Her lawyers, are claiming that no reasonable person would have believed any of the obvious bullsh!t she was promulgating, as a defence against libel.

You could not make this up. It's like a story from The Onion.

A key member of the legal team that sought to steal the 2020 election for Donald Trump is defending herself against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit by arguing that “no reasonable person” could have mistaken her wild claims about election fraud last November as statements of fact.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/23/sidney-powell-trump-election-...

 So I went through all of the case material and I think there is some validity to the jurisdiction arguments, but the group I went over it with seems split.  

 We do all however agree that the way this is structured in media is misleading.  Her lawyers are not arguing that:  "no reasonable person” could have mistaken her wild claims about election fraud last November as statements of fact."  but are instead using precedence and the verbiage of that precedence.

"Additionally, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the statements, their context, and the availability of the facts on which the statements were based, it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern. Those members of the public who were interested in the controversy were free to, and did, review that evidence and reached their own conclusions—or awaited resolution of the matter by the courts before making up their minds. Under these circumstances, the statements are not actionable"


 I'd say this is a fair assessment.  Reasonable people would think this is her assessment and not a declaration of fact, or they are willing to let the court decide and then let the public know.