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

The Matt Walsh Show

The episode dissects the 'Cornell 7' case, arguing that newly released text messages and contemporaneous statements prove the accuser consented to a sexual encounter at a fraternity party but

Key takeaways

• Newly released text messages show Jane Doe stating days after the incident that 'none of the sexual stuff was illegal' and that she enjoyed herself, contradicting her later rape allegations.
• The accuser only changed her narrative after being disinvited from a Chi Phi Halloween party and facing campus social backlash over her behavior.

Main topics

• Cornell 7 case
• consent-based morality

Notable quotes

"at the end of the day, none of the sexual stuff was illegal. And honestly, I really liked being with you and the other guy."

Conclusion

The episode concludes that the Cornell case exemplifies how modern progressive frameworks have abandoned

Transcript preview

Speaker 1 (0:00) 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 scorched earth. The second she was barred from a party at the very fraternity house. where Speaker 5 (1:22) 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 Speaker 1 (1:32) 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 Speaker 5 (2:05) demonstrate that this woman is a liar. The evidence is not a dispute. No one can seriously take issue Speaker 1 (2:12) with any of it. But first, it's important 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. That's 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. It's supply and demand. There's a whole TikTok trend right now where women claim to 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 Speaker 5 (3:37) it's clear that she's lying? What we're seeing here. is, among other things, the failure of the left's Speaker 1 (3:44) 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 Speaker 5 (3:59) 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 Speaker 1 (4:19) and sad and embarrassed after a sexual encounter, even when it was fully consensual, they Speaker 5 (4:27) have no moral language to even understand or talk about how they feel except through consent. Speaker 1 (4:35) 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. Speaker 5 (4:46) They Speaker 1 (4:47) can't say Speaker 5 (4:47) 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 Speaker 1 (5:02) therefore, any sex that makes a woman feel bad after the fact Speaker 5 (5:06) must Speaker 1 (5:07) have been ipso facto non-consensual. Speaker 5 (5:10) 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 Speaker 1 (5:20) consensual is a category. Speaker 5 (5:22) That Speaker 1 (5:23) cannot exist. Speaker 1 (5:25) Now, this is not meant to be an excuser, an excuse for the accuser. It's not an excuse, but an explanation about the worldview that feeds into these kinds of false rape allegations. And we've Speaker 5 (5:37) 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 chose 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 Speaker 1 (6:22) making sure that what you're doing is moral. Obviously, sex must be consensual, but it also must respect the dignity and Speaker 5 (6:30) humanity of the other person involved. and of yourself. So what happened at Cornell was undignified, unhuman, animalistic. You know, it's not even human behavior. They have eight people in a room doing this. This is not human. This is animalistic. It's savage. Speaker 5 (6:51) 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. Speaker 5 (7:08) 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, Speaker 1 (7:32) 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 Hochul, and her staff. All of these people know that the Cornell incident was lurid and repulsive and that everybody involved, the men Speaker 5 (7:57) and the woman, bear culpability for it. But if they Speaker 1 (8:02) 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 Speaker 5 (8:22) respect or anything like that. They can't bring themselves to do that under any circumstances. So instead, we're Speaker 1 (8:29) 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 Ockel appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the case. Speaker 5 (8:55) 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. Speaker 5 (9:08) But this is what Hochul did. Speaker 1 (9:10) And the special prosecutor that has been appointed is none other than Letitia James, who's 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 Speaker 5 (9:25) convict Donald Trump. And she's done exactly the same thing here. So this was a video posted by Letitia James just one day before she Speaker 1 (9:32) was appointed as a special prosecutor. Listen. Speaker 3 (9:37) 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 campuses all throughout the state of New York are safe. and that Cornell University and other universities, SUNY 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 Tompkins 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 and to ensure that, in fact, justices serve and there's accountability for the survivor. Speaker 5 (10:36) So again, the word we keep coming back to is farcical. Speaker 1 (10:40) 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 Speaker 5 (10:59) prosecutor. And here you have the special prosecutor on camera. Before anything's been investigated, already declaring what the results of the investigation will be. In a sane society, this Speaker 1 (11:12) wouldn't just simply disqualify Letitia 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 Speaker 5 (11:32) 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 Speaker 1 (11:55) 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. Speaker 5 (12:08) 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. But she clearly has one. And when she and the Speaker 1 (12:24) governor were asked about this, neither one of them had a coherent reply. James didn't even bother to attempt to answer the question. Watch. Speaker 4 (12:34) 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 heart and in my prayers to her and to all survivors. You're not alone. We stand with you. Why did you affirm her allegations as fact without doing your own fact-finding investigation to the 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? Speaker 7 (13:03) 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. Speaker 3 (13:16) I will Speaker 7 (13:17) not comment Speaker 3 (13:17) on a Facebook post. Speaker 5 (13:21) So no answer Speaker 1 (13:22) 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. You know, 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 Cornell seven are prosecuted. It's how many additional young men are they going to pull into this? Speaker 5 (13:50) in some cases who had nothing to do with it whatsoever, because that will happen. Speaker 5 (13:56) You know, you hear people like Barack Obama say, as he said recently, that if women Speaker 1 (14:00) ran the world, Speaker 5 (14:01) everything Speaker 1 (14:01) would be peaceful and run smoothly. And then you look at what actually happens when you have women like this running things and, you know, and well, here's what it looks like. Speaker 1 (14:13) Their top priority as the highest ranking officials in New York is to launch a criminal investigation into a two-year-old booty call Speaker 5 (14:20) 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 Speaker 1 (14:52) 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. Speaker 1 (15:03) Quote, choosing to have a drink is not consent and it's never a license for sexual assault. New York law should reflect that. Speaker 5 (15:09) I support closing the voluntary intoxication loophole and will work with the legislature to get it done. Speaker 5 (15:18) You know, so apparently she thinks