[Mr Rogers]

It looks to me like she is arguing no reasonable person would conclude her accusations were ALREADY PROVEN FACT, but rather conclude they were her sincerely held beliefs based on what she knew at the time that would require proving via a court battle.

Not that her accusations were so ridiculous that no reasonable person COULD believe them. Or so ridiculous that she was insane to make them. Just that they would not be accepted as factual by most people unless proven in a future court case. And thus Dominion did not suffer damage because there would be no damage to its reputation UNLESS proven in court - which she never had the chance to do.

[teeman8r]

well said.

[Ann Archy]

THANK YOU for that concise explanation!!

[Jane Long]

And thus Dominion did not suffer damage because there would be no damage to its reputation UNLESS proven in court - which she never had the chance to do.

---

Bingo to your entire post.

I stated similar, yesterday.

No court has agreed to hear her evidence.

[trublu]

"It looks to me like she is arguing no reasonable person would conclude her accusations were ALREADY PROVEN FACT"

That is how I also understood it from the beginning.