Ep. 1873 - New Evidence Completely Upends Cornell 7 Case

People keep saying that real communism has never been tried. Well, it was Moscow, 1938. A rest in the night. Confessions, forced evidence, and people. The Daily Wires newest movie Confession is a story about just that. It's out right now, only on the Daily Wire. There is new evidence in the form of text messages suggesting that the Cornell 7, the male Cornell students who were accused of heinous crimes in an out-infamous lawsuit, two years after the fact and had their lives destroyed in the process, were the victims of a false narrative, a hoax that originated with the accuser's sorority sisters who were desperate to protect the reputation of their sorority. We're going to talk about the evidence in a moment and what it means for the case and for the rule of law in this country. But first, on the subject of how the system is stacked against male defendants in cases like this, there was a moment during Russell Brand's sentencing earlier this week that we didn't talk about when we discussed the case, which really should be getting a lot more attention. It's the perfect illustration of how the legal system, both in the UK and the US, has become a total farce, where kangaroo courts are operating right out in the open. Particularly when they want to send a conservative to prison, they will simply forget about basic principles of due process and fairness. And instead, they'll berate you for even attempting to defend yourself against their onslaught of allegations. So this is footage of the judge Justice Benethin with his nice little wig and everything right before he sentenced Russell Brand. And listen to what this guy says. Finally, before passing sentence, I pause to pay tribute to the determination and bravery. Of all the women whose evidence I have been recounting. I do not increase your punishment because of it, but all those women had to face being confronted and being told their lied or twisted the truth and or their degree to your sexual demands. That was all done because of you on your instructions. I also commend the metropolitan police for their hard work in gathering evidence and taking great care of all the women who testified. I actually appreciate there's a charm in the fact that they still do the wig and the robes and all that kind of stuff. Or I would appreciate it more, but then at the same time, these are all woke lunatics. So your woke lunatics, but you're hanging on to the wig and it just doesn't choose one of the other. Now, I don't think I've ever heard of a judge lecturing a defendant for presenting a defense, but that's exactly what just happened here. He's attacking Russell Brand for telling his lawyers to cross examine the women who were accusing him of serious horrific crimes. We're supposed to feel bad that these women had to answer questions on the witness stand where their credibility was called into question as if they're somehow being revictimized again or whatever. So in other words, he's telling Russell Brand that he, Russell Brand should have just pled guilty. How dare he point out that there's zero evidence whatsoever aside from these women's claims to corroborate any of the charges. How dare he point out that these alleged crimes all occurred nearly two decades ago and none of these women told the police at the time. How dare he point out that the supposedly incriminating text messages sent by Russell Brand, which were introduced into evidence, were simply recounted from memory by his accuser because the phone company lost the text message since it all happened so long ago. How dare his lawyers observe that the main accuser consented to degenerate sexual activity with Brand on multiple occasions 17 years ago and therefore we really have no idea or no way of knowing whether she's telling the truth about one specific sex act that occurred as part of a larger sexual encounter that she did consent to. He should have just accepted his fate. The moment the British government decided to destroy him for becoming a conservative. That's what the judge is saying. Now keep in mind the jury acquitted Russell Brand on several of the charges that were brought against him. So the cross-examinations were obviously in part successful. What happened is that the jury dismissed the charges where the women's story changed or where where they, you know, she didn't report it at the time or where the details were hazy, but they convicted Brand on the charges where the women mostly kept their story straight or told other people at the time about what had supposedly happened. So basically in every case, the convictions were based solely on the women's testimony. Just a question of whether the woman repeated her claim to other people and kept it consistent or not. But if the judge had his way, Brand would have simply pleaded guilty to all the charges and accepted a much longer sentence. The judge thinks that would be appropriate to spare these brave women who he wants to pay tribute to. Now perhaps you want to brand to present evidence of his own guilt. Do the prosecution's work for them and then plead for a longer sentence. That was apparently the expectation. At least the judge claims he didn't increase Brand's sentence because he exercised his right to defend himself. So that's something. But grudgingly he won't tack on five years to the sentence because the concept of cross-examination exists. What a magnanimous gesture. Now, of course, if cross-examination was not a factor in sentencing, then there's no reason for the judge to mention it at all. The mere fact he said this, as we all know, is a pretty clear indication that he harbors resentment for us a brand for daring to defend himself. And there's no way he didn't sentence him to a longer sentence because of it. After all, as we established earlier this week, Brand got a much harsher sentence than murderers and child predators. You can kill somebody in Britain and get five years in prison. The judge will make excuses for you saying you momentarily lost control, especially if you're a Muslim or a woman or identify as trans. Meanwhile, Russell Brand got 10 years plus a lecture from the judge about how he's a horrible person for even attempting to defend himself. So the foundational legal principle that a defendant has allowed to defend himself. It's right there in the name, actually. Defendant was held against Russell Brand. And the other foundational legal principle of beyond a reasonable doubt was suspended entirely in order to get Russell Brand into a prison cell. As we discussed earlier, you know, you may believe that he's guilty because in your mind, he, you know, seems like the kind of guy who would do something like what he's accused of doing. You may subjectively determine that in the game of he said she said, you tend to believe the she instead of the he. That's your opinion. I don't agree with it, but you can have whatever opinion you want. But in no universe, at least not in this one. And especially not in the West, where we're supposed to have a fair and sophisticated judicial system, can it be claimed that this subjective opinion about the credibility of the accusers and the presumed moral failings of the defendant amounts to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You may think Russell Brand is guilty, but there are a number of extremely plausible scenarios that explain away all of the evidence against him, what meager evidence there ever was. And the prosecution did not disprove any of those scenarios. And yes, all the defense needs to do in theory is established that there are plausible scenarios where the defendant is not guilty. And it's up to the prosecution to actively demonstrate that no such scenario exists. They didn't. You know, if the defense can go can say, well, you claim I did this, but I also could have just did this could have happened over here. Here's another thing that also fits the evidence. Can you disprove and if the prosecution says, well, yeah, that could happen to who knows that it's not guilty. It has to be not guilty. And the plausible scenario in all these accusations is that it was consensual in the moment that the woman regretted it later, changed her mind and decided that she was going to destroy Russell Brand. That is the very plausible, very possible scenario that exists in all of these cases. And the prosecution did absolutely nothing to disprove, uh, disprove that. They didn't come within a mile of beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, so the standard was simply disregarded in his case. And if it can be disregarded in his case, it can be disregarded in your case. Whether you live in the US or the UK, a precedent has been set. And for good measure, his online presence is also being erased by the big tech platforms meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram has already unpersoned Russell Brand. Uh, they've deleted his Instagram account and prevented anyone from seeing his profile like he never existed. But as far as I know is not standard procedure if somebody gets convicted of a crime. Is this what it does, does meta do this for anybody? If you get convicted of a crime, they just take your account down. I'm pretty sure if I checked, I could find like a million examples where they didn't do that. But especially as the left regains power, this is going to become much more common. The censorship of 2020 is going to pale in comparison to what they're doing right now. So this is a travesty of justice. Really, it was a political hitchhob. It's emblematic of the justice that you will receive in any Western country if you're accused of a serious crime. And you don't belong to one of the left's preferred demographic groups. Your guilt is assumed from the outset any attempt to defend yourself is seen as further evidence of your guilt. And even as you uncover evidence that disproves the allegation against you, even as you conclusively demonstrate that you're innocent, which, again, is not a standard for defendants. You don't have to conclusively demonstrate that you're innocent. But even if you do that, these people will not yield. They're not going to admit they made a mistake. Instead they'll double down in their efforts to destroy you. And if possible, they'll use the opportunity to enact systemic change, to empower themselves and disenfranchise their enemies. That's exactly what's happening in the ongoing saga of the Cornell 7, which has gone even further off the rails since we last talked about the case. As you may recall, an adult woman voluntarily engaged in group sexual activity at a Cornell frat house where everybody was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Everybody was behaving in a disgusting barbaric manner. After the fact, she repeatedly states in writing that nothing illegal happened, that she felt empowered by the whole experience, then she gets disinvited from the fraternity's Halloween party, which to a sorority girl is the ultimate offense, you know, because a Halloween part, Halloween is like Christmas New Year's, your birthday all rolled into one. And so she decided that she was actually a victim. She starts sending texts that are designed to entrap the men. She goes to the police who quickly determined that even if all of her allegations were true, still no crime-medicard. And then two years later, she gets a strip mall lawyer to file a bombshell lawsuit, completes what, complete with tons of lorid and totally unverified claims where she changes her version events once again, this time to directly accuse the men of serious criminal conduct, which she had never done before. So that's the outline of the story. None of those facts are in dispute. The appropriate response given this evidence, before we even get into the new stuff, is to simply ignore this woman because she has no credibility whatsoever. Actually the best response, even based on what we already know, would be to charge her with a crime for making false accusations, and then after she's convicted, put her in prison. Yeah, but that's never going to happen because in the modern justice system, there's essentially no penalty, no disincentive at all for falsely accusing men of sexual assault. The only thing stopping a woman from accusing a man of sexual assault falsely is her own soul, but if she doesn't have one, then all bets are off. So instead Cornell has descended into a level of hysteria that rivals the sale on witch trials, except in reverse now because this time the witches are doing the burning. Now they're citing a bogus survey about how a third of women at Cornell have supposedly quote, "experienced non-consensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation." So if that's true, it would make Cornell University substantially more dangerous for women than Afghanistan or a Somali refugee camp. It would mean that a quiet Ivy League campus is actually more dangerous than the worst third world hellhole you can find anywhere on earth. And if the women at Cornell actually believed that was true, they would all withdraw from the school immediately. What are you doing paying exorbitant fees to spend four years in a rape dungeon? Why would you ever do that? They haven't withdrawn. In fact, in spite of the fact that Cornell is more dangerous than a country run by the Taliban, not only are women not withdrawing from the school, they're still getting hammered and going out to parties, which is probably not something a woman would do or even a man would do in Taliban controlled territory. Okay. If you really believe there's a, well, there's a 30% chance that you could be sexually assaulted, whatever they're saying, statistic is, not only are you not leaving the campus, you're going to parties, that is a clear indication you don't believe that. And no one else does because it's nonsense. And it's not true. The survey conveniently enough has an extremely low response rate of just 13%, along with a very expansive definition of assault, which is entirely self-reported. None of the accusations are verified in any way. So our society has gone to great lengths to convince women that they've been assaulted, and then researchers come along and ask them if they've been assaulted. And then a lot of them say, yes, and we're supposed to go, wow, how could that have happened? So it's completely fake and useless as a statistic, nevertheless, based in part on that survey, the Cornell faculty just voted overwhelmingly to pass the following resolution, quote, resolved that the faculty senate has no confidence in the ability of the central administration to effectively address the ongoing crisis of sexual assault at Cornell University. Yes, the ongoing crisis of sexual assault at Cornell University is so bad, they want the school's entire administration to be fired. So here's how one Cornell professor, a woman who teaches music, described the vote, watch. The majority of the professor said they do not trust the leadership of President Kotlikoff or the administration. What does that mean? Yeah, it feels great, actually. It feels like we have sent a really resounding message, as you say, from the majority of the faculty that our demanding change and demanding change now. As many of us know, this resolution is not actionable, it's not binding in that the passage of it doesn't require or mandate resignations or firings. But we hope that this inspires that. Because we are the teachers, we are the faculty, we are the people that look after and shepherd these students who need us and who can and should trust us with their voice. And I think, yes, a 25 point margin is pretty resounding and I'm really thrilled that there can be hopefully new inroads made for new leadership to take things into a new direction. Now, notice how this female music professor does not mention anything about the actual facts of the alleged gang rape or how the administration supposedly mishandled the allegations. Instead, she talks in very broad emotional terms about providing support for the students and how the resolution feels good. And there's a reason for this at some level, even the leftist music professors at Cornell understand that this moral panic has no basis whatsoever. It's all nonsense. And to prove that point, before we get into the new text messages that have surfaced in this case, which further destroyed the official narrative, you need to spend some time looking at the video from the Cornell faculty meeting last month where they pass this no confidence vote for Cornell leadership. Credit Works do the journalist Michael Tracy was the first to report on these videos. They're truly a remarkable look into the depravity of leftists, particularly when they're in the majority and emboldened, which is obviously the case on college campuses, so we'll start with a student who spoke at the faculty meeting to relay her dire concerns to some of the most unhinged delusional footage you'll ever see. And keep in mind, she is representative of about 95% or so of students, particularly women at Cornell, watch. During my first week, your eyes were 5 by the dangerous fraternity portrait on this case. I remember a young woman who was walkin' below before it fell. Her steps were slow and steep, she was obviously intoxicated. I came to realize that this was normal at Cornell. Freshman, woman, dangerously intoxicated 23 of its back to their dorms on work campus past midnight, and no one stops and helps them. That same year, the number of undergraduate women experienced it, non-essential sexless point-packed involving forced-print-passed incapacitation at Cornell rose from 23% to 35%. And then in my dream year of all, I lamented you for the horrific article in the Sun. Detail on how a young woman was by consensually brought up and gained praise by setting men for setting hours. In the days that followed this administration published quite statements on their website, not even bothered to set out a formal e-mail to the split body. Many of my professors continued class as usual, not even mention it in a great case. While me and my fellow students were barely able to go to class. Yes, students were barely able to go to class over this alleged gang rape that lasted over seven hours. First of all, it really needs to be said that leftists love to use the most incendiary language they possibly can because they know that if someone isn't following the facts closely, then they'll fill in the blanks with some insane scenario that doesn't remotely resemble the truth. They did this with Trump's criminal convictions when they said he was a felon who was convicted of 34 counts or whatever it is they said and they know that if you mentioned the actual charges and how all 34 counts are basically the same fake accounting charge from a decade ago, then people will realize it's a farce. So instead they call Trump a 34-time convicted felon so that if you weren't paying attention, you'd assume you actually committed a real crime, 34 of them actually. They do the same thing when they talk about how thugs like Michael Brown were unarmed teenagers while admitting the fact that they were in the process of violently attacking police officers when they were shot. And along the same lines, we'd love to say that the Cornell incident was a gang rape and that the students are terrified of walking around campus, they're trying to get you to imagine a situation where, you know, women are being snatched off the streets or something. They want your brain to fill in the blanks and conclude that this woman was kidnapped and somehow held against her will for seven hours. But in reality, if you don't get very high and very drunk and then voluntarily and eagerly participate in an orgy, then you're not gonna end up in an orgy. No, that's pretty easy to avoid. It's actually like the easiest thing in the world to avoid. Did you know that? It is so easy for it. There's probably nothing easier than avoiding an orgy. That's the kind of thing you have to go seek out. Most normal people wouldn't even know where to go to find one. Okay, so that's how obscure these things are. Easiest that you could go your entire life and never come across an orgy or even see evidence of one much less be involved in one. There are no roving gangs of Cornell rapists lurking behind the school library, waiting to pounce. Upstate New York is not Mogadishu. Please not yet. The very leftist hyperventilating about gang rapes are also busy trying to turn New York into the kind of place where gang rapes might really start happening with frequency, but they haven't happened yet. But in this case, we know for a fact, because of the accuser's own text messages, that she was not kidnapped or assaulted in any way. Quite the opposite. She was proud of what she had done until word got out and her reputation began to fall apart. She wrote after the orgy, and I quote, "I love you, King." At the end of the day, none of the sexual stuff was illegal. Honestly, I really like being with you and Matt. So anything anyone has to say about the gang bang is out of their jurisdiction. Insane slash jaw dropping. If you have any regrets or anything you want to talk about, I'm always here to talk about it, 'cause that was a lot. Everyone's just jealous of us, but also like everyone needs to grow up 'cause sexuality and sex is changing, and stuff like this is going to become more common. Now, like I said, to leave aside that these are IV, this is an IV league student, supposedly, and this is how she's speaking or writing more specifically. Just with the writing alone, there's no distinction between an IV league student and someone who dropped out of high school, or never even went. Like there's no, in fact, the person dropped out of high school probably might even be better when it comes to writing. Now, not to put too fine a point on it, but aside from how illegible and illiterate they are, those texts are not ones that you send, to someone who just kidnapped you, and physically abused you for seven hours. She was offering to help them, probably because she knew that the male students were far more intoxicated than she was. She explicitly refers to the encounter as a gangbang. She uses the terms insane and jaw dropping to describe not the gangbang itself, but to describe anyone who would be critical of it. She thinks it's insane and jaw dropping that anyone would have a problem with what happened. And then she tries to comfort the man in case he has any regrets. Now, the very interesting thing with that full text when you read it is that if anything, this is the kind of text that the rapist might send to the person that was raped. If anything, this sounds like the grooming going on. You're the one telling them, oh, if you have any regrets, oh, it's okay. Everything's fine. Isn't that what the rapist does? That makes you seem like the initiator, if not the aggressor. And you could probably make a better case for that than the reverse. There's a, I don't think anyone was raped here, but the men probably have a better case for it than the woman based on the text messages she was sending initially. Now, things only change when she discovered and I quote, my reputation is destroyed and I'm utterly ashamed. Which, you know, the appropriate response to that is like, okay, well, that's your problem. Probably shouldn't behave like a whore. You behave disgustingly like a whore and so that's why you're ashamed. You should be. Your reputation actually should be destroyed. And then weeks later, they canceled her invite to the Halloween party at the front and the rest was history. Let's say you run a small business and you've been thinking about expanding for the last couple of years. You've found the right location. You know, there's demand and you've done the math. Everything makes sense, but you keep putting it off because you want to wait until the timing is absolutely perfect. You have all the money sitting in the bank. Six months later, someone else opens a business in that exact location, starts serving the customers. You could have been serving. Obviously, you shouldn't make reckless financial decisions, but there's also a cost to waiting around indefinitely, especially when you already have a successful business and a real opportunity to grow it. This is why Cardiff is worth considering. Cardiff provides funding for established small businesses without the endless paperwork and delays associated with traditional banks. Their application takes just three minutes and applying won't impact your personal credit score at all, approval in minutes, funding same day, qualified businesses can receive up to $500,000 in same day funding. And Cardiff has funded more than $12 billion to American small businesses. If you've been operating for at least one year, you generate at least $20,000 a month in revenue, you can see what funding options may be available to you. You still need to make a smart business decision. Cardiff simply gives you a way to pursue an opportunity without spending weeks waiting for the bank to get around to your application. Go to cardiff.co/walls, that's cardiff.co/walls, real growth, fast funding, cardiff, borrow, better. Apparently there are only two acceptable opinions when it comes to college, either everyone must attend regardless of the cost, or every college is completely useless and no one should ever go to any of them. As usual, both sides are avoiding the most important question. Is the education you're getting at a particular institution actually worth it? A lot of higher education deserve the criticism it receives and then some, but Grand Canyon University offers something different. GCU has more than 100 online undergraduate degrees, giving students the flexibility to begin college or return and finish without putting the rest of their lives on hold. And Fortibility isn't just a slogan. In addition to federal grants and AGCU's online students received nearly $200 million in institutional scholarships in 2025 alone. What I respect about GCU is that it combines practical career preparation with the free market system, a welcoming Christian worldview, and free and open discourse. It's easy to 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. 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. Grand Canyon University, visit gcu.edu. Now, the other extraordinary part of that clip is that the student says that she was horrified to see drunk women walking around the campus of Cornell past midnight, without anyone stopping to help them, although it's not remotely clear what help these women needed exactly. Do they think all female students need an armed escort or else the non-existent roving Cornell rape gangs are gonna descend on them? How paternalistic do we need to be? In order to meet the demands of these feminist nutcases, do women need shaperones whenever they got in public? I mean, if that's what you're advocating, if you're advocating to bring back the patriarchy and women can't be trusted to walk around at night alone and can't be trusted to exercise their own agency, if that's what you're advocating, then come out and say it. Yeah, but I would say that if a woman goes out and decides to get drunk, and then has to walk home, how's that anyone else's problem or anyone else's fault? If a random guy's walking by, why is that a problem he has to solve? You went out to a party, got drunk, and now you get a walk home, I got to solve that problem for you? Why? I got my own problems. The woman in the clip saw a female drunkard stumbling around at midnight, who there's no indication by the way that she even tried to help, did you try to help her? So she's watching this scene and just sitting there, someone should help her. This is disgusting that no one is helping that woman that I'm also not helping. But she immediately determined that the drunk woman's behavior is the fault of every man on campus. And by the way, this is not an incidental point. The proliferation of false accusations, just make it all the more certain that no man will ever or should ever stop to help a drunk college girl, whatever help even means here. Okay, if he escorts her home or gives her a ride in his car, God forbid, worst decision of all. He has just set himself up so that the drunk lady can wake up tomorrow or next year or 30 years from now and accuse him of assault. And then he goes to jail for 10 years. You know, and suddenly this act of helping becomes after the fact kidnapping and rape. So no, there will be no helping. I would caution any minute. I would my own sons if they weren't college. I would say, no, do not help. Do not help. Sorry, we don't live in that world anymore. You got drunk and you're a woman, you got to walk home. I guess you're walking. Your dorm is an hour away. I guess, you know, well, good luck. You're gonna get some cardio tonight because nope, no one is helping. Now, you might be tempted to dismiss this footage because it's just some dumb student, but the Cornell faculty was even worse. Watch. - Thank you. My name is Julia Chang, I'm an Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate. graduate studies in the department of enrollment studies, I'm also the Posse 14 mentor for the college arts and sciences. This semester I worked exclusively with first year first semester students for absolutely terrified. They feel unsafe and they are shocked that this case happened in 2024 and then there wasn't an urgency when that happened. We need to reckon with the facts that passed is completely eroded on this campus between students and administration. We also want to ask a somewhat naive question maybe I'm not, but I really want to go through this. It is great, a less disruptive expressive activity than the passing of Ms. Jill's side. I recognize the passion around this issue and on the issue with Dawes. If these are two separate areas here. So the question so idiotic that it just left this guy speechless. The president of Cornell couldn't believe what he was hearing. In the case you couldn't hear the question which came from a professor in Asian studies was and I quote, "Maybe I'm dumb." Well, you said it, not me, but I really want an answer to this is rape a less destructive expressive activity than protesting against genocide. Well, the answer to that question is, first of all, the first part of the question is really easy. Yeah, you're dumb. You're hopelessly stupid. We can cover that. That's not a trick question. It's not going to stump anyone. In fact, you're a disgrace to the entire country, not just Cornell. It is a disgrace that you are a professor who's responsible for educating students when you're that stupid, even putting aside the fact that the point she was trying to make, the question itself is incoherent. It's gibberish. It's a non-sequitor. No one talks like this. If you're going to do a gotcha question, the words have to get to gel together in a kind of way that makes sense. People are supposed to hear a gotcha question and go, "Oh, she really got him." But not supposed to say, "Can this woman speak English?" What? The most convoluted way you could possibly phrase a gotcha question. If you try to analyze what you're saying, it's supposed to be a caddy way to make the claim that Cornell treats rapists better than the students who protested for Gaza on campus a couple years ago. Of course, the fundamental problem with that reasoning is that the Cornell 7 didn't actually rape anyone. Number one, meanwhile, the Gaza protestors set up illegal encampments, assaulted police to face statues of buildings, blocked the entrance to the dining hall and the library. In other words, they committed obvious, verifiable crimes documented in plain view of police officers and everybody else. They were not accused of crimes on the basis of a civil lawsuit filed two years after the fact based on the narrative of a woman who has repeatedly changed her story. Other than that, it's a perfect analogy. The female Asian studies professor really nailed it. Not to get sidetracked here, but this is the kind of Tourette syndrome that leftists, especially leftist academics, have now. Of course, have had for a long time. Anytime you try to talk about any issue, they'll shout, "Oh, yeah. Well, is that worse than the genocide in Gaza?" It doesn't matter. I mean, especially on X, this happens, or you could post anything. You could post about, "Oh, I had a hamburger from five guys. It was good." "Oh, well, what about the, can they have five guys in Gaza?" Invariably, whatever issue you're discussing has nothing to do with what happened in Gaza, genocide or not. Or my favorite, if you care about any topic or issue, they'll swoop in and demand to know whether you care more about that topic or issue than what's happening in Gaza. In my case, I'm happy to say, "Yeah." Whenever they're saying, "Oh, you care more about this than Gaza?" Yeah, I do. I do care more about a great many issues than anything that is happening or has ever happened or will ever happen in Gaza. Because I actually don't care about Gaza at all. It's not my country, it's not my problem. It's not even on my list of my top 500 concerns. And if you think that sounds cruel or callous or something, you really shouldn't have much trouble understanding it because I feel about Gaza exactly as you feel about literally thousands of atrocities unfolding on the globe right this moment, all of which you are also ignoring. You don't stop to think about them ever because they don't concern you. And that makes a lot of sense. Anyway, then there was the female romance studies professor who reports the first-year students are terrified and feel unsafe, presumably because their teachers are telling them that they should feel terrified and unsafe. There's one of the many reasons why it's a bad idea to send your children to these overwhelmingly left-wing schools, especially if you're, you know, especially if you have young men, if you have sons. That's the worst thing place you could send them. These teachers are mostly hysterical, emotionally incontinent women and low testosterone men. And they go out of their way to make their students as unhinged as they are. It's like watching a cult meeting. And by the way, although this will shock absolutely no one, the vast majority of the faculty members who rejected this nonsense and voted against this resolution are in the science and engineering departments. So it's the humanities teachers who contribute nothing to society who are leading the charge. Their careers are completely pointless so they feel a compulsion to be part of something greater and change the world and resist systemic injustice. And they're willing to invent that systemic injustice if they have to. Meanwhile, the scientists for the most part anyway tend to be more interested in actual problems rather than doing interviews with New York Times. Although there are many exceptions to that. And that's the right approach because the longer this farce drags on, the more it falls apart. It's already completely collapsed as a narrative, but somehow new text messages keep getting released. More evidence services to bury the narrative even further. This is one of the free press reporting on new text messages that show how the accuser's sorority pushed the idea that the woman was assaulted as a way of protecting the sororities reputation. Quote text messages between Jane Doe's sorority sisters paint a picture of a group of women in crisis mode having been made vulnerable by association to the kind of reputational damage that would threaten the entire sororities status within the small and precarious ecosystem of Cornell's Greek life-centric social scene. For Jane Doe, the fact that she has severely transgressed the norms of her community appears to come as a surprise and a disappointment that a few days of the incident she wrote to one of the men, bro, everyone knows I'm incredibly stressed out, but everyone knows I'm incredibly stressed out to different scientists. From there, her unease only grows. People are talking. People are judging. People are telling a version of the story, her story that is eclipsing her own account, and that strips her of the mantle of the adventurous, a branding her instead with the scarlet letter of the slut, even the people who care about her have come up with their own countervailing narrative to contradict her own, insisting to anyone who will listen and to Jane herself that she was the victim of sexual coercion. Now, that passage is referring to texts that were unearthed by the New York Times a few days ago. Every single one of them is devastating for this woman's lawsuit, and we'll start with the text that was sent on October 21st, 2024, around 6 p.m. From one of the fraternity members, she's now accusing of rape. This is the day after the alleged assault. He writes, quote, "Hey, I just got your number and heard that I may have said some mean things when I walked in the room, but I truly did not know what I said. I want to make a mens with you because I'm not a mean person." Scotty also said he's sorry and should have never been in that room. Then the accuser responds, quote, "I really appreciate the text and I didn't think in your heart you were a mean guy or anything. I figured it was a defense thing because like that was obviously an insane night, and I think everyone was really confused, drunk, high, and nervous. I really do still think highly of Chi-Fi and I'm not a person to pretend I don't know people after any sexual affair, no matter the magnitude. So I do look forward to seeing y'all around while we're all obviously denying what happened to anyone who asks. I hope that we can joke about all this in private, obviously, later down the line. Also, I do remember there were two Scottish, unless I was getting effed with, but one of them sat beside me and told me to take a few minutes before I got up, and I really appreciated his care for my well-being. Sometimes it's easy to feel a little dehumanized and a heated sexual situation. I appreciated his pausing for me to collect myself. If you wouldn't mind telling him, I said, thank you, that would be great. Then I'll heart emoji. Now, the male student responds that, yes, there were two Scottish present. She responds, quote, I think we all have a sole bond now because very few people can say they've had an experience like that. Well, it's good to keep it away from the public. I don't think it's something to feel ashamed of in private. Thank God there are two Scottish that was literally the trippiest part of the night. Shortly afterwards, she texts another male student. She's now accused of, she's now accusing of raid. She writes, quote, it'll be funny in a couple months. We should smoke again sometime, but like leave out the extra five billion men in ketamine, marked it on rice purity. So I'm good. I've got all the mom lore I need. I had to look this up, But when she says marked it on rice. She's referring to an online survey that lists dozens of different sexual experiences and people check off the experiences they've had, including apparently group sex. So she's joking about the whole experience, really bragging about it, saying it was a wild experience that she can tell her future kids about. That's the mom lore part of the text. Of course, for a lot of reasons, you feel bad for her future kids if any ever exists. This is the kind of thing you just sit down, wait, you sit at the dinner table, tell your kids about the gang bang you had in college. And then a week after the incident at the frat house, some anonymous comments are posted on the gossip forum called Greek rank. One of the posts reads, "Our chi-fi, brothers, crypts or bloods, because I hear they have been doing hell gang banging." Another post read, "They do drugs and gang rape to sophomore, report them." Okay, supposedly these posts change the woman's view of what happened that night. Of course, since their anonymous comments and she just happened to come across them, it's entirely possible that she posted those messages herself. It's also possible a member of her sorority wrote them. You know, we have no idea. And whoever did write them, it's not evidence of anything. It's just someone repeating a rumor they heard. You know, I could sit here and tell you about how great Pure Talk is or I could just read a comment from one of their customers named Diana. She says, "We've been with Pure Talk for several years now and absolutely love it. Great coverage, great customer service, great pricing." Now, that's not the experience you're getting from your current wireless company. It's time to switch and an honor of providing great coverage, great customer service and great pricing. Pure Talk decided to extend their unlimited for life offer for just a little bit longer. Unlimited talk, text and unlimited data for just $29.95 a month for the rest of your life. Again, this was their top shelf plan, normally $65 a month, but you lock it in at just $29.95 a month for life. No contract, no cancellation fees. Go to puretalk.com/walsh and make the switch in as little as 10 minutes again. That's puretalk.com/walsh for unlimited data for life with pure talk. Text the fees not included. Some restrictions apply. See puretalk.com for details. Big banks don't want to fund your business, but Cardiff does. My name is William Stern. In 2004, I founded Cardiff to make funding faster and easier for small businesses. In less than five minutes, your business could qualify for up to $500,000 deposited same day, and there's zero impact to your personal credit. Get started by going to cardiff.co/dailywire. Again, that's cardiff.co/dailywire. Cardiff, borrow better. Let me get to the key message from the sorority. This is from October 27th. The accuser's big sister at her sorority, basically a student mentor. Is asked about the rumors that are circulating about the accuser and she writes, quote, "Yeah, shut it down." This is out of control, actually disgusting. It's disgusting that people think this is funny to talk about when it would be rape if it were to happen. Some pi-fi girl started it. She had a three son, but that's it. Per usual, people love to blame women for being abuse victims or make them out to be sluts. Anyway, blaming the victim not the rapist. We're always blaming the victim not the rapist. Now, reading between the lines what this text means is that while the accuser was downplaying what happened, suggesting it was a wild and consensual experience, senior members of her sorority were becoming frustrated as the free press reported. They knew that their damage control wasn't working. No one was buying their story that this woman had merely engaged in a threesome. This was reflecting very badly on the whole sorority. So these senior sorority member in this message floats an alternative. Kind of brainstorming. She suggests that even if the rumors are correct, their sorority is still insulated from responsibility because in that scenario, quote, "it would be rape." Now, she never explains how exactly she'd come to this conclusion or what facts would justify this change. She had no evidence to support the accusation at all, but she mentions it in the text thread as a way for the sorority to reclaim the moral high ground. It's a very common impulse, especially in left-wing circles, where victimhood is the most important currency. As Kat Rosenfeld, the journalist who wrote the free press article, put it quote, "it is basic human nature in the face of shame or regret to want to reframe what happened in a way that unburdens you or someone you care about of those feelings." Now, once the sorority began talking like this, it's natural to assume that the idea eventually filtered down to the accuser, where friends and sorority members were giving her an out. And then the fraternity in the eyes of the accuser gave her a reason to take it. And then comes the critical October 30th text the night before the Halloween party, where the fraternity president, president, after initially saying the accuser was welcome at the frat house, disinvites her from the party. The greatest sin you can commit against a girl like this, and she's furious about it. Quote, "I was uninvited, but of course it was for me. I knew this was going to happen. The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Y'all aren't my friends. Y'all are covering your asses. The fraternity president can go f himself. I'm done. He is not a friend of mine." Now, the key thing about this is that she really wanted to go to a party with these guys. So she really wanted to go to a party with these guys, who she now says, so she was supposedly kidnapped and held against her will and brutally raped for seven hours. And she desperately wants to go to a party with them and is furious that she can't. And this is when she goes scorched earth. You know, the guy tries to reach out to her to patch things up on Halloween day. He even says she's welcome at the party, and she refuses to talk to him. And then on November 3rd, 2024, for the first time, she sends a text where she suggests that she was assaulted. And this is the first time she does this. Quote, "Let's be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. And after that, she goes to the ER and claims that she was assaulted." So this is a sequence of events that obviously does not support any lawsuit against these Cornell students, much less criminal charge, say, farce. But the New York Attorney General, the Tisha James, was ever appointed to investigate this case. And it's no accident that she stepped aside, by the way, and appointed a former federal prosecutor to handle it. One day after the midterm elections, not very subtle, this whole case was a political operation by the Democrat party to mobilize female voters ahead of the midterms. And before that, to all appearances, it was a PR operation that was first suggested by a sorority that was desperate to control the narrative about one of its members who was completely out of control and destroying their reputation by extension. Now, I makes you wonder about those allegations about Russell Brand and all the other allegations like this, which only surface months or even years after the fact. You know, a lot of women come to regret their behavior. And when they do, their friends are often very willing to help them come up with an alternative explanation. You know, alternative facts about what happened. And if they arrive at this alternative explanation, the legal system will go along every step of the way. The normal rules are inverted. The accuser is presumed to be correct. Even if she's on the record with one version of events and says it wasn't right, she'd come back years later and say, actually, I think it was. Even with no additional evidence, nothing else, you could just say, actually, you know what? Actually, yeah, I think it was. And the legal system will say, okay, whatever you think, the facts are whatever you happen to say, you are God and you can change reality retroactively based on your own whim. The defendant is presumed to be guilty. And if he tries to defend himself, the judge will attack him for it. They're in sentencing. You know, one of the biggest successes of the Trump administration has been reforming the title nine process on college campuses. As the Cornell case and the Russell Brand case both demonstrate, we need similar reforms for the legal system at large, give defendants the right to cross examine accusers about their own history, the right to publicly identify their accusers enough with the Jane Doe nonsense. And above all, we need real consequences for women who make these false accusations. Whatever crime they falsely accuse someone of committing, that should be an equivalent punishment for the crime. Well, whatever punishment they get should be the punishment that the men would have gotten had they been convicted. Lock them up and the false allegations will stop. Start talking about these false accusing women using terms that are appropriate, which is these are dangerous people. Women who make false accusations are doomed. They are dangerous predators. They are a danger. They are a danger to any man they come across. And until then, stay far away from college campuses like this. And of course, avoid these kinds of casual encounters entirely, if you're a man or if you're a woman, it's not worth it. You know, if they can delete Russell Brand from the internet and from free society, they can do it to you. They're certainly looking for more lives to destroy. And after the hysteria over these cases, which somehow is still continuing to this day, the best decision you could make. make, is to never give them the opportunity. I'll do the show today and this week we'll talk to you on Monday of Great Weekend, God Speed. While there I used to feel Christ, I can not feel anything here. They take me out of my bed and they brought me here and they tell me nothing. What have I done? Echo 58, counter revolutionary activity. That's all I know. They have to deal with so many enemies of the state, all of whom claim their innocence, who protest, who cry. There are no answers here, other than the ones they put in your mouth. Your break, today is your opportunity to demonstrate your loyalty to the people. I'd like to know why I'm here. Of course. But you're already now, don't you? You must believe in something greater than the party. You will remember your duty, I told you I don't have to. They grow like a fairer all-man. You stink of failure. You won't need to lie. Still a drunk damn you. They all break. Maybe. My name's William Stern. In less than five minutes, your business could qualify for up to $500,000 deposited same day and there's zero impact to your personal credit. Cardiff. Barrow better.