Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/07/2025 10:01:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As you may recall, Candace Owens ran a series of podcasts earlier this year in which she claimed the First Lady of France, Brigitte Macron, was actually a trans woman. A couple weeks ago, the Macrons sued Owens in a US court, seeking damages for 22 separate counts of defamation. There's no dollar amount in the complaint but it's presumably going to run into six or seven figures.
For the record, Owens doesn't deny that there was a person named Brigitte Trogneux who was born a woman. Her story is that at some point, for unknown reasons, Brigitte disappeared and her identity was taken over by another person, her brother Jean-Michel Trogneux who then married Emmanuel Macron.
So now, according to Candace Owens, Brigitte Macron was born a woman, died, and with her dying wish passed on her identity to her brother.
There's no way anyone still believes this crap right?
Come on guys...
You all got taken for a ride by an insane grifter. pic.twitter.com/ASSwUqpOAn— Shawn Farash (@Shawn_Farash) July 30, 2025
There are really two big problems with Owens's theory. First, Jean-Michel Trogneux is still around and has been seen at public events including Macron's inauguration. The other is that Brigitte was previously married and had three children with her first husband. Obviously a trans person can't have children so you have to somehow extend the conspiracy theory to the idea that the kids either aren't really Brigitte's children or that they know their real mom is dead and are pretending their uncle is their mother. It's pretty far out there.
And yet, Owens is still doubling down on this whole story. She appeared on Piers Morgan's show the other day and said she was willing to up a previous bet with Morgan to $300,000.
Candace Owens accepts a $300,000 bet with Piers Morgan over the biological gender of Brigitte Macron.
Full interview now available! 👇
📺 https://t.co/tTTUW6Yfey@piersmorgan | @RealCandaceO pic.twitter.com/IgdkRsIlIp— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) August 5, 2025
That's quite a lot of money but it's still probably only a fraction of what's on the line in the lawsuit itself. And that may be why Owens is now wondering aloud why the Trump administration is not speaking up and trying to defend her from the lawsuit.
"If you are Trump, the first thing you should have done if you purport to care about America and our Constitution...you would come out and you would say 'I don't even know whether I believe that she's a man or a woman'...but you should say 'I'm a leader of this country and it's unacceptable that this leader would threaten the First Amendment in anyway,'" Owens said. She added, "The job of the federal government is to defend us against foreign invaders and I would pretty much say Emmanuel Macron right now is being a foreign invader."
Candace Owens appears PANICKED as she calls the Macrons’ lawsuit a "FOREIGN INVASION," begging for Trump and J.D. Vance to intervene: "It's CRAZY that Trump has been silent on this matter."
She also claims the Macrons want to "impoverish her for speaking." Candace and her… pic.twitter.com/E3OIjGcIvI— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) August 7, 2025
She mentions that President Trump called and tried to warn her off this story. Here's what she told Tucker Carlson.
Owens said the initial request to stop talking about the French first lady came from someone “pretty high up” in the White House. She said she found the demand insulting and refused to comply.
Trump later phoned Owens directly about the issue, she told Carlson, saying that the president told her Macron had pulled him aside to ask if he knew Owens. Owens said she was shocked by the request and stated that Trump had been confused as to why he was being asked to intervene.
“Emmanuel Macron personally flew to D.C. and asked Trump to ask me to shut up, to just stop speaking about his wife,” she told Carlson.
That's evidence that Macron was unhappy about it but not evidence he's lying about his wife. If Owens is in fact spreading a lie about Brigitte Macron, as the lawsuit claims, then it's not surprising Emmanuel Macron would make efforts to get her to stop.
As for the "foreign invasion" claim, It probably goes without saying that defamation is a well-understood and widely acknowledged exception to free speech. Owens is being sued for allegedly making false and defamatory claims which, according to the complaint, she knew were false at the time.
As I said in my previous post, that's going to be a high bar for statements about a public figure like Brigitte Macron, but that doesn't mean some of the claims won't pass that bar. And if they do, that's not a foreign invasion or any kind of violation of US sovereignty, it's just the application of US defamation law to Candace Owens.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
SEEK HELP IMMEDIATELY,as you have lost whatever remained of your mind.
Tucker is also now completely NUTS!
He was FIFTEEN, she wasn’t his “teacher”, but the drama coach, and HE fell in love with and chased her; however, NOTHING untoward happen between them at that time.
He was FIFTEEN, she wasn’t his “teacher”, but the drama coach, and HE fell in love with and chased her; however, NOTHING untoward happen between them at that time.
The black Ann Coulter
Oh good one; BRAVO! LOL
As for King Charles, their association dates to the 1970s. Since the stories of abuse by Savile date back decades before his death in 2011, it appears that the future king was not informed or he chose not to believe the stories.
“Even assuming that Brigitte is a woman after all, it seems that she began her relationship with Macron when he was 14 — and she was in her 30s or 40s. The relationship is far from normal.”
It’s France, Jake.
I won’t read all of that ‘cause I don’t care that much. I was just relaying something I had heard in passing.
And as I clearly stated, Gide was an author whose books were even required reading in America.
Upton Sinclair was a STINKING SOCIALIST/COMMIE, founded the ACLU chapter in California, and a horrible person, but his work is STILL required reading in many schools. Should his works be burned because he was a terrible person?
His Lanny Budd series, long predates the Brit James Bond series and is actually not only better written, but the contain unbiased, factual history of all kinds.
Oscar Wilde was an homosexual, yet his plays and books, including his books for children, are outstanding! Should all of his work also be condemned or destroyed?
Yes, there was SOME gossip about Saville; however, it all did NOT come to light until after King Charles delighted in Saville's humor, which had NOTHING at all to do with his own perverities.
Damning someone, just because they own a book, sans even knowing WHICH book it is, is grasping at straws.
OTOH.....Candace NOW stands up for and is great friends with Tate, Kayne West, Russel Brand, Tucker, and Harvey Weinstein! And EVERYONE knows all about these people and their own insane, perverted proclivities, but against ALL Jews and Protestants world wide. WHERE IS YOUR CONDEMNATION OF HER FOR THAT?
The ONLY "ROYALS", in the UK, are the King or Queen and their children! And that has ALWAYS been the case! Just having a title, does NOT make one a "ROYAL" at all!
I don’t know anything about the pics and not sure why you would bring them up to me since I haven’t mentioned them but this goes into great detail if you would like to read.
http://pressibus.free.fr/gen/trogneux/indexgb.html#jean-michel
That is no reason for him to publicly display a book written by Gide.
Upton Sinclair was a STINKING SOCIALIST/COMMIE
Whatever his errors, Sinclair was not a pederast. You claim he was a horrible person, but where is the evidence?
Should all of his (Oscar Wilde) work also be condemned or destroyed?
A straw man argument. Nobody has advocated burning Wilde's works.
Yes, there was SOME gossip about Saville; however, it all did NOT come to light until after King Charles delighted in Saville's humor, which had NOTHING at all to do with his own perverities.
As the heir to the British throne, then Prince Charles was in a position to hear the stories. Rest assured that British intelligence was aware of Savile's proclivities. He either did not hear them or did not believe them.
Candace NOW stands up for and is great friends with Tate, Kayne West, Russel Brand, Tucker, and Harvey Weinstein!
My initial post expressed skepticism about Candace Owens's claims about Brigitte Macron. She is anti-Semitic, rehashing early 20th Century lies about the evils of Jews. That is reprehensible. You claim that she is friends with Harvey Weinstein, unusual as he is Jewish. You also claim she is anti-Protestant. Until her conversion to Catholicism, she was a Protestant.
To my judgment, the statements at that site are laughable.
Just because someone claims something or it’s written somewhere doesn’t make it true.
I expect Owens to lose this suit. I think the Macrons will have plenty of evidence to answer the burden of proof.
I began to read it and right off the bat, it is SO riddled with LIES, that's it's mind boggling beyond measure!
First of all, there ARE pictures of Brigitte's family, including her, her siblings, and parents.
Secondly, WHO then actually MARRIED Brigitte and had THREE children with?
Thirdly, how is it that Jean-Michel, dressed as a MAN, was in the SAME room, with Brigitte, when Emmanuel took the oath of office as PRESIDENT of France?
But I SHALL read ALL of that CRAP, eventually, so that I fully know EXACTLY where Candace got her info from. And FYI...she NEVER, NOT EVER does her OWN "investigations, but uses what OTHERS have done and then claims most to all of it as her OWN work. Candace is a LIAR, a FRAUD, a NARCISSIST, a GRIFTER, and now...just plain old NUTS!
She has interviewed Weinstein, whom she has claimed was a ‘victim of the woke’ movement. She has also claimed that modern Jews and Protestants are practicing satanic cultists.
She just pulls out of her ass whatever she thinks will get attention, regardless the harm it may do.
The last time anyone in our family cared about the goofballs in England was 1620 when Wm. Brewster headed west.
As the Prince of Wales, Charles was NOT privy to any Intel about anyone! Lots and lots and LOTS of Brits enjoyed Saville. I've NEVER seen nor heard his shows, so I don't know what they were like. But he was just one comedian whom Charles enjoyed. He was CRAZY about THE GOONIES ( I've heard some sketches...they were silly funny! ), and others too.
What you are failing to see/understand, is that times were different, it wasn't like today, with everyone have phones, and the net.
In America, there was THE NATIONAL INQUIRER, and other such publications, where all kinds of "gossip" and such were written, but the general public didn't read such muck and the Studio System managed to keep a LOT of things under wraps.
And yes, I don't understand, what with her vitriol, now, against ALL Jews EVERYWHERE, WHY she is all in re Weinstein, but she is. She couldn't care LESS about HIS perversions.
I really don't know IF she even HAD any religious intent, re ANY Form of Christianity, prior to becoming some kind of Catholic. I don't recall her EVER speaking about religion, AT ALL, prior to now.
OTOH...I HAVE watched her rant about ALL JEWS and ALL PROTESTANTS! She actually has claimed that all of these people are "SATANIC", that they engage in extremely PERVERSE rites that sound like the garbage Aleister Crowley promulgated and engaged in, AND that they ALL "worship the Devil"!
And she BEGGED the Macrons to SUE her, saying that she would pay for ALL of the court fees, but then, when they DID sue her, she began to FREAKOUT! LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.