Newsmax chief said in 2020 ‘we have no evidence’ election was rigged, but aired those claims anyway, Smartmatic alleges

Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy knew the right-wing cable outlet had no evidence to back up its claims that Smartmatic was involved in rigging the 2020 election even as it continued to push the lies on its air, an attorney for the voting technology company alleged on Thursday.

During a key pre-trial hearing Thursday in Smartmatic’s defamation case against Newsmax, the attorney, Erik Connolly, cited several instances of employees of the cable network admitting they had no proof of the election fraud claims, including a Nov. 12, 2020 internal email from Ruddy in which he said, “We have no evidence.”

“And yet they pushed the story after that date 23 more times,” Connolly said.

The attorney said that “some of the hosts were privately expressing doubt about the claims and accusations” against Smartmatic as they were being promoted on the network’s air. Several of the network’s hosts, he said, never believed them and were “joking about the accusations in their text messages” with one another.

“They did not tell their audience there is no evidence for what is being said here. ‘We have no evidence, the people on our show have no evidence. People are just talking.’ They knew that truth,” Connolly said. “They knew they had no evidence.”

The internal Newsmax emails and text messages referenced by Connolly haven’t been publicly released and weren’t shown in court during Thursday’s hearing.

After the hearing, Newsmax’s attorneys provided CNN with additional context from the November 2020 Ruddy email. While Ruddy did acknowledge that Newsmax didn’t have evidence of massive fraud, he said the network could continue covering Trump and his allies who were peddling similar claims.

“Newsmax does not have evidence of widespread voter fraud,” Ruddy wrote. “We have no evidence of a voter fraud conspiracy nor do we make such claims on Newsmax.

Ruddy continued, “We have reported on significant evidence of widespread election irregularities and vote fraud. We will continue to report on that. We believe we should not censor allegations made by the President or his lawyers or surrogates.”

In the message, Ruddy also committed to accept the outcome of the election as decided by the Electoral College – which Newsmax ultimately did in December 2020 after the electors voted – and that Newsmax would “encourage” a smooth presidential transition regardless of the outcome.

Connolly conceded to Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis on Thursday that the company does “not have a smoking gun email from within Newsmax saying, ‘I hate Smartmatic.’” That kind of communication could help meet one of the legal elements required in a defamation case.

During Thursday’s hearing, the judge also declined to postpone the trial, currently set for late September, but left open the possibility that he could do so at a later time. Earlier this month, Newsmax requested a delay so it can gather more evidence in the wake of a bombshell federal indictment against Smartmatic’s president on foreign bribery charges. Smartmatic denies those allegations.

Misha Tseytlin, an attorney for Newsmax, pushed back strongly on Smartmatic’s claims in court Thursday, telling the judge that “there is no evidence that we knew anything was false.” He argued the outlet was “reporting both sides of a story” consistent with a directive from Ruddy that was issued on Nov. 12, 2020.

In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, Smartmatic sued Newsmax, claiming that the right-wing network intentionally promoted lies that the company was involved in rigging the vote.

The small conservative network isn’t a media juggernaut like Fox News, but its ratings surged after the 2020 election. In the days after Donald Trump lost, his supporters flocked to Newsmax as its hosts and guests questioned the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s victory.

Beyond Smartmatic, Newsmax also faces a separate defamation case from Dominion Voting Systems, which famously settled with Fox News last year for $787 million. The Smartmatic case is being overseen by Judge Davis, who presided over the historic Fox-Dominion litigation.

Newsmax denies wrongdoing and maintains that its 2020 coverage is protected by the First Amendment. Notably, unlike Fox News, Newsmax published and aired a “clarification” in December 2020 declaring that the network hadn’t uncovered any evidence that Smartmatic or Dominion ever “manipulated votes in the 2020 election,” despite what some guests had claimed.

Owned by Trump ally Christopher Ruddy, Newsmax is home to several former Fox personalities like Eric Bolling and Greta Van Susteren, as well as controversial ex-Trump White House official Sebastian Gorka and Clinton ally-turned-foe Dick Morris.

A trial could have significant implications for the First Amendment and how journalists cover Trump’s election lies, though cases like these are often settled before a trial begins. A courtroom defeat for Newsmax could put the company in real financial peril.

The run-up to Thursday’s hearing was filled with big developments in and out of court.

Smartmatic’s president and two other onetime executives were indicted earlier this month by the Justice Department on foreign bribery charges in connection with an alleged contract-rigging conspiracy in the Philippines. The company denies wrongdoing.

There have also been back-and-forth accusations between Newsmax and Smartmatic of abusing the discovery process. Smartmatic claimed the pro-Trump network engaged in a “cover-up” and intentionally concealed more than 200,000 documents that it was entitled to review. A special master looked into the matter recently ruled that Smartmatic hadn’t proven these bombshell claims and declined to sanction Newsmax’s lawyers.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com