MTracey podcast - Time to discuss the Cornell r*pe fiasco

Episode Date: September 30, 2026

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

I know I certainly do. So we're going to spend about, I don't know, an hour and 15 minutes talking about Tiddly Winks. So if you thought something else is going to be under discussion, you really miss the vote. I'm trying to see if I can figure out how to get a link to tweet. There we go. Tweet this out if you don't mind.

And our pal Richard, the freak should be joining momentarily. And, you know, I think we're going to get, maybe talk about the weather. We're going to talk about our hopes for the future. Well, maybe even talk about our childhoods. That's the kind of thing we're going to be discussing. So if that's not what you want to discuss today,

then again, you're in the wrong live stream. Michael Tracy. Oh, there he is. Hold on. Let me plug in my stupid headflesh. Let me share. this with my fans. I just,

I just tweeted, I just tweeted, talking to rape with Richard. Raping with Richard. Talking rape. T-L-K-I. Raping up a storm. Let's see here.

That's fun. Tracy. Okay, so you're the guy I go to. I don't know when I became this guy. I didn't ask to become this guy. Well, it must be grueling. even given your psychological makeup.

Hold on. Talking the core now, rape, a fiasco situation. Watch it. Tracy now. All we are saying. Come join two men. Give rape a chance.

Come join us. I'm sorry. Rape humor. Let me think. I need to think. I need to think. A good tweet. Come join us.

All we are saying is give rape a chance. Come join us as two men who always have women's concern. No, what can I say? Always have women's back. We got women from the back. No, no, no, no, no, no. No double entendre. Talking rape, there is.

Talking rape should be like a name of a regular show. Come join us as we discuss. We have a nuanced conversation. Let us give thanks about consent. It's time to have a conversation. About the latest controversy. That's it. I give up.

Come join us as we have a new... So boring. I know, I know. I mean, I can't think right now. It's on a turn of thinking, talk of the same here. I post it to Sugstack 2. And then there we go.

I told everybody before you joined that we're going to be talking about subjects like our favorite board games, our hopes for the future. Okay. So listen, I don't follow these stories. This is a passion of yours. It's not, well, you still, hold on a second. When you just declare that it's a passion of mine, people are going to hear that and think something squalid. Because it's not a passion of mine. Well, you are.

I don't know what it is. You are always the person. Nobody else seems prepared to take any kind of rational approach to any of it, which is why I got ended up being thrust into Epstein. When stuff like this arises like Platner or, you know, Swalwell or something like nobody, everybody's so muzzled. But I see right-wing people making points that this is not like Epstein. Epstein, there really was a gap in the, in the discourse.

This is where I see right-wing people saying stuff that. that, you know, is pretty spicy and goes against the gel philip. Yeah, maybe so, maybe so. So, yeah, I don't know. But they're coming at it from, oh, we're waging this interminable online gender war. So this is just another front in our gender war battle. So they're going to end up saying stupid stuff to like in full, to have their Manosphere cheering section launch into applause, which is like not.

really my approach so what I'm sure they'll say edgy or spicy stuff but it's all going to be you know our word um okay so my understanding my understanding of the situation just that I gathered from tweets

is that there was this girl at Cornell went to a party um she uh she had sex she agreed to have she agreed to have sex with two men they went into a room okay tell me stop me when I'm wrong

well I mean but the we we got to elaborate on just that part so far, because this might be the strangest part of all, which I still fully understand. I even consulted a gay confidant yesterday to see if they had any insight. And they were just as befuddled as I am. I guess it's a generational thing.

What she apparently did, or the reason that she voluntarily and consensually entered into the initial sexual encounter, according to a typewritten six-page single-spaced statement that she, on her own volition, submitted about two and a half weeks after the initial incident in October 2024, was that she was attracted to one of the guys at this frat gathering. She's in a sorority, right, at Cornell. And the guy, as they're dancing, they're dancing,

flirtatiously, right? And they transition to a quieter space, it says, in the statement. And the guy asks her, hey, do you want to like transition to some kind of sexual encounter? And we're going to have my bro come in. And the woman, this girl apparently says, yes, she wants to do that because that makes her think that both guys are gay. And she, that's her inference that they're gay.

That they're gay. That's the reason she thought they were gay. She says that she made the inference that the two guys were gay or have a gay, I don't know, partners. They didn't say they were gay. She just thought they were gay because they both wanted to. We're just going on excerpts of her statement that were then relayed this week by the Tompkins County, New York district attorney. Okay. So the reason why she was enticed to consensually join in this.

sexual encounter was because she believed that the two guys were gay and that's why she began to have vaginal and oral sex with the two guys who she believed to be gay. Now, I feel I have to commend the gay movement or the LGBTQIA plus plus movement if

their latest achievement is to apparently convince girls. Let's get the facts before we go into commentary. No, no, I'm giving no. This is pretty much just laying out the facts. Because apparently they've convinced, or this girl became convinced,

that she was having gay sex of some kind with two guys by having vaginal and oral sex with them. At the same time. Yeah. So I'm still a little confused about the dynamic there. But maybe you can explain, since you're much more attuned to this sort of thing. Okay.

Anyways, I just, I want to get all the facts there, because you know the facts better than, better than me. Okay, so she's, she's doing this. And then they start, is this when they start texting other guys and say free pussy? Not initially as bad, as I understand it. I mean, they should put out all the information so we can have a better and more complete understanding. I think apparently, you know, so the sexual activity occurs initially with the two gentlemen, who she understands to be gay somehow. And then as time goes on, one of the gentlemen is, you know, claims that he's tired and needs to report.

Here we have someone who had a good comment that maybe sheds light on the thing you're wondering about. Gabriel Sorensen. This is an overreach. She probably assumed they would do each other like two women at an MFF three-sum for the man's pleasure. I understand. Do you understand now? No. Okay.

So if you do a three-sum with a male. Okay. Two women. I mean, how do you know, Gabrielle? I mean, how do you know? I don't know. She's just giving a theory. Like, you're giving theories.

This is an overreach. What does that mean in overreach? I'm just describing to you. You're just describing her. No, you're describing her, like, her thinking as kind of. No, I'm not. I'm describing what she wrote. You're describing it.

Gabriel is given, is giving a explanation that. No, I'm saying this is what she wrote. She wrote. I know that's what she wrote. I know that's what she wrote, because he understood the two men to be gay. Okay, okay. And Gabriel, and you said it doesn't make sense because she was doing this and this, and she did it. I think you're overreaching, Gabriel. That's not being gay. But then Gabriel says maybe, here's another theory, Michael. Who knows what even being gay is anymore? Maybe it's just open to interpretation. Maybe we can make a sense of her if she thought. I mean, you're probably gay. That's your answer.

You mean, everybody can be gay in a way, I guess. I don't know anymore. I mean, it's hard to even pick. down what it means. Okay. Well, anyways, maybe she thought, I think this is interesting because I don't think this is what's going on, but it's like if a woman was thinking this

in this situation, that is a kind of a cultural. There's something, I think these, I think it's got something to do with the greater prevalence notions of gender fluidity and sexual fluidity

around that generation. She said she was curious, this is what this guy says. You tell me if this is in the documents or whatever. She said she was curious to do it reason because she thought the dudes would act gay with each other and she liked that. So she was going to go in and watch them peg each other.

Would act gay with each other as they're having sex with her? I don't know. She would watch and maybe take liberties. I don't know. Okay, now we're speculating. I really just tried to relay what it is that she wrote and then was then relayed by the district attorney. Okay.

I don't know what else the thinking was about. Okay. Well, you want to take it. That's what I said. Let's get to the facts. You got hung up on this. Those are the facts. I know, no, you wouldn't get to the facts.

We've gotten two seconds in. So, like, just describe it in the neutral way. And you just kept, you went on this right about gay. I tried to describe it in a natural way. And they don't like what other people speculate on this gay stuff. But you're speculating on the gay stuff. I, that's all. All right.

All right. Let's fit it. Okay. Okay. So, I don't even know. So, I mean, so, pause, pause. We don't have the full chronology. Okay.

Right. Understood. We, we, it's, it's. Whatever was put into the civil complaint, right, the lawsuit that was filed a week or a half ago or so, is by its nature going to be a particular slant on what the claimed chronology is that isn't furtherance of the interest of the plaintiff. I understood.

So we, this is all her side of this story. Okay. Other than that, we do have the DA, doing something unusual. You won't tell me what her side of the... Let's just finish. Tell me her side of the story.

And then we can talk about the DA. Her side of the story, okay, I guess her side of the story is roughly that this sexual encounter then stretched on for many hours, okay, where there are multiple rounds of ketamine snorted or something and everybody was inebriated.

One of the first of the two guys that she initiated the sexual encounter with decided he was tired, or I think it's claiming he lost an erection. Okay. So he took like a, nap for a bit.

And then at some point, another guy comes in the room. Now, we don't know the exact timing as to when that text or Snapchat chain was sent. People can correct me if they know the exact timestamp on that. But I guess the idea, according to her, is that multiple bros, frat brothers, whatever,

came into this room and began to participate in some form or fashion in the, this sort of indefinite sexual encounter that she was involved in. So they came in and started to participate with her. So yeah, I guess is that while she consent, she says that she consented to the first, you know, threesome or group sex encounter with the two guys.

After that, things, uh, she might not have overtly objected, but maybe she had less enthusiasm for just a, you know, a, a parade of guys coming in.

and out of the room, which, I mean, you can understand it away. Okay. Okay. And her story, whenever she said, is this from her story that whenever she said no, they stopped? That is, no, because she wouldn't put that in her complaint, of course. The complaint calls it a gang rape. Okay. So the, like it's in the Congo or something during the war zone.

Does it give details of what made it gang rape? Like, the way that it's described in the complaint, it's like the Congo in a war zone. Okay. So in her side of the story, they're just taking liberties and they're not, they're forcing. That's not in her side of the story insofar as the lawsuit, okay? But the DA is quoting from this letter that she wrote two and a half weeks after the alleged incident in 2024 in which he's saying that she described every sexual act as consensual. And on two occasions, I think, where a guy, like, reached to do something and she swatted him aside, they complied. Or like, they did not forcibly do anything.

Uh-huh. Right? So the DA says that the ingestion of the substances, she says, was consensual or on her own accord, as was every sex act. Therefore, the DA concluded at the time that nothing she described in her single-spaced six-page comprehensive letter would rise to the level of a criminal offense in New York State. What year was this? It was 2024. It was October of 2024. October 19th, 2024, then she submits this letter on November 8th, 2024.

This is pure speculation, I'll admit, but I couldn't help but notice that there was like a two and a half week gap between the incident and the submission of the six-page letter. And in the lawsuit, it says that, I can't remember if the lawsuit or in the DA summary, that friends encouraged her at a certain point to submit something to Cornell University. police. That happens on November 8th. Richard, do you recall any particular event that might have taken place on November 5th, 2024? Yeah, I don't know. There was a traumatic, it was a traumatic time for women is what you're getting at. Well, yeah, because like, I'm sorry, they probably would have been in grief and anxiety stricken and mourning and so forth because the rapist and chief just got reelected by their lights, correct? So you could imagine, again, speculation, but you could imagine

some of these friends being involved in some of these like advocacy or activism oriented organizations on campus, which are very prevalent about like rape culture, opposing rape culture and that kind of thing. Where it's like impart to her, look, we all have to do our part. We all have to fight back. I think you're engaging in, see, I think you're kind of biased. You're engaging in speculation that makes these people of bring people. I'm a minute and speculation. I know, but we can also speculate the other way.

And we could sit here and we can come up with speculation. Okay, speculate the other way then. Who's stopping you? Okay. She was drunk. She was scared. She was intimidated. She's in a room alone with five men on drugs.

Wait, no, I'm not speculating about that. I'm speculating about what role the presidential election could have potentially had in incentivizing the submission of the statement. But what about the, what about we can, we can also speculate like the women's situation, right? She was in a room with five guys. I think there is an assumption by some people. that a woman would not agree to this. Like, a woman would not agree to an orgy with six men.

That it would be unusual. And there could be some kind of intimidation. They could be subtle. Did she ever claim her hand? We don't know for sure. That there was, like, subtle intimidation. Like, they're in the room. Maybe when she says, no, okay.

But they're in the room. They're effed up. They are, they are, you know, horny. They're aggressive. They're drunk. Like, is there an indication she might have been scared at some point? I know, not that I know of. Not that she conveyed in any way to the DA in her comprehensive six-page statement that we know about.

That we know about. And also, by the way, we also don't know that like there were six guys in a room at any get. We don't know. Apparently all seven of these guys were not in the room at any given time together. Okay. It was just six, seven guys at some point were in the room. And we don't know that there were, we don't even know that all seven of the. them or even alleged to have taken part

to any sex act. In fact, what about, what about the, what about the, what about the, denies that he had, he engaged in any sex act at all.

What about her hiding under the covers? What's that? Hiding under, I don't know, I mean, I wasn't there. I know, but what does it, what does it say?

What is, why is that quote? I've seen that call floating around. What does it mean? Hiding under the covers? I don't know. Like, I mean, I don't know.

You tell me. I mean, what does it was scared. It's, it's the speculation. It goes back to the speculation I was giving. she was scared. I don't know.

So I didn't, she could have, I mean, she could have ran out. So the lawyer for one of the people that she's accused of gang rape, okay, says that he was never even alleged

until this lawsuit came out earlier this month. Because there was a whole protracted title nine process at Cornell following the submission of the statement to the DA. Over the course of that whole protracted title nine process, this particular

young man was never even accused of having engaged in any sex act with the girl. Also, never even accused of having seen her unclothed, never observed her in a state of any kind of incapacitation. So the idea that, I mean, so the way that this has been pumped out for PR reasons and for popular consumption to create the biggest possible uproar, which they succeeded to doing, is to give the idea that it was just this, you know, brutish, gang seven man gang rape which is like not at all in comportment with what the facts seem to be when they send them okay so um so here's gabriel again didn't she claim to have been physically hit to one of the docks and then somebody says on the buttocks during sex

i don't know is there any you have any view on that i don't i mean i'm not um i saw there was just today or in the past maybe last night there was a new report from CBS, New York or something, that after she gave the statement, the written statement to the DA, she then did a separate interview with Cornell University police that the DA said he was never informed of

or given the transcript of. That seems to have been done pursuant to the Title IX investigation rather than a criminal investigation per se, where at some point she says something about being hit. But my thing is, release all the documents, okay? Let's read the, full doc i mean this is now a big enough story

that i think people should want all the information to come out without having to piece together excerpts of things or surmise things right so i don't know what she's referring to when she when we get a little a little snippet of a quote saying that she was hit hit with what i mean i don't know maybe she's speaking metaphorically i don't know what that means uh okay um yeah okay so we i think we agree that it's like kind of ridiculous that uh the men

names get out there and people don't want her name out there, which I think is out there, right? I've seen things. I haven't, I don't know, they're just accounts, but they're all saying the same person. I mean, you got to take, okay, so, yeah, I spent all day, uh, Sudey. I spent a stupid amount of time should I try to confirm that that is the person. I think there's a pretty good high degree of certainty that that is the person I'm not going to name that person right now. They're very responsible. Well, I mean, I don't know. I mean, people think you could just blurt stuff out and like, no problem because you're hiding behind

some stupid dummy account. But yeah, it stands for a reason that that probably is the person for a bunch of different reasons. But you don't want to like report it conclusively unless like you're like 90- So these other men come over. But she's, that's only out because people did sleuthing

and because people who knew her at Cornell or where she's originally from in another state, no put out stuff. if there hadn't been that effort, you know, behind the scenes, then the name would probably be concealed in perpetuity because the practices in New York and other states, I think most, if not all states, is that if a person bringing a complaint,

a civil complaint, claims that they would suffer some sort of horrible torment or they would be endangered as a result of some sexually related accusations The court will enforce anonymity on their behalf. Let me ask you this. So this guy, Victor von Kroop says. Question. In the statement, she legit makes a statement to man one that I thought it was just going to be us. She's described passing out, and the next thing she remembers is two other men sleeping with her.

How is this consent? So is that your reading from her statement? Which statement? You mean the lawsuit? I don't know. Was that in any statement? I don't know. I don't know.

I'm not. She, I think, I think, But she passed out on the two men where, okay, if someone posts this in the chat then, if that, if this exists and who's all. I think I know what's being referred to. I have to go double check the exact wording. I mean, I'm not, look, the point is,

here's one of my broader issues. Okay, tell me what you think about this. I think there could have been elements of this whole encounter that maybe she looked on negatively. Okay, she went into it thinking that she was going to be with just these two guys precipitated by the guy that she liked and was attracted to,

okay? And then for whatever, you know, one thing leads to another, 2.30 in the morning in a frat house full of drunken idiot 20-year-olds, like stuff can happen. And she looks unfavorably at what the outcome was after seven hours, right?

But now, now that they're calling the whole encounter a gang rape. Okay, here's, so why can't certain things be sub-operably anymore and maybe require, I don't know, an apology, some sort of redress, some sort of, I don't know, restorative action. Who knows how to characterize it exactly without everything then being instantly escalated to rate, which then creates this whole fiasco, which doesn't actually improve the situation. Okay, but if that part is true, and we're kind of skipping over this important thing, if she wakes up and is having sex with too men, or she doesn't know or she didn't agree to have sex with, That sounds rape. That sounds like rape.

I mean, if there's an actual instance where she was literally unconscious. That's what this guy says. Yeah, I don't know. Who the hell is this child? I don't know. He's somebody in the chat. I mean, some idiot in the chat says something. So Richard just believes it.

I mean, whatever. So you're saying that to the D. So when she wrote six pages worth of, the D.A. says she described in meticulous detail the entire experience. She says that in her own. statement, you moron, says Victor. What statement? Which statement, Victor? The lawsuit two years later? You idiot? Okay, well, that's okay. Because if she was unconscious while sexual contact was made upon her, therefore could not, by definition consent, then that would be a crime under a New York state law, okay? So the DA could have then had grounds to prosecute. And I'm sorry, the district attorney of Tompkins County, New York, home to Ithaca. Cornell University

and Ithaca College is probably not going to like be super eager to sweep a gang rape of a 20-year-old Cornell student under the rug So shut up whoever that guy is in the chat So yeah So

So okay So let's distinguish So she doesn't allege something That is clearly rape In the initial letter she writes In November Which we don't have the entirety But we have

So yeah As far as we know And then now she is But now she is alleging rape. She's alleging things that sound like gang rape. Yeah. Okay. So she's like, Congo Warzone gang rape.

Okay. And so this is 20. Okay. So I agree. I mean, I agree with you. You can't have a story in 2024 and then a different story in 2026. And then say you're,

yeah, somehow, somehow you're working through your trauma with your plaintiff's attorney who is then using your, you're working through your trauma to try to extract millions of dollars and so. Victor has decided. he's going to get you kicked off of sub-second. He says, good luck.

Do it. Please do it. Do it. Just want of the source. He's going to call them. And he says, good luck with ears. This is bizarre.

I really wasn't interested in this, but I don't know that I've ever gotten as vicious to backlash to anything. Over such a contained period of time. Okay. I've got, I have the entire, 75% of Twitter X and all of Blue Sky. And I think Reddit and Instagram,

calling for my murder, death, you know, rape, trying to post my address and phone number. They're calling my parents. For some reason, they found my parents' information. My sister got a text message.

Can you guys not call my family members? I mean, I never said, okay, that I wanted to quote, docs this person. Revealing her identity, revealing the identity of a plaintiff in a lawsuit

using journalistic judgment as to why that would be in the public interest and be newsworthy is not me saying, oh, I was going to be on, a vengeance rampage against this girl. And post her home address, post her like relatives, names and information, post her social security number.

Obviously, these are people who are, this is an internet derangement, obviously. Yes, obviously you are better than these critics. So this is both right and left. Both right and left think it's doxing to report anything about somebody that they don't want reported. Yeah. Okay. I am, my heart bleeds here.

This is obviously this woman taking whatever story she gives makes, has made a terrible decision. She regrets it. Look, having sex with two men that you met at a party is never a good decision. Never. Maybe you're Ela. You are one in a million. Your psychology is one in a thousand or one in 10,000 women.

Or maybe that could be a choice that you can make, that you're not going to regret. That is not a bad decision. And then everything just follows. from there. Everything is like, oh, did she consent to this particular act or with this particular act with this person? It's like, no, she put in herself in a terrible, terrible situation. Why, you're laughing? Is that, is that not? Because there's some idiot in the chat, which I'm going to get rid of now. Who made their display name. Is it still Victor Vonne? No, they made their display name Mike, rape them all Tracy. That's pretty, I mean, that that made me do a real dumb

laugh. But anyway, sorry, go ahead. She walked a mile to get there at 11 pieces. She walked a mile. I mean, she walked a mile. I mean, she walked a mile. Whatever. Whatever you do. Walk a mile in her shoes, Richard. He walked 500 miles. No, it doesn't matter how many miles you walk. It's a bad.

Okay, so I don't know that I fully, I mean, I don't even think you have to go there. I don't know. We don't know the totality of human experience for college students or anybody else. You could imagine there are situations where there's some kind of group sex that, like, is welcomed and it's fine. And we never hear about it. Okay. So Brian Connolly says, CBS said today, they have the transcript of the statement given to the Cornop Police and that she said she was raped in it, but the DA says he did not see the transcript at the time.

Okay. Interesting. Interesting. No, I'll explain that. Hold on. This is worth explaining. Okay, so this is where the timeline comes in, Andy. October 19th is the initial incident.

Okay. She reports nothing, apparently, until November 8th. In the immediate aftermath, the following day, so October 20th, there are text messages that we have been reported on where she texts one of the people that she's now accusing of gang raping her and saying, she enjoyed the encounter. She wants to meet up again. This is the next day.

The next day. Then by November 8th, after quote unquote friends, encouraged her to do so, she drafts the six-page letter to the DA. Okay? Or that is submitted to the DA. Then you have the initiation

of a Title IX procedure, okay, which is like a kangaroo court thing that the administrators that these colleges are required to do under civil rights law, as you know. Richard. And so I think it's November 14th or something like that.

So after the DA statement where she then gives this interview to Cornell University police in which she says she's quoted as saying something like, I'm 100% confident I was raped. So she's revising the six page DA statement. She's revising what she said in the text messages the day after, which in which she also said, hey, let's do this again some time to the guy but maybe not have 5 million other guys you know parading into the room

she said something like none of the sexual stuff was illegal but maybe I prefer that we try a different course of action next time something like it like no not even in the same

stratosphere as now claiming a Congo war zone style gang rape we keep bringing up Congo here okay so let me see this this is okay so basically we do get a rape allegation. So, Soviets World War II gang. We get a rape allegation within a month.

Right. Okay. So there's a lot of stuff that happens between that and the rape allegation. We do get a rape allegation within a month, right? So first step, she texts a guy and says, I enjoyed it. A couple weeks later, Trump's election, which I don't know if that had anything do with it. I don't either.

That's speculation. And she writes this six-page letter. She used like a she-her and stuff, so I don't know. She used a she-her. Okay. I mean, if this is the correct person, like she goes by she, her, and whatnot, it's just just one indicia. And then, and then she eventually talks to the Title IX person, which doesn't get to the district attorney, and she says, I was raped, okay? Right.

Yeah, but we don't even have, we don't have the full transcript of that. I'm tired of these selective leagues. Get the full transcript. Because, like, at some point, it seems like her advisor. Wait, they have a trans, according to a transcript of the alleged victims interview with campus beliefs, obtained by CBS New York's mask. Masha Sedi from a source. So they have the transcript. Has CBS released the transcript?

Not the full one. No, they selectively quote, which is so annoying. Put the full transcript out. You know why they're not doing it? Because of this victim protection dogma where we can never identify this person ever.

She's an adult. Okay. She says she can say with 100% she's turning 22 in the next few weeks. Later in the encounter, she says, I was convinced with 100% confident. Okay, let's see this story. 100% confidence I was raped.

she describes gaps in memory. Twidal 9 investigator, a victim's advocate, and her advisor were in the room for the first day of the interview. She described drinking and using drugs, okay, she had gaps in her memory. She distinguished initial sextivity.

Okay, as much as I can because I was super gross. I'm laughing at some of these stupid comments. And then, of course, I was being hit at the same time, physically hit very hard. Well, Michael, that's, I mean, that's selective.

We don't have the whole transcript, but that sounds bad. Physically hit? What does that mean? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.

According to the transcript, she said she didn't remember the end of the night. She's being punched in the face or like what? I don't know. Didn't know how many people had six with her. Describe me what happened later tonight. Transcript says, I was 100% confidence. Investigator asked what Jane Doe told them in.

So what's the date that they say that that interview took place? This is the interview back in, it says back in, it's like November 12th or November 14th or something like that? Let's see. It's November 14th. It began the interview. Okay. So November 14th, she's 100% confident.

that she was raped. On the day after, within hours, she texts the guy saying, none of the sexual stuff was illegal. So what changed her? Why would she say that? Isn't that a weird thing to say? None of it was illegal?

Like, there was no, it's like a weird, it's like a weird, I think she was saying it's up to the effect of, look, none of the sexual stuff was illegal, but when we meet up next time and do some sexual stuff,

let's change it up so it's not the same as what happened. But none of it, to say none of it is illegal. I don't know. That's what she's saying. Ask her. Let's interview her. Okay. Richard, let's go do a... I've invited whoever wants to join me on a caravan to Ithaca. Listen, as...

We're going to do a press conference on the quad. If we just did something, Michael, and I say, I don't think that was illegal. It indicates that something is wrong. I wasn't just, like, enthusiastic and it was great. If, like, I have to say, that wasn't illegal. That is an indication. That's what I'm saying. Look, there could be gradations of severity of arm, right? Let's finish. Let's investigate.

Not everything needs to be rape. Something can be bad, but also. not necessarily rape. Before discussing what Jane Doe said to them when asked for sex, the transcript says the investigative warned her that this question may sound accusatory, but she needed specific answers. Jane Doe said she swatted one man's hand away and told him she was uncomfortable, uncomfortable.

She told another man no a few times or that she would know a few times or that she was too tired. Was it no or was it, eh, I'm tired. Yeah, she doesn't know whether she said no or if I'm tired, but either way, when she rebuffed, when she rebuffed to people, in those two instances, they did not proceed. Okay, so according to the transcript, the investigator letter asked whether she got tired of answering the men's questions and gave in. Yes.

Okay, so she got tired of answering questions and gave in. Yes, it was coercion. Yes, Jane Doe said, according to the transcript. She got tired of answering questions, it says? That's what it says in the CBS is they asked her. Did you just get tired of answering questions? Post the friggin. And then she goes, look, it's quoting very closely.

It's saying, and then she said, they asked her, did you get tired of answering questions and then just give it? And then she goes, yes, it was coercion. Yes, Jane Goe said, according to the transcript. She also says she was, quote, completely and totally incapacitated. She was the investigator documenting her account, reading it back, and asking her to clarify. It doesn't it say that she has like some sort of advisor with her? Okay, whatever.

I mean, okay. So that's basically the transcript. So, look, I think that there is. I think that there. Also, bear in mind, right? She says 100% I was raped. How come then it wasn't until September of 2020. 24 that any public allegation to this effect is made.

The DA has said, look, this lawyer knows how to contact me. I haven't heard from them for two years. Okay, well, whatever, whether her lawyer did a good job or not is. No, he does do a good job. He did a good job making a PR spectacle, not actually getting justice for some alleged crime. It's to extract a settlement from an institution with a big endowment. Yeah.

Okay. So I think that like, it seems to me that it seems from this transcript that basically she was really drunk. She got tired of answering questions and gave it. She didn't want to do this and ended up doing it. And she didn't take full responsibility of saying no or running out of the running. Hold on a second. She didn't want to answer any more questions in the interview or in the sexual. No, in the sex. They were like kept asking her and she gave in and said that was that as coercion, not. Okay. And not wanting to answer their questions anymore. I mean, by the definition,

so here's why some of the students, two of the students, I think, ended up getting expelled, right? So they got expelled at the time. Cornell, two of them ended up apparently getting expelled.

Because Cornell in the student handbook or the student code of conduct, they use affirmative consent as the operative. Okay. And from that standard, everyone is guilty here. Yeah. By that standard.

Maybe not the two first two. Yeah. She affirmatively consent. censored to the first two. No, yeah, yeah. But if she, if she just failed to express non-consent, then in the subsequent encounters, as the night wore on and more ketamine was snorted, then the guy, any guy who failed to obtain affirmative consent could, is in violation of the.

Yeah. So they got kicked out back in 2024. I think two of them, two of the seven did. Okay. Interesting. Okay. I don't know which ones in particular. Uh-huh.

So this was, they, they, they, they, meant the standard of rape in or sexual assault in Cornell, but not the state of New York. I think it's, it's, they met the standard of not obtaining affirmative consent. Yeah, right, which is the Cornell standard. But in the state of New York criminal justice system, the DA thought that they weren't, they hadn't meant it the standard, right? Without seeing this thing. I mean, potentially, although what the DA said is that everything that she said in her own

statement recounting her own experiences was exculpatory because she's what she recorded and documented in that statement of her own volition that it was all consensual and on her and voluntarily partaken in that was the original so it wasn't just that the conduct failed to like rise to a certain standard is that she

apparently exonerated everybody yeah I think maybe she wrote about how it was an unideal situation maybe in some way yeah but in terms of any kind of criminal culpability or even guilty for violating a code of conduct. She exculpated them. This is sad. The rhinoids are kind of correct on this. I mean, they are kind of correct.

We are lying to women. We are telling them that they just kind of want to experiment with men in this way, that they want to have casual sex with men while drawn. They don't. They might think they do, but they are going to regret it, and they are going to hate what they've done, and they're going to hate themselves, and everyone's going to laugh at them.

And then when everyone laughs at them, they are going to feel bad and they are going to go back and remember the event in the worst way possible. That's the truth. I don't fully, I think it's a two of a sweeping of a statement. I don't fully agree with that. I think I don't think, I don't think, I think what my supposition here is that in terms of what transpired in the actual sexual encounter, if it was, if it had just been left at that, meaning there weren't any second or third order development stemming from it, then maybe it would

have just been a forgettable thing that never would have had to be revisited or turned to any kind of debacle. However, when rumors spread about it, okay, I could imagine the girl being, feeling much more harm by the spread of the rumors

than about the actual sexual activity. And then what's this other group of maybe like potentially activist and minded girls sets upon her and encourages her to like maybe, you know, resist and oppose Trump by submitting a statement,

then that kind of creates a snowball effect of like, just kind of turning into a giant fiasco, and then she gets embroiled in this protracted title nine thing. She ends up leaving the university, okay? So she withdraws from the university. They won't give her,

they won't give her a refund for a semester for her parents. This woman, they won't give her a refund. So then two and a half years, so then two years later, look, I'm sure she looks at Cornell with some degree of resentment, right? Of course she does, yeah. So how can I get my retribution?

Well, I can bring this big blockbuster lawsuit where now she's suing the four, the seven guys individually, Cornell is an institution, her own sorority, the fraternity, the bar where she went to earlier in the night. She's suing everybody. It's like she wants to raise all of Ithaca, New York to the ground. You're right. The aspect of it that you are focused on, I agree with. She made a bad decision.

She regretted it. She went back and she's trying to profit off it. Maybe it would have been a fine, uneventful decision had the second and third order events not taken place. Yes, I know. And that's why. The social activity itself might have not been that hugely regretful. And that's why I'm taking the broader perspective.

And I am saying that this group sex, drunk group sex thing was a bad idea. And every woman should know that everyone, the men who you do it with will have contempt for you. They will send out text messages inviting their buddies. Other women and men will laugh at you after this happens. I don't know. She watched sex in the city or something and thought that this was like a rational thing to do. And it wasn't. Do they have threysomes in sex in the city? I don't know. I never saw it. Did they ever have three sums? You know, it's very interesting. It was really not a show for the male gays. So they did not do threysms as far as I watched the entire series at the time. I don't remember any three sums. You did? I don't know why. I mean, I find that a little surprise. It was a cultural phenomenon.

I just point it weird to picture you sitting and watching the entire series of since I'm not I watch a lot of TV shows I I review them they're part of my job but anyways she watched what's your drop description maybe I'm old maybe I'm watched maybe I'm I'm old I'm thinking of TV 10 15 years ago someone says she watched euphoria okay that she probably yeah that sounds more accurate I've never seen euphoria either but I'm okay yeah I'm I'm behind the times so you for Richard I don't think she was even born when second the city started. She could have,

I know, I know. I remember being in college and women would, like, steal lines from the sex in the city. It was so, uh,

influential that they like, women really used it as like the Quran, like they're kind of, I just watch Lost in college. I don't remember there, there wasn't like, that wasn't really sexually relevant. But anyways,

euphoria, it's gotten dumber. You four, I think that the, the, the, uh, the,

uh, the, uh, the, the, uh, I watched like a few, I watched like a few,

I watched like half an episode of before, yeah, that's what that's what siddey right yeah I can't take it it's just it's just really bad content anyways

you should be you should go join the you should go right for the federalist Michael because you should you should understand the broader it's okay I'm sorry I shouldn't say that because you don't have to be an idiot to have this to write for the federal you have to be an idiot so

some kind of like arbitrary pro-Trump point yeah this is just like Jack Smith like somehow like somehow like indoors blockading the straight of form who's. Yeah.

Anyways, there's a broader lesson here. There are, people are taking different perspectives. So, like, I think there are some people who agree with you.

I read the Jill Philip, Follotipipipidich, whatever her name is. I sent you her article. Philabidipidich, something or other? Uh,

what? No. Philibadapiditch? Something like that. No, it's not, that long, I don't think. Anyways,

um, she, I think it's Philoppa. She says, she's a reasonable analyst. She, she says, she wants to focus on,

she doesn't dispute the kind of legal conclusion of the DA but then wants to take a broader perspective and like people are interested in the story and you're interested in it for like the narrow question of you know the just injustice to the men which the men I'm not

I'm not that's not the sole reason I'm interested in it you're interested in it why because it's unfair to number one the principle of this arbitrary extension of perpetual anonymity to anyone and everyone who can make a claim of victimhood,

no matter how meritorious it is, doesn't even have to be evaluated, and the media will unanimously agree, even though they're not bound by it, they're not co-o-officers of any court. The media is not bound to preserve this claimant's anonymity, but they choose to because that's the custom and the practice, right? It's a dogma.

It's an ideology. It's been egregiously misused in case after case that I've had to look at over the course of Epstein and everything else. okay but they just that's just the default which I find to be corrosive so if I can undermine that that that conceit I'm going to undermine it

especially here when you have mountains of potentially countervailing evidence as to the veracity of these Congo war zone gang rape claims so it's not solely about the injustice to the men so much as it is how this thing functions socially culturally politically. I mean, you had AOC who happened to like, who by miraculous divine

dimension happened to be in into New York somehow. I don't know. I'm going to, I can't believe a conspiracy on that while she was there. Who gives a big dramatic speech saying look what this episode at Cornell proves is that our elite institutions

all across the nation, including Cornell, are riven by a culture, by a rape culture, a culture of sexual assault, a culture of pedophilia. So she's tying in pedophilia. Oh, no, back to this. Okay.

Explain the connection to me. I don't get it. Same age guys and girls having a drunken revelry night. He's pedophilia? Okay. All right. Michael, I am,

I'm sad. I'm sad about the state of young people. I'm sad about the state of society. I appreciate you giving the perspective that others do not. I think you're a little bit too, I do think you're a little bit too uncharitable

towards the woman. I'm not a how am I uncharitable towards the world? You're the one making these sweeping generalizations about how she proves that women don't want X, Y, and Z. I think I know enough to say that.

I think that's more uncharitable than anything that I've said toward her. I haven't been uncharitable to. That's not being uncharitable to women. That's being uncharitable to, no, it's not. It's a comment on human nature. Most women are not going to be.

offended or a lot of women are not going to be offended. If I say women do not want to have group sex with men, they barely know. I think that that is not an offensive thing. I think it's uncharitable. You don't know maybe she's an aberrational woman. Apparently not because all this happened after her.

Apparently not. Well, I mean, okay, maybe. I don't know. It's just, I think it's uncharitable to use her as like an avatar for all women. And make these sweeping statements about like what the proclivities of every single

member of that sex are. Anyways, Michael, I do have to, I do have to go. You're going to stay and talk to it? You're a piece of shit. Okay. That's enough reading of the comments. Yes, I will, I'll stick around for a little bit. All right, for more death threats. All right, Michael, see you later.

All right. Okay, so Joe says, I'm uncharitable by saying she's going to after money and using her trauma to crash out in the situation. How is it uncharitable, Joe, to observe that the purpose of this lawsuit is to claim damages and thereby to extract financial remuneration. It's not as though she just put out a statement on social media or made some kind of statement in some other forum to tell the world about her victimization.

It was specifically through a plaintiff's attorney whose job is to extract financial settlements from well-endowed individuals and institutions. So pointing that out is not uncharitability, That's a recognition of reality. Okay. If you want to say that's uncharitable to simply acknowledge, I think you've got to revisit your definition of uncharitability.

Let's see. Linus Tracy, could you argue that the men were raped as well? I mean, so when the Platinum thing happened, okay, I asked, and people thought this was a troll,

but no, this was like a serious question. If only to pro, the principal at issue here, right? According to the accuser of Platerner, the rape accuser, who, by the way, mysteriously vanished since July, whatever happened to her, even though she alleged a rape that purportedly

took place in 2021, so that would be well within the main statute of limitations. There should be no necessary reason why there couldn't be a criminal prosecution of Plattner for rape, but that person vanished after the political deed was done. But I ask, Look, if she's saying that he was so drug, because part of what she had said was that he was so inebriated

that he didn't know what he was doing. And she wasn't inebriated at the time. And yet she engaged in part anyway in certain consensual sexual activities with him as he was inebriated. Now, if we're going to take that at face value in terms of when inebriation precludes the ability of someone to consent to sexual activity,

then that would have apparently precluded Platner. Now, in practice, of course, if the male is the one who's inebriated, people don't look at that and say, okay, you know, it stands to reason that maybe he would have been the one who was raped. But that just shows some of like the fallacy

of the underlying principle there. So I wouldn't come out and argue that these men were raped, okay, because I don't think that really stands to reason. I think that would be a little bit too trollish. Now, if you want to say, okay, but how do we know who was raped based on who was at, what level of intoxication,

and the men in the situation were equally or even more intoxicated than Jane Doe was, I think that is valid. But I wouldn't therefore say that she raped them. I mean, I think that's not plausible, or at least that's not something that, you know, it's going to have much purchase in terms of the quality of the argumentation.

Oh, by the way, people, you know, those who I've spoken to privately, who are well informed now do think that this individual

or to reset now do think that these seven men or at least some segment of them are in fact going to be indicted based on the statements of the DA in terms of him convening a grand jury

okay so that's all the more reason not to abide by this arbitrary stricter against ever identifying in any way a claimant in a civil lawsuit who makes spectacular sensational accusations against others. Because oftentimes, we saw this over and over again with Epstein and Maxwell and Diddy, okay, and there are other cases that I could name, very often anonymous claimants who bring civil litigation, that litigation is then used as a basis by criminal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges.

Right. So although it's in the civil arena, it bleeds over real quick into this criminal domain. And in a criminal domain, that's where the requirements of the Sixth Amendment are all the more imperative, right? You mean, right to face your accuser, right to cross-examine. examine your accuser and where the application of anonymity

is even less tolerable, but given how easily it crosses over from civil into criminal, that should be another ground on which to oppose this completely specious and reflexive

assumption that anybody who ever makes any kind of claim of victimization ever is just entitled to permanent, judicially, enforced media enabled anonymity. Explain to me how that's a credible concept. You don't even have to know anything. The civil complaint that was put out for Jane Doe at Cornell,

none of that's been vetted. There's been no cooperation. If anything, there's been no defense presented. But it's just assumed, believed. Again, as a matter of ideological dogma, that, yes, the application of anonymity is just 100% necessary. And if you at all thwart that,

then you're doxing or you're re-victimizing or you're traumatizing or you're traumatizing and whatever. It's a nonsense. It's a strategic litigation tactic. Okay, go look up on my substack. I'm tracy.com. May, 2006, I reveal a Jane Doe, who's still to this day, even though she's pro se

in the litigation now, as their lawyers had to withdraw after they were brutally sanctioned by the Biden appointed black woman judge based, most based black woman in America. It was in a scathing decision in April declaring or finding that evidence that had been submitted by this Jane Doe, who was embroiled in litigation with Leon Black civilly, and then her lawyers at the at the scam artist Whigdor firm had taken that same evidence in the Leon Black case and submitted it to federal prosecutors and also the New York District Attorney's Office. demanding criminal investigative activity, demanding criminal prosecutions against Leon Black. On the basis of what we now know,

you know, two to three years later, was falsified, fabricated evidence. Now, that person that stole a Jane Doe, who has been judicially found to have submitted falsified evidence to the courts and then also to the DOJ by way of her former lawyers. Is that person entitled to permanent anonymity?

I didn't think so. and so I revealed who that person was because she had defrauded the courts. When you defraud the courts, you defraud the public, okay? So just because that person claims victimhood, what, we have to adhere in perpetuity to this fallacious notion

that she ought to be permanently immunized from any kind of public scrutiny? What? Or moreover, that her lawyers ought to be immunized from public scrutiny because in order to scrutinize the lawyers, we got them no bore about the client. So that's a straightforward,

rock-solid case where everybody involved, including the victim lawyers, okay? Bradley Edwards, et cetera. They agree that this was a fabricator. And she was wrongfully awarded $2.5 million out of the behemoth, J.P. Morgan, $290 million settlement for Epstein. On the basis of falsified evidence,

She never met Epstein, never met Maxwell, never met anybody, okay, totally hallucinated and confabulated, which I wouldn't say of every alleged Epstein victim, I mean not all them literally hallucinated and confabulated literally everything, but this particular Jane Doe did. So explain to me, why, just because she's a claimant that were bound to honor this judicially enforced anonymity for all time. Really? So we have one very recent example, You don't have to go back to 1976 2076. We have a proven example

of this application of anonymity being egregiously misused to perpetuate fraud on the public. Okay. So that is an assumption I think needs to be eroded because otherwise, It allows prosecutors and these profit-seeking lawyers who have this whole rocket that they run, drowning in cash,

to just prance along their merry way totally unimpeded. You know, that the lawyer who filed this lawsuit, here's what I don't, here's what I also drives me crazy. Oh, you're disbelieving the woman in the Jane Doe or you're targeting the woman. You know,

I'm targeting the male lawyer who filed the Jane Doe lawsuit for, against Cornell at all. that's a male lawyer. His name is Thomas G-I-U-F-F-R-A. Bizarrely, he's out of the country. I don't know what he's up to. Like, where is he on a safari in the Congo? He's out of the country right now

as the whole world's like, you know, up in arms over this Huckster lawsuit he filed. You know, alleging a Congo stop. Maybe he's investigating gang rape in the Congo to, like, draw an even more vivid parallel. Do you know that this same way? lawyer just got done filing a bunch of lawsuits against Diddy.

That's right. P. Diddy. Diddy. Son Combs who was acquitted. You might remember in July of 2025 on the traffic, sex trafficking charges that Maureen Comey and company cooked up after they got done with Epstein and Maxwell. They said, okay, who's next on the list? Diddy?

Well, they got acquitted on. He got, they, did he was acquitted on that. But of course, the vultures. still circle for civil claims all throughout the process. And who else but the same lawyer, Thomas Gufra, filed three separate lawsuits against Diddy, one of which contained just straightforwardly factually incorrect claims that were proven false.

So how is it that this guy, that this Thomas Gufra character, oh, who's like, you know, all about the, you know, getting justice for the victims and blah, blah, blah, blah. And they obviously frame what they're doing in the most benevolent and altruistic seeming light. How is it that this Thomas Gufra character makes a seamless transition from Diddy to Jane Doe at Cornell? Oh, you think it's just this, you know, pathway of altruism? No, of course not. It's who they target that has the most financial resource.

So if you can gin up the biggest furor around Diddy or the later Cornell or the sorority and fraternities, he's also suing and the individuals, some of whom probably are going to be pretty wealthy, I mean, the individual seven males, the bigger the PR in Broglio you can stir up, the more likely you're probably able to extract some kind of settlement to the people, you know, wave the towel, throw in, towel, waved the white flag. So it drives me crazy that in demanding that we not, for example, even dream of naming the Jane Doe claimant here, because we're retramatizing and everything else, there's no recognition at all

that this application of anonymity is used as a cheap, cynical, and constantly overused and misused litigation tactic. By a male lawyer, not some beleaguered rape victim woman. So where's the acknowledgement of that? Oh, and by the way, the same lawyer, Thomas Gufra, you can go look on his firm's website. They're out there soliciting, hey, anybody

who ever came within 15 football fields of Jeffrey Epstein or Gayleigh Maxwell, get in touch because we'll get just a bunch of money. So who knows who they rep, I mean, that's all kept secret in those confidential settlement mechanisms. So who knows who those people who, uh, Gufra represented over the course of his dealings with the Epstein mania. So how does he make, again, how does he make such a seamless transition? It's amazing, right? From Did he and Epstein to Cornell, Jane Doe?

Oh, you think it's just because it's just like where, wherever his eye lands upon in terms of who are the most virtuous victims are to represent? I mean, you got to be, sometimes I worry that I'm too cynical about this stuff, which is always a possibility. But then almost invariably, when the facts come in, it turns out I'm never cynical enough.

I almost have to surprise myself at how much I have to ratchet up the cynicism because that's almost always the correct explanation, unfortunately. But these cynical tactics are allowed to be perpetuated because everybody is bamboozled into silence to ever question any of it when they use the pretext of supporting victims or defending the safety of victims or preventing

threats against victims. It's a whole victim ideology. And yeah, it is about extracting money. I'm sorry, that's the whole industry. If you think that's too uncharitable, then like learn more about how the industry operates and then you'll understand why it has to be pointed out. And it would be uncharitable to reality to just arbitrarily decline to point it out. And it's a nightmare for civil liberties.

writ large. It's a nightmare for public policy. Why is AOC prancing around Ithaca saying that this Cornell incident proves a culture of pedophilia? You know that they're all around the country in terms of Congress, in terms of state legislatures, there's ending legislation that's been introduced around issues like victim restitution, around issues like criminal law in terms of sex trafficking, in terms of abolishing the statute of limitations around trafficking issues, and on and on and on that are inspired by I'm probably going to be further inspired by this that affect everybody. If they get rid of the statute of limitations,

like if they abolish the statute of limitations around adult sex trafficking, which is what a bill currently pending in Congress calls for that the Democrats probably are going to pass with, you know, appreciable Republican support when they win, when Democrats win Congress in all likelihood. You know how,

how radically, that expands the contours of who can be accused of sex trafficking, which is already, as you'll know if you've been following any of the stuff that I've done on this subject, and a comically

elastic concept with no stable definitional criteria. Like, what kind of liabilities do you think that will introduce to people in terms of I mean, forget reputation. I'm talking about legal liabilities,

right? which then can get fed into criminal law. Don't rest on your laurels about who can be prosecuted for this stuff. Doesn't matter how long ago it went. Galane Maxwell was, went on trial in 2021 for what they called a sex trafficking conspiracy that began in 1994. So through the arithmetic, 94, 2021, like 25 years or something, right?

Or how many years, 27 years, right? If you think that's too, that couldn't possibly be a tenable prosecution, right? It's too well beyond the statute of limitations. No, they want to get rid of that, meaning they, the people who are in this victim's rights, new victims, rights movement, survivor movement, Epstein, Cornell, whatever, trafficking. They want to make it as easy as possible for people to be criminally charged and then sued out the wazoo, bankrupted, and claim that's in the name of, of justice. Even in New York, right, I saw Jake Tapper interviewing the district attorney.

Matthew Van Houghton, I think his name is, in Tompkins County. By the way, I couldn't help but think of Bill House Manhattan when I saw that, but Jake Tapper was complaining that about there's something called that there's a New York rape loophole. So, of course, Jake Tapper on CNN, immediately just adopts and echoes the rhetoric of these advocacy

organizations that claim it's a nightmarish rape predatory situation in New York for this rape loophole, meaning that if somebody voluntarily consumed a substance and becomes inebriated, they therefore for that reason alone cannot claim that they lack the ability to consent to sexual contact as a result of their inebriation, right? So if you voluntarily get drunk or take ketamine, then you can't say, oh, this person is guilty of raping me or sexually assaulting me because on account of my being drunk,

I couldn't consent. So they're saying that's an intolerable loophole now has to be closed in the criminal code of the state, which they'll probably, I mean, the legislature will probably do. So what does that enable? Lots more people

to be criminally charged of stuff and thrown into prison. That's the ultimate function of this. So there is broader implications in terms of where the all heading socially, culturally, legally, politically, et cetera. Beyond just, oh, I hate this particular Jane Doe. I don't have to, I never impugned the Jane Doe here.

I don't have anything against her. I mean, why would I? I mean, sure, she has agency. I'm more directing my ire to the extent that I have it, as I always tend to do or try to do at the scheming consortium of lawyers who like make a buck on this stuff. And then everybody else has to pay the price in terms of the degradation of civil liberties

and also just the fomenting of mania that almost by necessity inhibits anybody's ability to think rationally about what's going on. How could AOC get away with kindness into pedophilia? I mean, what? I mean, seriously, that's why I call this

zombie epine era. They tie, they meaning the political class, writ large, people of the inclinations are predilections of AOC, they figure out a way to tie everything thematically to Epstein somehow. Even if you have a bunch of 20-year-olds at Cornell having a drunken night of revelry or something and there's a problem. And somehow that is about Epstein. That's about our favorite genetic deceased financier. I would love to ask AOC to elaborate on how she came to that conclusion.

Because I'm sure will be a super coherent explanation. Anyway, I don't know how I got that tangent. Zyron says, I think my issue with, I think my issue is your commentary comes off as you affirmatively claiming it's not true. Hence you why you feel at scheming lawyers rather than just having a wait and see approach

telling people to have more guard rolls before jumping to conclusions. First of all, I don't think I've ever made the blanket statement. It's not true. I think if there's mountains of countervailing evidence, or evidence that would seem to cut against assuming the truth of the allegations, based on the person's own words that she chose to submit in a six-page,

typewritten single-space statement to the district attorney, which contains, as the district attorney related, straightforwardly exculpating information as to the now defendants in terms of her consenting to all the sexual activity or voluntarily ingesting all the substances, okay, if that's in the record, and that can be compared and contrast with now what is in this lawsuit where, again,

some sort of heinous Congo war zone gang rape is alleged, then you're saying, what? All we can do as observers is just sit and say, oh, okay, twiddle our thumbs. We're going to just sit around and wait for a couple years and have a wait and see approach. And that's all we can do as the sum total

of our analysis, that's not tenable because look at, I mean, there's things moving like a freight train. So, I think it's more than justified to have critical observations about the veracity or the credibility of the claims that are being made, especially if there's no guardrails in terms of the seven

guys being excoriated. I think at least one of them, and maybe more, have been fired this week from their dopey, you know, bank jobs and stuff. I mean, one of the ironies here is I never was a big fan of

like rape culture I meant frat culture that was a Freudian slip I was never a huge fan of like frat life and so forth um in terms of my own personal dealings because yeah it seems like if there's going to be a place on a college campus where something like this is probably

likely to happen if we're going to take the most you know, damning interpretation of it, it would probably happen in a fratlight context. And, you know, the extreme drink, binge drinking and all the other

kind of tomfoolery that goes on. At frats would never appeal to me. And yet, if you're going to say, oh, now these Cornell 7, they're the new Epstein, look at Instagram right now.

You got viral posts after viral post saying that the Cornell 7 or the new Epstein class. Huh? Oh, so they're pedophiles now. Hmm. Interesting. Or they're implicitly pedophiles

because that's, of course, what's implied by the term Epstein class. However what people want to claim that they're going to, like, use their own private definitions of what that supposedly connotes. And look, I mean, in terms of moving, like, a freight train in terms of, like, not just, like, sitting around and waiting to see what happens.

I mean, look at the cultural energy, then political energy that just immediately burst onto the sea with him. It seemed like seemingly overnight on this stuff. I've never, I've had a lot of pushback and a lot of issues, but this has got to be one of the most intense concentrations of pushback over the span of like 24 hours that I've ever got. You know, just in terms of, you know,

I'm not saying a victim, I'm not saying I'm this beleaguered martyr and I get anybody's help. But in terms of, you know, everybody's saying I need to be murdered right my address needs to be put out etc so what does that tell me I mean it tells me that there's something particularly palpable about this issue

right so if you say that like the the only the only thing anybody can reasonably do it should just wait and see and do like what play video games in the meantime I just don't think that's tenable let's see Thank you to the people for the complimentary words. I am now going to,

I actually did put out a tweet earlier saying if anybody wanted to disagree with me, wanted to talk about this, I will have them on. So let me see if actually anybody replied to that. Just give me a moment. Let's go. Just a bunch of trolls so far.

Okay, maybe I'll do another one, neither today or tomorrow or something where I'll have somebody on who disagrees because like I'm open to disagreement. Some girl called me on the phone last night, wanting to debate or wanted to challenge me, which I invite, fine. I mean, I think she thought that she was going to give me a taste of my own medicine because I'm allegedly calling to docs Jane Doe,

which I'm not by any reasonable definition of the term docking. So she thought she was going to show that I have also been docks. So I've gotten a taste of my own medicine, and she's going to call me and show, you know, that this all has been right on me. Lo and behold, we end up having, you know, a perfectly pleasant, normal, fine, 30 minute or so conversation. And it's not a big deal.

I don't feel like my life is in danger because some people might have my phone number. Oh, my God. The world's going to end. But I, you know, that was just a private conversation, but I would like to have something like that in a public forum. Because I think it's worth, you know, putting into the record somehow. All right. That'll do for now, I guess.

I will check that again later. Stop raping people. Enough. Enough of the rape. I'm sick of it.