Becoming Brigitte: Candace Owens responds to a legal letter from the Macrons and outlines the media strategy behind Brigitte Macron's public image
Candace Owens presents the second installment of her Becoming Brigitte series, covering the media campaign constructed around Brigitte Macron's public image and responding in full to a legal letter received from the Macrons' US legal team.
Summary
Candace Owens hosts this solo episode of her Becoming Brigitte series, explaining that the release was delayed following sustained DDOS attacks on her website and the receipt of a second legal letter from Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron's legal team. She walks through the media and PR infrastructure she argues was used to construct and protect Brigitte Macron's public image — including the roles of PR fixer Mimi Marchand, billionaire Xavier Niel, and stylist Nicolas Ghesquière — and traces connections she presents as relevant to understanding how the story was managed. She then reads the Macrons' second legal letter in full, noting that it addresses peripheral claims such as her calling Emmanuel Macron a psychopath and her references to Satanism, but does not directly answer her central question of whether Brigitte Macron was born a biological male. Owens concludes by reaffirming her position and challenging the Macrons to file a lawsuit rather than continue sending letters.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Delay, DDOS Attacks, and the Second Legal Letter
Candace Owens: We delayed the second installment of the Becoming Brigitte series because after announcing that we were going to air the episode on our CandaceOwens.com website, we underwent extensive DDOS attacks all weekend — essentially our servers were being overwhelmed. Then yesterday evening we received a second strongly worded letter from the Élysée Palace, from Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron. This time it's a very brief letter, which we are going to show you in its entirety later on in the show. What can we say other than the Macrons sure are not behaving like a couple who have absolutely nothing to hide. So let's figure out why they are behaving the way that they are. Welcome back to our Becoming Brigitte series.
How the Official Narrative Was Constructed
A lot of people were wondering with the first installment — the entry to this series — why are the French people allowing this to happen? How could they allow all of these things to happen? And you're probably wondering how on earth Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron have pulled this off — essentially this mass suppression of the press, so that none of us were even aware of all of this weird stuff happening in their country. How is it that Emmanuel Macron, who was virtually unknown to the public a year before he came into power, managed to scuttle the campaign of François Fillon, the man who was a shoe-in essentially for the presidency? How did he do all of this?
Well, for English speakers it's a bit like the rise of Barack Obama. Sure, Barack Obama was a Senator and was therefore involved in politics to some degree, but his ascension into the presidency did in many ways come out of nowhere. Except Barack Obama was not married to someone who was more than two decades older than him. You may know that Macron — just to be very clear, and I will state this again and again — was just 14 years old when he appeared in a school play at his school called La Providence. Brigitte at that time was a teacher at the same school who ran a theater workshop. She was in fact 39 years old at this time, and allegedly married with three children. One of her children, Laurence, was the same age and therefore in school with Emmanuel Macron.
The story goes that she saw him perform in a play and was just swept away — eventually unwilling to resist her feelings for the much younger prince — so much so that she eventually divorced her husband and broke up her family because of this. Of course, this is objectively a very creepy story. So how on earth did they sell it to the French public? That's where we need to begin. The answer, of course, as always, is through a very intense propaganda campaign that is filled with lies and severe intentional misrepresentations.
As Xavier Poussard — that is the journalist who broke this incredible story — puts it in his forthcoming book, he wrote this:
"To sell this improbable story, intense propaganda was deployed across all media — television, radio, and the internet. Books praising Brigitte and Emmanuel and glossy magazine covers saturated the public space. The aim was to subliminally instill in the minds a storytelling designed by the cream of the Parisian specialists of public image. This pulpy narrative told the story of Emmanuel Macron, a precocious and virtuoso student at La Providence in Amiens. The press compared him to Mozart, who won over his teacher — a dynamic, beautiful, and charismatic woman."
So yeah, they sold this as a story of triumph over conformity — this age-defying love. Perhaps, as we now know, an early nod to the written works of Macron's favorite author, André Gide, who as we mentioned in a previous episode was a self-admitted pederast who raped Muslim boys and wrote about this openly. And despite this, his book would wind up in Emmanuel Macron's first presidential portrait. Incredibly creepy.
On the 14th of April 2016, when Paris Match magazine devoted its first cover to Brigitte, the readers were told that "one day in her heart everything secretly changes" — she attends Milan Kundera's play entitled Jacques et son Maître, in which one of the ninth graders, Emmanuel Macron, is the hero. "He's already got his eagle eye," they wrote — kind of honing in on Brigitte. That's what we're told.
The Official Legend and Its Contradictions
Now I'm going to tell you the official legend that was established about Brigitte Macron in these early days by the media. It is as follows.
First and foremost, they told the public that the age gap between them was that he was 17 — an outright lie — and that Brigitte at the time was 36 — also an outright lie. Now let's go through the timeline of Brigitte's prior life, which was asserted by this same media.
They tell us that in 1953, on April 13th 1953 — ironically the same date that the MK Ultra program came into existence — Brigitte Trogneux, that's the maiden name, Trogneux, was born in Amiens. She was the youngest daughter of a family of confectioners who prospered in northern France. Then they tell us that after a strict Catholic education with the Sacred Heart Sisters, in 1974 when she was 21 years old she married a man named André-Louis Auzière, becoming then Brigitte Auzière. Married to a bank executive, following in her husband's footsteps, Brigitte Auzière began a career as a press officer at the Chamber of Commerce in Lille.
Then they went on to have three children: firstborn Sébastien in 1975, a son; then they had Laurence, a daughter — that's the one who was the same age as Emmanuel Macron and attended school with him — allegedly in 1977; and then came Tiphaine. You will come to recognize that Tiphaine is really the only one of the children who speaks out and defends Brigitte Macron, which is quite interesting. They had her allegedly in 1984.
Then the story goes that after becoming this press officer and working at the Chamber of Commerce, she decided to switch to teaching at some point in the mid-1980s — first in Strasbourg as a literature teacher at the Lucie Berger Protestant College, then of course at La Providence, the Jesuit college back in her native Amiens, because she and Emmanuel Macron are from the same place. So in 1991 she went back there, and of course while she was there she fell head over heels in love with the brilliant student Emmanuel Macron.
Now this entire story was being painted absent any pictures. And so as the press was selling this, they tried to get readers to imagine that Brigitte was just irresistibly sexy and hot — like she was this sort of 1980s pinup doll, just unbelievably like a Claudia Schiffer type. This was the image they were trying to paint in people's heads: she's older now, but if you had seen her when Emmanuel Macron saw her, she was like a pinup. And she was wearing short skirts — they talked about how she used to wear skirts and how all the boys were just drooling over her, all these boys who happen to be going through puberty at the school, fantasizing about this hot Claudia Schiffer type teacher.
And of course the brilliant virtuoso Emmanuel Macron and she then began this sort of clandestine affair. Years later, in 2006, recognizing that she was hopelessly in love with Emmanuel Macron, she made a huge decision to break up her family by divorcing her husband André-Louis the banker and marrying her former student Macron just a year later in 2007. Again, that's the legend that was established by the media.
The PR Machine: Mimi Marchand and the Image Operation
Now, to control the public image of Brigitte, the couple brought in a woman known as Michèle Marchand — she goes by Mimi for short. That's the woman I'm showing you right here on the left-hand side, walking next to Brigitte. She is known as the popess of the celebrity press. You do not cross Mimi. I'm talking about this all week — PR firms, people at the top — she will break you down if she needs to. You can see all sorts of trials she's been involved in. She has been accused of using tactics of blackmail and coercion. We'll get into that in a little bit.
Her task was essentially to flood the public with these hyper-selected photos of the wannabe presidential couple looking airbrushed and fabulous — just sell this idea that nothing weird happened in the past. Mimi was able to enjoy essentially near-exclusivity on Brigitte's image through her photo agency, which is known as Best Image. You will find, as we get deeper in the series, that you yourself are going to fall down this hole and start looking for photos and trying to verify things about Brigitte's past, and you're going to see in the corner that a lot of these photos say Best Image. Yes, that is Mimi Marchand's photo image business. It means Mimi was in control of this image.
Xavier Niel, Bernard Arnault, and the Power Network
Now, as far as the conversations that were being had between Mimi and Brigitte, there was one person acting as an intermediary, and that person's name is Xavier Niel. He is a billionaire — one of the wealthiest men in France. I should mention that he is also the son-in-law of Bernard Arnault, the CEO and chairman of LVMH — yes, that LVMH, Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy. In January of last year, Bernard Arnault overtook Elon Musk to become the richest man in the world.
Bernard Arnault's children — two of them were actually taught by Brigitte in school. Later, Brigitte developed a close relationship with Arnault's eldest daughter, whom she didn't teach, Delphine, who would go on to become Brigitte's clothing provider through Louis Vuitton's artistic director and stylist. So to follow that: Bernard Arnault has a daughter, and she gets involved in styling and dressing Brigitte Macron, the first lady. She does this obviously through Louis Vuitton and taps their artistic director to be the stylist. That artistic director's name is Nicolas Ghesquière.
Now why am I telling you about that? Who cares what Brigitte is wearing? Well, you should just know, as another fun fact, that this man is the main promoter of transgenderism and androgyny in the fashion world. Not only has he — and this is directly according to Out magazine — been deliberately hiring trans models and choosing them to open for Louis Vuitton's fashion show, like when he picked a 23-year-old transgender individual named Crow Kaan to open for their 2018 show in which they premiered their spring-summer collection, but Ghesquière has also taken it upon himself to launch the careers of a number of transgender models throughout the fashion industry. One person named Teddy Quinlivan thanked Nicolas profusely — at the age of 23 he became a household name after being discovered by Nicolas Ghesquière at 21.
So this is just the person that's dressing Brigitte. I digress. Brigitte's stylist specializes in transgenderism in the fashion world as creative director for LVMH — coincidence, you could say. The point here is also to demonstrate the kind of power that surrounds Brigitte, because when we consider how it might be plausible for a story this big to have been intentionally covered up by the mainstream media, it's kind of important to know who is the surrounding cast and how powerful these people could be.
The other point is that Xavier Niel — going back to him, that's Bernard Arnault's son-in-law, who was the go-between between the wannabe presidential couple and Mimi Marchand, our pope of the press — Xavier Niel and Mimi met through a shared lawyer, because both of them have a bit of a checkered past. Xavier in the 1980s helped develop a chat service dedicated to cybersex, which became incredibly lucrative for him. He then became part owner of a chain of peep shows, and one of them was later found to be a front for a prostitution ring. In 2004 he was arrested on charges of aggravated pimping. I should be clear that those charges were later dismissed.
But I also want to quote Xavier Poussard's book here. He says:
"A lot has been written about Xavier Niel, the father of the Freebox and the two-euro cell phone subscription plan" — essentially, just to make it clear for English listeners, it's almost like a Verizon bundle; this is how he became extraordinarily wealthy — "today he is a full member of the global hyper-class, connected to all the Silicon Valley big shots and propelled by Henry Kravis to the board of directors of the powerful American investment fund KKR. However, the role of its storage service DL Free in hosting child pornography is still too little known, and Free has even been described by the Canadian Centre for Child Protective Services as the largest source of child sexual abuse images."
You can go down that line — you can look up what the Canadian child protection project Arachnid is and why they started going after this, and those connections to Xavier Niel. But that's not what we're here to talk about.
I'm here to tell you about how he met Mimi Marchand through a shared lawyer, because she was serving time. Mimi Marchand, after being accused of various things, had racked up a string of suspended prison sentences in the 1980s and spent two years behind bars awaiting trial over her involvement with her gangster boyfriend — who is identified in her biography as Hafed — though eventually she was not convicted. Then Xavier Niel gave her money to save Best Image. Then in 1998 she was handed another three-year suspended sentence over another former boyfriend and a drug dealing operation, and through that Xavier helped her out financially. Of course in 2024 he saved her photo agency again — Best Image — and in turn for him having saved Best Image or helped her out, I am sure that she looks after the images of him and his associates in the public.
Mimi Marchand's Fall from Grace and the Closer Magazine Bombshell
So just how central was this woman Mimi in creating this image of Brigitte to the public? This woman who was known to be a little bit of a gangster behind the scenes — you can look into her yourself. Mimi Marchand. In fact, I think the New York Times just did a takedown piece on her and all of her involvement.
Well, just over a year after Macron was inaugurated as president of France, Mimi had this picture of herself taken in the presidential office making a V for victory sign with her hands. Because they were indeed victorious in having fooled the public about Brigitte — that's what I would imagine that's all about.
But then something really interesting happened. Brigitte and Emmanuel, shortly after that photo was taken, made the decision to carefully pull away from Mimi Marchand, their PR fixer, because she was involved in another scandal. And it just seems to be a lot of oopsies around this couple.
Mimi also shares another friend with Brigitte — they have a mutual friend in a billionaire named Marc Ladreit de Lacharrière. Marc is so close to Brigitte Macron — and he enjoys being photographed out with Brigitte Macron — so close that they decided to attend the production of a show together, a show called Starmania. You're going, "Why do I remember Candace talking about Starmania on the last episode?" Oh, because that was the show they attended together, that was produced by Thomas Jolly, where Brigitte then handpicked Thomas Jolly to do the Olympics. So Marc Ladreit was with her at that premiere when they were like, "This is the right guy to throw on these Olympics" — which had obviously transgender individuals, drag queens, there was a lot going on that offends my Christian senses and I would call Satanic.
Anyway, you're probably wondering why Mimi's mutual friend with Brigitte caused a problem for the presidential couple, such that they suddenly said, "We've got to back away from Mimi." Well, Marc — that guy, Marc Ladreit — another billionaire, happens to have a really troubled son named Jérémy. Shortly after Mimi took that picture in the presidential office, it was revealed that Mimi did her friend Marc a solid by keeping Jérémy's name and face out of the press — because she runs the press like a press gangster, so to speak. Jérémy, his son, was the former manager of a children's entertainment company who was twice convicted — once in 2008 and once in 2015 — and you're never going to guess what it was for: child pornography cases.
And then again, beyond this, recently in 2024, the mother of his children summoned police to their place in Marrakesh out of fear after she went through his computer — and they have very young children, the ages at that time being three and one, I believe — after discovering even more images on his computers. Investigators collected 4,000 images of naked children being raped on his computer. For that he has gotten another slap on the wrist. What I was able to determine online — and obviously French is not my first language — is that he's been sentenced to just eight months, and that sentence has been suspended, meaning it won't happen until down the line. That's the last I could find on it. I'm happy to correct that if that information is wrong.
So that's three child pornography convictions for Jérémy, and Mimi helped cover up the one in 2015. Covering up Jérémy's tracks and that conviction was a bad look for the newly presidential couple, and so they began to pull away from her. But Mimi is one of these people — like we were talking about yesterday — these PR agents that you just don't cross. And she didn't like that. She didn't like that people were starting to say that she was on the out, that she was no longer allowed into the Élysée Palace.
Then a book was published in October 2018 called The Book of Mimi, and it became even more clear that she was persona non grata in the presidential inner circle and was no longer invited to attend the Thursday meetings at the Élysée. So what does a PR person do when they feel burned? They drop a bomb in the press. And it looks like she indeed dropped a bomb — an explosion in the press about Brigitte Macron — in the magazine called Closer.
Brigitte had somehow been spotted at the entrance to the American Hospital in Paris, reportedly for undergoing cosmetic surgery under general anesthesia, and the first lady was furious about this publication. She publicly condemned Closer magazine for what she called an invasion of her privacy. Understandable, if you're at the hospital getting some work done. Her reaction, though, seemed like an overreaction — especially to journalist Xavier Poussard. It just struck him as odd, because a year earlier another magazine called L'Express had similarly outed her for going under the knife with a doctor named Dr. Sydney Ohana, and yet she didn't care. She didn't face any consequences, and the doctor and L'Express did not face any public condemnation. Brigitte was not mad at them.
So Xavier is going: what particularly about this publication in Closer made her freak out? Made her go so far as to set a precedent — the first time a first lady came out and publicly condemned the press? So he began poring over that article in Closer, trying to understand: what did I miss? What's in here that set her off?
And he found it.
Dr. Patrick Bui and the Feminization Surgery Connection
You see, while Closer had not named the surgeon who worked on Brigitte, they did this sort of petty thing where they left a massive, undeniable clue as to who the surgeon was. In the magazine, they described the surgeon as a quote, "eminent and media-savvy plastic surgeon who would keenly quote Victor Hugo — his favorite expression: 'Woman's flesh, ideal clay.'" Well, there was only one surgeon who had been featured in the press with that quotation, just a year earlier in Paris Match. His name was Dr. Patrick Bui — a plastic surgeon at the American Hospital in Paris, who in that Paris Match feature, entitled "Operation Young Again," replied to a question he was asked and said, "Woman's flesh, ideal clay."
Now why was this a bombshell in Closer — or rather a threat, a shot fired, if you will — to Brigitte Macron? Because in France, Patrick Bui is known most eminently for one thing: feminization surgery. He is the king of transgender facial feminization surgery — to soften the face features if you are a man trying to become a woman. And if there was any question remaining in anyone's minds as to whether he was indeed being used by Brigitte Macron, they needed to just wait until 2023. Because here's a picture of them together. Years later, in 2023, Emmanuel Macron decided to award Dr. Patrick Bui with the French Legion of Honor — a high distinction in the French Republic, the equivalent of the Medal of Freedom in America.
We're going to pause there, because that is a lot of information for you to digest, to unpack, and to research. Again, we are at the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to this couple and the connections and the power that they have, and how they were able to execute this far in the public.
What we will show you in the next episode is how the storyline begins falling apart — how this perfectly curated idea of Brigitte's background, absent any pictures, started to unravel. People started to go, "Wait a second, something's not right here." And it sort of begins with just a couple of pictures that are released of Brigitte Macron in those years when she was allegedly a pinup doll — and she didn't look anything like a pinup doll. She wasn't wearing short skirts; she was wearing baggy suits. And no, it didn't seem like someone over whom teenagers would be falling over themselves. People began to go: wait a second, are we just being sold a bunch of lies? And the answer, of course, is going to be yes.
Reading the Second Legal Letter from the Macrons
But first I want to get into showing you the letter that we received yesterday from Brigitte Macron and Emmanuel Macron.
All right, so the letter — crazy. I don't even know what to say. Obviously, for those of you who have not checked out the past episodes, you should. We will put them all together here on YouTube so that you can see it as a series of everything that's happened with Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron.
They sent us a letter, and essentially in that letter they did not address the substance of the claim that Brigitte Macron was born a man, but began to pick apart at other things that we had said and claimed this could be defamation because of this, this could be defamation because of that. We responded to them and basically said: look, we're not in the business of lying. I believe — Candace believes — that Brigitte Macron was born a biological male. We're not doing this for fun, obviously. And we're going to give you an opportunity to answer these questions — yes or no, very simple questions. We went over in the first episode questions like: did the first lady Brigitte Macron give birth to three children, yes or no? Was she born a biological male? Who is the person in this photo? Et cetera. And they did not answer us at all. We gave them, I think, more than ten days to respond before we launched the first installment of our series.
Then after the first installment — the introductory episode — last night we received an email from their legal team here in the United States. And I kid you not, I'm just going to read it to you in its entirety, because I've realized that they're trying to assert the claim that we picked and chose what we read to you. It was a 100-page letter. We didn't have three hours. And none of it answered our question as to whether or not Brigitte Macron was a man. We get that you're trying to pretend that mistakes about colorization of photos could amount to defamation. We know your game.
So let's jump into this letter. You can see it starts with letting us know that this is confidential — "not for publication or attribution." I really fail at that. Then they say it's regarding "false and defamatory statements about President Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron." They say: "We write again on behalf of our clients, President and Mrs. Macron." That's the last time I think you're going to hear really about Brigitte.
"We were disappointed in your January 16th, 2025 response to our December 3rd, 2024 letter. Despite our warnings and with full knowledge of their falsity, your client has doubled down on her defamatory allegations and indeed expanded the scope of her defamation. We had wanted to spare Miss Owens the embarrassment of openly confronting her false claims, but instead of doing the right and responsible thing, it seems she relishes in the public attention."
So basically they wrote me the first legal threat to spare me. They were just like, "We want to help you and let you know that some things you said were wrong, and so this letter is a warning to you." How kind of this couple — truly — to find this in their heart.
Let's keep reading. "Since our letter, Miss Owens has published several posts and an additional broadcast podcast, further defaming the Macrons. To the extent that the Macrons' claims suffered from any of the legal deficiencies you pointed out in your letter — which they did not — Miss Owens has eliminated any doubts about such claims and strengthened them with her new statements. Most egregiously, on January 13th, 2025, Miss Owens falsely implied that the Macrons were responsible for the death of a journalist investigating them."
Let's pause there, because you guys watched the first episode — they're just lying here. I literally told you that every journalist who tries to touch this story, something happens to them. And it is a fact that Isabelle Fera was working on the story, had messaged — according to her friends — saying that she had a bombshell about Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte. The French press has reported on this. And then she was found dead, floating in a river — or a pond, whatever it was. The public said that she had drowned. Her friends said that she was not suicidal. The press said that she had maybe taken some pills. The point is, nowhere in the first episode did we say that Brigitte Macron and Emmanuel Macron assassinated this girl. We told you what happened.
Let's keep reading. "That incendiary implication is factually false, offensive, and incredibly damaging. Miss Owens repeated this false claim on January 31st, 2025, and bolstered the implication" — because they're not saying I said it, they're saying I implied it — "by stating that she" — meaning me — "upped her security after getting the letter from the Macrons, and because of things that we know about their network and things that are happening."
Like I said, every journalist who tries to get this out — yes, that is not a lie, that is the truth. We have upped our security. And we were responding to people in the chat saying, "Get yourself some good security." Of course, when you have people walking around your property and you have young children and you understand the extent of the stakes involved in this, upping your security is my right. You don't get to tell me that I can't tell the public the truth about that.
Let's keep reading to see what they're upset about. "In another outright lie, Miss Owens has repeatedly stated that the Macrons admitted Mrs. Macron statutorily raped President Macron in our December 3rd letter. That is a complete fabrication, as no such admission was made within our December 3rd letter or anywhere else."
No. To the contrary — we showed exactly what you said, where you admitted that Emmanuel Macron was 15 and you admitted that Brigitte was 39. And we said to the public: that is therefore an admission that it is statutory rape, because the laws at that time stated that there could be no consent if the adult had authority over the child. Given the fact that that was a teacher and Emmanuel Macron was 15 years old and not of the age of consent, that would constitute statutory rape. So we didn't say that you wrote that this is statutory rape — we said that you admitted to it, whether knowingly or not, by saying what I believe to be the first time asserting in writing that their ages were 39 and 15. And to be clear, we are asserting that their ages were actually in fact 39 and 14, because 14 years old was undeniably the age at which Emmanuel Macron participated in that play.
Let's keep reading. "Your client's recklessness in making these false and damaging assertions is staggering." It goes on: "You spend most of your letter discussing actual malice, but the well-documented evidence of actual malice here is overwhelming, and your client has only added to that record with her public statements after receiving our letter. As we laid out in our December 3rd, 2024 letter, Miss Owens relies on facially unreliable sources to perpetuate an inherently improbable conspiracy theory, despite the evidence refuting its truth. Miss Owens claims she's a journalist but repeatedly disregards journalistic standards in her reporting. She also continues to profit from these lies" — blocking out a business name — "and even recently stated that she would start reselling the 'Man of the Year' T-shirt to mock Mrs. Macron. And just as Miss Owens claims that she does not have to credit the Macrons, a court similarly will not be obligated to credit her claims in the face of overwhelming evidence disproving them."
So they're saying literally a lot of nothing here, other than it's an improbable conspiracy theory. All they have to do is write: "Brigitte Macron was born a biological female — we are telling you that is a fact." They won't do that. "Brigitte Macron gave birth to three children. Their names are Laurence, Sébastien, and Tiphaine. We are asserting that as a fact. Please correct the record." In our letter to them, we said we are happy to correct the record. We are happy to tell the truth. We even offered to fly to France to conduct the interview so that Brigitte could respond on record herself. We said: any time, any date — we gave them until, I think, March something — we will get on a plane, we will fly to you, because we don't want to lie about this. And we're asking you to answer these very simple questions. And if you don't want me to come and you don't want to invite me into the Élysée Palace, then please just answer these 21 questions so that we can include it in our reporting. They are declining to do so and instead saying it's an improbable conspiracy theory. That's it. That's what they're saying.
Let's keep going, because the letter's almost over. "Since receiving our letter, Miss Owens has supplied us with even more evidence of her reckless disregard of the truth, actual malice, and intent to further injure the Macrons. Owens received overwhelming written notice of the evidence contradicting her claims in our December 3rd, 2024 letter, and yet she continues to double down and expand her lies. She has refused to retract any of the defamatory claims outlined in our letter. Miss Owens also quoted from portions of our letter but refused to present her audience with much of the substantive evidence refuting her claims. All of this is a blatantly obvious attempt to further defame and injure the Macrons and hide the truth from the audience she has repeatedly lied to about these issues."
So essentially what they are saying is: we sent you a 100-page letter, and we went over everything that could potentially be defamatory — like I said to you, ignoring the substance: is Brigitte a man, yes or no? A biological male, yes or no? Was she born a biological male, yes or no? And starting to nitpick colorizations of photos. They're actually going to list the two things again, so I don't need to be redundant here. They're going to list parts of the letter that were in their initial letter that we did not present to the public — which is why we're showing you this entire letter, because it's ridiculous. You're going to see exactly their pattern of not addressing the substance and always going to nitpick things that they say are defamatory.
Let's keep going with this letter. "Miss Owens mistakenly believes that her false statements about the Macrons are protected by her freedom of speech and religion, or at least thinks that it will be useful to her cause to throw those terms around. Defamation is not entitled to First Amendment protection because" — and then they list a lawsuit, some jurisprudence there — "'there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.' Thus, Miss Owens cannot publish" — here it comes — "an accusation that she knows has no evidence behind it as a fact to fit her desired storyline and then cloak herself in the First Amendment."
"A defamation claim premised in part" — here we go — "on Miss Owens's false claims that the Macrons are involved with a satanic cult does not implicate any religious belief where no such group even exists."
So they're saying here — and this idea, guilty as charged — they did a whole segment in their first letter about me speaking about Satanic and cults, implying that they were in a satanic cult, and they're saying that that is defamation. To talk about Satan, to talk about a satanic cult, is a form of defamation, and they're asking me to correct the record. I'm saying I'm not doing that. Because as a Christian, I know that satanic cults do actually exist. And for them to allege that I said that they couldn't exist — that they don't exist — is completely insane and a violation of my right to practice my religion. So I'm going to hold the line on that. I'm going to hold the line on speaking about my viewpoint — and the viewpoint shared by many — that the Olympic ceremony was Satanic. That is even something the main participant, Barbara Butch — a lesbian who was at the center of that — laughed about in the New Testament reference on her Instagram story and then pulled it down. You don't get the right to tell me that you're going to sue me for defamation because I'm talking about Satanism in a context that makes you uncomfortable, since you handpicked Thomas Jolly to put on this performance. My answer is no.
Let's keep reading and get to the other point. "Likewise, the remaining false claims made by Miss Owens are not based on her religious beliefs — just because she uses religious rhetoric to gain followers." Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Every Mass, every Sunday, I'm just trying to gain followers.
"Your equally ridiculous explanation to excuse Miss Owens's false statements from legal liability — that the statements are supposedly rhetorical hyperbole — also fails."
So my lawyer wrote back to them because they said another defamatory claim was me saying Emmanuel Macron is a psycho, and they're alleging that that is defamation. Again, none of this is about the substance of the claim that Brigitte is a man. But we're going to give you what their response is to that.
"First, if Miss Owens sincerely believes what she says — which she repeatedly claims — the statements are not rhetorical hyperbole. Statements that consist of rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet, or loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language are protected because they cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual. Miss Owens cannot simultaneously take the position that she believes the truth of her defamatory assertions and that those statements are exaggerations that no reasonable person would take seriously as statements of reported fact. If anything, this nonsensical argument in your letter only further demonstrates that Miss Owens deliberately distorts the truth for shock value to our audience — a further admission of her malice and financial incentive to defame the Macrons."
"Moreover, the context of her statements flatly disproves any notion that Miss Owens was not seriously maintaining an assertion of actual fact. To the contrary, Miss Owens repeatedly asserts that she is providing facts and recently noted a trove of evidence of her false claims. Miss Owens stated this clearly and eliminated any doubt that she was engaging in rhetorical hyperbole when she claimed on January 10th, 2024, that she is exposing what she deems to be the truth. Previously she made the defamatory assertion that President Macron is a psychopath while citing research supposedly supporting her allegation, and claims that Mrs. Macron's purported sexual abuse of President Macron turned him into a psychopath. With her claiming to expose the truth that is supported by research, no reasonable listener could possibly believe that Miss Owens was engaging in rhetorical hyperbole not meant to be taken seriously."
So I'm showing you this full letter because it's important for you to understand: this is the exact strategy that they have gone after reporters in France. When you see suddenly the mainstream media go, "She won a defamation claim" — it's never about whether or not Brigitte Macron is a man. She's never won that, ever. It's always about: this person identified the wrong person in the photo; she's saying that Emmanuel Macron was a psychopath — does she have the credentials, is she able as a non-PhD in psychiatry to assert that he's a psychopath? I'm going to go to court and find out. And then when they win and they get a civil harassment charge, their media — who I just explained to you in this episode how they control that media — rushes to print that she won a defamation suit. Have you heard them, once throughout this entire letter, simply assert that Brigitte Macron was in fact born a female? Have you heard them assert that the current first lady did not transition? No. It's petty little claims.
And this is just the end of the letter here — I'm not hiding anything from you. Let's keep going. "Your claim that the Macrons have not been damaged by your client's false statements is further belied by the second sentence of your January 16th letter. In your words, 'Candace is an international sensation'" — thank you, lawyer, thank you, he's so kind — "'her false claims have reached an international audience. The views, the likes, the comments, the downloads, the shares of her false statements provide conclusive proof that Miss Owens's fabrications are believed and repeated. It is self-evident that Miss Owens's proliferation of these false claims has resulted in impairment of reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, mental anguish, and suffering.'"
So much suffering, ladies and gentlemen, that they won't just simply answer the basic question that we are asking. Are you, Brigitte Macron — were you, Brigitte Macron — born a biological female? Circle yes or no. Please stop with these letters.
Anyway, it wraps up with them demanding this rather bizarre demand: "Lastly, your letter did not acknowledge our legal hold demand. For your convenience, we repeat it here. Till these issues are resolved, please ensure that your principals and all of your sources are preserving and retaining emails and text messages, audio-visual recordings."
Yeah, okay. It's all here on YouTube. Like, what do you think we're hiding? We've already asserted what we think. I've said it a thousand times: I believe Brigitte Macron was born a biological male and then transitioned into a female. That is my belief. I don't know how many times I could say it. What do you think you're going to find in my messages? What's your smoking gun here? You've got it. We're acknowledging it publicly. We will keep all of our YouTube files, all the video files, our text messages, our logs, our tweets — so you can show that I meant what I said. Then you can explain why it is you can't just answer the questions.
Again, this is just an intimidation tactic. They obviously have not answered any of our questions to put an end to this — which completely removes them from this claim that they're being so mentally anguished. But they can't just simply assert the truth. Dancing around things that nobody cares about — nobody cares that she called Emmanuel Macron a psycho. That hurts, but he didn't care obviously when the Algerian press referred to him as a homosexual psychopath. They weren't sued. It's coming after Candace now. A lot of people have asserted that Emmanuel Macron is a psychopath and have not been sued. But he wants us to know he's really serious. He's coming to Tennessee, I think. Do it. Stop wasting time with these letters. Go file the lawsuit. The entire world wants to know the answer to the question, and I believe I already know the answer to the question.
Like I said, we are peeling back the layers of this onion very slowly, helping people to understand who is in your circle, how you were able to pull this off, how you were able to gaslight the entire world, what you're doing right now. Because this is what you do. We're going to reveal your legal strategy of not addressing the elephant in the room as you complain about things around it. "Oh gosh, she said psycho — she said he's a psycho! How could she say that? He's so hurt, he's anguished." You're pathetic, Emmanuel. You're absolutely pathetic. This letter is pathetic. So when you send me back a letter and quote me saying it's pathetic, just know I'm going to stand by that too.
I believe in Satanism — I don't think it's a figment of anybody's imagination, first and foremost. So good luck with that in American court, especially in the South where people still have faith. And good luck trying to prove that you're not a psycho when a ton of people have reported in the press that you are psychopathic and that they saw that during COVID. Tons of people wrote about that, about your mental condition. And you will never, ever, ever get me to transform my opinion that you were groomed by the person you eventually married in 2007.
Brigitte Macron — I believe she's a man. How many more times can I say it? How many more ways can I say it? Should I say it in French? Should I learn a little bit of French to say it in another way? This is just getting ridiculous. The entire public is now paying attention, Emmanuel and Brigitte. And I know you're staying up late to watch this at the Élysée Palace, probably all in a room, probably standing next to your next PR agent now that you've sunk Mimi because things were becoming apparent about her history.
I know that you're worried about this — not because of somebody calling you a psycho; how thin-skinned could a G7 leader get? — but you're worried about the substance. And we're going to get to the substance, and the entire world is going to watch us do it.
So I conclude this, Mr. and Mr. Macron, by thanking you for promoting this series in the only way that you know how — by crying like little babies publicly and thinking that I'm going to keep this private or secret. I believe in radical transparency. I tell my followers everything, because I view them as friends. I don't even view them as fans. I view them as people who, like me, are concerned citizens who have a right to know who the hell is running our countries. It's that simple. And I'm very concerned about who is running your country. Very concerned about it. I'm very concerned about their ties to the American media, and I'm very concerned that most people in the world are just hearing about this story, which is demented. And it gets more demented every episode. So we're not going to stop.
And whoever it is behind the DDOS attacks — you're not going to be able to stop this. We are aware that everything that we do carries tremendous risk, but we feel that it is necessary risk to protect children. And that's what this is about at the end of the day — protecting children from people that we believe are predatory. I believe that Brigitte Macron was a predator. Make no mistake. I believe she is a predator. I believe she's manipulating the press and manipulating the courtrooms. It's predatory — manipulating journalists, trying to shut down speech. All of it's predatory. So that is our conclusion. Thank you so much for tuning in to episode one.