“Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It’s not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
I think we are talking about two different things.
You seem to be referring to whether or not she will ultimately be found liable for defamatory statements, and I agree with you on that.
I was referring to what I think would have been a better strategy for challenging the election results.