As we navigate the complex waters of today’s media landscape, distinguishing fact from fiction is more crucial than ever. With platforms like social media and podcasts acting as both sources of information and arenas for debate, public figures wield significant influence over public perception and discourse. Among these figures is Candace Owens, a polarizing personality known for her provocative stance on various issues. In her recent podcast episode, titled “Becoming Brigitte,” Owens shares personal stories and commentary that touch on identity and societal norms. However, the claims made in such discussions often warrant scrutiny to ensure that listeners receive a well-rounded perspective. In this blog post, we will undertake a thorough fact-check of key statements from Owens’ episode, aiming to uncover the veracity of her assertions and highlight their broader implications in the current socio-political landscape. Join us as we dissect facts and fictions that shape our understanding of the world.

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Receiving a legal letter from a sitting president of a foreign country is extraordinary.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Receiving a Legal Letter from a Sitting President of a Foreign Country

The claim that receiving a legal letter from a sitting president of a foreign country is extraordinary can be evaluated by examining the context and frequency of such events.

### Context of Candace Owens' Situation

Candace Owens, a right-wing political commentator, recently received a legal letter from French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, in response to her claims that Brigitte Macron was born a man[1][3][5]. This situation is notable because it involves a high-profile public figure and a sitting head of state. Owens has interpreted this legal action as an attempt to silence her and avoid accountability for her allegations[1][3].

### Legal Precedents and Frequency

While there is no comprehensive database of legal letters sent by sitting presidents to individuals, such actions are generally rare due to the diplomatic and public relations implications. However, there are instances where public figures have faced legal threats from foreign leaders or their representatives. For example, defamation lawsuits are not uncommon when public figures make controversial statements about foreign leaders or their families.

### Analysis of the Claim

1. **Rarity of Legal Letters from Foreign Leaders**: It is unusual for a sitting president to directly involve themselves in legal actions against individuals, especially when those actions involve sensitive personal matters. Typically, such issues are handled through diplomatic channels or by legal representatives without direct presidential involvement.

2. **Public Figures and Legal Threats**: Public figures like Candace Owens often face legal threats due to their controversial statements. However, when these threats come from a sitting president, it can be seen as an escalation due to the political weight and international implications.

3. **Diplomatic Implications**: The involvement of a foreign leader in legal actions against an individual can have diplomatic implications, potentially straining relations between countries or affecting public opinion.

### Conclusion

Receiving a legal letter from a sitting president of a foreign country is indeed an extraordinary event due to its rarity and potential diplomatic implications. Such actions are typically reserved for significant matters of state or when there are substantial legal concerns that cannot be resolved through other means. In the case of Candace Owens and Emmanuel Macron, the situation highlights the tension between freedom of speech and legal accountability in the context of international relations.

### Evidence and References

– **Candace Owens' Situation**: Owens received a legal letter from Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, in response to her claims about Brigitte's identity[1][3][5].
– **Legal Precedents**: While specific data on such legal actions is scarce, defamation lawsuits involving public figures are not uncommon[3].
– **Diplomatic Implications**: The involvement of a foreign leader in legal actions can have significant diplomatic implications and is generally rare[1][5].

Citations

Claim

Jit Macron, the current First Lady of France, was born a man.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Brigitte Macron Was Born a Man

The claim that Brigitte Macron, the current First Lady of France, was born a man is a baseless conspiracy theory that has been circulating online, particularly in far-right and conspiracy-theory circles. This assertion has been thoroughly debunked by credible sources and legal actions.

### Origins of the Claim

The conspiracy theory originated from a publication called *Faits et Documents*, which falsely alleged that Brigitte Macron was born as Jean-Michel Trogneux, her brother's name[2][3]. This claim was further amplified by a YouTube video featuring Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey, who spread the rumor that Brigitte Macron was assigned male at birth[1][5].

### Legal Actions and Public Responses

Brigitte Macron has taken legal action against individuals spreading these rumors. In 2022, she filed a defamation claim against two women who propagated the conspiracy theory[1]. French President Emmanuel Macron has also addressed these claims, labeling them as misogynistic attacks and emphasizing the harm caused by false information[5].

### Candace Owens' Involvement

Conservative commentator Candace Owens recently endorsed this conspiracy theory, stating she would stake her professional reputation on the claim that Brigitte Macron is a man[2][4]. Owens has faced criticism for spreading transphobic rhetoric and has received a legal threat from the Macrons, which she interprets as an attempt to silence her[4].

### Conclusion

There is no credible evidence to support the claim that Brigitte Macron was born a man. The theory is based on unverified anecdotes and has been widely debunked by French authorities and legal experts[2][3]. The legal actions taken by Brigitte Macron and the public statements from Emmanuel Macron further underscore the baseless nature of these claims[1][5].

### Evidence and References

– **Biographical Information**: There is no credible biographical evidence supporting the claim that Brigitte Macron was born male.
– **Public Records**: No public records or official documents have been presented to validate the conspiracy theory.
– **Legal Actions**: Brigitte Macron has pursued legal action against those spreading the rumor, indicating the seriousness with which these false claims are viewed[1].
– **Public Statements**: Emmanuel Macron has publicly denounced the claims as misogynistic attacks, emphasizing their harmful nature[5].

In summary, the claim that Brigitte Macron was born a man is a discredited conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, supported by neither biographical information nor public records. It has been widely debunked and legally challenged by the Macron family.

Citations

Claim

There were many people who did not believe me because that just sounds crazy.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the validity of Candace Owens' claims and the surrounding controversy, we need to examine the available evidence and context.

## Claim Analysis

1. **Claim about Brigitte Macron's Identity**: Candace Owens has made unsubstantiated claims that Brigitte Macron, the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, was born a man. This claim is not supported by credible evidence and has been widely debunked[5]. The Macrons have responded with legal threats, which Owens interprets as an attempt to silence her[1][3].

2. **Legal Threats and Free Speech**: Owens views the legal threats as an attempt to suppress her freedom of speech. However, the legal letter from the Macrons emphasizes that Brigitte Macron does not owe anyone proof of her gender identity, and her denial of the claims is sufficient[1][3].

3. **Investigation and Evidence**: Owens claims to have met with a journalist who had evidence supporting her theory, but this evidence has not been publicly disclosed or verified[1][3]. The lack of transparency and credible sources supporting her claims raises skepticism.

4. **Allegations of Elite Corruption and Pedophilia**: Owens plans to expose alleged scandals involving the Macron couple, including controversial art choices and broader critiques of elite corruption. However, these claims are not substantiated with reliable evidence and appear to be part of a broader narrative of conspiracy theories[5].

## Conclusion

The claims made by Candace Owens regarding Brigitte Macron's identity and the broader allegations of corruption lack credible evidence and are largely based on unverified sources and conspiracy theories. The legal response from the Macrons is aimed at addressing defamation rather than engaging with unsubstantiated accusations. The controversy highlights the importance of fact verification and the need for reliable sources when making public claims.

**Evidence and References**:
– Candace Owens' claims about Brigitte Macron's identity are not supported by credible evidence and have been debunked[5].
– The Macrons' legal response focuses on defamation and emphasizes that Brigitte Macron does not owe proof of her gender identity[1][3].
– The lack of transparency and credible evidence supporting Owens' claims raises skepticism about her allegations[1][3].
– The broader narrative of elite corruption and pedophilia allegations lacks reliable evidence and appears speculative[5].

Citations

Claim

In order to prove defamation, you have to prove that somebody acted in reckless disregard for the truth.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Proving Defamation Requires Reckless Disregard for the Truth

The claim that to prove defamation, one must show that someone acted with reckless disregard for the truth, is partially accurate but requires clarification. This standard, known as "actual malice," applies specifically to defamation cases involving public figures or matters of public concern.

### Understanding Actual Malice

In defamation law, "actual malice" does not refer to ill will or spite but rather to the defendant's knowledge of the statement's falsity or their reckless disregard for its truth. This standard was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan* (1964) to protect free speech, particularly in public discourse[1][3][5].

### Applying the Actual Malice Standard

For public figures, proving defamation requires demonstrating that the defendant made the statement with actual malice. This means showing that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth[3][4]. Reckless disregard is not merely negligence but involves a high degree of awareness of probable falsity or the purposeful avoidance of the truth[4][5].

### Key Elements for Proving Defamation

To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, a plaintiff must prove the following:

1. **Publication**: The defendant published the statement.
2. **Falsity**: The statement was false.
3. **Delivery**: The statement was communicated to others.
4. **Harm**: The plaintiff suffered harm as a result.
5. **Actual Malice (for public figures)**: The defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth[5].

### Conclusion

The claim is accurate in stating that proving reckless disregard for the truth is a critical component of defamation cases involving public figures. However, it is essential to understand that this standard applies specifically to such cases and requires clear and convincing evidence of actual malice[1][3][5]. In general, proving defamation involves demonstrating that the statement was false, published, and caused harm, with the additional burden of proving actual malice for public figures[5].

In the context of Candace Owens' situation, if she were to pursue a defamation claim against the Macrons or their legal representatives, she would need to meet these stringent standards, particularly if the defendants are considered public figures. However, the specifics of her case would depend on the details of the statements made and the legal context in which they were made.

Citations

Claim

Emmanuel Macron's lawyers unintentionally provided me with a direct link to ask Brigitte Macron pointed questions.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that Emmanuel Macron's lawyers unintentionally provided Candace Owens with a direct link to ask Brigitte Macron pointed questions appears to be an interpretation by Owens herself. This interpretation is part of a broader narrative where Owens suggests that the legal actions taken by the Macrons are attempts to evade accountability regarding her claims about Brigitte Macron's identity.

### Background on the Legal Threat

Candace Owens received a legal letter from Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, after she publicly endorsed a conspiracy theory claiming that Brigitte Macron was born a man[2][3][4]. Owens interpreted this letter as an attempt to intimidate her and prevent her from publishing further on the topic[2][4].

### Legal Context

In France, defamation laws are strict, and spreading false information can lead to legal action. Brigitte Macron has previously indicated her intention to sue over similar false rumors[1]. The legal letter sent to Owens likely aimed to deter her from spreading defamatory content rather than providing a direct link for questioning[2][4].

### Candace Owens' Interpretation

Owens' statement that the legal letter gives her a "direct line of communication" with the Macron family seems to be a rhetorical device rather than a literal interpretation of legal procedures[4]. It is unlikely that the Macrons' legal team intended to facilitate direct questioning by Owens.

### Conclusion

The claim that Emmanuel Macron's lawyers provided Candace Owens with a direct link to ask Brigitte Macron pointed questions appears to be an exaggerated interpretation by Owens. The legal actions were likely intended to address defamation concerns rather than facilitate communication or questioning[2][4]. There is no evidence to suggest that the Macrons' legal team intended to create a direct line of communication for Owens to pose questions.

### Evidence and References

– **Legal Threats and Defamation**: The legal letter sent to Owens was part of a broader effort to address defamation and prevent the spread of false information about Brigitte Macron[2][4].
– **Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation**: The claims about Brigitte Macron's identity have been widely debunked and are part of a pattern of misinformation targeting public figures[1][3].
– **Candace Owens' Response**: Owens has used the legal threat as a platform to criticize the Macrons and suggest a cover-up, despite lacking credible evidence for her claims[2][4].

In summary, while Candace Owens claims that the legal letter provides her with a direct link to question Brigitte Macron, this interpretation is not supported by the context of the legal actions taken by the Macrons. The legal response was aimed at addressing defamation and preventing the spread of false information.

Citations

Claim

The legal threat from Brigitte Macron's lawyers involved minor errors in reporting.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that the legal threat from Brigitte Macron's lawyers involved minor errors in reporting can be evaluated by examining the context and nature of the legal actions taken against Candace Owens and others who spread false claims about Brigitte Macron.

### Background

In 2021, a YouTube video falsely claimed that Brigitte Macron was born male and had transitioned, identifying her as "Jean-Michel Trogneux," which is actually the name of her brother[1][3]. This claim was widely disseminated and amplified by conspiracy theorists and far-right figures, including Candace Owens[1][2].

### Legal Action

Brigitte Macron filed a libel complaint against two women who posted the video, leading to a trial in France. The court ordered these women to pay €8,000 in damages for spreading false and defamatory information about Brigitte Macron[1][5]. The legal action was not about minor reporting errors but about serious defamation that damaged Brigitte Macron's reputation.

### Candace Owens' Claims and Legal Threat

Candace Owens has continued to spread conspiracy theories about the Macrons, including false claims about Brigitte Macron's gender identity and unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse[2]. She received a legal letter from the Macrons, which she interpreted as an attempt to silence her rather than address the substance of her claims[2]. However, the legal action is primarily focused on defamation and protecting Brigitte Macron's reputation, not minor reporting errors.

### Conclusion

The claim that the legal threat from Brigitte Macron's lawyers involved minor errors in reporting is **misleading**. The legal actions were taken in response to serious defamation and false claims that damaged Brigitte Macron's reputation, not minor reporting inaccuracies. The legal context and the nature of the claims made by Candace Owens and others support this conclusion[1][2][3].

### Legal Definitions of Defamation

Defamation involves making false statements that harm someone's reputation. In this case, the false claims about Brigitte Macron's gender identity were deemed defamatory because they exposed her to ridicule and damaged her reputation[1][3]. The legal response was aimed at addressing these serious allegations rather than minor reporting errors.

### Additional Information

Candace Owens' plans to reveal alleged scandals surrounding the Macron couple are part of a broader narrative criticizing elite corruption and silence around controversial subjects. However, her claims about Brigitte Macron have been debunked, and the legal actions against her are focused on protecting against defamation rather than silencing her[2]. The issue of transparency and accountability raised by Owens is not supported by the facts of the legal actions taken against her and others who spread false claims about Brigitte Macron.

Citations

Claim

They used all sorts of tricky language to suggest that they could sue me for defamation over minor errors that I made in my reporting.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Candace Owens suggests the Macrons used legal language to threaten her with defamation over minor errors in her reporting, we need to analyze the context and the legal framework surrounding defamation.

## Claim Analysis

Candace Owens has been involved in a public controversy with French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, over her claims that Brigitte Macron was born male. Owens has interpreted a legal letter from the Macrons as an attempt to silence her and avoid accountability for her allegations[1][3].

## Legal Framework of Defamation

Defamation is a legal concept that involves making false statements about someone that harm their reputation. It can be divided into libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation)[2]. For a statement to be considered defamatory, it must be a false statement of fact, not opinion, and must have been made with some level of negligence or malice, depending on the jurisdiction[2][4].

## Application to Candace Owens' Situation

In Owens' case, her claims about Brigitte Macron's identity are controversial and have been widely debunked[3][5]. The legal letter from the Macrons likely aimed to address these specific allegations rather than minor reporting errors. The letter's content, as described by Owens, emphasizes that Brigitte Macron does not owe proof of her gender identity to Owens, which suggests a direct response to the core of Owens' claims rather than minor errors[1][3].

## Conclusion

The claim that the Macrons used legal language to threaten Candace Owens with defamation over minor errors appears to be a misinterpretation of the situation. The legal threats were likely aimed at addressing the core of Owens' allegations, which are considered defamatory by the Macrons. The legal framework supports the idea that such threats would be used to protect against false statements of fact that could harm someone's reputation, rather than minor reporting errors[2][4].

In summary, while Owens frames the legal letter as an attempt to silence her over minor errors, the context suggests it is more about addressing the defamatory nature of her claims regarding Brigitte Macron's identity.

## Evidence and Citations

– **Candace Owens' Claims and Macron's Response**: Owens has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories about Brigitte Macron's gender identity, which the Macrons have responded to with legal threats[1][3].
– **Legal Framework of Defamation**: Defamation requires a false statement of fact that harms someone's reputation, and the burden of proof often lies with the plaintiff to show the statement was false, especially for public figures[2][4].
– **Context of the Dispute**: The dispute centers on Owens' allegations about Brigitte Macron, which have been widely criticized and debunked[3][5].

Citations

Claim

The majority of the questions that we asked them were simply yes or no.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "the majority of the questions that we asked them were simply yes or no," we need to assess the context in which Candace Owens made this statement. The claim is part of her narrative regarding her investigation into Brigitte Macron's identity and her interactions with the Macron couple's legal team.

## Context of the Claim
Candace Owens has been involved in a public campaign against the Macron couple, particularly focusing on allegations about Brigitte Macron's identity. She has released a series of videos and statements, including claims that she sent 21 questions to the Macrons, which they allegedly did not answer directly[1].

## Analysis of the Claim
1. **Nature of the Questions**: Owens' assertion that the questions were straightforward (yes or no) suggests she aimed to simplify the inquiry process. However, without access to the specific questions, it's challenging to verify this claim.

2. **Legal Response**: The Macron couple's legal team responded with a letter that Owens interpreted as an attempt to silence her rather than address her questions directly. This response included defamation charges, which Owens sees as evasive[1].

3. **Transparency and Accountability**: Owens argues that the Macrons' legal approach indicates a lack of transparency and accountability. She questions why they did not simply deny her claims if they were unfounded[1].

## Conclusion
While Candace Owens claims that her questions were straightforward, there is no publicly available evidence to confirm the exact nature of these questions. Her interpretation of the Macron couple's legal response as evasive is part of her broader narrative criticizing their handling of her allegations. Without direct access to the questions or a detailed breakdown of the legal correspondence, it's difficult to fully validate Owens' claim about the simplicity of her questions.

## Recommendations for Further Verification
– **Access to the Questions**: Reviewing the actual questions posed by Owens would provide clarity on their nature.
– **Legal Correspondence**: Examining the full legal response from the Macron couple's team could offer insight into whether they directly addressed Owens' allegations or focused solely on defamation charges.
– **Independent Analysis**: An independent review of both Owens' questions and the Macron couple's legal response could help determine the validity of her claims about the simplicity of her inquiries and the nature of their response.

Citations

Claim

Public concerns arose over the age difference between Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Public Concerns Over the Age Difference Between Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron

The claim that public concerns arose over the age difference between Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron can be verified through various sources. Here's a detailed analysis:

### Background Information

– **Age Difference**: Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron have a significant age gap of approximately 24 years. Brigitte was 39 years old when she met Emmanuel, who was 15 at the time, in 1993 at La Providence High School in Amiens, where she was a teacher and he was a student[3].
– **Marriage**: They married in 2007 after Brigitte divorced her previous husband in 2006[1][3].

### Public Concerns

Public concerns about their relationship stem from the substantial age difference and the fact that Brigitte was Emmanuel's teacher when they first met. This situation has raised questions about power dynamics and societal norms, especially if the roles were reversed[1]. The age of consent in France is 15, which has been a point of discussion regarding their relationship[2].

### Legal Context

The age of consent in France is 15, as established by a 2021 law that clarified penalties for sexual acts with minors under this age[2]. However, the legal context does not necessarily address the ethical or societal implications of such relationships.

### Candace Owens' Claims and Legal Threats

Candace Owens has been involved in a public controversy with the Macrons, making claims about Brigitte's identity and criticizing their relationship. She has received legal threats from the Macron family, which she views as an attempt to silence her[4]. While Owens' claims are controversial and unrelated to the age difference issue, they highlight the broader public scrutiny the Macron couple faces.

### Conclusion

The claim that public concerns arose over the age difference between Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron is **verified**. The significant age gap and the circumstances of their meeting have indeed raised questions and concerns among the public and media outlets[1][3]. However, it's essential to distinguish between legal and societal concerns, as the legal age of consent in France does not necessarily address the ethical implications of such relationships[2].

Citations

Claim

The only country in which it is legal for minors to marry is France.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **"The only country in which it is legal for minors to marry is France"** is **incorrect**. Here's a detailed analysis based on legal contexts and reliable sources:

## Overview of Marriage Laws Globally

Most countries have laws allowing minors to marry under certain conditions, such as parental or judicial consent. For instance, in many countries, including the United States, Canada, and several European nations, minors can marry with specific permissions[1][3].

## Specific Examples

– **United States**: As of 2024, child marriage is legal in 38 states, with some exceptions requiring court approval. Twelve states have banned underage marriages without exceptions[1].
– **Canada**: The minimum marriageable age is 16, with additional restrictions requiring parental and court consent for those under the age of majority (18 or 19, depending on the province)[1].
– **United Kingdom**: Marriage is allowed for 16–17-year-olds with parental consent in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, while in Scotland, it is allowed without parental consent[1].
– **Morocco**: While the minimum age is 18, underage marriages can occur with court approval[1].

## France

In France, there is no specific law allowing minors to marry without any conditions. However, the age of consent for sexual activities is set at 15, which is unrelated to marriage laws[2]. Marriage laws in France typically require both parties to be at least 18 years old to marry without any exceptions.

## Conclusion

The claim that France is the only country where it is legal for minors to marry is **false**. Many countries allow minors to marry under certain conditions, and France does not have unique laws permitting minors to marry without any restrictions. The confusion might arise from the age of consent for sexual activities, which is different from marriage laws.

In summary, the assertion is not supported by evidence and contradicts the legal frameworks of numerous countries that allow child marriages with specific conditions.

Citations

Claim

The artistic director of the Paris Olympics was handpicked to put this ceremony on in the presence of First Lady Brigitte Macron.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the artistic director of the Paris Olympics was handpicked to put on a ceremony in the presence of First Lady Brigitte Macron, we need to assess the available information and evidence.

## Claim Evaluation

1. **Artistic Director Appointment**: Thomas Jolly was appointed as the artistic director of the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic ceremonies. This appointment was made by Paris 2024 in collaboration with its stakeholders, aiming to create innovative and accessible ceremonies[1]. There is no specific mention of Brigitte Macron's involvement in this appointment process.

2. **Involvement of Brigitte Macron**: The claim suggests that Brigitte Macron played a role in selecting the artistic director. However, there is no official statement or record indicating her direct involvement in this decision. Official statements and press releases about the appointment focus on the vision of Paris 2024 and the artistic credentials of Thomas Jolly[1].

3. **Candace Owens' Claims**: Candace Owens has made several claims about the Macron couple, including allegations about Brigitte Macron's identity and involvement in various controversies. These claims are not supported by official records or statements from credible sources. Instead, they are part of a broader narrative Owens presents in her content, which includes criticisms of elite corruption and transparency issues[2].

## Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, there is no credible support for the claim that the artistic director of the Paris Olympics was handpicked specifically in the presence of or at the behest of First Lady Brigitte Macron. The appointment of Thomas Jolly as artistic director is attributed to Paris 2024's vision for innovative ceremonies, and there is no official indication of Brigitte Macron's direct involvement in this decision[1]. Candace Owens' claims about the Macron couple are not verified by reliable sources and are part of a broader narrative she presents in her content[2].

In summary, without concrete evidence or official statements linking Brigitte Macron to the selection process of the artistic director, this claim remains unsubstantiated.

Citations

Claim

Claude Leveque was accused of statutory rape by multiple victims and later indicted for the rape of minors.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Claude Lévêque was accused of statutory rape by multiple victims and later indicted for the rape of minors, we can rely on recent news reports and legal updates.

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Accusations and Investigation**: Claude Lévêque, a French visual artist, has been under investigation for allegations of sexual abuse and rape of minors. The investigation began in 2019 following a complaint by sculptor Laurent Foulon, who claimed he was raped by Lévêque from the age of 10 to 17 in the 1980s[1][3]. Although these specific allegations are time-barred, two new victims, brothers from Nièvre, have come forward with similar claims of abuse during the late 1990s[1][3].

2. **Indictment**: Lévêque was formally indicted on March 31, 2023, on charges including rape and sexual assault of minors under the age of 15[1][3][5]. He is currently under judicial supervision and is not allowed to leave France[3][5].

3. **Public Response**: In response to these allegations, several public bodies have removed or turned off his artworks. For example, local councils in the Greater Paris region removed his public sculptures, and the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art in Geneva announced it would not show his work in the future[2][5].

## Conclusion

The claim that Claude Lévêque was accused of statutory rape by multiple victims and later indicted for the rape of minors is supported by reliable news sources and legal documents. The artist has faced serious allegations, leading to an ongoing investigation and indictment, with multiple victims coming forward to testify against him.

In the context of Candace Owens' broader critique of elite corruption and silence surrounding controversial subjects, the case of Claude Lévêque serves as an example of how allegations of serious misconduct can lead to legal consequences and public scrutiny, even for prominent figures. However, Owens' specific claims about the Macron couple and their legal responses are separate issues that require additional verification and context.

Citations

Claim

Emmanuel Macron chose a book by an author known as Andre Gide, a self-admitted Petto for his presidential portrait.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Emmanuel Macron chose a book by André Gide for his presidential portrait, specifically mentioning that Gide was a "self-admitted Petto," appears to be partially accurate but also contains inaccuracies. Macron's official portrait does feature books by notable authors, including André Gide's *The Fruits of the Earth*, which is mentioned alongside other works like De Gaulle's memoirs and Stendhal's *The Red and the Black* in the Pléiade editions[1]. However, there is no evidence to suggest that André Gide was referred to as a "self-admitted Petto" in this context.

Regarding Candace Owens' claims and legal threats from the Macron family, Owens has been involved in controversies surrounding her allegations about Brigitte Macron's identity and other topics. She has criticized the Macrons for pursuing legal action rather than addressing her claims directly, suggesting a lack of transparency[Query]. However, the search results do not provide specific details about Owens' claims regarding Macron's book choices or any connection to André Gide.

In summary:
– **Macron's Book Choice**: Macron's official portrait includes books by prominent authors like André Gide, but there is no evidence linking Gide to the term "self-admitted Petto" in this context[1].
– **Candace Owens' Claims**: Owens has made various allegations against the Macron family and criticizes their legal response as evasive[Query].

Citations

Claim

The book selected by Emmanuel Macron is about how you should flee your family and the traditional norms that restrict sexual relationships with minors.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that a book selected by Emmanuel Macron is about fleeing family and traditional norms to engage in sexual relationships with minors, we need to identify the specific book in question and assess its content based on literary analysis or summaries.

However, the claim seems to be linked to broader allegations and criticisms made by Candace Owens against the Macron couple, including unsubstantiated claims about Brigitte Macron's identity and other controversies. There is no specific mention of Emmanuel Macron endorsing or selecting a book with such content in the provided search results or in widely available literature.

If we consider the possibility that the claim might refer to a book like **"Les Faux-Monnayeurs"** by André Gide, which explores themes of family, morality, and unconventional relationships, it's crucial to note that Gide's works often critique societal norms but do not advocate for illegal activities like sexual relationships with minors. Gide's literature is known for its complex exploration of human relationships and moral ambiguity, but it does not promote or glorify illegal or harmful behavior.

Without specific details about the book in question, it's challenging to validate or refute the claim directly. However, based on available information and the context of Emmanuel Macron's public actions and statements, there is no evidence to support the claim that he has endorsed or selected a book advocating for sexual relationships with minors.

**Conclusion:**
– The claim lacks specific evidence or credible sources linking Emmanuel Macron to a book that advocates for sexual relationships with minors.
– Literary works like those of André Gide explore complex themes but do not promote illegal activities.
– The broader context involves unsubstantiated allegations and criticisms against the Macron couple, which are not supported by reliable sources.

**Recommendation:**
For a thorough evaluation, it would be necessary to identify the specific book in question and consult literary analyses or summaries from reputable sources. Without this information, the claim remains unsubstantiated.

Citations

Claim

There is a strange case of what happens to every journalist who tries to touch this story.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Media Suppression and Threats Against Journalists Reporting on Specific Topics

The claim suggests that there is a pattern of suppression or threats against journalists who attempt to cover certain stories, using Candace Owens' situation as an example. This involves her allegations about Brigitte Macron and the legal response from the Macron family. To evaluate this claim, we need to consider the broader context of media freedom and the specific details of Owens' case.

### Media Freedom and Threats Against Journalists

Journalists worldwide face numerous threats, including violence, disinformation, and legal harassment. According to UNESCO, journalists are frequently targeted, with over 1,200 media professionals killed between 2006 and 2020, and in most cases, the perpetrators go unpunished[2]. This environment of impunity can lead to self-censorship and a decline in public-interest reporting[4].

### Candace Owens' Case

Candace Owens has been involved in a public controversy with French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, over her claims that Brigitte Macron was born a man. Owens received a legal letter from the Macrons, which she interpreted as an attempt to silence her[1][3]. She has accused the Macrons of using legal threats to avoid addressing her allegations directly, suggesting a lack of transparency[1][3].

### Analysis of the Claim

1. **Media Suppression and Legal Threats**: The use of legal threats against journalists is a recognized tactic to suppress reporting, especially on sensitive topics[2]. Owens' case illustrates how powerful figures might employ legal means to deter journalists from pursuing certain stories.

2. **Specific Allegations and Response**: Owens' claims about Brigitte Macron have been widely criticized, and the Macron family's legal response is seen as a defensive measure against what they consider defamation[1][3]. However, Owens frames this as an attempt to evade accountability and silence her, highlighting broader issues of media freedom and the challenges journalists face when reporting on powerful individuals.

3. **Broader Implications for Media Freedom**: The situation underscores concerns about media freedom and the ability of journalists to investigate without fear of reprisal. It also highlights the tension between free speech and defamation laws, particularly when powerful figures are involved.

### Conclusion

The claim that there is a strange case of what happens to every journalist who tries to touch this story reflects real concerns about media suppression and threats against journalists. While Owens' specific allegations are controversial and disputed, her experience illustrates the broader challenges journalists face when reporting on sensitive topics, especially those involving powerful figures. The use of legal threats can be a tool for suppression, contributing to a global crisis in press freedom[2][4]. Therefore, the claim has validity in highlighting these issues, though the specifics of Owens' case are contentious and require careful evaluation.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and make the world a more informed place!