Russell Brand – Same old same old
Sat 10:42 am +00:00, 5 Apr 2025Source: https://mileswmathis.com/brand3.pdf
As if on cue to prove my recent assertions regarding Weinstein, Clinton, Epstein, and Prince Andrew,
we saw today Russell Brand pulled into the mix, being charged in London for raping four women
decades ago. All patently absurd, since like the rest of these guys, Brand is gay as goose. The
Phoenicians are having another grand mass chuckle over this one, I assure you. I have to think that this
is obvious even to many unconnected or “normal” people, far moreso than in the case of Clinton, for
instance, who is fair at acting straight, or Weinstein or Epstein, whom few have seen speak or interact,
even less with Andrew, who almost none in the US have seen do anything, speak, walk, or otherwise.
But Brand is a media whore and always has been, so we have seen him sashaying around for thirty
years, winking and noodling and flirting with everyone, but especially the dudes. You will say he has
been linked to real hotties. Yeah, they are called beards. Paid escorts to make him look straight, for
the benefit of his female audience. Standard Hollywood. Think of Cary Grant’s superhot wives like
Dyan Cannon. Just for the red carpet.
Seriously, do you think someone like Russell Brand ever needed to rape anyone, even if he was straight
or bi? He’s had women throwing themselves at him since he became famous, so why does he need to
rape anyone? It makes no sense from the first word. These guys have their pick of literally tens of
thousands of women across Europe and the US, so forcing someone to have sex who doesn’t want to is
absurd. Which is what made Clinton’s fake story so goofy: do you really think a guy in such a position
is going to choose Monica Lewinsky, a dumpy, annoying little Jewish girl? At least Kennedy’s fake
stories made some sense, since they included women like like Marilyn Monroe. But effing Monica
Lewinsky? Again, the Phoenicians laughed their hairy asses off about that one. The American public
will buy anything, the more stupid, illogical, and contradictory the better.
These incidents allegedly happened from 1999-2004, or 21 to 26 years ago! So just ask yourself this,
how could there be any evidence one way or the other? Women do get raped, but there is only one way
to successfully prosecute it in the real world, as any trial attorney will tell you: the woman has to go to
the doctor immediately, the doctor has to confirm the injuries are consistent with rape, and she has to
go the police with evidence tying a specific guy to it. He has to be placed with her by forensic
evidence and/or witness testimony, proving beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. That is the law. You
can’t convict with anything short of that, in a rape case or any other case, and you can’t even get
charged without the existence of such evidence. With no evidence, the police can’t charge anyone and
no grand jury will ever look at it. That was the problem with the Trump case, since the crazy lady
didn’t even know when it took place. She had no receipts, so there was nothing to go on except her
word, which was worth nothing (as we know from her past actions and writings). Her attorneys had
literally nothing to go on and the opposing side would have ripped her to shreds, so we know the case
was faked. Same thing here, since one of the first things we are told is
It is alleged that Brand raped a woman in 1999 in the Bournemouth area, indecently assaulted a
woman in 2001 in the Westminster area of London, orally raped and sexually assaulted a woman
in 2004 in Westminster and sexually assaulted a woman in Westminster between 2004 and 2005.
What? Brand is being charged with one count of sexual assault for that last event, so what do they
mean “between 2004 and 2005”? He was continually assaulting her for a twelvemonth? He never
once stopped, even for a sandwich? No, it has to be either 2004 or 2005, doesn’t it, which means that
they are admitting she isn’t sure. How can they charge him with something when they don’t even
know the year it took place? It is impossible, isn’t it? To charge him, there has to be some evidence,
and if there is evidence it would have to be dated. A trip to the doctor’s office would be dated. A
police report would be dated. Any other evidence would have to be capable of being dated or it
would be thrown out of court. So as usual none of this makes any sense. We know it is fake without
further study.
I am continually amazed that anyone is slimy enough to be involved in this vaudeville, which I find
more evil than rape. Rape is limited to the women involved, but this project is aimed at all
heterosexual women, and has been destroying their natural sexuality for decades. Its potential for
harm is nearly unlimited. It has affected me personally by affecting every single woman I have ever
dated . . . and every single woman I have not dated. It is a crime against humanity, one of many
being run by this cabal of soulless monsters.
