. Best viewed on anything but Google

The Macrons are Not the 'Elites'.

"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.

Owens Continues to Hang Herself!

This is why it is very interesting to continue with the reports on this. In the current podcast it is very easy to see how she manipulates what she is saying to influence the response she wants. It is also interesting to see that not only does she continue to do this, but she continues doing what the lawsuit against her is concerned about. She is still defaming the Macrons. On a light level she continues to make out that they are a pair of out of touch dimwits, and she - the super investigaoer who 'calls out evil' - is exceedingly rude in her comments - yet in such a way that her fans believe what she says. The issue of whether Brigitte is a man is almost irrelevant except for the greater implications that this defamatory narrative leads into, but it is clearly answered in the lawsuit. If a judge said to Brigitte under oath "is this true, you were born a woman" and the fact is she wasn't, everything would fall apart right there.

Owens can talk in rapid fire, but she is not overly bright, and she should have stopped talking as soon as she received the lawsuit. When this story came to her she did see it as a career making story, and thought she could say all she did - and still is - about the President of another country and there would never be any legal issue. Something like this has never happened before, and she was completely surprised that the lawsuit was filed. They basically called her bluff.

We notice that she turns everything around (when it suits her) to mean something else.

She reframes it as if it has a different meaning. This is what we are noticing in the videos and the extracts we are researching.

Internet Comment :

And since the lawsuit she has produced even more merch to monetize on. We have just found this.

"She has new merchandise with Free Emmanuel written on t shirts."

This is really unbelievable. It looks like she doesn't have a lawyer advising her. This may not be damning but it is still making money out of this.

Internet Comment :

"She's literally is standing on it, and rightly so! The reason they're scrambling to sue her is because there is truth in what she is saying. Candace all the way."

A. If there's truth why would they be suing her? Somehow she has given a convoluted reasoning that being sued means she is right.

The Macrons are Not 'Elites'.

They are the same as you or I, having worked hard at a job and become Prime Minister or President, and then someone like Candace Owens comes along and begins to destroy everything.

Another label she is giving them is 'elites'. Working to get into a good job does not make you an 'elite'. That is just part of the fantasy she has created, to add to the list of a story. Recent interviews or podcasts from Owens have been calls for the US President to step in an defend her right to 'free speech', that the French government is "attacking her rights"

It was evident from her reaction when she first learned of the lawsuit, that she had no expectation that a President of a foreign country would sue her but this does present the case of those being on the receiving end of defamation. There are still comments beneath videos saying 'see the series', 'she speaks the truth' 'Brigitte is a man' and so on. It isn't the 'truth' she is either getting at or speaking, and this is shown to be the case in the linked articles. The brother who she is supposed to be who took Brigitte's identity lives in France and when journalists investigating this story called round to his house, he answered the door. was annoyed and asked them to leave. That is why they dropped the story. They had met Jean Michel. It wasn't from 'threats' by 'elites' which it was said it was, the Macrons are not. But Owens has suggested they were all threatened to stop investigating and basically it is only she who is 'fearlessly' taking on this 'corruption'.

She continues in her most recent podcast, snapping her fingers and verbally attacking

the people she is slandering because they are defending THEIR rights. She apparently has the right to say the things she has said and those on the receiving end are basically in the wrong to defend themselves. It is incredulous mocking that they have investigated and challenged everything she said and why she did it. - suggesting she is someone who perhaps may have grown up being used to people paying attention to her.

So much so, that she clearly sees herself as better in all ways, than either Emmanuel or Brigitte Macron. It looks like she has not really been challenged before. As always her podcast is difficult to watch, and I also don't want to give her any ratings. But it does have to be seen because it is like a "Can you believe they are doing this, to me" type of petulance.

The Macrons have done a great thing, a great service to the world, by suing her and making her accountable!

The Macron's lawyers ordered an investigation into her which is covered in a story in the Financial Times - and it is she who will be paying the costs of that when she settles. Owens has been investigated to see if she was working for a foreign government to undermine and harm France, and if in doing what she did, it was a 'foreign agenda'.. She had contacts with the Marine Le Pen far right French candidate side for example. In her podcast, an amusing thing is she calls Zelensky a 'sociopathic murdering welfare queen'. In listening to Candace Owens, in her own interests, it would be much better for her if she stopped talking!

It is the lawyers who did the investigation into Owens, and it is normal for lawyers to do this when preparing for a defamation case. She discusses the Macrons investigating her on her podcast, but she isn't pre-empting anything, the story is already there in the Financial Times. The article does say the Macrons are 'trying to quiet this' which is a strange choice of language which again could set Owens off to hang herself! (We don't know if she did, and don't choose to listen to all the podcast.) The lawsuit is to STOP the defamation, not 'quiet it' but using that word could alter the interpretation. . As for Julian Assange having 'interesting information'. We support Assange as having done great work, but the information he had on the Macrons was the preamble into this same story started by the psychic and essential oil salewoman.

Most likely it is the fame, fortune and the power 'to impose her will', she was after once she discovered her 'career making' story. Owens is aware the issue is serious, and is stressed and also losing her hair.

George Farmer who is Owen's husband is the son of a British baron or something, and his father does sit in the House of Lords - which could include those called 'elite'.

His son pursues an ultra conservative far right agenda The husband's personal wealth is around 80 million in liquid assets and overall about 240 million He owns the Turning Point which is where Owens was working when he met her.

Was George something of a Prince Harry type when he met Candace? Was it her motormouth which captivated him? He proposed to her after knowing her for 17 days, and they had not dated. As founder of The Turning Point does the husband have a political agenda linked to Marine Le Pen's own far right agenda?

Internet Comments for Owen's latest Podcast

"Yes she will. They were given a chance to respond to all allegations before the stories were ran."

Response. This is partly what is so interesting. 'They were given their chance', which is like Owens is the giant and these are two silly French people.

The comment is about what will happen if the trial goes to discovery. It is as if people think Owens has brought a lawsuit against the Macrons. The lawsuit doesn't stop the story. It is not an attempt by 'elites' to 'silence the truth'. It is making it public so everyone can see the actual truth. It exposes Owens.

"Poor Emmanuel, he doesn't know which way to turn." "It’s obvious that the Macrons are extremely worried about the truth coming out."

Response. This interpretation is beyond weird. He has brought the lawsuit and is suing Owens.

"It's cute that they think it's 1990 and the NYT, NBC and the Financial Times are gonna save them."

Another weird interpretation. Why does this person think they are dealing with two out of touch 'elitists' who think they rule, but that is no longer the case' ? Now we have 'great saviours' like Owens speaking out'!!! Where did this person get that impression from?

Why would this story 'save them'? THEY brought the lawsuit, they have demanded a jury and they want it to go to trial. The story explains that they had Owens investigated, that probably has to be public knowledge. The lawsuit is to make the information known, not hide it.

I am not watching this podcast more than to see how she is presenting it, and the question is, is she still adding to the damage she has already done?

There is also another issue here of how people with the same rights as anyone else, even if they are a President, are spoken down to as if they are criminals for equally speaking out against wrong doing. The wrong doing is defamation.

The legal people have covered that the lawsuit specifies major points of wrongful reporting. It specifically states Brigitte is a woman, was born a woman and has always been a woman. They have also given examples where Owens has continued to not tell the truth. She has continued some of that after the lawsuit was issued.

From comments there is a question if Owens is adding more allegations? The 'truth' means points raised that either substantiate, enhance, influence or manipulate thinking, or debunk the narrative. Such as the ages when they met, which are proveable as 15 and 39 yet Owens continues to infer he was 14. That is not the truth. She does this with many things, such as journalists in France were 'threatened' to stop, not that they found Jean Michel, met him and dropped the story. Owens cannot seem to open her mouth without saying 'untruths', even in the current podcast about why she was investigated.

The lawsuit was filed by the Macrons against Owens, not the other way round. The Macrons don't have to 'defend' themselves and they are not trying to dodge the lawsuit! It is unlikely the Macrons are not aware that they will provide every proof necessary to show Brigitte is a woman.

We are also reporting this from the perspective that the Macrons are not dimwits. If it turns out they are, we will call a spade a spade. The chances of them being dimwits is minimal, and the chance of Americans of the type who may be swayed by someone like Owens, not being very educated is quite high.".

"......she is sick and disgusted with elitists doing whatever they want and thinking everyone else is stupid."

Response. It looks more like the 'everyone else' thinks 'elitists' are 'stupid'.

Article in the Financial Times about the investigation into Owens. Some of the videos on this and legal opinios. Plus comments. Videos.

Defamation case.

I don't think I have ever been aware of a defamation case where so much damage has really been done to someone. This refers to the damage that Owens has done to Brigitte Macron. If Owens' fans keep writing these comments that are beneath the videos, Candace Owens will be sued to the limits. It is also possible that Brigitte's life is now in danger because of this.

We have written to Madame Macron.

Should anyone like to email directly to the French President or his wife Brigitte, you can do so with this link

https://www.elysee.fr/en/contact/#epr-form

The Macrons are Not the 'Elite'.

In a Spanish magazine in 2016 or 17, commenting on the history of infidelity and the many mistresses of French Presidents, the magazine welcomes that this president is unique in his loyalty to his and Brigitte's monogomous marriage.

Freedom, equality, infidelity?

"The liberal candidate for the Élysée Palace breaks with the Don Juan tradition of French presidents and prime ministers. He remains loyal to his wife.

All things considered , Macron is a complete blackbird. He left high school promising Trogneux that one day he would return to find her and marry her. He kept his promise; she left her husband, the father of her three children, and they tied the knot in 2007, ignoring the age difference. Since he has no other known affairs, the weasels of France are claiming the candidate is gay."

The world just cannot allow anyone to have a happy marriage, and now with Candace Owens' podcasts, people believe she (the daughter of a chocolate maker in a small French city) is a man who groomed a 'young child', is now his 'handler' indoctrinating him into the agenda of an elite pedophile 'secret satanic order' overseen by the Rothschilds, and as his father, the relationsip is incest, and also involves identity theft, and connection to murders.

There are issues of 'levels of consciousness', and 'mob rule' elements that are highlighted by this circumstance. It provides things to think about.

The lawsuit specifically includes that the ages when the Macrons met were 15 and 39 but it is being misrepresented as 14 and 40. 15 is legal, 14 is not. This is a point written into this legal document. Even in the first podcast after the lawsuit was issued Owens again misrepresented their ages. She said he was 15, then in an aside says 'well it was 14 really'. This is a 'reckless disregard for truth' and the age issue has sparked vast numbers of outraged comments from people about it.

Owens consistently misrepresents information to suit her story, and in doing this she has also triggered anger and a 'mob rule' consciousness to 'deal with' the Macrons. Even after the lawsuit was issued she again said exactly what was written out in the lawsuit as the example provided, of her misrepresenting the truth.

Another point that was misrepresented. Macron did not try to lower the age of consent in France to 13. he kept it at 15 but added greater protections.

Candace Owens should be held fully accountable under the law,

for inciting responses of anger, hatred, and condemnation and more, towards the Macrons based on her misrepresentation of the truth. They will certainlygo for all her personal worth, but there is so much that she should be held accountable for, that anything is possible.

The Lawsuit is a Legal Document.

To put misinformation in it is the same as lying under oath. From the day the lawsuit was issued comments that insist Owens is right should have stopped. The lawsuit legal document is a legal statement that she is a woman and was born a woman. It would be like lying under oath if she's not, and very low IQ of the lawyers who would know they coudn't win, which is bad for their reputation

The 219 page lawsuit issued earlier in July takes the time to actually write out that Brigitte is a woman, was born a woman, and has always been a woman. The point of mentioning this is that it is in the actual lawsuit.

More Fun Details of Owens' Theory

The real Brigitte is supposed to have died around the early 80's, hard to know why JM would be Veronique and not called Brigitte if she died earlier. Brigitte gifted her identity to Jean Michel which is still identity theft but with her blessing, but there is no death reported and no funeral. They kept it all secret. However, Jean Michel as Veronique went on a radio programme in 1977 or thereabouts to talk about how he wanted to transist. For a very private person, he chose to talk very publically on radio in 1977 about a very private thing that he is trying to keep hidden.

" I'm shocked she didn't spitball about where the sister is now, though per Occam's Razor, which Candace seems to love to hate, there shouldn't be too much of a stretch in the imagination that, yes, the sister is still alive, and that she's Brigitte Macron!"

We also might wonder why when the French journalist called round unannounced to Jean Michel's house a few years ago, he was home, was a man and as Jean Michel?

Pizzagate

It seems that the TV journalist who broke that story then lost his job because of it, did so because he thought the investigation into it was accurate. From all the 'evidence videos' I have seen I assumed it was factual. There were supposed to be pedos doing things in the basement there. Apparently there was no basement. I don't know how that fact wasn't seized upon immediatelty though.

Owens on X. . ... . Rebellion 'Values'. ... . article. + more . ... . Candy Comments (much more to be added.) . ... . President of France Sues Candace Owens

Plant Food Natural Health Contact