Meh - Germany has free speech laws as well, and with what he's written he's being harsh but well within his rights under German law.
Also, himself and his blog being US-based, German law wouldn't really be applicable to begin with I believe.
If you ever browse a German Newspaper, they often use a form of the language called "Konjunktiv I" to describe allegations in order to avoid potential allegations of defamation. E.g. "Der Polizist sagte, Hans X sei ein gefährlicher Mann." Instead of "Der Polizist sagte, Hans X ist ein gefährlicher Mann."
You'll read the former because it's the gramatically correct form.
You're confusing the Konjunktiv with indirect speech.
Grammatically, the first version you posted ("...sei...") is the only way to correctly quote somebody indirectly. Your second version is doubly wrong - firstly, because "sagte" is past tense and "ist" is present.. Secondly, because when you don't quote somebody directly, you have to shift the verb to subjunctive mode - which just so happens to also be employed in the Konjunktiv, but it isn't necessarily identical with it.
Funnily enough, if you just added additional quotes to your sentence, making it a direct quote, it would have been perfectly fine, and perfectly printable - except it just reads a bit... clunky:"Der Polizist sagte: 'Hans X ist ein gefährlicher Mann.' "
Lastly, "dangerous" is an assessment anyway, i.e. an opinion, which is hard to sue against, and there are all sorts of nonsense being written about this or that person being dangerous, all protected by free speech, in whatever grammatical form.
Lastly, by German law, it's usually not the person (or newspaper) doing the quoting that would be subject to legal action, but the person who made the actual statement in question.In short:
When you read "Der Polizist sagte, Hans X sei ein gefährlicher Mann." it has everything to do with German grammar
laws, and nothing whatsoever with German law.
You can find more about German indirect speech here (explanations in English, examples obviously in German):https://deutsch.lingolia.com/en/grammar ... ect-speech
Back on topic:
Can anyone explain for what they spent 200 million $? All I see is an incomplete fuselage. It’s hard to imagine where they spent the 200 million $...
Well, according to one of the project leads in 2016, they had to re-manufacture 95% of the fuselage.https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of- ... 180960064/
They had little documentation, had to develop test rigs and procedures for pretty much everything... And some of the remanufacturing involved molecular analysis of the existing parts in order to get all the properties right... Remember the objective was to not just get her back in the air, but certified for pax travel.
The latest official annual chronicle published by the project gives you an idea what the money was spent on and just how much work was required:http://www.conniesurvivors.com/Lufthans ... 202017.pdf
I agree with your statement "All I see is an incomplete fuselage", by the way, and I cannot stress this enough, as some people - Leeham and Conniesurvivors, among others - now say "hey, this close to the finishing line...". It's absolutely not close to the finishing line. No cockpit equipment, no gear, no engines, no integration of old and new technology e.g. for avionics and engine control/monitoring, no control surfaces… And then there was the foam incident earlier this year, which surely didn't help.
I just watched a documentary about the Flying Bulls DC-6 that was restored a few years ago (shorter English version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PlcKf-XRw
). That was in flyable condition when bought and on closer inspection required a lot of work, with the restoration taking over 4 years. This gives you an idea of what's involved in a restoration project like this. It doesn't really mention money, but when you look at the work undertaken, you can basically imagine the $ counter going up.