Let's see what the court says. I don't see any comment by "truthseeker" in the archive linked from the article so that part is not verifiable, I don't know how unique Disqus names are (there could be multiple "truthseeker"s with different spelling, spacing, etc.), and it's hardly impossible for someone to misuse another person's account. I would not expect anyone intelligent to comment on pending litigation, either, and it's entirely possible that she has literally no idea who on earth anyone else posting as "truthseeker" might be.

The court called her allegations "plausible" (though that's a far cry from "true"), and the article also says that Benton posted an apology: "By revealing such details without making an effort to contact her and seek confirmation and explanation, and otherwise adhere to rigorous reporting methods, the tweets did not meet Nieman’s journalistic standards. I apologize and regret my error in judgment."

So it seems to me that Benton has already admitted failing to validate this information, thus I'm reluctant to take it as given.

That aside, if comments here are any indication, she's screwed even if this isn't true. Half of the posters here appear unaware that she denies making that comment.

Comments like those can be used as evidence of damage to her reputation should she win.

Yea if it turns out she didn't write that one he's got a big problem.