Untitled Document

[00:00:00] Candace Owens is in trouble. The [00:00:03] president of France has sued her for [00:00:04] defamation because she called his wife a [00:00:07] man. We're going to go through the case [00:00:10] this week on Wolves and Finance. [00:00:13] [Music] [00:00:19] [Music] [00:00:29] I'm going to start with my opinion on [00:00:31] the case. If Candace Owens receives a [00:00:34] fair trial, she will win this case. But [00:00:37] that is a big if. If Candace Owens does [00:00:41] not receive a fair trial, she's going to [00:00:43] lose. We have seen so many examples in [00:00:46] the last few years of court cases in [00:00:48] America with obviously biased outcomes [00:00:51] and unfair results. I've covered many of [00:00:54] them on this channel. In 2023, Donald [00:00:58] Trump was found liable for defamation [00:01:00] against Eugene Carol and ordered to pay [00:01:02] $83.3 [00:01:04] million in damages. [00:01:07] Eugene Carol had accused Donald Trump of [00:01:09] raping her. The jury in the case found [00:01:12] that Donald Trump did not rape Eugene [00:01:14] Carol, but for some reason he was still [00:01:17] found liable for defamation for [00:01:19] something he apparently did not do. [00:01:22] Anyone looking at this case can [00:01:25] logically see it is a ridiculous result. [00:01:28] This was clearly an unfair trial and [00:01:31] there are many more recent examples like [00:01:33] this in America. [00:01:35] This is my point. If Candace Owens [00:01:38] receives an unfair trial, just like [00:01:40] Donald Trump did, she's going to lose [00:01:44] even if she is innocent. What has [00:01:47] happened so far is the president of [00:01:48] France, Emanuel Mcronone, and his wife, [00:01:51] Breijit Mcronone, have filed a legal [00:01:53] complaint. We are now waiting for [00:01:55] Candace to file her legal response. So, [00:01:58] until that document gets released, we [00:02:00] only have half the story, but I'm going [00:02:02] to break down some of the major points [00:02:04] so far. I want to start with the [00:02:07] problems for Candace Owens. [00:02:11] I cannot talk about this case without [00:02:13] first talking about anti-semitism. [00:02:16] It is going to be a major part of this [00:02:18] case. There are a lot of examples of [00:02:21] Candace Owens showing anti-semitism. [00:02:24] Now, I know that she will go on her show [00:02:26] and deny all these accusations, but we [00:02:29] have all seen her statements. [00:02:32] Less than one month after the horrible [00:02:34] attacks on Israel on October 7th, 2023, [00:02:37] Candace Owens posted this. No government [00:02:40] anywhere has a right to commit genocide [00:02:43] ever. There is no justification for a [00:02:46] genocide. I can't believe this even [00:02:48] needs to be said or is even considered [00:02:51] the least bit controversial to state. [00:02:54] Now, Candace never specifically mentions [00:02:56] Israel in this tweet, but it is pretty [00:02:58] clear that she's talking about Israel. [00:03:01] And ever since this tweet, she's been a [00:03:03] strong voice calling Israel's actions a [00:03:05] genocide. This caused major arguments [00:03:08] with Ben Shapiro at the time, which [00:03:10] caused her to leave the Daily Wire, [00:03:12] which is where she used to work. Just to [00:03:15] share where I am coming from, I am a [00:03:17] Christian, but I strongly support [00:03:19] Israel. I am very much aligned with [00:03:22] Donald Trump and Mike Huckabe and most [00:03:25] conservatives when it comes to Israel [00:03:26] and thinking that they are an important [00:03:28] ally for the United States and we should [00:03:30] support them. Now, it would be one thing [00:03:33] if Candace was just criticizing certain [00:03:36] Israeli policies, but it goes much [00:03:38] further than that. We are all aware that [00:03:41] she is close personal friends with Kanye [00:03:43] West, now known as Yay. Yay. Is clearly [00:03:47] anti-Semitic and says things like this. [00:03:51] >> I I like Hitler. [00:03:52] >> I I don't like Hitler. And I know you're [00:03:54] trying to be shocking, but that [00:03:55] >> I'm not trying to be shocking. I like [00:03:57] Hitler. I do not I the the Holocaust is [00:04:01] not what happened. Let's look at the [00:04:02] facts of that. And Hitler has a lot of [00:04:04] redeeming qualities. [00:04:05] >> Yay. Then released a song called Hy [00:04:08] Hitler. Right after Yay released his [00:04:11] song, Candace goes on her show and says [00:04:14] this. And of course, Yay dropped a new [00:04:17] song while I was gone. And that is [00:04:19] putting it mildly. And I'm very [00:04:21] disappointed in how catchy the tune is. [00:04:24] Really, I find myself just humming [00:04:26] along. So, her friend releases a song [00:04:29] called Hy Hitler. And Candace says that [00:04:32] she's humming along. [00:04:34] I'm sorry, Candace, but that is [00:04:37] anti-semitism. [00:04:38] It's not attractive and it is wrong. The [00:04:42] reason this is all important is it is [00:04:44] written all throughout the legal [00:04:46] complaint. They claim that Candace Owens [00:04:49] is anti-Semitic. [00:04:51] Let's look at the theory that Candace [00:04:54] Owens suggested on her show. Number one, [00:04:57] Breijit illegally groomed Emanuel [00:05:00] Mcronone when he was underage. [00:05:02] Two, Breijit was born a biological man. [00:05:06] Three, Breijgit is secretly related to [00:05:09] Emanuel Mcronone and they practiced [00:05:11] incest. Four, Breijgit and Emanuel [00:05:15] Mcronone are secretly related to the [00:05:17] Jewish Rothschild family and they were [00:05:19] installed in power as a secret plot to [00:05:21] take over the world. This fourth point [00:05:24] is where Candace loses most people. This [00:05:27] fourth point is anti-semitism. [00:05:31] In my opinion, if Breijgit is actually a [00:05:34] man, that's a big enough scandal. Why do [00:05:38] you have to bring the Jews into it? Why [00:05:41] can't we just focus on the first three [00:05:43] issues? Whether or not Candace Owens [00:05:46] thinks this is anti-semitism, [00:05:48] it will be a massive part of this case. [00:05:51] It is already in the complaint and the [00:05:53] opposing lawyers are going to use every [00:05:55] opportunity to accuse Candace Owens of [00:05:58] anti-semitism in front of the judge and [00:06:00] in front of the jury. It's not going to [00:06:02] make her look very good. What is Candace [00:06:05] Owens going to do if the judge she gets [00:06:08] is Jewish? [00:06:11] Judges are supposed to remain impartial. [00:06:13] But let's be real, these types of things [00:06:16] impact how judges make decisions. [00:06:21] The other problem Candace Owens faces is [00:06:23] the legal complaint contains very sneaky [00:06:26] language. The legal complaint states, [00:06:29] "The statements by Candace Owens are [00:06:31] categorically and demonstrabably false. [00:06:34] Mrs. Mcronone was born a woman named [00:06:36] Breijgit Trgno." I want you to take a [00:06:39] look at this statement. Do you see how [00:06:42] this is sneaky language? It does not say [00:06:46] that Breijit was born a biological [00:06:48] woman. It just says that she was born a [00:06:51] woman. Now, if Breijgit's definition of [00:06:54] a woman is a biological man who thinks [00:06:57] they are a woman, then they can make [00:06:59] this statement without it being a lie. [00:07:02] But it is very strange that in a 219page [00:07:06] legal complaint about the biological sex [00:07:08] of Breijit Mcronone, it never explicitly [00:07:11] states that Breit is a biological woman. [00:07:16] Isn't that strange? [00:07:18] It only states that Breijgit is a woman. [00:07:22] Why is that? [00:07:24] Why will they not state for the record [00:07:26] that Breijit was born a biological [00:07:29] woman? The legal complaint tries to get [00:07:32] around this by referencing a previous [00:07:34] letter they sent to Candace Owens. The [00:07:38] December retraction demand the letter [00:07:41] explicitly stated that Mrs. Mcronone is [00:07:43] the biological mother of her three [00:07:44] children proving that she was born as a [00:07:47] woman. Once again they do not state that [00:07:52] Breijit was born a biological woman. [00:07:55] They do not provide any proof that [00:07:57] Breijgit is a biological woman. The only [00:08:00] proof they provide is a letter that they [00:08:02] wrote claiming that Breijgit was the [00:08:05] biological mother of the children. [00:08:08] They never address the possibility that [00:08:10] Breiji could be the parent of those [00:08:12] children as a man. [00:08:15] This is very strange and sneaky language [00:08:18] and highlights what is going to become [00:08:20] the central issue of this case. [00:08:23] Candace Owens is going to have to answer [00:08:25] the question, what is a woman? [00:08:29] We cannot tell whether or not Breijit [00:08:32] Mcronone is lying about being a woman [00:08:34] unless we can define what a woman is. [00:08:39] How is Candace Owens going to do that? [00:08:42] If they put Candace on the witness stand [00:08:44] and ask her the question, "What is a [00:08:47] woman?" [00:08:48] How is she going to answer that [00:08:50] question? Our own top legal minds cannot [00:08:54] answer that question. [00:08:57] Just as a reminder, this is our own [00:08:59] Supreme Court justice when she was asked [00:09:02] that question. [00:09:03] >> Can you provide a definition for the [00:09:05] word woman? [00:09:08] >> Can I provide a definition? No. [00:09:10] >> Yeah, [00:09:12] >> I can't. [00:09:13] >> You can't. [00:09:16] >> Not in this context. I'm not a [00:09:19] biologist. [00:09:19] >> The meaning of the word woman is so [00:09:21] unclear and controversial that you can't [00:09:23] give me a definition. Senator, in my [00:09:27] work as a judge, what I do is I address [00:09:32] disputes. If there's a dispute about a [00:09:35] definition, people make arguments and I [00:09:38] look at the law and I decide. So I'm not [00:09:41] >> The fact that you can't give me a [00:09:44] straight answer about something as [00:09:47] fundamental as what a woman is [00:09:50] underscores the dangers of the kind of [00:09:53] progressive education that we are [00:09:56] hearing about. [00:09:58] >> Our own Supreme Court judge does not [00:10:00] know what a woman is. [00:10:03] How is Candace Owen supposed to win this [00:10:05] case when the whole case is based on [00:10:07] answering the question, what is a woman? [00:10:11] What this seems like to me is someone [00:10:13] from France is telling an American they [00:10:16] have to use their preferred pronouns. [00:10:19] I find that outrageous. [00:10:22] So, those are a couple of the hurdles [00:10:24] that Candace Owens faces in this trial. [00:10:27] Let me talk about some of the things in [00:10:29] her favor. [00:10:31] The attorney for the president of France [00:10:33] and his wife is someone named Tom [00:10:36] Claire. [00:10:37] In my opinion, Tom Clare is not a good [00:10:40] enough lawyer to win this case in court. [00:10:43] A lot of people are singing his praises [00:10:45] and pointing to the fact that he [00:10:47] represented Dominion in their defamation [00:10:49] lawsuit against Fox News. In that case, [00:10:53] Fox News settled for $787 [00:10:56] million. [00:10:58] Now, that sounds impressive, but here is [00:11:00] Alan Dersowitz explaining why Fox News [00:11:03] should not have settled that case. [00:11:06] >> Uh, I think that Fox did a disservice to [00:11:08] the American people by settling the [00:11:10] case. Um, and I think there's going to [00:11:12] be a lot of self-censorship involved and [00:11:15] and the Tucker Carlson may may, we're [00:11:17] not sure, be an example of self [00:11:19] censorship of not wanting to incur the [00:11:23] threequarters of a billion dollars of a [00:11:25] gift to Dominion. And it was a gift. [00:11:27] Dominion didn't suffer. It wasn't hurt. [00:11:29] Its bottom line went up. Uh it made up [00:11:32] the argument about all that money. Uh [00:11:36] and and it it uh was essentially uh a [00:11:41] case that was won, I'm not using the [00:11:43] term technically, but on extortion. [00:11:46] Basically, what Dominion is saying, and [00:11:48] they're saying it to others as well, is [00:11:50] unless you pay us money, uh we're going [00:11:53] to expose all your secrets. we're going [00:11:54] to get all your emails, we're going to [00:11:56] embarrass you, and we're going to find [00:11:59] uh uh fault with your uh journalism and [00:12:02] and so a lot of the media will [00:12:03] capitulate. What he is saying is that in [00:12:06] these large corporate lawsuits, there [00:12:09] are many different reasons why a company [00:12:11] would settle. It would be a mistake to [00:12:14] suggest that the Fox News lawsuit is [00:12:16] proof that Tom Clair is a good lawyer. [00:12:20] It doesn't mean that Tom Clair would [00:12:21] have been able to win that case. I want [00:12:24] to show you an example that Tom Claire [00:12:26] is not as good of a lawyer as people [00:12:29] think he is. [00:12:30] >> Over the past year, when we have put [00:12:32] this information directly in front of [00:12:33] her, even if you want to give her a pass [00:12:35] for the early crazy stuff that she said, [00:12:37] after we put facts and information in [00:12:39] front of her, black and white multiple [00:12:41] times, [00:12:42] >> what? Like her like the the first lady's [00:12:44] birth certificate, like what what kind [00:12:46] of facts? [00:12:46] >> Yeah, we have laid out extensive [00:12:48] evidence in our complaint demonstrating [00:12:50] that she was born a woman. She's always [00:12:52] been a woman. [00:12:54] >> This lawyer is asked point blank what [00:12:57] kind of facts he has laid out to dispute [00:12:59] the claims by Candace Owens. [00:13:01] Did you notice he could not respond with [00:13:05] a single fact? [00:13:07] Not one single fact to back up his [00:13:10] claim. Instead, he says, "We have [00:13:13] extensive evidence in our complaint." [00:13:16] What evidence? I read the complaint. [00:13:19] There is no compelling evidence in [00:13:21] there. They did not even say the [00:13:23] statement that Breijgit was born a [00:13:25] biological woman. I think this interview [00:13:28] is evidence that this lawyer is an [00:13:31] idiot. [00:13:33] The legal process itself favors Candace [00:13:36] Owens. Both parties have equal rights in [00:13:39] discovery to ask questions and request [00:13:41] documents. In my opinion, the McRones [00:13:45] were absolutely stupid to file this [00:13:48] lawsuit. [00:13:49] Normally, if you're any kind of [00:13:51] political leader, if a reporter is out [00:13:54] there bugging you about something you [00:13:56] don't like, do you know what you can do? [00:13:59] You can ignore them. They have no power [00:14:03] over you. But what they have done with [00:14:05] this lawsuit is give Candace Owens power [00:14:09] over their lives. [00:14:11] This lawsuit is probably going to go on [00:14:14] for the next 10 years. [00:14:17] Why in the world would anyone give [00:14:19] Candace Owens power over their life for [00:14:22] the next 10 years? [00:14:25] Now, whenever Candace Owens asks them a [00:14:28] question, they have to respond. If they [00:14:32] don't want to respond, they have to give [00:14:33] a reason why. And then the judge will [00:14:35] weigh in and decide if he's going to [00:14:37] force them to respond. Every single [00:14:40] question. [00:14:42] Why are they giving this power to [00:14:44] Candace Owens? They are so stupid. [00:14:49] The legal process favors Candace Owens. [00:14:52] If the Mcron are hiding anything, [00:14:55] Candace just has to wait for them to [00:14:56] make a mistake and catch them in a lie. [00:15:00] She can go through the legal process [00:15:02] year after year after year, and [00:15:05] eventually I think the Mcron are going [00:15:08] to make a mistake that could win Candace [00:15:10] the case. [00:15:13] Now, of course, this whole issue would [00:15:15] be quickly resolved if the president of [00:15:17] France and his wife would just submit to [00:15:20] a DNA test. A simple cotton swab inside [00:15:23] their cheek would reveal the answer. If [00:15:26] Breijit Mcronone is actually a [00:15:28] biological man and whether Emanuel [00:15:30] Mcronone is related to Breijgit, which [00:15:33] would be incest, a DNA test would [00:15:36] resolve the entire case. [00:15:39] Now, I am guessing that Candace Owens is [00:15:41] going to request a DNA test. I am also [00:15:45] guessing that Emanuel and Breijit [00:15:47] Mcronone are going to refuse and claim [00:15:50] it is too invasive. I do not think that [00:15:53] a judge is going to force them to take a [00:15:56] DNA test for a civil court defamation [00:15:59] case. So, we're going to be at a [00:16:02] stalemate. But the fact that they would [00:16:04] refuse a simple test that would resolve [00:16:07] the case tells us everything. [00:16:10] It makes them look like a bunch of [00:16:12] liars. [00:16:14] You are telling me that you want us to [00:16:17] believe that the Mcron are telling us [00:16:19] the truth, but at the same time they [00:16:22] would not take a simple test that would [00:16:23] prove whether or not they are telling [00:16:26] the truth. [00:16:28] Right? That sounds to me like a bunch of [00:16:31] liars. And I think the jury will think [00:16:33] the same thing. [00:16:36] I think one of the biggest problems for [00:16:38] the Mcron is with the complaint itself. [00:16:41] Now, I do not know all the details of [00:16:43] the case, but when I read through it, it [00:16:46] looks to me like there are several [00:16:48] statements in the legal document that [00:16:50] are complete lies. [00:16:53] Lies that are very easy to disprove. [00:16:56] For example, she, Candace Owens, [00:17:00] launched a revamped website, candace [00:17:02] Owens.com, [00:17:03] fueled by her desire to make these [00:17:05] specific false claims about the McRones [00:17:08] without adhering to content moderation [00:17:10] policies. They are claiming that Candace [00:17:13] Owens is defaming to try and make money [00:17:16] on her website. [00:17:18] This is an absolute lie. I can go to [00:17:22] YouTube right now and show you the whole [00:17:24] playlist of all the videos for free. [00:17:28] It's not even difficult to disprove [00:17:30] their statement as a lie. [00:17:33] I have a feeling there's a whole bunch [00:17:35] more lies just like this throughout the [00:17:38] 219page complaint. [00:17:41] This is a massive problem for the Mcron. [00:17:44] In the American legal system, if you lie [00:17:47] in a legal document, you can get in big [00:17:50] trouble. In some situations, it is [00:17:53] criminal. [00:17:55] You can go to jail for lying to the [00:17:57] court. If there are lies in their legal [00:18:00] complaint, and Candace Owens can prove [00:18:02] that, she can win the entire case on [00:18:06] that point alone without even having to [00:18:09] argue the merits of the case. she can [00:18:12] win before it even gets started. [00:18:16] The biggest thing that Candace Owens has [00:18:19] going for her is the evidence is in her [00:18:21] favor. This is a photo of Breijit [00:18:24] Mcronone next to an older photograph of [00:18:26] a man, Jean Michichelle Truggnau. [00:18:30] It looks to me like they are the same [00:18:32] person. [00:18:34] Candace Owens is saying that Breijit [00:18:36] Mcronone was born this man and then [00:18:38] transitioned to a woman. So, Candace [00:18:41] Owens has pretty convincing photographic [00:18:44] evidence to back up her statements. [00:18:47] Here's another photo, and I don't even [00:18:48] know if Candace knows about this one. [00:18:51] This is Breit Mcronone at a press event. [00:18:54] This photo is posted right now on the [00:18:57] website of the French magazine Gala. [00:19:01] It is pretty obvious there is a bulge in [00:19:04] Breijit's crotch. [00:19:06] Can anyone else see this? [00:19:09] That certainly looks like a bulge to me. [00:19:11] Here's another photo. Why are there all [00:19:14] these photos of Breijgit where there is [00:19:16] a bulge in the crotch? [00:19:19] Is that normal? I feel that's not normal [00:19:22] for biological women. It seems pretty [00:19:26] obvious that Breit is a biological man. [00:19:30] This is only a small portion of the [00:19:32] evidence behind Candace's claims. Her [00:19:35] YouTube series alone is hours upon hours [00:19:38] explaining the evidence and she didn't [00:19:40] even cover everything. There is so much [00:19:43] evidence supporting the claim that [00:19:45] Breijit Mcronone was born a biological [00:19:48] man. The implications of this are huge, [00:19:52] potentially criminal. If it is true that [00:19:56] Emanuel Mcronone was underage when he [00:19:58] was groomed, that is criminal. If it is [00:20:01] true that the couple went through an [00:20:03] illegal gay marriage in 2007 before gay [00:20:06] marriage was legal in France in 2013, [00:20:09] that is illegal. If they committed fraud [00:20:12] by lying about Breijit's passed on [00:20:14] documents, that is illegal. If they [00:20:17] misappropriated government funds by [00:20:19] funding a first lady's lifestyle when [00:20:22] they were not legally married, that is [00:20:24] criminal. [00:20:26] This is not just gossip about Breijit's [00:20:29] sex. Candace Owens is presenting [00:20:31] evidence of serious crimes. [00:20:35] Finally, the legal standard for a [00:20:38] politician to prove defamation is very [00:20:40] high and very hard to prove. On top of [00:20:44] this, American journalists have [00:20:46] constitutionally protected freedom of [00:20:48] the press. It is a journalist's job to [00:20:52] make fun of politicians. [00:20:54] So, the legal standard for the Mcron to [00:20:56] meet in this case is enormous. [00:21:00] I don't think they prove their case in [00:21:01] this legal complaint. So, we will have [00:21:04] to see if they present better evidence [00:21:06] during the trial. I think these examples [00:21:08] back up the opinion I gave earlier. If [00:21:11] Candace Owens receives a fair trial, she [00:21:14] will win this case. But if Candace Owens [00:21:17] does not receive a fair trial, she is [00:21:19] going to lose. [00:21:21] Now, I want to hear from you. Do you [00:21:23] think Candace Owens is right? Let me [00:21:25] know in the comments down below. And if [00:21:27] you like this video, don't forget to hit [00:21:29] that subscribe button so you don't miss [00:21:30] out on future videos. Quick update on [00:21:33] the channel. My video last week on Obama [00:21:36] got demonetized again by YouTube. I [00:21:40] don't know why YouTube is trying to [00:21:41] suppress this information on Obama. When [00:21:44] I made videos criticizing Donald Trump, [00:21:47] YouTube had no problem with that. Why do [00:21:50] they suddenly have a problem now? [00:21:53] I want to give a big thank you to my [00:21:55] channel members because your support for [00:21:57] $6 a month is what helps me to keep [00:21:59] making these videos even when I get [00:22:02] demonetized. If you find my videos [00:22:04] helpful, consider signing up for a [00:22:06] membership on my website, [00:22:07] wolvesenfinance.com. [00:22:09] Thank you to everyone who has signed up. [00:22:12] I'm Zach from Wolves and Finance. Thank [00:22:14] you for watching. [00:22:29] [Music] [00:22:34] Heat.