Candace Owens - the Now Finished Podcaster. Update.
Today's video on this Owens comment. And a synopsis for those who don't know the story. Owens is being sued for defamation, yet is continuing to add more fuel to the case agianst her. It does not look like she has a lawyer. *We prefer to use works featuring her stuff rather than watch her podcasts, because we do not want to give her any ratings. She is also difficult to watch.
* We will put these recent articles on a separate page along with all the existing research, to create a booklet on this. * We have added this video, it's only 10 mins.
She begins in the current video, with two false assertions in the first sentences. The age of Emmanuel when he did the play, and claiming that he tried to get the age of consent lowered to 13'. Both incorrect. We cover that below, and many other points elsewhere, regarding her embellishing meanings and altering words so that what is said infers something other than what a situation was. She continues about 'having power over a child' which he wasn't and it wasn't. All mistruths. Or 'false statements'.
She says "are you all crazy?" "What's happening now in France?" "the French media has protected this couple until we blew the story". All for issues she has got wrong. And then there is the statement 'until we blew the story'. This being the kind of journalism that she would expect to get the Pulitzer Prize for. For one thing it is very shonkey 'journalism' and for another, it may become apparent that Owens considerably overrates her importance, and her status. It is also not clear what Owens is trying to do with this, is to hurt Brigitte, or it is to try to break up their marriage?
Owens says Macron was "definitely 14. If you look at the date of that play, he was 14". The school provides the date and it is May 1993. Macron was born in 1977. That means he was 15. But it is 15 when they MET. Emmanuel enrolled in Brigitte's drama course, where she was a course leader outside of school hours, as a drama coach. She was never his teacher and he was never in her school class. He then asked her if they could write some alterations to plays - he angled for a way to get to know her. They gradually did get to know each other, over months of first writing, then also going for walks and discussing plays, and overtime obviously, they fell in love. Also obvious, is that Emmanuel was already well and truly smitten as he enrolled in the outside school hours drama course, and he also suggested they do some play writing together. You can despute if it is 'obvious', but it does appear to be the case.
He went after her, and even when his parents sent him to a school in Paris, he was furious and still came back to her after finishing at that school. Owens is misrepresenting the facts. It was very easy to check the dates of the play so she either didn't check or she did not calculate his age correctly.. The city they were from was basically a small town, and even when their relationship became known, when he was 16 in 1994 approaching his 17th birthday, the pesky neighbours did what you would expect. Both Brigitte and Emmanuel went through a terrible time with this, yet he returned from his studies, she divorced her husband, and they married, and worked hard so that he became the President of France and she became the First Lady (the title did not exist before, Macron brought in the official title.) They have already been through other people interfering in their lives and got through it, to now have it happen again. Point to note. Their relationship WAS looked into at the time, from the parents and from the school with the legal ramifications. There were no charges because this was not breaking the law. It was dealt with 30 years ago.
So, what is she saying? She is angrily commenting that they were discovered sunbathing round the pool of her elderly parents home. Owens makes an issue of how very elderly they were, so why was Brigitte sunbathing there. The answer is probably because it was a private home, her own family home, and so what?
We see Owens misrepresenting the actual facts again here. She says "his parents had to move him out of town to another school to avoid you.'"
This is what she is doing continually, but does not seem to have understood that yet, but it will be brought up in court. The facts are that his parents did move him to another school to break up this connection. It wasn't 'to avoid you'. It was to separate them. This is a very different meaning from 'to avoid you'. Owens has called Macron's wife a predator. The actual facts are that they were in love, and went on to marry and are still happily together.
With this, initially it is fair enough to be concerned about what is happening between a young teenage man, and an older woman who was directing a drama group, but was not his school teacher. Fair enough at first to check this is okay. That has already happened. They went through that before. Now there is this fanatical podcaster going over it again. She is doing it now after they have been married for nearly 20 years, and he is nearly 50. Obviously this was a meaningful romance, not something of the kind that exists in Candace Owens' mind. It is her mind that is the problem here.
She is still looking for a way out and is actually revealing her strategy of the points she would raise in court.
(It looks like she doesn't have a lawyer.)
She is now accusing Brigitte of insulting transgenders by bringing a lawsuit because Owens accuses her of being a man. Although the lawsuit qualifies that Brigitte is a woman, that is only a small part of what the lawsuit is about. This is proven by what Owens has just said about how their relationship began.
Owens is accusing Brigitte of being a man, and it is not said in a 'transgender friendly' way, but its the rest of what she is saying that is why there is a lawsuit. It is a strategy Owens is using to try to get out of being sued. Saying someone is trans is not defamatory. Saying they are committing incest, identity fraud, supporting elite pedophile groups, and are complicit in murder, is defamatory.
She presents everything on her podcast as if it is part of a show. If this was her legal argument, it is something she needs to present in court, not on a podcast for the other team to know her strategy. However, they will qualify that Brigitte is bringing the lawsuit because of the other allegations. Thanks to Owens not being able to keep her mouth shut, they now know this is another of her stategies!
When the Macron's arrived in the city where I am, Hanoi, Vietnam, the cameras caught a moment when the plane doors opened and Brigitte's arms were near Macrons' face! This is not actually a kind of 'punch up' moment. It is a very girlie thing to do which you could say, with a French accent , "oh you so and so" which could either have been playful or she was annoyed.
This video is a current video from her, and she is still saying the lawsuit is a PR stunt because the lawsuit is full of lies. She is saying that because she will not accept that it is a lawsuit stating facts. The lawsuit states facts that she refuses to believe are facts. Nevertheless it is a lawsuit and a legal document which has to present the actual facts. For example, it would be stupid if I hired a lawyer to write a legal document which stated a whole lot of things that were not factual. If I went to a trial with that, all my claims would be obliterated in the first hours of a trial.
She is still adding to the accusations. She is calling the Macrons 'deranged' for the investigation into her, which is standard precedure. It is the "how dare you" response from her, and again taking a superiour status for herself on this. She does seem to be delusional, her thinking this is a PR stunt is curious, and the disrespect with which she addresses the wife of the President of France is extraordinary. The ferocity of her response will surely be noted with this. Ferocity that she has been called out.
All of this is an unbelievable thing for her to be doing.. Does she have a lawyer or has she decided that she is her best lawyer?
We think it is possible to freeze frame almost anywhere in this Owens podcast and you will freeze on an ongoing expression in her face and in her eyes. Almost like a firey hatred from hell. That is an opinion! (But try it.)
People in 'comments' continue to say 'watch the series' yet they consistently miss points such as that Owens has accused the Macrons of incest - 'she is his father'. They say 'watch the series' then swear blind that 'she never said that'. She did say that when she accused Brigitte of being Emmanuel's father.
.gif) We did add this video. Its only 10 mins.
Can Candace Admit That She Is Wrong?
WATCH This is from the same man as the one that follows. He seems level headed and mature. Clearly his channel is a Christian based channel but we use his work because he is level headed about this.
Again we repeat that their relationship and how they met was challenged 30 years ago and if there had been wrong doing there would have been charges. There were well meaning correctly concerned relatives and colleagues who did their due diligence at the time. There were also just as many interfering strangers adding their opinions too. The Macrons are married.
* We will put these recent articles on a separate page along with all the existing research, to create a booklet on this.
Comments. "French person here" (on Owens' claim that Macron tried to lower the age of consent.) "This never happened, there was never a proposal law to lower the age of consent in France."
A. Macron left the age at 15 but added some protections. .
Again, the parents and school did their due diligence at the time. Of course if we saw an unusual situation of a school teacher with a teenage boy, then we would question it. There was nothing illegal. She was a drama coach, not his school teacher, he was the legal age, the school investigated and there were no charges. There was nothing illegal. However, his parents sent him away to a school in Paris. France is a major power in the world and they are able to handle their legal affairs without a fanatical American podcaster weighing in. It is an opinion that she seems to be 'fanatical'. However, it was investigated. We must respect that. We must also respect that they have been together since when all this happened and they are married. We must respect that. It is their lives and their marriage.
Or is Owens suggesting that France has inferiour standards with their legal system? That they need Owens' input?
What is the intended end game here? Is she trying to end the Macrons' marriage? Does she want Brigitte jailed for marrying the man she fell in love with, but at a time when the age difference was controversial, but nothing was illegal? Even so, the lawsuit is not about any of that. It is not for an American court to step into the French laws of 30 years ago. If Owens wants to 'expose' some kind of protection for pedophiles in France, this is not the story to do it. She needs to go out and find a story that is about that. Also those who comment on this need to understand that this story is NOT about that.
The estimate they received for Owens' own costs for this is millions, clarified at around $5 million. That is just her legal costs. If the Macrons require an amount for the actual defamations, the damages, that could be anything but expect in the tens or hundreds of millions. Their lawers have said they are going for damages. Owens keeps shooting her mouth off, making it almost a certainty that she has no defence left. Does she understand this could really cost her? I don't think she does understand this. She does not seem to have a legal team and perhaps that is to save money and also because she believes the Macrons will withdraw their lawsuit.
Did Candace's husband George Farmer know she was like this when he married her? He truly wanted someone like this?
Poor George. Even if he wanted to divorce her after seeing what a vixen she is, he will be stuck. He would have child maintenance for 4 children and whatever else she could get out of it. Yet he might need to distance himself from being liable to pay the damages she will be asked to pay. Those damages could take out his own fortune. All by having a motormouth wife who does not seem to understand either about journalism or the law.
"Candace needs to worry about her own marriage. Unless her husband is just naturally less masculine, I don’t see this being a forever marriage. Because, I don’t see her behaving differently within her marriage. Maybe she is submissive when she gets off the air."
"I wonder if Candace Owens can be saved. Looks like she is not realising how much more clever these people she is running down are."
"Dear Candace, Christians don’t do this.".
Candace Owens CRIES & DEMANDS You Help Pay For Her Lawsuit Then THIS Happens
This was someone's opinion, but it explained about her wealth. The Farmer family is wealthy. Apparently the estate stuff has been debunked and this person has created a new video. We may remove this video but keep the comments because they are all about the lawsuit. The video is just an opinion. The info is she or they own one home and it is the one they live in now. One lifetsyle video showed an apartment she had in New York but it doesn't mean she has it now. Maybe they don't have the property mentioned in this video. he does hsve his wealth though tied up in something.
Internet Comments.
"Her husband's family must have refused giving her money for this. Her father in law already published a statement of how he is ashamed of her making money by being an antisemitic racist ."
A. For him to do that it suggests there are some family issues there where the father is not happy with his daughter in law for more than just those comments. She is damaging to his family and his reputation.
"....You would have to use the $5 million in liquid assets which would leave you broke, basically, and I don't think your husband or his family would like that. They might start to see you as a liability and resent you."
"Her husband clearly should've gotten her the help she so desperately needs. This may be the first of many expensive lawsuits the way she runs her mouth.".
"Note that she said "a" legal team, and not her legal team. She hasn't even retained legal representation yet!"
"Careful who you marry fellas, look at what is about to happen to George Farmer and look at what happened to Prince Harry."
"I hope her husband had her sign a prenup. She doesn't have money, he does. His family has "old money." Guess why she married him 17 days after meeting him .".
"I really wonder what her husband thinks of all of this. They got married after knowing each other for 2 weeks and immediately had 4 kids. All in a relationship that’s 5 years old. I’m younger than her and been married 8 years and I still feel like I don’t know everything about my husband. This is something that could tear apart such a new relationship.".
"She WAS demonetized she said when she was monetized again. If you look at her analytics, it shows when she was demonetized and then given back around April or so of last year..... She makes 900k a month from YouTube alone. Take a look at her analytics on YouTube."
A. And she does so by using the 'batshit controversial' method to hook fans.
"Legal Eagle did a breakdown of this the other day. She’s basically doing everything wrong in response to a defamation suit."
A. We have that video on this page but also on one of the links to videos on this topic. 'Candace Owens Defames The Macrons? Watch'
"Candace doesn't realize she's looking at a possible divorce and jail-term."
"Her poor hubby. This is what happens when you marry a dumb person. This is what happens when you marry someone who starts fights. Maybe he should have gotten to know her."
"Her husband's probably saying - you're on your own with this - it's coming out of you account, not mine. I didn't say Brigitte was a man. (allegedly) "
"...well he is her producer so he should've said something BEFORE the episodes aired."
A. He's her producer! Wow!
"I'm willing to bet her husband flat out said he's not helping her with this. He may have even said "babe, you need to shut the f*** up about Brigitte." And I'm willing to bet he flat said "I'm not selling any of the properties I BOUGHT BEFORE MARRYING YOU to pay for your mental defense from a legal suit you brought in yourself."
"Sorry the second comment; I don't want a foreign leader or their spouse to be able to sue American citizens. I don't want that as American. "
A. You can't have double standards like that. An American citizen has no right to slander a person from another country and get away with it because she is 'American.' America has no rights over the rights of people from different countries. Maybe this will create a more realistc perspective of themselves for 'Americans'.
"Candace Owens does a lot of double talk around the facts but in reality she isn't a smart woman whatsoever! Owens actually believed that because she is an American, someone who is the President of another country cannot sue her. Candace is too arrogant or embarrassed to simply retract her statements and apologize, so she doubled down on it.
Candace's fellow podcasters are pretending they agree with her when she is in their presence but are laughing behind her back at the sheer stupidity of her actions. I do think Candace is setting the stage to give in. Tucker Carlson asked her if she was going to continue with her statements and see the lawsuit through, even after she was sent proof by the Macron's.
Here is where her plan to back track comes in. Candace told Carlson that she had no idea the Macron's had sent her proof that Macron's wife is a woman, she told Carlson, she has never received any information like that from the Macron's (right) and that she never checks her email. Now Candace can say "I checked my email! Tah-Dah I did get the information from the Macron's, even though they should have sent this a year ago, but now I see, she is a woman, case closed""
A. No the case isn't closed. The onus was on her to check her ,ail. She had requested the information so she hd to check for her replies. She has already done the damage. She has then continued. You can't just turn round and say 'oops, sorry'. Well she can, but they can 'Fine. Thank you. Now we want payment for costs and for damages.'
*Apparently she is going for an increase in T shirts to pay her costs. At $37 per T shirt maybe sell 150,000. But the T shirt can still be classed as merch for making money off the defamation of the Macrons even though the wording is not defamatory. It is as if she has not taken thiis seriously yet, and believes she is smart enough to get round this.
A. This is amusing. If the brother goes on the stand then he proves he isn't Brigitte because he is supposed to be Brigitte. Birgitte obviously hasn't assumed his identity. He would be Brigitte as man. This is as confused as the entire story is!"
"The Macrons legal fees will be paid by their supporters, and gladly."
A. Their costs will be paid by Candace Owens. (Most likely). Awarded by the judge. Its her fault they have to do this. Its not just her own legal costs she has to come up with. She has continued to do this after the lawsuit was issued. Hard to see how she could win now. She's made it worse.
"She seems unhinged…bratty and maybe a narcissist know it all….very disappointed in her…..the mask has fallen off"
"'Candace risking her live telling the truth the people love to support you Candace for president."
A. Another unhinged comment. What truth is she telling? There is no pedo case, nothing was illegal about their relationship, most likely Brigitte was born and remained female. What truth is she telling? What 'story' has this 'exposed'?
"I wonder if those are the estimated legal fees from just her lawyers. The Macrons' lawyers fees are probably extremely high The lawsuit from the Macrons shows that if they win, they will be asking for: actual and presumed damages to be specifically determined at trial; punitive and/or exemplary damages; all costs, disbursements, fees, and interest as authorized by law; and such other and additional remedies as the Court may deem just and proper."
Comment added 31 mins ago
."Candace Owens has such nerve she’s actually taking donations from her followers and her and her husband are worth over $200 million. Tell me that is not disgusting taking money from every day Americans for your stupid lawsuit because you’re reckless and slanderous it’s disgusting."
"Trump told her to drop it."
A. That was after he had spoken with Macron who probably told Trump they were going sue Owens. It seems she doesn't have a lawyer right now, and she also ignored Trump's warning.
"What happens if Candace loses but refuses to retract take down videos or apologise. I dont see her doing that even if she loses."
A. Possibly jail. If the court orders that she has to do it or she is breaking the law.
"Brigitte IS a man so u will at the end of the day eat your words!! But I have seen vids of Candy also possibly being male so for now, I wont unsubscribe! The world is a stage...that's all it is!!!'
A. The lawsuit is about the defamation. Not Brigitte's gender
"I would rep myself and win. It has already been proven in court that Brigitte can be called a man."
A. The lawsuit is about the defamation. Not Brigitte's gender
Let's see what this one thinks they are saying!
It is quite fun to go through these comments, especially the ones putting the poor presenter on notice. .
"I have no idea who you are or what you usually post about but this video is very misleading. "Candy" never "cried" or "demanded" anyone pay for the lawsuit. Most prominent YTers are selling merch to fans. This is not unique to Owens.
She met Tate, as she stated, around 4 or 5 times and has never claimed to be "friends" with him. This entire series is based on a book that has already been published with all of this info, and the Macrons never went after the author for libel.
The Macrons' lawsuit also never counters to state Brigitte was born a biological woman, but all of their attacks are based on frivolous claims of other events. All it would take is a cheek swab. If nothing else, Brigitte is a predator for grooming a 14-year-old boy who was her student when she was 39. Owens also never called Trump, as you're saying here, but Trump called her to ask her to stop talking about Brigitte.....because Emanuel asked Trump to call Candace .
Please, if you're going to do these reports, whether you like or dislike, agree or disagree with the person, at least look at the entire picture. There is a lot of evidence pre-Owens that's been out for years."
A. Selling this merch is part of the defamation lawsuit, that she is making money out of defaming the Macrons. Apparently she is asking for donations and so on.
We don't know anything about Tate.
The book author had gone past the 'statute of limitations' in France so could not be sued. But he didn't make all the defamatory claims that Owens did. Brigitte being a man is not defamatory.
The lawsuit does claim that Brigitte was born a woman.
Brigitte did not 'groom' a 14 year old boy. She was his drama coach in an out of school hours play. She was never his classroom teacher. The play reheasrals began when he was 15 and that is the legal age of consent in France. Even so, they only MET when he was 15, they did not become romanitcally involved until he was older. Now they are married.
Owens has said in a podcast that Trump should be stepping in to defend her by 'defending American free speech' or some such BS. Doing that is sending out the message for him to do that.
Macron told Trump that they were going to sue Owens, and Trump phoned her to warn her. She ignored a helpful 'heads up' from the US President.
Then there is the self righteous ( but without the SIR) "the information has been out for years' ". And it has, but only Owens has taken it into the mystical heights of defamation.
As we all know, lawsuits are very expensive and also defamation is hard to prove. With this Owens is the 'gift that keeps on giving'.
"Now the Macron have to admit that CanO was right all the time and the whole world know."
A. We kinda guess they knew what was involved when they began their lawsuit. They have clearly stated in the lawsuit, legally sworn, that Brigitte was born a woman.
"....because they are surrounded by pdf files in their life and Brigitte was also a child pdf (40 on 14)."
A. Here we go again, misrepesenting the facts. This person could be sued for saying this, except that it would not be done for this alone. But what if there are a million people making this same misrepresentation? That proves the damage and harm Owen's misrepresentation can do.
"IT IS VERY INAUTHENTIC OF YOU TO PRESENT OWENS AS JUST PRESENTING MACRON’s TEETH AS BEING PROOF. She has presented hours of “PROOF”. Whether you believe it or not, is another question."
A. What the presenter said is that this is the latest stuff she's come up with.
This video is only a day ago but there are still loads of the 'watch the series' comments.
"People are so stupid and full of ego. Deep into facts and think again. go Candace."
A. As far as we can see, the man presenting the video is giving a fair presentation of this. Even if Owens has "proved" Brigitte is a man, the lawsuit is about the defamation, and there are endless unqualified defamatory statements that are not prefixed with 'my opinion' or 'allegedly'. They are stated as facts, including the ages they were when the Macrons met
Now we reached the end of the comments and it is the usual kind of stuff again, so I am going to watch the video again to see if he said anything that was 'ignorant'. I have to use sub titles as there is no sound. However, this man has the right to his opinion, but we included this video because he gives a breakdown of Owens' wealth. It turns out that has been revised, but it still gives an idea.
Where we come in, she is saying that at the weekend a legal team gave them an estimate of their costs being $5 million. So it seems she hasn't had a lawyer advising her yet, and that's the estimate. It is over 2 weeks ago that this lawsuit was issued and she doesn't have a lawyer advising her. If she did, it would be assumed they had already told her the estimate. Most legally informed others would say that by all that she has said in her podcasts and interviews post lawsuit, it has as good as ended any chance of getting out of this..
But everything he is saying around that seems fair and probably accurate because he is only commenting on her trying to raise money to pay her own legal fees. She and probably her husband too, don't seem to yet understand that they are most likely going to lose this. Her husband should have made sure she had a lawyer immediately, yet he didn't. Most legal experts would probably say thet the Owens-Farmers have not understood this.
"The United States authorized between 2000 and 2018 more than 300,000 marriages with children,
this on the other hand seems shocking and why does it not seem to interest anyone?
In 40 American states there is not even a minimum limit for marriage I think that this deserves a fight. Peace to you all!!"
Candace continues to try to humiliate the First Lady of France.
In her current video - this is a new day, and the video was uploaded a few hours ago - she is now suggesting the Macrons go after the Xavier Proussard instead of her. He wrote the original book that she used much of the material from. She is doing everything she can to get out of this. The President should step in, and so on. Nope. Candace its you they have to go after because of the misrepresentation of facts, and the awful things you accused them of. Proussard didn't do that.
 Watch. This is only 6 mins. Just her current hissy fit, talking to Piers Morgan but the video is used for a commentary by someone else. The person commenting rightly points out that Proussard was very clear that this was his theory which he couldn't prove, and he also used allegedly. He points out that Owens has stated it is emphatically true.
You see we have someone here who did state it was true. She never covered herself by saying allegedly, or in her opinion. She is being sued and yet she continues to do podcasts where she is at the very least insulting the President of France and his wife. This is similar to how Meghan Markle was to the Queen! This disrespect is something we have pointed out, and so does the person commenting. She is certainly in some kind of petulant 'how dare you' state of mind where none of ths seems to have registered. She also does not seem to have a lawyer. So we are watching someone continue to hang herself. That is why it is ultimately fascinating. Absolutely spoilt, and unaware that she is responsible for what she did.
She continues, but saying she really believes the story is true is not okay when she has been given the evidence that it is not true. Trying the 'I really believed' is what the 2 French women said. Then Owens brings up how the Macrons met and embellishes the truth by describing Brigitte as "creepy" (that is a misrepresention), and she also says 40 year old - when she KNOWS it is 39 year old. She is saying this on camera, current video and here again she is telling mistruths. Mistruths that alter the story. Her lawyer if she had one, would tell her to shut up and keep quiet. Instead she keeps making it worse. Why doesn't she understand this?
"'True' Consciousness"
For me I think it is worthy of comment that so many people have 'sat in judgment' of the Macrons marriage. What is it that makes people think they have the right to do this? Interfering old busy bodies. They got to know each other gradually while writing material for a play. He was a young man, very mature, and who knows what magic is involved when two people actually fall in love? This is God's decision.
Most people and the sleazy kids that are abundant now, don't bother with finding an 'in love' relationship. That is what is really sick, creepy and wrong.
This is something to consider - if you wish to be in the consciousness of the 'Eternal Life Stream'.
The main issue is that she misrepresented the facts and that huge numbers of people swear blind she is telling the 'truth'. They believe her. All because she has presented it forcefully and said it was facts.
It seems Owens has never been called out before, but the Macrons are not as dumb as she thinks! They are smart, and they have seen through her. Owens is predictable. She is not lacking in knowledge, but there is a great deal of misplaced knowledge which is tainted by prejudices and what can be described as misguided emotions. She also knows when she can get away with skirting round the truth or embellishing a non truth. The problem here is that she does not mind altering the truth.
"It looks like Candace is trying to humiliate the First Lady. She is despicable. She doesn’t realize that she is turning people against herself. Nobody likes a bully. Her obsession about the woman is very bizarre and disturbing."
"Candace has crossed the line. So mean and unfair."
"What arrogance to think a president’s wife has to answer to her." (Candace's opinion of her own importance is noticeable.)
France does have a First Lady. Macron introduced that as there was not a title before.
"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."
We learn from the Comments section.
Apparently to explain how Jean Michel took on Brigitte's identity, she died when she was 6 years old. And she gifted him her identity. However, he does have his national service ID from when he was 18 or whatever age it was. The 6 years old idea seems a stretch. Anyway, there was no announcement of a death and no funeral.
"Does she ever go into how old Brigitte Macron’s brother would’ve been when she supposedly died? There’s like an eight year age difference, so if she died when she was six, he would’ve been 14. There’s no way of 14-year-old can pass as a six-year-old. But I bet she never goes into that one."
Earlier video.
How is it that this Podcaster has Been Able to Continue Without Being Called Out Before?
The recent Owens podcast has her literally in a petulant rant of disbelief that she is being sued and saying that President Macron in insane. She clearly cannot understand that what she has done is wrong. It might also be that she has a distorted opinion of her own 'brilliance' and 'value'.
The lawsuit opens many questions which may change the world. For one thing why should Americans be 'allowed' to defame and humiliate people in another country just not only because they have a 'right' to 'free speech' but that this can be used to build a business and create fame and wealth by simply promoting an extremely controversial narrative, not backed up by facts.
She is continuing to have a temper tantrum that she is being sued, like a spoilt toddler in fact, when really for a defamation lawsuit she should be quiet. She does not seem to have a lawyer advisng her. That she continues as she is, provides an excellent example of someone with a problem - for the world to see.
The current rant is featured on Dan Wooten's Outspoken and is about the investigation into her. Dan is not onto the story yet, but it has some good clips. We have covered many of the comments beneath the video as a means to address what the LAWSUIT means. It is she, this podcaster Candace Owens who is the one who has been 'enttitled' and had 'elite' privilege.
In the video clip she again asks in bewilderment (read 'how dare you')
"...what on earth would move a sitting leader to embark on this lawsuit. You have to be mad'
You have to wonder how she is missing this. Why is she so inflamed about this? (Again, read 'how dare you'.)
We don't particularly want to watch any of Owens' work, but we need to in order to comment.
We believe the article in the Financial Times was another trigger to see how she would respond. Would she continue to do what she has been doing? The answer is yes! '
Again, we have watched this so you don't have to! Owens is the one who is paranoid, and belttling the details. Owens is reeling off the stuff they found, like it is crazy to look at. No doubt it is inconsequential, but Owens' reaction is what anyone needs to take notice of. Why is SHE so concerned about it?
Again it is highlighting her "How Dare You" attitude. How dare you disgree with me. How dare you investigate me. How dare you challenge my right to destroy you so my business skyrockets and my name becomes world famous?
First up though, let's step back a bit. It is the Macrons who are suing Owens. They already have their case and all the evidence on why they took this step. No-one needs to tie Owens to Russia or whatever, but of course there is the possibility it could have been. They wanted to see what she does and what she says. How she reacts.
As many point out, all it takes is a simple blood test, or DNA test, saliva, or hair.
But how else do you get more proof of what this person is capable of doing in the absence of that? She carries on the same, just as she did when she was gien the proof. This time though, it will be public so she can't ignore, it, change, disregard it. Currently she continues to misrepresent actual provable truths. We don't know if she's used any wrong wording in the actual podcast, maybe some of it was and we covered it, but she is adding to the accusations and allegations against the Macrons.
As said, 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!
So this does already more than meet the criteria for malice (legal malice) and the 'reckless disregard for the truth'.
She does have a wealthy husband, but what are the bounds that she could be sued for on this? Why not more than $250,000,000 - with the reason for that being that she is continuing with her accusations.
Obviously this story has been purposely given to the Financial Times, it isn't something that has been unexpectedly discovered. They want her to know this has been done - It has to be noted that Owens is already doing everything that she shouldn't do now she is being sued and she is hanging herself. It isn't going to be about whether brigitte is a woman. She should have a lawyer advising her.
Internet Comments. "Candace is another Meghan Markle."
"So Candace can launch a full on investigation on Brigette and shout it from the rooftops, but Brigette is mentally ill for launching an investigation into Candace Owens. Have I got that right?"
"I don't agree with her in many instances but the complete overreach and attempted intimidation by a foreign head of state is very wrong."
The comment on the "overreach and attempted intimiation" is someone repeating what comes from Owens' mouth and it is very worrying that people say things like this - the "overreach and attempted intimiation". All people have a right to defend their reputation. All people do. These are accusations that include incest, and complicit in murder. No podcaster has the 'right' to do what this 'elite' and very privileged woman has done. Additional comments also commend Trump for his 'courageous action on Iran' but comment that Owens called him a traitor for this. She is right. That Iran issue exposed him. Another, that she denies the holocaust happened. Answer, lots of back up on that that she could be right.
"Also, was pretty funny to hear Candace complain that the lawsuit will cost 5 million dollars and that she doesn't have that kind of money. She told them to sue her. Her and husband own houses all over the world. Sell one to pay for legal fees instead of begging people to buy merch to help fund it "
"She's going to lose. I wonder if they'll be able to take her husband's money too?"
"They just look like normal dignified people who have been targeted by a raving lunatic."
"Why do YOU think Brigette Macron shouldn't defend herself ???"
"Didn’t she do the same thing? She investigated them".
"Just keep digging that hole Candace..."
"Candace Owen needs to keep her mouth shut I think.
A. She does not seem to have a lawyer "
"Candace is completely correct. Go to court Candace. Expose the lot of them."
A. The Macrons have filed this lawsuit, not Owens. The Macrons are suing Owens because she reckless disregarding the truth'.
The Macrons have to endure a never ending onslaught of personal insults from Owens about Brigitte.
Most recently it has been her hands. Comments have been about her hair, her face, and it is a never ending bullying about her looks. The bullying is also about Emmanuels' intelligence.
The first thing that they will get out of the way, when this goes to trial is, the proof that Brigitte is a woman. THEN the trial will begin for Owens lying about that, and misrepresenting it and fabricating a false narrative.
As said, the lawyers would have established the simple DNA 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.
He was present at both of Macrons Presidential inaugurations, first in 2017 and again in 2022. He is the only surviving brother. Jean Claude died in 2018.
|