• A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Seriously, he’s validating this BS?

    Well they both have reason to feel very self-conscious about their marriage.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They’re presenting evidence to a court in a defamation case. This isn’t validating it at all, they’re arguing the claims constitute gross disregard for the truth

  • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Ms Owens’ lawyers have responded to the Macrons’ lawsuit with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should not have been filed in Delaware, as she says it does not relate to her businesses, which are incorporated in the state. They claim forcing her to defend the case in Delaware would cause “substantial financial and operational hardship”.

    It definitely relates to her businesses since her business is primarily manufacturing and spreading bullshit.

  • QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    8 hours ago

    And when such evidence is provided, Owens & co will move the goalposts and claim how it isn’t sufficient evidence.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Yeah except this is a court case. Like, make no mistake, she’s gonna try to weasel around all this, but the evidence isn’t for her to decide, it’s for the court to say. Like, it’s blatantly obvious that Owens has a clear disregard for the truth, but this evidence is being presented to the court to establish the actual truth that Macron is afab and sufficiently endosex as to not have this be a reasonable question. Owens will be free to disbelieve it if she likes, but if the court says that given the evidence there is no way a reasonable person party to this evidence can disbelieve this without a gross disregard for the truth then Owens can still be legally barred from saying it.

    • nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I look forward to MAGA mansplaining to us all how “being a woman is not just about two X chromosomes”

      🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️