Earth RESET NEWS

. Best viewed on anything but Google

"Well, being French, I have to try to clarify something. In fact, I expect all Americans to say that Brigitte was Macron's teacher. In fact, no, Brigitte was a literature teacher and Macron was never in her class. On the other hand, she was a leader outside of school hours for a drama club.

This means that she was never his teacher, which is why she was not prosecuted for statutory rape. Her relationship was legal in France."

The lawyers would have established that simple proof before they took on the case, which they intend to win and would look incompetent if they had not checked if Brigitte actually was a man.

Internet Comment : "Where's a photo of Brigitte and her brother TOGETHER .....? or why can't he come out and stand with her bro ?"

This is Brigitte with her brother Jean Michel.

The thing about being objective and not biased, is correctly how a person begins with this,

but after you have been through the legal facts about the actual lawsuit, and the circumstances by which a law firm would take on the case or the reasons why the Macrons would sue, then if you have reasonable intelligence it is obvious Owens is in a very difficult situation. As legal experts say, it is very difficult to prove defamation but it looks like Owens has found a way to make it easy.

People in the comments complain about poor old Dave who has the video we have most of the comments from, and clearly he has the intelligence to see and understand the reality.

The video is saying brigitte ordered the investigation, but the lawyers did this as normal prep for a case. It isn't unusual

if podcasters in the USA are going to do something as massive as Owens has done, where she is going after the Macrons with actual malice in its normal meaning as well as in the legal meaning, then future podcasters can expect that investigations into them will happen. It is very reasonable that someone mounting an attack such as this could be workking for 'foreign interest; as the attack is on the head of the French Republic. Once such connections are ruled outmthen she is doing this for the story which is her career making story which she is doing for fame and to make money out of.

There is also the issue in the comments, of the 'child grooming and pedophilia' that keep turning up.

The ages were legal and can be proved.

But why are these people saying this? What has motivated them to respond like this when this is a happily married couple?

This is a married couple in a monogomous marriage. There have been married since 2007 and have been together in a committed relationship which began with the initial friendship some 32 years ago. They are together, they are married.

This is their marriage that Owens and endless people who listened to her, are trashing.

This is two people who fell in love, and even though it is not conventional, it is hardly 'grooming by a pedophile'. They are married, they are committed to their marriage. It was a decision that took courage because of the interference of others, but they chose their love.

The story only becomes bad if it is embellished in the way Owens has presented this. Which also has to explain why they are still together in a happy marriage! The answer that 'explains' that is that she is his handler for a political agenda of the 'elites'. Owens also 'speaks' of them in her podcasts, with unbelievable disrespect and clear hate, and as if the President of France is a much lesser intellect than what she herself is. Brigitte is the 'handler' because in Owens' estimation, Emmanuel is not a very intelligent person, but is a moron the Rothschilds chose for no valid reason to make the President of France - why choose a moron?

More comments from the video reviewing the Investigation Article.. (Probably lots of mistakes. Still have to check. )

Internet Comments

"Candace is very willing and prepared to stand by her opinions and research on the Macrons. She is faithful and standing on truth and belief in connecting the globalized dots of corruption, pedophilia and lies that have existed for many, many decades. No one wants to rock the boat and leave the familiarity and comfort of "truths" that have been ingrained in us by those with agendas for decades. I am giving her the benefit of the doubt and looking/ listening objectively and waiting this drama out." This is a comment from 14 hours ago.

A. The replies to this applaud the 'common sense' but all of them have still not understood what this lawsuit is about. This is what makes it so intriguing.

This is not 'standing up for her 'opinion''. She has done far, far more than 'give an opinion', and she has done so without ever saying it is her opinion or allegedly. She has said it as fact.. She is supposed to be a professional journalist and she didn't know to do that. In fact it seems that she still doesn't know.

And what are the 'ingrained 'truths' from those with agendas that we are supposed to be "familiar and we are comfortable with"? We weren't all born yesterday and this is some stunning new revelation from Owens alone!

It isn't Owens who has exposed some of the less savoury things that have been reported, and the exposure on that has been out there for the last few years. Owens has just applied it to a situation that is a story she has embellished, altered 'truths' on, and not presented the facts so that her story stands.

She didn't expect to be called out on it. That is what has happened here.

In all likelihood she has chosen a story that she thought was an example, but is not an example of what she is talking about. They would not have sued her if ANY of what she said is true. Unless they are dimwits. Owens is explaining it as 'people out of touch with reality', but they are ordinary people who became the President and First Lady of France. If any of it turns out to be true, then they aren't 'out of touch'. What they and their lawyers would be is dimwit level stupid.

Internet Reply to that : "I don’t understand why she’s so shocked that a President is coming for her, he’s a human being too and she’s ruining his reputation, nobody wants that."

A. That's right. She is doing it because she is shocked that she was called out on this.

"I believe she actually thought exactly that. In the interview, she slipped, "I didn't know they can sue." Well... too bad."

"Exactly that!!!!! She was COUNTING on the fact they would never sue her and she would be milking this for the rest of her lives, exploiting her brainless followers. I am SO HAPPY for the Macrons!!"

Here we go again. A comment on the same video (Dave giving a neutral opinion on the lawsuit, this video covering the investigation article in the Financiel Times . There is a link to the article.)

"You are all delusional believing Candace is worried you obviously don't know her - she's not attempting to flle a dismissal. As soon as Brigitte has to fly over here just to sit and answer questions She will wihdraw - if you think she will allow herself to answer those questions you are wrong. Although it will cost a lot Candace can't wait to defend herself. I dont agree with some things Candace says, but in this ? She is Right - and those photos she provide are doctored. Photography experts can tell. Brigitte provided a newspaper article announcement not a birth cettificate. FAKE FAKE FAKE."

A. It is unlikely that a President of another country would file an actual lawsuit to sue someone if the allegations were true. The allegations could have been a genuine mistake, but they have sent enough proof to show that isn't the case - unless the judge decides they didn't send enough proof. However, it is very clear that Owens does not provide the actual facts in her series, but provides hypotheticals as if they are fact. She consistently misrepresents the actual, proveable truth, eg the age difference which she continues to imply was 14 and 40. People forget that the Macrons and Brigitte's 3 children and the brother all KNOW the truth. Owens has just set out to 'prove' something she latched onto as a 'career defining' story.

Even if the birth announcement was not enough in itself, there will no doubt have been plenty of other proof that was completely valid. The problem is that people, and perhaps Owens, only focus on a few poiints. Maybe there are 90 proof confirming points but the birth announcement was not one of them. It seems beyond belief that people would think the Macrons function on the intelligence level they are implying. Then again, they could be, and they are really stupid. But it is unlikely.

In reality this is showing the level of intelligence of the people who not just 'believe' it but who do so after a lawsuit has been filed. That also shows how dangerous this entire thing has been. These people believe this, even when Owens is being sued.

But again, if in the very unlikely circumstance that the Macrons and their legal teams are seriously so stupid as to not have considered these very simple points, then well, we were all wrong then!!

BUT consider this. The reputation of the legal firm would be gone.

No-one would ever use that legal firm again. They would be completely finished.

It is believed their lawyers have requested a DNA blood test and do have the results before they would take this on, just in case.

Having observed Owens it would seem very predicatable that she would continue, and that the people who are her fans would continue the same as she is.

So it seems very reasonable that they are letting her hang herself, and letting all her fans prove how much she has led them to 'believe' her.

***It - most likely - won't be the Macrons paying any costs, and not French tax payers covering it, nor are they wasting any money 'when a blood test would give an answer'. It will be - most likely - Owens paying all costs.

And more.

'I have never heard her lie. She would have been sued many times if she did tell lies. So you might be called a liar, but im pretty sure you are just ignorant, so I'll give you a pass this time."

A. It is very difficult and very expensive to sue, but it is doubtful she has ever said so much to be sued for than with what she has managed to do with the Macrons.

".. she is very excited about being sued by the Macrons, after all is publicity, she will be milking that lawsuit for a long time."

A. She will most likely not be allowed to continue making an income from this. The audience may decrease considerably if she has lost this case and clearly she will be asked to publicly retract everything she has said.

"I think Candace’s behaviour is very telling about what’s she’s not saying directly. Criticising the Macrons’ decision to sue her specifically. Before, she was very assertive in that she’s telling the “truth”, but now after the lawsuit caught attention and a lot of lawyers agree that it’s quite a doozy of a lawsuit against Candace, then she continues to claim that they “want to impoverish her for speaking”? Is she trying to play dumb and actually knows that she’s been making false statements, and now her so called “free speech” is being attacked? I wonder, are we talking about the “truth”, or things that I want people to believe that I believed as the truth, knowingly that it’s not? Very interesting."

A. Owens is not admitting she is wrong, and not saying she made a mistake in good faith. She is still saying she is right. That does not bode well for her.

"At the end Candace might declare as mentally crazy to get out of this case, she and her husband are filthy rich, THEY COULD AFFORD HIGH PRICED LAWYERS."

A. But she isn't declaring herself as mentally crazy. She is continuing in the same way. Its too late to declare she is crazy after the fact. "Oh, I've lost. Well I was crazy then.". Presumably they do have high priced lawyers, what is strange is that they aren't telling her to shut up.

2 hours ago. "Dave, how could you get this sooo wrong? Candace was not playing the victim in any serious context. She's literallly highlighting how a sitting president can be so silly as to let 'podcaster in a basement' come down to his knees on all fours. She's mocking them if anything."

A. When Candace said the 'only a mom with a podcast from the basement' she was playing the victim. When she proclaimed that President Trump SHOULD step in to defend an American's rights', she was also playing the victim.

"Dave is extremely biased on this one. Dave the bachelor story is very important to you as you are personalIy invested. The Macrons story is very important to Candance as she is personally invested."

And a good internet answer : "And that is exactly what a proper journalist shouldn’t be. Because that means that you start disregarding evidence that doesn’t suit your story - or your business model."

"I also think it is good to remember that the Macron’s don’t necessarily have to prove truth. That would be insane to have to prove every crazy thing uttered about a public figure must be proved false. They have to prove evidence that they provided to her, that a reasonable person would have at least acknowledged and presented to her listeners. That she ignored the evidence, and according to the Macron’s, did not even tell her audience about."

Internet reply : "He wouldn’t sue in that case!!"

A. . That is the reason he is suing. (That internet reply above is another weird thing to say.)

The internet replies continue with "what evidence?"

A. The proof about Brigitte which Owens did not make known to her audience.

"If that Macron thing never was true how & why did this rumour came about in the first place and why this specific thing that she is a dude? ...."

A. That is the problem with defamation. Plus this person is talking about the First Lady of France. This would be with the First Lady forever more, if they did not bring this lawsuit.

"She's doing a lot of talking about the case. Seems her lawyer would have her shut up before she says something she shouldn't say."

A. It seems she has already said plenty she shouldn't say, post lawsuit. Does she have a lawyer?

"Candace joking said that she doesn't have 5 millions lying around to fight the case. In fact her husband has $240 millions lying around."

A. Is it only going to be $5 million?

"Please stop freaking commenting on stuff if you haven’t seen both sides of the story. It IS insane that a sitting president of another country is suing a podcasting mother in her basement simply because she’s critical of them. The lies spewing out of your mouth make me sick."

A. 'Both sides of the story'? This is about the lawsuit not about the series. It is about the fact that Owens is being sued, and how likely she is to be able to come out of this okay, or more corrrectly survive this.

Dave is telling you that her chances don't look very good. I haven't watched the video but I know he is covering the newspaper article. It is normal practice for a lawyer to do such an investigation when preparing for a case like this. I am confiednt from what I have seen before that Dave is trying to cover this in the best way.

It is extremely unlikely that everything about Brigittes gender identity has been completely verified before the lawyers would take this case. The second point is, 'did the Macrons provide enough proof to verify Brigitte existed and her current gender identity.

The lawyers would have gone over that and decided that they did. In fact lawyers would have been advising how much evidence to prove and what it could consist of.

If those things were not already factored in, then it would be foolhardy to go ahead with the lawsuit. This is a case of SERIOUS DEFAMATION, really srious stuff. It is not at all strange that a President would sue somebody doing what Owens did, and is still doing.

They called her out, and she did not expect that to happen, or that it could happen.

"What I have not seen is you or Meghan Kelly or anyone giving Candace serious pushback, actually get familiar enough with the case to cite the FACTS as Candace has. Trump tried to pressure Candace personally. That's why she is suggesting they do better. Why are you omitting the relevant information that would support Candace's view, Dave? Because you are biased, that's all."

A. Its because Dave is covering the FACTS of the lawsuit.

It's not about what Owens presented as her 'documentary' on this. It is that she misrepresented known facts that are provably true. She also ommitted to provide the evidence that was given that showed she was wrong. It is also because even with this evidence she still did not retract what she said. The reason she did all this is because, and she has said this apparently, "she didn't know they could sue her". That is why she lied, misrepresented facts, left out information that showed a different story and so on.

It seems she does still believe her own version. This is why we have a photo of the lawsuit presented in France which was made by her brother Jean Michel and by Brigitte, two separate people. We have photos of Jean Michel and Brigitte in the same frame as two separate people. There is a report by a journalist on the account of another journalist in France who was investigating this story. He went round to the home of Jean Michel in the town where he lives, and the door was opened by Jean Michel, who as annoyed and told the journalist to leave. The journalist then dropped the story. Same with other journalists who also located Jean Michel. They did not styop investigating 'because they were threatened to stop'. The Macrons are not 'elites'. They are ordinary people.

"I don’t think Candace wants to play the victim card, she’s just pointing out how little of a threat she is compared to the national security threats that presidents should be focusing on."

A. Owens has created a situation that is a national security threat, especially for Brigitte. It could become a very serious security threat because of what she, Owens has done.

Article in the Financial Times about the investigation into Owens.

Some of the videos on this and legal opinions. Plus comments. Videos. The Macrons are Not the 'Elite'.

Plant Food Natural Health Contact