re: Is Candace Owen’s sounding scared? Emmanuel Macron & Briggett will face Discovery!!!

Stop getting your legal takes from Matlock or whatever nonsense TV shows you watch.

This is how it works: Macron sues Owen for defamation. They only have to show she made the claim. Then Owens has to show what info she relied on to make that claim. The judge then decides if that info is enough for a reasonable person to come to the same conclusion. The only discovery the Macron's would face is during the financial damages phase after Owens is found guilty and then it would be limited to those damages.

Lying about people does not give you the ability to then dig into their stuff looking for dirt. It would be stupid to believe that.

quote:

---

The judge then decides if that info is enough for a reasonable person to come to the same conclusion.

---

I'm not even a lawyer and know this is not the standard. The standard is malice. The burden in on the Macrons. They have to prove malice. It is a high bar.

Through out her entire series she is carful to state sources behind assertions and used hedging words such as "allegedly". As I've noted already, the story that Candace has brought forth is already public record written and published by French journalists. She is just telling the story with her spin. Her style attracts a lot of attention because she is a talented communicator.

quote:

---

No kidding. If you want to boost your “influencer” cred recklessly, then be prepared for incoming…

---

I was looking forward to her podcast today because she was going to visit the real history of WWII, the controversial history. But now that has to wait because she has to address the Financial Times article today.

quote:

---

Emmanuel Macron & Briggett will face Discovery!!!

---

Wanna bet they won’t?

When it’s a public figure it’s a higher burden.

She has to have known what she was saying was false or had reckless disregard for the truth.

Macron’s attorney sent her a lot of letter and evidence that she’s a woman.

Now the truth is always a defense and you don’t need proof what you’re saying is true when you say it. So they can do discovery.

quote:

---

A mother who broadcasts from her basement.

---

Nope. Not when you have over 4.5 million followers.

When you have that many followers you are a major news/editorial platform.

For contrast, MSNBC averaged only just over a million viewers during primetime in 2025 Q2.

I used to like her, but she's gone off the rails bigly.

Might shouldda stayed with the Daily Wire where they have more lawyers and executive advisors/editors to make sure you don't report wild-arse stuff you heard from your schizophrenic friend Ye and end up with your arse in a crack.

But then she wouldn't have been allowed to go full Anti-Semite, so...

quote:

---

This guy is who you all thought Lin Woods was with the Sandmann.

---

You said that you would openly call Lin Woods a pedo, and that he wouldn’t care. Well…

quote:

---

Stop getting your legal takes from Matlock or whatever nonsense TV shows you watch.

---

When Was the last time you were in federal court making an argument?

Your analysis of the application of facts and law is not correct

The plaintiff must show the statement was false -

The next step is whether the person made that statement either with malice or reckless disregard

quote:

---

I'd like to see some typical examples of foreign heads of state suing podcasters. Please link.

---

Probably because 10 years ago no one knew what a podcaster was.


It’s kind of funny seeing people play down podcasts all of a sudden. They get more views than actual news channels.

I’m just a mother with a little podcast. Give me a break.

I gotta imagine a post-op vag looks like someone threw a grenade behind a deli counter.