Over at Verdict, Michael Dorf (Cornell Law) has published a good comment on the defamation case against Sidney Powell.
In case you don't remember, Sidney Powell is the former lawyer for the Trump campaign who at one time promised to "release the Kraken," argued that the Dominion vote counting machines had somehow been rigged by Venezuela and that Dominion had bribed public officials in Georgia, among many other things.
Some time later, Dominion sued her for defamation and recently Powell, through her attorneys, argued that her statements could not constitute defamation because they were so crazy that noone would believe them to be true.
This defense is somewhat logical given defamation law, but also problematic because if the statements were so unbelievable, then she herself must have known they were not true when she affirmed them. And, since she affirmed them is support of litigation, by making the defense in the defamation case she is admitting to either being incompetent or to having instituted litigation improperly, both of which can subject her to professional discipline (which I believe she is facing in at least one state).
But the article linked above is about the defamation claim and on the validity of the defense. Go take a look at it.