|
Candy Comments.It is interesting to consider the comments, and the emotion of the comments, beneath videos too.
Here is a comment from beneath the many youtubes. First up there are so many saying that the legal experts cannot comment until they have 'watched the documentary series' Owens did. This isn't a case about whether she 'proved her case'. It is about the way she did it which may have knowingly selectively left out information, photos and other proof that the narratiive was not as she wanted it to be. She did provide plenty that made the Macrons look very evil, especially for Brigitte. But was that evidence selected 'proof', and much left out, to make the story work? (The answer to that is yes, if the rest of what is now being made known is accurate.) This comment explains some of how convoluted the story is that Candace Owens was trying to show. "According to Candace Owens’ ‘research,’ Brigitte Macron’s brother actually became Brigitte, her mother turned into the brother, her daughter morphed into her cousin, and her father somehow became her husband. Next episode: the family dog is revealed to be Emmanuel Macron’s long‑lost twin, and the postman is secretly running France. Truly, Netflix missed out on this comedy series." The actual story is very much in kind. Brigitte, who was born and existed, died and her identity was taken over by her older brother Jean Michel, 8 years older and now the only remaining brother. This was either an identity theft, or was gifted to him when the real Brigitte died, which was at a time when Jean Michel 'transitioned' after 1980. There is no record of a death or of her funeral. However, Jean Michel ceases to exist as Jean Michel and becomes Brigitte, but there is no explanation what happened to Jean Michel. In addition, during the 1970's he apparently lived as a woman named Veronique but also happened to father a son in 1977 who is Emmanuel Macron. As there is another older man who looks similar to Emmanuel it is also said Jean Michel fathered that man much earlier, and he is the real father of Emmanuael Macron. As Jean Michel was born in 1945 perhaps it is possible he fathered this other man before JM did his national service but spent that time in Algeria ( around 1973) but Macron himself was born in 1977. So the main message is JM is the real father of Emmanuel Macron and that father is now Brigitte his wife. Jean Michel did marry in 1981 or thereabouts and did have a child in 1982. He was married to a woman named Veronique. Brigitte has 3 children, and both the daughters do look like Brigitte. The similarities are explained that the photos of herself as a child and young woman including at her wedding when she was 21, are actually photos of her daughters. It is likely that these were amongst the proof that the Macrons provided, and Owens decided she didn't believe it. That is what she presented in her videos. The photos were not real because they are of the daughters. There are not only photos of her children with their mother, and with their father (the same man as in the wedding photo) but also film of Brigitte with the stroller for her youngest daughter, and there is a photo of Jean Michel with Brigitte in later years (after Brigitte has supposedly died) and there is film of them both in the same frame at the ceremony after the first inauguration. Owens decided that was not true because you would 'expect the brother to have been nearer the front.' If Owens states that she doesn't believe any of the proof given is true, doesn't that sound like a 'reckless disregard for the truth'? ***Mostly the legal experts and those providing fair and impartial comment on this, seem to notice that Owen's does not appear to be aware of how wrongful and serious this is. We agree that a notice in the paper for the birth of Brigitte is not proof of her birth. It is a strange things to provide as proof. Even more so as this is a birth certiciate for Jean Michel. With the accusations there would be a birth certificate for Jean Michel but not Brigitte because she does not exist - apparently. The question now is did the Macrons provide enough proof?We think that by not providing the birth certificate for Brigitte is not providing enough proof. However, the rest of what they provided might be. The conspiracy theory claims that Jean-Michel Henri Trogneux disappeared in the 1980s. That’s not true. He married in 1981 and had a son in 1982. While Jean-Michel Trogneux is a very private person, he was actually seen on television with French President Emmanuel Macron on 14 May 2017. A journalist, Jonathan Moadab asked two different friends of Jean-Michel Trogneux, who never met each other, to confirm that that man in the video was Jean-Michel Trogneux. Both persons “vigorously stated that Jean-Michel Trogneux existed, and that he was the man in those images“. Finally, Jonathan Moadab went to Jean-Michel Trogneux’s house, and rang his doorbell. Naturally, Jean-Michel was not happy to see him, and asked him to leave. But he actually met the man himself, and confirmed that he does indeed exist. As mentioned, a French journalist went round to Jean Michel's house, knocked on the door and met Jean Michel. He was annoyed and asked the journalist to leave, but maybe information like this should be presented too.. Internet Comment : "Where's a photo of Brigitte and her brother TOGETHER .....? or why can't he come out and stand with her bro ?"
The French journalist did meet Jean Michel and he is the person in this photograph alongside Brigitte. He is also the person that the journalist mentions in the same frame of the photograph in 2017 (added below). It is important to note that Owens does say other French journalists looked into this story, and this is one of them. But she says they didn't pursue it because there were implications of threats from the French state or 'elite' or 'power base'. In other words threats. This seems to be another example of creating a narrative that works for her, because clearly they found the evidence about Jean Michel which lead to dropping the story. Dropping the story because they found there was nothing there is very different from telling her own audience that they backed off because of threats. This is typical of the kind of thing that Owens does. Lies or presents half truths.
Candace is supposed to be a journalist pursuing her story, but she doesn't do any research or investigation. She uses other people's nvestigations then weave's that into "her truth".Somone has come up with a local Amiens hiistorian named Alain Trogneax. Owens does does follow up the investigation. She asks Alain to contact her. Why should he dothat?! She is supposed to be investigating her story, sonthe onus is entirely on her to go there herself and see if Alain will talk to her. Instead she is demanding that h econtacts her to fill in the details. This is not how inestigating a story works. lus it is unusual that she believes she has a right to demand all these people simply answer her questions "or else whe will publish this story" which could be interepreted as a threat. A threat like she has 'kompramat on them and could blackmail them. That is partly what she is saying. -"Answer me or I will do a documentary Part 2." That is a threat.
Lots of internet comments as we have said altering the age when they met to 14 and 40. Here is an internet comments : "14 when what happened? when they MET."
Internet Comment "It's beneath Brigitte's dignity to send proof that she was born a woman to some podcaster. If someone did this to me the last thing I would want and have to do would be to interact with and send proof to the harasser." Response. That's true. All of this proof was sent in December 2024, but it can be assumed that the Macrons knew by then, that they had a case here, and could sue. Internet Comments : "But why is it toooo difficult for Macron to release the first 30 years of Brigitte's photos. Elementary school, high school.'
"Why are people on here so woke it’s obvious Mac wife is a man Candace has proved it" Internet response. " It is not “obvious” to me. When I first heard this claim I used a well known scientific fact about the difference between human males and females to see whether it was plausible. The difference in the lengths of the index finger and middle finger are different in males and females (look it up) - I did an image search until I got some pictures of her hands where the finger lengths were clear: her hands have typical female structure." 'Candace has proved it'. Has she? ""Brigitte" seems to been a child predator and how can Mr Macron been able to break loose when B. probably had one or two things to threaten with." So another accusation, Emmanuel is being blackmailed to be with Brigitte. "There is a clip on YouTube with Joe Rogan showing her walking over and sitting down and it’s clearly a man. Look it up !" A. Ah, so this is why the lawyer Barnes says they will be going after some other podcasters on this. "You obviously don't understand how this works. It is Candace that has to put forward evidence not the Macrons. If I accused you for being Putin dressed out as somebody else I would to provide the evidence, not you." "You obviously don't understand how this works." You're wrong. The plaintiff must make the case. The respondent merely needs to defend themselves. THat's the core of common law." "If they produce a DNA test demonstrating that Brigitte is a woman, then Candace can immediately say "Woops, I was wrong!", and change her mind. Case dismissed!" Response. Not that simple for the case to be dismissed. The DNA might be the final piece of evidence they do provide, but there has been plenty provided and Owens has selectvely chosen to use what worked for her story. As we don't know the evidence provided it is hoped they did provide enough. If they did, then there is no saying "oops sorry I made a mistake'. They will go for the maximum in damages.
One of the videos I have watched is a man named Dave who has presented a very fair and impartial review of what's going on. he made great effort to stress that he was going to be doing his best to be impartial and accurate, which he had to mention based n the kinds of comments that can be found beneath videos. "Love that about her and that she speaks her mind and isn't fake like Dave."
I personally think that Brigitte Macron looks fabulous. A very attractive lady, with a nice slim figure, and she is a great asset as the First lady of France. There clearly is a difficulty with her being 24 years older than her husband, apparently, and it is very unkind that people have said that 'Emmanuel has a nice looking mum'. Whenthey started dating she was a very pretty, young looking lady. She still looks great, and has the French allure, that Americans can mostly never achieve, only coming across as variations of 'Trump' bimbos, or 'plastic'. I think their lovestory is very romantic and beautiful, so much so that it seems it was soulmates reunited in this lifetime. If she turns ot to be Jean Michel, then he did a great job!
'The comment section beneath the videos on this topic are fascinating. We were most taken by the overwhelming amount of judgmental, self righteous vitriolic hatred towards Brigitte and then to her husband.
It is too late for Candace Owens to apologize or step back on her accusations. She has already proved that she would continue.It is only because of the Defamation lawsuit that she is beginning to step back.It is too late. The Macrons have their case.
A. : Because it appeared to be a sensational story that would bring her international fame and increased fortune. As the video says, she is modelling herself somewhere between being an Alex Jones and an Oprah figure.
"She's a pervert, simple as a grown adult with a child, worse still a kid the same age as her own and younger. As a mother of 3 I have been surrounded by young handsome kids and never once did I see them as anything other than kids, as any normal mother does".
It is widely known that a woman in her 30's is at her hormonal peak in her 30's but for a male, his hormonal peak is in his teens. This kind of relationship is not so unusual. We would also say that in France, there is not the sleaze and perversion that exists (as shown a lot to be the case) in the USA and UK as far as the older women go.
We see a lot of comments on him being a 'child'.
There are videos of him in the drama group production that she was directing, and where they met.He is not a child. He is a young man. It is also clear he went after her.She on the other hand is a very young looking, slim and very pretty lady who was very attractive to many of the hormonally active young guys at their hormonal peak. Their age difference is not illegal in France.
We have not seen any of these 'child grooming' comments coming from France. The legal age of consent in France is 15. The 'child grooming' comments seem to mostly come from Americans. As such it should be noted that France is a very developed and sophisticated country. It is more sophisticated and developed than America is. What happens in France and within French law is not the business of Americans making incorrect comments about a 15 year old being a 'child'. He was a young man, who wanted this girl for his girlfriend. (She did look very 'girlish).
In the video of the drama play they were both involved in when they met, Emmanuel is clearly not a'child'. It borders being slanderous to keep referring to Emmanuel not only as a child, but as if he was some kind of innocent, vulnerable 10 year old. This is not the prettiest photo of Brigitte, but Emmanuel is not a "child". He is a normal, healthy, and typical French young male adult. He even looks a but like a boyfriend I had when I was 18, who was 18.
We commented elsewhere on a video by a 56 year old black woman who held a strong opinion about an older woman dating a mid teen aged young man. So perhaps it is a matter of perspective and how you see yourself. This 56 year old woman clearly sees herself as an aunt, or an older person. She looks okay, she looks 56, and in reality a young man is unlikely to want to date her anyway. She is kind of 'old'. I will say that again, because it is very unlikely any young guy is going to be attracted to the older woman in this video, but there is a reality that these older women always pick on those good looking other women who ARE still attractive, and have the youthful je ne sais quoi that most women lose. But if you are a young person inside your head, and also that is what reflects back in the mirror, that is a very different situation. For one thing, a young man is going to want to ask you out. This young man knows exactly the type of girl he wants to ask out. He isn't going to be fooled or misled by a mid 40's man dressed in drag. We do have an issue with the many comments about a"child" and being groomed by an 'older woman' (actually they are saying man). The video we are looking at today is one of the few that is not going off on the same vitriolic tangent, but has mostly realistic comments. Mostly they do not agree with how Owens went about presenting this story. But earlier -
"Most are missing the fact that He/She was in it's 40's and Macron was only 14 years old. Sickening at best." A. So an accepted fact the "he/she" is an "it" in 'it's 40's' . This is proveable to not be true as covered on the original page.
Let's say this. This young man knows exactly the type of girl he wants to ask out. He isn't going to be fooled or misled by a mid 40's man dressed in drag.
We don't know who Barnes is in the featured legal video but he did a stellar job.There were many comments saying he was sloppy, and not informed'.
Response : Owens has accused Macron of being Brigitte's son. She has accused Brigitte of being his father.
Response : Barnes mentioned that those podcasters who rebroadcast this material could possibly be sued too. The net worth of Rogan is listed at $250,000,000. It is assumed that whoever wrote this comment has little knowledge about France. If Rogan was to be sued, depending on the circumstances, it could be quite substantial. Barnes gave a warning that this could happen.
Response : 'Watch the Macrons back down'. What level of moron do people who make this kind of comment think they are dealing with?
"Do the DNA test, you are not above anyone else??" Response : Where does this thinking that people in a high position somehow 'think they are above everyone else' come from? It can very safely be said that they and their lawyers know about the DNA test - and it is probably their trump card for winning this case. And then being able to sue for substantial damages.
"She said the photos they gave her were bullshit, not that she received literally no photos. Dude hasn't really listened clearly to her arguments." (Dude is 'Barnes') Response : Owens has said they have not supplied the photos, she has some but not as many as she wants. She is actually saying show the photos of her as a young mum. The arguments Owens gives are not the point. It is the accusations she has represented as being factual when she presented her arguments.
Response : Yes she did sell a T shirt which was as the lawsuit says, making money out of this. The case against her is that she is spreading with 'reckless disregard for the truth' these accusations AND producing merchandise to make money out of it. She doesn't need to ask for donations. Another source claims she is making high in the 6 figure amounts every week out of this. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars each week, and is 'making money out of this.' (We don't know if this income figure is correct.) Why should Barnes be being"paid" to 'shake Owens' resolve'? Most likley this information is to help her.
Incredible number of comments from people saying 'watch the series' with the implication being that it makes its point, is factual, and is backed up. As said I was shocked when I watched the series, initially because it was such incredibly unprofessional journalism. However, that isn't the point.
Owens did selectively choose what she would present in podcasts and documentary The Macrons have stated tin a December 2024 statement that they did answer all her questions and provided enough proof. Owens says they didn't answer. There was at least one point, which may have been about photographs they suplied, where she actively chose not to use it. We have to check where that was, but it is unusual for the Macrons to say they provided the answers and owens to say they didn't. This may come down to an interpetation that perhaps Owens didn't consider they answered the questions to her liking.
It appears she really jumped on the story when the French journalist and book author brought it to her. There isn't much that backs up anything, and it isn't from 'years long investigation by French journalists'. The first two French accusers were a psychic and a blogger. When the case they had lost against Brigitte was overturned it was because they said they were wrong but had done it in good faith. The other journalist is a journalist and he has written a book that is successful and he has received enormous publicity for the book by taking the story to the very careless Candace Owens. The male journalist has protection from being sued. He wins in this. He wins, and the Macrons will. Hopefully it will lead to there being a clear understanding of what can be broadcast as your 'opinion' and 'free speech' and what is defamation of others for personal monetary gain. The male journalist has achieved all the publicity he could ever dream of for his book, and he cannot be sued. .
"Their story began in 1993 at Lycée La Providence, a prestigious private school in France, when 15-year-old Emmanuel was a student and 39-year-old Brigitte Trogneux was a drama teacher. Although they did not have classes together, Emmanuel enrolled in one of her drama classes. The pair met while working together on a play, an adaptation of "The Art of Comedy". They collaborated every Friday night for months." The film of this was filmed during the performance at the Jesuit high school of La Providence in Amiens, in the Somme in May 1993. That is the date given that the school produced this play. .Emmanuel was born in December 1977. In 1992 he was 15, In December 1993 he was 16 years old. In 1994 he was 17 years old. Brigitte's husband realised the situation and left the family home in 1994.
Next bit of information is that it was the summer of 1994 when they were discovered sunbathing at the parents house,which indicates they were into their romance when he was 15. Definitely a difficult one to be okay with! This is when his parents sent him to a different schoolmuch further away in Paris.. Whether you like it or not, this was still okay for France, and as it became a public scandal in their small town, it must have been very difficult for the Auziere. family. 1994 is when Brigitte's husband left. It is very possible that the people who were the donors for Emmanuel Macron's predidency did want certain things in return.The vile Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony is one example.Or they wanted the President to have his official photograph with a copy of the Andre Gide book in view. As for Owens statement that Macron wanted to reduce the age of consent to 13, that apparently is not true. It is reported that he wanted to keep the legal age at 15 and with additional protections. The concern here would be that for whatever reason Owens did not report that correctly. Either she didn't check it or she accepted it because it concurs with the image she is promoting of Emmanuel Macron. 'They also wanted to normalize incest'.At the moment, we don't know if that is accurate. But it is in the category f things that are placed in the 'perverted' category. They are very 'Babylonian' but no-one has ever said they support the kinds of tihngs that Macron has allegedly wanted to do as President. It can be expected that donors wanted the controversial Presidential photo of Macron with the book by Andre Gide the account of a boy loving homosexual. All of these things are worthy of investigation in the political arena. But it would be equally good to see self-serving aggressively ambitious people like Owens being held accountable for the things she has said, including about Jews, and significantly more careful and responsible in what they are accusing others of in public.
It may be difficult for many people in America to understand the relationship of these two people in France.But it should be remembered that this began in 1994 and they married in 2007 very happily. That when he was sent off to another school he left saying "I will marry you". Macron was 29 when they marries, and they were two people who were very happy to get married. It is not the right of Americans to aggressively be disparaging or disapproving of their relationship. It is not your concern your business, or even your country. The podcasts seem to indicate that Owens is making a comment on this. It is already apparent that they all went through difficulties from the beginning, with the nosey neighbours, but also for everyone who was involved. brigitte and Emmanuel are married. It was their happiest moment when they were married. Leave them alone! Brigitte is not a man in drag. Owen's story is not what she wanted it to be. It may be that their donars have some perverted goals, or it may be that they themselves do too. But that is a separate matter from the lawsuit suing Candace Owens - who was wrong about her 'great story' and is being sued for it. More correctly for how she handled the story. She did not present all the facts that she had been given. She presented what she wanted the story to be. Now she is trying to justify her error, by linking others into the story, currently the now deceased fashion designer Yves St. Laurent.
In an interview with Piers Morgan she again says that the Macron lawyers have to prove that she knowingly presented the accusations when she knew they were not true That means that she had been given the information - which they say had been done - and she chose not to use it, perhaps because she didn't choose to believe it. Some of it was shown but Owens disputed that it was genuine. In her series she did shw quite a lot that anyine woud reasonably expect to be adequate proof she had got it wrong. Owens explained it away as being fake. Listening to Owens, this does sound very possible. She wanted this story. The Macrons are very likely to be able to show they did provide the information. If not, they woukd not have sued. Owens mentions that it has to be proved it was done with 'malice'. Legally, if information or proof is provided, and then not mentioned in the presentation, then that is a 'reckless disregard for the truth'. That also is the legal definition of malice. It looks like there is some degree of emotional instability involved in this although that could be as the stress sets in, and as she gets to realise what the case is about. She did not seem to understand that she isn't 'simply giving her opinion' and that is protected by the 1st Amendement. There are other legal nuances involved in it. With that kind of interpretation she could very decide that all the evidence did not fit her opinion so she didn't use it. To her, the evidence was just trying to hide the reality. I believe it would help her if she showed a more feminine and vulnerable side. People have praised her for 'getting at the stories' but she isn't really doing that ever. She uses controversail topics to look as if she is 'getting at the stories' that 'no-one else will talk about'. But people do talk about controversial subjects, and journalists do research them. She has people's support perhaps in many cases because these ones want a really grubby juicy story as the Macrons life is being made out to be.
More Internet Comments.
Here we go again!
Response : Its not about the series and the "meticulously rebuked and uncovered the so called evidence provided was false". Kind of unlikely the Macrons and lawyers would do that when they have such a stunning case for defamation that can bring them in 10's of millions. Most of the 'youtubers' worth listening to are the legal experts explaining the reality of this lawsuit, to all those who keep saying 'watch the documentary'. There isn't proof the evidence given was false, only that Owens chose to think and say it was false, which whether believed or not, enabled her to continue with her story that she had 'staked her reputation on'. "Candace DOES HER HOMEWORK! It's just a read if you're really interested." Response. That is is very much doubted. The series was very sloppy journalism. And she left out everything that didn't fit her narrative.
Response . It is unlikely that the Macrons would serve this lawsuit if they cannot prove Brigitte's gender. They would be beyond stupid. The problem might be that peple beievethis so adamantly based on this series which at best is 'sloppy journalism'.
Anyway, l believe they received the answers to her questions back from France, but then she sent more and more, until they became too intrusive or just obnoxious and the French stopped answering. So now she can claim, they refused to answer her questions. I have noticed that in the interview with Morgan, she did not reply to the question 'they sent you documents' but she insisted on the fact that there was no malice. And she will defend herself in the way l have described. She plays with words, she twists words and concepts, and is a deceiving person (like when she described herself as just a mum doing a podcast in her basement). She crosses that line between being brave and being arrogant, in my point of view. Also, what was the point in calling Macron pathetic? She is judging him over private matters (not public or political), therefore over stuff she does not know, but she does not even explain what she is referring to, she just throws insults in between sentences and is really pathetic and makes her sound like a bully. She should stop listening to the mass in Latin. So, maybe she will understand what the Bible and the gospels preach."
"Candace’s series is based on years of investigative work & the book ‘Becoming Brigette’ written by French journalist Xavier Poussard. So not sure why no one seems to be mentioning this when covering the case to put it into a more accurate context. & it all started because French journalists would get bizarre reactions & found that for some reason there was a 30 year black out period of Brigette’s life when they’d try & cover stories on Brigette simply related to her being the wife of the sitting President. So really don’t get why it’s all being presented as something Candace herself randomly plucked out of thin air to create some controversy when she hasn’t." Response. It is about the way she has presented the information which is defamatory. *Actually we don't find a 30 year unexplained part of her life. She married at 21 in 1974. She had her first child in 1975, then her second in 1977, and a third in 1984. She was also studing to be a teacher. She did have to be qualified to be employed as a teacher. During that time they lived in a couple of small towns where everybody knew you, and she also had a couple of jobs. After she gained her final teachers qualification she began working at the Jesuit school. She met Macron in 1993. Where is the missing 30 years? Before her marriage at 21 she was at school, and gained a qualification at a college, Below is the list of plaintiffs who sued the French psychic and blogger for defamation.
The continuing comments prove how significantly damaging Owen's accusations have been.
Internet Comments. This one added "2 mins ago" on the Young Turks. It is Monday Aug, 11th around 1.30 am in Asia time. ".........but you should know that Candace isn’t just claiming this just because. There’s a ton of proof that if you saw it you wouldn’t deny it. Shes very careful with what shes publicly claiming. Maybe you don’t have time to watch all the shows, but she covers a LOT! And always things that are fact checkable. You really should look into it before judging.. I wish it weren’t true but I’m afraid it is. Please just look into it before calling it crazy lies. And keep up the good work!!!!" Response : The 219 page lawsuit isued 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. This means they are ready for this kind of challenge. Whoever is making this comment, and they do continue, should check on things like this. No matter how great a job Owens did to 'prove' Brigitte is a man, the reality is that she is a woman. There will be people who continue with this long after the trial. They will be saying it's a lie, and they still believe Brigitte is a man because Owens 'proved' it. From these continuing comments it proves how significantly damaging Owen's accusations have been.Next comment "Macron is a pedophile and so his man Brigette." "6 mins ago" "If you look at JON Michelle and compare the pics, they are beyond similar, beyond Twins. Same person. Same Mannerisms." "Cenk thinks WE believe him over Candace. Mainstream media delusion is REAL" 8 mins ago "Brigitte is a man." "Are you saying Brigitte isn't a PDF (pedo) when she met Macron at 14?" Response. He was 15. The lawsuit specifically includes this point too, because Owens kept making the age 14. 9 mins ago. "She had 3 kids . . . . without any photos. She has a remarkable Twin brother tht never photographs with her. The so called father of Brigitte's kids has 1 photo in swim trunks from his funeral. . . NO marriage pics. NO photos of Brigitte growing or as an adult before his 30's. and here he goes tying this legit story to Pizza-Gate to make it seem trivial. we can tell when Cenk is lying." "Respect your show, but I think you should listen to the whole series before shutting it down or jumping to conclusions. Taking the time to hear out and encourage independent journalism is more important than ever." 11 mins ago. "You two clowns - eat crow when this law suit gets to discovery and the Macrons have no real evidence to substantiate their attempt to brainwash people into believing Brigitte is really a chick - I guess mocking and saying stupid sh** is going to help your channel." 2 hours ago. Of concern are the accusations in this and the 'emotion' behind it. "Owens is right. Macron cannot produce any proof she's a woman. Who doesn't have 1 single pic of the first 30 years of their life and then offers an obviously fake birth announcement in font that didn't yet exist with the printing presses of the stated era? French reporters looking into this have "committed suicide" and the doctor who said he performed surgeries on her "committed suicide."They all "jumped out of windows." There's some bad stuff the French are covering up and there's something there. Cenk, yeah she has 3 kids and there are ZERO pics of her pregnant, at the hospital with them, and with any one of the kids even ONE TIME during their childhood. If someone says someone was born a different sex, it is very easy to disprove. That's where I have to disagree, it is so easy to disprove and they can't do it. You'd laugh it off like the Obamas, publish some pics, and it's done. You don't throw a bunch of people out of windows and sue everybody. The Macrons are living in another era. Nobody is intimidated if they believe they're right, and people today aren't that intimidated by a lawsuit. Look how easy Michelle Obama disproved the tranny rumors, it isn't hard to shut them up. Also, Macron was 14 and looked about 11 when they met, so there's that and it is annoying how they act like there's anything normal about any of it. I agree Epstein is an infinitely bigger deal and it goes to who controls our government, but let Candace and her followers do this . . . Macron is going to lose this lawsuit. Candace isn't trying to be a martyr. I doubt she's doing it on behalf of the World, but I believe from this Epstein, and Israel, she is sick and disgusted with elitists doing whatever they want and thinking everyone else is stupid. People who are inept, but just born with their bases loaded and an infinite number of outs and at-bats behaving badly with no consequences. Personally, I don't care if Brigitte Macron is a tranny and I think it's silly because I think that's the least nefarious thing going on in France and in governments, but it will lead to a lot more serious things the French are hiding." Respone. Obviously they have produced the photos because even we have some of them, and Emmanuel did not look about 11 years old. he was a normal looking, grown young man. The number of accusations related to murders is of great concern. 2 hrs ago "Cenk before you cover this story you need to watch the series." "I believe her, standing by Owens." "Why are you not calling out her being a pedo?" "IT'S GOOD SHE STANDING FOR JUSTICE AGAINST THE STATANIC POLITICAL ELITE WHO'S HAVE HIJACKED THE MOST GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD. GOD BLESS HER & PROTECTS FOR EVER." "If you have not yet watched Becoming Brigitte Macron, best to just shut up instead of making yourself look stupid. For the Macrons to sue journalists over journalists stating that Brigitte is a man, proves that Brigitte is a man indeed." Response. The lawsuit specifically writes out that Brigitte is a woman and was born a woman. For this reason they do have the required proof or they would not actually have this as a statement. It is very worrying how adamant massive amounts of comments are that not only do they believe Owens, but also are worked up about the crimes she has alleged they are part of. "The woman or man is a groomer. Macron was 14yrs when the groomer was 40yrs. Why are we not addressing this? How is she any different Epstein in this scenario. Let’s bring that to the forefront. The trans part of the story will go to court and we shall see." What is worrying is how out of control and enraged some of these people are for things that are not true. This is actually dangerous. Once again we have this false age difference representation which is also specifically written into the lawsuit as not true. Owens does continue to suggest he was 14.
A. It is not journalism and it is not professional. She is only presenting a theory, she did not do any specific investigation herself, others did. But she is presenting the theory as if it is fact.
The more that her fans continue to post these comments the more it means she will lose this case.
'Values'.Please continue article. + more. The family film is the kids when young, but this film has been available since (we believe) 2022 and the onus is on Owens to do the research to find it. Brigitte. ..... With photos from childhood. Photos of Brigitte at 2 years old, about 7 years old, around 21 years old and 38 years old. She looks very similar from childhood to when she met Emmanuel.
|
Emmanual Macron. 
|
|
|
Copyright 2015� Disclaimer www.Soul-Search.org |