losing ground to competitors like newsmax. oliver darcy, thank you so much. you re rewatching again tomorrow. perspective now from retired first amendment lawyer lee levine, who was represented who has represented both fox news and cnn in cases lee. thanks for being with us look, tucker carlson messages they ve been previously mentioned in court filings, but to have them highlighted in open court in front of the dutch judge. how damaging do you think that is to fox? well, the judges obviously seen all of this stuff in the hundreds of pages of briefing that spending filed, so it s really just the point of emphasis for the judge. it s an opportunity for dominion to show the judge what they think is the most significant evidence and likewise for fox to show the judge what they think is the most significant evidence. i think the most significant thing about today s proceeding was precisely what i wonder just said was that it it took six hours and it s going to continue into tomorrow. i lit
in no. you never believed they were involved in an effort to delegitimize and destroy votes for donald trump, correct? he says, i m open to persuasion, but, no i ve never seen it. dominion is seeking a summary judgment. what would that mean and what is fox s response? dominion wants the judge to rule on this. fox s response has been obviously against this motion and so we re going to see what happens later this month when the judge does rule on this. i think most legal experts would say that this is likely headed toward a trial, so we ll see what happens but fox is responding tonight basically saying this proves that this all of this is proof that dominion has been engaged in smearing and they say these raw transcripts do say that or prove their claim that they have been cherry-picking information out of them and making it in their filings. oliver, i want to bring in first amendment lawyer lee levine who has represented fox and cnn and many other outlets.
lee, in a previous appearance you said a similar filing was helpful but not a smoking gun. what would a smoking gun look like when the standard is actual malice? well, when i said that last time, anderson, i was talking about the testimony that murdoch gave when he said that various of the hosts on fox had endorsed election fraud and i said that was not a smoking gun, because it did not relate directly to dominion. it just talked generally about election fraud. but what oliver just read, i think, is a little bit closer to a smoking gun. here we ve got murdoch saying that he, who had at least theoretical authority to stop powell and giuliani from appearing on fox s shows, in fact, never believed and has never seen any evidence of election fraud by dominion and that is pretty close to a smoking gun.