Your overuse of the non word “bigly” undercuts your “argument” every time, Leftwhiner. And again, as usual, you miss the point.
The point is not whether her reporting was ultimately wrong. So I don’t give a shit about your trickle of alleged “evidence.” The ACTUAL POINT is that her reporting was proper. She
qualified the contention (“allegedly”); she
attributes it
to others (she
cited her sources); she, as a reporter, wasn’t (and could never be) required to do her own forensic testing on the questioned voting machines. For purposes of the defamation lawsuit, she (a)
didn’t lie (even if she or her sources might have been mistaken) and (b) she
wasn’t reckless with regard to the truth of her reporting.
And, crucially,
truth does remain a perfect defense. Accordingly, whether you like it or not, any evidence that these machines did switch votes, makes her what ought to legally be bullet-proof.