The Candace Owens Lawsuit Will Be A Disaster for Brigitte Macron
|
Time
Text
I'm a practicing lawyer by profession, a trial lawyer, former prosecutor.
I've been one for 44 years or so.
So I know a little bit about how this works.
And I know how courtrooms work and the realities of juridicature versus what people think they know by virtue of watching TV.
So when I first heard about the Candace Owens Brigitte Macron, notice how I say that, case, I thought, one thing.
I don't want to go into the specifics of it, but I thought this is not advised.
Remember one thing, my friends, pick the hill you want to die on.
If you really believe in something, that's great.
But ask yourself, do I really want to do this?
Do I really want to go that far?
Does it matter?
I'm not going to argue that way one way or the other because I think you think you should be able to say whatever you want irrespective of whether it matters or not.
Well, that was then.
And when I gave a number of admonitions, and I was very, very cautious, I said, you know, I don't like this.
You know, Candace, take it easy.
I don't know.
This is weird.
It's Delaware.
You get some strange Joe Biden country jury who listens to this, doesn't like you, feels sorry for the—who knows?
Well, that changed.
That changed drastically.
It's almost like Candace knew something.
Though she didn't.
Nobody could have known this.
Because as I said, when I first heard about the case and what she was saying about Brigitte Macron and questions surrounding gender.
And by the way, there were other aspects of this 22 count complaint.
As I'm telling him, my initial reaction was that it did not seem necessary and that it was, it felt like kind of a distraction.
But at the same time, I said, look, there was something about it made me pause because there were deeper issues tied to power and history and the unusual origins of the Macron relationship that had been discussed quietly for years.
And then everything changed.
Everything changed when the lawsuit arrived.
And I read the complaint because at that point, this stopped being about really online commentary and became instead about power using the legal system to crush speech.
And the facts matter here.
And this is important.
This is critical.
I can't say this enough.
Let me say, I'm not retreating from my original opinion.
The facts changed.
John Maynard Kane said, when the facts changed, I changed my opinion.
Years ago, politically, I was meaning, I used to really understand and agree more with the Democratic Party.
But the Democratic Party left me.
They changed.
I don't know what they, I don't recognize these people.
And now the Republican Party seems to be more my speed.
I'm the same person, but through a kind of an overton window kind of analysis, everything else changed.
But we have something here interesting here because Brigitte Macron and her husband, Emmanuel, you know, did file this 22-count defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens for reasons, by the way, and by the way, her business entities in Delaware Superior Court.
Not France, not some neutral venue, but Delaware.
A place known for being expensive procedurally and unforgiving.
And it is also, by the way, Joe Biden country.
And they are represented by Claire Locke, which is the same law firm that has made its name punishing one might say speech through litigation and chilling dissent.
And that alone tells you this is not about correcting the record.
It's about deterrence and it's about control.
Because the lawsuit does not just allege defamation.
It also includes false light and other claims designed to multiply risk and cost and pressure and for as long as possible.
And that is what law affair looks like.
That's what scares me.
It's not about winning an argument.
It's about exhausting the person, making it and forcing them to retreat.
And what's interesting to note, though, is how things have changed also.
Why the Macron would have this crackdown on speech in France happen now?
Because be not mistaken, this is not, look, I don't know who's funding this, and I can only guess.
I have no facts.
But this is not about shutting Candace Owens down.
This is about shutting everybody down.
All of the folks, all of the shows, all of the platforms that she was on that may have published or republished her ideas, her thoughts, and the like, those individuals would be later potentially susceptible to lawsuits in the world as well.
A lot of people want them to win.
Seriously, ask yourself this question.
Why does Candace Owens affect somebody in France?
You know, if I tell you, hey, some guy in Roanoke said that you were a member of the fascist party, and you said, who?
Well, obviously you never heard of him.
So how could he be affected by something that you never heard of?
That never reached you.
How is Candace in Nashville or whatever, even though she has a worldwide platform, 5 million subscribers plus?
But how does that seriously affect French elections?
French.
But that's a different issue.
But all of that changed.
All of that changed with this crackdown.
Because all they wanted people to do was just to retreat.
They wanted Candace to be shaken to the core.
They wanted to bankrupt her.
That was it.
And you could still say this was just a dispute between public figures until France stepped in and showed the world where this road leads because a Paris court just convicted 10 ordinary people,
eight men and two women, aged 41 to 60, including a school sports teacher, an art gallery owner, and a publicist for online harassment of Brigitte Macron.
And their crime was in violence.
I keep saying this again, not threats, not incitement, but speech, statements, jokes, reposts, ripostes, and accusations made online.
And the punishments were real, mandatory courses, suspended sentences, fines, bans, bans from social media, and even a six-month prison sentence for one man to be served at home for a joke.
For a joke.
And this is a bad joke.
And this is not a small foreign story.
It's not gossip.
And it's not really about Brigitte Macron at all.
It's, I mean, even though her name is the excuse being used, because what France just demonstrated is how a government disciplines its citizens for speaking disrespectfully about those at the top.
And Candace Owens understood that instantly, which is why she called out the media framing that.
Now, let me stop right there and listen carefully.
Listen to this.
Had this not occurred, some people might have said, or there would have been a greater likelihood for a jury perhaps to be able to say, you know what, this is cruel.
Get a woman on there.
You know, they're making fun of how she looks.
And of course, forget any issue of proving gender.
That's a different issue.
But just think about this.
She kind of had jury appeal.
Woman in her 70s being mocked.
And you get a jury with women on the jury.
And they'll say, I can relate to this.
This is cruel.
This is terrible.
Women in their looks.
My God.
And also, if you could see the idea of who the defendant is, a conservative lightning rod, the bellwether, the pollster, the exemplar.
It's, I thought this is, again, I don't want to go into the, but the other allegations were problematic too.
But now everything changed.
Because people are saying France did what?
Wait a minute, they did what?
We don't throw people in jail because of, yet.
We don't throw people in jail because of jokes.
We don't.
Never.
Never.
No matter what they've said about Trump, but they've said the worst things.
Nobody's gone to jail.
Nobody has to go to mandatory classes.
Now, believe me, we have our own problems.
But don't you understand how things change?
Don't you see what this does in terms of the PR campaign and how this is going to affect and perhaps taint or change the collective opinion of a Delaware jury?
Let me tell you something.
This is, you know, Candace called out the media framing that tried to make it sound like that some kind of biological question or factual question had been settled when in reality all that was proven is that France has cyberbullying laws that criminalize speech deemed harmful to dignity or reputation.
And that phrase sounds harmless.
It may even sound auditory until you realize dignity is defined by the powerful and enforced by the state.
And once that door is open, there is no clear limit because anything, anything that embarrasses authority, anything can be labeled harassment.
And anything repeated, okay, on the other platforms, Joe Rogan and name those, can be called cumulative harm.
And this is how free speech dies, not with soldiers, you know, in the streets or with guns, but with paperwork and fines and mandatory classes and platform bans and house confinement, house arrests, community control.
And the most dangerous part, the most dangerous part is how many people shrugged and said, well, that's France.
You know, they do things different.
You know, cell, c'est la guerre, whatever it is.
I always say c'est la merde, which is a different story.
That's France for you.
They just do things differently without realizing, by the way, that America is already moving in that same direction.
Because we're going to have social credit scores and CBDC and everything else for that matter.
By the way, Trump speaking of the WEF coming up with Klaus Schwab, that's another issue.
But little by little, bit by bit, inch by inch, through lawsuits and venue shopping and civil punishment, we're replacing debate with the real thought of being crushed.
And Candace's role here, by the way, matters because she's not just defending her own right to speak.
She's defending the idea that citizens have the right to mock, ridicule, doubt, and challenge those who rule them.
And that's the entire point of free speech.
Not politeness, not kindness, not protection of feelings, not being rude, not the protection of dissent and mockery and uncomfortable questions and all this stuff.
Questions that Candace made, by the way, she made this clear when she said that France didn't prove anything about Brigitte Macron.
They proved they have laws that punish speech.
Now, you and I can talk about a lot of things right now.
And we can say, was this really necessary for Candace to, you know, was this necessary?
Did she really need to have to, and this is important when we talk about this, did she really have to say this?
Did she have to do this?
What do you have to do?
Name one bit of speech that you had to say, that you had to say.
No, it was an election that you made.
You said, I'm going to say this.
Why?
Because I want to.
I don't have to go through some committee to find out whether it's warranted or not.
It's a thought I have.
And if you think that somebody is a drunk or somebody is a predator or somebody has done some terrible things in the past, you know, granted, you are certainly open for defamation and libel,
but the president of France, with all that is said, it's like when, imagine there's a thousand people during a war shooting at somebody or something, and they're charging you with having killed somebody.
And you say, how do you know I did it?
Everybody was shooting.
Well, with the Macron, everybody was saying this.
What did Candace do in Nashville or wherever she lives and around the world that was worse than what happened there?
So you know what this is about.
It's like, look, you know, you're going to be the test case, Brigitte.
Okay.
And let's bring that Candace down.
And they probably don't like her, but they want to teach her a lesson.
But that's really what it's about.
You see, France proved they've got laws that punish speech.
And by the way, Candace used the Rachel Dolezal comparison, not to provoke, but to expose the logic.
If the state can punish you for asserting an identity claim, that's what this is, then convictions prove nothing except obedience.
And this is why the reaction to Candace has been so revealing, because instead of answering her arguments, instead of debating her logic or the factual bases behind it, the response has been punishment, ridicule, and now lawsuits.
And by the way, let me ask, go back again.
Invariably, we're always, our argument with anybody in power is that you're lying.
You're lying somehow.
You're lying about budgets.
You're lying about graft.
You're lying about corruption.
Nixon lied about Watergate.
LBJ lied about the war.
Bill Clinton lied about everything.
You see?
So they're accusing Brigitte Macron of another lie.
You could say it's a different lie, but it's a lie.
You might say, yeah, but it's a little bit more personal, but it's a lie.
So again, again, when you were, all that was one thing, except now, now that we're talking about the crackdown on speech in France, it all changed.
Now, juries have a new lens.
And there's lawsuits now.
And escalation matters because the Macron's didn't just sue, you know, they sued in Delaware by virtue of venue.
There might have been a venue closed.
There might have been something.
There might have been something because that's, I believe, that's where Candace's and her husband's concerns are located out of Delaware.
You're not going to see too much of that in the future, by the way.
But anyway, but they chose Delaware, and of course, Claire Locke is this lawsuit.
And they chose a strategy designed to send a message, by the way, to everybody else watching to speak out.
And by the way, if, if, and this is important, if this is critical, if you see people coming out of the woodwork and saying, in essence, that they feel for Candace or that they have to do something to fight this encroachment of free speech and political speech and like, they may come forward, by the way, and double down on it.
You know, I'm Spartacus, I'm Spartacus.
Everybody may be saying this about Brigitte.
It changes now because of this treatment.
And you see, one of the things that people have to realize also, like I said, remember, there are other allegations for whatever it's worth that were made or that they're claiming Candace made in addition to the gender thing, which, of course, is important, but the issue is going to also be able to prove, how are you damaged by this?
You know, there was a time when defamation had to really mean something.
Give you a perfect example.
I'm a pizza.
I own a pizza store.
You open up a pizza store.
We're competitors.
And I go on Yelp or something and I claim that I found a rat's head or something in your pizza.
And I'm lying.
Defamation is a statement of fact that causes damages.
Not an opinion, a fact.
I'm saying something is true.
And you lose your business.
And okay, that's defamation.
That's what I'm talking about.
That's really important.
And there's all kinds of things about libel per se and libel per quad.
We're not going to get through with it.
I'm not going to go through the, I'm not going to give you a crash course in defamation.
But the idea is, again, damaging.
When you are the Macron and you've got all this stuff coming at you, do you mean to tell me that she could actually take the stand and say, it was terrible being the wife of this guy?
And then we've suffered at least 10,000 to 20,000 allegations, but the worst one! Candace's was worse than, okay, maybe it is.
But that changed because of this new perception that, put it this way, you don't want people to look at your country and say, France, oh, come on.
Oh, come on.
They joked with you.
Remember in 80, it was 88.
I forget the particular case, but it was the Jerry Falwell case against Larry Flint.
And remember that case?
Remember, it was a takeoff of that the first time, the liqueur, I can't remember the name of it.
But did you see what Jerry, what Larry Flint wrote in this paradise, this parody?
Oh my God.
But the Supreme Court said, well, there you go.
And by the way, defamation, we're getting too much defamation.
There's too much of it.
Because we're getting past the idea that, did you hurt somebody?
Did you hurt somebody?
Like, for example, how could you defame, let's say, Trump?
What could you say about Trump that nobody else said?
What could you say?
Of everything that's done, put it this way, Candace's allegations, she's not the only one to say it.
So you mean her version of the same allegations that were made by others is worse.
But let me go back to my original thought.
And by the way, this is to all the folks out there, all of you platformers and speakers and the like.
Pick the hill you want to die on.
We live in a litigious society today.
You ultimately may win your case, but like we say in criminal law, you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.
The cop may be wrong.
The cop may be doing something wrong, but you're not going to be able to slither out of this.
Figure out, do I really want to do this?
Because people right now, there are, I have heard more, I don't want to say them now, but many, many stars who have been accused of all kinds of terrible acts involving children.
And I'll leave it at that.
When there was no evidence of it.
Satanic involved in weird blood rituals and oh my god that people just get into and they'll say MK Ultra and they'll get involved in this kind of a tsunami.
I'm not saying it's not true, but ask yourself, remember, is this really important?
Is your zeal to go out and to make a name for yourself, is that outweighing your need to cool it?
I'm telling you right now, whatever you think of Candace, before these people were arrested, that was one thing.
Now people are going to say, at two, Macron, Candace Owens now?
Who else?
Especially when you see this, a nurse, a storekeeper, a comedian, some schmo who said something stupid, and it builds up.
And it's the groundswell.
I can't say this enough.
It builds up.
It builds up like a tsunami.
There's volcanic action way out in the Pacific, tectonic plates, and it starts.
And it moves.
And when you're out there in a boat, the tsunami goes right underneath you.
You don't even know it because there's depth.
But as it gets closer and closer to the shore, it causes this massive destruction.
That's what's happening right now.
Out there in the Pacific, the not-so-pacific world of public opinion, there's this reaction.
People are tired of this.
And there's something so fundamentally, rudimentarily, we love lampooning.
What's next?
Parody, making fun of somebody?
Let's say you do something where you make a reference to, oh, I don't know, a politician's reported venereal disease or drinking problem or mental illness.
You're going to use that as libel per se.
Look it up.
You're going to presume damages.
Remember, that might have been possible until this.
You would think the Macrons would have been smart enough to say, listen, hold off on any kind of, until we get done with this Candace stuff, don't anybody file this ridiculous nonsense where people are, you know, charged, what, for saying, not now.
Because it's cumulative.
It changes everything.
When I was younger, and when All in the Family first came about, I was like in seventh graders, and we couldn't believe what we were saying.
Archie Bucker said Crapola.
Now you laugh at this now and you think, so what?
That he said crap.
You know what he's saying?
He said, Crapola.
Yeah, but Crap is crap ola without the OLA.
And little things just changed.
It changed.
All of a sudden, things can be said.
All of a sudden, words can be said.
All of a sudden, attitudes changed.
And it's happening right now.
The world is taking on a globalist concern.
And had France not done this, they might have had a better chance securing some kind of victory.
Right now, put your money on either some kind of voluntary dismissal or some settlement.
That's so, they'll just say, we reached a settlement.
And you'll wonder, well, who paid who?
It might be nothing, but it'll be kept quiet.
And that could not have occurred without this.
So what I'm saying is, Candace Owens, again, there's no way she could have known this.
She is the recipient of some of the best luck ever.
Because what happens is the martyrdom, the initial, the incredible, the new martyrdom of Candace Owens, yet again in yours to her benefit.
It benefits her.
And people in our business, people who love, you know, the fight of the, you know, the conspiracist or whatever it is, this is great.
So for those of you who remember this, I first said, Candace, don't do this.
Now I'm saying still, don't do this, because it's not worth it.
But you're going to get away with this.
In fact, you're going to be even bigger, bigger than anything, bigger, because another Nietzsche, Nietzsche, you know, the what does not destroy me maims me, but you've weathered the storm again.
So we'll leave it at that.
So I hope that makes sense.
I hope that explains a lot of things.
And I hope you understand how the world is where jurors come from.
So when the world changes, the jurors change.
And that's huge.
So my friends, I thank you.
Thank you for your kindness.
Thank you for your incredible, just your insight.
Thank you for your wonderful comments under the comment section.
By the way, also thank you so much for your kindness towards my beloved wife, Lynn's Warriors, Lynn Shaw, but Lynn's Warriors on YouTube.
Follow her.
You talk about a noble fight, protecting kids, protecting them from digital predation, and another.
And then even thank you.
I've got some questions for you to review.
I've got some comments or some questions which I've drafted as I normally do in the comments section.
Please do this.
Please like the video.
Please hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.