Ep. 1848 - Everything You Need To Know About The Cornell 7 Allegations

Now that the prosecution of Lindsey Clancy is on hiatus, pending a retrial, assuming that there is one, hordes of slack-jawed leftist women who spend every waking hour on Instagram or TikTok have rushed headlong into their next psychotic obsession, just like zombies, you know, in the movies where the zombies move fast. This brain-dead biomass has transitioned without missing a beat from defending a woman who systematically murder her three children to launching a relentless, vicious smear campaign against seven young men who, while they were students at Cornell University, did not murder any children or anyone else for that matter. In fact, these seven young men have never been charged with any crime whatsoever, but in the eyes of the mob, these young men, unlike Lindsey Clancy, deserve to have their lives destroyed based on very dubious and unproven accusations that we'll get into in a moment. Now, once again, the Clancy horde wants to help a woman avoid all accountability for her actions. That's kind of the headline here. But before we run through the facts of the Cornell case and the psychology of the women who are rushing into the next duke lacrosse, UVA-style hoax with reckless abandon, I want to begin with a story that you may not be familiar with, you may not remember or maybe never heard about, and it involves a former Columbia university student named Emma Salkowicz. So in 2012, she claimed that she was sexually assaulted by another student who was publicly named. The allegation triggered a wave of outrage on campus with students protesting the supposedly misogynistic culture in American universities. This is when we really started hearing terms like rape culture became, came in vogue around this time. But after investigating the claim for seven months, Columbia found no wrongdoing. Part of the problem was that long after the alleged assault occurred, Emma texted the man who supposedly had assaulted her, writing, quote, "I love you, Paul. Where are you?" So this was not a compelling allegation and the school appropriately dismissed it. You'll find this is a common theme, by the way, with many of these kinds of rape accusations, the supposed victim carries on a friendly and even sometimes romantic relationship with the man who supposedly abused her. And we're not supposed to view that as evidence that the claim is false, but no one can really ever explain why we shouldn't view it as evidence that the claim is false. Clearly it is evidence in that direction. So in the case of Emma Salkowicz, student activists wouldn't let the claim go. The accuser began carrying a mattress everywhere she went during the academic year as a kind of protest and her supporters often joined her. Really, this is obviously just an elaborate ploy to get attention and it worked. They said they wouldn't stop until the alleged attacker was expelled from campus. Columbia even gave Emma school credit for doing this by characterizing her behavior as performance art. This was coordinated harassment that was endorsed by Columbia University and eventually the man that she was accusing Paul sued the university over it, the case later settled. So to reiterate, at no point was there any evidence that Paul was guilty of this alleged crime or any other crime? In fact, there was clear evidence that Paul was innocent, but the mob didn't care. Their goal, which is the goal of feminists everywhere, is to reject the idea that women can be accountable for anything they do. If a woman makes a mistake and does something she regrets, these people believe that she should be able to destroy a man's life to save face. They believe essentially that a woman has a grace period of several years or several decades to decide whether any given sexual encounter was actually right. That's actually what they believe. After the mattress, performance art died down. A journalist walked around the campus of Columbia University to get a sense for what students thought about the whole episode. Now, the appropriate response, of course, would be to condemn this woman for lying and to advocate for the return of due process to American universities and culture, American culture generally. But that's not what we heard. Instead, here's what the students said. Yeah, I mean, I just think it's really ridiculous at the school. We just decide to put you to the side and not really take your story from it. It just seems like a really cool art project that she did carry the mattress around for so long and I think that's great. I love performance art. And also that she, I heard that she worked together with people at graduation to clear that she couldn't carry the mattress on stage or that that was like a really great and just like that partnership. I think it was bold. I think it was a challenge to the administration. I think that regardless of whether the allegations true or not, and I can't comment because I don't I really know the facts of the case. I would say that serious reform with regard to it on the way. Today, it makes me do all the campuses across the country not just at Columbia. It's a very, very, very difficult situation for that person as well because as you can imagine, he's life is pretty much rural in that direction. I remember that at one point, students were other students were carrying around mattresses. And in addition to Emma, clearly many students are angry with the administration for not handling it very well. And the fact that Emma had to carry the mattress the whole year and so, you know, like shows, you know, that the university did not take action. So this is the cowardice and ignorance that gives false allegations so much power. This woman sent a message saying, I love you after this alleged attack, but in the eyes of the average university students, somehow she's still a victim. She can't possibly be lying. You know, the one guy with the glasses who admitted that he didn't know anything about the facts of the case still concluded that serious reform is needed. Of course, by serious reform, he didn't mean that women who make false allegations should be expelled, arrested, and bankrupted. He didn't mean that if you make a false allegation and it's proven that the allegation was false and you lied that you should get the same prison sentence that the man would have gotten had he been convicted of the crime. He wasn't talking about that kind of that's reform we do need, but he didn't mean that. Instead, he was saying that when a woman makes an allegation whether it's true or not, we should just reflexively believe it. We should just do whatever she wants. Truth is relative after all. It's her truth. That's what they think. We've seen this attitude at play in many other cases, perhaps, you know, most notably in the Duke lacrosse saga of 2006 when the DA insisted that three white lacrosse players who were publicly named again had sexually assaulted a black stripper. The DA lied about the evidence in the case, which was non-existent and eventually the DA was disbarred and went to prison and the black woman admitted that she made everything up. This is a media firestorm. These white students had their lives destroyed and the accuser suffered no legal consequences for it at all. Now she did murder her boyfriend so she had to serve some prison time for that. But as for the false accusation, she was never punished for it. In the intervening years, there was the defamatory and now retracted rolling stone article about an alleged gang sexual assault on UVA's campus. Again, this triggered mass outrage from campus activists when the story broke back in 2014. What happened is that a female UVA student had a crush on a male student named Ryan. So to win his affections, she created a male alter ego named Haven Monahan and using the name Haven Monahan, she pretended to be someone who was involved with Jackie as a way of making Ryan jealous and when that didn't work, the female student concocted even more bizarre situations using this alias, making it seem like she was in danger and that Ryan needed to rescue her. These lies culminated in the fake UVA gang assault story, which Rolling Stone published. Now they didn't even bother to investigate and figure out that Haven Monahan wasn't a real person. He was one of their main sources and he didn't even exist. And in the end, Rolling Stone had to pay a lot of money for publishing that article. But to this day, we don't know the identity of the female accuser who made the whole thing up. Even after she was exposed as a fraudster who defamed several students and administrators at UVA, her identity was still concealed by the legal system and by every media outlet. The judge even ruled that the female students' mental health need to be protected during a deposition. And news outlets, including Rolling Stone, maintain that even when the accuser is a liar. Her identity needs to be confidential. So if you're a man and you're accused of something horrific like this, you don't get to confront your accuser. You don't get the benefit of anonymity. You don't get to investigate her background or even know who she is. Meanwhile, every detail of your life, your job, your home address, everything will be exposed online and you'll be hounded for the rest of your life. Because there were never any grave consequences for this woman at UVA because she wasn't punished in a public and humiliating fashion or in any fashion at all. Many more women have decided to anonymously destroy the lives of innocent men. And in some cases, the motivation is to win the affections of someone that attracts it too. And in other cases, the motivation is to excuse some degenerate embarrassing behavior that they voluntarily engaged in. In other cases, it's to save face or to settle a score or to get revenge or just a sadistic joy out of watching other people suffer. Sometimes all of these motivations apply. But simply put, there's a gigantic incentive for immoral, manipulative, sadistic women to fabricate fabric allocate allegations, because they have nothing to lose. If everything it goes according to their plan, they'll gain a lot of sympathy and social capital, potentially a very large payout in a lawsuit. And if they're exposed as liars, then every media outlet will protect their anonymity. So it's basically a no-risk strategy. The only thing you stand to lose is your soul. But if you don't have a soul to begin with, or if you don't care about your soul, then there's no reason not to go for it. And that appears to be exactly what's apparently happening right now at Cornell University. Once again, there's a moral panic on campus about a very dubious, if not totally ridiculous, account of sexual assault. And to give you an idea of how students are responding to the allegation, the editorial board of the Cornell Student Newspaper just published the names of all of the male students who are allegedly involved in this alleged assault, along with an explicit threat. They wrote, quote, "We know who you are and we refuse to let you benefit from this university's concealment." So basically these student activists have determined that the other students are guilty. And for what it's worth, here's how the New York Times reports on the decision of the student journalists, both women, of course, to publicly shame their former classmates. It's, quote, "Overcake, she turned to her fellow editors and asked, can we just put the names on the front page of the paper? We called up our lawyer and we were like, can we do this?" and she recalled. He was like, I mean, it's kind of a risk. And we were like, okay, I guess that's how we're going to start the editorial. Our main obligation is accountability, whether that looks like something that many people do not want to hear or something that many people do want to hear, it's our obligation to report on it. Accountability. Actually as a journalist, your obligation is the truth. It's not to hold someone who you feel is a bad person accountable as a journalist. It's the truth. It's to get to the truth of what actually happened. And speaking of accountability, accountability would mean that these women, student journalists are not, are sued into oblivion. They publish an editorial threatening people who have not been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one, implying that they're guilty of a heinous gang rape, despite there being no evidence of that at all. And several other media outlets have done the same thing. So here's the substance of the allegations to the extent that there is any substance. An alleged assault took place at a fran house in 2024. And now two years later, the anonymous accuser has filed a lawsuit. A prosecutor in New York has reopened a criminal investigation into claims of a fraternity gang rape at Cornell University. A former student says she was drugged and sexually assaulted in 2024 and is suing the Ivy League school, saying that it failed to protect her. CNN's Gloria Pasmino joins us, so Gloria, this civil lawsuit is getting a lot of attention despite this investigation two years ago. Tell us more. That's right, not only is it getting a lot of attention, but it's once again putting a spotlight on how universities and colleges address sexual assault allegations on their campuses. This case, Pamela, is disturbing the details or graphic. And honestly, it is a complicated case. And I want to start right at the beginning, right? The alleged assault took place in October of 2024. According to the lawsuit, two of the seven members of CHI-5 fraternity were expelled and others received lesser punishment, including suspensions and written assignments after Cornell University conducted an investigation. The fraternity was also barred from campus. Now the initial investigation back in 2024 resulted in no charges and no arrests. Jane Doe, the accuser in this case, has since left the university, and now she has brought this civil lawsuit against the school, against the fraternity, her own sorority, seeking damages. The Tompkins County District Attorney is also saying that he is reopening the investigation. He plans to present new evidence in the case. So already, some alarm bells, if you're a reasonable person, should be going off here. For one thing, just at first blush, the story sounds absurd. Woman is drugged and gang raped, allegedly, on a college campus. This is the kind of thing that happens in the world, the kind of thing that happens often in Pakistan, maybe. But it's extremely rare in the United States, especially among college students. And that's why in almost every case that you can think of, when you hear about an attack like this, especially in its high profile cases, it ends up being fictional. You'll recall the, we already mentioned a few of the gang rape allegations ended up being false. You recall the ludicrous gang rape claims against Brett Kavanaugh, for example. He was another one who suffered these false allegations. Now I was able to find one notable exception in the past 20 years, which was a gang sexual assault that took place at Vanderbilt in 2013, resulting in the conviction of four Vanderbilt football players. Probably haven't heard of this story, and I'll tell you why. One of the lead attackers who was black told the victim, who was white, that she deserved the attack because of the color of her skin saying, quote, that's for 400 years of slavery. So it was a racially motivated anti-white attack, why you haven't heard about it. Other than that, these kinds of cases are very rare. So when allegations like this surface, you should ask some obvious questions. It doesn't mean, just 'cause something's red, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. But automatically, red flags go up, especially when it follows a pattern of other hoaxes on college campuses, very similar in a lot of ways, if you're a reasonable person, you immediately think, oh, this fits a pattern, is it, is it part of that pattern? All that means is that you should carefully scrutinize the evidence, especially since in the intro to that segment, we're only getting one side of the story. We're told that this woman was drugged, very important how that was phrased, and didn't consent to anything. And if that was true, then obviously it'd be a very serious crime. But then in the same breath, we're told that no criminal charges were filed when this incident allegedly occurred, and this lawsuit wasn't filed for another two years. So why is that? I mean, we're supposed to believe that in what, 2024, there's an old boys club in the DA's office in Ithaca, New York. Or is there potentially a serious problem with the evidence in the case? Sealist celebrities certainly aren't waiting around to find out. According to Variety, someone named Jamila Jamil just stated, quote, "I think the likes of the Cornell 7 shouldn't be allowed penises anymore. They use them as weapons, so now they have to be confiscated. I think jail time, legal castration, and removal of the shaft seems like the bare minimum." Then there's this from somebody named Josh Gadd, quote, "When we start setting a precedent that our girls and women can be brutally raped, and the resulting disciplinary action is to hand out cheques notes essays, like it's Bart Simpson being a little rascal about why it was wrong to brutally violate an innocent girl, we have lost our effing minds." Okay. Cheques notes. Was that actually in the statement? I think it was. Whatever these people are worth, which probably isn't much, they should be bankrupted by defamation lawsuits, and then once they're destroyed, something similar needs to happen to the Democrat leaders of the state of New York, and here's the governor of Kathy Hokel. This one is far more egregious than those dumb celebrities, because this is the governor of the state, again, here's what she says, quote, "The allegations in the Cornell University Sexual Assault Case are nothing short of horrifying. Any student to come forward after an experience like this takes a extraordinary courage. No student should ever be left wondering whether the institution meant to protect them will listen and act. I'm calling for outside counsel to conduct a transparent, independent review of the University's response to determine whether Cornell met every obligation to protect its students and pursue justice." Now, never mind the fact that it's wildly inappropriate for the governor of the state to weigh in on a case like this, when no charges have been filed and none of the allegations have been proven at all, nearly by making these allegations in the eyes of Democrat Party, the woman in this case has become untouchable. You know, she's not a degenerate anymore. Instead, by filing a lawsuit in which she's presumably seeking millions of dollars, she has extraordinary courage. Even if Hockel is using the word allegations, she's still essentially stating that the claims are factual, because if it takes extraordinary courage to make the claim, then the claim must be factual. Unless Hockel believes that it also takes extraordinary courage to make false claims, I mean, if you care at all about the evidence, then shouldn't you hold off on calling it extraordinarily courageous until we know whether it's true? Doesn't the courage in saying whether or not it involves courage doesn't that depend entirely on whether she's telling the truth or not? Well, no, we have the God. Governor of New York implicitly declaring, without a conviction or even any charges filed, that the accused men are guilty. It's totally unconscionable and predictable. Now, I tell my kids to finish what they start constantly all the time. This is the message. It's basically my entire parenting philosophy and I repeat it until they're sick of hearing it. So I should probably mention, if there's a degree you started and ever finished or one, you always meant to start Grand Canyon University gives you a flexible way to pursue it online without reorganizing your entire life around a campus schedule. GCU builds its program around the free market, a Christian worldview, an actual open discourse into more than 325 online academic programs in case you're wondering whether that includes yours. And they back it up with real scholarship and financial aid, so a private education doesn't have to be out of reach. Whether you're returning to school or finally taking that first step, GCU can help you pursue your educational goals and your God-given purpose. They say higher education is outdated, irrelevant, but at Grand Canyon University, they don't settle for the status quo. They shatter it. GCU's accredited MBA program is 100% online and is designed to shape leaders through servant leadership. Finish what you start. Even the boring version of that advice is still true. GCU can help you take your passion and scale your business to serve your community. This is Purpose Driven Education. Take action. Find your purpose. At Grand Canyon University, visit gcu.edu. I want to be clear that the culture of rape, sexual assault, and pedophilia is protected in elite institutions across the United States and including Cornell University in this instance. AOC told the crowd about being touched inappropriately within 10 seconds of arriving at a party during her freshman year at Boston University. Less than a week later, she was disturbed by what she witnessed at another party at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And I was horrified at what I saw. I was 17 years old. I had been, you know, really kept from a lot of things like that when I was in high school and I walked in and I saw just, you know, incapacitated women, men taking advantage of them, people making decisions and I mean, it was just horrible. When I read about what happened at Cornell, those men posted in a group chat. That means it was normal to them. We then directed a message of support to the woman identified only as Jane Doe who filed the lawsuit. Jane Doe, if you are listening or a survivor of any gender, mind you, because so many men and young boys are subject to this as well, that if you have been subject to this, I want you to know that you are not defined by the things that have happened to you. You are bigger than that. You are stronger than them and they will never define you for your entire life. And that you can achieve anything that you want to achieve from one survivor to another. Okay, so she tells the harrowing tale of going to a party and there were incapacitated women being taken advantage of by men all over the place. She says, and we'll get back to this, but of course you hear this harrowing tale and you ask, well, were the men also incapacitated? What kind of party was it? Typically at a party of the sort you're describing, everyone is incapacitated. So all the men were sober and all the women were drunk, is that what you're saying? And if they were all drunk, involved in this kind of activity, then who's taking advantage of who? Let's get to something you're really not supposed to say, by the way, but it's true. You hear stories like this, like liberal women, especially in the public eye, love to claim that they're survivors, you often hear this claim, as a way of gaining sympathy and sort of claiming the moral high ground. And we get these claims off them with no evidence, we're just supposed to take their word for it. They just sort of say, well, I'm a survivor, this thing happens. Okay, no one's allowed to ask any other questions, there's no way you're lying, there's no way you must be telling the truth. Well, the problem is that in certain circles, you have to make claims like this in order to establish your credibility and ward off any criticism. But in most cases, we have no evidence or any reason to believe that they survived anything. But they prefer to use this kind of dramatic language because it works, it shuts down debate, it gives them moral authority in their minds to say whatever they want. You should reject that premise every single time we have the opportunity to do so. You know, your unverified sob story does not grant you any additional credibility or authority in this conversation or any other. All that matters are the facts on the ground, the actual evidence, that's all that matters. And that's the message we should be hearing from our political leaders if they even remotely respected the rule of law and the concept of due process, but they don't. The mayor of Ithaca to give another example has just told everyone that he's horrified by the quote, heinous and sickening allegations. He says he's appalled by Cornell for failing to hold the perpetrators to account. So he's already decided that their perpetrators, they're perpetrators, not even alleged perpetrators. They're the perpetrators. Okay, so what happened is what you're saying. No evidence of that, but that's what he's saying. And he's furious that the police didn't coordinate, quote, unquote, an effective response. So basically like every other Democrat, he's already convinced that the students are guilty. He's already convicted them very clearly in his statement. Once again, he calls them allegations, but then in the very next breath calls them perpetrators who must be held to account. Not to mention what makes the allegations heinous and sickening exactly. If the claims are true, then yes, the alleged crime would be heinous and sickening, but if the claims are not true, and there's very good reason to believe that they aren't true, as we'll discuss. And in that case, what would be heinous and sickening is the allegation itself. It's heinous and sickening to claim that something heinous and sickening happened to you if it didn't. So then you as the person making the claim are the heinous and sickening person. So that's ensure the allegations could be heinous and sickening, but that's not how the mayor minted. We can be pretty sure. So let's get to the facts of the case as we currently know them and we'll start with the rather significant problem that in 2024, according to the authorities, the accuser had a very different version of events. Watch. He plans to present new evidence in the case, but this district attorney is now under a lot of pressure, facing calls to reopen the case, which he's doing now, but also criticism about how he initially handled the investigation back in 24. Now, we should mention that he has said that the reason for why there was no charges back in 2024 is because Jane Doe did not allege at the time that she had been drugged or sexually assaulted. That's a key part. I want to read a statement from the district attorney, which says that Jane Doe's sworn statement in November 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe's statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. Okay, well, so that should be it. That's just should be it, the end of story. Pretty big difference here. Two years ago, she was not making the same allegations at all when she spoke to the police and provided a written statement. She apparently said everything was consensual. That's what she said after it happened. End of story or at least it should be. According to the DA, she didn't allege in her final written statement that she was drugged or sexually assaulted in any way. And now two years later, she's talked to a lawyer who wants millions of dollars from the school and everything changes. This is reason enough to dismiss the allegations out of hand. Okay, if years after the fact you've decided that an act you previously considered consensual actually was not consensual, your claims should be disregarded as a matter of course, period. If you were actually raped, go to the police immediately and tell them. If you wait years to tell them, we already have significant reason to be skeptical. If you tell them it was consensual and then wait years to decide that actually it wasn't, our skepticism at that point verges very strongly towards definitive certainty that you're a liar. So, let's pull up the full statement from the DA because this is truly extraordinary stuff. First the woman says that she was texting with a male at the fraternity and arranged to meet him there. She was intoxicated at a level of five at a 10 at this point intoxicated of her own accord. She chose to drink and no, this was not something that was done to her against the will. And then she, when she arrived, the male who she was texting with invited her to join a threesome quote, "Doe agreed due to how attracted she was to male number one on top of her drunken curiousness." Once you learned that male number two would be the third participant, Jane Doe remember being excited because she thought the that male number one and male number two wanted to have a three sum in that meant that they were gay. Well, she might well have been correct about that. But as far as proving that an assault occurred, this obviously doesn't help her case. Let's continue. Quote, the sexual conduct ended when Jane Doe noticed that male number one appeared really sleepy. She told male number two that they needed to stop having sex in order to make sure that male number one was okay. Male number two then stopped with Jane Doe. Male number one said he was going to take a nap and refresh himself and would eventually stumble his way from the couch to the bed. Well, male number one slept. Male number two began to dry heave as if he was going to, as if he was going to vomit. Jane Doe began to take care of male number two by patting his back, but also waking male number one every few minutes to make sure he was okay. Now at this point, if we use the logic of the Instagram hoard for a second, it sounds a lot like maybe these men are actually the victims. After all, if you can't possibly consent to sexual activity when you're intoxicated, then these men were being taken advantage of. So where's their Me Too moment? Why aren't they falling a lawsuit? You know, this has always been the glaring inconsistency in the claim popular on the left that drunk sex is inherently rape. We kind of heard that from AOC, a version of this claim. Any woman who engages in sexual activity while drunk was by definition raped because you could not have consented, that's the idea. Now, the problem with this idea, aside from the fact that actually drunk people do make choices and are responsible for those choices, that's the whole reason why you go to prison if you get drunk and hit somebody with your car. In fact, if you kill someone with your car, you'll go to prison longer if you were drunk. But aside from that, in almost any case where a drunk woman is having sex on the college campus or anywhere else, the man is very often also drunk. So by this logic, he has a rape claim just as valid as hers. And yet nobody would take him seriously if he went public with a claim of that sort. And men basically never do. Meanwhile, back in reality under New York law and under the law of common sense, being intoxicated does not mean that you cannot consent as long as you got yourself intoxicated, meaning you weren't drugged against your will. You chose to put yourself in this state and you remain conscious and able to verbalize your thoughts, then you remain fully responsible for what happens. That's the standard and it should be. And according to this woman's statement, every single time she verbalized that she didn't want to engage in sexual activity, her request was respected. She actually pushed several people away. It's also clear from her statements that she voluntarily drank alcohol and took ketamine. At no point was she drugged, at least not by anyone else, she drugged herself. Just like a lot of these guys apparently drugged themselves. And most what's clear from her statement is that this orgy was bizarre and gross and disgusting. And eventually the other members of the fraternity put an end to it. Quote, male number four asked Jane Doe if they could all do drugs off her perfect body, quote unquote, Jane Doe responded, sure, while the men were doing drugs off of her body, male number three and another enter the room and said something like, okay, we're shutting down whatever the F. This is. So based on this statement, the DA decided not to bring charges. And that's because even if you pretend that everything she said was true, it still would not constitute a crime under New York law. That's obviously the correct decision. Everything that was happening that we just described is immoral and gross. And you shouldn't be doing any of that if you're a man or a woman, but everybody involved, if it if it's morally repugnant behavior, everyone involved, including the woman, is guilty of engaging in that morally repugnant behavior. But now two years later, this woman has found a lawyer and completely changed her story. Instead of shutting her down, the DA is caving to the mob. Here's part of the statement from the DA, quote, multiple prosecutors and criminal investigators reviewed Jane Doe's statement and correctly determined that the alleged facts of set forth in the statement do not constitute a crime to be clear. The credibility of the woman who described the facts in detail was never in question. I recognize the reality that it could take years of therapy and healing for victims of sexual assault to fully process and understand what happened to them. Well, this is complete and utter BS. There's no other way to describe it. Yes, the credibility of the woman is in question. She's contradicted herself. If contradicting yourself does not undermine your credibility, then nothing does. This woman described very specific details contemporaneously when she spoke to the prosecutors to report what happened. She clearly was not incapacitated. Otherwise, she wouldn't have remembered anything. She told investigators everything that occurred. And after reviewing her statements, they could not identify a crime. She obviously felt like something strange had happened, and it did. The whole thing again was disgusting. She participated in a drug-fueled orgy. If she felt ashamed of that and gross about it, she should have. It is shameful. It is gross, but it's not a crime. And by all available evidence, she was an active and enthusiastic participant in this gross thing that happened. Now two years later, after therapy and consultations with her lawyer, she has a different version of events. By definition, this means she's not credible. The idea that so-called survivors need to take two years to figure out what happened to them on its face is insulting and idiotic. What's happening here is that the prosecutor is conflating the idea of delayed disclosure with delayed memory. It's very possible that somebody after suffering abuse, particularly if they suffer abuse when they were a child, let's say, might not want to talk about it for a while, might be afraid to talk about it, might be ashamed, might have all kinds of anxieties about it. But there's no support for the idea that victims of abuse are going to lie to the police at great length about what happened to them. Only to change their story two years later because they remember it better suddenly, years after the fact, it's just pseudoscience. Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. By the way, your memory of events gets less clear as time goes on, not more clear. If you feel like you're remembering something better, like if it's two years later and you feel like you remember an event better than you did after it happened, that is not your memory. That is your mind constructing a vivid story about what happened, which may or may not bear any resemblance to the thing that actually happened. Memories fade over time. They don't suddenly get better over time. But with this attitude, it gives a license to psychopaths to lie about what actually happened to them. And speaking of psychopaths, it also gives a license to therapists to plant these ideas in the minds of their female clients. See, this is how it often works. A woman does something disgusting, like participating willfully in a drug-fueled orgy, as was apparently the case of Cornell, and feels guilty about it. And since her real problem is guilt, not trauma, the real solution is to repent of her sins. She should be going to church, not a therapist's office. But in the modern world, therapists are the new spiritual advisors, the new clergy, the high priests of the left-wing, therapeutic religion. And so that's where women like this one take their sins. This is where they go to find absolution. But in therapy in the age of affirmation, no one can be guilty of any sins. A woman especially can't be guilty of sins. The only person who can really be guilty of anything is a white man. So the therapist helps her to see that her feelings of guilt are really trauma. She actually isn't responsible for anything that happened. She's a victim. She was raped. Even if she didn't know she was raped. Even if she specifically remembered not being raped, she was raped. And the woman latches on to that new theory of the case for obvious reasons. Not only does it mean a potential payout, not only will it bring her attention and all the other things that shallow women and shallow men desire most of all, but it also frees her of guilt. It releases her from the burden of her own agency. And you will never really understand modern society or the rise of therapy culture or the popularity of socialism among young people or why big pharma is a trillion dollar industry until you understand that the number one thing driving many people these days is a desire to be freed from the crushing weight of their own volition, their agency. They do not want to have free will. Freedom itself is not. It turns out much to the chagrin of our founding fathers in an eight desire common among all people. It's not not everybody wants to be free. Some people want to be slaves. They want to be told they have no control. They have no capacity to make decisions. Nothing that they do is their fault. They can't be held accountable for anything. That's why they go to therapy. They sit down in the therapist's office and they say to the therapist, usually indirectly, but sometimes directly, here's the stuff I feel bad about. Now tell me why it isn't my fault. And the therapist indulges them, just like the drugs indulge them, just like the politicians indulge them. So you as a healthy person, as a well adjusted person, You may feel a deep desire for freedom. and the open road, but a lot of people, especially leftists, women, most of all, have no such desire. They want to be puppets on a string. They want to be a Mary Annette's on a stage. Nothing is there for nothing was their choice. That's what they want. And that's all deeper philosophical stuff. Closer to the surface, we still have practical questions. Questions like, why aren't we allowed to know the identity of this Jane Doe? She's allowed to publicly name all these Cornell students and follow lawsuits that docks their home addresses, destroy the reputations for the rest of their lives, but we're not allowed to know anything about her. No judge should be able to shield this information from the public. We still have a first amendment in this country last time I checked. And if a woman is going to make bizarre claims that attract national attention like this and contradict herself in the process, we have a right to know who she is, period. Now, it's not witness intimidation. It's not stalking. It's our constitutional right. This is not the Soviet Union. People have a right to confront their accusers in this country. They have the right to information that's clearly in the public interest. One of these Cornell students that this woman is accused, by the way, it was just fired by Wells Fargo after the lawsuit was filed. And the mob of Instagram harpies is trying to get the other students fired from their jobs as well. These young men haven't even been charged with a crime, but they're being relentlessly harassed by the same women who defended Lindsey Clancy for the triple murder of her own children. These students have no recourse whatsoever. Meanwhile, this woman, like the UVA accuser, has total immunity, apparently. No one's allowed to even know who she is. I mean, it's absurd. That's especially true when you look at the accuser's text messages, which were just obtained by CBS New York. And CBS deserves a lot of credit for this. It seems like the more we learn about this anonymous woman, the worse it gets. Quote, the messages were sent just two days after the alleged assault. The man started by apologizing for how things went down. He said his memory is kind of fuzzy and that he and another man feel bad for being too intoxicated to shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand. The woman in the text chain replied that her memory is super clouded to and said they had all been heavily intoxicated. She also wrote, none of the sexual stuff was illegal. She said she liked being with him and another man. Later, she suggested they smoked together again, but leave out the extra five billion men and ketamine. Hey, well, again, this should just be the end of the story. The Cornell students, like the UVA students and the duke lacrosse students before them should file defamation lawsuits against everyone who's lied about this case. That's a very long list of people. If she had been violently assaulted in the frat house, she would not text the participants in the assault after the fact and explicitly say that nothing illegal transpired. I mean, this is about as definitive as a case like this can possibly get. You have the accuser on record in writing stating to one of the alleged rapists that no crime was committed. End of story. Nothing to see here, nothing but a bunch of college kids, including this woman doing something gross. They're not the first and won't be the last, but there was no crime as she or self-states. Unless we want to make, unless we want to make just behavior like this a crime in general, which I don't think very many people do, but if we did, then everybody, herself included, would be arrested. And then she goes further. She attempts to schedule another encounter with some of the men who were supposedly involved in this alleged heinous attack. There's one more piece of CBS's report we need to talk about because it establishes the timeline of when this woman's story began to change. According to a transcript of the alleged victims' interview with campus police, obtained by CBS New York, Jane Dow distinguished the initial sexual activity from what she says happened later in the night. When asked whether she was okay with the initial encounter, she said, yeah, as much as I can be because I was super drunk when I got there, but I was pretty okay with all of this. When describing what happened later in the night, the transcript says Jane Dow said, I can say with 100% confidence I was raped. The interview began on November 14th, 2024, more than three weeks after the alleged gang rape and continued the next day. Some three weeks later, she declares that she was raped, but after reviewing her actual claims in the final written statement, she subsequently reviewed and signed. Prosecutors concluded that the fact she described did not constitute a crime, and according to the DA, that signed statement did not alleged that she had been drugged against her will or gang rape. This is a written statement that according to TMZ, the woman changed 20 times with handwritten corrections and to put it mildly, that's extremely difficult to reconcile with the allegations she's making today. But it's very few people want to point that out. Actually, there is one person at least who's being honest about what's happening here. Of all people, Sunny Hostin on the view just came out to defend kind of the Cornell students whose lives are being destroyed at the moment. Watch. I actually have the statement that Jane Dow wrote at that time and just give it to us in the sentence, we're not a lot of time. It's several pages long. I know, but it's nine pages long. And I will say that under current New York state law, voluntary intoxication or drug use, and she voluntarily drank a lot. She voluntarily took a snorted ketamine off of one of the boy's body parts. Even though she was highly intoxicated when she arrived at the frat house, she was highly intoxicated, but had made plans to meet one of the boy young men. She allowed other boys and consented to other boys snorting ketamine off of her body. And under New York law, voluntary intoxication or drug use that merely impairs judgment does not legally constitute an inability to consent to sexual activity. So that means if you voluntarily ingest drugs, you voluntarily take alcohol, you can agree to have three sums which in her statement, she agreed to have two separate three sums. One boy did walk in, one young man did walk in and say everybody out. So there was one person that did that. And according to her statement, three of the young men did not touch her. And so I say, I think I understand it is, but I say all that to say the pictures of these young men who have not been charged, not been adjudicated, are being plastered all over the internet. I think people are reporting this story inaccurately. I think they're reporting it unfairly. And while this is something that we have to take very seriously, there is no way, according to her statement in 2024 that any prosecutor would have brought. She was intoxicated, had a cheat. Under New York law. Now, what's frustrating about this clip is the realization that Sonny Hostin, one of the dumbest women on the view, which is really saying something, has more integrity and honesty on this issue than many prominent conservative politicians. Has a single Republican come out to defend these Cornell students as a single Republican said a word about this case, which is an obvious miscarriage of justice that implicates the constitutional rights of these students and by extension any student. If you care about civil rights at all, then this should be one of the most important issues you're talking about right now. Title 9 has not been reformed in any meaningful way. It's still extremely easy for a woman to make up some false accusation and destroy the lives of anyone she wants, especially on a college campus. So it's a big deal. But a lot of Republicans who claim they care about the civil rights of everyone, including white men on college campuses, are totally silent. They're allowing this fake narrative to take hold just like the remaining silent as a Democrat spread lies about lynchings all over the country and so many other things. And the only conclusion you could draw from this is that at the moment we're led by politicians or somehow more pathetic than sunny host and their weakness will lead to many more fake accusations. It will lead to the destruction of many more young men. And unless things change very quickly, their cowardice will empower another generation of leftist women to believe that they're never accountable for their own actions. A feminist tenant that in every possible respect has done more damage to this country over the past 50 years than the nuclear bomb did to Hiroshima. That is not an overstatement. It's not a metaphor. These people are destroying civilization. And with this Cornell case, they've made it very clear that they're just getting started. I'll do the show day. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. I'm going to conquer the West. Are we paying attention? I'm taking over the building. They're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. We cannot run and hide. There is no God but Allah. What do you say? We turn those vessel beams into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leap front, stretch them out with a list. You need a course in Safe Weapons Handling.