Yeah except this is a court case. Like, make no mistake, she’s gonna try to weasel around all this, but the evidence isn’t for her to decide, it’s for the court to say. Like, it’s blatantly obvious that Owens has a clear disregard for the truth, but this evidence is being presented to the court to establish the actual truth that Macron is afab and sufficiently endosex as to not have this be a reasonable question. Owens will be free to disbelieve it if she likes, but if the court says that given the evidence there is no way a reasonable person party to this evidence can disbelieve this without a gross disregard for the truth then Owens can still be legally barred from saying it.