The lawsuit that was filed in late 2021 had in recent months devolved into messy discovery disputes, wherein Smartmatic and its attorney J. Erik Connolly went so far as to lob allegations that OAN execs had potentially “engaged in criminal activities” by “appear[ing] to have violated state and federal laws regarding data privacy.” The plaintiff alleged that 2021 emails between “Kraken” lawyer Sidney Powell and OAN President Charles Herring indicated that the network had access to a spreadsheet with Smartmatic employees’ passwords, CNN reported.
So Smartmatic sued OAN for defamation. That is civil. You pay money if you lose. Then Smartmatic starts alleging federal crimes.
Seems like the messiness was in one direction. If this true OAN had a motive to stop discovery.
Seems like the messiness was in one direction. If this true OAN had a motive to stop discovery.
Allegations are only allegations until proven - so the messiness you speak of does not mean anything on either direction. When you are defending yourself against these allegations, you can force the plaintiff to produce material thats pertinent. That material, coming from the plaintiff's side, can easily be damning and something they were trying to hide while lobbing false accusations.
This kind of thing happens all the time. Take an extreme example - Jeffrey Archer's libel case.
He not only lobbed accusations of libel but also won the lawsuit. But later it came out that he had fabricated false evidence and HE went to prison.
The article does not say Smartmatic paid anything.
In fact, the hints are that they did not.
https://twitter.com/jeremymbarr/status/1780274908309622867
Inferring "hush money" from "confidential settlement" is reasonable.
How do you infer who paid who from that?
Look at the details.
So Smartmatic sued OAN for defamation. That is civil. You pay money if you lose. Then Smartmatic starts alleging federal crimes.
Seems like the messiness was in one direction. If this true OAN had a motive to stop discovery.
Allegations are only allegations until proven - so the messiness you speak of does not mean anything on either direction. When you are defending yourself against these allegations, you can force the plaintiff to produce material thats pertinent. That material, coming from the plaintiff's side, can easily be damning and something they were trying to hide while lobbing false accusations.
This kind of thing happens all the time. Take an extreme example - Jeffrey Archer's libel case.
He not only lobbed accusations of libel but also won the lawsuit. But later it came out that he had fabricated false evidence and HE went to prison.
Maybe we will learn more later, but the article does not support OP's claim.
They both paid their own attorneys!