New Evidence Completely Upends Cornell 7 Case

The following piece contains explicit and graphic descriptions of sexual content. 

There is new evidence, in the form of text messages, suggesting that the “Cornell 7” — the male Cornell students accused of heinous crimes in a now-infamous lawsuit, two years after the fact, and had their lives destroyed in the process — were the victims of a false narrative that originated with the accuser’s sorority sisters, desperate to protect the reputation of their sorority. 

We’re going to discuss that evidence and what it means for the case — and 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 that we didn’t discuss earlier that really should be getting a lot more attention. 

It’s a perfect illustration of how the legal system — both in the UK and the U.S. — has become a complete 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. Instead, they will berate you for even attempting to defend yourself against their onslaught of allegations. This is footage of the judge — Justice Bennathan — right before he sentenced Russell Brand. Listen to what he says:

 I don’t think I’ve ever heard a judge lecture a defendant for presenting a defense, but that’s what happened. He’s attacking Russell Brand for telling his lawyers to cross-examine the women accusing him of serious, horrific crimes. We’re supposed to feel bad that these women had to answer questions on the witness stand, with their credibility called into question, as if they’re somehow being “re-victimized” again or whatever. 

In other words, he’s telling Russell Brand that he should’ve just pleaded 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 messages since this 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 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’ve just accepted his fate the moment the British government decided to destroy him for becoming a conservative. That’s what the judge is saying.

Keep in mind — the jury acquitted Russell Brand on several of the charges that were brought against him. So the cross-examinations were obviously successful, in part. What happened is that the jury dismissed the charges where the women’s story changed, where 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 happened (So basically, in every case, the convictions were based solely on the women’s testimony — it’s just a question of whether the woman repeated her claim to other people or not). 

If the judge had his way, Brand would’ve 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 he wants to pay “tribute” to. Perhaps he wanted Brand to present evidence of his own guilt and then plead for a longer sentence. This 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. Begrudgingly, he won’t tack on 5 years to the sentence because the concept of “cross-examination” exists. What a magnanimous gesture. 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 that the judge said this, as we all know, is a pretty clear indication that he harbors resentment toward Russell Brand for daring to stand up to the inquisition. There’s no way he didn’t sentence him to a longer sentence because of it. After all, Brand got a much harsher sentence than murderers and child predators. You can kill someone in Britain and get 5 years in prison. The judge will make excuses for you, saying you “momentarily lost control” — especially if you’re a Muslim, a woman, or identify as transgender. 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.

The foundational legal principle that a defendant is allowed to defend himself — it’s right there in the name, actually — was held against Brand. The other foundational legal principle of “beyond a reasonable doubt” was suspended entirely in order to get Brand into a prison cell. You may believe he is guilty because, in your mind, he seems like the kind of guy who would do 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 would be your opinion. I wouldn’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 was — and the prosecution did not disprove any of those scenarios. Yes, all the defense needs to do is establish that there are plausible scenarios where the defendant is not guilty. It’s up to the prosecution to actively demonstrate that no such scenarios exist. They didn’t. Not even close. They didn’t come within a mile of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

The standard was simply disregarded in Brand’s case. And if it can be disregarded in his case, it can be disregarded in yours. Whether you live in the U.S. or the UK, a precedent has been set.  

Oh, 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 “un-personed” Russell Brand:

They’ve deleted his Instagram account and prevented anyone from seeing his profile. It’s as if he never existed. Especially as the Left regains power, this is going to become much more common again. The censorship of 2020 is going to pale in comparison.

This travesty of justice — really it was a political hit job — is 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. Even as you uncover evidence that disproves the allegations against you — even as you conclusively demonstrate that you’re innocent — these people will not yield. They will not admit they made a mistake. Instead, they will 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 discussed the case. 

As you may recall, an adult woman voluntarily engaged in group sexual activity at a Cornell frat house, where everyone was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. After the fact, she repeatedly states — in writing — that nothing illegal happened and that she felt empowered by the whole experience. Then she gets disinvited from the fraternity’s Halloween party and suddenly decides that she was actually a victim. 

She starts sending texts designed to entrap the men. She goes to the police (who quickly determine that, even if all of her allegations were true, no crime had occurred). And then, two years later, she gets a strip-mall lawyer to file a “bombshell lawsuit,” complete with tons of lurid and totally unverified claims, where she changes her version of events once again — this time, to directly accuse the men of serious criminal conduct.

That’s the outline of the story. None of those facts are in dispute. The appropriate response, given this evidence, is to simply ignore this woman because she has no credibility whatsoever. Actually, the best response would be to charge her with a crime for making false accusations and then, after she’s convicted, put her in prison. But that’s never going to happen. 

In the modern justice system, there is essentially no penalty, no disincentive, for falsely accusing men of sexual assault. The only thing stopping a woman from doing it is her own soul. If she doesn’t have one, then all bets are off. 

Instead, Cornell has descended into a level of hysteria that rivals the Salem Witch Trials except in reverse because the witches are doing the burning this time. Now they’re citing a bogus survey about how 1/3 of women at Cornell have supposedly “experienced nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation.” 

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 nice, quiet Ivy League campus is actually more dangerous than the worst third-world hellhole you can find anywhere on earth. 

If the women at Cornell actually believed it was true, they would all withdraw from the school immediately. Why would you pay exorbitant fees to spend four years in a rape dungeon? But they haven’t done that. 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, 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. 

Of course, the survey is not accurate. Conveniently enough, it had 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. Our society goes to great lengths to convince women that they’ve been assaulted. Then researchers come along and ask them if they’ve been assaulted. We’re supposed to be shocked when a bunch of them say “yes.” 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: “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 that they want the school’s entire administration to be fired. Here’s how one Cornell professor — a woman who teaches “music” — described the vote:

Cornell University’s Faculty Senate approved a resolution expressing no confidence in the university’s administration, following weeks of outrage over the university’s handling of sexual assault allegations.

“We are the faculty, we are the people that look after and shepherd these students who need us,” associate professor Ariana Kim told @lilialuciano following the vote.

The vote, which passed 75-50, is largely symbolic and does not require university leadership to step down. Five faculty senators abstained and five others did not vote.

— CBS News (@CBSNews) November 7, 2026

Source: @CBSNews/X.com

Notice how this female music professor does not mention anything about the actual facts of this alleged “gang rape,” or how the administration supposedly “mishandled” the allegations. Instead, she talks in very broad, emotional terms about providing “support” for students and how the resolution “feels good.”

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 destroy the official narrative — we need to spend some time looking at the video from the Cornell faculty meeting last month, where they passed this “no confidence vote” in Cornell leadership. 

Credit where it’s due — the journalist Michael Tracey 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). 

Let’s start with a student who spoke at the faculty meeting to relay her dire concerns. This is some of the most unhinged, delusional footage you’ll ever see. And keep in mind, she’s representative of about 95% of students at Cornell:

Cornell student addresses October 28 meeting of the Faculty Senate, claims she and fellow students have been “barely able to go to class” because they’re so emotionally ravaged by the notorious Jane Doe allegations.

Also note: in her impassioned little speech, this student relays the tale of the Jane Doe Gang Rape as though it’s been established as conclusive fact — in part based on the myth she’s evidently absorbed that the Gang Rape scandal was heroically uncovered by brave student journalists, which is complete garbage. Again, the Cornell Daily Sun simply regurgitated the civil complaint crafted by Jane Doe’s huckster lawyer, Thomas Giuffra, and were then showered in totally nonsensical accolades, including by the NYT, as though they’d accomplished some incredible feat of audacious investigative reporting.

Amusingly, the student describes Jane Doe as having been “un-consensually” Gang Raped. Just checking: is there a “consensual” way to Gang Rape someone???

She also repeats the false claim that Jane Doe was allegedly Gang Raped “by seven men for seven hours.” This is not even what’s alleged in the Giuffra civil complaint! It’s just what he strategically and sleazily tried to give the impression of — by initially ascribing collective culpability for the purported Gang Rape to all seven defendants, and then much later in the lawsuit cursorily clarifying that multiple of the defendants were not even being ACCUSED of engaging in any sexual contact whatsoever with Jane Doe. Mission Accomplished, however, because the luridly sensationalized “seven man seven hour Gang Rape” folklore has clearly taken hold.

Also note: this student claims she feels “in danger” at Cornell — for no particular reason, it would seem, other than that she’s apparently observed female students walking around “dangerously intoxicated” — including “past midnight” (????) — and “no one stops and helps them.” (What unsolicited “help” are people supposed to stop and provide these adult females, exactly???)

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 30, 2026

Source: @mtracey/X.com

Yes, students were “barely able to go to class” over this alleged “gang rape” that lasted over 7 hours. First of all, it really needs to be said that Leftists love to use the most incendiary language they possibly can.

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 same thing with Trump’s criminal convictions when they said he was a “felon” who was convicted of “34 counts” or whatever. They know that, if you mention 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. 

Instead, they called Trump a “34-time convicted felon” so that, if you weren’t paying attention, you’d assume he actually committed a real crime. They do the same thing when they talk about how thugs like Michael Brown were “unarmed teenagers” while omitting the fact that they were in the process of violently attacking police officers when they were shot.

Along the same lines, when Leftists say that the Cornell incident was a “gang rape,” and that students are “terrified” of walking around campus, they’re trying to get you to imagine a situation where women are being snatched off the street 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 7 hours. 

In reality, if you don’t get high and drunk and voluntarily participate in an orgy, then nothing’s going to happen to you. There are no roving gangs of Cornell rapists lurking behind the school library, waiting to pounce. Upstate New York isn’t Mogadishu — at least not yet. 

The very leftists 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 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:

i luv you king. … At the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w u and matt, so anything anyone has to say about the gangbang is out of their jurisdiction. … insane/jaw-dropping. … if you have any regrets or anything you want to talk about i am 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 and sh*t is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those are not texts that you send to someone who just kidnapped you and physically abused you for 7 hours or whatever. 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 anyone who would be critical of it. 

She tries to comfort the man in case he has any “regrets.” If anything, this is the kind of text that the rapist might send to the person who was raped. It makes her seem like the initiator, if not the aggressor. You could probably make a better case for that than the reverse. Things only changed when she discovered, as she put it, “my reputation is destroyed and i’m utterly ashamed.” Then, weeks later, they canceled her invite to the Halloween party at the frat. The rest was history.

The other extraordinary part of the clip of the student speaking out against “gang rapes” is that she says 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 nonexistent roving Cornell rape gangs are going to descend on them? How paternalistic do we need to be to meet the demands of these feminist nutcases? Do women need chaperones whenever they’re out in public? If a woman goes out and decides to get drunk, and then has to walk home, how is that anyone else’s problem or fault? The woman in the clip saw a female drunkard stumbling around at midnight and immediately determined that the drunk woman’s behavior is the fault of every man on campus? 

By the way — and this is not an incidental point — the proliferation of false accusations just makes 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. If he escorts her home or gives her a ride in his car, 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 suddenly this act of “helping” becomes, after the fact, kidnapping and rape. So, no, there will be no helping. 

You might be tempted to dismiss this footage because it’s just some dumb student, but the Cornell faculty was even worse:

Cornell finally released footage from the October 14 meeting of the Faculty Senate. It’s somehow worse than even I would have imagined.

READ MORE: https://t.co/lT7sQqWYK3 https://t.co/YR4mxuaoPm

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 19, 2026

Source: @mtracey/X.com

It’s a question so idiotic that it legitimately left the guy speechless. The president of Cornell could not believe what he was hearing. In case you couldn’t hear it, the question — which came from a professor in Asian studies — was, “Maybe I’m dumb, but I really want an answer to this: Is rape a less destructive expressive activity than protesting against genocide?”

The answer to that question is, “Yes, you are dumb. You are extremely, hopelessly stupid. And it’s a disgrace to the entire country — not just Cornell — that you are a professor who’s responsible for educating students.” 

Even putting aside the point she was trying to make, the question itself is incoherent. It’s gibberish. No one talks like this. If you’re going to do a gotcha question, the words have to gel together in a way that makes sense. People are supposed to hear a gotcha question and go, “Oh damn, she really showed him.” They’re not supposed to say, “Can this woman speak English?” 

If you try to analyze what she’s saying — it’s supposed to be a catty way to make the claim that Cornell treats rapists better than the students who protested for Gaza on campus a couple of years ago. Of course the fundamental problem with the reasoning here is that the “Cornell 7” didn’t actually rape anyone. Meanwhile, the Gaza protesters set up illegal encampments, assaulted police officers, defaced statues and buildings, and blocked entrance to the dining hall and the library. In other words, they committed obvious, verifiable crimes in plain view of police officers (and everyone else). 

They were not accused of crimes on the basis of a civil lawsuit filed two years after the fact and based on the narrative of a woman who’s repeatedly changed her story. Other than that, it’s a perfect analogy. The female Asian studies professor really nailed it. This is a kind of Tourette’s syndrome that leftists — especially leftist academics — have now. 

Any time you try to talk about any issue, they’ll shout, “Oh yeah? Well, is that worse than the genocide in Gaza?” Even though, invariably, the 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 will 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, yes, I do care more about a great many issues than anything that is happening or has ever happened in Gaza. I actually don’t care about Gaza at all. It’s not my country or my problem. It’s not even on my list of top 500 concerns. 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. You don’t stop to think about any of 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 that first-year students are “terrified” and “feel unsafe,” presumably because their teachers are telling them to feel “terrified” and “unsafe.” This is one of the many reasons why it’s a bad idea to send your children to these overwhelmingly Left-wing schools. 

The 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. 

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.” They’re willing to invent that systemic injustice, if they have to. Meanwhile the scientists  — for the most part anyway — are interested in solving actual problems, rather than doing interviews with The New York Times.

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 surfaces to bury the narrative even further. This is from 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 sorority’s reputation:

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 have threatened the entire sorority’s 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 disappointmentwithin a few days of the incident, she wrote to one of the men, “bro everyone knows i’m incredibly stressed out.” 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 adventuress, 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.

That passage is referring to texts unearthed by The New York Times a few days ago. Every single one of them is devastating for this woman’s lawsuit. We’ll start with a text that was sent on October 21st, 2024, at around 6 p.m. from one of the fraternity members she’s now accusing of rape. This is the day after the alleged attack. He writes:

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 do not know what I said. I want to make amends with you because I’m not a mean person. … Scotty also said he’s sorry and should have never been in that room.

The accuser responds:

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 cause like that was obv an insane night and i think everyone was really confused, drunk, high, and nervous. i really do still think highly of chi phi and im 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 yall around. while we’re all obviously denying what happened to anyone who asks, i hope that we can joke about all this (in private obv) later down the line  also i do remember there were two scotty’s?? unless i was getting f—’d 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 wellbeing. sometimes it’s easy to feel a little dehumanized in a heated sexual situation and i appreciated his pausing for me to collect myself. if u wouldn’t mind telling him i said thank u that would be great <3.

The male student responds that, yes, there were two Scottys present. She responds:

i think we all have a soul bond now cause very few people can say they’ve had an experience like that. while 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 scotty’s that was literally the trippiest part of the night.

Shortly afterwards, she texts another male student she’s now accusing of rape. She writes:

it’ll be funny in a couple months … we should smoke again sometime but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and 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 she “marked it on rice purity” 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, she’s bragging about it, saying it was a wild experience that she can tell her future kids (this is the “mom lore” part of the text). 

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, “Are Chi Phi brothers Crips or Bloods because I hear they have been doing hell Gang Banging?” Another post reads, “They do drugs and gang r*ped a sophomore. Report them.”

Supposedly, these posts changed the woman’s view of what happened that night. Of course, since they’re 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. We have no idea. 

Then we get to the key messages 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. She writes, per The New York Times:

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 phi girl started it. she had a threesome but that’s it. … per usual, people love to blame women for being abuse victims, or make them out to be sluts. Always blaming the victim not the rapist.

Reading between the lines, what this text means is that, while the accuser was downplaying what happened — suggesting it was a wild and consensual encounter — senior members of her sorority were indeed becoming very 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 the senior sorority member, in this message, floats an alternative. She suggests that, even if the “rumors” are correct, their sorority is still insulated from responsibility — because in that scenario “it would be rape.” She never explains how exactly she’d come to this conclusion or what facts would justify this charge. She had no evidence to support this accusation whatsoever. But she mentions it, in this text thread, as a way for the sorority to reclaim the moral high ground. And it’s a very common impulse, particularly in left-wing circles, where victimhood is the most important currency.

As Kat Rosenfield (the journalist who wrote the Free Press article) put it:

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.

Once the sorority began talking like this, it’s natural to assume that the idea eventually filtered down to the accuser. Her friends and sorority members were giving her an “out.” The fraternity — in the eyes of the accuser — gave her a reason to take it.

Then comes the critical October 30th text, the night before the Halloween Party, where the fraternity president — after initially saying the accuser was welcome at the frat house — disinvites her from the party. She’s clearly furious about it. Again, from The New York Times:

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. yall aren’t my friends. yall are covering your asses. [The fraternity president] can go f—- himself. I’m done. he is not a friend of mine.

This is when she goes scorched earth. 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. 

Then on November 3, 2024, for the first time, she sends a text where she suggests she was assaulted:

let’s be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual.

After that, she goes to the ER and claims she was assaulted. This is a sequence of events that, obviously, does not support any lawsuit against these Cornell students, much less criminal charges. It’s a farce that New York Attorney General Letitia James was ever appointed to investigate this case (And it’s no accident that she stepped aside and appointed a former federal prosecutor to handle it, precisely one day after the midterm elections). 

This whole case was a political operation by the Democrat Party to mobilize female voters ahead of the midterms. 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 who was destroying their reputation).

It makes you wonder about those allegations against Russell Brand and all of the other allegations like this — which only surface months or even years after the fact. A lot of women come to regret their behavior — and when they do so, their friends are often very willing to help them come to an “alternative explanation” for what happened. If they arrive at this “alternative explanation,” the legal system will help them every step of the way. 

The normal rules are inverted. The accuser is presumed to be correct. The defendant is presumed to be guilty. And if he tries to defend himself, the judge will attack him during sentencing. One of the biggest victories of the Trump administration has been reforming the Title IX 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 history and the right to publicly identify their accusers. Enough with the “Jane Doe” nonsense. 

Above all else, we need real consequences for women who make these false accusations. Whatever crime they falsely accused someone of committing — they should get an equivalent punishment for that crime. Lock these people up and the false allegations will stop. Until then, stay far away from college campuses like this. 

Of course, avoid these kinds of casual encounters entirely. It’s not worth it. If they can delete Russell Brand from the Internet and from free society, they can do it to you as well. They’re certainly looking for more lives to destroy. 

After the hysteria over these cases — which, somehow, is still continuing to this day — the best decision you can make is to never give them the opportunity.

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

Donate to GOTPeople.org