The snippits that are quoted from people are being spun. She is simply defending against a defamation suit at this point and also if you're going to quote content. Quote the actual quote and not the sensationalist headline.
"Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statement of fact".
If she walks everything back blatantly, then questions should be raised. For now, she is pushing back on the Dominion defamation suit by saying her statements had not yet been established as factual and that her opponents labelled her claims as absurd and ridiculous rather than slanderous.
The snippits that are quoted from people are being spun. She is simply defending against a defamation suit at this point and also if you're going to quote content. Quote the actual quote and not the sensationalist headline.
"Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statement of fact".
If she walks everything back blatantly, then questions should be raised. For now, she is pushing back on the Dominion defamation suit by saying her statements had not yet been established as factual and that her opponents labelled her claims as absurd and ridiculous rather than slanderous.
I know, bro. Calm down. :)
I probably could have phrased it better. But the intended logic was somewhat the same.