Following in from the whole freedom of expression discussion: Pro-Trump lawyer says ‘no reasonable person’ would believe her election lies when reading this my mind went "Wat?" So her defence is that no reasonable person is meant to take her statements on voter fraud seriously as objective fact, despite the lost business and reputation damage that the voting machine company Dominion incurred: “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact ...that whatever “reasonable persons” thought of her wild claims, Dominion had failed to demonstrate that she herself thought them to be false as she spoke them – a key distinction in defamation cases. In fact, Powell’s motion reads, “she believed the allegations then and she believes them now.” Which basically is, please correct me if I'm wrong - you would be suckers for thinking that what I said is in any way actually true, but you can't sue me for those statements that led to lost earnings because you can't prove I thought they were lies, and futhermore even if other people are suckers for actually believing them I still think my lies are true. First Amedment Rulez. I'm struggling to get my head around this.