Candace Owens makes $300,000 bet with Piers Morgan over Brigitte Macron despite lawsuit
The MAGA podcaster continued to promote her debunked conspiracy theory on Tuesday's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, just weeks after being hit with a defamation lawsuit by French President Emmanuel Macron and the first lady over what they called a 'relentless and unjustified smear campaign.'
'Last time we discussed this on Uncensored, I bet you $150,000 that you were wrong and that she's a woman. On X, when we discussed this further, I doubled it, this is for charity, to $300,000,' the host said. 'You haven't accepted that yet. So right now, $300,000 to charity, I say she's a woman. Are you prepared to take that bet?'
Without hesitation, Owens replied: 'I am 1,000 percent prepared to take that bet.'
The far-right provocateur said that she had missed Morgan's tweet and, if she did spot it, she would have accepted the wager 'live.'
'So we can totally accept that bet, I believe [Brigette] Macron is a male and they will not be presenting any evidence on the contrary because they would have done it already,' she added.'
Morgan, who has repeatedly called Owens's claims 'utter nonsense,' pressed the podcaster whether she would accept that her 'cruel, vindictive' campaign was akin to 'bullying against women' if proved wrong.
'I was not interested in being a crusader against this,' Owens responded. 'I went to them and said, 'If yoy answer these questions, we will not run the series.' I am only interested in the truth.'
Following months of Owens' false claims that ' Brigitte Macron is a man' and 'he transitioned' secretly decades ago, which have seen the anti-trans podcaster promote a byzantine and debunked conspiracy theory, the Macrons filed a 219-page defamation complaint in Delaware last month.
According to the lawsuit, Owens has 'caused tremendous damage to the Macrons,' adding that her 'tranvestigation' podcast series was designed to feed a 'frenzied fan base' in 'pursuit of fame' and profit.
Having said she'd 'stake my entire professional reputation on' the bogus claim about the Macrons, Owens reacted to the lawsuit by saying she'd been sued by the 'first lady man' of France.
Owens ramped up rhetoric last Monday (July 28), predicting that Brigitte Marcon's death would be faked before the case reached its discovery phase.
Earlier this week, she told Tucker Carlson that President Donald Trump called her directly, imploring her to stop questioning France's first lady's gender, shortly after French President Emmanuel Macron visited the White House in February.
After the president allegedly told Owens that 'she looks like a woman to me,' the podcaster continued to peddle her conspiracy, allegedly responding: 'Respectfully, Mr. President, it's not my fault that he married somebody with a penis.'
The Independent has reached out to lawyers for the Macrons for comment on Owens' latest remarks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain is getting worse and the old politics offers no solutions
Is life in Britain getting better or worse? Fraser Nelson has ignited a vigorous debate by positing that 'broadly speaking there has never been a better time to live in the UK'. As evidence, he pointed out that overall crime, according to surveys, is only a third of the level of 25 years ago; that crime had fallen while immigration surged; that air pollution was at historically low levels; and that carbon emissions were falling. His assertion feels implausible. Still, one cannot simply dismiss it with anecdotes, or just claim the data is wrong. Data does matter, and it's not necessarily mistaken to use it to question the popular mood. After all, with Nelson as editor, The Spectator persistently opposed lockdowns on the basis that Covid was neither as dangerous nor as fast-spreading as the government claimed. Hard information proved the policy wrong. So what is it that jars to so many of us – including this writer? Well, first of all, it's that if you are trying to assess the quality of life in Britain you must use all available information and analyse it properly. In fact, overall crime has stopped falling and is ticking up again. Crimes as various as sexual assault and shoplifting, crimes that matter to us day-to-day, are going up significantly. Moreover we are all adjusting our behaviour as shops, streets, and trains feel more threatening, and as the police seem ever less on the side of the law-abiding. The data doesn't catch everything. And crime is only one element of the picture. We've had a serious spike in inflation and we can see prices going up yet again under the very uncertain hand of the Bank of England. Vast numbers of Britons have given up working. And GDP per head has grown barely 6 per cent since its pre-crash peak in 2007 – 0.3 per cent a year. In this steady state economy, the only way you get richer is if someone else gets poorer. Look no further for the source of the social conflict of recent years. So the wider data certainly gives a gloomier picture. But personally I believe something even more important is also going on. People are sensing the country is reaching a tipping point and that the future is going to be different to the past. When this happens, existing data will, self-evidently, tell you nothing reliable about the future. What a growing number of voters now see is that for 20 years we have taken the easy way out. We haven't dealt with our problems and we have carried on living on tick. But now the various bills must be paid and it is not going to be fun. For 20 years we have robbed selected wealthy Peter to pay collective Paul – or rather not pay, because we haven't run a budget surplus in any of those years and now one government pound in every twelve is spent on financing debt. It's not surprising people worry another financial crisis is coming. For 20 years we allowed immigration to increase to its highest ever levels. The consequences are now visible well beyond our major cities and we have nowhere to put illegal migrants except in hotels in hitherto untouched communities. Is it any wonder that people are suddenly agitated about the scale of the problem? For 20 years we told people that wind and sun could power Britain. Now they see fields covered with solar panels, their energy bills going up, and heavy industry leaving the country. Is it surprising that suddenly people think they have been sold a pup and fear the consequences? Even in those fortunate parts of the country that remain relatively untouched by migration or crime, people are beginning to ask themselves 'how long can it last'? No-one seems to think the problems can be fixed. All they hope to do is insulate themselves from them as long as they can. That's why people are right to be unhappy. So why have so many voices embarked on the implausible task of telling people things are not so bad? It's because they have to. After all, if the last twenty years have not been spent on turning Britain into a close approximation of the Elysian fields, but rather on complacently storing up difficulties that are now bursting out, why should anyone have confidence in the political ideas of that period or the parties and politicians in charge during it? The answer is that people won't have such confidence and will turn to others. That's why the establishment are so keen to persuade you that things are not as bad as they seem. 'Trust us, it's not so bad, we'll put things back on track.' Trust me, they won't. The people who got us here, who tried to stop us leaving the EU, who told us we had to rely on immigration, who said we could safely run down our energy systems and outsource the consequences to China: these people won't get us out again. Whatever Britain's future, it can't be like the past. Change is needed and change is surely coming.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Ukraine will lose. Britain must now prepare for Russia's next onslaught
It is time to put outrage, passion and wishful thinking aside and face facts: in what may well go down in history as the West's gravest foreign policy failing of the 21st century, Ukraine has lost the war against Russia. The conflict is likely to come to an end sooner rather than later – and on terms that favour Putin. Britain must accept that the Ukraine war is all but over – and prepare for an even bigger brewing conflict. Tomorrow's Alaska talks between Trump and Putin have scandalised European opinion. British defence sources have vented to me their disgust at the free world's leader sitting down with the most ruthless authoritarian ruler alive to carve chunks out of a country that has fought heroically for the liberal, democratic principles upon which America was founded – principles that are fading from a US foreign policy that is increasingly transactional. That Trump hopes to seal the deal by granting Putin access to Ukrainian rare minerals has added a neocolonial whiff to the stench of betrayal. Europe's righteous indignation is tinged with hypocrisy. Ukraine has been burned not only by Trump's unsparing America First policy, but by Europe's disastrous refusal to invest in its own defence. An end to the war is imminent – and it will plunge Europe into its most perilous moment since 1939. The geopolitical dynamics that have enabled Ukraine to hold the line against Russia have shifted. The Biden administration was content to keep the war in permanent stalemate. The hope was that the West could sap Russia's power over time, while minimising the risk of a nuclear confrontation. But the Trump administration, far from wanting to slowly destroy Russia, seeks to nurture Moscow as an ally, as it scrambles to contain the biggest threat to US supremacy – a rising China. As Moscow becomes ever more reliant on Beijing's oil purchases and investment, Washington fears that a cash-strapped and isolated Russia risks becoming a satellite state of China. There is now a strategic logic for both Kyiv and Moscow to end the war. With the West unwilling to decisively ramp up support, Ukraine knows that the longer the war continues, the more calamitous it will be for Ukraine economically, demographically and – in a country with shallow democratic roots – also politically. Washington's leading Russia experts such as Thomas Graham, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, believe that Russia is on the cusp of a bankable win: 'If the Kremlin were to reach a negotiated solution right now, they would get most of what they want. Ukraine is not going to join Nato. The Russians aren't going to be pushed out of the territory that they occupy in Ukraine. The issue of discrimination against Russian speakers ought to be resolved because most of those Russian speakers live in territory occupied by Russia at this point.' Trump allies are quietly confident that Putin has come to realise that his more grandiose ambitions risk backfiring: the longer a war intended to protect Russian greatness drags on, the more the country risks slipping down the great power rankings. Trump will get his deal, even if the Alaska talks come to naught. Instead of denouncing Trump, Britain should put all its energy into getting ready for a new high-stakes epoch. Even Trump allies voiced to me their fear that the President could draw up a slapdash agreement that rips huge chunks out of Ukraine – and strongarm Europe into agreeing by threatening to block the Continent from using US-obtained weapons and technology in Ukraine. Putin will be emboldened by the deal that is inevitably coming. He will focus on replenishing his army and mulling over other expansionist plans against Moldova and Georgia. It is not unthinkable that a full-scale Europe-wide conflict could break out within the coming decade. The best way to prevent such a scenario is to build up Europe's military power to a degree that deters Putin, particularly in light of America's effective withdrawal from the region. Britain in particular needs to get its finger out. In its determination that we should remain a great military power, the political class dodges the question of which lethal capabilities to focus on. The UK needs to decide whether it can best serve Europe by building up its land army or playing to its naval and air-based strengths. Some in defence circles want us to focus on defending the Arctic North, where Russia's shadow fleet threatens critical infrastructure like undersea cables, and wargaming how the RAF could lend cover to expanded German and Polish land powers in the event of a world war. A decision must be made either way – and it must be made soon. Britain must also prepare for a new era of hybrid warfare. According to Russia expert Mark Galeotti, Moscow is moving away from big ticket cyber attacks towards sabotaging crumbling services in a way that contributes to our sense that 'everything is broken'. As a result of what Galeotti has dubbed this the 'weaponisation of inconvenience', the result might be that we find streaming a film at night impossible, or that we cannot book a train ticket because the online platform is down. Galeotti tells me: 'The essence of the Russian approach to warfare is to try and paralyse us, to get us so disillusioned with our system that we are so busy thinking that nothing works and questioning the fundamentals, that we are unable to muster any kind of organised obstacles to Russian activity.' Britain is dangerously ill equipped for dealing with this unfamiliar, powerful new kind of conflict. Russia will take particular pleasure in targeting us. The Kremlin harbours a surreal enmity towards Britain; earnest Anglophilia bleeds into unhinged Anglophobia. Russian elites tend to view Britain as a nation of high intellects, regarding UK education as the absolute pinnacle and even romantically reckoning that British police stations are staffed by Sherlock Holmes geniuses. By the same logic, the Kremlin tends to see the British as the most brilliantly sneaky of Western antagonists. The Kremlin is convinced that Britain gave America the idea of spurring Ukraine's Orange Revolution – and is preparing to mete revenge. As a new dark age descends on Europe, there is little time for reproach and regret. Our world is becoming more dangerous; we need to be ready.
The Sun
31 minutes ago
- The Sun
First pic of Putin's youngest son Vladimir Jr, 6, emerges as it's revealed his private tutors are paid £320k a year EACH
VLADIMIR Putin's youngest son has been pictured for the first time ever as a snap of the six-year-old has finally emerged. Born in Moscow in 2019, Vladimir Junior is said to have private tutors who rake in more than £320,000 a year each. 7 7 Like his brother Ivan, 10, there is no official information about him or the Kremlin despot's long relationship with their mother Alina Kabaeva, 42, an Olympic gold medal-winning gymnast. While Swiss-born Ivan has been pictured multiple times, this is the first glimpse of 72-year-old Putin's second son – named after his father. It comes as Russian anti-corruption campaigner Maria Pevchikh revealed the 'princes' are schooled inside Putin's hidden palaces by personal tutors on staggering salaries. Leaked data shows the teachers are secretly paid by a company linked to Putin's billionaire crony Gennady Timchenko, 72, who also supports Kabaeva and boasts a £16billion fortune. Details of the boys' German language tutors were exposed – Sofia Bozic, 33, from Bosnia, and Irene Ens, 36, from Germany. Pevchikh, a long-time ally of Kremlin foe Alexei Navalny, who was 'murdered' last year in his hellhole Arctic jail, said: 'Both Irene and Sofia are the personal tutors of Putin and Alina Kabaeva's sons – Vladimir Jr and Ivan. 'They are now six and ten years old. Sofia Bozic and Irene Enns regularly travel by train to Uglovka and Akulovka stations. 'These are the nearest railway stations to Putin's residence in Valdai, where he is believed to spend most of his time with his children and Alina Kabaeva.' The forest palace is guarded by at least a dozen state-of-the-art air defence systems to fend off Ukrainian drones and missiles. 'Since summer 2024, the personal tutors of Putin's sons have been paid by Gennady Timchenko's company Ena-Invest,' Pevchikh claimed. Trump says Putin showdown will be like 'chess' & admits '25% chance of failure'… but plans under way for SECOND meeting 'And paid generously. If primary school teachers from the regions — even from Moscow — are watching me now, I apologise in advance, brace yourselves. 'The tutors of Putin's children receive 2,900,000 rubles a month [£26,775].' That's more than £320,000 a year – seven years' pay for a German teacher in the Russian provinces. Pevchikh added: 'And they're not paid by the pupils' father — after all, Putin's official salary is three times less than that of the foreign tutor. '[The money comes from] Gennady Timchenko, who holds Putin's cashbox. 'That's the essence of the corruption system built by Vladimir Putin. 'From the very start of his first presidential term [in 2000] it was designed this way….and it continues to develop at a furious pace.' 7 7 7 According to Pevchikh's investigation 'Putin's Common Fund: Who Pays for Putin and Kabaeva's Luxurious Life?', Timchenko also splashed £4.6million into Kabaeva's foundation. 'Putin's beloved woman needs half a billion for a hobby,' she said sarcastically. 'Well, Putin can't just transfer it to her from his own salary card. 'And that's when dear comrade Timchenko comes to the rescue, transferring it from the place where the common money is kept.' Another £4.2million went to a clinic linked to Putin's eldest daughter Maria Vorontsova, 40. Putin's critics have long claimed he is one of the richest men in the world, with his wealth stashed away by friendly oligarchs – but until now there's been little proof of such 'cashbox' operations. Officially, the Russian leader earns around £94,000 a year. Earlier this year, Ivan was pictured at a gymnastics event in Valdai – the same high-security compound served by its own railway line and Putin's personal armoured train. The exclusion zone around the sprawling estate is bigger than Malta, and even boasts a karting track and a massive children's playground hidden deep in the woods – painted in the yellow and blue of Ukraine. 7
