00:00Hi, everybody. It's Nathan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine. I'm just kind of bothered by something,
00:03and I wanted to sort of set the record straight about a couple of things.
00:06Although I do believe that there were probably some political motives behind the prosecution
00:10of Russell Brand, when people are saying, as I've seen a bunch of libertarians and other people on
00:16the right, say that there's no evidence for these allegations, it's not true. Look, testimony is
00:24a form of evidence. Remember, throughout almost all of recorded human history,
00:27there was no such thing as DNA tests and other kinds of ways of figuring out who was at a
00:35particular crime scene, particularly involving this kind of assault. But of course, I'm sure
00:40you're aware Russell Brand was convicted, and just today, 9th of November, 2026, he's been sentenced
00:45to 10 years and six months, of which I think he'll have to serve at least two-thirds or three
00:49-quarters.
00:51So, of course, there was no kit done. There was no physical exam of the affected area done.
00:59However, that doesn't mean that there was no evidence or proof, and I think there's a reason
01:03why the jury convicted him of this one and not some of the others. So, the complainant said that
01:11initially there was consensual vaginal sex, and then it turned into non-consensual, in fact,
01:17strongly resisted and rejected anal penetration. She asked him to stop, according to her,
01:23experienced significant pain, and later reported bleeding and discomfort. Now, if nobody is present
01:29for the attack, then the presence of injuries would indicate, again, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just
01:35talking morally, and from a sort of rational legal system standpoint, the presence of injury
01:42would indicate non-consent, right? Nobody is really going to consent to being torn up in that
01:48horrible kind of way, to being exposed to sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, which was,
01:55of course, a huge deal then and now, but even more of a big deal then, because Russell Brand,
02:01of course, was shagger of the year multiple years in a row. Russell Brand had talked extensively
02:06about his drug use and also his rampant promiscuity, which means that she would have very grave concerns,
02:13not just for sexually transmitted diseases, but also for HIV and AIDS, and back in the day,
02:20I don't know what it is now, but back in the day, it could be months before these showed up
02:24in tests,
02:25so she would have to live for months with the anxiety of having a brutal disease that often spelled death,
02:30certainly back in the day, so it was a big problem. So, of course, you and I, I assume,
02:39weren't on the jury, I know I wasn't, I'm sure you weren't as well, and they heard from a lot
02:43of people,
02:43so what was talked about back in the day, this is in 2009, the rape of this fan that he
02:54met at
02:54Hammersmith Apollo after his show. So, she did attend a sexual health clinic shortly afterwards
03:02for this sexually transmitted infections and HIV testing. There was a nurse's written statement
03:08read in court recorded that the complaint said Brand, quote, had anal sex without a condom,
03:14and she didn't want that and didn't consent to that.
03:19You may not consider that conclusive evidence, but testimony is a form of evidence, so there is
03:26evidence. Also, of course, they pulled into court multiple friends, colleagues, and family members
03:31who testified or had statements read about this young woman's distress, the reports of pain,
03:39bleeding, and the non-consensual nature of the act in the days and weeks after, including advice
03:45from one person in her social or familial circle that she should get checked for anal tears. Now,
03:52my understanding is that she didn't go and get checked, but that is important.
04:01So, the complainant's evidence, her consistent early disclosures to others, the overall case,
04:05is important. And as to why these women did not talk up earlier, I think it's because the establishment
04:18was or seemed very keen on protecting Russell Brand and people like him because he was a degenerate who
04:24did harm to society, which the leftists want, and also that he was on the hard left himself and
04:32therefore was a useful idiot to advance their cause. And last but not least, he was making a lot of
04:38money
04:38for people in the establishment, and he was protected by the media. In other words, the media
04:45talked about Russell Brand as if he was a cheeky, fun guy who went to extremes, but was sort of
04:51a
04:51oafish, useful clown, and so on. And so, when you're a young woman and you see this person who is
04:58making a lot of
04:58money for the establishment and that the establishment is protecting, then you realize,
05:04of course, as a young woman, this is probably instinctual, you realize that the media is
05:09probably going to defend him and dig up any dirt on you that they can, if they can find out
05:12who you
05:13are, and they probably will try. Now, after the Channel 4 documentary was released, like it's just
05:21important to understand how these power games actually work, after the Channel 4 documentary was
05:25released, that was a clear signal to the prior victims that Russell Brand no longer had the
05:30protection of the institutions. In fact, they were gunning for him. And so, once that occurred,
05:38it was a lot safer for these women to come forward. And it's one thing to be contacted by the
05:45media
05:45saying, oh, we've heard these terrible things about Russell Brand, and we just want to get your side of
05:49things, we're very sympathetic, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That signals to you that you're going to get
05:53treated well, as opposed to the media digging up as much dirt as they can find on you, and then
05:59publishing it out. And of course, if you've been horribly assaulted in this kind of way, as the
06:04judge alluded to in the sentencing hearing today, if you've been horribly assaulted in this kind of
06:08way, it's going to leave you with some mental health and potentially addiction issues. And having
06:14those dug up is probably not going to be a lot of fun. Now, again, I'm aware that the courts
06:18protect
06:18the identity, but the media can pierce this kind of stuff quite a bit. So I just wanted to point
06:24out that
06:28people testifying is evidence, the nurses' notes are evidence. And the reason why the women probably
06:35waited so long was that there were clear signals that the media was protecting Russell Brand. And, of
06:42course, if Russell Brand, as he was working for the BBC and other places, if negative things had been
06:48said about him, the BBC would have a very strong incentive. I'm not saying they would, but they
06:52would have a strong incentive to try and discredit the young women, because otherwise they would be
06:58seen as paying, harboring, and protecting a predator, which, of course, they'd already done with
07:03Jimmy Savile and others. So I think it's important to understand there was evidence. Whether you want to
07:11believe it or not, I mean, the nurses' notes are fairly objective evidence that this is what she
07:17was saying at the time. And if you've never been really targeted by the media, it's hard to
07:23understand what a monolith they can appear to be, particularly for a young woman who clearly is
07:28troubled because she's getting into this kind of a groupie horror situation, which is not to hold her
07:34responsible. The man always has to respect consent. But saying there's no evidence and saying it's
07:40incomprehensible why they would wait so long, I don't think is intellectually honest, and I don't
07:45think it shows a realistic view of the evidence that was presented and the very real establishment
07:52and power reasons why these women didn't come forward earlier. So I just really wanted to point
07:57that out because I think people are, for reasons of political partisanship, misrepresenting the facts
08:03in this issue. So I look forward to your feedback. And thanks as always for watching and listening.
Comments