untouchable,
how powerful people get away
with it.
You have got a new book and you
are working on the Saturday.
Thank you for all of that,
Elie.
>> Happy to be with, you always,
anytime for you.
>> Can you tell me what these
revelations mean for the
lawsuit?
>> So Sarah this really means
that Fox News in some trouble.
It is really difficult, legally,
to make out a defamation case
if you are a plaintiffs like
dominion is here.
It is not enough to simply show
that the media outlets got it
wrong.
You have to show actual malice.
Meaning you have to show that
the reporter or whoever is
making these statements knew
that they had it wrong and said
it anyways.
And here if you look at this
brief that was filed the other
day it is remarkable.
It opens up with just a
straight string of quotes from
leading fox anchors and
executives that used --
terms we heard in the piece.
Lies, insane, nuts, I mean,
that is about as
straightforward evidence as of
actual malice as you will
realistically see.
>> So with all of that said,
and this is obviously their
version of things and I'm sure
that fox will have its version
of things, as in any court.
But having those messages, I
mean those are receipts that
you cannot undo.
Do you think that fox could end
up finding itself on the hook
for 1.6 billion dollars?
Because that is the amount that
dominion is suing for?
Because of how much they
damaged the company according
to dominion.
>> So I do think there are real
questions about that damages
amount.
Dominion is essentially arguing,
a, they destroyed all of our
business viability going
forward.
The, we are worth 1.6 billion
dollars.
But if you look at the
paperwork in this case, they
are actually have been prior
evaluations of dominion at a
fraction of what that, is 1.6
billion dollars.
In the tens of millions of
dollars, it is a large business,
it is profitable business.
But 1.6 billion is the upper
and.
It may be an optimistic outcome
by dominion.
But ultimately it will be up to
a judge and later a jury, a
jury than a judge to decide
just how much damage damages
dominion has sustained if there
is finding a liability against.
What >> I am assuming there
could be punitive damages and,
that is sometimes where there
is high numbers coming from.
You know, sometimes some of
these fall thinkers that we
just saw basically mocking
Donald Trump and saying that
his, you know, idea that this
somehow, the election was
rigged.
As you say.
It he didn't buy, it they
actually thought it was insane.
But on the air, that is not
what they said.
They seem to just be agreeing
with him and pushing his lies.
Listen to this >> So much for
those claims that voter fraud
never happens?
Of course it happens.
They knew would happened when
they told us it would never
happen.
Because they are liars.
>> I could see these people
hand over what appeared to be
white envelopes.
I thought, that was our
ballots.
>> Today, no more reports of
dead people voting beyond the
grave, amazing system we set
up.
>> This is disgusting and we
cannot allow Americas election
to be corrupted.
We cannot.
>> What is also disgusting is
pushing a lie when it comes to
democracy.
One, that clearly some of those
people spewing that stuff
didn't believe themselves.
What are your thoughts now
after seeing this new released
quote pile?
>> I think this is exactly what
we will see if this case does
go to trial.
If the parties are not sale.
We will see the plaintiffs here,
dominion offering the kind of
side by side.
He clips that you just showed
put next to those text behind
the scenes which are saying
that in some cases the exact
opposite and I think the
argument to a jury is that this
is the definition of actual
malice.
It is one thing to get it wrong,
the media enjoys very broad
first amendment protections and
as it should be under our
constitution.
But the first amendment does
not without a limit.
And the limit sat under the law,
really, of all states but
including Delaware where this
lawsuit is.
Is that you cannot
intentionally spread a
falsehood about another person.
So I think that is the argument
we are going to see from the
plaintiffs here.
This was intentional, they knew
what they were doing and as you
said, the plaintiffs here have
a theory about what the motive
was.
The motive was they didn't want
to lose readings.
They were terrified for their
waterline and I think that is a
good summary of what the
plaintiffs cases.
>> You talked about the first
amendment.
And that is of course a really
important amendment to us
personally.
But also to anyone who wants to
say whatever they want to say.
And fox statement has sort of
two alluded to that.
This is all about the freedom
of the press.
And freedom of speech.
And dominion voting systems is
cherry-picking things.
Does that hold water?
>> Well, they are right that
the first amendment is very
broad.
They are right that it should
be abroad.
They are right that all of us
in the media and elsewhere rely
on the very broad first
amendment.
But it is not limitless.
It doesn't mean anyone can say
anything they want at anytime.
Even if they know it is wrong.
Without any consequence.
I see that Fox News is sort of
responsive that these quotes
are cherry-picked.
I guess they, are that's what
you do in discovery, you go
through tens of thousands of
pages and you say here is the
best evidence.
You want to call that
cherry-picking fine but that is
what lawsuits are all about.
And in terms of them being out
of context, I mean, the brief
that was filed the other day
actually has quite a bit of
context.
In some cases you will see the
entire tax for you will see
several exchanges back and
forth.
So it is one thing to say that
of context, it is another thing
to show and maybe they can
convince the jury, who knows,
that it is out of meaningful
context.
>> Well I hate talking about
the media, frankly.
Because we should be telling
people stories.
But this is a story that