To me, it looks like Kathleen Wilson from Mozilla did a great job sorting undisputed facts from all the noise in https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-polic..., and the noise that came from Rachel mostly served to obfuscate that these facts remain facts, and leave removal of the CA as the logical conclusion.
Based on that, it seems like the "rebuttal" is trying to rebut irrelevant things, leaving the undisputable elephant standing in the room. (I admit I haven't read the entire wall of text.)
> I suspect the outcome would have been different if this was handled in a court of law.
If it was a criminal court trying to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, certainly. For a CA, it's the other way around, there needs to be strong evidence that keeping the CA is beneficial to the users.
Based on that, it seems like the "rebuttal" is trying to rebut irrelevant things, leaving the undisputable elephant standing in the room. (I admit I haven't read the entire wall of text.)
> I suspect the outcome would have been different if this was handled in a court of law.
If it was a criminal court trying to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, certainly. For a CA, it's the other way around, there needs to be strong evidence that keeping the CA is beneficial to the users.