Earth RESET NEWS

. Best viewed on anything but Google

For the Candace Owens thing. Currently reporting 'fake news'.

Fake News Strikes Again: Claim Disaster Aid to US States Tied to "NO BOYCOT of ISRAEL" -- FALSE !

back to the topic, and she appears to be in disbelief that the Macrons would sue because she was convinced what she believed was correct. The Macrons are not likely to have sued if the accusations were correct. Apparently 'still fighting', but comments in the Tucker interview about people 'suing to wipe you out' because of what she did. Thing is, what she did. and her dogged continuation of it, is what people sue for.

It also raises the question of how much "your right to free speech" is the same kind of right when you are insulting and bullyimg citizens of another country? Perhaps even countries which have laws against speaking against a leader or monarch?

This lawsuit was not something that Owens was very smart to respond to with 'bring it on'. The story may have been a great one for her career, and she is very aggressive, very ambitious, along with being judgmental and without compassion. For her story to work she has had to come up with extraordinary explanations like a gifted 'identity theft' when the real Brigitte died. Brigitte has 3 adult children who all recognize she is their mother, and that she isn't dead. Owens has also accused Brigitte of being Emmanuel Macron's father, and now his transgender wife.

***By the way we researched the date when they did the school play where they met and the date given is May 1994. Emmanuel's birthday was in December 1993 and he was 15. He was born in 1977. Owens is saying on her current podcast that he was 14, presumably knowingly misrepresenting the truth. They met because he had signed up for Brigitte's drama course, that's all. *This section grew so will be on a separate linked page.

I see other youtube presentations saying that Owens was an important podcaster. Perhaps she is, but why was that? Did she appeal to people who like 'conspiracy theories' - this is a question because I don't know. It has been pointed out that she wants to be a new Alex Jones and Oprah type celebrity, and she is aggressively ambitious, as Meghan Markle is, who is another train wreck in motion to observe. Yet she does not appear to me to be particularly intelligent, or educated, and she is very difficult (jarring, aggressive) to listen to and to watch. What she did with the 'Becoming Brigitte' and extra programmes, the number of accusations she had to come up with to make her story work, is very funny. I see the attorney 'Robert Barnes' laughing at this lawsuit and it is funny that Owens would have done what she did. It is sad, but it is funny. In practice this was unprofessional journalisim. A journalist must present facts and do so in a neutral way but certainly a way that covers her own back.

With her current broadcast, she is trying to reframe the lawsuit as unfair. Firstly the 'injustice' of a President suing for damages after she did a hell of a lot of 'damages'. She describes herself amazed that a President would sue a 'mother presenting her podcast' probably from her basement. If a 'mother' did what Candace did, 'just any young mum expressing her opinon' she should be sued!! Owens with her latest broadcast seems to be trying to shift perspective, but the lawsuit is about what she has already done, how she did it, and the content that was defamatory. All those off the charts accusations.

It looks like she is trying to frame it that the Macrons have a lot of pedos for friends. We don't know. We do think they have supported some very 'pervert level' stuff like the Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony - but again the lawsuit is not about that. Nor is it about the characters of those who helped fund the presidential campaigns. Maybe there were pedos and that is the reason there are a few things the Macrons had to do to that the weirdos would appreciate. It looks like that is the reason, which is actually better. Again we have to say that she is very hard to watch, and very distasteful to watch. That is our opinion. This is not journalism, it is hammering away at people to accept her view.

I have to watch some of her broadcasts if I want to know where she is going. But I don't want to do much of this because she is a Meghan Markle type of dog with a bone.

That is more distasteful than anything she is coming up with. Obviously we would not choose to watch her stuff, but are doing so only to know what might be commented on. So a few comments.

In this episode Owens is trying to influence people to see that the lawyers representing the Macrons are people you should 'look at sideways'. Lawyers are just doing their jobs, they take cases they can make money out of. If she meant the US ones, they are the firm which defended Dominion against FOX and they won $750 million in damages. Owens is talking about a story on Yves St. Laurent the fashion designer but linking his associates to the Macrons. This is continuing to smear their reputations by innuendo. This would seem bordering being defamatory too? Smearing people's reputations by innuendo.

But it could also be influencing people who may be in a jury so that the case would have to be dismissed.

That means people may have preformed opinions because of publicity. Not sure if that goes for general publicity or if it is the person being sued herself who is trying to do that?

The love affairs of Yves St. Laurent are nothing to do with the lawsuit and neither are his morals. Nor is it about the morals in Morocco (he was Algerian but they are talking about Morocco). If she is bringing up some additiional distasteful stuff he was associated with, then the P. Diddy parties also catered to "potty stuff" - and we are all disgusted, but it isn't actually illegal. It is probably less illegal in the USA with its 'free expression' than it is in Morocco!

The good people of the world do want this stuff attended to, but this isn't anything to do with the Macrons - and she is bordering on accusing them of being that it is. In fact with what she is bringing up, it explains why the Macrons have been okay about some of the perverse stuff. It was the request of their donors.

There are dedicated people in the world exposing bad people, but they are doing it for the right reasons. This woman is doing it to influence people to support her, and she is doing it with her usual type of personality which is viciously and maliciously. She is coming across as a Meghan Markle type piece of work, but more vicious. Basically this is because she is extremely dogmatic about her story, and angry that anyone would 'dare' to sue her. So it is defending all of it, but done so with aggression. This does not make it 'right'. It just means she is aggressive about it.

I have to confess that I do have considerable difficulty looking at her podcasts and her incredibly vicious hate filled face. The hate in her eyes or perhaps it is outrage that anyone dares to challenge her - "how dare you not believe me" type of thing.. That is how it comes across to me. Maybe others can handle viewing this, and do so better than I can, but for me, I can't. Not easily.

France may indeed be trying to introduce some 'Babylon' morals and perhaps that should be investigated. Europe is part of the world problem, and France is part of supporting Ukraine. We don't support any of that. But it is still not what the lawsuit is about. Nor is France the business of Americans. Hope there are further investigations into what donars are trying to achieve. But there is a strong case why Owens was sued for what she did. .

The bottom line is that 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.

Candy Comments (much more to be added.) 'Project Sitting Duck'.

Plant Food Natural Health Contact