What Sidney Powell is trying to do in the proceedings is to argue that the allegedly defamatory statements are part of legal proceedings. Legal pleadings are by definition protected speech and cannot be defamatory.
The problem she faces is that, while the lawsuits themselves are protected, she held several press conferences and made the same speech in other venues where it is not so protected. Furthermore, by making essentially the same speech in legal pleadings, portraying the speech as opinion or hyperbole and not factual statements (the usual defense in a defamation lawsuit) would mean admitting to committing sanctionable offenses in filing those pleadings. But they're trying to still play that defense as well, which leads to the awkward conclusion "it's so outlandlishly false that no one would believe it to be fact, merely a fact we're arguing is true in a court case," which kind of makes it more likely they get slapped both with the sanctions for making false statements before the court and being the rare defendant to lose a defamation suit.
The problem she faces is that, while the lawsuits themselves are protected, she held several press conferences and made the same speech in other venues where it is not so protected. Furthermore, by making essentially the same speech in legal pleadings, portraying the speech as opinion or hyperbole and not factual statements (the usual defense in a defamation lawsuit) would mean admitting to committing sanctionable offenses in filing those pleadings. But they're trying to still play that defense as well, which leads to the awkward conclusion "it's so outlandlishly false that no one would believe it to be fact, merely a fact we're arguing is true in a court case," which kind of makes it more likely they get slapped both with the sanctions for making false statements before the court and being the rare defendant to lose a defamation suit.