Ep. 1871 - Russell Brand Just Got Railroaded By The Courts

The conviction of Russell Brand for one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault is a difficult topic to discuss for a few reasons. For one thing, as is often true of these alleged rape cases, it involves graphic details that are uncomfortable to hear and even more uncomfortable for me to say out loud. I'd rather not talk about these kinds of stories at all, much less do I want to recount with specificity the kinds of gross sexual behavior that we'll have to talk about today. But after sentencing on Monday, Russell Brand is now going to spend the next, or the better part anyway, of 10 years in prison. So it's a big story and an important one in its way, so it's worth discussing. It's also a grotesque travesty of justice for reasons that I will explain, which is the real reason above all else that we need to talk about. Now to be clear, there's no question that Russell Brand is, or at least was, a degenerate sex fiend who bears a large degree of responsibility for his fate. Brand appears to have exercised essentially no restraint at all for at least 10 or 15 years of his life. Now had he been even moderately civilized in his behavior, he'd probably be a free man right now. So this is not exactly a Brett Kavanaugh situation where the narrative is a total ludicrous fabrication at every level. At the same time, and we need to be able to hold these two realities in our heads simultaneously, it's also obvious that the prosecution was a mockery. And a sham. And Brand did not receive anything resembling a fair trial. Now he may have put himself in a position to be railroaded by a kangaroo court, but that doesn't change the fact that he was indeed railroaded by a kangaroo court. Brand may have been a sexual degenerate with the discipline and self-control of a chimpanzee, but that's not in itself illegal in this country or the UK. And if it were, a huge number of other people would be sitting in a cell right next to him, including Russell Brand. Many of his accusers, as we will see. The fact is that there was more than enough reasonable doubt to acquit him of all the charges. There's no question about that. And we all know why this case was brought in the first place. Brand broke away from the left during the COVID hysteria quite publicly and became a conservative commentator. So they came up with allegations from nearly two decades ago and tried to destroy his career and his life, and they succeeded. This is what the sentencing looked like. Just to give you an idea of how absurd these proceedings were. We're going to bleep some of this stuff out because it's, as will be the theme today, it's graphic and disgusting, but here it is. Watch. You invited her to your house a few days later. There you put on a condom at her request and had sex to which she consented. You then flipped her over, removed the condom, and without asking, forced your into her, causing her great pain. She asked you to stop, then asked you again loudly. You replied, and I, quote, I want you to feel my She was distraught and in severe pain. The bed was heavily soiled by blood and feces. You told her it was her mess. And made her try to clear it up. Shortly after, you went off to get ready, then went to work. She was driven to a nearby underground station by your driver, who for some reason had tissues ready to hand to her as she wept. So we're talking about claims from the first year of the Obama presidency. There's no independent evidence for any of it. But because the jury reached a guilty verdict, the woman's version of events is now sacrosanct. The judge will pretend, as the jury did, that everything the accuser said is completely truthful. He doesn't have to do that, by the way. Judges can throw out guilty verdicts if they're absurd enough. But, of course, the whole point of this trial was for the establishment to get revenge on Russell Brand. So, you know, that's what was going to happen, and that's what did happen. Therefore, we're all supposed to act as though guilt has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, which is why we're putting this trial on hold. And that's why we're putting this trial on hold. Reporters in the U.K. are now hounding Russell Brand's father for some reason, and reacting with stunned amazement when he suggests the verdict could possibly be wrong. Watch this. It's a very unfair question. Is this the type of man that you raised? Leave the man alone. They're nasty, aren't they? Don't answer the question. Do you have a message to the victims? The victims? What victims? What Russell? Not Russell, his victims. The girls, you mean, who chased him and harassed him? He was convicted by a jury. I don't care. I don't care. It's a system. You don't believe the justice system? I don't believe it on the basis of what I've just watched. See, we've got social media. It's easy to find the right jury. Go on Facebook and see the sort of things. You're saying the jury was corrupted. Well, I'm saying it's possible. Are you saying it's not possible? I believe in the justice system. Isn't that what we're supposed to believe in? Are you saying you couldn't go on social media and look at what people are saying and find people who are attacking us or what? Are you saying that? Or do you understand you could? Go on, go on. Do you understand you could? Do you think your son will be able to cope in prison? Yeah, he's strong. He's strong. How do you think Laura will hold up? She's strong as well. That clip is circulating all over social media among leftists and journalists who are horrified that Russell Brand's father didn't immediately throw his son under the bus on camera and declare that his son is a rapist. And note the question from one of the insufferable reporters on the scene. Is this the type of man you raised? Now, it's interesting, you'll never hear that question posed to the parent of any, say, violent, murderous thug in that country or this one. Carmelo Anthony's parents, for example, spent a lot of time on camera in front of reporters over the course of many months. And nobody ever threw, is this the type of man you raised at them? Quite the opposite. They were allowed to play the victim. Basically unchallenged. Now, in the case of Russell Brand, though, once the jury reaches a guilty verdict, the allegations must be true. And that's actually how a lot of people think. It's like the system couldn't possibly produce an unjust result. So therefore, once the jury convicts, you know, you can hound the man's father like a snippy HR lady. Now, of course, the truth is that all of these people decided Russell Brand was guilty the moment the charges were brought. Really, before that. Really, they made up their minds as soon as the British media establishment, led by Channel 4 and The Times, decided to target Brand for destruction because of his political and religious beliefs. This case was tried in the media long before it went to court. I mean, there's no use in it. There's no universe in which Russell Brand received the impartial jury that he was entitled to. The whole episode is reminiscent, in certain ways, of the bogus Cornell 7 case, where the accuser sent numerous text messages about how much she enjoyed herself in the frat house before getting disinvited from a Halloween party and then retroactively deciding that she had been raped. Now, Cornell's still in the process of tearing itself apart over those ridiculous allegations, despite the presence of what's called affirmative consent many times over. The Cornell scandal is obviously a political scandal, which is why New York Democrats and the media establishment have spent so much time on it. They see the allegations as a way to mobilize female voters and strike back at the patriarchy, and they don't care about how flimsy the allegations are. Now, of course, in the case of the Cornell 7, it's not just that there's no evidence that they committed a crime. I mean, there isn't any evidence. It's that there actually is direct evidence that exonerates them. And that's what makes that case so particularly egregious. As for Russell Brand, there isn't the same kind of exonerating evidence, but in a court of law, even in the UK, in theory, that's not the standard. Innocent until proven guilty is still the standard, at least on paper. So the onus falls on the prosecution to produce evidence actively proving its case. That's where the burden of proof lies and must lie. And no matter what the obviously tainted jury said, that burden was not even close to met in this case. So how flimsy is the case against Russell Brand? Well, we're going to go point by point through all of the details. And these will be details that, as established, will be uncomfortable and pretty gross to hear. But I want to start with a quick primer on how all cases involving rape and sexual assault in both the US and the UK are stacked against the defendant. So think of it this way. If you are brutally assaulted in the UK or the US, you're not entitled to anonymity. If and when the suspect goes to trial, your identity as a victim is a matter of public record. Along the same lines, if you're defrauded or blackmailed or robbed or burned in an arson attack or carjacked or injured in a DUI wreck or nearly murdered, your identity is not hidden. Everybody will know who you are. The media can report on your name and your background. You don't get any privacy on that score. Not because you did anything wrong. You are, in fact, the victim of a horrible crime. But in a functioning country with a war against women, a worthwhile legal system, and basic protections for the freedom of speech, there's no getting around it. The victims of crimes, even really bad crimes, are a matter of public record. It's just the way things are in a transparent, open society. But there's one major exception to this rule. Starting around the 1970s, in both the UK and the US, it became fashionable to hide the names of alleged rape victims and sexual assault victims from the public. In the UK, it's a crime to reveal the names of these alleged victims. In the US, thanks to the First Amendment, it's easier for journalists to publish the names, but courts still try to hide it. And the theory is that without this anonymity, accusers would be uncomfortable coming forward. So to accommodate these accusers and their desire for privacy as a practical matter, it becomes impossible for journalists and independent investigators to look into the accuser's history to see if they have a history of lying or of criminal activity or anything like that. It would be impossible to find out if, say, they were tied to any specific political movement or activist group, which is not a small thing when you're making an accusation against a major political figure. These are possibilities that we should be able to look into. It doesn't mean it's going to be the case, but it's certainly possible that a person for political reasons or other reasons could make up claims and we should be able to look into that. This is a trade-off you might be inclined to accept since defense attorneys are still entitled to know the name of the accuser and they can conduct their own investigation. But there's yet another way that the deck is stacked against defendants. In both the U.S. and the U.K., it's extremely hard, if not impossible, for defense attorneys to introduce any evidence in court about the accuser's history of prior sexual activity. And the idea is that feminists want to prevent jurors from thinking along the lines of, well, she's a slut, so she was asking for it. Now, the problem, and of course, jurors shouldn't be thinking along those lines, but the problem is that as comfortable as it may be for feminists, the problem is that a woman with a pattern of acting whorishly and engaging in rampant sexually degenerate behavior is, in fact, a less credible accuser. That doesn't mean that she was not raped or that it couldn't be true. It doesn't mean that at all. It just means that her testimony is less credible. You know, her behavior patterns are relevant when trying to ascertain what actually happened and the credibility of the accusations, especially when all you have are accusations, especially when there is no evidence and it's just this person claiming one thing and another person claiming another. So, past history becomes relevant and not decisive. They're not the only details that matter, but it is relevant. So, why can we talk about Russell Brand's pattern of behavior? Which, as I've already said, is not good. Why can we talk about his pattern of behavior and no one else's? Women can lie. That does happen. And a woman with a history of behaving in immoral and uncivilized ways may be even more likely to lie. So, are the women lying in this case? That's always a possibility. Something you have to look into and think about. So, to answer that question, let's start with the accusations one by one. First, it's important to point out that Brand was actually acquitted of several of the charges against him. In particular, a woman claimed that Brand raped her in a hotel room during a labor party conference in 1999 after meeting at a cabaret show. This woman's identity remains hidden from the public. There's no evidence to substantiate her claim whatsoever, aside from a photograph that proves they met, which obviously doesn't prove anything about the crime. And again, this was more than 25 years ago. Brand says it was consensual. She says it wasn't. And that was it. And the jury found that there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so he was acquitted. It's absurd the prosecution even attempted to charge the case. And the fact that they did bring that case by itself should make you wonder about the strength of the other charges. Speaking of patterns of behavior, we already know they brought charges on cases where there's zero evidence of any kind, which tells you they're just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. By the way, you don't do when you have one good, solid case with real evidence. You don't need to pile on a bunch of other cases where there's no evidence at all. Next, the jury acquitted Brand of attempted indecent assault in 2001, where he allegedly dragged a woman towards the bathroom at MTV's London office and attempted to sexually assault her. The woman testified that Brand wanted to use the bathroom, and when she showed him where it was, he turned aggressive. The whole incident allegedly lasted 20 seconds. Quote, this person went from someone jovial and friendly to suddenly turning into this wild-eyed maverick. This person went from someone jovial and friendly to suddenly trying to pull me into the toilet. His demeanor changed. He grabbed my forearm and he was leaning into the door. It was quite forceful. The grip, it took me unawares. I wasn't expecting that. Now, the problem is that the woman didn't report this incident at the time. There's no evidence to support her claim. He didn't actually do anything sexual aside from supposedly grabbing her arm. And she only made the accusations after watching a 2023 documentary accusing Brand of sexual assault. So, with the benefit of about 22 years of hindsight and a documentary, she finally understood what had happened. After watching that documentary, she testified, quote, it brought everything back. I thought I'd managed to get away. It could have been very different. I thought it was the right thing to come forward. Again, this is total nonsense that should not have been prosecuted in the first place. And then there was an allegation from the summer of 2004, which is bizarre. As the story goes, Brand was at a party at a bar in Soho. He was introduced to a young woman who had been drinking heavily, who worked at MTV. Without warning, he allegedly lunged forward and squeezed her breasts. And the woman put it, as she put it, Brand, quote, literally just grabbed my boobs with a weird maniacal grin on his face. And then maybe you're noticing a pattern in these accusations. Brand allegedly pulled her towards the toilets. All of this happened in a crowded bar and somehow no one noticed. And then in the privacy of the bathroom, Brand supposedly attempted to get her to perform oral sex on him using force. And then she leaves the bar in Brand's car where he supposedly pressed her to engage in more sexual activity. Within hours, the woman tells a friend and a producer that Brand had attempted to sexually assault her and not that he had raped her. Then over the years, her story changed in conversations with various acquaintances and she began to become more certain that he had actually raped her. And after the documentary aired in 2023, she finally filed a police report nearly two decades after the fact. First time a report was filed. Now, what's amazing about this allegation is that the jury rejected the rape allegation because according to her own contemporaneous statements, she was not raped. She never even mentioned it for years. And on top of that, there was, of course, no physical evidence whatsoever. Nevertheless, the jury still convicted Brand for sexual assault. For supposedly grabbing the woman's breasts in the bar without her consent. So they reject her claims that he raped her in the bathroom, but they believe her claim that he grabbed her breasts without consent. This is totally incoherent. Again, going back to patterns of behavior, you're saying she lied about the one thing, but you believe she didn't lie about the other? That makes no sense, especially when you're. So a woman. According to you, the jury, lied about one thing, didn't lie about the other. And there's not even reasonable doubt about the other thing you didn't think she lied about? I mean, the fact that she lied about the second thing does not at least create some doubt that a reasonable person might have about whether she was telling the truth about the whole story? So it doesn't make any sense, but that's what they settled on. You know, there's a fairly easy way to determine whether a product is actually popular at the Daily Wire offices. If you put it in the office kitchen and see how long it survives. Well, balance of nature has been failing this test spectacularly, or I guess, no, passing it. Anyway, the Gillis snacks disappear. People keep the products at their desks and the whole health system has become one of those things you see around the office because people genuinely use it and like it. You go to the area where the editors sit and these red and green bottles are everywhere. And frankly, that makes sense. Our days move quickly. Yours probably do also. Nobody needs another complicated routine before the morning commute, school drop off, first meeting or first news alert of the day. Balance of nature keeps it simple. Their whole health system brings together 47 ingredients of real whole fruits, vegetables, spices, and fibers in one straightforward routine. Three fruits capsules, three veggies capsules, and two scoops of fiber and spice. It's easy to incorporate into the day and easy to keep doing when the schedule gets hectic. And if you've been hearing us talk about balance of nature on the show, but don't want to miss out on any of that, you can go to balanceofnature.com and subscribe to the whole health system. Use promo code Walsh for 35% off your first subscription order. That's 35% off balanceofnature.com with code Walsh. The holidays are a time to show how much you care about your family by showering them with gifts. Some of those things will be useful. Others will be forgotten in a closet by February. But one of the most important things you can provide your family with is a small gift. It's not a gift that you kept and placed under a tree. It's the assurance that they would remain financially protected if something were to happen to you. Life insurance is not the most cheerful holiday subject. Neither is replacing the furnace. Responsible adults occasionally have to think about things that aren't cheerful and policy genius makes finding the right coverage straightforward. It's a free online marketplace where you can compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side. Their license team can answer your questions, handle paperwork, and advocate for you throughout the process. Make a smart move today to help "Protect Their Tomorrow" with Policy Genius. You can see if you can find 20-year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage. Head to policygenius.com slash Walsh to compare quotes now. That's policygenius.com slash Walsh. Never mind the fact that the prosecution had precisely zero eyewitnesses to this alleged sexual assault, which is pretty odd since they're claiming it happened in the middle of a packed bar in Soho. Instead, to the extent the prosecution had corroborating witnesses at all, it was people the woman contacted after she left the bar. Maybe you're seeing the problem here, right? If I claim something bad happened to me, and then I call 10 people and say something bad happened to me, tell them about it. Those 10 calls are not additional evidence to support my claim. Now, the fact that I made a call at all right after it allegedly happened may amount to weak circumstantial evidence of some kind, okay? It probably is. It proves at least that I didn't make it up years after the fact, right? So it's something. But it certainly doesn't qualify as definitive evidence because it doesn't prove that I didn't make it up immediately after the fact. I told someone right after, so that means I didn't make it up 20 years later, but I could have still made it up then. But at any rate, if the fact that I made a call at all amounts to arguably weak circumstantial evidence of some kind, then I don't have any evidence to support it. And I can't strengthen the evidence by making 20 additional calls. It really doesn't matter how many calls I make. 20 witnesses may amount to 20 times the evidence of one witness, but 20 people who heard me recount my version of events does not amount to 20 times the evidence of one person hearing me recount it. And things get worse when you look at what this accuser actually told her friends after leaving the bar. Again, she later changed her story about being raped. First, she said Brand had merely groped her before changing her story to rape. But even the groping allegation is suspect because she wasn't very specific when she talked to her friends. This is from Sky News recapping witness statements or alleged witness statements relating to this incident. Quote, a man who also went to the 2004 party at the Soho bar says he recalled Brand exiting the toilet followed by a woman who could not remember her demeanor. He said hello to Brand who looked straight through him with a blank expression. The witness said in a statement, the second statement came from a witness who said the third accuser called him distressed on the night of the alleged rape. He recalled seeing red and telling the accuser to go to the police, but she didn't want to at the time. In a third statement, the man who held the 2004 Soho bar party described a conversation he had with the complainant in the week after the alleged rape, during which she told him Brand had got pushy and aggressive towards her. The last statement of the day was from another friend of her on the phone saying Brand had attacked her. So we have claims that Brand was pushy and aggressive, even that he attacked her, but nothing specific about what he actually did. And that didn't come until nearly two decades later after a documentary, a collaboration between Channel 4 and Times aired on television. Okay. Just as a general rule, you're bringing up allegations and claims of a crime 20 years later, because you saw a documentary that inspired you. Already, at the very least, your allegations are extremely suspect. And you better have very, very, very good evidence. No reasonable person could look at this case and say that there was anything approaching very good evidence. So this is another theme of these allegations. They all came out after this 2023 Channel 4 documentary, which set the narrative. And that includes the most serious charge Brand was convicted of, which allegedly took place in 2009 at Brand's house. Now, before we go into that allegation, here's a clip of this 2023 documentary. I've referenced it a few times. So I want to give you a sense of what it actually looked like. And so here it is. Watch. I met up with him. We walked through the door. And then again, things got very intense, very, very quickly. He was like, so how many people have you had sex with? And I said, no one. Like, I've never had sex with anyone. And he got an erection straight away. And he was like, oh, my God. He's like, my baby, my baby. And picked me up and cradled me in his arms like a child and was stroking my hair. He's like, you're like my little dolly. Russell engaged in the behaviors of, well, a groomer. Looking back on it, I didn't even know what that was then or what that looked like. He would try to drive a wedge between me and my parents, taught me to lie to them. Alice recalls how Brand made her feel after she'd had sex with him for the first time. When everything was over, one of his friends came around to the house. They both drove me to the tube station. I felt like a little kid being dropped off somewhere. He reached his hand behind the car seat and was holding my hand behind the seat like my mom does when she's in the car. And it made me feel like, yeah, I felt very small. I felt like a little kid. Okay, so this is an anonymous woman using the name Alice who claims that Brand groomed her and sexually assaulted her when she was a minor. Obviously, a very serious allegation. But Russell Brand was not charged for any of that. There's no evidence to support it, so the prosecutors couldn't bring it to trial at all. And given the quality of the cases they did bring to trial, that's saying something. Nevertheless, inspired by this ridiculous documentary, a flood of additional accused surfaced. And here's how the New York Times describes the most serious case where Brand was convicted of rape. Quote, the rape charge he was convicted of concerned an encounter in 2009. The woman in question told the reporter that she had gone to Mr. Brand's house for consensual vaginal sex, but that Mr. Brand had at one point removed his condom and had anal sex with her without her consent, ignoring her pleas to stop and leaving her bleeding. So now we're relitigating the precise sex acts that this woman consented to versus didn't 17 years after the fact. We're trying to determine exactly how these two people were communicating in this particular moment 17 years ago. So this was a, even according to the woman, a consensual sexual encounter that led to a specific sexual act that she says she did not consent to, even though she consented to the overall encounter. And again, here we are nearly two decades after the fact. There's just no possible way to litigate this. There's no way at all to prove in a manner even approaching beyond a reasonable doubt that one particular sex act between two people who consented to engage in a sexual encounter, and two people who consented to engage in sex to begin with, was non-consensual. Now, it's not to say that the thing she's describing couldn't have happened. It's to say that you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's no way you could do that. And they didn't in this case. I mean, if there is any way to prove it, they didn't do it. Not even close. And once again, shockingly enough, there are many reasons to believe that she's not telling the truth. Every detail that's been omitted by the press is simply relevant. So first of all, this woman first met Brand at a comedy show. And even though she had a boyfriend at the time, she voluntarily went backstage with him and engaged in a threesome, which by her own admission, involved oral contact with Brand's backside. So within minutes of meeting this comedian, her face is in an unspeakable place. As I warned you, this, this case would require us to talk about some really gross things. And here we are. Now, the fact that she would do this with a man she doesn't know, I mean, a man she doesn't know, has only just met, and she's immediately doing that. That does not in itself prove that her later accusations are false, but they do mean that she is every bit the sexual degenerate that Brand is. And that fact does make her a less reliable narrator. It just simply does. Okay. And so then when you come many years after the fact and make some claim, and the only evidence is what you're saying, well, we're going to look at that and go, well, you're, you're, you're, you're not the most credible narrator on this thing, are you? And she enjoyed this experience somehow so much that she later went to Brand's house for the express purpose of engaging in consensual, consensual sex. She said she was excited and flattered by his messages to her. Clearly she wanted to keep the relationship going, but we have no idea what happened once she got to Brand's house. This happened so long ago that text messages and phone calls aren't available anymore. The only evidence is that after the fact, she supposedly told several people, including her parents, that she had been assaulted. And for example, her father says that she told him they were having sex. She asked him to stop. She kept saying she had been assaulted. The father told the court in a statement, quote, I turned to her in the car and asked if she asked him to stop. And she said no several times. I said, you've been raped. That's rape. So to recap, she tells her father what allegedly happened. He then informs her that she was raped. Another friend gave similar testimony. He said, quote, I told her it wasn't right and it was rape. So in other words, all these people who were not there, obviously, are not witnesses, are now telling this woman that she was raped based on her description of events after the fact. So she didn't use that word, but other people did. One friend testified, quote, things took a sudden turn when he turned her over. She said that she thought or assumed they would go into doggy style. He then proceeded to enter her anally from behind. This was how the whole trial was conducted. Witnesses constantly delivered hearsay testimony about what this woman allegedly told them 17 years ago about a sexual encounter that had happened just between the two of them that nobody else was there for. This allegedly happened in 2009, but she never went to the police. Instead, she went to a clinic mainly to get checked for STDs. So there was no rape kit or allegation of rape. Quote, the court heard that the accuser was concerned that she could have contracted a bloodborne virus from brand and that she attended a sexual health clinic to have tests. A nurse at the clinic gave a written statement, which was read out in court by a prosecutor. The witness said the accuser had told her that brand had anal sex without a condom and she didn't want that and didn't consent to it. Now, this is true. You have to wonder why the police were not informed right away. You know, it sounds a lot like the nurse at the time was under the impression that a crime had occurred or had under the impression that no crime had occurred, which is why the police were not involved. And why might that be? Is it possible she was under the impression that the victim had consented to this whole encounter and was more likely to have a sexual affair? Is she more upset about the condom issue? Is it possible the nurse believed that the accuser may have regretted a consensual encounter? These are not rhetorical questions. Why did everyone stay quiet about this until 2023 when the police report was finally filed? This is very similar not only to the Cornell 7 case, but also to the case out of Canada where those hockey players had their lives destroyed. Just like in those cases, as uncomfortable as it may be to admit, it's entirely possible, based on the evidence we have, that this woman felt disgusted by her own behavior and how Russell Brand was discarding her or treating her like an animal, as she put it. And to cope with those feelings, it's possible she told her friends that she was a victim as a way of getting sympathy after an uncomfortable but not illegal sexual encounter. This would also be consistent with the fact that she didn't go to the police. She recognized at some level that she voluntarily went to his house, even though she had a boyfriend. She voluntarily engaged in degenerate, repulsive sexual conduct. And she suspected that, based on her pattern of behavior, nobody would believe her story. That's a totally plausible version of events. She could also be telling the truth. Can't rule that out. But again, in a court of law, she could be telling the truth is not even close to enough to convict. If there is a totally plausible alternative to this, then it's a totally plausible version of events. If there is a totally if they do, you can throw the conviction out. Now, the closest the prosecution got to forensic evidence with respect to this charge was the fact that Brand had apparently labeled this woman in his phone contacts with a code indicating that she was a memorable experience, a woman who was open to anal play and also a casual sexual contact. That doesn't really tell us anything, one way or another, at least in terms of crimes. If anything, it suggests that she was receptive to all this and actually gets even worse. As Irish News reports, when the accuser was thinking about telling her story to a journalist, she wrote in an exchange on Facebook the following. This is what she said in Facebook message. I'm not sure my story has much in it. I feel I was an idiot. I was young and stupid. And then she went on to say that she is probably as much to blame. So that was what this accuser was saying about her own story as recently as a few years ago. By her own version of events, until it changed, there was no crime committed and she was as much to blame as he was. If that doesn't at least amount to reasonable doubt, then the term reasonable doubt has no meaning. By the way, in case you're confused, there is another allegation which was not charged as a crime involving a woman who says Brand raped her in Los Angeles in 2012. This allegation is not charged as a crime. It's not charged as a crime. This allegation also didn't come out until the 2023 documentary, but this allegation does have some actual evidence. So for one thing, the accuser did go to a rape treatment center shortly afterwards. And secondly, we have these text messages. Brand says, I'm sorry that was crazy and selfish. I hope that you can forgive me. I know that you're a lovely person. X. And later that morning, the woman writes back saying Brand is scary and dangerous and adds, quote, when a girl says no, it means no. Do I have to go and get myself tested? Last time you asked me a condom. No condom. When I say condom, that doesn't mean it's optional. Brian then replies, I'm very sorry. You don't need to get tested. Not my original idea, which was more sex. I'm embarrassed by my behavior. Now, the irony is that this is the best evidence that's ever been produced against Russell Brand. It has nothing to do with the charges he was just convicted of. He has not been charged in that case. Now, you can make the argument that Brand is apologizing for violating the woman's condom. He says, I'm sorry, and that was crazy. And she replies by calling him scary and saying, no means no. Now, on the other hand, in that exact same exchange, she's upset that he didn't use a condom. So it's also fair to read the conversation as Brand apologizing for not respecting her wishes about the condom. And that's probably why, again, she didn't go to the police and why this was never charged as a crime. And the statute of limitations has expired on this, so it can never be charged. At least under California law at the time, if two people are having consensual sex and one person disregards the condom preference of another person, it's not necessarily rape because rape requires using force or threats or duress or incapacitation, etc. None of that seems to apply here based on the text messages. But this is all irrelevant to the alleged crimes that just sent him to prison for a decade. Now, there's two other convictions to talk about, one of which relates to an alleged episode where Brand, quote, had put his head in a woman's groin area after insisting on a massage. This allegedly happened in 2009. And once again, the allegation only surfaced with the documentary, and there's no forensic evidence to support it. But the jury may have found it more credible because the woman apparently made a formal report to her employer at the time about the incident with her version of events. Brand was also, quote, found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman found a second woman at a radio station in 2004, 2005, after the woman said Brand had kissed her and was only brought to the police after, again, the documentary. And once again, there's no contemporaneous evidence, forensic or otherwise. Even though this supposedly happened with other people watching, there was no publicly reported testimony I could find in which they corroborated her account. Nevertheless, the jury apparently thought that Russell Brand had decided to sexually assault someone in full view of several witnesses. And that's how desperate he supposedly was, even though women were throwing themselves at him constantly. Christmas shopping gets harder every year. Trying to predict exactly where each family member is in life in order to find the right gift for them is not an easy task. Personally, I think the best gifts are the ones that they want but might not splurge on themselves. I mean, I don't buy the gifts in my house. My wife does all of it. So actually, Christmas shopping is really easy for me. I don't do anything. But still, Bowling Branch is worth considering. I'm talking about their bedding before, and the quality really is excellent. Their signature sheets, made from 100% organic cotton, are incredibly soft and breathable. I've had them for years and never looked back. They also make beautiful throw blankets, robes, and comforters that make great gifts, especially this time of year. And frankly, a really nice blanket seems like a much better gift than another gadget nobody needs. Right now, you can get early access to Bowling Branch's best sale of the year. Be the first to shop 25% off, plus free shipping and extended returns at bowlandbranch.com slash walsh with code Walsh. That's Bowland Branch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D branch.com slash walsh. Code Walsh for early access to 25% off. Exclusions apply. What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments? Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room ahead of the holidays. Well, it's possible when you call American Financing Today. If you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, groceries, gas, bills piling up, you're not alone. Most Americans are putting those expenses on credit cards, and credit card rates are insane in the 20s or even 30s in some cases. financing can show you how to use your home equity to pay off that debt. Their salary-based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners just like you restructure their loans and save money every month. There are no upfront fees to find out how much you can save. Their customers are saving an average of $800 a month. It's like a $10,000 raise without having to change jobs to get it. Call today, American Financing, 866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711 or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh. NMLS, pound 182334, NMLSconsumeraccess.org. Visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh or call 866-569-4711. Average savings based on borrowers who save over $199.99. But that's the claim. Now, what's obviously going on here is that the 2023 documentary was a political hit job that led swarms of women to come forward with these stories. And potentially invent memories that simply didn't happen. Which is a common phenomenon, by the way. It's happened many times throughout history. It's not that unusual. There was something called the McMartin Preschool Panic in the 80s when a mother accused a California preschool employee of molestation. And after that allegation, children came forward with all kinds of insane claims about underground tunnels and hot air balloons and occult rituals and so on. Nobody was ever convicted of anything. The evidence was all compromised. Then there was the Satanic Panic on top of that. People are very impressionable, even as adults. And if you tell women that a famous man is a serial abuser who's endangered everybody he meets, then inevitably some of these women will come forward and claim the man abused them in some way. Even if it didn't happen. Some will do it for attention. Some will do it because their memory is genuinely capable of changing in order to fit a narrative. 17 years is a very long time. People can fill in the blanks with scandalous details that didn't happen. And make no mistake about it, that documentary was only released because Russell Brand betrayed the left. I mean, this is the part of that, whether you think it was guilty or not, like this part is certainly true. That if Russell Brand had remained a leftist and had spent the early 2020s attacking Trump or whatever, none of this would have happened. None of it. But that was the whole purpose of the documentary, to kickstart a moral panic. This is from the Guardian of 2014 in their article labeling Russell Brand a hero of 2014. Quote, Brand's openness about his flaws make him a good leader and allows those who admire him to be good followers. He's the best thing that has happened to the left in years. A year earlier, the New Statesman, another left-wing publication, named Brand as a guest editor. They were building him up as a serious. Revolutionary thinker on the left. The issue of the magazine included contributions from Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, other high-profile figures. But Russell Brand was leading the charge. He was the main event. And then he made the mistake of thinking for himself once the COVID lockdowns began. And in the left's mind, that's when he had to go. And these are lockdowns that everybody, even the public health establishment in places like Johns. Hopkins, now admits were a complete waste of time. They destroyed lives. They destroyed the economy for no reason. In 2020, Russell Brand was one of the few people who was saying that out loud. And he was also pointing out how COVID was being used to create a surveillance state. He was correct about all that. But this is what led to the eventual hit job. Stuff like this from 2020 Watch. The pandemic has taken surveillance of workers to the next level. We are being observed while we work. More than ever, even though people working from home has achieved more efficacy and better results. Is the pandemic being used as a tool to create a surveillance state? Now, by 2021, Brand was routinely publishing videos about the worst abuses of power during the lockdowns. And you have to keep in mind, for Europeans, this was stuff you were simply not allowed to say out loud. You know, they don't have a First Amendment over there. They throw people out. They throw people in prison for jokes. Criticizing the lockdowns was blasphemy. You know, it was the left in this country didn't like it if you did that. But for them, this was, it's a whole other, it was heresy. And so they simply couldn't let it stand. And Russell Brand knew that. And he did his show anyway. And an audience of millions of people watched these episodes. Watch. You won't be going nowhere if you're in Australia, though. You can't move a muscle. Let's have a look. Let's have a look. Stavrula Pabst and Max Blumenfall in the grey zone, right? Though statewide lockdowns have eased in Australia, the country is constructing internment camps for those who test positive for COVID, along with their COVID negative close contacts. Harley Hodgson, an Australian, held for 14 days in one such camp, despite repeatedly testing negative for COVID, said of her experience, you feel like you're in prison. You feel like you've done something wrong. It's inhumane what they're doing. I suppose that the argument is that the coronavirus is so lethal, so deadly, any measures necessary in order to protect human life must be taken. Some people would contest that that brings to the forefront a lot of questions about liberty, the standard of life, potential hypocrisy in other areas. Are we always concerned about preserving and respecting human life? And what about the qualitative component of life? I don't know. These are questions for all of us to consider. Now, these videos drove the left wing. The establishment insane. In 2022, The Independent wrote, quote, How did Russell Brand go from stand-up stardom to peddling YouTube conspiracy theories with a series of alarmist videos tackling issues like COVID and the Russian-Ukrainian war? The comedian has reinvented himself as a popular online current affairs guru. When did Russell Brand decide comedy wasn't enough for him? He couldn't believe he wasn't staying in his lane. And in fact, by 2022, he was starting to openly embrace Fox News and right-wing populism. And the elites in Europe were not going to tolerate that. So in 2022, he was starting to openly embrace Fox News and right-wing populism. So in late 2023, The Times, The Sunday Times, and Channel 4 released that documentary based on anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations that have been circulating for years. And the floodgates opened. Now, to be clear about this, I'm not saying Russell Brand was a good guy. I'm not saying he never made mistakes. I am saying that this trial was a political hit. That is inarguable. And the sentencing is a travesty of justice on top of that. And here's how bad this is. Even if they had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which they didn't, which is the thing that makes this a travesty of justice, but even if they had, the 10-year sentence, in the UK anyway, would still be clearly politically motivated. Now, if they had, he would deserve to go to prison if they had proven him behind a reasonable doubt, which they didn't. But if you look at. If you look at how other sexual assault cases have been charged and sentenced in that country, you see a very interesting contrast. Muslims have been running rape houses and organized rape gangs throughout Britain for decades. Most of them have not received anywhere near 10 years in prison. And this is a documented fact. For example, a Muslim named Mohammed Ali Saltane, 26 years old, was convicted for, quote, two teenage girls, one of whom was 13 years old. His sentence? Seven years. Less than Russell Brand. Meanwhile, Mohammed Yunus, age 61, allowed, quote, allowed his flat to be used as a brothel by allowing a man to have sex with a girl who was being controlled as a prostitute. His sentence? Less than three years. Tanvir Ahmed, 40, was convicted of, quote, controlling a child prostitute. He also received less than six years in prison. Then there was, quote, there was a Mohammed Islam Chowdhury, 54, who was convicted of, quote, paying for sex with a Telford schoolgirl. His sentence? Two years and six months. In fact, you could find killers, people who have intentionally murdered other humans who have received less than 10 years in prison. Consider the case of this 28-year-old individual who goes by the name Katie Yaumans. Now, Yaumans, who claims to be a prostitute, claims to be a woman, although it's impossible to tell with how the media reports these stories now, so I don't know, but admitted stabbing a man to death during a domestic disturbance. There was one stab wound in the upper chest. He was left to die in a hallway. Yaumans didn't call for help. The sentence, five years and three months. That's it. The judge said that Yaumans had lost control. So what are you going to do? Call it manslaughter, let her out, or him, or whatever, in five years. Now, meanwhile, Russell Brand didn't do anything remotely like that. He didn't sexually abuse children. He didn't murder anyone in cold blood. But he gets double the sentence. Why? Why would you even double the sentence of all those Muslim child rapists that we just listed off? And there's a bunch of others that we could name, too. Why would you do that? There's only one reason, is that he made the mistake of challenging the communists who run the British government. That was his real crime, and every fair amount of time, every smart-minded person knows that. No one seriously believes that even if Russell Brand is guilty, of everything they accused him of, that he somehow deserves double the punishment of child rapists and murderers. It's completely insane. It's indefensible. And this is what happens when you step out of line. They don't want anyone questioning their authority to impose nationwide lockdowns and ban all civil liberties because they intend to do it again. And Russell Brand is going to prison for a decade as a message to every other commentator in Britain. The point of this prosecution was to shut down dissent, and it worked. Certainly in Russell Brand's case, it worked. But we can't ignore the fact that Russell Brand did give these people more than enough ammunition to take him down. Doesn't change the fact that it was a travesty of justice, but this is something that, you know, for the men in the audience, if nothing else, this case provides a really good practical reason even beyond the moral reasons to not be a sexual degenerate. You put yourself in a position to be destroyed even years down the line. This applies to the Cornell guys too, who I think are innocent, but they also had a gross orgy in a frat house, which set them up for the inevitabilities that followed. And you especially cannot live that way for years and then turn around and try to be a famous right-wing commentator. The system won't allow that. It will not let you leave behind a life of sexual and moral chaos and become a public critic of the same godless, hedonistic culture you had spent years wallowing in. Now, I'm not saying that a man can't repent and be redeemed and change. Of course he can. God, after all, is merciful. But this world, the one we're all living in, is not. So when you behave as Russell Brand did for as long as he did, you've already written the check. And as his prosecution demonstrates, it could take months or it could take years or it could even take decades. But it's only a matter of time before they cash it. Tomorrow, Confession premieres on Daily Wire at 7 p.m. Eastern. I'm excited for this one. You're not going to want to miss the pre-show with interviews from the cast and Ben Shapiro, of course, wrote the movie. That happens tomorrow. Make sure you're there for it. And I'll talk to you then. Talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed. Father, I used to feel Christ. I cannot feel anything here. They take me out of my bed, and they brought me here, and they tell me nothing. What have I done? Article 58, counter-revolutionary activity. That is all I know. They have to deal with so many enemies of the state, all of whom claim their innocence, who protest, who cry. There are no answers here, other than the ones they put in your mouth. You'll break. Today is your opportunity to demonstrate your loyalty to the people. You'd like to know why I'm here? Of course. But you already know, don't you? You must believe in something greater than the past. Hardy, you will remember your duty. I've told you I know nothing. They growled like a feral animal. You stink of failure. You want me to lie. Still a drunk. Damn you! They all break. Maybe. Thanks for watching!