“We don’t have to lay out evidence in our letter. From a legal standpoint, it is enough to deny it and to point to the facts in the public domain that demonstrate this is false. And that is what the letter has done.”
Mon point c'est qu'il explique pourquoi la lettre ne contenait pas de preuves. En ce sens l'actual malice au sens de "reckless disregard for the truth" sera difficle à prouver.
During Episode 6, Owens made the following specific false and defamatory claim:
"I think a year from now, most of the world will be awakened to the fact that what I said one year ago is true. I believe that Emmanuel Macron is a homosexual man that was groomed from his youth. I believe the individual who groomed him is now his wife. I believe that his wife was born Jean-Michel Trogneux and transitioned in his early thirties, and I believe that the entire state is colluding to protect that secret. And like I said, I would stake my entire professional career on all of those points."
Falsity: Every major claim in the statement can be objectively disproven.
Harm: The claims are extremely damaging to the personal and professional reputation of Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron.
Actual malice: By asserting she would stake her career, Owens shows either knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Statement of fact vs. opinion: While she uses "I believe," the surrounding context presents these as factual assertions intended to be believed, not mere opinion.
Des élucubrations. Ce n'est pas ainsi que cela se passe et le seul fait que l'avocat des Macro, affirme que Owen les a diffamé ne constitue pas la diffamation.
“We don’t have to lay out evidence in our letter. From a legal standpoint, it is enough to deny it and to point to the facts in the public domain that demonstrate this is false. And that is what the letter has done.”
Effectivement, la plainte contient fort peu de citations littérales : il s’agit surtout de paraphrases.
La citation qui concerne Emmanuel Macron ne semble pas diffamatoire à son égard, même si elle l’est pour Brigitte Macron. Quant à l’actual malice au sens de “reckless disregard for the truth”, ça se discute..
During Episode 6, Owens made the following specific false and defamatory claim:
"I think a year from now, most of the world will be awakened to the fact that what I said one year ago is true. I believe that Emmanuel Macron is a homosexual man that was groomed from his youth. I believe the individual who groomed him is now his wife. I believe that his wife was born Jean-Michel Trogneux and transitioned in his early thirties, and I believe that the entire state is colluding to protect that secret. And like I said, I would stake my entire professional career on all of those points."
Non, pas en matière de diffamation, c'est un procès entre parties et l'enquête est le procès. Et en matière de diffamation, la charge de la preuve incombe au prévenu.
Voici une photo de Brigitte Trogneux en 1976 parue dans Faits & Documents n° 532 en 2024.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G1XQBcWXsAA13HC?format=jpg
F&D 532
https://ia601008.us.archive.org/29/items/f-d-532-web/F&D532_WEB.pdf#page=8
La mariée sur la photo était en classe avec Brigitte Trogneux.
https://ia601001.us.archive.org/27/items/l-affaire-madame_202509/L'Affaire%20Madame.pdf#page=104
En tant que témoin, Brigitte Trogneux a signé le registre de mariage.
À votre avis, pourquoi Candace Owens n’a-t-elle pas montré cette photo alors qu’elle a été mentionnée dans le livre Devenir Brigitte ?
Ecoutez ce que dit l'avocat des Macron sur les preuves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujs4cFJs8ow&t=1053s
“We don’t have to lay out evidence in our letter. From a legal standpoint, it is enough to deny it and to point to the facts in the public domain that demonstrate this is false. And that is what the letter has done.”
Oui, le lien est dans l'article.
Mon point c'est qu'il explique pourquoi la lettre ne contenait pas de preuves. En ce sens l'actual malice au sens de "reckless disregard for the truth" sera difficle à prouver.
Certes, mais la notion de preuve en droit est précisément définie, et l'instance n'en contient effectivement aucune.
https://courtconnect.courts.delaware.gov/cc/cconnect/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?backto=P&begin_date=&case_id=N25C-07-194&end_date=
https://clarelocke.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Complaint89.pdf
163.
During Episode 6, Owens made the following specific false and defamatory claim:
"I think a year from now, most of the world will be awakened to the fact that what I said one year ago is true. I believe that Emmanuel Macron is a homosexual man that was groomed from his youth. I believe the individual who groomed him is now his wife. I believe that his wife was born Jean-Michel Trogneux and transitioned in his early thirties, and I believe that the entire state is colluding to protect that secret. And like I said, I would stake my entire professional career on all of those points."
Overall Defamatory Elements
https://chatgpt.com/share/68cf0a89-8398-8000-99dc-72bdcb2e2871
Falsity: Every major claim in the statement can be objectively disproven.
Harm: The claims are extremely damaging to the personal and professional reputation of Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron.
Actual malice: By asserting she would stake her career, Owens shows either knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Statement of fact vs. opinion: While she uses "I believe," the surrounding context presents these as factual assertions intended to be believed, not mere opinion.
Des élucubrations. Ce n'est pas ainsi que cela se passe et le seul fait que l'avocat des Macro, affirme que Owen les a diffamé ne constitue pas la diffamation.
C’est une analyse par ChatGPT et, oui, ça se discute. Voyez les deux points de vue à https://chatgpt.com/share/68cf0a89-8398-8000-99dc-72bdcb2e2871
Ecoutez ce que dit l'avocat des Macron sur les preuves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujs4cFJs8ow&t=1053s
“We don’t have to lay out evidence in our letter. From a legal standpoint, it is enough to deny it and to point to the facts in the public domain that demonstrate this is false. And that is what the letter has done.”
Effectivement, la plainte contient fort peu de citations littérales : il s’agit surtout de paraphrases.
La citation qui concerne Emmanuel Macron ne semble pas diffamatoire à son égard, même si elle l’est pour Brigitte Macron. Quant à l’actual malice au sens de “reckless disregard for the truth”, ça se discute..
https://clarelocke.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Complaint89.pdf
163.
During Episode 6, Owens made the following specific false and defamatory claim:
"I think a year from now, most of the world will be awakened to the fact that what I said one year ago is true. I believe that Emmanuel Macron is a homosexual man that was groomed from his youth. I believe the individual who groomed him is now his wife. I believe that his wife was born Jean-Michel Trogneux and transitioned in his early thirties, and I believe that the entire state is colluding to protect that secret. And like I said, I would stake my entire professional career on all of those points."
en France, c’est une procédure inquisitoire et donc la justice, enquête à charge et à décharge, la charge de la preuve n’incombe, jamais au prévenu
Non, pas en matière de diffamation, c'est un procès entre parties et l'enquête est le procès. Et en matière de diffamation, la charge de la preuve incombe au prévenu.