Everything You Need To Know About The Cornell 7 Allegations

Now that the prosecution of Lindsay Clancy is on hiatus pending a retrial, hordes of slack-jawed leftist women who spend every waking hour on Instagram have rushed headlong into their next psychotic obsession, just like zombies (in movies where the zombies are fast). This brain-dead biomass has transitioned, without missing a beat, from defending a woman who systematically murdered her three children, to launching a relentless, vicious smear campaign against seven young men who, while they were students at Cornell University, *did not* murder any children, or anyone else for that matter. In fact, these seven young men have never been charged with any crime whatsoever. But in the eyes of the mob, these young men, unlike Lindsay Clancy, deserve to have their lives destroyed based on very dubious and unproven accusations that we’ll get into in a moment. Once again, the Clancy horde wants to help a woman avoid all accountability for her actions.

But before we run through the facts of the Cornell case, and the psychology of the women who are rushing into the next Duke Lacrosse/UVA-style hoax with reckless abandon, I want to begin with a story you may not be familiar with — involving a former Columbia University student named Emma Sulkowicz. In 2012, she claimed that she was sexually assaulted by another student (who was publicly named). The allegation triggered a wave of outrage on campus, with students protesting the supposedly misogynistic culture in American universities.

Columbia Spectator

But after investigating the claims for seven months, Columbia found no wrongdoing. Part of the problem was that, long after the alleged assault occurred, Emma texted the man who had supposedly assaulted her, writing, quote, “I love you Paul! Where are you?!?!?!?!” So this was not a compelling allegation, and the school appropriately dismissed it. You’ll find that this is a common theme with many of these kinds of rape accusations. The supposed victim carries on a friendly and even sometimes romantic relationship with the man who supposedly abused her. We’re not supposed to view that fact as evidence that the claim is false. But no one can ever really explain why we shouldn’t see it as evidence that the claim is false.

So, in the case of Emma Sulkowicz, student activists wouldn’t let the claim go. The accuser began carrying a mattress everywhere she went during the academic year, as a kind of protest, and her supporters often joined her.

Wikipedia

They said they wouldn’t stop until the alleged attacker was expelled from campus. Columbia even gave Emma school credit for doing this, by characterizing her behavior as “performance art.” This was coordinated harassment that was endorsed by Columbia University, and eventually, the man she was accusing — Paul — sued the university over it (the case later settled). To reiterate, at no point was there any evidence that Paul was guilty of this allegedly heinous crime. In fact, there was clear evidence that Paul was innocent. But the mob didn’t care. Their goal — which is the goal of feminists everywhere — is to reject the idea that women can be accountable for anything they do. If a woman makes a mistake and does something she regrets, these people believe that she should be able to destroy a man’s life to save face. They believe, essentially, that a woman has a grace period of several years or several decades to decide whether any given sexual encounter was actually rape.

After the mattress performance art died down, a journalist walked around the campus of Columbia University to get a sense of what students thought about the whole episode. The appropriate response, of course, would be to condemn this woman for lying, and to advocate for the return of due process to American universities. Instead, here’s what the students told her:

This is the utter cowardice that gives false allegations so much power. This woman literally sent a message saying “I love you Paul,” after this alleged attack. But in the eyes of the average university student, somehow, she’s still a victim. She can’t possibly be lying. That one guy with the glasses — who admitted that he didn’t know anything about the facts of the case — still concluded that “serious reform” was needed. Of course, by “serious reform,” he didn’t mean that women who make false allegations should be expelled, arrested, and bankrupted. Instead, he was saying that, when a woman makes an allegation — whether it’s true or not — we should just do whatever she wants.

We’ve seen this attitude at play in many other cases — perhaps most notably in the Duke Lacrosse saga of 2006, when the DA insisted that three white lacrosse players (who were publicly named) had sexually assaulted a black stripper.

NPR

The DA lied about the evidence in the case, which was nonexistent. Eventually, the DA was disbarred and went to jail, and the black woman admitted she made everything up. This was a media firestorm — these white students had their lives destroyed — and the accuser suffered no legal consequences for it. (She did murder her boyfriend, so she had to serve some prison time for that. But as for the false accusation, she was never punished).

In the intervening years, there was the defamatory (and now-retracted) Rolling Stone article about an alleged gang sexual assault on UVA’s campus. Again, this triggered mass outrage from campus activists when the story broke in 2014.

New Yorker

What happened is that a female UVA student had a crush on a male student named Ryan, so to win his affection, she created a male alter ego named “Haven Monahan.” Using the name “Haven Monahan,” she pretended to be someone who was involved with Jackie, as a way of making Ryan jealous. When that didn’t work, the female student concocted even more bizarre situations using this alias, making it seem like she was in danger and that Ryan needed to rescue her. These lies culminated in the fake UVA gang assault story, which Rolling Stone published. They didn’t even bother to investigate and figure out that “Haven Monahan” wasn’t a real person. He was one of their main sources, and he didn’t even exist.

In the end, Rolling Stone had to pay a lot of money for publishing that article. But to this day, we don’t know the identity of the female accuser who made the whole thing up. Even after she was exposed as a fraudster who defamed several students (and administrators) at UVA, her identity was still concealed by the legal system and by every media outlet. A judge even ruled that the female student’s “mental health” needed to be protected during a deposition. And news outlets, including Rolling Stone, maintain that — even when the accuser is a liar — her identity needs to be confidential. So if you’re a man and you’re accused of something horrific like this, you don’t get to confront your accuser, basically. You don’t get to investigate her background, or even know who she is. Meanwhile, every detail of your life — your job, your home address, everything — will be exposed online, and you’ll be hounded for the rest of your life.

Because there were never any grave consequences for this woman at UVA — because she wasn’t punished in a public and humiliating fashion, or in any fashion at all — many more women have decided to anonymously destroy the lives of innocent men. In some cases, the motivation is to win the affections of someone they’re attracted to. In other cases, the motivation is to excuse some degenerate, embarrassing behavior they voluntarily engaged in. In other cases, it’s to save face, or settle a score, or get revenge. Sometimes, all of these motivations apply. Simply put, there is a gigantic incentive for immoral, manipulative, sadistic women to fabricate allegations, because they have absolutely nothing to lose. If everything goes according to their plan, they’ll gain a lot of sympathy and social capital and potentially a very large payout in a lawsuit. If they’re exposed as liars, then every media outlet will protect their anonymity. So it’s a no-risk strategy. The only thing you stand to lose is your soul. But if you don’t have a soul to begin with, or don’t care about your soul, you have no reason not to go for it.

That’s exactly what’s apparently happening right now at Cornell University. Once again, there’s a moral panic on campus about a very dubious, if not totally ridiculous, account of sexual assault. To give you an idea of how students are responding to the allegation, the editorial board of the Cornell student newspaper just published the names of all of the male students who are allegedly involved in this assault, along with an explicit threat. They wrote, “We know who you are and we refuse to let you benefit from this University’s concealment.”

So basically, these student activists have determined that the other students are guilty. And for what it’s worth, here’s how The New York Times reports on the decision of these student journalists (both women, of course) to publicly shame their former classmates.

Over cake, she turned to her fellow editors and asked: “Can we just put the names on the front page of the paper?” “We called up our lawyer and we were like, ‘Can we do this?’” she recalled. “He was like, ‘I mean, it’s kind of a risk.’ And we were like, ‘OK, I guess that’s how we’re going to start the editorial.’” … ‘Our main obligation is accountability. Whether that looks like something that many people do not want to hear, or something that many people do want to hear, it’s our obligation to report on it.

“Accountability” would mean that these women (student journalists or not) are sued into oblivion. They published an editorial threatening people who haven’t even been charged with a crime, implying that they’re guilty of a heinous gang rape. And several other media outlets have done the same thing.

Here’s the substance of the allegations, to the extent there is any substance. An alleged assault took place at a frat house in 2024, and now, two years later, the anonymous accuser has filed a lawsuit. Watch:

Already, some alarm bells should be going off here. For one thing, just as a factual matter, the story sounds absurd. This kind of thing happens in Pakistan maybe, but it’s virtually unheard of in the United States — particularly among college students. That’s why, in almost every case, when you hear about an attack like this, it ends up being fictional. You’ll recall the ludicrous “gang rape” claims made against Brett Kavanaugh, for example. Now I was able to find one notable exception in the past 20 years, which was a gang sexual assault that took place at Vanderbilt in 2013, resulting in the conviction of four Vanderbilt football players. You probably haven’t heard of this story, and I’ll tell you why. One of the lead attackers, who was black, told the victim (who was white) that she deserved the attack because of the color of her skin, saying, “That’s for 400 years of slavery, you b*tch.”

So it was a racially motivated, anti-white attack. Other than that, these kinds of cases are extremely rare. So when allegations like this surface, we should ask some obvious questions. We should carefully scrutinize the evidence — especially since, in the intro to that segment, we’re only getting one side of the story here. We’re told that this woman “was drugged” and didn’t consent to anything, which — if true — would obviously be a serious crime. But then, in the same breath, we’re told that no criminal charges were filed when this incident allegedly occurred, and this lawsuit wasn’t filed for another two years.

So why is that? Is there an “old boys club” in the DA’s office in Ithaca, New York? Or is there potentially a serious problem with the evidence in the case? C-list celebrities certainly aren’t waiting around to find out. According to Variety, someone named Jameela Jamil just stated, “I think the likes of the Cornell 7 shouldn’t be allowed penises anymore. They used them as weapons, so now they have to be confiscated. I think jail time, legal castration, and a removal of the shaft seems like the bare minimum.”

Then there’s this, from someone named Josh Gad: “When we start setting a precedent that our girls and women can be brutally raped, and the resulting disciplinary action is to hand out (checks notes) ESSAYS (like it’s Bart Simpson being a lil’ rascal) about why it was wrong to brutally violate an innocent girl, we have lost our f*cking minds.”

Whatever these people are worth, which probably isn’t much, they should be bankrupted by defamation lawsuits. And then, once they’re destroyed, something similar needs to happen to the Democrat leaders of the state of New York. Here’s the governor, Kathy Hochul:

“The allegations in the Cornell University sexual assault case are nothing short of horrifying. For any student to come forward after an experience like this takes extraordinary courage. No student should ever be left wondering whether the institutions meant to protect them will listen and act. … I am calling for outside counsel to conduct a transparent, independent review of the university’s response to determine whether Cornell met every obligation to protect its students and pursue justice.”

Never mind the fact that it’s wildly inappropriate for the governor of the state to weigh in on a case like this, when no charges have been filed, and none of the allegations have been proven. Merely by making these allegations, in the eyes of the Democrat Party, the woman in this case has become untouchable. She’s not a degenerate anymore —  instead, by filing a lawsuit in which she’s presumably seeking millions of dollars, she has “extraordinary courage.” Even if Hochul is using the word “allegations,” she is still essentially stating that the claims are factual. If it takes “extraordinary courage” to make the claims, the claims must be factual. Unless Hochul believes that it also takes extraordinary courage to make false claims. So here we have the governor of New York implicitly declaring, without a conviction or even any charges filed, that the accused men are guilty. It’s totally unconscionable. And predictable.

AOC, of course, is on board. She’s already convicted the Cornell students as well. Watch:

This gets at something you’re not really supposed to say, but it’s true: liberal women love to claim that they’re “survivors” as a way of gaining sympathy and claiming the moral high ground. In certain circles, you have to make claims like this, in order to establish your credibility and ward off any criticism. But in most cases we have no evidence, or any reason to believe, that they “survived” anything. But they prefer to use this kind of dramatic language because it works. It shuts down debate. It gives them total moral authority, in their minds, to say whatever they want. We should reject that premise, every single time we have the opportunity to do so. Sorry, but your unverified sob story does not grant you any additional credibility or authority.

All that matters are the facts on the ground. The actual evidence. And that’s the message we’d be hearing from our political leaders if they even remotely respected the rule of law and the concept of due process. But they don’t.

The mayor of Ithaca, to give another example, has just told everyone that he’s horrified by the “heinous and sickening allegations.” He says he’s “appalled” by Cornell for “failing to hold the perpetrators to account,” and he’s furious that the police didn’t “coordinate” an effective response. So basically, like every other Democrat, he’s already convinced that the students are guilty. Once again, he calls them allegations but then in the very next breath calls them “perpetrators” who must be “held to account.” Not to mention, what makes the allegations heinous and sickening, exactly? If the claims are true, then sure, the alleged crime would be heinous and sickening. But if the claims are not true — and there is very, very good reason to believe they aren’t true, as we’ll discuss — then what’s heinous and sickening is the allegation itself. It’s heinous and sickening to claim that something heinous and sickening happened to you if it didn’t. So in that sense, sure, the allegations could be heinous and sickening. But that’s not how the mayor meant it, we can assume.

So let’s get to the facts of the case, as we currently know them. And we’ll start with the rather significant problem that in 2024, according to the authorities, the accuser had a very different version of events. Watch:

Well, that’s a big difference. Two years ago, she wasn’t making the same allegations at all when she spoke to the police and provided a written statement. She apparently said everything was consensual. According to the DA, she didn’t allege in her final written statement that she was drugged or sexually assaulted in any way. Now, two years later, she’s talked to a lawyer who wants millions of dollars from the school, and everything changes. This is reason enough to dismiss the allegations out of hand. If, years after the fact, you have decided that an act you previously considered consensual actually wasn’t consensual, your claims should be disregarded. Period. If you were actually raped, go to the police immediately and tell them. If you wait years to tell them, we already have significant reason to be skeptical. If you tell them it was consensual and then wait years to decide that actually it wasn’t, our skepticism verges towards definitive certainty that you’re a liar.

So let’s pull up the full statement from the DA, because this is truly extraordinary stuff. First, the woman says she was texting with a male at the fraternity and arranged to meet him there. She was intoxicated at a level of 5 out of 10 at this point. Then, when she arrived, the male (who she was texting with) invited her to join a threesome.

“Doe agreed due to how attracted [she] was to [Male Number 1 ] on top of [her] drunken curiousness. … When she learned that Male Number 2 would be the third participant, Jane Doe ‘remembered being excited because [she] thought that [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay’.”

Well, she might’ve been correct about that. But as far as proving that an assault occurred, this obviously doesn’t help her case. Let’s continue.

“The sexual conduct ended when Jane Doe noticed that Male Number 1 appeared really sleepy … She told Male Number 2 that they needed to stop having sex in order to make sure that Male Number 1 was ok. Male Number 2 then stopped having sex with Jane Doe. Male Number 1 said he was going to take a nap and refresh himself and would eventually stumble his way from the couch to the bed. While Male Number 1 slept, Male Number 2 began to dry heave as if he was going to vomit. Jane Doe began to take care of Male Number 2 by patting his back while also waking Male Number 1 every few minutes to make sure he was okay.”

At this point, if we use the logic of the Instagram horde for a second, it sounds a lot like these men are actually victims. After all, if you can’t possibly consent to sexual activity when you’re intoxicated, then these men were clearly being taken advantage of. So where’s their “Me Too” moment? Why aren’t they filing a lawsuit? This has always been the glaring inconsistency in the claim, popular on the Left, that drunk sex is inherently rape. Any woman who engages in sexual activity while drunk was, by definition, raped because she could not have consented. The problem with this idea is that, actually, drunk people do make choices and are responsible for their own actions. That’s the whole reason why you go to prison if you get drunk and hit someone with your car. In fact, if you kill someone with your car, you’ll go to prison even longer if you were drunk. But aside from that, in almost any case where a drunk woman is having sex on a college campus, or anywhere else, the man is also drunk. So by this logic, he has a rape claim just as valid as hers. And yet nobody would take him seriously if he went public with a claim of that sort.

Meanwhile, back in reality — under New York law, and under the law of common sense — being intoxicated does *not mean* that you cannot consent. As long as you got yourself intoxicated (meaning you weren’t drugged against your will), and you remain conscious and able to verbalize your thoughts, then you remain fully responsible for what happens. That’s the standard. As it should be. And according to this woman’s statements, every single time she verbalized that she didn’t want to engage in sexual activity, her request was respected. She actually pushed several people away. It’s also clear from her statements that she voluntarily drank alcohol and took Ketamine. At no point was she “drugged.” At least not by anyone else. She drugged herself, if anything. At most, what’s clear from her statement is that this orgy was very bizarre and gross, and eventually, the other members of the fraternity put an end to it.

“Male Number 4 asked Jane Doe if they could all do drugs off her perfect body. Jane Doe responded, sure. While the men were doing drugs off of her body, Male Number 3 and another male entered the room and said something like, ‘OK we’re shutting down whatever the f*ck this is.”

So based on this statement, the DA decided not to bring charges. That’s because, even if you pretend that everything she was saying was true, it still would not constitute a crime under New York law. That’s obviously the correct decision. But now, two years later, this woman has found a lawyer and completely changed her story. And instead of shutting her down, the DA is caving to the mob. Here’s part of the statement from the DA:

“Multiple prosecutors and criminal investigators reviewed Jane Doe’s statement and correctly determined that the alleged facts as set forth in the statement do not constitute a crime. … To be clear, the credibility of the woman, who described the facts in excruciating detail, was never in question. … I recognize the reality that it can take years of therapy and healing for victims of sexual assaults to fully process and understand what happened to them.”

This is complete and utter BS. There’s no other way to describe it. Yes, the credibility of the woman is definitely in question. She’s contradicted herself. If contradicting yourself does not undermine your credibility, then nothing does. This woman described very specific details, contemporaneously, when she spoke to the prosecutors to report what had happened. She clearly wasn’t incapacitated, otherwise, she wouldn’t have remembered anything. She told investigators everything that occurred. And after reviewing her statements, they could not identify a crime. She obviously felt like something strange had happened — and it did. The whole thing was disgusting. She participated in a drug-fueled orgy. If she felt ashamed of that, and gross about it, she should have. It is shameful and gross. But it was not a crime. And, by all available evidence, she was an active and enthusiastic participant.

Now, two years later, after “therapy” (and consultations with her lawyer), she has a different version of events. By definition, this means she’s not credible. The idea that so-called “survivors” need to take two years to figure out what happened to them, on its face, is insulting and idiotic. What’s happening here is that the prosecutor is conflating the idea of “delayed disclosure” with “delayed memories.” It’s very possible that someone, after suffering abuse, might not want to talk about it for a while. They might be afraid or ashamed. But there’s no support for the idea that victims of abuse are going to lie to the police, at great length, about what happened to them, only to change their story *two years later,* for no apparent reason. This is pseudoscience. It doesn’t make any sense. And it gives a license to psychopaths to lie about what actually happened to them.

Speaking of psychopaths, it also gives a license to therapists to plant these ideas in the minds of their female clients. See, this is how it often works. A woman does something disgusting — like participating, willfully, in a drug-fueled orgy as was apparently the case at Cornell — and feels guilty about it. And since her real problem is guilt, not “trauma,” the real solution is to repent of her sins. She should be going to church, not a therapist’s office. But in the modern world, therapists are the new spiritual advisors, the new clergy, the high priests of the Left-wing therapeutic religion, and so that is where women like this one take their sins. That is where they go to find absolution. But in therapy, in the age of “affirmation,” no one can be guilty of any sins. A woman especially cannot be guilty of sins. The only person who can be truly guilty of anything is a white man. So the therapist “helps” her to see that her feelings of guilt are really trauma. She actually isn’t responsible for anything that happened. She’s a victim. She was raped. Even if she didn’t know she was raped. Even if she specifically remembers NOT being raped. She was raped. And the woman latches onto that new theory of the case for obvious reasons. Not only does it mean a potential payout, and not only will it bring her attention — and all of the other things that shallow women, and shallow men, desire most of all — but it also frees her of guilt. It releases her from the burden of her own agency. And you will never really understand modern society, or the rise of therapy culture, or the popularity of socialism among young people, or why Big Pharma is a trillion-dollar industry, until you understand that the number one thing driving many people these days is a desire to be freed from the crushing weight of their own volition, their agency. They do not want to have free will. Freedom itself is not, it turns out — much to the chagrin of our Founding Fathers — an innate desire common among all people. Some people actually want to be slaves. They want to be told that they have no control, no capacity to make decisions, nothing that they can be held accountable for. That’s why they go to therapy. They sit down in the therapist’s office and say to the therapist — usually indirectly, but sometimes directly — “here’s the stuff I feel bad about, now tell me why it isn’t my fault.” And the therapist indulges them. Just as the drugs indulge them. Just as so many politicians indulge them. So you, as a healthy and well-adjusted person, may feel a deep desire for freedom and the open road. But a lot of people — especially leftist women, most of all — have no such desire. They want to be puppets on a string. Marionettes on a stage. Nothing is their fault. Nothing was their choice. That’s what they want.

That’s all deeper philosophical stuff. Closer to the surface, we still have practical questions. Questions like: why aren’t we allowed to know the identity of this “Jane Doe”? She’s allowed to publicly name all of these Cornell students, and file lawsuits that dox their home addresses, and destroy their reputations for the rest of their lives — but we’re not allowed to know anything about her? No judge should be able to shield this information from the public. We still have a First Amendment in this country, last time I checked. And if a woman is going to make bizarre claims that attract national attention like this — and contradict herself in the process — then we have a right to know who she is. Period. That’s not “witness intimidation.” It’s not “stalking.” It’s our constitutional right. This isn’t the Soviet Union. Sorry. People have a right to confront their accusers in this country. They have the right to information that’s clearly in the public interest.

One of these Cornell students that this woman has accused, by the way, was just fired by Wells Fargo after this lawsuit was filed. And the mob of Instagram harpies is trying to get the other students fired from their jobs as well. These young men haven’t even been charged with a crime, but they’re being relentlessly harassed by the same women who defended Lindsay Clancy for the triple murder of her own children. And these students have no recourse whatsoever. Meanwhile, this woman, like the UVA accuser, has total immunity apparently. No one is allowed to know who she is. It’s totally absurd.

That’s especially true when you look at this accuser’s text messages, which were just obtained by CBS New York. (And CBS deserves a lot of credit for this). It seems like the more we learn about this anonymous woman, the worse it gets.

The messages were sent just two days after the alleged assault. … The man started by apologizing for “how things went down.” He said his memory is “kinda fuzzy,” and that he and another man feel bad for being too intoxicated to “shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand.” The woman in the text chain replied that her memory is “super clouded too,” and said they had all been heavily intoxicated. She also wrote, “non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal.” She said she liked being with him and another man. Later, she suggested they smoke together again, “but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine.” 

This should be the end of this entire story. The Cornell students — like the UVA students and the Duke Lacrosse students before them — should file defamation lawsuits against everyone who has lied about this case. And that’s a very, very long list of people. If she had been violently assaulted in that frat house, she would not text the participants in that assault after-the-fact and explicitly say that nothing illegal had transpired. This is about as definitive as a case like this can possibly get. You have the accuser herself, on the record, in writing, stating to one of the alleged rapists that no crimes were committed. End of story. Nothing to see here. Nothing but a bunch of college kids, including this woman, doing something gross. They aren’t the first and won’t be the last. But there was no crime, as she herself states. And then she goes further. She attempts to schedule another encounter with some of the men who were supposedly involved in this heinous attack.

There is one more piece of CBS’ report we need to talk about, because it establishes the timeline of when this woman’s story began to change.

According to a transcript of the alleged victim’s interview with campus police, obtained by CBS New York …, Jane Doe distinguished the initial sexual activity from what she says happened later in the night. … When asked whether she was OK with the initial encounter, she said, “Yeah, as much as I can be because, again, I was super drunk when I got there … But I was pretty OK with all of this.” When describing what happened later in the night, the transcript says Jane Doe said, “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.” … The interview began on Nov. 14, 2024 – more than three weeks after the alleged gang rape – and continued the next day.”

So more than three weeks later, she declares that she was ‘raped.’ But after reviewing her actual claims and the final written statement she subsequently reviewed and signed, prosecutors concluded that the facts she described did not constitute a crime. And according to the DA, that signed statement did not allege that she had been drugged against her will or gang raped. This is a written statement that, according to TMZ, the woman changed 20 times, with handwritten corrections, to make sure it was totally accurate. To put it mildly, that’s extremely difficult to reconcile with the allegations she’s making today. But no one seems to want to say that out loud.

Actually, there’s one person who’s being honest about what’s happening here. Of all people, Sunny Hostin on “The View” just came out to defend — kind of — the Cornell students whose lives are being destroyed at the moment. Watch:

Sunny Hostin, a former sex crimes prosecutor, actually defends the Cornell 7. She argues that under New York State law, the girl consented and that the media is “reporting this story inaccurately. I think they’re reporting it unfairly.”
“The pictures of these young men who have… pic.twitter.com/ZbnJpS8G6R

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) September 29, 2026

What’s infuriating about this clip is the realization that Sunny Hostin — one of the dumbest women on “The View,” which is really saying something — has more integrity and honesty on this issue than any prominent conservative politician. Has a single Republican come out to defend these Cornell students? Has a single Republican said a word about this case, which is an obvious miscarriage of justice that implicates the constitutional rights of these students?

If you care about civil rights at all, then this should be one of the most important issues you’re talking about right now. Title IX has not been reformed in any meaningful way. It’s still extremely easy for a woman to make up some fake accusation and destroy the lives of anyone she wants — particularly on college campuses. This is a big deal. But Republicans — who claim they care about the civil rights of everyone, including white men on college campuses — are totally silent. They’re allowing this fake narrative to take hold, just like they’re remaining silent as Democrats spread lies about lynchings all over the country. And the only conclusion you can draw from this is that, at the moment, we are led by politicians who are somehow more pathetic than Sunny Hostin. Their weakness will lead to many more fake accusations. It will lead to the destruction of many more young men, particularly white men. And unless things change very quickly, their cowardice will empower another generation of women to believe that they are never accountable for their own actions — a feminist tenet that, in every possible respect, has done more damage to this country over the past 50 years than the nuclear bomb did to Hiroshima. That is not an overstatement. It’s not a metaphor. These people are destroying our civilization — and with this Cornell case, they’ve made it clear that they’re just getting started.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org