The FT s Kaye Wigins? in an email to Candace asked her about her political links to politicians and her popuarlity in Russian state media but not about the substance of the Macroan s lawsuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYPPybwkXPg
Kaye Wiggins is the FT s US Legal Correspondent
"Kaye Wiggins is the FT's US legal correspondent, based in New York. Kaye was previously Asia financial correspondent at the FT in Hong Kong, and before that, private capital correspondent at the FT in London. She joined the FT in 2019 from Bloomberg News where she was a legal reporter."
https://www.ft.com/kaye-wiggins
So, you would expect Kaye to write about the legal core of the Macrons defamation lawsuit, the merits of it, whether it is malicious, an attack on the media etc and to ask questions along that line.
Kaye Wiggins? does not plan to write about the legal issue at the core of the matter, it turns out, judging from her questions.
She leaves out the legal core and heart and substance of the matter altogether as far as can be seen from her email to Candace and Mitchell.
So what is the purpose of her email if she is not asking about the core of the legal case, which has a recent ruling from Paris Court of Appeals in which the Macrons lost?
She does not mention it or ask any questions about the fact that evidence the Macron s presented in Paris that BM and JMT were separate was judged insufficient.
Or about the view it is not defamatory to call someone
« Ce n’est pas diffamatoire d’accuser quelqu’un d’être trans »
Pourtant, « ces relaxes ne peuvent en aucune manière être interprétées comme reconnaissant que les faits sont avérés », explique l’avocat spécialiste du droit de la presse Christophe Bigot, précisant que la justice ne valide en rien les théories développées par les prévenues.
The crux of the matter is what is left out of Macron s lawsuit, not what is in it.
It is not Candace s reputation which is at stake but her claim.
The attempt to smear Candace simply does not work in 2025.
The plaintiff must prove that the statement was false.
The only way to prove that the claim that JM Trogneux is not identical to Brigitte is to produce JMT and, or all his records like pension, salary slips etc
The Macrons cannot do it. They did not do it for the Appeals Court in Paris where they lost their case. The Appeals Court s refusal to insist on their proving the existence of JMT sparked criticism in Francesoir and other media.
The only way to account for the Macron s failing to present the key evidence to win the case is because they DO NOT HAVE IT.
What is in the Macrons lawsuit is irrelevant. It is mostly smears and caricatures and a deliberate ignoring of the evidence Candace Owens presents.
The FT Legal correspondent Kate Wiggins appears to feign not to know aboutt the Appeals Court verdict on July 10th despite her duty of care to know about it or cease claiming to be a legal correspondent investigating matters of public interest concerning freedom of speech, democracy and politicians trying to shut free speech down using malicious lawsuits.
She does not ask about the implications for a free media of the lawsuit or democracy.
She ignores the entire substance of the claim
The missing, omitted parts are what prove Macron s malice, lies. The omissions are deliberate. The obfuscations and confusion are deliberate. They aim to deflect from the fact the Macrons cannot prove Candace has made a false statement or been malicious.
She focusses on irrelevant, legal activities by Candace Owens which are supposed to cast her in a bad light. But which do not because everyone knows media like the FT have an agenda, which includes smearing the honest reporters to shut down the market place of ideas.
At the end, Kaye asks if Candace intends to contest the libel claim.
Did Candace Owens not make it cystal clear also to Tucker Carlson, she does not? Does Kaye not reference that very interview as evidence that she is somehow doing something illicit in exercising her free speech rights?
I do not know if Candace can sue the FT for joining in a de facto smear campaign to crush the free media
This, it seems so that the WEF elite can continue to monopolize the message and join with Macron in committing a fraud and harrasing a reporter, but she should consider it.
As for Macron and his attack dogs in the media, which include the FT and Alex Jones lawyer Robert Barnes, they need to become realistic about what it will mean when a US court orders them to produce the proofs that JM Trogneux has had a continous and separate existence from Brigitte and they cannot.
They need to be realistic about the amount of attention they dirty tricks and fraud are attracting.
It will spell not just the end of Macrons career but of the FT as if the MSM like the FT and CNN can be any more discredited?
When the CNN s Harry Enten tells people the fact Google searches for Epstein and Trump have dropped 89% in 3 weeks, it means the scandal is over, it does not help the failing media.
What it means is the public has got the briefing it needs from Google and filed the info away in its memory as polls show the view Epstein was murdered has exploded and now accounts for 50% of Americans, up from 39% in July.
Apart from Google, there are now hundreds of platforms to find out Epstein info like Youtube, Rumble. Google is pretty much old hat.
Not every one has the IQ of a gold fish, apparantly the qualification for working for the elite?
Trump s trade chaos is just one example.
https://orf.at/stories/3402301/
No comments:
Post a Comment