Macrons Sue Candace Owens: Inside the Defamation Case

TL;DR

The Macrons filed a defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens in Delaware, alleging she spread conspiracy theories that France's first lady Brigitte was born a man, that the couple are related, and that they are CIA-controlled. On CNN, their lawyer claimed 'extensive evidence' but, when pressed by Jake Tapper for an example, offered only a birth certificate and the argument that the claims are implausible.

Transcript

All right, you guys. Happy Thursday. So, I  didn't know that it was a career goal of mine until it actually happened. But yesterday, I made  Jake Tapper of CNN say live on air, "I will be coming for this wig today regarding Breijgit  Mcronone." He actually said the statement,   "It's just too absurd and so hilarious." He  sat down to interview Mcro... Read More

Key Insights

• Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens in Delaware, alleging a 'relentless and unjustified smear campaign' tied to her 'Becoming Brigitte' series, which had gone international by the time of this episode.
• The lawsuit alleges Owens spread three conspiracy theories: that France's first lady could be a man, that the Macrons are related and committing incest, and that the couple is being controlled by the CIA.
• The Macrons' lawyer arranged the lawsuit's rollout through elite media, tipping off the Financial Times and appearing on CNN with Jake Tapper, according to Owens, without first notifying her lawyer.
• When Tapper asked the Macrons' attorney for an example of the 'extensive evidence' disproving the claims, the lawyer cited a birth certificate and argued the allegations were 'inherently implausible' rather than producing documents.
• The legal argument advanced on air was that inherently implausible allegations require a higher evidentiary standard, so the burden falls on Owens to come forward with better proof of her claims.
• Owens responded to the filing by posting a screenshot on Instagram with the line 'I will be coming for this wig today. Stay tuned,' which Tapper then read aloud on CNN in a serious tone.
• The Macrons' lawyer made an emotional appeal on CNN, describing the couple as human beings whose private and social lives are materially harmed, calling the falsehoods 'a cancer' that metastasizes into media and their social circles.
• A viral clip of Jeffrey Epstein being asked specifically about Donald Trump, and whether minors were present when they were together, is referenced as a segment in the episode alongside the Macron coverage.

Questions & Answers

Q: Why are the Macrons suing Candace Owens?

Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens in Delaware, alleging she engaged in a 'relentless and unjustified smear campaign' against the couple. The complaint claims Owens spread the conspiracy theories that France's first lady could be a man, that the Macrons are related and committing incest, and that the couple is being controlled by the CIA. The suit is tied to her 'Becoming Brigitte' series, which had gone international.

Q: What evidence did the Macrons' lawyer present on CNN?

On CNN with Jake Tapper, the Macrons' attorney claimed there was 'extensive evidence' in the complaint demonstrating that Brigitte was born a woman. But when Tapper asked for a specific example, the lawyer pointed to a birth certificate and argued the allegations were 'inherently implausible.' Owens says no documents were actually submitted to her side, characterizing the offering as a 'trust me, bro' assertion with no answer to basic yes-or-no questions.

Q: What did Candace Owens post in response to the lawsuit?

Owens responded by posting a screenshot of a news story about the lawsuit on her Instagram page with the caption 'I will be coming for this wig today. Stay tuned.' The line, which Owens says she wrote as a joke, was then read aloud on CNN by Jake Tapper in a serious, professional tone during his interview with the Macrons' lawyer, a moment Owens found entertaining.

Q: What legal standard did the Macrons' lawyer invoke?

The Macrons' attorney argued that in the American legal system, when someone makes an 'inherently implausible allegation,' the standard is higher, meaning the person making the claim must come forward with better evidence to support it. He asserted that Owens has none of that evidence and has only mocked, ridiculed, and repeated the claims rather than substantiating them with documentation.

Q: What emotional argument did the lawyer make about the Macrons?

The lawyer made an emotional plea, saying that while pundits routinely discuss the president and first lady on television, people forget the Macrons are human beings and a married couple with a private and social life. He said they feel the same hurt as anyone from defamatory statements, that it has a material impact, and that the falsehood is 'a cancer' that metastasizes into the media and the other circles they run in.

Q: What is the Epstein clip mentioned in the episode about?

The episode references a clip going viral of Jeffrey Epstein being asked specifically about Donald Trump, and whether there were minors around them when the two men were together. The description notes the clip appears around the 29:23 mark under the heading that Trump was named in the Epstein files. Owens says she will give her take on the clip, describing it as very interesting.

Q: What is Candace Owens' Gladiator analogy about?

Owens opens the show with a Gladiator film analogy, describing the movies as being about untouchable elites who rule from their boxes over the coliseum, calling for wars and keeping the public entertained so they don't notice surrounding corruption and demise. She argues an unexpected fighter emerges victorious, awakening the crowd to root for something beyond entertainment, which poses a natural threat to the political order. She believes society is in that moment now.

Q: How does Owens characterize the media rollout of the lawsuit?

Owens argues the lawsuit was organized as a public-relations strategy rather than a straightforward legal filing. She says the Macrons' side called up the Financial Times and other elite publications before informing her lawyer, and then arranged for their attorney to appear on CNN with Jake Tapper. She frames this as elites using friends in the media to smear her, contending that if the truth were on the Macrons' side they would defeat her in the court of public opinion.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The Macrons sued Candace Owens for defamation in Delaware, alleging a relentless smear campaign built on claims that Brigitte was born a man, that the couple are related, and that they are CIA-controlled. Owens frames the suit as an elite media strategy rather than a genuine legal case.

• On CNN, the Macrons' lawyer told Jake Tapper he had 'extensive evidence,' but when asked for a single example he offered a birth certificate and an implausibility argument. Owens says no documents were actually submitted to her, calling the evidence a 'trust me, bro' assertion.

• Owens opens with a Gladiator analogy about untouchable elites in their boxes ruling over a distracted public, arguing the broader system is rigged. The episode also teases a viral Epstein clip in which he is asked about Donald Trump and whether minors were present.