Transcript

LIVE: Russell Brand Found GUILTY on Several Counts of S*xual Assault

From Megyn Kelly · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 4 min · 9,060 words · 90 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "LIVE: Russell Brand Found GUILTY on Several Counts of S*xual Assault", an episode of Megyn Kelly published November 5, 2026 (1 h 4 min, about 9,060 words). It mentions 34 people, works and ideas, including Russell Brand, Megan Kelly, Consent, United Kingdom, Channel 4.

What this episode is about

Russell Brand was found guilty on four counts, including one rape and three sexual assaults, after nine hours of jury deliberation; the acquittals and guilty verdicts cover alleged assaults spanning multiple years and scenarios described in court.

Key takeaways

  • Verdicts hinge on credibility signals: a single 'weak' account can anchor a complex jury decision.
  • Jury chose to convict on some but not all—revelation that detail-massaging memos don't guarantee consistency.
  • Consent disputes persist: multiple charges show how differing encounters yield conflicting narratives under oath.
  • Media framing matters: sensational details risk overshadowing legal reasoning and fair process for complainants.
  • Rape case paradox: credibility of the least credible-sounding account can still drive a guilty verdict.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: Megan Kelly, Russell Brand, United Kingdom, Sky News
  2. – 20:00: Russell Brand, BBC, London, Hampstead
  3. – 30:00: Russell Brand, Ian Winter, Sunday Times, Joe Rogan
  4. – 40:00: Russell Brand, Consent, Channel 4, Southwark Crown Court
  5. – 50:00: Russell Brand, United Kingdom, Consent, Crown Prosecution Service
  6. – 1:00:00: Russell Brand, Megan Kelly, Tucker Carlson
  7. – 1:03:45: Megan Kelly

Notable quotes from "LIVE: Russell Brand Found GUILTY on Several Counts of S*xual Assault"

  • Russell Brand has been found guilty of four of the seven counts he was charged with. The guilty verdicts include one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault.
    about Russell Brand · at
  • Here's the breakdown of what happened.
    about BBC · at
  • He was overruling her. Russell's testimony was she absolutely did not say no, she did consent and it they were both enjoying the naughtiness of it.
    about Consent · at
  • Journalist who was responsible for exposing Brand's alleged crimes in the 2023 Dispatches documentary and Times newspaper joint investigation was visibly shocked.
    about Dispatches · at
  • And what that means is, if you look at the statutory guidelines on rape in the UK, if he's in category 3B, the lowest as I.
    about Statutory Sentencing Guidelines · at
  • 16-year-old is the young woman we discussed with Russell when he came into the studio. You guys remember this? When I watched the excerpts from that Channel 4 documentary when…
    about Channel 4 · at
  • And his income that he was getting, which was substantial. He had 6 million followers, I think, on YouTube.
    about YouTube · at
  • Russell Brand was predatory and used his celebrity status to commit sexual crimes. He was a manipulator with an insatiable desire to get what he wanted regardless of whether consent was given.
    about Crown Prosecution Service · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Russell Brand — Person · Primary subject of news · 23 mentions · first at
    Central figure; convicted on multiple counts of sexual assault/rape in the UK trial discussed throughout the episode
  • Megan Kelly — Person · Host · 5 mentions · first at
    Host delivering the breaking news, providing legal commentary and personal reaction to the verdicts
    Welcome everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. We are live on YouTube right now with breaking news out of the United Kingdom.
  • Ian Winter — Person · Defense barrister referenced · 2 mentions · first at
    Lead defense barrister for Brand; mentioned as having been 'accosted' by a journalist after verdict
    The word used here is, quote, accosted, a Sunday Times journalist following the verdict, snarling, I don't know who the wrote this up, this obviously is got some color that is opinionated.
  • Mark Eiglarsh — Person · Guest/ commentator · 1 mention · first at
    Guest legal commentator (co-host of Positively Legal) who provides a contrasting perspective on jury credibility and the verdict
    I want to get another perspective. I've asked my friend and colleague Mark Eiglarsh, co-host of Positively Legal on our MK True Crime channel to join me with his reaction. Hi Mark, your.
  • Tucker Carlson — Person · Comparative reference · 3 mentions · first at
    Used as a political/comparative reference point for Brand's later media/political positioning
    And other projects there. He's a household name. But as of late, Russell Brand has been most known as a conservative commentator the size of Joe Rogan.
  • David Roberts — Person · Senior Crown Prosecutor (quoted) · 1 mention · first at
    Quoted author of the CPS statement condemning Brand's conduct and thanking complainants
    Russell Brand was predatory and used his celebrity status to commit sexual crimes. He was a manipulator with an insatiable desire to get what he wanted regardless of whether consent was given.
  • Joe Rogan — Person · Comparative reference · 2 mentions · first at
    Used by host as a U.S. comparative analogy for Brand's media influence; described as a similar-sized media figure
    And other projects there. He's a household name. But as of late, Russell Brand has been most known as a conservative commentator the size of Joe Rogan.
  • Piers Morgan — Person · Referenced interviewer · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned regarding an interview where Brand carried a Bible — used as evidence by critics questioning sincerity of conversion
    Bible-reading Christian in order to manipulate the potential jury pool. There was an embarrassing moment when he made his book tour. He came by our show. When he went on Piers Morgan and Piers asked him what was in that Bible that he was.
  • Katy Perry — Person · Referenced past spouse · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as Brand's former high-profile spouse, establishing his celebrity status
    Marry Katy Perry around 2012, the biggest pop star in the world at the time. He became an actor. He starred in, movies like Was it Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but he became…
  • Bill Cosby — Person · Comparative reference · 1 mention · first at
    Used as an analogy to describe how journalists reframed Brand's behavior as that of a serial predator
    When really he was just a promiscuous star who women may have had some regrets about sleeping with.

Companies & orgs

  • Channel 4 — Company · Source of investigative documentary referenced · 2 mentions · first at
    Producer of the Dispatches documentary that the defense and host discuss as having influenced complainants and public perception
  • Southwark Crown Court — Company · Trial venue · 1 mention · first at
    Court where the trial took place and where additional potential charges were revealed
    Could face further criminal charges. It was revealed in previous hearings at Southwark Crown Court. So, we did not know we did not know that this had happened, but apparently it's already happened that he was accused of two additional.
  • Crown Prosecution Service — Company · Prosecuting authority referenced · 2 mentions · first at
    Quoted as issuing a statement characterizing Brand's conduct and thanking complainants; represents prosecution perspective
  • Metropolitan Police — Company · Law enforcement quoted · 1 mention · first at
    Issued statement mirroring CPS, credited verdict to victims' courage and characterized Brand's conduct
    It mirrored that one issued by the Crown Prosecution Service, as well. Basically said, This verdict is a testament to the extraordinary courage and determination of the women.
  • BBC — Company · News source/cited reporting · 3 mentions · first at
    Cited for reporting details of complainant testimony and courtroom reporting used in the segment
  • YouTube — Company · Platform referenced · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced as having deplatformed Brand and as a platform where he previously had a large following
  • Sky News — Company · News source · 2 mentions · first at
    Cited for reporting courtroom silence and delivering verdict details; used as one of the episode's news sources
    Details. I should have warned you. It's graphic, but you know that by this point on this case. The Sky News is reporting that there was absolute silence in the courtroom as the…
  • Sunday Times — Company · Press outlet referenced · 2 mentions · first at
    Journalist from The Sunday Times is described as the reporter who exposed allegations and who was accosted by Brand's lawyer after the verdict
    The word used here is, quote, accosted, a Sunday Times journalist following the verdict, snarling, I don't know who the wrote this up, this obviously is got some color that is opinionated.
  • Labour Party — Organization · Contextual reference (event) · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced to locate an alleged 1999 incident (Labour Party conference) used in one complainant's account
    For this charge, Russell was accused of raping a woman in 1999 at a hotel during the Labour Party conference. This is the one where the woman invited him back to her hotel room after midnight and had him in her room. She said she went.
  • MTV — Company · Setting of alleged incident · 1 mention · first at
    Named as location (MTV offices in London) of an alleged attempted indecent assault charge that resulted in not guilty verdict
    Most absurd count of all attempted indecent assault attempted indecent assault. He was found not guilty. This was a no-brainer. The charge was that in 2001 he was he had…
  • Choice FM — Company · Setting of alleged incident · 1 mention · first at
    Location of an alleged sexual assault in 2004/2005 at a radio station where a complainant said Brand 'leapt on me' and kissed her aggressively
    They were inside a small room and came out into a smaller holding section when, quote, he just leapt on me. They described how Russell Brand lunged forwards and began to kiss them. They.
  • SiriusXM — Company · Platform/affiliate of the host · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced in episode context (show airs live on SiriusXM) in episode header material

Concepts & topics

  • Consent — Concept · Core topic/central legal issue · 6 mentions · first at
    Consent (whether sexual encounters were consensual) is the core dispute in the allegations and Brand's defense
  • Statutory Sentencing Guidelines — Concept · Legal framework · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced by the host to estimate potential sentencing ranges under UK law for rape and sexual assault

Places & events

  • United Kingdom — Place · Jurisdiction/setting · 5 mentions · first at
    Location of the trial, legal system, sentencing guidelines and media outlets referenced
    Welcome everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. We are live on YouTube right now with breaking news out of the United Kingdom.
  • London — Place · Setting/reference · 2 mentions · first at
    City where several alleged incidents and trial-related events took place
    Most absurd count of all attempted indecent assault attempted indecent assault. He was found not guilty. This was a no-brainer. The charge was that in 2001 he was he had…
  • Hampstead — Place · Setting of one alleged incident · 2 mentions · first at
    Location of Brand's home where one complainant alleged an anal rape in 2009
    Russell Brand has been found guilty of anally raping complainant five at his home in Hampstead in 2009.
  • Soho — Place · Setting of one alleged incident · 1 mention · first at
    Neighborhood in London where one alleged assault (grabbing breasts at a bar) was said to have occurred
    That she was sexually assaulted he was found guilty on this count. He was accused of grabbing complainant three's breasts during a party at a bar in the London neighborhood of Soho in the of 2004.
  • Europe — Place · Contextual reference · 1 mention · first at
    Used when discussing age-of-consent norms and Brand's origin (UK/Europe) to contextualize the 16-year-old issue
    The grace to address in particular your anger, which is entirely legitimate and recognizable. And the plain fact of it is that in Europe and in the United Kingdom, where I'm…

Media & podcasts

  • Dispatches — Media · Investigative documentary referenced · 1 mention · first at
    Named as part of the documentary/journalistic work that first publicized allegations and influenced subsequent reporting and prosecutions
  • Big Brother — Media · Referenced past project · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced as part of Brand's public profile and how one complainant recognized him from TV
    Time. He became an actor. He starred in, movies like Was it Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but he became very, very famous in the UK. He wasn't when this all first started. The alleged crimes went from 1999 to 2009. At the beginning of that, he.
  • Positively Legal — Media · Referenced show · 1 mention · first at
    Show co-hosted by Mark Eiglarsh; cited to establish his credentials and context for commentary
    I want to get another perspective. I've asked my friend and colleague Mark Eiglarsh, co-host of Positively Legal on our MK True Crime channel to join me with his reaction. Hi Mark, your.
  • MK True Crime — Media · Associated show/channel · 1 mention · first at
    Platform associated with Megyn Kelly's Positively Legal co-host and referenced as channel for legal discussion
    I want to get another perspective. I've asked my friend and colleague Mark Eiglarsh, co-host of Positively Legal on our MK True Crime channel to join me with his reaction. Hi Mark, your.
  • Forgetting Sarah Marshall — Media · Reference to Brand's acting credits · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as one of Brand's film roles to underscore his celebrity status
    Marry Katy Perry around 2012, the biggest pop star in the world at the time. He became an actor. He starred in, movies like Was it Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but he became…

Full transcript with timestamps

Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. Welcome everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. We are live on YouTube right now with breaking news out of the United Kingdom. Russell Brand has been found guilty of four of the seven counts he was charged with. The guilty verdicts include one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault. Unbelievably, the one count of rape that this jury appears to have bought is what I thought was by far the least credible account. It is complainant five. If you've been following our coverage, you know that that is the woman who alleged that she was raped anally by Russell Brand. This is the woman who within 10 seconds of meeting Russell Brand in his dressing room after a performance, got down on her knees and started using her tongue to sexually pleasure him in the rear end.

That's the woman who they now say he raped anally at a second encounter they had back at his house. I'm going to get into the details. I should have warned you. It's graphic, but you know that by this point on this case. The Sky News is reporting that there was absolute silence in the courtroom as the foreman delivered the verdicts following 9 hours and 13 minutes of jury deliberations. Here's the breakdown of what happened. Count one, rape, not guilty. For this charge, Russell was accused of raping a woman in 1999 at a hotel during the Labour Party conference. This is the one where the woman invited him back to her hotel room after midnight and had him in her room. She said she went into the bathroom. He came She came out.

He was his his shirt was off. He was prancing around in just his She claimed his underwear, but her picture shows he had his pants on. Um she says he got on top of her and that he then vaginally raped her without even taking her pants all the way off that she had her shoes and socks and pants down to her ankles and that she was unable to breathe as he was on top of her. He claims it was completely consensual um and that he asked her he gave her his email and asked her to told her he wanted her to meet his mother who was in town after the encounter and the jury we don't know the exact rate reasoning but they did not find that she had been raped by Russell Brand. They appear to have believed that was a consensual encounter.

Same. Then there was count 2A which was the most absurd count of all attempted indecent assault attempted indecent assault. He was found not guilty. This was a no-brainer. The charge was that in 2001 he was he had attempted to indecently assault this complainant at MTV's offices in London allegedly grabbing her arm and trying to drag her toward a toilet. All these years that complainant has been saying he grabbed me he tried to pull me into a into a bathroom for consensual sex. He wanted to have sex with me and I wrestled away from him and said it's a no. Now she watches the Channel 4 documentary that that word is being used in in air quotes um and says oh you know I was wrong it was rape. He raped me.

The jury not rape. It was attempted rape. He tried to pull me in there for a rape. And the jury said no we don't believe that. So good for them cuz that was obvious Count three. This is a third woman. Okay count three and the next charge count four relate to the same woman. And on one half of her complaint he was found guilty and on the other he was not. The first half of her complaint is that she was sexually assaulted he was found guilty on this count. He was accused of grabbing complainant three's breasts during a party at a bar in the London neighborhood of Soho in the the of 2004.

She alleged that he came in, he grabbed her, he he came up to her, he grabbed her. I'm just going to play the testimony. This is the BBC giving the details of this piece of complainant three's testimony during direct exam. Um the second piece of it is the oral rape, which the jury rejected, but listen to the setup here in 209.

We will also read a transcript from a body cam and they had sort of pleasant con- The defense continued saying, "You didn't say anything to him at the bar. You didn't ask any friends if they saw him grab your breasts. You didn't kick off and and they had sort of pleasant conversation for about a minute." And then she said, "He leaned forwards, put out both his hands, and grabbed her breasts." She said, "This person who had just touched my breasts leaned towards me, just both hands grabbing my breasts only 1 minute into the conversation we were having." She said she was reeling from the shock of him grabbing her breasts when he grabbed her arm and began to pull her towards the toilet.

She couldn't quite remember that he'd taken his penis outside of his clothing and that he was grabbing the back of her neck and head and hair trying to force her face down to his penis. She said to the jury, quote, "He's holding onto my head and hair. Quote, every time I tried to move away, he was strong and forcing me back." Then she described to the jury that he did force his penis inside her mouth. She said, quote, "He wasn't very well endowed. Quote, but there was a lot of pushing right to the back of my throat." She continued saying, "If I do this, maybe he won't try and rape me further. Do what he says and then you are out of here." Complainant three also told the court that she closed her eyes and tried not to be there during the alleged oral rape saying, "I couldn't even look at him. I was shaking." When asked how the alleged assault ended, she did say, quote, "He did ejaculate in my

mouth and it went down my throat. I remember trying to get rid of what was left." They rejected the second half of that, finding him not guilty of oral rape of this complainant. They did find him guilty of grabbing her breasts at the bar. Um you heard the BBC reporter there describing the second half of complainant three's allegations that after he grabbed her breast at the bar, he dragged her into a bathroom stall and forced himself orally upon her. Um she was cross-examined at length about this. Was it even physically possible given Russell Brand's 6'2" height and the height of the complainant? And then the defense attorney for Russell Brand made the point that after this alleged sexual assault or rape, she got in a car with Russell when she went to a second location after this horrific oral rape, she got into a car with him willingly, she went to a second location, and he they raised the point effectively of

what woman who had just been orally raped would do that. Um the jury appears to have rejected the claim of oral rape. Not appears to have, they did reject the claim of oral rape, but they believed that he fondled her breasts. So, he's been found guilty of sexual assault for that. On that complainant. Um that was the first guilty that came down. The sexual assault of count on count three, the fondling of this woman's breasts. Then we got to uh count five, sexual assault again. He was found guilty of this. The prosecution said that in the summer of 2004 or 2005, Russell Brand sexually assaulted complainant four at Choice FM radio station.

Um she she talked about how he sloppily kissed her in front of witnesses who stood there and did nothing. And the jury appears to have bought this again back to the BBC podcast uh on Russell Brand. This is the This is the description of complainant four's testimony. The woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by Brand at this station, which the jury appears to have believed, sought 212.

They were inside a small room and came out into a smaller holding section when, quote, he just leapt on me. They described how Russell Brand lunged forwards and began to kiss them. They said, quote, it was a flash of lightning. They said he wasn't alone. There was a woman with long dark hair with him and three other men. When they were asked to describe the kiss, they said it was frenzied, it was hard, it was very very hard. I would say it was sloppy and it was wet. He was kissing all down my neck and his hands were all over me. He touched my bum, my breasts, my waist. He was pushing his body against me and I was up against the wall. Again, they clarified it was rough and then said quote, it was violent. At one point they said they managed to put their hand up between them off. At which point he lunged backwards and in a laughing way went haha and looked at the other people who were around. Complainant number four

told the jury that not one of the other people, the women or the three men that they said were there stepped in or said anything during the time they alleged they were assaulted by Russell Brand. Here is some of the cross-examination of that witness so you can get a fever or you can get a feel for the Russell Brand defense against those charges sought 213. But the defense was offering, how do you even know it was Russell Brand? You didn't check with anybody who is it? You didn't say to somebody this has just happened to me who can corroborate your account. And complainant number four said, I knew who it was because I watched him on Big Brother. They said I I watched him. I knew who it was immediately when it happened. I'm absolutely sure that it was Russell Brand. The defense continued saying, in one statement you said that there were three men there and one woman. In another statement you said there were

four men there and one woman. And complainant four said, I can't exactly remember when I gave the account saying there were four men there. there being three men and one woman. And the defense said, well then that's corroborating witnesses. That's people who would have come forward and backed up what you had to say. In fact, wasn't one of them a member of staff at the place where you worked? And this is where complainant four really did get quite emotional. They were crying and having difficulty catching their breath saying, uh this man was mauling me and no one did anything. I looked at the woman. I was pleading with her hoping she'd step in, but she didn't.

That woman has gotten exactly what she wanted. He was found guilty of sexually assaulting her. And then there was count six, rape. Russell Brand has been found guilty of anally raping complainant five at his home in Hampstead in 2009. This was the most outlandish charge after complainant two, with the the attempted sexual assault that amounted to an arm grab. Um in which the the evidence around complainant five was as I said at the top of the show, she it was she met she was a she was an ardent fan of Russell Brand. She was obsessed with him by her own testimony. She idolized him. And she was invited to go backstage to see and meet Russell after a show. As soon as she got into the dressing room, she and another woman started performing sex acts on Russell Brand. The other woman performed oral sex on Russell from the front. This woman basically gave him a different kind of sex from the back with

her tongue. The big dispute at the trial was whether she went inside with the tongue or just stayed around the outside of Russell's backside. I forgive me, I know this is graphic. This is what it has come down to. Within 10 seconds of meeting him, then he invited her back to his house. He He testified that they had been discussing anal sex, that it was something she was interested in, that was something they were being playful about, they were flirting around about it. And she immediately she went over there understanding that they were going to have sex. She had a boyfriend, she was cheating, she didn't care, she was obsessed with him.

And she wanted this jury to believe that while she willingly gave it up vaginally, that he flipped her over and had sex with her anally, her word was rape, against her will. And that it was violent and it was upsetting and that she was saying no and he was overruling her. Russell's testimony was she absolutely did not say no, she did consent and it they were both enjoying the naughtiness of it. Um he testified that after that encounter, they sat there watching television together. That this wasn't somebody who was acting as though she'd just been raped, nor was he acting as though he had just raped her.

That they hung out for a while, they watched television. She claimed he got up immediately, walked out and said, "Look look at the mess you've made. Now clean it up." Um there was a lot of testimony around this particular exchange. And there there was testimony about what the woman had allegedly said um after the fact. There was a witness, her her ex-boyfriend, who testified that she resisted initially and then surrendered to it. And there was a question about whether that meant she had ultimately consented. Um the manager of complainant five, she's not a some sort of an influencer, but a like a co-worker, said that that the complainant did tell her that Russell forgive me, "fucked me up the ass and really hurt me."

Um now this was another woman though who didn't come forward until after she saw the so-called documentary and all those years prior had said nothing and certainly nobody had made a police complainant a complaint about this. Russell's been found guilty of raping this woman. Finally, there was count seven, sexual assault. He was found guilty on this count. Here, Russell was accused of sexually assaulting the complainant number six in 2009. She claimed that they were working together, that they were getting ready for a a show or a performance by Russell and that he was allegedly saying he he didn't want to go on, his team was saying he didn't want to go on without getting a massage. They asked her if she would give him a massage of his shoulders, that she did it, and that Russell basically put his face near her genitals and sniffed. And she felt violated and assaulted, and the jury has agreed that indeed is what

happened. Now, what happened this morning inside court uh was described as you know, as I said, dead silence. The um his wife, Laura, was in court steel herself against the verdicts and of course the first couple were not guilty. She apparently had to grab her chair and steady herself when they got to the the third verdict, which was guilty, and then the guilty kept on coming. Russell Brand has been remanded into custody. The judge told him he is looking at a quote significant custodial term. He asked if he could be released on bond until Monday, which is when the sentencing comes down. His lawyer asked if on humanitarian grounds he could be allowed to go home and say goodbye to his children.

And the judge said no. The judge said with all due respect to his children, these are very serious crimes and he's got to go to jail right now. There'll be no saying goodbye. His wife, Laura, walked by herself without Russell out to a black car and got in. Reportedly cried in court. You can only imagine what she's feeling right now. Russell reportedly remained stoic. Was asked if he understood what the judge was saying and said, "Yes, my lord." Which is how you refer to the judges over there and then was remanded into custody two female bailiffs taking him out of the courtroom and he is probably in jail at this moment where he is going to stay at least until Monday when he will return for sentencing.

My team is just telling me here Sky News reporting that following the rejection of his bail application as he was about to be led down to the cells, he mouthed, "I'm okay." Several times to his lawyers. He also signaled an okay sign and a thumbs up multiple times. He repeatedly said the words, "I'm good. I'm good. I'm good." One can't help but wonder whether that's Russell trying to talk himself into it. There's no way he's actually okay. There's no way he's actually good. There was a situation outside the courtroom, which was rather extraordinary, according to reports, that his main defense lawyer, they call them barristers over there if they argue in court, Ian Winter, who did a very good job representing Russell cross-examining the women, could delivering a very compelling closing argument.

The word used here is, quote, accosted, a Sunday Times journalist following the verdict, snarling, I don't know who the wrote this up, this obviously is uh got some color that that is opinionated. Um quote, "Are you happy now? You it." to the Sunday Times journalist. The journalist who was responsible for exposing Brand's alleged crimes in the 2023 Dispatches documentary and Times newspaper joint investigation was visibly shocked. Obviously, Ian Winter genuinely believed that this whole thing was the fault of this documentary. That's a point he made on the cross-examinations of the women, and it's a point he made in the closing argument.

That nobody ever conceived of these being sexual assaults or rapes, and no one ever said that prior to watching this so-called documentary, which was a theatrical performance with the scary music underlaid behind actresses' portrayal of the women who had come forward to the journalists. Not None of the actual women, I think none but one actually participated in on-camera interviews. All the most serious charges were played by actresses, which is very dicey, people. It's very dicey. I mean, you You see that, you see a professional actress who's trying to convince you that the testimonial is true. It's very different from seeing the actual alleged victim tell her story, where all of our human instincts are designed to detect deception, uncertainty, even odd certainty about details that one might otherwise believe somebody would have a difficult time remembering.

All of that is erased when you have a professional actress playing the role of victims, which was only disclosed in super small font on the screen here and there. So, I understand their objection to this so-called documentary, which people thought involved the actual complainants so bravely telling their stories. That's not what happened. Um and every single one of his accusers here did admit that they were influenced by that documentary into coming forward. Russell's team said they were convinced into reimagining what had happened to them.

And now there is the question of how long Russell Brand is going to spend in prison. I mean, you you have to understand, guys, this is like the UK's Joe Rogan. Russell Brand, of course, went on to marry Katy Perry around 2012, the biggest pop star in the world at the time. He became an actor. He starred in, you know, movies like Was it Was it Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but he he became very, very famous in the UK. He wasn't when this all first started. The The alleged crimes went from 1999 to 2009. At the beginning of that, he really wasn't well known. He was doing stand-up routines. By the end of it, he was world-famous. And certainly by today's measure, he is world-famous.

Having married Katy, having starred in movies, having starred in a very popular show over in the UK called Big Brother, um and other projects there. He's a household name. But as of late, Russell Brand has been most known as a conservative commentator the size of Joe Rogan. Like their biggest and best known. And he has become very conservative. He He is His politics are not like Joe Rogan's. I'd say he's closer to Tucker Carlson in in most of his commentary. Skeptical of government storylines. You could argue conspiratorial, depending on your POV. More conservative, more Christian. His critics accused him of faking that after these women came forward and accused him of this misbehavior, that he faked becoming a a Bible-reading Christian in order to manipulate the potential jury pool. There there was an embarrassing moment when he made his book tour. He came by our show. When he went on Piers Morgan and Piers asked him

what was in that Bible that he was carrying and and what did he have flagged and Russell struggled. He struggled to explain it and find it. And his critics thought that was evidence of his insincerity uh when it comes to his conversion. I will say I personally believe Russell actually did find God and found Christianity and that moment on Piers Morgan was unfortunate, but it didn't cause me to doubt his conversion and his true belief. But that's me. Um and now there's the question of how long he will spend in jail and I don't know the answer, but I'll tell you what the statutory guidelines are.

First of all, um it's it's it depends on how serious the judge thinks the circumstances around the cases are. The way it works is the judge is going to weigh two primary components, culpability of Russell and harm to the alleged victims. The culpability it's basically a two-pronged discussion. Category A would be there he's going to look at whether um was there a degree of planning? Was there the abuse of a position of trust? Was there the targeting of vulnerable victims? Or was there using alcohol or drugs to facilitate the offense? I think the answer to all of those is very clearly no.

You know, abuse of a position of trust, you're talking about like you're somebody's teacher and you molest them or you're somebody's doctor, that kind of thing. Targeting a vulnerable victim, that would mean somebody who's, you know, very young or possibly, you know, mentally unwell. None of that's been alleged here. Using alcohol or drugs to facilitate the offense. He's not accused of doing any of that, you know, like slipping somebody a Mickey, that kind of thing. No. So, I don't think he falls within category A and I I don't even think it's a and degree of planning. There was There wasn't even alleged that there was a degree of planning on any of this. So, I I just don't think it's even arguable that he would be in the worst category.

Category B is basically everybody else. So, I think he's a cat B. On the question of harm to the victim, there are three categories. Number one is the most severe. Severe additional physical or psychological harm well beyond the nature of the act. That's just That That was not testified to. I just don't think that's relevant here. Category two is more serious, but not most severe. Um serious physical or psychological harm. I just don't think that's there, either. These women went on and led their lives and didn't even think it was rape for 20 years. This is just There's not going to be able to meet that. So, I think his behavior will fall into the lowest category of culpability, which is the base level, category three.

Additional severe harm beyond the inherent uh nature of the offense is not explicitly established. I think that's him. So, I think he's in the lowest category of culpability and harm. And what that means is, if you look at the statutory guidelines on rape in the UK, um if he's in category 3B, the lowest as I think, it's basically around the starting point is 5 years, but the standard range is four to seven. Four to seven. So, I I think Russell could be looking at possibly 4 years on the rape count, which may sound low, but the reason it's so low is because of all the things I said. Now, having said that, they add bad points to your sentencing guideline if there are multiple victims.

And here, he's been found guilty of four rape or sexual assault assault charges. So, that could be an exacerbating factor against him. If there are multiple victims, the judges in the UK may exceed the standard bracket of sentencing guidelines and issue sentences of up to 20 years or life in prison. Now, there's just no way Russell Brand's getting that. There's just no way he's getting life in prison. So, I mean, I think that's that's we can ignore that. But, if he were if I'm wrong about my analysis and he actually does somehow fall into category 1A instead of 3B on the culpability and harm analysis, then the starting point would be 15 years and the standard range of sentencing would be 13 to 19 on that rape charge alone.

Down on the sexual assault, as you would expect, the sentencing guidelines are lower. If you're in the worst category, which again, he's not, you would start at four and the standard range of sentencing would be 3 years to 7 years. If you're down in category 3B as he is, um it looks like you might get the starting point they call it high community order. I actually don't know what that is. I'm assuming it's community service. Um and the standard range is um community order or medium community order to 26 weeks in prison. So, what's that? 6 months?

6 months in prison. So, the sexual assault charges don't they don't carry that heavy a charge if in fact, they think he's in the lowest category of culpability and harm. He's been found guilty of three of them. So, let's assume we're going to go for the lowest here of or the you know, 3B but the most severe penalty, which does include jail time up to 26 weeks. So, that's again, 6 months. There's three women. Maybe you're looking at 18 months in prison for that. So, you could be looking at 4 years plus 18 months, you know, 5 and 1/2 year sentence if he's lucky.

That would be if he's lucky. That would be 3B across the board. I guess it could be even lower because sexual assault could carry just a high community order or medium community order. My team can look up for me whether that's community service. I assume it is. So, possibly he gets 4 years in prison plus community service on the sexual assaults, best case. That's my read of the sentencing guidelines. I'm not a UK barrister, but I am a lawyer and I know how to read what uh the general terms are. That's where I think we'll start on Monday when he returns to the courtroom.

And the news is even worse for Russell Brand than that today. Because as we came to air, it broke that Russell Brand is actually now looking at two additional possible charges. That there are two possible charges coming his way on women who did not participate in this trial. Um hold on. I'm trying to find it on my on my text chain with my producers, but this is this is absolutely devastating. Russell Brand has been accused of raping two more women including a 16-year-old schoolgirl and could face further criminal charges. It was revealed in previous hearings at Southwark Crown Court. So, we did not know we did not know that this had happened, but apparently it's already happened that he was accused of two additional counts of rape including this 16-year-old and that already the Crown, which is the prosecution in the UK, is threatening to bring two more criminal cases against him, two more criminal charges against

him. And I don't know, but I believe the 16-year-old is the young woman we discussed with Russell when he came into the studio. You guys remember this? When I watched the excerpts from that Channel 4 documentary when it first hit. The one I was very angry about was the 16-year-old. Russell was 30, she was half his age. She was reportedly being picked up by Russell's drivers in black cars in her school uniform and brought to him for sex acts. She had alleged things that were upsetting and violent like he spat in her mouth. He was, you know, diminishing, dismissive, abusive, and allegedly sexually assaulting her. Those were the allegations, unproven and denied by Russell.

He came on the show and I wrestled at the time with whether to have Russell on because I didn't know who Russell was. Is he this serial rapist? Or is he somebody whose politics changed and suddenly he was reimagined by these journalists as Bill Cosby? When really he was just a promiscuous star who women may have had some regrets about sleeping with. Which happens all the time. One of the points the defense was making in this case was he had this goal, reportedly allegedly of sleeping with 5,000 women within a certain time frame. And they were saying, you know, he he came pretty close.

And of all those, you have three women who alleged rape, three out of 5,000. Like what are the odds? If he's a serial rapist, wouldn't the numbers be a little higher than that? Wouldn't they be a lot higher than that? You know, if if consent is not important to Russell Brand, where it where are the other women? He he he sought consent and got it in, you know, 4,900 and change cases, but these three he had to force himself. Does that make any sense to you? Was one of the points made by the defendant counsel, by the defense counsel.

Uh but the 16-year-old was the one that really bothered me because that is legal. That that was the age of consent at the time in the UK, okay? So you can't charge him with statutory rape on this young girl. But that is very young. My own daughter is 15 and a half. That is way too young to be having a relationship or an affair, sexual relationship with a 30-year-old. But I did decide to have Russell on because I was curious about him. And I also believe in redemption and change. And I do believe, I genuinely believe sitting here today that Russell has changed his life. I believe he dearly loves his his wife Laura, his children, and that I as I said, I think he has found God. And he's asked he's asked for forgiveness for a lifestyle that he completely rejects now.

And he sees the dangers of, the debauchery of, the the shame of. So, he came here. I was totally charmed by him. I'm not going to lie. As I was when he came on my show at NBC. Uh utterly charming guy. Sweet, interesting, funny. And I had a very difficult time believing that he was capable as of rape as I do right now. I don't believe these charges. I I'm going to be honest. I don't. It's not for me to ultimately say. The jury's It's the jury's call. But if you want to know my personal belief, I think this is exactly as his defense lawyer argued it was.

[snorts] But the 16-year-old was something Russell and I discussed. And we've pulled a little bit of that discussion here. It is. Then came all the allegations, the sexual alleged sexual assault and rape and so forth and so forth. And it first came in this UK quote documentary, and they use that term very loosely there and here. And I'll tell you up front, I was angry when I saw that because they did it in such a compelling way that especially the stuff about the 16-year-old that I was angry with you. I believed what they said or at least believed that there was smoke enough smoke there might be fire.

And said to the audience at the time, you know, the conservative movement doesn't need somebody like that. Like we love what he's saying about COVID, but if this is a guy who's sexually assaulting women and taking advantage of 16-year-olds, we need to move on without him. And felt that anger for a couple of years around you. Um because I just thought it was so reckless and it was so wrong. And I knew that it might be false, but it seemed overwhelming. The the way that they presented the evidence. And then the more I looked at it, the more I started to recognize I might not know the full story because since then, I have seen what the British government has done, what my own government has done to certain figures that it doesn't like.

And I have an enormous amount of open-mindedness to you are being railroaded and attacked by people for reasons having nothing to do with actual facts, but with your right-leaning stance on certain issues, your growing prominence as a figure in a bunch of discussions that they find very threatening. And honestly, I just reevaluated the whole thing and thought I need to be open-minded to having been wrong in my initial assessments. And and I'm interested in a conversation about it all.

Thank you, Megyn Kelly, for giving me the grace to address in particular your anger, which is entirely legitimate and recognizable. And the plain fact of it is is that in Europe and in the United Kingdom, where I'm from, the age of consent is 16. And I did sleep with a 16-year-old when I was 30. But when I was 30, I was a very different person. I was a lot younger and I was an immature 30-year-old. Consensual sex actually, with a variety of people, when there is a strong power differential, as there is when you're a famous man that has the ability to attract women that I had at that time, I think involves exploitation. I think it is exploitative.

I recognize that my sexual conduct in the past was selfish and uh I didn't I did not apply enough consideration, barely any, I suppose, really, to how that sex was affecting other people.

So, you can hear he's obviously in a very different place mentally, emotionally, spiritually now. But, if in fact he raped a 16-year-old, obviously he will have to be tried for that and pay if the jury concludes he did. That's a big if. I will tell you the 16-year-old whose pseudonym was Alice did participate in that so-called documentary. She was one of the women who actually gave an interview, wasn't portrayed by an actress. They didn't show her face, but she did give a first-person interview. And here is part of that in shot 225.

He's 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. Things took a slightly darker turn. I was sat up in the bed up against the headboard. And he um forced his penis down my throat. And I couldn't breathe. He was just choking me and I couldn't breathe. I was pushing him away, pushing him away, and he wasn't he wasn't backing off at all. And so, I ended up having to punch him really hard in the stomach to get him off.

And then he like but finally then he like moved fell backwards and I was crying. And he said, "Oh, I only want to see your mascara run anyway."

There began my own anger toward Russell, which you heard me discuss with him on the show because you you heard my preamble there in my discussion with him. The reason I had that preamble is because what happened immediately in the in the UK after that so-called documentary hit was the English government at actual elected officials started pushing to have him deplatformed, which he was. YouTube eliminated him. And his income that he was getting, which was substantial. He had 6 million followers, I think, on YouTube.

It was a government crackdown on him immediately, immediately. You're telling me if you had multiple women suddenly participate in a documentary, so-called, saying, "Tucker Carlson raped me," which would never happen because he's deeply in love with his wife and would never do such a thing, but I'm just saying, wouldn't your wouldn't your first thought go to, "This is political"? If there were a Democrat government in charge and if Democrat lawmakers, their first move was, "Deplatform. Take away his ability to speak." That's effectively what happened to Russell.

So, there was and remains plenty of reason to be skeptical about the motives behind this prosecution and whether there's some sort of manipulation going on here. Here, for what it's worth, is the statement from the Crown Prosecution Service. "Russell Brand was predatory and used his celebrity status to commit sexual crimes. He was a manipulator with an insatiable desire to get what he wanted regardless of whether consent was given or not. As his career took off, he seized opportunities to assault the women around him. Although his tactics varied, at the center of every assault was an abuse of power and sexual greed with a complete disregard for the impact of his actions. I would like to thank all the women in this case for their courage in coming forward and seeing this sexual abuser brought to justice."

The senior crown prosecutor, David Roberts. Interestingly and oddly, to me at least, the Metropolitan Police also issued a statement. Not used to seeing the cops come forward with a statement, but the UK's the UK. It mirrored that one issued by the Crown Prosecution Service, as well. Basically said, "This verdict is a testament to the extraordinary courage and determination um of the women. Uh Russell Brand used his influence, his status, and his fame to exploit um these women. As his profile grew, so too did his sense of entitlement, they said.

And as for his team uh there will certainly be an appeal. There is just there's no question. Um there's going to be an appeal and we'll see. I mean, I do think it's very interesting that they convicted him on the biggest jokes of the charges. Like honestly, with all due respect, I I just mean I don't mean the woman's story is a joke. I just mean it they were so clearly not what the prosecution was claiming they were. The The one thing I said before this case went to the jury was, "There is no way they can find him guilty on complainant five, the alleged anal rape woman." The The woman whose tongue was in Russell's rear end within 10 seconds of meeting him. Please.

And And but suddenly this woman was like, "Absolutely no to the back door action." I mean, please. Who would believe that? So that they they agreed with? Fondling a woman's breasts at at a bar with multiple witnesses there, having zero reaction to it? Come on. You know, a sniffing a woman's groin area is a sexual assault? This is ridiculous. What they're actually going to send him to prison for. So maybe that's some good news for Russell. That That the two allegedly most troubling and the the first one was the one that I was most troubled by, which was the the complainant who said she'd been vaginally raped by him, that he her pants never even got off of her body.

That one seemed disturbing to me. And unlike these other women, like she wasn't this crazy you know, googly-eyed fan of Russell's. She did invite him back to her house after midnight, which I or hotel room, which I think was held against her. Um, but in any event, that was the one I was most worried he'd be convicted on. The The ones he actually got convicted on to me seem like the most absurd made-up ones. I want to get another perspective. I've asked my friend and colleague Mark Eiglarsh, co-host of Positively Legal on our MK True Crime channel to join me with his reaction. Hi Mark, your thoughts?

I don't really give a if you are offended on behalf of the jurors. I'm entitled to my opinion. And I don't believe the charges, and I don't have to believe them just because the jury came to with the opposite conclusion, Mark. So, spare me your indignation. I feel indignant that this obvious conservative stalwart has been targeted only once he started to espouse conservative views by a government with all the power, with a jury pool that was clearly manipulated by a documentary that was as one-sided as they come. And then we had a trial in which the judge repeatedly injected himself in what was a fair cross-examination by the defense, which even you admitted was inappropriate. So, spare me your judgment. This isn't about me and my opinions. It's about what's about to happen to him.

That's fine. You can disagree. We are You are You are attacking me personally, saying you are offended. So, please just spare me, Mark. Who said that? Who said that? What What specifically did I say accusing the jurors of nefarious conduct?

You're You're You're saying that that that these charges are baseless, essentially. They're the ones who were there

You've You've just You've just just proven your own argument. Megan, they were there in the courtroom. They got a chance to judge the credibility of each one of the witnesses who testified, and some they didn't find enough, but on four separate counts, they found these people to be credible, and that the evidence corroborated or supported what they had to say, and found him guilty.

Okay. That That doesn't mean I have accused them of nefarious behavior. But, you know what, Mark? I've got a newsflash for you. Sometimes juries get it wrong.

Oh, of course. Sometimes I will I will grant you that. Sometimes they get it right, Megan.

bias, agenda, what I have no idea why they were persuaded in this case. What I can tell you is from the outside, this smacks of politics. It smacks of political manipulation by a government that had its thumb on the scale and a judge who helped them.

And would you feel the same way if tomorrow he said, "You know what? I said I was conservative, but I'm really, you know, a little bit more liberal in my beliefs. That's really not how I feel." I feel like your support is because he allegedly claimed that he had these conservative views. And I really do think

it's irrelevant? Why Why do you think they waited? These things happened 20 years ago if they happened at all, 25 years ago. Nothing happened. No woman came forward. No woman even alleged privately that she'd been raped in that time.

it's irrelevant. It wasn't until Russell became a Tucker Carlson type that suddenly the floodgates opened and these women were interviewed by this biased journalist who had a hand in the prosecution as well.

So a delayed reporting is a false reporting? Is that what you're saying? Do you think it's less credible or more credible when they come forward 25 years later only after seeing a media manipulated {quote} documentary about him allegedly being a predator?

If you're Do you think it'd be more credible if they went to the police the next morning or if they waited 25 years, Mark?

The answer is it depends. From a prosecutorial perspective, I'd rather have somebody who discloses right away, but that in no way means that they're not telling the truth. There are a lot of reasons why sexual assault victims delay in reporting. We know that and it doesn't mean they're not telling the truth.

I agree with that, but here's the problem. If you wait 25 years, you've effectively eliminated a man's ability to defend himself. It It cannot be done. No normal human remembers clearly where they were, what exactly they were doing 25 years ago. Especially not somebody as famous as Russell Brand who since then has had multiple huge experiences in his life that clearly have overwritten some of the more minor sexual encounters he may have had. It's utterly unfair.

I don't disagree with you on that point in that I have defended many people who have to then recount what they did many years ago and it could be very unfair. It doesn't mean, however, it's not true. And in this case, he had the chance to get up there and defend himself and speak to the jurors just like the vic- victims did. And he told his truth and he said, I'm sure, it was consensual when I flipped this woman over and raped her anally causing blood on the sheets and all that happened, it was consensual. And they rejected that, Megan.

They rejected it. That's fine. I don't know why you keep saying that. I understand they've rejected it. I have reported the verdict. What I am telling you is I disagree with it. I've been following this trial very closely and even you admitted that that judge was out of line interrupting defense counsel in the middle of his cross where he was trying to make points on how the victim, the alleged victim, had not told police when she first sat down with them that she said no during the alleged sex act. And he was building his case and he was making those points judge interjected, "Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. She did say to the police that she had said no." And the defense counsel was slack-jawed looking at the judge interrupting his flow. The point of it That is for redirect by the prosecutor.

Not a judge. He repeatedly interjected and put his thumb on the scale mark and it will be the subject of an appeal which I guarantee you they will pursue.

I still maintain that a judge should not interrupt in the manner in which he did. And the question then becomes whether these jurors found him guilty of those four counts because of something the judge did, which I have zero evidence of, or whether they independently found on their own that there was surety that they were sure that these charges were proven, which is the burden. And I have zero reason to believe that they did anything improper. And thus, I defer to them who had a front row seat to judge the credibility of these witnesses and his credibility. And for that, they found he is a rapist and a sexual assault perpetrator.

I don't disagree. That that's what they found. I mean, there no one's disputing what the findings are. The question is, did they get it right? And we're all entitled to our own opinions. Mine is the answer is clearly no. Thanks for being here, Mark.

Um so now what will happen is on Monday, Russell Brand will be returned to uh the courtroom. And it will probably be the last time he will see his wife in person for a very, very long time. At least not without bars separating them. Um their son and the heart operation that he had, uh you know, he's still struggling. And he will be divided from his father for who knows how long. I mean, this could go beyond. And clearly the prosecution hasn't extracted its you know, its cup of vengeance because we're looking at possibly two more crimes being charged against Russell.

You know, I keep thinking of that clip that we showed you uh last week or 2 weeks ago when we first were covering this. This clip was given to us by someone who had begun a documentary on Russell. And apparently it never went anywhere. But this was given to us back in April before Russell came on. And it was something I was going to show him and discuss with him. It just we ran out of time. We were talking about so many different things. But it's it shows you some of the behind-the-scenes of Russell and his wife and their child. And let me tell you something.

That family's been through a lot. Laura Brand gave testimony. And she was extremely sympathetic. Even the judge had to admit that. Even the prosecution had to admit that. That this woman got up there, talked about their relationship, which they began right before this whole time frame. They broke up. She said they stayed in touch all this time. The prosecution tried to paint her as completely out of touch, and she didn't know him when he was this rabid like shark-eyed uh demon who would like flip a switch and turn into this serial angry rapist. She tried to tell them that's not true. She actually did stay in close touch with Russell. She knew exactly who he was and that he wasn't that person.

Now, they got back together. She talked about how when they first were together, he he wasn't faithful to her. Um but then things changed. And they found each other again. He married her. He's been baptized. He's found God. If you look at any of their social media, and I mean for years now, these two are you know, spiritual. They are a little woo-woo. They are madly in love with each other. They've formed a family he's very devoted to. And I do believe he's changed his life. They tried to make this case Look, if you find he he raped women prior to all that, he's still going to go to jail. That's what happened today.

But I watched this piece and thought, is this man capable of what they what they say? Let me air it again and you tell me.

Tune in right now to what's real. I think about the difficulties that we've been through and I sort of think like, gosh, you know, I don't really often talk about it with people. Um I do, you know, we talk about it. We we have been experiencing more than one difficulty at time, you know. We have a son who has a serious heart condition.

Good morning. Hello, darling. Who in October 2023 had open heart surgery. I found out that he was going to need that surgery imminently 2 days after the media, you know, explosion. I had to go to the hospital, you know, head down in the car with a 10-week-old baby. Russell was allowed to visit under the cover of darkness, taking a break for a moment from all the media coverage and then the newspaper articles and the feeling of 20 people outside our home, the break from that was the bedside of our child in intensive care.

It's like being shown, "This is not real. This was never real. Look what you gave your life to. You gave your life to being famous, screwing around, being an idiot." And what was also sort of extraordinary when all this Yeah, I guess we got to let him come. Come on then.

This is Herbie. He's all right now. What's up? Aha. Come on then. Hello. Oh, there we go. We're all supposed to say that we don't regret anything cuz all the experiences, even the worst experiences of our life, are contributors to the person that we've subsequently become.

But, I feel like, "Oh my god, I spent like 20 years just screwing around like an idiot." It's untrue. A lie has been told. A lie has been told. A deception.

He raped me. If I was to uh think too much about doing this on my own, that's too painful.

I don't want to do it on my own. So, I hope I hope the system isn't as as we all think it is.

Uh Mhm. They have three kids, two daughters, a son, 10, 8, and 3. Can only imagine what they're going through this morning. Um we will stay tuned. We will bring you more as we learn what the defense plan is and certainly what the sentence is, which we will learn on Monday. We are back with our regularly scheduled Megan Kelly show shortly. Thanks for joining us.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "LIVE: Russell Brand Found GUILTY on Several Counts of S*xual Assault"?

Megyn Kelly (Guest), Mark Eiglarsh (Guest), Laura Brand (Guest).

What is "LIVE: Russell Brand Found GUILTY on Several Counts of S*xual Assault" about?

Russell Brand was found guilty on four counts, including one rape and three sexual assaults, after nine hours of jury deliberation; the acquittals and guilty verdicts cover alleged assaults spanning multiple years and scenarios described in court.

What is mentioned in this Megyn Kelly episode?

34 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Russell Brand, Megan Kelly, Consent, United Kingdom, Channel 4, Statutory Sentencing Guidelines. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "LIVE: Russell Brand Found GUILTY on Several Counts of S*xual Assault"?

The episode runs 1 h 4 min; the transcript is about 9,060 words in 90 timestamped sections.

More from Megyn Kelly

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated November 7, 2026.