Continues to the topic on how Candace Owens uses Mind Control.
This will still be news until the trial or any settlement is over, then we certainly have no further interest in this person.
To date Owens appears unaware of the reality of the lawsuit, and it also seems that her husband is unaware too. She damaged or possibly lost this, even in her first podcast after learning of the lawsuit. Then she still continued. Defamation is difficult to prove especially against a public figure, but accusations of incest, pedophilia, grooming, identity theft, and complicit in murder might just do it!
it should be pointed out that other journalists are just as 'fearless' about going after a topic, but they are more careful from the legal standpoint. They cover themselves against being sued. *We are covering this from the lawsuit angle.
It looks like she has thought she is/was 'pioneering' where others were holding back. But it wasn't from 'fear', but because they were aware of the legal ramifications, and its very clear that Candace was not aware. She has said in a recent interview 'she didn't know she could be sued".
This is another aspect of Candace Owens and of how little she seems to really know. She also makes every private communication from lawyers fully known in her podcasts, and the phone call from Trump advising her to stop. It was all made public, in the same way Harry and his wife made private things public, but they did it for publicity. It seems Candace gives the impression she thinks she can do everything without proper training. People have fallen before her, bedazzled, which may explain her initial response to the lawsuit, and being challenged, as "how dare you".
So in the next sections we look at some of the responses she has basically cultivated by the manner in which she presented her information. She has consistenly misrepresented the ages, which is the only way some of her many accusations 'work'. The comments beneath videos then demonstrate an emotional reaction from people who have taken her words as being facts. Emotional responses then suggest there is some kind of cover up or people have 'missed seeing' usually the age difference. This produces more subscribers and an ongoing debate. But the ages are not the ones she continues to say.
The lawsuit was issued at the end of July and the reason most are following this in amazement is that she did not seem to have a lawyer and she continued with her very ugly rants in her podcasts and interviews. She is 'supposed' to be 'intelligent' and 'knowledgeable'. Instead, in her life, she has learned to bamboozle people. She fakes it, and people have responded positively. Now she has been called out.
Some people wonder why she bothered whether Brigitte Macron was born a man.. The answer is it was her career making story for 'fame and fortune', and that is proved by the analytics on what her channel is now producing. That is the reason for it. That does fit her MO. It is also stated in the lawsuit.
The lawyers for the Macrons would have been watching how she presents her podcasts. She is predicatable...
 It does seem that Owens and probably her husband too, if he is her show's producer as someone pointed out,
interpreted that the Macrons suing Owens, did so to 'stop pursuing her investigation'.
As if they were worried and this was some kind of panic move because she was 'getting close'.
That may be why they didn't seem to immediately get a lawyer. Even at the current time, she does not seem to have a lawyer explaining the situation because to date - currently Aug. 16th - she has been pursing the same behaviour.
The situation is that the Macrons have sued her for Defamation. It isn't to just stop her discussing things on her show. It is to stop the Defamation.. She has actually had 3 letters of warnings for her to 'cease and desist'.
It is extraordinary and amazing that she does not seem to recognize the defamatory nature of her "expose". In the series /documentary she did on Mrs Macron and in all her related podcasts, she never covers herself by saying 'in my opinion' or 'allegedly'. She states everything as fact, while also leaving out evidence to the contrary that she was given, and misrepresenting 'facts'. It is extraordinarily unprofessional. But again we say it looks like she has bluffed her way through everything throughout her life, and for the first time ever, someone has called her out.
Currently the Macrons can gain enormous support from all the gays and drag queens and deviants because of this story!
Today's video. It's Saturday but in the US it would have been Friday. Owens is still as nasty in her delivery of her podcast but it did clarify some details. The lawsuit was issued on July 23rd. And Owens has just found out that Brigitte's sister and a niece died earlier in July. We already knew that. Owens is commenting that Jean Michel did not seem to be at his sister's funeral. However, Jean Michel is 80 but also we think, they may be saving his appearance for later. The comments aren't damning, but she is still accusing Brigitte of being JM. She's saying if they were both at that funeral then maybe they wouldn't need the lawsuit. But we think they want the lawsuit and trial, and they do want the damages they can get.
Owens is also suggesting that in the family photo, it is the niece sitting on the Trogneux family's mother's knee. Well researched as always! However, the birth records do have 6 children and the photo is in around 1955 when JM was 10 and Brigitte would have been 2 years old. The niece was 68 when she passed away in early July. That is 4 years younger than Brigitte, so born around 1957. That would have made her non existent at the time of the photo. That is, she wasn't born.
Next she is accusing Emmanuel of being homosexual. Others have been doing that for a long time. He met someone who became his 'mentor' back in 2002. To be honest, it is certain Macron was ambitious and he has formed his own political party which proves it. When you are trying to make it in politics you do have mentors and supporters, and it means they finance you as donors, and/or help you along the way with networking. He needs to have contacts that he has been introduced to and vouched for. In return you have to do a few things which may include supporting gay groups and drag queens, who knows, but it is the support that gets you to become President.
Owens is also making an issue of Morocco but probably doesn't know that Algeria and Morocco have very close ties with France. "The French protectorate in Morocco, also known as French Morocco, was the period of French colonial rule in Morocco that lasted from 1912 to 1956." The language in Morocco is French, also spoken in Algeria. Another one of Macrons donors was the business associate of fashion designer Yves St Laurent. This guy was a pervert, and went to Morocco for those reasons. He did, but not with Macron. However, Morocco was French. It is very normal for French people to go there. Owens is inferring that Macron went to Morocco for 'pedergast' reasons. So this might be another slanderous slurr in the legal sense Basically, I just wanted to check if she was still continuing to accuse the Macrons. She might be going for the "I really believe it" defense.
Macron and his benefactor went to Morocco in 2006 and he was introduced to the French Socialist Party, and former President Francois Hollande (who had several mistresses as his 'first lady' while he was President.) Being introduced to high level contacts is exactly what a person trying to move upwards needs to do. Macron had political aspirations and this is normal. Normal to have benefactors and mentors, and donors. What Owens is doing though is calling this man a 'Sugar Daddy' and that is another accusation which means something very different from a political network contact. This also may add to the mix as a defamation and she is suggesting that Macron was taken there for sexual reasons. However, it is clear that he was introduced to important political contacts in the former French protectorate of Morocco. The issue is she is again inferring something else by labelling this man 'Sugar Daddy'. That may be a problem for her when in court.
The usual meaning for 'Sugar Daddy' is "A wealthy, usually older man who gives money or gifts to a younger person in return for sexual favors or companionship." And it is surmised that this is what Owens is inferring.
The only other thing is that she is now advertising some affliliate link products. Obviously to raise revenue to pay her legal costs.Still selling her Macron merch though.
The fact that she is continuing could be a defense to show "she really believes it". But the fact that she has been given enough evidence to show otherwise does not make that a defense. The existence of the brother who is supposed to be Brigitte is now a point of evidence.
He was at BOTH the inauguration ceremonies which means the photo was not of the older brother who died in 2018, meaning he could have been in the photo from 2017, but would have been 84. The brother at the 2017 inauguration didn't look 84. But there probably would have been both brothers there, and there is only one.
There is also the photo of Brigitte and Jean Michel together and when a French journalist did his investigation, he confirmed this was Jean Michel, plus of course he went to JM's house and met him. We think the Macrons are not making a thing of this yet because it will be introduced in court. It is up to Owens to do her research, and she doesn't. She just waits for people to send her information. It is believed the Macrons did send enough to prove Brigitte exists. Also a legal statement that she is who she says she is is the same as saing somehting under oath, so it is also enough proof. The lawsuit itself states these things, and it is an official legal document.
Owens is still insulting this poor man by describing him as the 'fat, little chubby guy'. She has insulted the looks of everyone in the family!
The comments benath her own video are people from all oer the world - apparently - saying they support her. These comments are from another black guy's video and they offer some different views on this.
Internet Comments.
"Nah, Candace. It’s not “an attack on our speech.” It’s an attack on YOUR defamatory speech."
"This is an example of, when thinking you’re the smartest kid in the class, goes WRONG!!!"
"Why does she think OUR First Amendment applies to France? In the case of a defamation, it doesn't even apply in America."
"Treat people the way you want to be treated!!"
"Good for Macron."
"The difference that Candace didn’t know opinion and facts. Even me here in Africa knows that from Tucker Carlson case when the judge said it was his opinion not facts. Now Candice never said opinion she said facts. Now she has to pay."
"We have an epidemic of people that think they're smarter than they actually are. She needs to stop digging."
"YOU NEED TO BE BROKEN Candace!!!! WE LOVE YOU BRIGITTE!!"
"I think its funny that she thinks so highly of herself, that she believes the Pres or VP should even consider her and her problems and would act on her behalf "
"But why she choose the first lady of one of the most powerful countries in the world to play with? What is behind this? I don't understand."
"Don’t mess with Frenchmen in love. That man loves his wife."
|