Candace Owens (6:48)
Straight men have dead eyes. There's nothing behind the eyes. And his assessment is that gay men have a twinkle. And it's very. What he's saying is what I was trying to introduce in a more polite way by taking you guys through these, like, lavender marriages that actually happen in Hollywood. I know they happened for a fact. And there's just something here, this underlying anger that doesn't make sense. The Deadpool scene was kind of just a little overdone for me. The relationship with Hugh Jackman was kind of overdone for me. And I just find it hilarious that this guy just looks at the circumstance, reads the messages, and it's like, okay, I know what's going on here and now, but instead we've got to go through this court case and it's got to be like $400 million and it's all crazy. All because Ryan is not happy with who he is on the inside. That's really what it comes down to. He. He is not an honest person with himself. And so he's just become a very vicious person who's lashing out in a variety of ways. That's what I. I would probably agree with. Anyways, I also just want to show you that because it's absolutely hilarious. But I also wanted to provide you guys with an update on a major piece of the laws. Let's not forget that the New York Times is being sued because a lot of important filings have been happening. So obviously they hit him hard. Defamation, false light, invasion of privacy. I'm speaking about Justin's team when they filed that. That $200 million lawsuit against the New York Times. And in response, the New York Times filed to dismiss the case altogether, citing that they had fair reporter privilege. Okay, so what is fair reporter privilege? This is the exact definition, so that you guys know. Fair reporter privilege, also known as public proceedings, public records privilege, protects news media from libel lawsuits when they publish fair and accurate accounts of official documents or statements that were made during official proceedings. Okay, so I would claim fair reporter privilege. As I'm going through all these Jessica Mann emails, the Harvey Weinstein series, I'm just reading from the actual filings, right? And so they're like, oh, that's all we were doing. We got the CRD complaint, and we just, you know, we want to be dismissed from this because we're just reporting the facts here. But Brian Friedman and company argue back that the New York Times has completely abandoned that privilege. I just love this photo of Brian Friedman, by the way. Bring it back up. It's just. It's me. I don't know why he says so much here. It's just like, it's not going down like this. So Brian Friedman's team hit them back pretty hard and basically said that they should not be dismissed. Obviously, I very much agree with them, having looked through everything. And I just want to tell you, I love legal filings. It's weird how much I love legal filings. Like, I read them before I go to bed. I probably, in another life could have been a very good lawyer, or at least one who really enjoyed being a lawyer, is what I could say. And it's just the way he. As soon as you read the first sentence of his statement, and I'm assuming Brian Friedman wrote this up, it's just. It's great. It's phenomenal. Listen to the sentence. A pietistic bastion of the media establishment. The New York Times has long presumed itself beyond accountability. Not here. A pietistic bastion of the media establishment, the New York Times. Like, I'm going to. Why have I not called anything about a pietistic bastion? You holier than thou New York Times, you have long thought that you were above. Not here. I just like. As soon as I saw that I was like, I am in. So they go on. And this is just the preliminary statement to call out the journalists who were involved in this. Megan Tuohy, it reads, who co wrote the article along with Mike McIntyre and Julie Tate, purporting to tell the world, quote unquote, what really happened. Specifically that the Wayfarer parties orchestrated a retaliatory campaign to tarnish Lively. It goes on and says the press enjoys the fair report privilege when faithfully relaying the contents of a filed complaint. But that is not what the New York Times did. It admittedly based its article and video on its reporter's review of quote unquote, thousands of pages of documents and expressly credited Lively's claims, framing them as having been verified by the New York Times own investigation. In doing so, the New York Times forfeited the fair report privilege. So right off the bat that is accurate. Right. So when we saw this article in the New York Times, they were not just saying like here's what she filed. It was like inside a smear campaign. And we're telling you that this has been all coordinated by Justin Baldoni. Like where we've confirmed this because we read the messages ourselves. Okay, well you want to play Sherlock Holmes, you're going to get sued like Sherlock Holmes. So it goes on, on page two to say the New York Times contends that the article and video merely reported facts and thus the New York Times is shielded by the fair report privilege. Yet in the same breath, the New York Times also insists that its defamatory statements are not factual at all, factual at all, but rather hyperbolic and non actionable opinion. So what he's saying there essentially is the New York Times and they're filing to be dismissed. They did things that kind of ran into each other. Well, first and foremost they were saying we have fair reporter privilege. But then they also argued that were just opinions. Well, which is it? If it's fair reporter, that means you're sticking to the facts. And if you're saying that you were just being hyperbolic and it's not actionable, then that means that you were not just sticking to the facts, which makes their lawsuit relevant. You know, then they get into the background of the case. We already know that you. That's all available for us to read through. He goes through that, but he speaks about how the New York Times coordinated the publication with Lively's filings of the CRD complaint on December 20. The article continues, the documents show an additional playbook for waging a largely undetectable smear campaign in the digital era. And as admitted in the article, the New York Times relied not just on the CRD complaint itself for reporting, but on thousands of pages of documents that the New York Times reviewed. Video likewise confirms that the New York Times statements were based on private text messages and other documents that the New York Times attained that revealed what really happened. Again, he is citing their own article which says, we involved our ourselves so much that we didn't just rely on a public filing. We also took a look at text message correspondences. Again, Sherlock Holmes in it. Now you're looking at these private correspondences and you are reporting that to the public and not just reporting it in a manner where you're saying, okay, I'm going to be neutral and non biased and just deliver the facts that this is a text message. You, you entitled the article inside a PR Smear Machine and of course therefore libeled Justin Baldoni and, and Heath. So there's no question here in my eyes, of course that's if I'm the judge. And apparently, like I tell you, my lawyer keeps telling me that I'm not. It seems weird. Here is where you, you really get though to the meat and bones of this. First and foremost, his argument that he makes the bottom of page five is we have met the legal standard here for this case to go on, meaning that we'd like to move now towards discovery. We've given you ample inferences here to let you know that we believe, including down to the metadata, which isn't even required by the way. You just kind of need to make a slight inference that the court can believe and then they'll let you move to some sort of like light discovery phase. He's saying, we have provided so much. We have met that standard over and over again. But the meat and the bones of this is going to come down to jurisdiction and both sides are arguing about this. Now, I have been sued for defamation before and this is really crucial actually, what, which state laws you are going to abide by as this case moves through the courts. And they're saying we want this to happen in California. By they I mean Ryan Friedman's team. They're like, we want this to happen in California. And the New York Times is saying, hey, we are the New York Times. This whole article happened in New York. We, we want this to take place in New York. And why is that jurisdiction different? So important? Because in every state, the defamation laws are different. So for me, I love being in Tennessee, we have very strong anti slap laws, as does California. They have anti slap laws. If you bring a lawsuit against me and I'm actually telling the truth, you're not just going to keep me hung up in court because you're going to have to pay for it. Well, he wants this to be in New York. And he. The reason why he wants that is because they're going after the New York Times for false light and invasion of privacy. California recognizes that claim and New York does not. So he spends a lot of time in here trying to assert why this should be in California. He also says that California extends no greater protection to opinions than the Constitution, whereas New York, it goes above and beyond the Constitution, trying to protect, protect these reporters who often engage in smearing. So that's why the New York Times likes to be in New York, because they lie a lot. And they lie so much that they sometimes get people put into prison. You know, if you look at the Harvey Weinstein case, that's my view point on how that went down with the New York Times. And so you want to be in a state that's even more favorable than the Constitution when it comes to your ability to defame. To defame someone. He makes a very strong argument. So it's going to be interesting to see which way the judge goes. Because his argument that it should. This they should abide by California defamation laws is because first and foremost, two of the corporations listed in this lawsuit are domiciled in California. So that's. It ends with US Movie llc, that is a Californian company, also the Agency Group pr, That's Melissa Nathan. He's saying that they all conduct business in California. We know this. The PR firms are all based in California. Those are his clients. These are the plaintiffs. And he is also arguing that. And he cites a lot of case law here, a lot of jurisprudence, that all of these people were harmed in California, obviously, right? It ends with US Movie LLC being there. Justin Baldoni lives there, Heath lives there. The PR agents work there. So when you harmed their reputation, you harmed their ability to work in California. And like I said, he cites a lot of case examples which you have to do, which prove that the court has settled the matter and said, listen, if the punch went out in New York, but the punch was spelled in California, then we're gonna do. We're gonna do this according to California laws. And that's what he is essentially saying. And he takes a look at the New York Times argument and they're saying up in New York law should apply, obviously, because it was entirely reported from and conceived in New York. Ryan hits back at that and says, no, you can't just say stuff. You can't just say stuff on the Internet, okay? You can't just say what you want to say. We need discovery to prove that we don't know who you coordinated with. We don't know who, where the article was typed. We don't know anything yet. And that's why we are requesting this limited discovery to go through that and to be able to determine that. So it's super interesting. Like I said, tons of case law moves on and just essentially asserts, again, why the defamation claim should not be dismissed. Hits hard at what it actually means or what you have to obtain to be GR granted that fair report privilege. And again says that it's measured by the natural improbable effect on the mind of the average reader. Meaning that if we read that article, did we believe that that was a fair and true report of the proceeding? Yeah, obviously people did believe that because this is the reason why half of the It Ends with Us gang were like, read it, read the complaints. Because they thought it was true and it represented a fair and accurate reporting of what the CRD complaint was. And then it turned out that, no, actually the New York Times completely lied. Just lied to the public, included some other inferences, pretend that they had done the investigation and were backing up that claim, which ended up falling apart marvelously, obviously, when Brian Friedman then dropped all the text messages. And so that is what he is saying. A report is not fair and true. It says at the bottom of page 13, if the publication deviates from the judicial proceeding such that it, quote, this is again from another decision, produces a different effect on the reader. And that is what happened with the New York Times piece. It produced a different effect on the reader than if we had just read the CRD complaint, obviously. So that's really interesting. A big piece of this. Obviously, I am invested. I want to see the New York Times go down for several reasons. Obviously, looking into this Harvey Weinstein case. Now people are talking, speaking about that. I actually just did Piers Morgan earlier today and we spoke about it and people are reaching out, being like, I'm so surprised that, like, everything knew about Harvey Weinstein case is not accurate. And yeah, it's the same exact reporter, Megan Tuohy. And so I just feel like right now we're just in generation Truth, like a lot of stuff is happening. People are waking up and recognizing that a lot of people that have been smeared and libeled, we've given the press so much power to take people down absent any facts. And the Justin Baldoni case is not unlike the Harvey Weinstein case in that way and in only that way. Obviously, Justin Baldoni is a little puppy and I would probably say Harvey Weinstein is not a puppy. He's not a puppy at all. But he did get taken down by the media beast and that's what these two cases share in common. So I will keep you guys totally abreast on everything that is taking place with that lawsuit and I will continue to ignore my lawyer who keeps asserting that I'm not a, you know, privy to that or I'm not a part of the case. And eventually I will be, eventually I will be walking into that courtroom one day hugging Brian Friedman and Justin Baldoni and everyone, Melissa Nathan, and we're just, we're all going to be so happy when we win. It's going to be, I'm probably going to cry. I don't know about you guys. I'm probably going to cry anyways. Let me tell you about before we get to Tucker Carlson. Tax Network usa Because the IRS is the largest collection agency in the world and April 15th is fast approaching, it's more aggressive than ever now. The IRS in 2025, enforcement has ramped up. So if you owe back taxes or you have unfiled returns, waiting is not an option. The longer you do, the worse it gets. Ignoring your tax troubles is the worst thing you could possibly do. Getting ahead of them now is a smart move. But you should never contact the IRS alone. Instead, let the experts at Tax Network USA handle it for you. Because not all tax resol companies are the same. Tax Network USA has a preferred direct line to the irs, meaning they know exactly which agents deal to deal with and which ones to avoid. They have proven strategies which help settle tax problems in your favor. So Whether you owe 10,000 or 10 million, Tax Network USA's attorneys and negotiators have already resolved over $1 billion in tax debt. So talk with one of their strategists today because it's free. You call 1-800-958-1000 or you can visit tnusa.com candace that's T N USA.com candace Also, today is your lucky day because it's Field of greens, greens for St. Patty's Day. You're going to Kick that off of the St. Patty's Day sale right now. My viewers will get 30 off if you use code luck. We don't always eat as healthy as we should, but field of greens has your back. One delicious glass is packed with a rainbow of Dr. Selected Fruits and veggies to support your heart and kidney health, metabolism and more. So even when you go for the burger instead of the salad, you will still be giving your body the good stuff that it needs daily. And during their St. Patty's Day sale, you can save green while you drink your greens. Save 30% on all of their popular flavors and bundles when you use code luck. So weather field of greens is already part of your routine or even waiting to give it a try. Now is your chance to save big. The sales only on for a few days, so don't miss out. Go to fieldofgreens.com and use promo code LUCK. That's fieldofgreens.com promo code LUCK. You know, he's not having any luck right now because you can't do stuff in the dark, but doesn't come to light. Emmanuel Macron. He's not. I'm sorry. It is. I feel great about this, by the way. I feel great that it is. It is just viral worldwide. You don't know why. Because I spent a year having people call me crazy. People smearing me, people lying, people that just didn't take the time to read what I had read. I get it. When something's in another language, you're kind of like, eh, I don't even want to read stuff in English sometimes. I don't want to read this, like, French journalistic report or whatever. But me, I'm just nosy. And when I saw it and I read it, I was. I can tell you exactly where I was. I was in Miami at the time, about to head to a UFC fight. The first time that I read a report about Emmanuel Macron's wife being a man. And I literally, Savannah, my manager, I was in my hotel room, like, in a robe. And I like, text from. He'd come over right now, like, right, come to my room right now. Could you imagine? Working for me is insane. And she comes over. I'm like, listen, Rasheet Macron, she's. She's a man. She's. She's. She's a man. And she's like, what? I sent her a link. I'm like, sit down. We got to read this. And then I saw pbd. Vinnie. We. We were so immersed in this conversation at the ufc Fight that like Ivanka Trump, Jared, everyone who walked by and tried to say hi to us, like Trump was there that night. We were. I was like, I don't have time. I don't have time to talk about anything else and this is a true story. And then me and Vinnie just sat in a corner and talked about this the entire fight, while famous people just walked by us and everyone wanted pictures with them. And I just wanted to talk about Brigitte. And so to ha. To go through that and then to fast forward to getting that legal letter and having essentially to be threatened by a G7 leader and to. Who was basically betting that I would like, be like, oh, I'm so scared. And actually it just made me angry because I was like too pregnant for that to now. Seeing the entire world who has watched this series, embracing it and realizing this was not a little story, this was a massive one, is amazing. It feels good. It feels like the truth catching up with the lies. And again we see the media being defeated. The media calling everybody a conspiracy theorist being defeated. Because that's the truth. The truth is a lion. That's the famed expression, let it go and it will defend itself. And so Tucker Carlson was being. Was interviewing Pardon Clayton Morris of Redacted on his Friday show and becoming Brigitte came up and here is the clip. Take a listen.