Again, i will repeat what i have repeated multiple times itt. This would never be allowed in front of a jury. The fact that you do not understand this makes me, an attorney with significant amount of experience and knowledge of civ procedure, think you are not being honest about your credentials.
(incidentally, if the reader is interested in a discussion of what specifically qualifies as an opinion or fact, he can check 497 us 1, 376 U.S. 254 (times v sullivan), 882 N.E.2d 596 (rose vs hollinger) the list could go on and on. The protection of "fair comment" has its roots in english common law.
Whether your 351 voters agree that it is objectively verifiable means nothing, there is a clear legal standard, with significant precedent, on what constitues an objectively verifiable statement and thus actionable liable. No one with even the first year of law school under their belt would think that Val's statements were there.
I think it is deeply regretable that some whales, as well as some others, have supported what is an obvious and transparent attempt to use the threat of a lawsuit to stifle the expression of an unfavorable opinion.