Ep. 1850 - New Evidence in the Cornell 7 Case Completely Blows The Accuser's Story

A slew of text messages from the Cornell accuser have now been released and they erase all doubt about what happened. This woman, according to her own contemporaneous statements, consented to deviant sexual activity in a frat house and after the fact she firmly believed that no crime had been committed. She even stated that, quote, "Everyone needs to grow up because sexuality and sex is changing," meaning that she saw her behavior as enlightened, as a feminist expression of her own freedom and empowerment. And then, not long afterwards, she began experiencing shame and humiliation when the entire campus found out about what she did. She stated her reputation was destroyed and accused a fraternity member of telling everyone what she had done. And the breaking point came, apparently, when the fraternity disinvited her from their big Halloween party. This was the single most important social event of the semester. There's nothing more important to a college girl than the Halloween party. And they made it very clear that they didn't want her to attend. And she, you know, suddenly hearing this, she decided that she had been assaulted, retroactively withdrawing her consent long after the fact. That was the moment when she decided that she would go scourge-sturth. The second she was barred from a party at the very fraternity house where she supposedly was abused. So think about that for a second. She was bitterly disappointed that she couldn't return to the place where she was supposedly subjected to a brutal gang rape. Now, the very notion is farcical, of course, but she understood that at a left-wing, female dominated campus, like Cornell, she could immediately regain the moral high ground if she lied about what happened, even if her story made no sense. And she was right. We'll go into the text messages and the whole timeline in just a moment. This is a case where facts matter, as they always do. And we're going to show all the text messages in context to demonstrate that this woman is a liar. The evidence is not a dispute. No one can seriously take issue with any of it. But first, support to establish, at the outset, that this case is not about one trashy woman at Cornell, or the male students who also engaged in depraved sex acts and drug use. And it's not simply about due process and the seemingly non-existent rights of the accused, although that's obviously a really important part of the story. This woman is almost certainly going to be paid millions of dollars as a result of the con her lawyers are running. The male students' lives will be destroyed, and we can expect a host of false allegations in the coming months and years as a result. If the expected outcome at this point, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise, everybody knows it, the more interesting question is why this woman's story, as fantastical and self-contradictory as it is, has resonated to such a great extent on the left with so many women all over the country. Democrat politicians are falling over themselves to make this case into a campaign issue, not because they have any principles, but because they're responding to the frenzy that their female constituents in the Democrat Party are participating in. That's a supply and demand. There's a whole TikTok trend right now where women claimed have been the victims of some horrible crime many years after it supposedly happened. And why is this happening? Why did the accuser abruptly decide that she had been assaulted and why are so many women defending her, even after it's clear that she's lying? What we're seeing here is, among other things, the failure of the left's consent-based morality. So they've chipped away at all sexual morals for decades. They've systematically eliminated every moral rule and standard governing, well governing human behavior in general, but especially governing, governing human sexuality. And they have left consent as the only remaining rule, the only remaining principle. But you know, it turns out that sex can be degrading and bad, even when it's consensual. And when that happens, when a woman feels gross and sad and embarrassed after a sexual encounter, even when it was fully consensual, they have no moral language to even understand or talk about how they feel except through consent. You know, they can't say that sex outside of marriage is bad or that degrading group sex is bad or that drunkenness and intoxication are bad and that's why they feel bad. They can't say any of that stuff on the left because on the left you're supposed to celebrate all of that. The only moral framework they have, the only line that can be crossed on the leftist mindset revolves around consent and therefore any sex that makes a woman feel bad after the fact must have been ipso facto non-consensual. The concept of sex that was wrong yet consensual is foreign to a woman like this. She has been told and has believed that wrong yet consensual is a category that cannot exist. Now this is not meant to be an excuse for the accuser, it's not an excuse, but an explanation about the world view that feeds into these kinds of false rape allegations and we've seen this many times. If you're a rational person with a more robust and coherent moral framework, then it can be kind of difficult to wrap your mind around this. But the fact is that a lot of people in this country today, especially those on the left politically, truly believe that the only moral rule that obtains in any situation, not just sexual, is consent. The only thing that matters morally, they think, ever, is whether everybody involved in a particular act, shows to be involved. Now in reality, however, consent is merely the first step, right? It's the first box to check on your way to making sure that what you're doing is moral. Obviously, sex must be consensual, but it also must respect the dignity and humanity of the other person involved and of yourself. So what happened at Cornell was undignified, unhuman, animalistic. Now it's not even human behavior, if eight people in a room doing this, this is not human. This is animalistic, it's savage, but it was consensual. It checked that box, but it didn't check the second box or any of the other boxes beyond that. But the left again has no moral language to describe bad, gross, undignified, consensual sex, and they have no way in their moral philosophy, such as it is, to account for the possibility that a person, especially a woman, might feel really bad about something she actively chose to do. So if she feels bad, it must have been non-consensual. That is the way they frame it, that's the way they see it. And this is how millions of women, particularly on the left, have been told to think about sex. They've heard this message from the media, from the schools, from university administrators and, in many cases, from their own parents. It's the same perspective that's shared by Democrat politicians at all levels of government up to and including the governor of New York, Kathy Hocal and her staff. All of these people know that the Cornell incident was lorid and repulsive and that everybody involved, the men and the woman, bear culpability for it. But if they were to condemn the debauchery, they'd be undoing generations of work by feminists and sexual revolutionaries who have decided that, you know, who have dedicated their lives and a lot of political capital to the hedonistic maxim that sex is merely, you know, one more way for people to enjoy themselves without the need for any deeper purpose or commitment or respect or anything like that. They can't bring themselves to do that under any circumstances. So instead, we're treated to this charade on a national scale, to this absurd idea that a woman can retroactively revoke her consent, to sexual activity, to avoid confronting her shame about what she chose to do. The charade reached the point of absurdity a couple of days ago, well, it's been absurd this whole time, but it reached a fever pitch, I suppose, when Kathy Oklahoma pointed a special prosecutor to investigate the case. Even though again, the alleged victim has admitted in writing that no crime occurred, has actually said that explicitly in writing, nobody committed a crime. But this is what Hocal did in the special prosecutor that has been appointed is none other than Latisha James, whose best known for engineering a fake civil case against Donald Trump, which ultimately fell apart. She prejudged that case, she actually ran for office on a pledge to investigate and convict Donald Trump, and she's done exactly the same thing here. So this was a video posted by Latisha James just one day before she was appointed as a special prosecutor. Listen. So let me just say my heart goes out to the victim, the survivor, and I stand with her and all individuals who unfortunately have been the victims of sexual assault. And my job is to ensure that the rights of students and that the rights of survivors and that all individuals on campus is all throughout the state of New York are safe. And that Cornell University, and other universities, as soon as universities, CUNY universities, private universities, all have protocols in place that they are in compliance with Title IX and that they ensure that all of the students are safe on their campus. In addition to that, the Tomkins County District Attorney has reopened this case. He's presenting this case to the grand jury. And there have been a lot of comments with respect to his handling of the case. And we look forward to the outcome to ensure that, in fact, justice is serve and there's accountability for the survivor. So again, we keep coming back to his farcical. That's what all of this is. No credible person can claim that this has any credibility at this point. I mean, the whole point of a special prosecutor is supposed to be to avoid conflicts of interest, to avoid bias. That's the whole reason you bring in a special prosecutor. And here you have the special prosecutor on camera before anything's been investigated already declaring what the result of the investigation will be. In a sane society, this wouldn't just simply disqualify Latisha James from serving as a special prosecutor in this case. This would lead to her impeachment and removal as Attorney General of New York. It would also lead to lawsuits that would bankrupt her for life. I mean, that's what she deserves. She's repeatedly talking about a victim and a survivor and outright stating that this woman was the victim of a sexual assault, all of which contradicts what the alleged victim herself has stated, as well as all the available evidence. If anything, by the standards of consent set by the left anyway, some of these men are the victims. Several of them never even touched this woman, and at least two of them, based on the woman's statement, were more intoxicated than she was. So this would be inexcusable, coming from a random online podcaster, but this is coming from the Attorney General, who under the law isn't supposed to prosecute any cases where she has an obvious bias. And in this case, she's been tapped as a special prosecutor, which is a position that, by definition, requires, again, that she doesn't have any conflict of interest, that she doesn't have a bias. That's the whole point of that position. Well, she clearly has one. And when she and the governor were asked about this, and either one of them had a coherent reply, James didn't even bother to attempt to answer the question. Watch. - Attorney General, on your Facebook page three days ago, you wrote, "What this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable. I'm holding her in my part and in my prayers to her, and to all survivors are not alone, you stand with you." But why did you affirm her allegations as fact without doing your own fact, finding investigations as a governor? Why did you appoint an official who made a public statement affirming those allegations as fact as someone who's supposed to be doing an investigation? - I will answer that. I have every confidence in our Attorney General to do what she has always done. Look at the facts, examine the record, and draw the proper conclusions. That's exactly what's going to happen in this case. - Attorney General, please. - I will not comment on a Facebook post. - So no answer there. And we all know what the conclusion of this investigation will be. Not only are they going to prosecute the seven, but it's going to be full Derek Chauvin. They're going to find people that weren't even involved, that weren't even there. And they're going to prosecute them too. I mean, it's not just going to be, it's not a question of whether all seven of the quote unquote corn L7 are prosecuted. It's how many additional young men are they going to pull into this? In some cases who had nothing to do with it whatsoever, because that will happen. You know, you hear people like Barack Obama say, as he said recently, that if women ran the world, everything would be peaceful and run smoothly. Then you look at what actually happens when you have women like this running things, and well, here's what it looks like. Their top priority is the highest ranking officials in New York is to launch a criminal investigation into a two-year-old booty call at a frat house where nobody was killed or suffered any significant physical injuries, which involved no criminal activity, even according to the written statements of the alleged victim at the time, and which didn't even bother her enough to get her to withdraw from the Halloween party. She had to be disinvited from a Halloween party. A Halloween party, she desperately wanted to attend at the very same place where she later claimed she was raped, and with the very same people who she now says raped her. You get the sense that at some level, these women realize they have no case. That's why the governor is trying to change the law. So here's what she posted. Quote, choosing to have a drink is not consent, and it's never a license for sexual assault. New York law should reflect that. I support closing the voluntary intoxication loophole and will work with the legislature to get it done. So apparently she thinks there's a loophole in the law where if you have a drink of alcohol, you're consenting to get sexually assaulted. But rest assured, I looked this up, and just, you know, I mean, common sense tells you that's not the case, but looked it up anyway, just to make sure, and there is in fact no such loophole. This is like when, this is very much like when Biden passed a law, the Democrats passed a law making it a crime, making lynching a crime. We gotta close the lynching loophole where there's no loophole. It was already a crime 50 times over. And this is already a crime to actually rape someone, man or woman who isn't intoxicated, or is not intoxicated is against the law. It's already a crime. Rape is already a crime in New York. Under the current law in New York, choosing to have a drink is not in fact consent in and of itself, obviously. However, it is true that if you have a couple of drinks, then as long as you're not unconscious or disabled in some way, you're still allowed to legally consent to sexual activity. And that makes sense because what's the other option here? What she's trying to do is change the law so that, I guess if you have a few drinks, then for all intents and purposes, you can't consent to anything. Now overnight, of course, this would classify about what like 90% of people living in New York as rapists. Right away. I mean, if you've ever had any sexual encounter with anyone who had a few drinks, even if you also had a few drinks, and even if nobody was inebriated, well, then you're a rapist in New York. If that's how they change the law, it would also have a host of other consequences that these women obviously haven't thought through because the process of thinking through anything requires a level of self-awareness and IQ that exceeds the grasp of Kathy Hocal and her henchwoman. According to Hocal's proposal, the moment you're voluntarily intoxicated, you simply can't be held responsible for your actions. So okay, if somebody gets drunk and then decides to get behind the wheel of a car, how can we hold them responsible for DUI? If they run over a family of five, I mean, how can you charge them with any crime? After all, once you're voluntarily intoxicated, you bear no responsibility for anything, according to Kathy Hocal. As I've brought up several times now, under the current law in like every state in the union, actually not only are you held responsible if you get into an accident while you're drunk, you're held more responsible. The law says, and as it should, well, no, I mean, if you kill someone in your car, you're already in trouble, but if you got drunk ahead of time, that just makes you even more, you behave even more irresponsibly. That's just another layer of negligence on your side. And so you're gonna be even more troubled. So in that way, we ascribe even greater volition to the drunk person in some ways when it comes to a car accident. Well, how does that work with this change to the law they wanna make? Well, who knows, they haven't thought about it. It's all totally incoherent, but it tracks with how women are being told to think about sexual assault. Let's take a look at this extraordinary report from ABC News, for example. This is designed to shock us into thinking that sexual assault is an epidemic on campuses, but it manages to highlight another problem entirely, kind of the opposite problem of anything. Quote, a state mandated survey of undergraduate students at Cornell revealed that more than one third of undergraduate women, so they experienced sexual assault during their time at the Ivy League University. According to the school's 2025 survey of sexual assault and related misconduct, 35% of the undergraduate women at the Ithaca, New York School report experiencing non-consensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation since entering Cornell. In 50% of cases, respondents reported being conscious, but incapacitated by alcohol or drugs during all or apart of the incident, according to the report, with 90% saying they were passed out or unconscious for some or all of the time. Well, all this report demonstrates if anything is that the crisis of fake sexual assault claims is far worse than we imagined. Okay, unless you're willing to believe the 35% figure which you're retarded if you are, I mean, they're saying that 35% of undergraduate women at Cornell have been sexually assaulted, 35%. Just for comparison, according to a study of refugees at a camp in Mogadishu, 19% of women had experienced gender-based to violence, quote unquote, in the preceding 12 months, and that includes all forms of violence, not just sexual violence. I think this fact puts the Cornell claim in maybe into even sharper relief. During the decade-long civil war in Sierra Leone, 13% of households reported sexual violence and 9% of individual women. So think about that for a moment. We're supposed to believe that at an Ivy League campus in the United States of America, women are being sexually assaulted at far higher rates than women in third world refugee camps. We're supposed to believe they're being assaulted at triple the rate of women in war-torn African hellholes. According to this, if you're a woman, you're more likely to be raped on an Ivy League college campus than if you are air dropped into the middle of an African civil war for 10 years. Does any thinking person believe that? Of course not. So I decided to look into this survey because it gets at the root of the problem, which is that women are being trained to recast unpleasant sexual experiences as assault, which is a pretty big problem. And the first thing I noticed, which the media doesn't tell you, is that this survey had a response rate of 15%. Quote a total of 926 students participated in the 2025 survey, resulting in an overall response rate of 15% graduate and professional women had the highest participation rate at approximately 19% while undergraduate students responded a lower rate of around 13%. So already this debunks the ABC report and all of the media reporting on this survey. If only 15% of undergraduates replied to your survey and 35% of their respondents say that they were sexually assaulted, that obviously does not mean that 35% of undergraduates say they were assaulted. The people who are going to respond to a survey like this are far more likely to have a complaint and the sample size, therefore, is not statistically useful. It's a pretty big issue and the media is pretending not to understand it. The survey itself states that these issues quote, "limit confidence in the accuracy of these estimates," you think, but we're supposed to take it seriously with these absurd headlines. And when you look closer, you realize that the 35% number is fake too. Specifically, the survey notes that quote, "This is the first administration of the survey where respondents were asked specifically about their experience with unwanted choking or strangulation." The survey asked separately about incidents involving four different tactics, the use or threaten use of physical force in capacity due to drugs or alcohol, the use of coercion, i.e., threats or non-physical harm of promises of rewards, or promises of rewards, and the absence of affirmative consent, i.e., contact that occurred without the student's knowing, voluntary, and ongoing agreements. So to be clear about this, that means that they're including in their definition of sexual assault, some stuff that obviously would be sexual assault, and other stuff that wouldn't be. And all of this is self-reported data. And so, you know, what you're taking from this is that this number of women made this claim on a survey. And it's totally up to them. It's totally up to them how they define retroactively sexual assault. But the whole issue we're having here is that the definition is wildly ridiculous at this point. And to be clear about this, according to the ridiculous concept of affirmative consent, as it's preached on college campuses, if someone, in a sexual encounter, it's supposed to be someone, but really this, in practice, only applies to the woman, doesn't verbally and affirmatively consent to each specific act within one sexual encounter, even an encounter that has already been consented to, then potentially that can become rape after the fact. This is how they inflate the sexual assault statistics to absurd proportions. Along with reference to incapacitation to drugs or alcohol, in context, they're not talking about women who are so incapacitated that they can't consent. They're talking about a very large category of women who voluntarily get drunk and high and/or high and then later regret their actions. Listen up, there are enough people listening to the show right now that if they don't vote, it could swing key states in the 2026 election to the Democrats. And everybody listening knows, every single ultra-far-left democratic socialist will be showing up to vote this fall. Democrats are fired up and we can't let them win because if we lose, they'll undo everything our movement has fought for. It needs you to vote early so that you can bank your vote and fight back against the left's turnout machine. If you live in the critical Senate battleground states of Maine or Ohio, early voting is already underway starting this week, go to GOPvotes.org right now and find out when you can vote, making your voice heard as easier than ever. Get election reminders, look up your polling location and pick a date to vote early, go to GOPvotes.org today, paid for by SLF PAC, not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee. People will spend six months researching which television to buy, compare 47 different models, read 900 reviews and save themselves 30 bucks. So meanwhile, they've been paying the same wireless company too much money every single month for 12 years. Perhaps we're allocating our research time incorrectly, but you know, I have a pure talk line and the reason I keep telling you about them is pretty simple. The coverage is phenomenal. I use the unlimited data constantly and their unlimited high speed data is just 34 and 99 a month. So it turns out you don't actually have to choose. And don't just say my word for it. In a recent industry survey of more than 120,000 wireless customers, pure talk was the only wireless company to receive five out of five stars in every category, coverage support, value and data. At some point, paying more for worse service, stops being unfortunate and starts becoming a decision that you're making voluntarily. So stop doing that. Go to puretalk.com/walsh and say 50% off your first month. That's puretalk.com/walsh. The survey doesn't even define by the way incapacitation. It's just sort of like if you feel afterwards that you were incapacitated, even if at the time you've voluntarily got drunk, you gave verbal consent, just like in the Cornell case, all that stuff, check all those boxes. Later on, a week later, a year later, two years later, if you decide looking back on it, that you know what, I feel like I was incapacitated. And even if the other person involved or people were also quote unquote incapacitated, still you can qualify that as sexual assault. And that's what the survey reflects. There's another contributing factor here, which is that in general, women have much lower alcohol tolerance than men. And when you combine alcohol with the SSRIs that millions of women are taking, the effect is magnified even further. According to a study out of England, pretty much every woman who says that she was drugged was actually drunk voluntarily. They looked at a thousand 14 cases of claimed drug facilitated sexual assault. And they found that only 21 cases or 2%, 2% involved a sedative or disinhibiting drug that the woman didn't admit to taking. And that includes three cases where the woman were allegedly given ecstasy without their knowledge. That's obviously counts as being drugged. But in general, according to statistics, when women claimed that they were drugged, often they took the drugs themselves. We're seeing this right now in the Cornell case. We're hearing claims, AOC said this. We played the clip on, we played the clip last week. She said the woman was was drugged. Yet by the woman's own testimony, she took the drugs herself because she wanted to. So that's what it means to be drugged now. Even that phrase now has no meaning. That's an important point because New York Times reporting on the Cornell accusers' behavior in the days following this alleged assault in the frat house makes it very clear that she falls into this category of someone who voluntarily drugged themselves. Quote, in October, 2024, about a week after the fraternity party at Cornell University, the sophomore who would come to be known as Jane Doe was milling around an online forum about Greek life when she encountered a post that stopped her cold. Our Chi-Fi brothers, crypts or bloods, because I hear that they've been doing hell gang banging someone had written. They do drugs and gang ramp to sophomore and other user wrote, report them. Since the evening that began on October 19, 2024, Jane Doe had recounted the night's events to her roommates without identifying herself as a rape victim. She'd exchanged friendly text messages with men, she would later accuse of assault, she'd heard uncharitable praises of herself from undergraduate gossip, then she read the words. That's the first time I'd ever heard the narrative change that I wasn't a whore and that I was assaulted. Jane Doe told investigators. Okay, so first of all, reading this, it sounds a lot like maybe this woman was the one leaving anonymous messages on the forum, but even if she's not, that paragraph is still extremely revealing and troubling. She's telling investigators that until she saw someone else say that she was assaulted, she did not think that she was assaulted. So someone had to come along a week after the incident in her version of events and tell her what happened to her. This is someone who wasn't there. Until that point in every conversation she had, she affirmed that she was not assaulted. And quote, on October 21st, Jane Doe went to her big sister, a woman doesn't as a mentor, that Cornell's tri-delta sorority, and told her that there were rumors circulating that she was a slut. The big sister, a junior Cornell told investigators that Jane Doe added with a laugh that, unfortunately, they are true. The same day, she also wrote to one of her alleged attackers in a text message saying, "At the end of the day, none of these sexual stuff was illegal, and honestly, I really liked being with you and the other guy." So this was her position, which she established in writing repeatedly, two days after the alleged attack. But things began to change a couple days later, as word began to spread. Well, on October 23rd, Jane Doe texted Mr. Ingalls. Bro, she wrote, "Everyone knows." She said the episode was ruining my life temporarily, and that her reputation has been destroyed. She said all she could do was sleep and cry all day. In the meantime, Jane Doe had delivered strict instructions, one of her roommates. If anyone asks about this, she said, according to roommates, that somebody say it didn't happen. The roommate was plainly concerned. Initially, she said Jane Doe was kind of recounting it as this sort of crazy thing that she had done, that she had done. As you look through these documents, there are indeed many indications that members of the fraud and everyone else on campus was mocking this woman. They were shaming her for her behavior, which will naturally happen when you behave in a way that's disgusting, just as the men behaved the disgusting way. They all did. But the turning point came when the fraternity decided as a matter of official policy to stop associating with her. Quote, "The fraternity was preparing for a Halloween party and Jane Doe was eager to attend." To text messages included in the investigation show Mr. Ingalls, a showering Jane Doe that he and the other fraternity members wanted her to be there. Shifi is your house and you are welcome here," he wrote, relaying the views of the attorney's president, who was not among those accused of sexual assault. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Jane Doe responded, "I'll bring my sigs tomorrow with a little heart symbol." But then Jane Doe received a phone call from the fraternity's president, according to the text messages. She was disinvited from the party. "It was for her own good," he said. Jane Doe sent a biting text to Mr. Ingalls. "I knew this was going to happen," she wrote. "The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Y'all aren't my friends. Y'all are covering your asses." But I've ever heard Jane Doe appears to have concluded that she was assaulted at the October party. She sent a text to Mr. Newell. Let's be clear that 90 percent of what happened that night was not consensual. I was given more key than I can remember. She said, "Using a short end for ketamine, and I know that I told you I felt uncomfortable, and I didn't know anyone in the room four days later on October 7th, according to documents, Jane Doe went to an emergency room in Ithaca and requested a raid kit." Yes, again, she concluded that she was assaulted only after she was disinvited from a Halloween party, that she desperately wanted to attend at a place where she supposedly was raped with people who had assaulted her, supposedly. That was her aha moment. Once she realized that the men had used her and didn't actually care about her, on top of the fact that everyone on campus knew she was a degenerate, she came to see the supposed truth about what actually happened. She told the campus police that she was assaulted. She gave a big statement to campus police, complete with 20 handwritten edits, which upon a thorough review of the facts did not actually alleged a crime. And two years later, she files a lawsuit. Now, if you read between the lines here, it's possible that the woman's sorority was so embarrassed by her behavior that they contacted the fraternity and told them to cut her off to avoid any future incidents and embarrassment. That's speculation, but it makes sense considering the campus politics here. This woman was becoming a campus-wide embarrassment for everyone associated with her and the reputation of her sorority was taking a hit. Her reputation was destroyed, she says. So in a move that's very common in left wing circles, she decided that she was actually a victim. And it would seem to save your face. At the same time, based on some of the texts from the members of the fraternity, this woman was indeed treated like garbage and they took full advantage of her willingness to participate in something like this. And as you read their texts, it becomes clear why the school expelled the man who she came to see as well as one of the men who texted everyone else in the group chat. Watch. Tonight images from inside the room at the Chi-5 fraternity house were a former Cornell University student alleges she was gang raped two years ago. The room strewn with garbage, discarded furniture, and there on the windowsill a poster of a sorority class and a fentanyl test strip. The video obtained by ABC News was taken after Cornell suspended the frat. Campus police showed up and knocked at the door three days after an officer logged that a female undergraduate student reported that she was recently raped by eight to ten men at the Chi-5 fraternity house. And this campus alert went out to students about a report of a sexual assault. Tonight, ABC News obtained more of the vulgar Snapchat messages shared among more than 50 fraternity members during the alleged assault. The friend Jane Doe went to see that night sent the group a photo that appears to show her in the bedroom. One brother then asking, "Shop still open?" Another saying, "LFG." Then Jane Doe's friend invited all of them to the room. Boys come whip it out. Three weeks later, Jane Doe recorded her phone call to that same friend asking him, "Do you remember how any of these guys walked in?" He made no mention of his crude invitation on the group chat, instead explaining it this way. The door was just unlocked. The party was sort of like crowded. There was nowhere else to go. Jane Doe telling him, "If I wanted to take this somewhere, what y'all did would be classified as gang rape," claiming the alleged attack left her body physically damaged. In phone calls and messages reviewed by ABC News, other alleged attackers telling Jane Doe, "I'm so sorry. I feel so bad for you, dude." Another saying, "I just wanted to apologize for how things went down the other night." As the weeks went by, Jane Doe became more convinced about what happened. Texting, "Let's be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. All I remember after that was you giving me ketamine." She said it made her feel like a sex doll/worker. So notice how they include the text where the guy says, "I'm sorry for how things went down, but they omit her response," which I'll read one more time. And her response was, quote, "At the end of the day, none of the sexual stuff was illegal, and honestly, I really liked being with you and Matt." I guess ABC didn't find her response relevant for the report, which they broadcast to millions of people. Now, regardless, these texts obviously revealed very low moral character, but they don't prove or even suggest that this woman didn't consent to everything that happened. They don't prove or even suggest that she was forced to be in that room, forced to have continued to have sexual encounters with whoever came in or that she was threatened or coerced in any way. And she's not even accusing them of that, which is why charges weren't filed the first time. And that's the fact. And they don't contradict the narrative events that the men provided to the police. Indeed, there's no principled reason whatsoever for the left to embrace the woman's narrative while, you know, disregarding the version of events provided by members of the fraternity. This is also from the Times, quote, "When asked about his involvement with Jane Doe, Mr. Lopez said that she initiated their sexual contact and did not ask for his consent, a statement flatly at odds with her account of the night. Mr. Lopez left around 2 a.m. He said after he said he became uncomfortable and went with three friends to McDonald's." He said he didn't tell them about what it had transpired, in part because he was admittedly a bit embarrassed about what happened according to the interview records. Mr. Lee also said that Jane Doe initiated sexual activity without asking. He said he snored at a line of ketamine after body and she tried to initiate sex. I kind of took a step back because I didn't want to engage in anything like that. Like sex, Mr. Lee said. I thought it wasn't the time for that. But later that night, Mr. Lee said he asked for Jane Doe's consent before engaging in a threesome with her. He recalled telling Jane Doe that if you're uncomfortable with any of this or you don't want to do this, that's perfectly fine. We can call it a night. He said Jane Doe replied, "We're all consenting adults here." So this is by the left's definition affirmative consent. According to the left, they did everything right. Because remember on the left, you can't say there's anything inherently immoral about this kind of sexual activity. There is, even if it's consensual, but if you're on the left, you can't say that. So on the left, they did everything right. They repeatedly asked her for verbal consent. And then after the fact in writing, she confirmed what they say she said at the time, which is that nothing illegal had occurred. So they crossed all the tees and dotted all the eyes. And yet here we are. We're supposed to ignore all the evidence and all the contemporaneous statements from both the men and their accuser. We're supposed to focus entirely on the accusations she made weeks after the fact. It's also remarkable that of the seven men named in this woman's lawsuit. It appears that several of them never even made any physical contact with her at all. Two of them, apparently, went to the room when they saw the group text advertising free access to the woman, but they did so according to the statement simply to ensure that everything was consensual. Quote, "In her interview with the police," Jane Doe said that Mr. Kretschmar and Mr. Norris were more like voyaires than anything. A good show. Diego Serrabia said he entered the room after 2.30 a.m. and was shocked by the scene before him. Several frapp others were there and one was standing behind Jane Doe, although Mr. Serrabia refused to say whether the person was naked or dressed. I was immensely concerned since I've never seen anything like this in my four years at the house." He said, "According to the records, but he said his concerns were laid when all the people in the room told him to come in. I remember the girl in specifics saying something along lines up, "This was normal in the medieval times," he said. Yes, according to statement, she said, "This was normal in the medieval times. This is the cutting edge of progressive thinking at Ivy League universities, apparently. The new progressive pitches to take us back to medieval times," which actually, okay, as long as we bring back medieval punishments, you know what they do if you committed perjury? They make sure you never tell another lie again. I'll leave it to your imagination as to how they would achieve that. Never mind that alcohol fueled sex orgies with seven men and one woman were not, in fact, normal in medieval times. This Ivy League student has clearly received her education on medieval culture from like game of thrones or something. I mean, that's not even a joke. It's literally where she got that idea from because that's not true. Fall leaves have one of the best marketing campaigns in nature. When they're attached to trees, people drive for hours to look at them and take pictures. Mom with those same leaves landing your gutter though, they become wet garbage threatening your foundation. Same leaf, dramatically worse location. This is where seasonal charm starts to turn into home maintenance. Claw gutters can send rainwater spilling over the sides onto your landscaping and around your foundation, waiting for storm to expose the problem is a very expensive way to remember that your gutters exist. Leaf filter helps protect your home before that happens. Their local pros inspect and clean out your gutters, then repair or replace them if necessary before installing leaf filter. It's surgical grade stainless steel micro mesh keeps common debris out while directing water away from your foundation where it belongs. Every installation comes with a no claw guarantee and a lifetime transferable warranty. So enjoy the leaves while they're on the trees. Once they reach your roof, the admiration period is over. Protect your home before issues arise with leaf filter. America's number one rated gutter protection system. Schedule inspection for free by visiting leaffilter.com/walls to secure an estimate locked in for a full year. Take advantage of saving up to 35% off when going to LEAFfilter.com/walls. Requires minimum purchase certain restrictions apply contact representative regarding warranty and promotional details. And to be clear, she's named these men in the lawsuit. The two guys had just walked in after receiving that text and were more like voyairs than anything according to her. So all appearances, they wanted to make sure that everything was okay and that everyone was consenting. And for that, the identities of these men have been plaster all over the internet. Here's a video on TikTok with more than 4 million views where someone calls for them to be executed. Put all seven of them to death. Publicly, I'm not kidding, the Cornell 7, enough for an essay. How about you explain to me why you should live? Why you should continue to be on the earth. Seven Cornell inhuman scum. Seven Cornell men drugged and raped a woman for seven hours advertising it to an entire group chat. The seven that committed the act. Death. The entire fraternity who got the advertisement and decided to do nothing with that information. Did you just ignore it? Did you just let it happen? No one knowing that it was happening. They got text messages telling them like, hey, come on up. Every single person that got that message and did nothing. Prison. Expelled and prison. The university, Cornell University made those seven, those seven men write a essay as punishment. They received punishment for doing that. Cry for drugging and raping a woman for seven hours. And the punishment was writing an essay. How about they all explain to the public why they should keep their breath in their lungs? So, it's obviously defamatory. What he's saying here is not true, but millions of people believe it. There's an obvious incentive to produce videos like this because women demand it. Just like we saw with Lindsey Clancy, Karen Reed, and many other cases, feminists simply don't care about the truth at all. Now, along the same lines, someone named Amy Siskind is calling for Lutisha James to round everybody up in the group chat, 57 people, and investigate every single one of those people. And as unhinged as this is, if you pulled Cornell's student body, you know, probably close to like 100% of them would agree with this or say they do. The campus is in a frenzy of performative outrage right now. Watch. I don't know Jane Doe, but I know plenty of women like Jane Doe who do feel unsafe at Brad House. And have you talked to any of your girlfriends about this issue and what are they saying? They're saying the same thing. They're just scared. We're all scared. We're more mad as well at the administration. When women report issues to cops around the world, they are either not acted upon or they're simply ignored. It should not be protect your daughter. It should be educate your son. And I will die on this hill. I've spoken with many, many other male students here. We are outraged. We're pissed. We're shocked. And it's it's disgusting what happened. And we want to call out behavior like this and say that it's not okay. It's terrifying. It's absolutely terrifying to hear that that's happening. And then also that begs the question of what if this happened to me? What if this happened to my best friend? What if this happened to someone and I didn't get my day in court? And I have to go to a mass media campaign just to be heard. Everyone deserves to know exactly what happened in 2024. Um, who was responsible of relaying that information to the DA's office? And why exactly did that case now just get reopened? In terms of what the student government is asking for here today, um, it's transparency, accountability, and reform. It's as simple as that. We want to know exactly what happened that night to the best of the university's ability, obviously, complying under federal law. We heard there, uh, it should not be protect your daughter. And this is something that we hear a lot from, from leftists that come up with these, you know, dumb sayings and in lieu of, you know, saying anything that actually makes sense or has any real content to it. This is a case where a woman made the decision to get high and drunk and walk into a flat house where she consented to sexual activity with multiple men, uh, who were so intoxicated, they were vomiting. And it's only the men who need to be educated in this scenario. And meanwhile, we're told that the woman, you know, the women don't feel safe as if they're being forced to attend orgies at frat houses and then to text everyone how much they can't wait to go back to that same frat house. You know, apparently according to this, so these victims, a woman is, is thrilled to return to her alleged rape dungeon and we're supposed to, and yet we take from that, she doesn't feel safe. It doesn't make any sense. As for the student council president and his demand for a thorough investigation into what exactly happened, well, that's already been done. We have contemporaneous text messages and written statements documenting the event and it's aftermath. There's clear evidence from the accuser herself that several of the men were intoxicated even more than she was. In fact, just this morning, ABC News published a phone recording between the accuser and one of the accused. And in the conversation, three weeks after the incident, the man claims that the accuser told the guys when she came to the party that she was sober. And there are a few other important details here. Listen, ABC News has obtained a recording of a phone call between Jane Doe and the fraternity brother. She went to see the night she was allegedly attacked. The call appears to show that he was trying to convince her he meant no harm and she consented. I want me to get in my recollection of the entire night. Three weeks after her traumatic night at the Kai Phi House, a then Cornell student now known as Jane Doe called Matthew Engels, the friend who invited her to the fraternity that night, recording the entire conversation. She told him she spent time in the emergency room and in therapy because there's so much damage on my body and my brain. She said if I wanted to take this somewhere, what y'all did would be classified as gang rape. You already knew when I came in, I was ten shots deep. Engels responded with a different recollection. You did tell me you were sober by the way. You said you hadn't been anywhere. Jane Doe said she was 100 percent sure she told him she had been at a bar for a sorority event and I never lie. She asked him how they ended up in a threesome with one of his frat brothers. So you come in, say hi, we start dancing for maybe three to five minutes and then I popped a question. You say yes, then I remember like we didn't go who else to bring. So I go to was on the dance floor too and I popped a question and he was like, yeah, and then we go upstairs. Jane Doe then asking for his help to identify all of the men saying she remembered four in the bed and more standing around the room. Engels seem to suggest both of their memories may not be accurate. I have racked my brain for this mystery, you know, it's possible that both of us like remember this and it's not true. Jane Doe pushed back saying, no, because I remember looking up and being like, that is too many people. She then asked, do you remember how any of these guys walked in? So people started like filling up the balcony because group is nowhere else to go. Engels did not mention that during the incident he posted to a group on on Snapchat a photo of her. in bed and an invitation to his fraternity brothers, saying, "Boys, come whip it out." Cornell expelled Engels and another student and suspended two others. In this video obtained by ABC News, Cornell Police informed one of the suspended students he is unwelcome on campus. "If you look at that pervy, temporary, dispensing, he is far from any of the ground's own operator maintained by Cornell University." All seven fraternity brothers have denied wrongdoing. Engels has not responded to Jane Doe's lawsuit, but during Cornell's internal investigation, he said he was too intoxicated to consent and suggested Jane Doe assaulted him. This week Cornell will announce which outside law firm will evaluate how the university handled Jane Doe's allegations and how it could improve its response to accusations of sexual violence on campus. The New York Attorney General's office is already reaching out to Jane Doe as part of the reopened criminal investigation, George. Well, yes, again, by the very same standards that would make her a victim in a sexual encounter, she willfully participate in it, and at least some of these men would also be victims because they too were inebriated. There's just no escaping that point. She willfully engage in all this activity, at no point did they prevent her from leaving or use any physical force or threats of any kind, and she doesn't even claim they did. The whole case rests on the fact that she was really drunk at the time, but so are they. But to mention, she claims she was 10 shots deep, so drunk that she couldn't help but have an orgy, and yet she also claims her memory of the incident is more reliable than the men who she says were more sober than her. So that doesn't make a lot of sense either. All we're left with is the confused and confusing picture of a disgusting, gross, debatched, sexual act willingly committed by a number of people, a woman and several men who all now obviously regret having played any part of it. Because they should. So it's unfortunate for all involved, but it's not rape. And none of this is stopping any of the authority figures surrounding this case from convicting the men right out of the gate. So this is the president of Cornell University, and one of the most disgraceful videos we've seen from a college campus, which is saying something. Watch. What happened to Jane Doe in 2024 is deeply disturbing and will weigh heavily on our community for years to come. My heart aches when I think of what she experienced. It raises heartbreaking and troubling issues about sexual assault, dehumanization, and aspects of party culture, alcohol and drug use. It also raises questions around the investigations conducted after the allegations were reported. So he's flat out accusing the men of sexual assault, prejudging their guilt. The university should be sued immediately, along with the student newspaper, which published an editorial that essentially accused all seven men of being rapist by name. Now, this president actually had some integrity. If he deserved the job he has, he would have delivered a very different statement. Now, there's one important takeaway from this Cornell case, in every case like it. One lesson, but the lesson, it's the lesson that the left refuses to learn. The lesson is that feminism and the sexual revolution have utterly and completely failed. Actually, it's funny, the accused are brought up what's allegedly normal and medieval times, because contrary to her HBO education in European history, boozy sex orgies were not normal. But I'll tell you what was normal, not just in medieval times, but at any point, at all points, in the history of Western civilization, up until about 14 seconds ago, what was normal was strict sex segregation in schools and most other institutions, clear rules governing how the sexes relate and connect and court each other, codes of chivalry, the patriarchy, quote unquote, every Western society for centuries had versions of these kinds of rules. We did away with them. And as a situation that Cornell clearly demonstrates, society is not functioning better as a result. The education system has not improved. Male-female relations have not improved. Our politics have not improved. Nothing has improved. People are not happier in general. There's a lot of chaos and moral confusion. And one way to avoid a situation like what we had at Cornell, which is a consensual but really horrible, disgusting incident for everybody involved, is if you weren't allowing men and students to male and female students to mix that way in the first place. But of course, the left's not going to suggest that. I mean, a lot of what they're saying, it's like they're coming very close to sort of accidentally saying that the whole thing should have just been illegal. Like to have a boozy sex orgy on a college campus should just be illegal. They're sort of accidentally making that case. Which if they want to make that case, they should just come out and make it. Because guess what? If they made that case, I'd agree with them. Yeah, it shouldn't be legal to behave that way. But they're not going to come out and say that because that would mean that everybody involved would be criminally culpable, including the woman. And they're not going to go that far. They never will. You know, of Cornell's president had delivered a speech like that though. He would have lost a job. The mob would have destroyed his house. Someone would probably come forward to accuse him of sexual assault. They'd throw him in prison. But at least he'd have accomplished something that no one at a major university seems capable of doing anymore, which is to tell feminists who make up the majority of Cornell's student body and the majority of every college campus in the country that they should be held accountable for their own actions. And if they can't function in our society without guardrails, which is what they're saying, then maybe we should talk about those guardrails again. You know, just the past few months we've been told that women can't be held responsible for systematically killing their own children. They can't be held responsible for butchering their friends and carving pentagrams into their bodies. And now they can't be held responsible for getting drunk and voluntarily participating in groups sex at a frat house. Put it all together and it sounds like after a century of feminist victories, both political and cultural, they no longer want the responsibilities and the privileges of full citizenship. They're saying they simply cannot take ownership of their own actions, and they need adult supervision at all times. And what they don't seem to realize is that outside of their sheltered Ivy League campuses and the newsrooms on these coast, that message is being received, loud and clear. I'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. Every significant movement in history is started with protesting. No, it hurts. Uncle Tom? This is our generation civil rights. I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo. Given the current climate, should a figure as polarizing as police soldiers even be allowed on campus? Ah, can you hear me okay? Soldiers is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman, this is the decision I cannot fight. Islam will conquer the West. So more than equal. Are we paying attention? If they've taken over the building, they're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. We cannot run and hide. Muhammad is the messenger of God. There is no God but Allah. What do you say? We turn those vessel bees into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leaf frog. You need a course in safe weapons handling.