It's a pretty difficult standard. Seems to me the barrier is going to be whether or not she genuinely believed what she was saying. They're going to need to prove she didn't believe it.

On the one hand, what she was saying was without evidence. On the other hand, the President of the United States verified her claims, so as much as we all know he's full of shit, it might be reasonable that she believed him.

Furthermore, isn't she batshit crazy? I wonder if verifying that you are indeed batshit crazy in a court will help prove that you believed something batshit crazy.

I will say this is the strongest possible case I can imagine under these types of circumstances.