No. No. Just no. Hell no. I'm not certain you understand how extreme the 'public figure' test is under Times v. Sullivan. The answer is no. She was not a public figure for the purposes of Times v. Sullivan. Stretch it. Pull it. Try all you want. The answer is no.
Show me the wiki pages on her before her presentation. Show me all of the newspaper articles on her. Show me all of the youtube videos of her speeches and presentations and the times she's led movements. Show me all of her publications. Show me all of the web references to her name that are dated before her appearance. Give me the names of 100 people who knew who she was before she appeared before the Democrats. If she were a public figure on this topic then she would have been recognized by Congress and would have been permitted to testify on this topic instead of making some lame presentation in front of the Democrats
She. Was. Not. A. Public. Figure.
“She. Was. Not. A. Public. Figure.”
Putting a period after every word is about as mature and effective as stamping your feet when arguing.
“If she were a public figure on this topic then she would have been recognized by Congress and would have been permitted to testify on this topic instead of making some lame presentation in front of the Democrats”
You are confusing the question as to whether she is an “expert” with the question as to whether she is a public figure on these issues. From her documented background, she has attempted to thrust herself into the public debate on these issues for years.
I am sorry to disappoint you, but a defamation suit by her appears highly problematic.