Fame Under Fire – Episode Summary

Podcast: Fame Under Fire (BBC Sounds)
Episode: Candace Owens hits out at Macrons plus Diddy is "a good man"
Date: September 25, 2025
Host: Anushka Mutanda-Dougherty
Resident Trial Attorney: Sean Kent

Overview

This episode dives into two explosive celebrity legal sagas:

1. Candace Owens’ feud with the French First Lady & legal fallout—including Owens’ reaction to defamation lawsuits, the role of "scientific evidence," and facts vs. PR moves.
2. Sean "Diddy" Combs’ sentencing phase—exploring arguments in his high-profile prostitution case, character defenses, and the evolving interpretation of victimization in the sex trade.

Anushka and resident lawyer Sean Kent break down legal intricacies, clarify misleading public narratives, and unpack how both courtroom drama and public spectacle shape these cases.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Candace Owens vs. Brigitte Macron: Lawsuit and Media Battle

Background & Claims

• Candace Owens has repeatedly suggested, without evidence, that Brigitte Macron (the French First Lady) was “born male,” prompting a defamation suit from the Macrons in the U.S. (Delaware).
• The Macrons' team announced they would present scientific evidence and photographs in court to prove Brigitte's gender, but not before trial.

Candace’s Public Response ([02:37])

• Owens accuses the Macrons of lying about evidence being already submitted:
  "Brigitte Macron comes out and says they have offered scientific evidence to the US 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. So how could you have offered scientific proof to a court to prove you're a woman?"
  – Candace Owens, 02:37

Host Fact-Checks Owens ([03:00], [03:24])

• The Macrons' legal team stated they "will present" (future tense) scientific evidence, not that it has already been submitted.
• Tom Clare (Macron’s lawyer):
  "There will be expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature, that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements… That should just demonstrate how serious they are about it..."
  – Tom Clare, 03:24

PR Ploy vs. Legal Procedure ([04:53], [05:31])

• Candace’s team (via 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… we offered Brigitte and her lawyers multiple opportunities to supply any form of proof that she was born female, she refused outright."
  – Statement read by BBC Producer, 04:53

• Host Anushka: Defensive evidence is a plaintiff's prerogative, and plaintiffs are obligated to bear the burden of proof.

• Sean Kent:
  “The plaintiff is the one who is bringing their lawsuits…they have a duty…to bring their case and prove their case.”
  – Sean Kent, 05:56

Expert Testimony and Photographic Evidence ([06:08], [07:44])

• Clarification that experts must be qualified to provide scientific evidence (Daubert/Frye standards).
• Photographic evidence refers to pictures of Brigitte pregnant and with her children—NOT the invasive evidence alluded to online.

Why Evidence Isn’t Provided Directly to Owens ([07:44])

• Tom Clare:
  "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…rules of evidence apply..."
  – Tom Clare, 07:44

Discovery and Legal Standards ([09:01], [09:06], [09:51])

• Owens’ team claims the Macrons want to “skip discovery” because they're foreign leaders.
• Tom Clare:
  "Subjecting yourself to discovery in the United States…is not something that people relish doing. But…the fact that they said yes to that…demonstrates one, their conviction in the truth. But it also tells you that they're not afraid…”
  – Tom Clare, 09:06
• Sean Kent:
  "You can't [skip discovery]. The lawsuit wouldn't go forward the second you file a lawsuit…The court can do whatever sanctions they want, including throwing the case out."
  – Sean Kent, 09:51

Medical Records and Examinations ([13:34], [13:52])

• Owens’ team: "We're going to demand Brigitte sit down for an exam with an independent doctor."
• Legal reality:
  Sean Kent:
  "Not, no, but hell no. I mean that is just such an absolute lie…You cannot force a person to sit down with someone else's doctor in a civil context just because you want to. So that statement is...pandering to the public."
  – Sean Kent, 13:52

Discovery Battles ([14:43], [15:48])

• Medical records will be a contentious point—one side trying to get everything, the other to limit access and redact irrelevant details.
• Subpoenas and “motions to quash” will fly, with the judge ultimately deciding what can be requested and revealed.

Jurisdiction: Why Delaware? ([17:03], [17:36])

• Owens moved to dismiss the case on the grounds Delaware is an improper venue.
• Sean Kent:
  “The reason people in the United States, almost everybody tries to incorporate their businesses in Delaware. Delaware doesn't have state income tax and is very business friendly… Candace chose to drive her business through 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.”
  – Sean Kent, 17:36

2. Sean "Diddy" Combs: Sentencing Phase of the Trial

Recap: What Was Diddy Convicted For? ([22:24])

• Diddy convicted on two counts of transportation for prostitution (not sex trafficking or RICO).
• Awaiting sentencing, with prosecution and defense preparing opposing arguments.

"Victims" vs. "Willing Participants" Debate ([23:57], [25:33])

• Prosecution now claims that former male escorts—previously never labeled as victims—are central victims, potentially lengthening Diddy’s sentence.
• Defense counters that escorts never identified as victims in sworn testimony.
• Sean Kent:
  "These people are not victims. They were consenting, voluntary, willing participants…It doesn't matter what you call yourself. We have rules and regulations that protect individuals from getting into situations that they don't want to be in. …The government could say, bruh, there's no such thing as a consensual sex worker. You're still a sex worker. This is still a crime. You're still a victim, period. So that's a thought."
  – Sean Kent, 25:33

Sentencing Memorandum & Character Letters ([27:16], [28:33])

• Defense filed a 380-page sentencing memorandum requesting 14 months (time served).
• Prosecutors likely to swing for a much harsher sentence.
• Both sides included dozens of character letters.
  • Young Miami’s Letter:
    “[Diddy] supported me…He’s genuinely wants to help people…He made the choice to check himself into anger management, start therapy and commit to physical healing through therapy. That takes strength, humility and self awareness.”
    “…In my personal experience, Sean is not a danger or a threat to the community. Judge, that's a good man.”
    – Young Miami, read/paraphrased by Host, 29:03

Impact and Limitations of Character Defense ([31:22])

• Sean Kent:
  "You have to be careful on stuff like that. I think the strongest arguments…is this is what he's been convicted of…He has no really prior criminal record. 14 months is appropriate. Anything more is just based upon the charges he was found not guilty of."
  – Sean Kent, 31:22
• Comparison to other similar cases highlighted as a primary defense.

Notable Quotes about Fairness & Legal Precedent ([32:33])

• Sean Kent:
  "Nobody 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."
  – Sean Kent, 32:33

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |-----------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 02:37 | Candace Owens | "Brigitte Macron comes out and says they have offered scientific evidence to the US Court…Well, the lawyer's a liar because we haven't even started this case yet." | | 03:24 | Tom Clare (Macron's Lawyer) | "There will be expert testimony…that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements...But that should just demonstrate how serious they are about it..." | | 05:56 | Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney) | "The plaintiff is the one who is bringing their lawsuits…they have a duty…to bring their case and prove their case." | | 07:44 | Tom Clare | "When you're dealing with someone who has not demonstrated a level of responsibility...handing more evidence to her...doesn't make any sense." | | 13:52 | Sean Kent | "Not, no, but hell no. I mean that is just such an absolute lie. Like that's just not going to happen...You cannot force a person to sit down with someone else's doctor in a civil context just because you want to..." | | 17:36 | Sean Kent | "Candace chose to drive her business through Delaware…Delaware is a blue state, historically Democratic, and it will be very sympathetic..." | | 25:33 | Sean Kent | "These people are not victims. They were consenting, voluntary, willing participants..." | | 29:03 | Young Miami (Letter, paraphrased by host) | "He made the choice to check himself into anger management, start therapy and commit to physical healing through therapy. That takes strength, humility and self awareness...In my personal experience, Sean is not a danger or a threat to the community. Judge, that's a good man." | | 32:33 | Sean Kent | "Nobody 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." |

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:08] Introduction & Main Stories
• [02:37] Candace Owens’ reaction to the lawsuit and “scientific evidence”
• [03:24] Tom Clare sets the record straight on “future” evidence
• [04:53] Candace’s Team Statement (PR ploy accusation)
• [05:31] Legal analysis begins—plaintiff's burden and evidence
• [07:44] Why the Macrons won’t hand evidence directly to Owens
• [09:06] Discovery process explained by Tom Clare & Sean Kent
• [13:34] Debunking forced third-party medical examinations
• [17:03] Why Delaware as the jurisdiction? Legal “venue-shopping” explained
• [22:24] Diddy sentencing update—charges and new prosecution strategy
• [23:57] 3500 materials and the debate over “victimhood”
• [27:16] Sentencing memorandum and character letters analyzed
• [29:03] Host reads/paraphrases Young Miami’s letter of support
• [31:22] Kent on sentencing arguments and pitfalls of character defenses
• [32:33] Legal precedent: Is Diddy being treated unusually harshly?

Summary & Takeaways

• On Owens vs. Macron: Owens' narrative misrepresents the legal process; the Macrons are following due process and must submit evidence in court, not to Owens personally. The claim that Brigitte Macron will be forced into a third-party medical exam is legally inaccurate. Delaware’s involvement is strategic—favorable statute of limitations and perceived jury impartiality.
• On Diddy’s Sentencing: The legal lines between victim, participant, and perpetrator are contested. The government is stretching the definition of "victim" post-conviction, perhaps to secure a harsher penalty, while the defense focuses on precedent and a lack of prior criminal record. Support from Young Miami and others humanizes Diddy, but could carry unintended implications.
• Broader Theme: Fame and scrutiny in the digital (and AI) age raise the stakes—not just for those in the public eye, but also for how truth, evidence, and narrative are constructed.

For listeners: If you want the actual legal and factual lowdown behind these headline-making cases—and not just the viral social media versions—this episode is a must.