Candace Owens hits out at Macrons plus Diddy is "a good man"

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30at Whole Foods Market. Your phone is your lifeline. Calling your kid to say goodnight, waiting on a job call back, or just sending a meme to your best friend when it's been that kind of day. Wherever life takes you, the TextNow app keeps you connected for free. Get a real phone number, unlimited talk and text, and 5G data for your favorite apps, all for$0 a month. No fixed contracts, no hidden fees, no panic when bills pile up, just phone service that's there when it matters most. TextNow. We've got your back. Download TextNow in your app store today. Wireless plans require the purchase of a SIM card.

1:00Visit textnow.com for terms and conditions. Candice Owens responds to our exclusive story and rapper Young Miami, the ex-girlfriend of Sean Diddy Combs, tells the judge he is a good man. Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matandadauti. Coming up... We're just going to all hound Candice to try to distract her from looking into Charlie Kirk's murder and assassination. Candice Owens follows up on the news that Brigitte Macron, the French president's wife, will present scientific evidence in court to prove she is a woman. Plus, our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, is here to tell us what to expect at the sentencing of Sean Diddy Combs.

1:38Nobody in the history of using prostitutes without a criminal record is being treated worse than he is. That's their strongest argument. And I think it might actually work. As always, if you've got questions, send them to me on social media or WhatsApp at 0-330-678-1114. That's 0-330-678-1114. Don't forget to subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing. Okay, so last week we brought you the exclusive that Brigitte Macron, the First Lady of France, is resolved to bring scientific evidence to present in open court in Delaware that will counterclaim she was born male. The Macrons are suing podcaster and influencer Candace Owens for continuing defamatory attacks against them to boost her media platforms and make her money.

2:20Go back and listen to the interview we did with the Macron's lawyer and corporate investigator if you haven't heard it. We now have a response from Candace Owens. around 45 minutes into her podcast on the Candace Owens website, she says this. Talk about a federal operation. Out of nowhere, Brigitte Macron just lies. I don't even know how they got this in the press. This is so dumb. Brigitte Macron comes out and says they have offered scientific evidence to the U.S. court to prove that Brigitte is a woman. That's what her lawyer says. Well, the lawyer's a liar because we haven't even started this case yet.

2:52So how could you have offered scientific proof to a court to prove you're a woman? OK, so let's fact check that. The headline on the screen reads, Macron's to offer scientific evidence to court to prove Brigitte is a woman, lawyer says. The Fame Under Fire team knows this because the Fame Under Fire team wrote it. It is very clear from the interview, articles and videos we did that the Macron's lawyer, Tom Clare, says they will present scientific evidence and photographs in court. That will is will as in future tense. There will be expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements.

3:28And obviously it's incredibly intrusive for this family to have to go into open court and present this evidence. But that should just demonstrate how serious they are about it, how confident they are in their ability to prove it as false in a public forum and how they want to put this false into rest once and for all. So no one said they had already submitted evidence. In the same podcast, she also introduces the idea that our interview with the Macron's lawyer had something to do with her investigation into the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. So I don't know what this is. Just like we're just going to all howd Candace to try to distract her from looking into Charlie Kirk's murder and assassination.

4:07But it's focusing me more because this is not normal. Like the amount of lying that's happening right now is because you don't think I'm strong enough to handle it. You're trying to break me. You're not going to break me. OK. I watched him catch a bullet in the throat and were being lied to by everybody about who was involved, why it happened, and why you are attacking the people who are the person, rather, who is trying to investigate it. Let's fact check that as well. This interview was booked before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. I can tell you this because I booked it. We have previously covered the case on the pod as well on the 31st of July.

4:41Now, we contacted Candace's team directly and asked them if she wanted to say any more about the story. Here is what they sent over, voiced up by a BBC producer. Brigitte's claim that she will offer scientific evidence regarding her gender in court is an obvious and pathetic public relations ploy. Brigitte has never once offered such scientific evidence, and to the contrary, when we offered Brigitte and her lawyers multiple opportunities to supply any form of proof that she was born female, she refused outright. In any event, it is not defamatory to say someone transitioned or is gay. We have filed our motion to dismiss and look forward to defending this frivolous case through the American judicial process.

5:21Joining me now to cast an expert eye on this is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent. Hi, Sean. Hey, Aniska. How are you? I'm good. We got into some things last week. I really want to hear your opinion on all of it. But particularly the aftermath of that interview, which kind of went around the world and what Candace has had to say. You can hear there that she's talking about the scientific evidence that they said that the first lady is resolved to bring to open court in Delaware, saying that this is a PR ploy. Isn't it the plaintiff's prerogative, what evidence they want to present? 100 percent.

5:53The plaintiff is the one who is bringing their lawsuit. So not only is there their prerogative, it is also their burden. So they have a duty. They sued Candace. They got a duty to bring their case and prove their case. Now, when they spoke to us, Tom Clare, the lawyer, and Dan Ardello, the corporate investigator, when they spoke to us, they spoke about scientific evidence. They also spoke about an expert that is going to give evidence of a scientific nature, both generically, but also specific to Brigitte. Now, when you put an expert on the stand, is that also your prerogative when you bring them in, how you introduce them?

6:23Can you just put them in or does the judge have to say, yes, this expert is qualified enough to speak to this? We always used to make the joke that realistically, an expert is just somebody who can assist the trier of fact. And that's the jury to understand anymore. So technically, a fifth grader is an expert on the fourth grade. You know what I mean? So that can be an expert, somebody who just knows more than the jury. And so what the judge has to make the decision about is, is this person, do they have the qualifications necessary to assist the jury? and is the thing that they're talking about something that you would need an expert for?

7:01So in other words, you can't have an expert in witchcraft if witchcraft doesn't exist. You have to have something that has scientific value. So once they get to that threshold and we have a standard, we have cases called Daubert and Fry. Those are the cases in which experts have to show that the things that they are testifying about have scientific validity. And if they can prove that, then those individuals can testify. Now, to the point that they didn't offer evidence to Candace, I asked that question because I've had that question for a while. Why not just give her pictures, I asked, of Brigitte pregnant?

7:32And that is also something Candace and her team are echoing here. We asked that question directly to Tom Clare, the Macron's lawyers, and this is what he said. When you're dealing with someone who has not demonstrated a level of responsibility in the way that she handles facts and evidence, handing more evidence to her versus other responsible journalists doesn't make any sense. And so we are prepared to supply all of those materials, but we're just going to do it in open court where there are rules, where the rules of evidence apply, where there's proof and where it can be done publicly in a way that people will see how it's presented.

8:10When Tom says rules of evidence, what does he mean by that? Well, it's like if you've ever played any type of board game at home, like Uno, if you've ever played Uno and everybody has a different set of rules and it's like you can't put a draw two on a regular two, well, the rule of evidence is the judge saying, these are the rules that we're going to play the game by. And you must follow these rules no matter how you do them in other jurisdictions. This is how we play Uno in my house. Now, that's not all we've heard from Candice and her team. In a story published by the Daily Mail, Candice gave this statement, again, read out by one of our BBC producers.

8:42You don't get to skip discovery just because you're a foreign world leader angry about a podcaster's First Amendment rights. Brigitte's claim that she will offer scientific evidence regarding her gender in court is an obvious and pathetic public relations ploy. Now, I questioned Tom Clare directly about discovery. And here's what he said. Subjecting yourself to discovery in the United States, which is, you know, fulsome, much more fulsome than in other parts around the world, is not something that people relish doing. But the fact that they said yes to that, yes, we stand ready to go through that discovery process.

9:19Yes, we stand ready to travel to the United States and appear in a public courtroom and explain why this is false. It just demonstrates, one, their conviction in the truth. But it also tells you that they're not afraid. They're not afraid of that discovery. They're not afraid of the truth. If they were, they wouldn't have filed the lawsuit. And so we're looking forward to it. Now, we've got there in that first line, you don't get to skip discovery just because you're a foreign world leader. Sean, what would happen if you tried to skip discovery? Well, you can't. She's not wrong on that. You just can't.

9:49The lawsuit wouldn't go forward. The second you file a lawsuit, remember we talked about the UNO rules, the court sets the rules of UNO. And one of the rules are depositions have to be completed by a certain time. Statements have to be given the list of who your experts are. All this has to be given at a certain time. Let's say the court sets a trial date for 2026, 2027. Well, they'll do what's called a scheduling order a lot of times. And in that scheduling order, they'll tell everybody all depositions must be completed by this date. All evidence to the other side must be completed by this date.

10:23And if somebody doesn't do it, the court can do whatever sanctions they want, including throwing the case out. So it is almost impossible to ignore discovery, especially when you are filing the lawsuit. Okay. So in your legal opinion, would it be a bit redundant to then file a lawsuit if you're not going to participate with Discovery or any of the other sort of landmark moments in a case? Absolutely. When you file a lawsuit, we always have the same conversation with our clients. You can sue, but just know they're going to ask you everything at these depositions, all of these questions. There's nothing you can hide from.

10:59And you ask them, are you sure you want to do this? And so the lawyer was exactly right. The fact that These people are saying we don't care. We know we've got to come to the United States at our own dime, by the way. We've got to come over when they tell us to come over. We have to go to Delaware when they want us to come over. And would they get to take our depositions? They will get to see anything we have relevant to this lawsuit and stuff that's not relevant. So it is an onerous burden when you file a lawsuit. And then the continuation of that statement given to the Daily Mail, it says the court mandated discovery process does not allow Brigitte to just submit evidence.

11:34The American court system isn't some kangaroo court where leaders can just say whatever they want. Evidence must be independently verified. So let's focus in on the evidence that we were talking about, photographic evidence. And guys, let me just clear something up here. When we say photographic evidence, we are talking about pictures of Brigitte pregnant and her raising her children. Not what some of you have been thinking it was going to be pictures of her this, that and the other to prove she was a woman. Let me just make that clear. And that's on you who have been republishing this story without giving context.

12:03Thank you. So when we talk about photographic evidence and scientific evidence, this is about what the Macron's lawyers said they are willing to present in open court. How does that work? Does somebody need to verify that's not an AI picture? That's not a doctored picture? This scientific evidence holds weight. How does that work? What ends up happening is people have just put an expert on the stand or put a picture on the stand. And then the other side is allowed to cross examine. Just like you said, they'll have to say that picture a doctor, that picture is AI. You get to cross examine them.

12:33The difference is in these civil contexts, because of the depositions and the sworn statement, they will have this information early and then they can say, we don't think it's real. We have got our own experts to look at this information. And this is what our experts are going to testify to it. So there are no secrets. There are no tricks. Everybody will know everything well in advance of the trial. Okay, so Tom Clare spoke about how the Macrons are going to find this process invasive, but are willing to go through with it. It is a process that she will have to subject herself to in a very public way, but she's willing to do it.

13:09She is firmly resolved to do what it takes to set the record straight. And if that unpleasantness and that discomfort that she has of opening herself up in that way is what it takes to set the record straight and stop this, she's 100 % ready to meet that burden. And here's the part I really want to get into in the rest of this statement given to the Daily Mail by Candace Owens. During the discovery process, Brigitte will need to submit herself to a third party medical examination. We're going to demand Brigitte sit down for an exam with an independent doctor. We're coming for her medical records.

13:42Sean, is that true? She will need to sit down and submit herself to a third party medical examination? Not no, but hell no. I mean, that is just such an absolute lie. Like, that's just not going to happen. Like, you cannot force a person to sit down with our doctors. Again, what will end up happening is now they'll have to give up her medical records. Those her experts will be able to look at her medical records. They could voluntarily allow a third party to do it. And sometimes we do that situation. So at court, they can say, look, we allowed her to be looked at by a third part. But you cannot make somebody sit down with someone else's doctor in a civil context just because you want to.

14:24So that statement is so that is pandering to the public saying, because that's what you're hearing a lot from the public is, why won't they have her sit down with a third person? You can't make someone do that in a civil law. So it's not happening. But as part of discovery, the medical records, can you come for all of the medical records? That feels like for her whole life. Is that not extremely invasive? And that's what's going to be interesting. And that's what sometimes remember we talked about the rules of Uno from the judge and the rules of evidence. Somebody's going to come and say, judge, we believe this is overburdensome.

14:58We believe this is going too far. We believe this is unnecessary. They don't need all of these medical records. Candace's team, I guarantee you, is going to say the opposite. They're going to say, look, we need to know what's happened from birth. We need all of these medical records. We need to see what medicines we are on. They want to know all of this information. So it'll be a battle on what medical records is given. I can see it now. If Candace's team does not get all of the medical records during trial, they'll say, and you've seen the way she is, she'll say something to the effect of, they haven't given us all the medical records.

15:29So we know something's missing in this situation. And had we had everything, we would know the truth. Get ready for it. That is interesting because when you talk about discovery, how do they know what to ask for without knowing the intimate details of that other person's life? Well, that's why we have depositions. So what happens a lot of times you start to ask them questions during the deposition and it opens the door of like, ah, I need this stuff and this stuff. And you send questions, you send requests. Things are called requests to admit. And these lawyers have been doing these things for a long time so they know the types of questions they need.

16:02And so they'll say, we want all of her medical records from blank. And then what ends up happening is they'll send a subpoena. And you've heard that word a lot. They'll send a subpoena to the McCrones and to her team. We want a subpoena for this, this and this. Well, a phrase you'll start hearing is the McCrones lawyer will file a motion to quash the subpoena. They'll say that we don't want that out there. We think it's too much information that you're not entitled to. And that'll go back and forth for a long time. So this is the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni of it. Guys, we've done an episode on that.

16:33If you haven't listened to it, let me just break that down really quickly. They're asking, they're subpoenaing for all this stuff and they're saying they're trying to quash it and then they're trying to redact certain parts of it. So presumably if they subpoena the motion to quash, if it's not granted, can they then come out and say she's the wife of a head of state? We need this completely redacted. Yeah. You know, we don't want the public to see it. This could have national implications. All of this situation is going to come in. Now, look, I didn't get a chance to talk to you last week about Candace's response and the Delaware of it all.

17:03She filed a motion to dismiss in response to the civil complaint by the Macrons. And she says the case was improperly filed in Delaware. It's going to cause her operational and financial hardship trying to defend the case out there. Sean, I know we had a little conversation before this and you were nerding out. We love to see it. I'm such a dork. So explain why the Macrons are filing in Delaware and why, outside of this costing Candace money, why might she not want it to be in Delaware? And this is my thoughts, of course, in the United States, when you file a lawsuit, first, people have got to understand that each state is its own jurisdiction.

17:41Each state technically has its own law. Think of them as little independent little countries, if you will, under the umbrella of the United States. but they're all separate. To bring a lawsuit against somebody, you can bring a lawsuit where that person lives or where the incident actually occurred. So the example I give is somebody is driving from California and going to South Carolina and they get in an accident dead in the middle of the country. A person can bring a lawsuit against them in the place where the accident happened. They'll say, well, I don't live there. They say, well, you have what are called minimum contacts.

18:16You came through that state. You purposely availed yourself of the benefit and the protection of the laws of that state as you're driving through it. So I can sue you there. Nerd answer. Well, what ends up happening is creative and very smart plaintiff lawyers try to find the best jurisdictions to file lawsuits. You understand they want to find where people are the most sympathetic. And so what the lawyers try to do is look for jurisdictions. Now, it would have been easy to file a lawsuit against Candace in Tennessee, because, again, as we talked about, you can always file a lawsuit where the person lives.

18:56Candace lives in Tennessee. You could have filed a lawsuit there. Well, I think one of the reasons they may not want to file a lawsuit in Tennessee is they're looking at it as one. Tennessee has a six month statute of limitation on defamation cases, which means six months from the time that she said the defamatory conduct, you must bring the lawsuit. That's a short window. And so there can be an argument that you cannot bring that lawsuit there. But to me personally, the most important reason why they probably don't want it in Tennessee is for your listeners. We have what are called red states and blue states.

19:28A red state is what is a very conservative Republican state. Candace is a conservative right wing podcaster. Tennessee is a very red state. So I'm assuming the lawyer said, well, you don't want to file no lawsuit there. That's her base. Those are conservatives. Those are Republicans. We get 12 conservative Republican Candace supporters on the jury. We lose. So they decided to file in Delaware. How are they able to file in Delaware? Because Candace has business that is incorporated in Delaware. Because it's in court, she incorporated in Delaware. The assumption is the reason people in the United States, almost everybody tries to incorporate their businesses in Delaware.

20:08Delaware doesn't have state income tax and is very business friendly. And so the example of us driving to the United States, Candace chose to drive her business through Delaware. And as that reason, because you have purposely availed yourself of the benefit and the protections of Delaware, they're allowed to file the lawsuit in Delaware. Delaware is a blue state, historically Democratic, and it will be very sympathetic. And it's got a two year statute of limitations. There's my answer. You're getting a round of applause in the gallery. Sorry about that. Very long-winded answer, but that's the answer.

20:38No, it's really good to understand that because I think a lot of people came out and were like, Candace said that she did not want this lawsuit to be dismissed. She specifically said that on Tucker Carlson's podcast. She was very clear about that. I want to see this through. So then filing the motion to dismiss, we saw a lot of commentary online going, why has she done this? Why is this all about Delaware and where it's filed? And when you explain that, it makes it far, far clearer. Now it's down to the Macron's lawyers. They're deciding how they're going to respond. Will they file an amended complaint?

21:04Will they take a different legal route? Whatever happens, we will have it here for you first and we will be following this case as it progresses. This is summer at its peak. Whole Foods Market Summer Fruit Fest is your invitation to eat the season. Fresh, organic and bursting with flavor. Start your day with peaches and organic blueberries and yogurt. Build a grazing board with fresh fruit, prosciutto and artisanal cheese. Then fire up the grill with no antibiotics ever, proteins and fresh produce. Savor the season. Shop Summer Fruit Fest at Whole Foods Market.

22:04Rewarded for it? Download Mistplay today and enter for your chance to win.

22:15Now we're back talking about Diddy. It's been a while. Remember, we told you the verdict of the Sean Diddy Combs trial on July 2nd. Hip-hop megastar Sean Diddy Combs has been inside the notorious Metropolitan Detention Center since then, awaiting sentencing after being convicted of two counts of transportation for prostitution, but acquitted of sex trafficking and RICO, the more serious charges. Sentencing begins on October 3rd, and we have started to see how the defense and the prosecution are gearing up for that. The defense are saying, come on, he was a user of prostitutes, not a pimp, not somebody running a prostitution ring.