Another Woman Who Can't Be Fired

 

Lisa Cook

I just want to very briefly comment on this.  Lisa Cook is member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve.  She was nominated by Biden and her nomination was confirmed on September 6, 2023. Her term on the board expires January 2038.

Yesterday, President Trump said he fired her because of mortgage fraud.  Lisa Cook says that she is not going anywhere.  What is her position?  One of these:

1. She can't be fired by the President for any reason. (Maybe the Board could fire her for malfeasance). It seems like this is her position.  She said: "President Trump purported to fire me 'for cause' when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so."

2. She can be fired by the President, but her actions do not constitute cause.  Even if she misstated something on her mortgage applications, that is a petty event that doesn't rise to an event that justifies firing her.  

She will probably sue, and this will be up to the Supreme Court to decide.

I wonder what the law about the Federal Reserve says about this.  To be continued.

============================

ChatGpt, yesterday President Trump said that he fired Lisa Cook from being a governor of the Federal Reserve. She claimed that he did not have authority to fire her. What is your opinion of this?

You’re absolutely right to question what happened yesterday, August 25, 2025. President Trump announced that he was firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing alleged mortgage fraud and claiming “sufficient cause” under his authority ABC NewsReuters.

However—this is the crux—legal experts and Cook herself strongly dispute that he has the authority to do so. Lisa Cook, who was appointed by President Biden for a 14-year term and confirmed in 2022, responded that “no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority” to remove her ABC NewsThe Washington PostReuters. Legal scholars emphasize that Federal Reserve governors can only be removed “for cause”—and such removals have practically never been attempted. The move is widely seen as a highly unusual and legally questionable assault on the Fed’s independence The EconomistReuters+1.

Many analysts warn this could spark a prolonged legal fight, and even Tampering with the Fed’s independence may unsettle financial markets and institutional norms Reuters+1. Market reaction so far has been muted, but there are growing concerns about undermining central bank autonomy—a cornerstone of stable monetary policy Reuters+1.

---

My Opinion

1. Legally Shaky Ground: Based on current law—including the Federal Reserve Act and relevant court interpretations—there’s no clear legal basis for a president to unilaterally dismiss a sitting Fed governor. Cook appears to have strong justification to contest this in court.

2. Erosion of Institutional Independence: The Federal Reserve’s independence is a critical element of economic stability. Politically motivated firings set dangerous precedents that could undermine trust in the central bank’s ability to make decisions based on data, not political pressure.

3. Risks to Market Confidence: Even if markets are reacting mildly for now, such a high-profile and politically charged move risks shaking investor confidence. Any perceived politicization could amplify volatility and long-term economic uncertainty.

4. Precedent with Broad Implications: If this move succeeds, even temporarily, it could redefine the limits of executive power over independent agencies—not just for the Fed but across the executive branch.

In short: while the president claimed to fire Lisa Cook, the legal and institutional framework does not support such a removal, and the broader implications for central bank independence and democratic governance are deeply troubling.

---

Would you like a breakdown of potential legal arguments in play, or how this compares to past episodes of executive overreach into independent institutions?

You said:

ChatGPT, can you be more clear? Are you saying that President Trump has no authority to fire her for any reason, or are you saying that her alleged mortgage fraud even if true do not raise to the "for cause" standard, or are you saying that she must be proved guilty in a criminal court for this to be cause?

ChatGPT said:

Great clarification — here’s how the situation breaks down legally and practically:

---

1. Does a president have authority to fire a Fed governor?

• The Federal Reserve Act says governors “may be removed for cause by the President.”

• That phrase “for cause” is critical: it means presidents do not have blanket “at-will” firing authority like they do over cabinet officials.

• Historically, no president has ever removed a Fed governor, so the exact boundaries of “for cause” have never been tested in court.

---

2. What counts as “for cause”?

Legal scholars generally interpret it narrowly:

• Valid examples might be corruption, incapacity, serious misconduct, or clear neglect of duty.

• Invalid examples would be policy disagreements, political disputes, or decisions the president dislikes.

So, the key legal fight is whether the allegations Trump raised (mortgage fraud) actually qualify.

---

3. Do allegations alone count?

• No, not typically. Courts have consistently said “cause” requires substantial evidence—not just accusations.

• Presidents cannot simply declare “cause”; there would need to be a demonstrable factual basis.

• That does not necessarily require a criminal conviction, but usually it means misconduct has been established through investigation, due process, or an adjudicative process.

---

4. Where Lisa Cook stands

• Cook is essentially arguing: Trump cannot fire her at all unless there is proven, substantial cause.

• Since the allegations are unproven, and since she disputes them, she’s saying he has no authority right now.

• If Trump insists, the issue is almost certain to end up in federal court, where a judge would decide if the president exceeded his power.

---

✅ So, to answer directly:

• Trump does not have authority to fire her “for any reason.”

• Alleged mortgage fraud, even if true, might qualify as “for cause,” but that would depend on the facts.

• A criminal conviction is not required, but some credible, legally established proof of misconduct would likely be needed before a court would uphold such a firing.

================================

Update:  The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year on a relevant case.

In Trump v Wilcox, the Court said:

Finally, respondents Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee. See Response of Wilcox in Opposition to App. for Stay 2−3, 27−28; Response of Harris in Opposition to App. for Stay 3, 5−6, 16−17, 36, 40. We disagree. The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States. See Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 222, n. 8.  

Kagan in her dissent in the case also mentions the Federal Reserve.

Except apparently for the Federal Reserve. The majority closes today’s order by stating, out of the blue, that it has no bearing on “the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections” for members of the Federal Reserve Board or Open Market Committee. Ante, at 2. I am glad to hear it, and do not doubt the majority’s intention to avoid imperiling the Fed. But then, today’s order poses a puzzle. For the Federal Reserve’s independence rests on the same constitutional and analytic foundations as that of the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, FCC, and so on—which is to say it rests largely on Humphrey’s. So the majority has to offer a different story: The Federal Reserve, it submits, is a “uniquely structured” entity with a “distinct historical tradition”—and it cites for that proposition footnote 8 of this Court’s opinion in Seila Law. Ante, at 2 (citing 591 U. S., at 222, n. 8). But—sorry—footnote 8 provides no support. Its only relevant sentence rejects an argument made in the dissenting opinion “even assuming [that] financial institutions like the Second Bank and Federal Reserve can claim a special historical status.” And so an assumption made to humor a dissent gets turned into some kind of holding. Because one way of making new law on the emergency docket (the deprecation of Humphrey’s) turns out to require yet another (the creation of a bespoke Federal Reserve exception). If the idea is to reassure the markets, a simpler—and more judicial—approach would have been to deny the President’s application for a stay on the continued authority of Humphrey’s.

So, I think the Supreme Court carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, and this would cover Lisa Cook.  I think it would take a criminal conviction of Lisa Cook for mortgage fraud for Trump to have the authority to fire her, and I don't think that will happen.

In conclusion, it is true, Trump can't fire Lisa Cook.  Because of the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v Wilcox. (Which she didn't bring up as a defense, and which ChatGPT didn't mention).

Did Brigitte Macron visit the United States in the 60s and 70s?

 chatgpt, Brigitte Macron apparently claimed to have visited the United States several times in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and even claimed to have been in the US at the time of the first lunar landing on July 20, 1969. Can you find a source that quotes her saying this? Also is there any proof that you can find that she actually visited the US in the 1960s or 1970s?

ChatGPT said:

You’re absolutely right to ask—let’s break this into two clear parts:

---

1. Did Brigitte Macron actually say she was in the U.S. at the time of the first lunar landing?

Yes — she did.

In a radio interview on RTL (a major French broadcaster) on January 20, 2021, Brigitte Macron said:

“C’est le pays où je suis allée le plus quand j’étais adolescente. J’y étais lorsqu’Armstrong a mis le pas sur la Lune. J’ai vécu cela avec les Américains.”
(“It’s the country I traveled to most when I was a teenager. I was there when Armstrong walked on the Moon. I experienced that with the Americans.”)
www.rtl.fr

That's a direct quote showing she claims to have been in the U.S. in July 1969 for the lunar landing.

---

2. Is there proof she visited the U.S. in the 1960s or 1970s?

Here’s what current public sources show—and what remains unverified:

• The RTL interview gives her statement of having made numerous trips as a teenager and being present during the 1969 Moon landing, but it doesn’t offer corroborating documentation like photos, passport records, or travel logs.
  www.rtl.fr

• No publicly available biographies (in Britannica, Wikipedia, etc.) mention her traveling to the U.S. during the 1960s or 1970s. For instance, her Britannica entry outlines her early life, education, marriage, and career—all focused in France—and doesn’t mention U.S. visits.
  Encyclopedia BritannicaWikipedia

• French press pulse ("pressibus") and related blog posts reference second-hand claims (e.g., from "brigittologues") that she “recalled living alone in the U.S. during the 1969 Moon landing.” But these are not primary sources—the statements stem from unverified anecdotal accounts posted online, not from interviews, travel logs, or official confirmations.
  Rob Scholte MuseumScribdScribd

---

Summary Table

Query	Finding
Did she say she was in the U.S. during the Moon landing?	Yes — she said so in a January 2021 RTL interview. www.rtl.fr
Is there independent verification (photos, passport data, etc.)?	No corroborating evidence publicly available.

---

Final Thoughts

• Yes, Brigitte Macron claimed to have been in the U.S. as a teenager at the time of lunar landing in 1969.

• But there is currently no publicly accessible proof—in the form of documentation or third-party records—to confirm her presence in the U.S. during the 1960s or 1970s.

• If you’re curious to dig deeper, potential next steps could include searching historical newspapers for photos from school or cultural exchanges, contacting biographers, or reviewing interviews she may have given in French media archives.

Would you like help exploring credible biographies or archival interviews to better understand her teenage years and any international travel she may have mentioned elsewhere?

Who is Jean Marie Trogneux?

 According to Candace Owens latest episode:  BREAKING NEWS! Jean “M” Trogneux FOUND In The United States In The 60’s. | Candace Ep 232 , a certain "Jean Marie Trogneux" was a crew member aboard the French ship MS Michigan on August 27, 1961 and entered the United States in Seattle.  Candace doesn't claim it is the infamous JMT, because he would have only been 16 at the time, so it must be some other relative.  She does go off on a speculative theory about the MS Michigan (the same ship) shipping something from Oakland to Germany in 1971 (10 years later), and Oakland is near Stanford, and the Stanford Prison Experiment happened in 1971, and a side photo of a participant resembles JMT, so maybe he was brainwashed by MkUltra (just like Charles Manson was according to the book "Chaos") to participate in the Stanford Prison Experiment.  

For fun, lets ask the chatterbox what he thinks of this latest theory.

================================================

Hey chatterbox, what do you think of Candace Owens' latest crazy theory? This was posted on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cctwGCBQdUc and under that is a transcript you could read to understand what she is saying. She basically implies that Jean Michel Trogneux was brainwashed by MkUltra (as explained by the book Chaos by Tom O'Neill) and that he may have participated in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Do you think she is on to something, or do you think it is too speculative to waste time on?

What Candace Owens Is Claiming

In this video, Candace Owens promotes a sweeping conspiracy theory, suggesting that Jean-Michel Trogneux (Brigitte Macron’s brother) was allegedly brainwashed via the CIA’s MK-Ultra program—and implies he may have even taken part in the Stanford Prison Experiment. This is part of a broader theory linking the Macron family to CIA mind-control, identity theft, incest, and even a rigged path to the French presidency.

Notably, Owens repeats widely debunked claims, including that Brigitte Macron was born a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux—which the Macrons have publicly and legally denied.People.comeuronewsThe Guardian

---

What We Know from Credible Sources

1. MK-Ultra Reality

   • MK-Ultra was indeed a real CIA mind-control program running from 1953 to 1973. It involved highly unethical experiments, including LSD and other forms of psychological manipulation—without informed consent.WikipediaHISTORY

   • There's absolutely no credible evidence to suggest any connection between the Macrons—or Jean-Michel Trogneux—and MK-Ultra.

2. Stanford Prison Experiment

   • The SPE was a short-lived, highly controversial psychological study conducted in 1971 at Stanford University. It involved students role-playing as guards and prisoners. The experiment ended prematurely due to severe psychological harm to participants.Wikipedia

   • Again, there is no evidence that Jean-Michel Trogneux ever participated in or is connected to that experiment.

3. Legal Reality & Defamation

   • Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron have launched a 219-page defamation lawsuit in Delaware, accusing Owens of spreading a “grotesque narrative designed to inflame and degrade.” The lawsuit highlights that Jean-Michel is in fact Brigitte’s brother—not an alternate identity—and that these claims are demonstrably false.People.comFinancial TimeseuronewsThe Guardian

   • Similar defamation proceedings in France resulted in initial convictions against two women pushing these theories—but the appeal acquitted them (though that ruling did not affirm the claims as true). The Macrons are pursuing further legal action in France’s highest court.The GuardianThe Times

---

So, is there any merit here?

Bottom line: It's wildly speculative, unsupported by any credible evidence, and in fact, directly contradicted by official legal documentation, birth records, and public records.

• The real MK-Ultra did exist—but that doesn’t mean any specific individuals were involved, especially ones with no evidence whatsoever.

• The Stanford experiment took place decades ago and was not linked to MK-Ultra or the Macron family.

• These conspiracy theories are part of a known misinformation campaign, and the Macrons are actively fighting them in court as defamation.

---

Final Verdict

In my view, this theory is far too speculative to be taken seriously—it appears to be sensationalist storytelling rather than fact-based analysis. If the goal is illumination, not provocation, this falls squarely into the latter.

What drove you to ask about this one—were you curious about how conspiracy theories escalate, or did something specific catch your attention in her claims?

========================

I watched Candace Owens latest video and it is entertaining. Can I ask a couple of follow up questions? What can you find out about a certain "Jean Marie Trogneux" who supposedly was aboard the French cargo ship MS Michigan and entered the United States in Seattle on August 27, 1961?

ChatGPT said:

Short answer: I can’t verify that claim from open, reliable records.

Here’s what I could find right now:

• Candace’s own episode notes point to a National Archives Catalog item labeled “Michigan crew list” (catalog id 365025754, with an image page she cites), but that link isn’t directly accessible here and I can’t confirm what name(s) appear on that image. Apple PodcastsSpotifyRumble

• There was a French Line (Compagnie Générale Transatlantique) motor vessel named MS Michigan operating on the Pacific Coast by late 1959, so a Seattle call in 1961 is plausible from a shipping-history standpoint. CONTENTdm+1

• Public, digitized Seattle passenger/crew lists in the National Archives generally run only through 1957; post-1957 arrivals (like 1961) are typically not online and require a targeted NARA request or access via subscription databases. FamilySearchNational Archives

What this means

• The assertion that a “Jean-Marie Trogneux” arrived in Seattle on August 27, 1961 aboard MS Michigan might be based on a crew list image someone found in the NARA catalog, but without seeing that page I can’t confirm the name, date, or port. And “crew list” ≠ passenger list—those forms (e.g., INS Form I-418) enumerate the ship’s crew, not travelers.

How to verify definitively (practical steps)

If you want to nail this down with primary records, here’s exactly what to ask for:

1. National Archives (NARA) reference request

   • Ask for the crew list (INS Form I-418) for the motor vessel Michigan, arrival Port of Seattle, late August 1961 (target Aug 27, 1961).

   • Likely Record Group: RG 85 (INS) or related port records; include the catalog id Candace cites (365025754) to help staff locate the specific image/page. National Archives

2. Newspaper shipping news

   • Check Seattle papers’ “arrivals and clearances” columns for Aug–Sep 1961 to confirm Michigan’s movements. (These are often in paywalled archives; the Marine Digest confirms the ship’s service on the coast, but not the specific 1961 date.) CONTENTdm

3. Subscription genealogy databases

   • Some have “U.S., Arriving Crew Lists, 1939–1999” or similar. Search for surname: Trogneux with vessel Michigan and year 1961. (FamilySearch/NARA listings show Seattle microfilm ending at 1957 online, so 1961 is usually offline.) FamilySearch

If you want, I can help draft a one-paragraph email you can paste to NARA so they pull the exact manifest/crew list page for you.

You said:

What do you think of the book Chaos by Tom O'Neill? It claims that Charles Manson was brainwashed by the CIA to commit murders.

ChatGPT said:

Tom O’Neill’s Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties (2019, co-written with journalist Dan Piepenbring) is an unusual book.

Here’s the gist:

---

What the book argues

• O’Neill started in the late 1990s on a commissioned magazine piece about the 30th anniversary of the Manson murders. The short article ballooned into a 20-year investigation.

• He became convinced that the official story (Vincent Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter) is incomplete or misleading.

• Chaos suggests links between Manson and various shadowy networks:

  • CIA mind-control (MK-Ultra): O’Neill noticed that Manson and associates repeatedly encountered researchers and doctors connected to MK-Ultra-style experiments (especially around drug use and behavior modification).

  • Law enforcement leniency: Despite numerous parole violations and arrests, Manson was repeatedly released, which O’Neill sees as evidence that he was protected or useful.

  • Potential manipulation: The book raises the possibility that Manson was a subject (knowingly or not) of experimentation—though it never proves a direct CIA order to commit the Tate-LaBianca murders.

---

Strengths

• Meticulous digging: O’Neill spent two decades going through court files, FBI records, parole hearings, interviewing witnesses, and uncovering inconsistencies in the official narrative.

• Documented connections: He did find real links between some figures in the Manson orbit and people tied to MK-Ultra research.

• Exposes flaws in Helter Skelter: Even critics admit Bugliosi’s neat “race war” story glossed over complexities.

---

Weaknesses

• No smoking gun: The book does not prove that the CIA brainwashed Manson or directed the murders. It builds a circumstantial case full of unanswered questions.

• Speculative leaps: Some connections are tenuous—critics say O’Neill sometimes stacks coincidences and suggestions without hard evidence.

• Narrative style: It’s more a journalistic exploration of mystery and cover-up than a tightly argued historical thesis.

---

Reception

• Positive: Praised for unsettling research, raising serious questions, and showing how messy the Manson story really is.

• Critical: Scholars and reviewers note that while it undermines Bugliosi’s tale, it doesn’t replace it with a solid, evidence-based alternative.

---

✅ My take: Chaos is valuable as an investigative work that pokes holes in the official narrative and demonstrates that government agencies were doing ethically dubious experiments during that era. But the “Manson was brainwashed by the CIA to commit murders” claim goes beyond what the book actually demonstrates—it’s more of a suspicion O’Neill can’t close the loop on.

Would you like me to break down which parts of O’Neill’s research are documented fact (like known MK-Ultra doctors he found in Manson’s circle) versus the more speculative leaps?

You said:

yes please. And explain more about the MK-Ultra doctors

ChatGPT said:

Great — let’s break this down carefully into documented facts O’Neill unearthed versus speculative leaps he makes in Chaos. Then I’ll give you more detail on the MK-Ultra doctors.

---

1. Documented Facts O’Neill Brings Out

These are supported by records or on-the-record interviews:

• Parole leniency for Manson:

  • Before the Tate–LaBianca murders (1969), Manson had many parole violations (weapons, drugs, transporting underage girls across state lines). Normally, he should have gone back to prison.

  • Instead, he was repeatedly released. O’Neill documents that parole officers and prosecutors knew about his violations but failed to act.

• Manson’s ties to Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic (San Francisco):

  • Manson and his followers frequently visited the clinic, particularly the “Research Unit” where patients were studied.

  • The clinic’s director, Dr. David Smith, was publishing work on LSD, amphetamines, and group behavior in the late 1960s.

• Connections to known CIA-funded researchers:

  • At the clinic, Dr. Louis “Jolly” West, a psychiatrist directly tied to MK-Ultra, was conducting studies on violent offenders and drug effects.

  • Dr. Sidney Gottlieb (the CIA chemist who ran MK-Ultra) doesn’t appear directly, but many of the doctors O’Neill identifies were in programs receiving CIA funding.

• Patterns of drug experimentation:

  • Manson’s group was saturated in LSD, speed, and mescaline at a time when CIA-linked researchers were explicitly studying how those drugs influenced suggestibility, control, and violence.

  • O’Neill shows that Manson had access to unusually pure LSD (the kind not generally available on the street, but seen in government/academic labs).

---

2. Speculative Leaps

These go beyond what the evidence actually proves:

• Manson as an intentional subject of MK-Ultra:

  • O’Neill can’t show a paper trail that Manson was officially enrolled in CIA experiments.

  • He speculates that the parole leniency + drug research connections = tacit protection, possibly to observe his behavior.

• Murders as outcome of brainwashing:

  • The leap from “Manson was around CIA-connected drug researchers” → “the murders were a CIA mind-control project” is never proven.

  • At best, O’Neill shows that Manson was in an environment thick with MK-Ultra-style experimentation.

---

3. The MK-Ultra Doctors in the Book

Here are the key figures O’Neill connects:

• Dr. Louis Jolyon “Jolly” West

  • Famous psychiatrist who once killed an elephant with a massive LSD dose in Oklahoma.

  • Directly funded by the CIA (through MK-Ultra subprojects) to study hypnosis, drug effects, and coercion.

  • Later known for examining Jack Ruby (Oswald’s killer) and Patty Hearst.

  • Involved with UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute and advised on projects about controlling violent behavior.

• Dr. David Smith

  • Founder of the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic.

  • Studied drug effects on youth culture in the 1960s.

  • While not directly tied to MK-Ultra funding, his clinic became a hub for drug research that overlapped with the CIA’s areas of interest.

• Other peripheral names

  • O’Neill notes that some figures in the orbit of the clinic or California medical research had published papers in the same networks as MK-Ultra contractors.

  • He never finds a “smoking gun” document saying “Manson = subject,” but he shows enough overlap to raise eyebrows.

---

4. Bottom Line

• Fact: Manson was oddly protected by the justice system, and he and his followers had recurring contact with doctors linked to CIA-style research.

• Speculation: That the CIA, through MK-Ultra, brainwashed him into orchestrating the murders.

• Chaos is strongest when it shows inconsistencies in the Bugliosi/Helter Skelter story; it’s weakest when it tries to pin the murders on CIA mind-control without hard proof.

---

👉 Would you like me to also give you a short profile of MK-Ultra itself (its methods, goals, and documented abuses) so you can see how the Chaos claims fit into what we know the CIA really did?

Why oil prices don't rise to consistently high levels

 See: https://gailtverberg.substack.com/p/why-oil-prices-dont-rise-to-consistently

This is an interesting article that claims that economic do not apply to oil prices long term.  While Gail makes some interesting points, I disagree with her.  Supply and demand obviously have to match in the short term and that is why the price at the pump changes nearly every day.  There are oil futures, where you can bet on the price of oil longer term.  She claims that demand for oil may be suppressed because the middle class is shrinking; also, high gas taxes suppress demand.  She claims that long-term there is an imbalance - no she uses the word "fragile", and that long-term there will be a collapse.

I agree that long-term there will be a collapse (or maybe something else, like a frozen wasteland of debt, or hyperinflation), but this is all because of too much debt (which she does mention), but it has nothing to do with oil.

I don't understand what she thinks will happen.  Maybe that the supply of oil will cease, not because there is none left in the ground, but because it cannot be refined, because environmental laws require refineries to close down?  In that case, the price of gas will go up, which will be an added incentive to produce more oil (or to come up with an alternative, like solar or even thorium).

Her conclusion is: we cannot expect long-term high prices to solve our oil problem.  She thinks that the laws of economic breaks down with respect to oil supply long term.  I respectfully disagree with her.  I believe that high prices will solve the problem.  

Xavier's true identity

 

Source: https://blanrue.blogspot.com/

It must be true, Face++ shows a 68% confidence.

Legion D'Honneur

 

Source: Instagram

Here is another source: https://www.threads.com/@buzz_actualite/post/DDpHHqwi9w8?hl=en

Le président Emmanuel Macron a remis la légion d’honneur à l’actrice Mia Khalifa pour son combat en faveur du réarmement démographique.

Macron had to sue Candace Owens to defend his honor

This was linked on Drudge this morning.

Macron: Why I had to sue US influencer Candace Owens

President Macron has said his lawsuit against an American influencer who claims his wife, Brigitte, is a man is to “defend his honour”.  Asked about his action for punitive damages against the hard-right political commentator Candace Owens, Macron, 47, said he was aware that he and Brigitte risked provoking a so-called Streisand effect, creating extra negative publicity by attempting to suppress it.  “They advised us not to sue,” he told Paris Match magazine. “But it has taken on such magnitude in the United States that we had to act.  Since last year, Owens, 36, whose YouTube channel has four million subscribers, has been promoting a five-year-old French conspiracy theory that Brigitte Macron, 72, was a man who changed gender. Since the Macrons’ suit, Owens has intensified her claims, mocking the libel action as both “goofy” and a “vicious public relations” move aimed at silencing the truth.

Well, I for one would not be commenting on this every day if Macron had not brought suit. He is such an easy target.  There are so many mysteries and secrets about his and Brigitte's past, but instead of shedding light on them, he sues people to try to shut them up.  It is not going to work.  This is beyond Candace Owens - if she settles tomorrow then the controversy is not going away.  He sued Natacha Rey in French court and it hasn't shut her up.  He sued Xavier Poussard not for libel but for cyberbullying.

Just for fun:

https://www.action-patriote.fr/

By the way, Chambre Jaune means "Yellow Room", and this seems to refer to a mystery story entitled "The Mystery of the Yellow Room" by Gastron Leroux (better known for authoring The Phantom of the Opera). 

Just for fun, let's ask ChatGPT what this book has to do with the Macrons. 

===============================================

ChatGPT, what does the Mystery of the Yellow Room have to do with the Macrons?

ChatGPT said:

Good question — there is a strange link floating around online between Gaston Leroux’s 1907 novel Le Mystère de la Chambre Jaune (The Mystery of the Yellow Room) and conspiracy theories about Brigitte Macron and her family.

Here’s the breakdown:

• The novel itself: Leroux’s story is one of the first “locked room” mysteries in detective fiction. A woman is attacked in a room that appears impossible to enter or leave, and the young journalist-detective Joseph Rouletabille investigates.

• Connection to the Macrons: There is no genuine, historical connection between the novel and the Macron family. However, in recent years, conspiracy theorists — especially those pushing the idea that Brigitte Macron is secretly transgender or that her brother Jean-Michel doesn’t exist — have latched onto the book as a kind of metaphor. They use the “locked room mystery” as a symbol for what they claim are “unsolvable inconsistencies” in Brigitte Macron’s official biography.

• French conspiracy circles: Some far-right and anti-Macron bloggers have explicitly referenced The Mystery of the Yellow Room when discussing the Trogneux family, suggesting that Brigitte’s life story is like a locked-room puzzle where “the evidence doesn’t add up.” They sometimes point out that the novel is French, set in Picardy (the Trogneux family’s region), and was a landmark in French detective literature.

So in short:
📖 The Mystery of the Yellow Room itself has nothing to do with the Macrons.
🌀 The “connection” is entirely the product of modern conspiracy theorists who use it as a literary metaphor when questioning Brigitte Macron’s past.

=====================

Maybe Grok is more helpful.

Grok, what does the Mystery of the Yellow Room have to do with the Macrons?

The Mystery of the Yellow Room, a classic 1907 locked-room mystery novel by Gaston Leroux, has no direct connection to the Macrons—Emmanuel Macron, the French President, or his wife, Brigitte Macron—based on the information available. The novel is a fictional work centered on a seemingly impossible crime where Mathilde Stangerson is attacked in a locked room, solved by the young reporter Joseph Rouletabille. It’s a foundational piece of detective fiction, praised by authors like Agatha Christie and John Dickson Carr, and has inspired various adaptations, including films and a 2025 Netflix miniseries episode titled "The Mystery of the Yellow Room" in the series The Residence. Regarding the Macrons, recent references involve a defamation lawsuit filed in 2025 against Candace Owens for falsely claiming Brigitte Macron was born a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux, who is actually her brother. This legal action stems from conspiracy theories that emerged in France around 2021, unrelated to Leroux’s novel. The only potential link is speculative and tenuous: the 2025 episode of The Residence, which uses the novel’s title, might have drawn inspiration from the same cultural or intellectual milieu of French mystery storytelling, but there’s no evidence connecting it to the Macrons or their lawsuit. The novel and the Macron controversy are distinct, sharing no narrative or historical overlap beyond both being associated with France. If you’re referring to a specific claim or theory tying the two, please provide more details, and I can dig deeper!25 web pages6.9sGrok, you reference the 2025 episode of "The Residence".

Tell me more, is this a TV mini-series? Can you briefly summarize the plot of that episode?

Yes, The Residence is a 2025 Netflix limited comedy-mystery series, created by Paul William Davies and produced by Shondaland. It consists of eight episodes, inspired by Kate Andersen Brower’s book The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House. The series is a screwball whodunit set in the White House, focusing on a murder during a chaotic state dinner for the Australian Prime Minister. Uzo Aduba stars as Cordelia Cupp, an eccentric detective tasked with solving the case, navigating 132 rooms and 157 suspects, including staff, guests, and celebrities. The eighth and final episode, titled "The Mystery of the Yellow Room," aired on March 20, 2025, and is named after Gaston Leroux’s 1907 novel, reflecting its locked-room mystery influence. In this 90-minute finale, directed by Jaffar Mahmood, Cordelia Cupp unravels the murder of Chief Usher A.B. Wynter (Giancarlo Esposito).

Plot Summary of "The Mystery of the Yellow Room" Episode: Cordelia, under pressure to conclude her investigation, leads a group through the White House, pointing out clues. She deduces that A.B. was killed in the Yellow Oval Room, not the Game Room where his body was found. A key discovery is a sealed passageway between the Yellow Oval Room and the Treaty Room, hidden by a new wall and a large painting. Cordelia reveals the killer as Lilly Schumacher (Molly Griggs), the White House social secretary, who despised A.B. for embodying the White House’s traditions. Lilly poisoned A.B. with paraquat from the gardening shed, slipped into his scotch, but when he didn’t drink enough, she bludgeoned him with a clock from the room’s mantle. She hid the clock in a secret compartment in the passageway, accessed by impersonating the First Gentleman to clear the second floor. The episode culminates in a dramatic confrontation in the Yellow Oval Room, where Cordelia exposes Lilly’s motives—her hatred for the White House’s history and her unethical actions documented in A.B.’s journal. The finale ties up the mystery with a mix of humor, suspense, and emotional weight, earning praise for Aduba’s performance, though some found it overly long. There’s still no direct link to the Macrons in this context; the episode’s title is a nod to Leroux’s novel, not a reference to French politics. If you’re curious about a specific Macron connection or more details, let me know!25 web pages6.9s

On the webpage at https://www.action-patriote.fr/, the first photo has the words "Operation Chambre Jaune". Does this show any Macron connection?action-patriote.fr

The reference to "Operation Chambre Jaune" (Yellow Room Operation) on the homepage of https://www.action-patriote.fr/ appears to be a deliberate nod to Gaston Leroux’s 1907 novel The Mystery of the Yellow Room, given the shared terminology. The webpage, associated with the far-right group Action Patriote, uses this phrase in its first photo, as you noted, but does not explicitly explain its meaning in the provided document. However, the context of the website—focused on nationalist, survivalist, and anti-establishment rhetoric, with references to a "Guerre de France" (War of France) and the "BRIGITTEGATE" conspiracy—suggests a possible symbolic or coded connection to the Macrons, particularly in light of the document’s content and the broader context of their activities.

Analysis of the Connection to the Macrons

1. "BRIGITTEGATE" and the Macrons: The document explicitly mentions "BRIGITTEGATE," a term linked to conspiracy theories falsely claiming that Brigitte Macron, the French First Lady, was born a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux (her brother). This narrative, which gained traction around 2021 and led to a 2025 defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens, is a central focus of the website, as evidenced by the dedicated "BRIGITTEGATE" page and the note about potentially relocating it to www.guerredefrance.fr (or .ru if censored). This establishes a clear intent to target the Macrons, particularly Brigitte, with disinformation or provocations. 2. "Operation Chambre Jaune" and Symbolism: The phrase "Operation Chambre Jaune" likely draws inspiration from Leroux’s novel, which revolves around a locked-room mystery involving an attempted murder and a complex investigation. On the Action Patriote website, it could serve as a metaphorical or coded reference to an operation targeting the Macrons, possibly tied to the "BRIGITTEGATE" conspiracy. The novel’s themes of uncovering hidden truths and navigating deception align with the group’s narrative of exposing what they perceive as corruption or betrayal by French elites, including Emmanuel Macron’s government. The document’s critical references to Macron’s presidency (e.g., his "last mandate," weakening executive power, and foreign policy failures) and the government’s composition (e.g., Elisabeth Borne as a "Jewish woman from a Zionist family") reflect a broader anti-establishment agenda that could frame "Operation Chambre Jaune" as a symbolic campaign to "solve" or reveal a supposed mystery about the Macrons. 3. No Direct Evidence of a Specific Operation: The document does not explicitly define "Operation Chambre Jaune" or link it directly to the Macrons beyond the shared context of "BRIGITTEGATE" and anti-Macron sentiment. It’s possible the phrase is used for dramatic effect, evoking the mystery novel to suggest a secretive or investigative effort against the Macrons or the broader French establishment. The website’s survivalist and militant tone, with references to preparing for riots, evading censorship, and organizing resistance, supports the idea that "Operation Chambre Jaune" might be a rhetorical flourish rather than a concrete plan. 4. Contextual Clues from The Residence: The 2025 Netflix series The Residence, with its episode titled "The Mystery of the Yellow Room," uses the Yellow Room as a setting for a murder mystery in the White House, as described earlier. While there’s no direct link between the series and Action Patriote, the shared use of the "Yellow Room" motif in 2025 could reflect a cultural resonance of Leroux’s novel, repurposed by Action Patriote to align with their conspiratorial narrative. The series’ episode involves a hidden passageway and a cover-up, which might parallel Action Patriote’s framing of their efforts to uncover hidden truths about the Macrons or the French government.

Conclusion The "Operation Chambre Jaune" phrase on the Action Patriote website likely serves as a symbolic or coded reference, drawing on the mystery and intrigue of Leroux’s The Mystery of the Yellow Room to frame their anti-Macron activities, particularly the "BRITITTEGATE" conspiracy targeting Brigitte Macron. While there’s no explicit evidence in the document that "Operation Chambre Jaune" refers to a specific action against the Macrons, the website’s focus on "BRIGITTEGATE" and its broader anti-government rhetoric strongly suggest an intent to link the term to their narrative of exposing or challenging the Macrons’ legitimacy. The phrase may be more rhetorical than operational, evoking a sense of mystery and resistance rather than detailing a concrete plan. If you have access to the specific image or additional context from the website, I can refine the analysis further!