My understanding is that she is not contesting that she said what she said, and that it was defamatory.

Instead, she is going straight to disputing the amount of damages. If she had fought the case, and lost, the next step would have been a hearing to determine actual damages.

So, she is bypassing the trial, which would determine if she was guilty of defamation, and instead is going straight to the hearing to determine the damages, if any. She has requested a jury to determine damages owed (if any).

She wants the plaintiff's medical and psychological records to prove that he actually suffered real damages, and is not simply making it up for the purpose of legal harassment.

If she had gone through a trial of the facts, she would have had to show that the statements she made were actually true (truth is the defense against a defamation charge), which would have been impossible to do, because evidence of the election fraud she alleges has been controlled by her adversaries, and she cannot access the information.

Plus, she has bigger fish to fry in running for office.

So, while odd, it is probably a good move, given the circumstances.

My understanding is that she is not contesting that she said what she said, and that it was defamatory.

Instead, she is going straight to disputing the amount of damages. If she had fought the case, and lost, the next step would have been a hearing to determine actual damages.

So, she is bypassing the trial, which would determine if she was guilty of defamation, and instead is going straight to the hearing to determine the damages, if any. She has requested a jury to determine damages owed (if any).

She wants the plaintiff's medical and psychological records to prove that he actually suffered real damages, and is not simply making it up for the purpose of legal harassment.

If she had gone through a trial of the facts, she would have had to show that the statements she made were actually true (truth is the defense against a defamation charge), which she would not have been able to do because the election fraud has she alleges has been controlled by her adversaries, and she cannot access the information.

Plus, she has bigger fish to fry in running for office.

So, while odd, it is probably a good move, given the circumstances.