Apparently the lawyer (s?) for French President Macron and his wife are a bit slow on the uptake about how one is to win a defamation lawsuit. For the uninitiated, when someone has access to the press, as the Macrons doubtless have, one must prove both that the accused knew that what she was saying was a lie, and that it was done with actual malice.
In this case, by saying they are going to provide "scientific evidence" that Madame Macron is female, what they've just done is to concede that (a) one could indeed have reasonable doubt about whether Macron was born female or not, and (b) hence Owens' mental state when making the claims is of no importance.
Chalk that one up to "time to refund those billable hours, counsel", and of course my hope and prayer, for the sake of any jury that might be seated, is that the evidence is a cheek swab and not some other evidence of being born female. "I did not need to see that.", that sort of thing.
Again, the better way for the Macrons to retaliate against Candace Owens would have been to present the results of a cheek swab, pictures of Madame Macron while pregnant, and the like and ask "what kind of idiot would, knowing that Brigitte Macron is a mother, make up such a story?".
4 comments:
I have no dog in the hunt, save the absolute ginormous amount of popcorn this story inspires me to purchase while watching the drama unfold.
But it's worth noting that Candace Owen is not the source of this story. It was the subject of an extensive investigative report, several pages in length, conducted by three FRENCH journalists. Owens just happened to read it and publicize it with a bull horn.
Obviously, being rich and famous as she is, the suit being filed against her is attempt to send a message, but she didn't make up the story. They did.
Fair enough. I'd still be tempted, were I among the Macrons, to publish some pregnancy pictures and mock all of those involved. But I guess a lot of cultures have lost the ability to use a feather and think that the (legal) sledgehammer is the only way to go.
I agree. They should've done that right after the story ran in France. Why drag this whole thing out? After all, even if she isn't a man, she was still a pedophile and should want as little attention as possible drawn to her past.
Well said. We could quibble over "it was legal" and whether it meant pedophilia, pederasty, or "just plain creepy", but I'm thankful that such behavior is at least supposed to mean someone leaves the teaching profession these days.
Post a Comment