I ran across this amusing video from right-wing nutjob and conspiracy theorist Candace Owens:
You have to admire the confidence with which she says the most idiotic things.
Here’s a sample where she’s talking about the moon landings (at 21:50 in the video):
…Bill Maher made fun of me for this, like, a little tweet that I said that, I don’t know, the moon landing just seems weird and whenever the media like, tries to make you feel like you’re stupid, that’s usually for me like, the first breadcrumb that, like, you’re on to something, because they’re, that’s what they are trained to do. They’re trained to sit here and tell you “You’re ridiculous, you don’t believe this.”
But then I decided to read this document, it was 119 pages, and I know there’s a book, too, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, and he just broke down the science in a way that was very digestible so I didn’t have a non-expert problem. So there’s a basic thing that you guys can do if you’re, like, somebody who’s like, “It had to have happened, the moon landing,” um, what you can do is look up, uh — I’m calling this the firmament, but it’s the, um, uh, what is the, uh, belt the, uh, 200 miles out, you hit the Van Allen belt.
Okay, so there’s a Van Allen belt. So we have never gone beyond that belt, right? There’s been no human that’s gone beond belt since the moon landings, allegedly. And not even Elon Musk when they go out to space they have to stay like, there is a space station, but like once you get 200 miles out you hit the Van Allen belt which has an incredible amount of radiation. NASA has said, like, in order for us to get through it we’d have to have cement blocks around someone.
So I want you to just Google, if you’re watching this, the temperature of the Van Allen belt. Okay? Just Google that, and you’re going to get something like, at the lowest points in the Van Allen belt it’s, I think, 3,000 Kelvin and at the highest points it’s like 30,000 Kelvin and then I want you to Google what material the shuttle was made out of, and then I want you to Google at what temperature that would just burn and you’re just going to laugh out loud. This literally doesn’t make sense, that an aluminum alloy could have gone through the Van Allen belt for an hour and a half or 59 minutes. It just couldn’t have happened, literally can’t happen, there’s no explanation for it. They just don’t even talk about it, they don’t like talking about the Van Allen belt because that part makes entirely no sense…
Sorry, Candace, but you definitely have a “non-expert problem”.
For petrushka’s enjoyment, let’s also run through the conspiracy theory regarding Trump’s birthday letter to Epstein – the theory that the letter is not real, not physical, Epstein never received a letter from Trump, WSJ is lying. In such a case, what about all the others who have admitted to have participated in the little book of birthday letters to Epstein? If Trump’s part in it is a lie, then the third-party references should also be a lie. This is quite a significant web of lies that the reputable newspaper would have to organise with a number of high-profile individuals whose reputations in turn are on the line. This conspiracy would be for the sake of what? To play a prank to the president of USA? Specifically, a prank with the contents, “Hey, we all wrote letters to the pedo, and so did he…” and see how he reacts?
And how did Trump react? He sued for defamation. It is part of the WSJ article that WSJ knew this was coming. WSJ had talked this through with Trump before publishing. So, to make the conspiracy theory palatable, Trump should also be part of the conspiracy. WSJ and Trump should have negotiated together along the lines of “Let’s put out an article that you wrote a birthday letter to Epstein. And then you sue us for defamation, to make it look like you are really upset. Wouldn’t that be a great idea?”
Again, such a conspiracy needs to have a purpose, for example to give the media at large something to chew on for a week or two, to distract from something else more grave. What else would that be? The thing is that Trump has always reacted very inflamed whenever Epstein comes up. He does not want Epstein brought up, “Are you still talking about that creep?” His reaction to the WSJ revelation has been a genuinely insane meltdown. Going by his postings, he is not enjoying his time. Does not look like he is happy for having successfully diverted the media to talk about his relationship with Epstein instead of something else that he wants to hide.
Of course, there is also the question of where the little book of letters is now. Probably with the FBI among other Epstein files. Trump is the government right now, so he can destroy all Epstein files, and his inflamed reactions on the topic make it likely that he is already in the process of destroying everything. Should this tip the scales against WSJ, against publishing Trump’s letter? Does this improve the chances of Trump’s defamation charges? Note that Trump is so out of his mind that he is handling the Epstein matters with ridiculous levels of incompetence – even the “raw video” of Epstein’s cell was transparently tampered with. All of his destructive efforts are leaving lots of traces.
WSJ published the alleged contents of the letter. Considering all the reputations involved, the corroboration of it cannot be flimsy, and considering only the part that they published, Trump already has no chance in hell when it comes to facts. What Trump can do is to take WSJ’s access away to government press conferences. This could make WSJ bend, but Murdoch’s empire is much bigger than this. I think Murdoch is ready to turn even Fox News against Trump. Will Trump take Fox News access away too? Is this going to convince petrushka that Trump is a pure innocent boy and journalists are the crooks? I guess so 😀
Edit: Note that the publishing of the birthday letter in WSJ is already an instance of mixing genres in Murdoch’s empire. For tabloid material (which is what sleazy pedo allegations are), Murdoch has New York Post. But he published it in WSJ, a highly reputable not-too-political business newspaper mainly concerned with stock market updates. So I’d say that the messenger is a strong part of the message here.
French president sues Candace Owens over claims his wife is a man
I noticed that Owen’s has not backed down. The standard here is not the truth, but whether the defendant knows for certain she is lying. Celebrities have a steep hill to climb.
I think also, for a public official to prevail, there must be damages. And proof that the statement is false. There is some catch 22 here, because saying someone is trans is not in the same category as saying they have broken a law. It is an assertion that may be true or untrue, but not in itself defaming.
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64003096/
A court has already ruled that this kind of claim cannot be adjudicated as an invasion of privacy, so now the Macrons must assert that there is something immoral or illegal about being trans.
Saying that someone broke the law is not a necessary element in defamation. Defamation is all about damaging someone’s reputation. For example, if someone’s reputation hangs on being a long-serving convict, then saying that he did *not* break the law could be defamation. Another example: In E.Jean Carroll’s case, if you say Trump did *not* rape her, that’s defamation.
You keep demonstrating that you know nothing about any law whatsoever. You are wilfully and maliciously spreading disinformation and not a single fact. Next: Show that you can still sink deeper.
A lawyer of the Epstein’s victims says that Epstein’s estate has the little birthday book. Fair chances that the public will see it. This is at least something.
Epstein ‘birthday book’: Victims’ lawyer calls on Congress to subpoena estate
How is the Macrons’ reputation being damaged?
petrushka:
From the complaint:
petrushka:
No, the criterion is whether
“Reckless disregard” clearly applies here.
Most of this thread is a clear explication of reputations on the line. Are you really this stupid or are you now playing stupid so as to not appear smarter than Trump your orange God-King?
Edit: Trump went witness-tampering, baiting Ghislaine Maxwell with a pardon (or release on any other terms). Are you getting ever prouder of your president? If colewd were still here, he would continue to demand evidence – from everyone else except from Trump the perp. And should we also bring up that Obama did a treason “sedatiously”? Yup, Trump’s brain power totally checks out.
John Iadarola of The Damage Report has picked Candace Owens for his “Garbage Person of the Week”.
I have nothing particularly good to say about Owen’s.
My comments are about the chances of a celebrity politician prevailing in a defamation lawsuit. I invoke the Streisand Effect.
I had no curiosity about this until the lawsuit.
It would be ridiculously easy to produce school records or childhood photos. With the courts involved, it may be necessary.
My first thought was Oscar Wilde. Do not go to court if you can win outside the court.
In France a similar defamation case (exact same, really, except Owens adds more looney details that will prove her malice even easier) has already been judged in favour of Macrons. But nevermind. Be excited how this one may turn out.
petrushka:
To succeed in court, the Macrons just have to show that
1) Owens’ claims are false;
2) they have damaged the Macrons’ reputation; and
3) she knows that they’re false or has shown “reckless disregard” of whether they are true or false.
Which of those criteria aren’t met, in your opinion?
petrushka:
It’s a tradeoff.
Cons:
1) Filing a lawsuit brings more attention to Owens’ claims.
2) More attention means more reputational damage for the Macrons.
3) More attention will probably increase Owens’ viewership.
Pros, if they win:
1) Owens gets slapped with damages.
2) If the damages are significant enough, Owens shuts up — unless she is as stupid as Donald Trump, who kept defaming E Jean Carroll and got sued a second time, costing him an additional $83 million.
3) Other nutjobs are deterred from repeating the false claims.
4) A court ruling is more persuasive than a simple denial.
Doing so in court will be much more effective. Outside of court, Owens and her nutjob followers would likely dismiss the evidence as fabricated or AI-generated, like the moronic Trump supporters who still believe that Obama’s birth certificate was forged. That’s harder to do that when the evidence is validated in court.
Also, filing a lawsuit signals confidence. A failure to sue could be interpreted as an admission that the claims are true and that the Macrons are afraid of this being revealed in court. I believe that’s why Trump filed his suit against the Wall Street Journal. For someone as litigious as Trump not to file suit would be tantamount to an admission that the WSJ story was true and that he did in fact write the birthday letter to Epstein. Indeed, I thought it was telling that Trump didn’t immediately file suit when Elon Musk claimed that he was in the Epstein files.
But go to court if a victory there is more likely and if the outcome would be better.
I’m still lurking here, but there are so many things in the air right now that I think will take months or years to resolve.
Quick note: the defamation suit is filed in Delaware, meaning US law applies.
While Truth is sufficient for the defense to win, it is not sufficient for the plaintiffs to win. To prove defamation, the defendant must have known the truth and lied about known facts.
I’m no lawyer, but evidence presented in court, but not previously known to the defendant, does not seem relevant.
I think Trump is banking on being dead before the shit really hits the fan.
petrushka:
Neither of those is necessary. I’ve already quoted the Supreme Court’s Sullivan decision, which held that a statement about a public official is defamatory if it was made
Trump could prevail if he showed that the WSJ was “reckless” in their reporting and that their claims were false, even if they didn’t know that the claims were false.
petrushka:
Trump is pressing the court to depose Rupert Murdoch soon (he’s 94), so discovery might at least begin relatively soon, though I don’t know how soon Trump’s own deposition would follow. I can imagine Trump’s team using the Murdoch deposition as a fishing expedition, with the option to withdraw the suit if they don’t come up with anything, before Trump is deposed. I can’t imagine that Trump would be willing to sit for a deposition, since he’s such a disaster under questioning.
What’s interesting is that Trump can unilaterally withdraw before discovery begins, but once Murdoch is deposed, Trump can only withdraw with the permission of the court or the agreement of the WSJ. I would love to see the WSJ refuse Trump’s motion to dismiss, thus forcing him to sit for a deposition.
A segment from The Bulwark on the Macron/Owens lawsuit.
Highlights:
1) Long before filing the suit, the Macrons sent evidence to Owens disproving her claims. She doubled down.
2) Joe Rogan actually believes her conspiracy theory.
3) Owens claims that the Trump administration and Trump himself called her personally, asking her to lay off the Macrons for the sake of peace in Ukraine, lol.
Owens being interviewed by her fellow nutjob, Tucker Carlson.
Some seriously synergistic dipshittery there.
Macron offered Trump peace in Ukraine for silence on wife’s gender – Owens
That claim is weird on so many levels.
keiths,
God, the comments. “I was a Dem for 30 years till I watched “Becoming Brigitte”.
Is this the same Candace Owens who claims the President of France is married to a trans who took over his dead sister’s identity?
J-Mac:
Yep, and the Macrons have filed a defamation lawsuit against her. We discussed it earlier in the thread, starting here.
Candace has found more evidence for her “theory”.
Owens is obviously rattled by the lawsuit and pissed that Trump isn’t sticking up for her. From her podcast:
A “foreign invader”, lol.
Candace needs to retake her 10th-grade civics class. The First Amendment constrains the government, not private citizens. The Macrons couldn’t violate her First Amendment rights even if they tried. Their defamation lawsuit isn’t a violation. If it were, then every defamation suit would be unconstitutional, though that apparently hasn’t occurred to Owens.
And it’s not as if she’s being prevented from speaking. She continues to yap about the Macrons on a daily basis, despite the lawsuit, and no one is stopping her. Even if the court rules against her, she can still keep yapping about them if she wants to. Just ask Donald Trump. He lost the first E Jean Carroll defamation suit, got slapped with $5 million in damages, and then immediately started defaming her again. No one stopped him. So she filed a second suit and won another $83 million. He is still free to defame her, and if he does, she is free to file yet another defamation suit and collect even more damages.
Candace can continue yapping all she wants. She just needs to be prepared to pay the price.
Bonus: She has a $300,000 bet with Piers Morgan that her claims about Brigitte are true.
Owens declaring the end of Trump as the leader of MAGA
Owens arguing with Bill Maher over the moon landings, with commentary by David Pakman
DOJ released the tapes from the interrogation between Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell. I have not listened to it yet, but I am putting it here as a bookmark and reminder to comment later.
Here’s an article about the interrogation tapes
The Independent: Ghislaine Maxwell rejects Prince Andrew claims and calls infamous picture ‘literally a fake’
I’m not putting much store on what Maxwell says.
There’s a theory that Epstein ran more of a rich boys’ club than a pedo ring, although the two are not mutually exclusive.
petrushka:
No one is. She has every incentive to lie and has already been rewarded for her “testimony” by being transferred to a posh prison where sex offenders are not supposed to be housed, according to Bureau of Prisons rules. She lied during her testimony (as the transcripts show). She was already known to be a liar, having been indicted for perjury at the time of her trial, and the only reason she wasn’t tried for it is because it wasn’t worth it. it would have required a second trial and a conviction wouldn’t have affected her sentence materially.
Then there are the circumstances of the interview itself. Normally, such an interview would be conducted by the prosecutor who had handled the case, since he or she would already know the case inside out. The DOJ fired the prosecutor, Maureen Comey, one week before the interview and gave no reason for it. Just a coincidence? No way. The guy who conducted the interview was the deputy attorney general, and that has never happened before. Ordinarily a career prosecutor would handle it. And the deputy attorney general happens to be Todd Blanche, who was Trump’s personal lawyer before being appointed.
Then there’s the timing of the interview. It happened immediately after a House committee announced that Maxwell was being subpoenaed. The DOJ was desperate to get to Maxwell before Congress did.
Then there’s the fact that the DOJ had issued a memo saying “nothing to see here, nothing to prosecute here” regarding the Epstein files, and no new evidence had come to light that would have justified interviewing Maxwell. Yet the DOJ did it anyway, and the excuse they gave was that they thought she might have information about further crimes and victims. It’s obviously bogus, because if that were the case, she would have been interviewed long before now.
Given all of the above, this is so obviously a coverup that you’d have to be a colewd not to see it. (What do you think, Bill? Coverup, or not?) The administration knows that everyone can see it’s a coverup, which tells you something important: whatever is in the files is so bad and so damaging to Trump that the administration would rather be seen doing a blatant coverup than let that information out.
The Maxwell interview was a Hail Mary move on the DOJ’s part, and they wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t already know what Maxwell was going to say. The whole thing was a sham, and only the chumpiest of MAGA chumps could be fooled by it.
Here’s some guy on the internet explaining how Ghislaine Maxwell is lying.
I listened to half of the interrogation audio. I found many grave inconsistencies in Ghislaine’s answers. The worst part for me though was that there were many tells that much was scripted or pre-agreed before recording started. And even on the record, Todd Blanche’s questions are so obviously leading-correcting to Maxwell, that I am surprised that nobody is pointing it out already.
Ghislaine whitewashes everyone: Trump (she knew Trump before Epstein and “always liked him. He was always a gentleman.”), Clinton (“never received a massage” despite a photo snatched by Epstein of Clinton receiving a massage at an airport between his Epstein flights), she even whitewashes Epstein (“The man I met and the man he became, I believe that there is a progression. In the 1990s I don’t think he was there” in terms of sex trafficking). And of course she whitewashes herself: She says she led a “separate life” from Epstein and at the same time she “managed everything, the staff, the properties” and was responsible for setting up cameras, but “I never installed any sort of inappropriate video surveillance” even though bedroom cameras are known evidence from the trials.
Then at many convenient spots she does not remember details and timepoints about herself, but she can easily tell at length to concoct conspiracies about others (such as Giuffre – redacted but recognisable – other victims, also victims who became enforcers, journalists, investigators and prosecutors) about many events where she was not present. And Todd Blanche lets her run amok with those wild accusations.
Ghislaine Maxwell also denies or starts out by denying many obvious known facts, such as
– Epstein’s photo/video collection of men+girls in compromising situations (Epstein is known to have walked around in his parties in his houses, on the airplane, and on the island with a camera in his hand, snatching pics of guests. Later she ends up saying that Epstein had “modelling shots” of “I do not know who some of those women were. He would photograph them” – so there was a photo collection after all),
– the client list (there indeed is no strictly *client* list because Epstein was bad at organising – but Maxwell was good at organising and the well-known Black Book is her contact list of names, phone numbers and addresses. Moreover, long before any list comes up, she voluntarily offers to list names of people Epstein associated with, and she does!),
– there was no blackmailing of anyone,
– there was no financial fraud
– the masseuses and masseurs were all professional.
Oh, and she “never saw any massage on the airplanes”, despite also “I saw people getting their feet and shoulders rubbed all the time” on the airplanes.
She is lying too much for her own safety, and Todd Blanche was there to help it along. If Trump is smart, he will not point to Ghislaine Maxwell and say, “I’m exonerated.” But Trump is an idiot and a much more obvious liar, crook and criminal, including trafficker of girls, himself.
An interesting article in Lawyer Monthly, focusing on the legal aspects of the Macron v Owens lawsuit:
Candace Owens, Brigitte Macron, and the Weirdest Defamation Case of 2025
Candace’s latest batshit claim is that the military controls the country and that they instructed Trump to call her and ask her to stop talking about Brigitte Macron:
Link
“ but an appeals court later acquitted them, holding that their wild speculations didn’t technically meet the French legal definition of defamation. ”
Decisions often hinge on technicalities. The burden of proof for defaming a celebrity in the US is quite high.
As you helpfully clarified earlier in this thread, you do not know what defamation is and you do not care about truth and evidence.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/07/10/french-court-clears-defendants-in-french-first-lady-brigitte-macron-s-gender-rumours-trial_6743245_7.html
At the time Candace Owens went on her rampage, she knew how things stood and she knew the evidence in the case – she kept citing it. In France the first conspiratorialists can play the fool on appeal (and more appeals are available), but Candace Owens cannot.
Erik:
As the Lawyer Monthly article said:
For anyone who doesn’t read the article, here are the criteria for defamation under Delaware law, where this suit was filed. The Macrons have to show that Owens
1. Made a defamatory statement;
2. About the plaintiff;
3. Published to a third party; and
4. Understood by a reasonable person as defamatory.
Since they are public figures, they also have to prove
5. Falsity: the statements are factually untrue.
6. Actual malice: the defendant knew they were false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
As the article notes, the first five criteria are a slam dunk for the Macrons. The only hope Owens has is that the court will find that she doesn’t fit criterion #6.
keiths,
That is, she has to plead stupidity. Which might not be so hard… reminiscent of “Trump doesn’t lie”.
Allan Miller,
Hi Allan
Just saw this on X. Any thoughts?
https://x.com/RachelA1892/status/1961140952229200306
How would you suggest achieving 5 and 6, and why hasn’t this been done already?
If the proof of falsity is already published, can you provide a link?
Childhood photos, school yearbooks, lab tests….
If any of these are available, I haven’t seen any reference to them. Assuming they have been made available, you have to deal with point six.
Following up, I did an AI search for number 5 proof, and while pages and pages of assertions come up, no simple proofs come up.
I’m 80, and have living classmates and hundreds of photos.
Asking for this is an invasion of privacy, but that’s a drawback of being a public figure.
I cannot see how the lawsuit can be won without giving up some privacy.
This makes me think of Oscar Wilde. He faced a despicable defamation, but lost on the truth issue. In Macron’s case, you need truth, plus proof that the defendant knew the truth.
Allan:
Yeah, and admitting that she is both stupid and wrong would be a tough pill for her to swallow, given her ego. A smarter person would shut up about the case pending trial and tell her listeners “I can’t talk about it right now because of the lawsuit,” but her ego won’t allow it, so she keeps blabbing. As the Lawyer Monthly article said:
petrushka:
The Macrons have no obligation to provide evidence to anyone other than the court and to Owens’ team during discovery. The public has no say in the court case and I think the Macrons are smart not to try their case in the court of public opinion.
Owens’ listeners are nutjob conspiracy theorists, and if the Macrons presented evidence now, Owens would find some way to discredit it, no matter how farfetched her explanations. Her listeners would buy it. Far better to have it validated in court before the public sees it. Some of the nutjobs will still believe that it’s fabricated, but they’ll have a harder time convincing others of that if the court affixes its stamp of approval.
Also engaging in a back-and-forth with Owens would be a huge win for her because it would bring her lots of attention and new listeners.
You’re right, it can’t. The Macrons have to prove that Owens is wrong, and doing so requires evidence which will be presented at trial and made public. They’ve already given evidence to Owens herself:
petrushka:
I keep telling you: Owens doesn’t have to know that what’s she’s saying is false. She can believe it unshakably with heart, soul and mind and still lose the case. Here’s the requirement for #6:
You can believe something with all your heart while at the same time having been reckless in the way you convinced yourself of it.
Absolutely none, no. Why should I care what Musk thinks about anything? He takes no interest in my views.
Trump’s birthday letter to Epstein is out now. It is a photo of the relevant page of the birthday book, photo taken by Epstein’s estate. Trump (and petrushka) still in denial https://apnews.com/article/trump-epstein-letter-democrats-12c17f4c94cf14727062331526680ade
Now, now, Erik. Don’t jump to conclusions. We all know that Trump isn’t a liar — just ask Bill — so there must be a perfectly good explanation of how that letter got into the Epstein birthday book, even though it isn’t from Trump. Trump says that this whole Epstein thing is a Democrat hoax perpetrated by Obama, Clinton, Comey and Brennan, so the explanation is clear: they traveled back through time in order to plant the evidence. Those lousy left-wing liberal lunatics will stop at nothing to sabotageTrump, their TDS is so extreme.
I mean, seriously — who is going to believe that Trump lied about the letter and lied about how he “never wrote a picture” in his life? He’s too honest for that. Clearly, this is the work of those time-traveling bastards (and bitch) Obama, Clinton, Comey and Brennan.
Good Lord. The White House is actually trying to claim that the signature on the letter isn’t Trump’s, because it looks a little different from his present signature. As if signatures can’t evolve over time. Unfortunately for them, it looks exactly the same as other Trump signatures from that period in his life. I’ve seen five or six of them, and they all match.
Samples of Trump’s signatures, including the one on the Epstein letter, from the New York Times (top) and Wall Street Journal (bottom):
They obviously match. Yet here’s how the White House is trying to spin it: