Brigitte Macron is a man?

US Attorney Robert Barnes discusses the Macron's lawsuit against Candace Owens. He brings up some interesting points, especially the idea that this lawsuit can be used to set a precedent for lawsuits against other podcasters - Joe Rogan, for instance. He also talks about Delaware, the laws and courts there. He covers the differences between US and France law and defamation in general. He goes over the complaint filed by the Macron's and a general discussion about it. He shares his views on France politics and the country. The discussion starts about 8:00 and ends at around 49:00. He thinks Candace is "cooked" and essentially thinks she's nuts and is libeling grifter. It was interesting to listen to his take on the whole thing.

 
I don't think Candace is 'cooked'. She's had legal advice all along. There are all kinds of maneuvers they can make and that Robert Barnes guy is a psycho. (Or not.)

I don't think he's right about his law interpretation. But I guess we'll see.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Laura. I didn't even finish watching, because he lost me when he said that Candace was wrong in claiming Brigitte's brother didn't exist, since he had appeared in court during the latest case. WRONG. So, he is doing exactly what he accuses Candace of doing: stating as facts things that are obviously false.

As for Delaware, Candace herself has talked about how the Macrons could have chosen it because of the Democrat biais and corruption. So I imagine her lawyers got that part covered as well.

But we'll see! I sure hope she can defend herself well and prevail. Sure, she sometimes makes small mistakes, but pretty much everything she has said IS what is known.
 
US Attorney Robert Barnes discusses the Macron's lawsuit against Candace Owens.
I see his tweets even though I don't follow him. He's an idiot. Candace basically eviscerated him with one tweet.

If you’re wondering why celebrities like Blake Lively file fictitious lawsuits as a mere PR strategy, look no further than the below take. He admits he hasn’t watched my series and therefore has no idea whether anything the Macrons are accusing me of is true. He also isn’t awaiting to read our response filing. Nevertheless he is CERTAIN I have a “0%” chance of winning. As an aside, any lawyer that tells a client they have a 100% chance of winning or losing is effectively a used car salesman. In a sane world, this take would automatically disbar you.

Oh and if it helps
@barnes_law
, virtually nothing they are accusing me of in the lawsuit is true. Not even the country of my citizenship.

 
It's not over, we're just changing levels.
Not to mention that DNA analysis may be required not in France but in the USA, this will become even more complicated with, in a new stage, in France, an obligation to investigate the case at the highest level, "dealing with "le droit" and no longer with "la loi".
In this new complaint, joined by 22 civil parties currently, the 2 lawyers are still relying on the "pressibus" file (Xavier Poussard). Finally, the DNA tests can be distorted and they therefore require an ultrasound of her uterus.
Court of Appeal, then of Cassation, ... "the opportunity for France to free itself from a major phase of its history to create something else that really meets the deep aspirations of the population".
Amen.

1 hour video with automatic translation
 
Just in—another rabbit hole—malevolence and weird-weird-weird stuff!

After Candice goes over Dan Bongino being "shaken to the core", whatever that means? :rolleyes: Which at the moment I give a 3 count raspberry, she goes over the case with what may be considered to be with the gov or France!

Eric Dupond Moretti the former Justus minister of France will be representing Macron in the case.

It is being called a "state issue" (like France is in trouble because of Candice Owens?)

And more weird family/sex scandals of the French. Cases which Moretti defended. His integration of children is said to be appalling.

Its weird; watch at your own risk:-)

Pretty grotesque, eh?

It's like I was saying on NewsReal a couple of shows back, when I mentioned the Outreau case, among others: we know there's a whole 'eco-system' of perversion in northern France because of a string of incest/pedophile scandals that came to light there, mainly in the late 90s.

Now extrapolate that outwards geographically, and realize that, instead of 'being uncovered and going away', it became stronger and bigger... to the point that some of its members are important figures in the national government (and probably all governments in the West).
 
I don't think Candace is 'cooked'. She's had legal advice all along. There are all kinds of maneuvers they can make and that Robert Barnes guy is a psycho. (Or not.)

I don't think he's right about his law interpretation. But I guess we'll see.
I was part of their Locals community (Viva and Barnes) for a while and left recently due to examples of psychopathic behaviour by some of it's members in support of Zionist Israel (these people were both Christians and Jews). It was truly sickening some of the opinions that these people expressed as well as some of the things they were prepared to do in support of Israel (and murdering Arabs).

In my opinion, Barnes is one of the best Constitutional lawers that the US has, however when it comes to Israel, it's like a switch get's flipped, and they can do no wrong.... ever (despite ALL the evidence to the contrary). This is why he is so anti-Candace. He's making a mistake in my opinion and is in the process of engaging in wishful thinking.

I believe there's been some SERIOUS, SERIOUS programming, possibly even hyperdimentional in origin, done in his youth. My guess would be about 14 years old. This is not a subject that Barnes would even consider thinking about, and there's probably quite a powerful block on him wanting to investigate how it all happened in the first place. That is why it's so effective.

Barnes has had (and continues to have) a very powerful, positive and close relationship with people Trump is close to. He also has a vast knowledge of the law as well as many people in the legal and political arena, which often overlap.

He is a "popularist" who always supports the 'little guy'. He is a person who works dilligently behind the scenes for people he believes in and supports (in this case Trump - who is also a "popularist", certainly not a true Republican, or they wouldn't be so keen to get rid of him). He has strong opinions and has influenced Trump, both with advice, and using something he calls "the court of public opinion".

Those in power actually listen to what the average person says and thinks. Barnes is not shy about criticising anyone (including Trump) as well as those in the administration and has often done so, often in a very volatile way. He doesn't care who they are. People listen to him because he knows what he's talking about and has the ability to express himself easily as well as back his opinions up with facts.

I can't remember exactly when, but I think recently there was an attempt on his life. This is a person of intense interest to STS (in my opinion). If he was 'one of them', then they wouldn't bother programming him as a child (4D sts), or attempting to poison him as an adult (3D sts? maybe).

So, not a psycho in my opinion, but definately behaves like one if Israel is mentioned in a negative way or has done something wrong. He's also not very good at looking at contemporary evil by alphabet agencies or elites.... which he just doesn't see, maybe doesn't like to think that evil can exist.
 
As for Viva, i've somewhat checked up on him over the years, and he was/is a big supporter of the Truckers, and not keen on the status que in Canada (then there is Gaza where he moves with the sand). As for Barnes, don't know him at all, and yet did listen to him above and then read his wiki spotlight, for what that is worth.

With law, they often speak on a certain level that one needs a decoder ring to follow, yet at one point, he did say something like he hoped Candace was successful as he was not keen on the M-plaintiffs (after gaslighting Candace and her social aims of hoping to be like Oprah Winfrey). It was the nuances of state law and libel (multiple terms) that he brought forth, and yet his depth of the French aspects of this mess seemed mighty shallow (he did differentiate between French and US courts); it just could not be so, he seemed to be saying. When it came to the issue at hand, although he cited where Candace lied as he understands it and points it out, it did not seem to be a steady argument.

Mostly, what he seemed to be advancing as a legal theory, was that this case might be used to break others when it comes to libel (again, multiple legal examples), setting presentence against many - the big future censor. Viva said he had his own theory, but he did not expand on it, or I missed it.

Eric Dupond Moretti the former Justus minister of France will be representing Macron in the case.

Very sic things in that video, and now Moretti is the M-plaintiffs lawyer (birds of a feather).

The PR factory on this will be huge, although still, I can't see it going to trial. However, if it starts to lean that way in earnest, though, counted on will be, a) a massive global media machine that will wash, rinse and repeat, and throw every slur against Candace as possible, and b) it will have near unlimited financing (and don't forget the interconnected intel agencies). Add in c), which might be the fear of the opposition exposing whole networks that have operated with immunity for decades, and d) the naked international scandal itself, like a global Epstein list of connected names, it will not be pretty nor just.

It's like I was saying on NewsReal a couple of shows back, when I mentioned the Outreau case, among others: we know there's a whole 'eco-system' of perversion in northern France because of a string of incest/pedophile scandals that came to light there, mainly in the late 90s.

Yes, you did indeed mention it, chilling. Candace might have been tuned in, or its strange that suddenly its connected through this Moretti.

Now extrapolate that outwards geographically, and realize that, instead of 'being uncovered and going away', it became stronger and bigger... to the point that some of its members are important figures in the national government (and probably all governments in the West).

Exactly.
 
The info in the video about the evil Eric Dupond Moretti is truly horrific. What I can't understand is why did the Macron boys chose him to defend them when his slimy underbelly is already exposed. They seem to be playing into Candice's hands.
 
The info in the video about the evil Eric Dupond Moretti is truly horrific. What I can't understand is why did the Macron boys chose him to defend them when his slimy underbelly is already exposed. They seem to be playing into Candice's hands.
I suspect that they chose him because they know he will do whatever it takes by 'bending the law', lying, fabricating evidence etc. in order to win a case, and he has no problem doing so, no concience. Plus, he's one of them, he's in the (psycho/pedophilia) club, their own boy! Reminds me of Vincent Bugliosi in the Manson case – he made sure that things were hidden, distorted and 'patched nicely' so that the big players didn't get caught.

Let's hope that the fact that the trial will be in the US, and not on their home turf like Amiens where they can bend the law in whichever way they like, will make a difference.
 
The info in the video about the evil Eric Dupond Moretti is truly horrific. What I can't understand is why did the Macron boys chose him to defend them when his slimy underbelly is already exposed. They seem to be playing into Candice's hands.
It's the m.o. of a pathocratic network as per Ponerology , being surrounded by normal people they'll always chose equally degenerate individuals on first chance , since otherwise they risk exposure. ( or further exposure in this case ) , but even if not, they cannot relate to normal people so this would be by default the choice made. (imo)
 
Back
Top Bottom