Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Three Hundred Fourteen: The Cornell Beta Male, Regretful Female Drug And Sex Orgy

Transcript

Episode Three Hundred Fourteen: The Cornell Beta Male, Regretful Female Drug And Sex Orgy · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: For....
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: More than the past week, the biggest media story by
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: far in the country has been the so-called Cornell Gang
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: Rape case. Now, just the name itself, Cornell Gang Rape,
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: which is being widely used by the news media, is
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: a classic example of massive and overt media malpractice. To
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: call this story, based upon what we currently know as
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: the Cornell Gang Rape, based upon a lawsuit, A lawsuit,
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: and that point cannot be made enough, that all of
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: the firestorm that has occurred over the past 10 days
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: or so is because of a filing of a lawsuit
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: two years after the events that manifest itself eventually in
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: this lawsuit, this media firestorm, and this moral panic that
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: the media is creating and is continuing to create, even
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: as we tape This episode of the podcast. Now, I
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: don't have a perfect name for this thing, but based
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: upon what I have learned and what has become publicly available,
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: and we're learning more and more basically on a daily basis,
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: this is not the Cornell gang rape case. This might
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: be better referred to more accurately as the Cornell beta
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: male regretful female drug and sex orgy. Now that doesn't
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: roll off the tongue. And it certainly doesn't fit the
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: media's agenda, but that would be, based upon what we
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: currently know, I believe a more accurate description of what
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: has transpired. But once the media is invested in a
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: moral panic, and I've talked about this many times before,
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: we've seen it several times in recent history, I've documented
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: many similar cases. Once the media becomes invested in a
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: moral panic, it's over. They cannot go back. especially once
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: damage has been done. And ironically and counterintuitively, the more
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: damage that is done, the less likely they are going
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: to go back and revisit and ever admit that they
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: were wrong. Obviously, the moral panic of the COVID situation,
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: the moral panic of the Penn State situation, we've seen
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: other similar ones, but this case is very, very close
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: to getting far too big to ever be corrected. Because
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: once people become invested, especially the news media, especially with
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: their arrogance, and especially on a topic like this, where
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: they have created rules where it's basically impossible to prove
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: innocence once the allegation is accepted as true, look out.
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: There ain't no going back. And that's what has transpired
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: here without a doubt. Now, look, I want to make
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: it very, very clear because everyone automatically presumes, especially in
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: the social media era, this is the way these things go,
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: that if you're somehow defending due process or saying we
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: shouldn't rush to judgment, or if you're saying anything remotely
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: negative at all about the person that has been accepted
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: as the victim, you are somehow a rape apologist or
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: enabler or worse. And of course, that is obviously ridiculous.
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: And I'm also not defending the men who were accused here,
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: although I'm going to get to How many men actually
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: should be being accused here during the course of this podcast?
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: But I'm going to kill several birds with one stone
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: on this issue because I went on NewsNation last Friday night.
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: I said recently, I don't know if I've ever been
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: going back on NewsNation because whenever I get asked on NewsNation,
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: I request or basically require them to send a truck
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: to wherever I am. And that costs them money. And
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: I understand why they might decline on that. But I
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: just don't like doing the home studio thing for a
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: lot of different reasons, especially when it's for News Nation,
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: which is a network I like, but which is certainly
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: not one of the top couple of cable news networks.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: The audience is real, but it's not particularly large. So
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: unless it's a situation where I really, really, really want
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: to do the bit, the hit, the segment, I'm going
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: to say I need a truck. Well, this happened on
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: Friday in kind of an interesting situation because my family
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: was not at home. Long story short, we were at
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: my in-laws' beach house, which is fairly far away from
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: us and very far away from Los Angeles. And my
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: daughter had a cross-country meet in that area. And so
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: I was not going to be home. And I said, look,
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: if you want me to do this, they asked me
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: to come on and talk about the media coverage of
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: the Cornell situation, which I was very happy to do.
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: I said, look, if we're going to do this, I
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: need the truck to be sent to a place called Oxnard, California,
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: which is not close to anything. And I didn't really
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: think they were going to do it, but they decided
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: to do it. Now, interestingly, I think they justified this
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: by booking me for two different segments. The second one
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: had absolutely nothing to do with my expertise or anything
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: even related to something I've expressed an opinion on and
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: I'm quite sure my daughter, Grace was very interested in
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: how this happened. I'm quite sure that this was a
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: butt covering maneuver by the bookers and the producers. They said, well,
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: we're going to spend the money to get somebody who's
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: not a celebrity like Ziegler. We, we at least have
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: to justify it by having him on for two segments.
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: So I was fine with that. But the, the most
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: important part of this is that I was on in
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: the first segment of the show and, It was hosted
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: by a woman by the name of Lauren Wright. I
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: was on with a guy I don't know, a Democratic operative.
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: And the topic was the media coverage of the entire
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: Cornell situation. And obviously, I'm very passionate about this. And
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: this appearance was OK. I'm not thrilled with this, partially
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: because there was so much to cover. It's absolutely impossible
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: to do so, especially when you have a host. And
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: then you have someone that you're on with who obviously
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: is going to take it off in a different tangent
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: and take up time. And so I think I was
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: in a bit of a difficult circumstance. I did okay,
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: given all of those circumstances. But I'm not thrilled with this.
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: But this is going to at least give you a
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: sense of a couple different things. First of all, some
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: of the developments over the last week, as well as
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: where I am generally on the issue of the media coverage,
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: of this entire quote unquote scandal. I guess it is
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: a scandal, but it's being misrepresented in my view at
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: Cornell over this alleged gang rape. And here's what that
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: sounded like starting off with the host, Lauren Wright, setting
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: things up with an absolutely bonkers statement by Congresswoman AOC,
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: who is considered to be a potential front runner for
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, which might've been the
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: most significant at least politically, of this entire segment, but
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: here's what that sounded like on NewsNation last Friday night.
• 7:56
  Speaker 3: No charges, no trial, and no guilty verdict in the
• 8:00
  Speaker 3: Cornell assault case. The list of those repeating allegations from
• 8:03
  Speaker 3: Jane Doe's civil lawsuit as fact continues to grow. Democratic
• 8:07
  Speaker 3: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fanned the flames with a speech on
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: Sunday in Ithaca.
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: Watch.
• 8:15
  Speaker 4: Seven men drugged and gang raped a 20-year-old woman. They
• 8:24
  Speaker 4: lured her in to a fraternity house. They drugged her
• 8:28
  Speaker 4: with ketamine. They then posted to a group chat that
• 8:33
  Speaker 4: she was incapacitated and seven men took turns gang raping
• 8:38
  Speaker 4: her for seven hours.
• 8:41
  Speaker 3: One of our next guests says it's not just AOC,
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: but the media that's being irresponsible with its coverage of
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: the case. Joining us right now, Democratic strategist Michael Starr
• 8:50
  Speaker 3: Hopkins and Death of Journalism podcast host John Ziegler. John,
• 8:55
  Speaker 3: I want to play this clip from an interview Jake
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: Tapper did with the district attorney and get your reaction
• 9:01
  Speaker 3: on the other side.
• 9:02
  Speaker 5: You know, I have a daughter. I can't imagine how
• 9:08
  Speaker 5: mad I would be if A district attorney handled this
• 9:13
  Speaker 5: case that way for my daughter. It's just, do you
• 9:20
  Speaker 5: not acknowledge that your office dropped the ball by not
• 9:23
  Speaker 5: looking more into what happened?
• 9:24
  Speaker 2: I'm not saying I know what happened.
• 9:27
  Speaker 3: John, what's your response to the coverage we've been seeing?
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: It's been horrendous. This is a moral panic. I have
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: two young daughters too. Nobody's in favor of rape and
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: I'm not defending anybody's actions in this entire case. Everybody
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: did very poorly at every level. However, what we have
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: seen from the news media here has all the markings
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: of a moral panic. They're getting the facts wrong. What
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: AOC said in that clip is unbelievable. I would like
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: to give her the benefit of the doubt that somehow
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: her mind was poisoned by poor media coverage because every
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: single syllable of what she said is at best unproven
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: and easily disproven by the statements of Jane Doe herself.
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: The media is systematically pushing a gang rape narrative without
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: any evidence based upon a lawsuit A lawsuit. Do we
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: understand what a lawsuit is? It's a plea for money.
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: Two years after the event of this, that occurred at Cornell.
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: We are ignoring details, not just of what she said,
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: But what she did, and the details in this case matter,
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: what she did, there are several acts that she committed
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: during this that she admits to, that any woman who
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: is remotely rational would say, that was wrong, that was
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: clearly consent, and this was not a rape. And that's
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: based on what we know now. And we're just completely
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: disregarding the boys' statements or the men's statements. To me,
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: this is classic media malpractice, and it has all the
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: makings of a witch hunt and a moral panic. That's
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: when the media is at its worst. When the issue
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: is race, rape, or Republicans, especially near an election, look out.
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: That's what we're seeing here. Okay.
• 11:10
  Speaker 3: John's very fired up about this, Michael, as you can tell.
• 11:13
  Speaker 3: Do you agree with, would you call this media malpractice?
• 11:19
  Speaker 6: Let me first start by saying I actually was a
• 11:21
  Speaker 6: criminal defense attorney in New York.
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: I know.
• 11:23
  Speaker 6: So I uniquely understand how the law works here.
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: And John is right. These are allegations.
• 11:30
  Speaker 6: But first, we have grand juries for a reason. And
• 11:33
  Speaker 6: so when you have Cornell and the law enforcement of Cornell,
• 11:37
  Speaker 6: that a lot of it's privately funded, investigating itself, it's problematic.
• 11:41
  Speaker 6: And so this is the perfect opportunity for a grand
• 11:44
  Speaker 6: jury to be able to hear this case. and for
• 11:47
  Speaker 6: a group of individuals to decide whether this case moves forward,
• 11:51
  Speaker 6: not one person. But more importantly, I think we should
• 11:55
  Speaker 6: address the fact that something can begin consensually and then
• 12:00
  Speaker 6: go to a place that is no longer consensual. And
• 12:03
  Speaker 6: so as we talk about this conversation, as we talk
• 12:06
  Speaker 6: about campus rape and the responsibility of men, we need
• 12:10
  Speaker 6: to acknowledge the fact that there were 50 plus people
• 12:13
  Speaker 6: on that text message thread.
• 12:15
  Speaker 7: Who did nothing. Whether you believe... Because it was consensual.
• 12:21
  Speaker 7: Because they believed it was consensual. Because they believed it
• 12:24
  Speaker 7: was consensual.
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: John, just let.
• 12:26
  Speaker 3: Michael finish, and then I want to get right back
• 12:28
  Speaker 3: to you, I promise.
• 12:30
  Speaker 6: We need to have a broader conversation about what it
• 12:32
  Speaker 6: means to be part of a community.
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: Because right now, I think.
• 12:35
  Speaker 6: We're letting down men and women by this notion that
• 12:39
  Speaker 6: masculinity is tied... to hedonism and tied to this, you know,
• 12:45
  Speaker 6: we're all in it for ourselves. We're part of a community.
• 12:47
  Speaker 6: And so it is cool to make sure that women
• 12:50
  Speaker 6: make it home safely. It is cool to step in
• 12:53
  Speaker 6: and say something when guys are being inappropriate. And that
• 12:57
  Speaker 6: needs to be one of the lessons of this too.
• 12:59
  Speaker 3: So, John, you're saying media is jumping to conclusions about
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: the allegations. I don't disagree with you.
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: But why?
• 13:06
  Speaker 3: So why is the narrative so entrenched that this is
• 13:10
  Speaker 3: obviously wrong? I mean, what do you think is driving it?
• 13:13
  Speaker 3: I mean, obviously, there are two sides of this story.
• 13:17
  Speaker 3: And I would agree that the volume of coverage is
• 13:21
  Speaker 3: on the one side, even though Jane Doe did have
• 13:24
  Speaker 3: conflicting statements.
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: The real reason why media outlets are completely vulnerable to
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: moral panics in a situation like this is, one, they
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: know this is a great story, and it fits their
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: agenda in a lot of ways. But most television newsrooms
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: and newsrooms across the board are filled with liberal women.
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: And liberal women have a view of this issue that
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: I think is outside of the mainstream of reality. And
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: what we're seeing with the.
• 13:49
  Speaker 3: Facts of this case is they're being completely lost. I
• 13:50
  Speaker 3: don't think it's just liberal women, to be fair. I
• 13:52
  Speaker 3: think if you want to say liberals, maybe. But go ahead, John.
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: Well, no, you asked me why are newsrooms so vulnerable
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: to this? That's part of a perfect storm. And once
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: you have a moral panic, nobody in a newsroom is
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: going to stand up and say, wait a minute, what
• 14:08
  Speaker 2: are we doing here? This is a lawsuit. Have you
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: looked at the actual details of the allegation?
• 14:13
  Speaker 3: That's what we're doing on this show.
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: Good for you. Fantastic. That's why I'm here. And I'm
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: very glad that NewsNation is willing to at least hear
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: the other side of this. There's a lot of other
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: outlets like Jake Tapper virtue signaling about his daughter and
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: browbeating a DA that actually made the right decision based
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: upon the facts and the law that he had at
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: the time. That's not journalism. That's activism. And that's virtue signaling.
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: And that's wrong. We're creating a situation here where we're
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: going to have a massive injustice regardless of what the
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: facts are. And the facts and the truth ought to matter.
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: The law ought to matter. The governor of New York
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: now wants to change the law, get rid of a
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: so-called loophole. That loophole is what keeps society together.
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: We'd have total chaos if that loophole.
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: Which is actually the law, was eliminated. Now, I want
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: to address a couple of things that were referenced in
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: that segment. The first is the issue of women in
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: the newsroom. And This, I think, really is, and that's
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: why I said it, because I knew it was going
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: to ruffle feathers. I said it because I truly believe
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: that this is becoming a massive problem. And this is
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: not just isolated to the news media. We've seen this
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: in other areas of life. I think most prominently, academia,
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: where academia has been completely overtaken by liberal women and
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: And it has fundamentally changed the DNA, the entire process
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: of what happens within academia. And by the way, of course,
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: we have an academic institution, allegedly elite academic institution in
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: Cornell here, where you have nothing but liberal women and
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: wussified guys who are making these decisions. And it's going
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: to be inherently dysfunctional. Well, you have a very, very
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: similar situation in the vast majority of the legacy news media.
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: women run the show, especially behind the scenes. And nobody,
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: nobody is going to stand up in that newsroom, especially
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: if they're a white male, and say, hold on a second.
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: What are we doing here? There's nothing in it for
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: that person. Because it cannot be emphasized enough that the
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: number one goal of everybody in the legacy news media
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: on a day-to-day basis is increasingly so, is to not
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: get fired on that day. Nobody is going to take
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: any sort of a risk, even when it's in the
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: pursuit of basic journalistic principles. It's not going to happen.
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: It's not part of the priority system. It's not in
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: the incentive structure. The incentive structure is if you have
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: a problem and you see the mob forming, shut the
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: fuck up. Don't say anything. Again, especially if you're a
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: straight white male and have no protection. You have no
• 17:15
  Speaker 2: force field protection. This allows the liberal women to run
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: amok because nobody is telling them they're wrong. Nobody is
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: telling them, hold on, what are you doing? And so
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: when you have a situation where liberal women are running
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: the show and everyone is terrified of telling them, wait
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: a minute, there's a completely different side of this story,
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: they're going to think, especially in a moral panic, that
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: they're on the side of right and they're going to
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: lose their minds. And that's where things get absolutely bonkers
• 17:45
  Speaker 2: and crazy. That's how you get segments like on the
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: CBS morning show where they're talking about how parents... can
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: talk to their children and to their boys about the
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: issue of consent and how we should have a national
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: conversation about what allegedly happened at Cornell. That's the only
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: way that something as nutty as that can occur is
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: where you have liberal women run amok. And they will always,
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: always overreact. They will always act emotionally. And that's what
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: we're seeing throughout the legacy media. But nobody has an
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: incentive to say this, except maybe John Ziegler. So when
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: I got asked the question, that's why I said it.
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: The other part of this, which we did not get into,
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: which I was kicking myself over and I was trying
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: to imply it, is some of the details. Now, The details,
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: which I said several times in that segment, the details
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: are so important to interpreting what really transpired here. But
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: unfortunately for the accused, the details are so grotesque and
• 18:57
  Speaker 2: so impossible to talk about, especially on legacy media outlets,
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: that the media just rationalizes, well, we can't get into
• 19:05
  Speaker 2: the details because that would be inappropriate. It's maybe not
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: even be allowed because these are overt sex acts. So
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: therefore they leave it out. Well, but in leaving out details,
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: you create a completely inaccurate impression about what happened. And
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: there's two areas specifically. And the one that I really
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: should have gotten into and did intend to, but we
• 19:32
  Speaker 2: just didn't ever really get to it specifically. And when
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: we ran out of time, The second name, and in fact,
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: the name that News Nation was using on screen to
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: describe this, to their credit, they weren't saying Cornell Gang Rape,
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: but frankly, what they were using was almost as bad
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: because they're using Cornell 7. And Cornell 7 is incredibly
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: significant and insidious. Being used by the news media is
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: I don't know out of ignorance or whether out of agenda,
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: maybe a little bit of both. I'm usually going to
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: blame ignorance, and that might be the case here in
• 20:09
  Speaker 2: some situations. In the segment, I implied, I said I
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: hoped it was out of ignorance with regard to AOC
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: and that AOC's brain was simply being poisoned by bad
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: media coverage because she claimed that seven Man at Cornell
• 20:25
  Speaker 2: systematically sexually raped this Jane Doe. That is just 1,000%. Factually,
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: not just inaccurately, inaccurate, but provably false. It's provably false.
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: So to say Cornell 7 in the context of a
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: gang rape allegation is ridiculous. It's absurd. Basically what happened
• 20:49
  Speaker 2: here is that There were four men who had sexual
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: acts with Jane Doe. It appears, and there's been some
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: disagreement about this online. Frankly, I think this is irrelevant.
• 21:01
  Speaker 2: But over an extended period of time, into the wee
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: hours of the morning, this woman, I believe, at least
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: at the time, consensually engaged in at least two different threesomes. Now,
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: you can argue it was three different threesomes with four
• 21:18
  Speaker 2: guys total. So there was a kind of a rotation.
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: situation going on. One guy lost his erection and he
• 21:25
  Speaker 2: got replaced and then came back into the game. I mean,
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: if you read the details of this thing, it is
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: exceedingly different than the perception being created by the news media,
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: by even just basic alleged facts like seven. It's not seven,
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: it's four over an extended period of time. And there
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: were breaks, there were naps. There was drug use. AOC's
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: description is just completely absurd, not just in the use
• 21:59
  Speaker 2: of the seven number, but the seven number is so
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: incredibly important. Why? Because any rational person would understand, and
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: I agree with this completely, that no woman, especially at
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: a place like Cornell, in her right mind, would ever
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: consent to having sex with seven men in one night,
• 22:26
  Speaker 2: in one session. That would never happen. So therefore, inherently,
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: I get this thinking. Inherently, you have a situation where
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: if she's not in her right mind and we have
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: evidence of drug and alcohol use, then you get to
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: the issue of did she or could she have really consented?
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: I totally get that. If that was the case, unless
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: there were really extreme circumstances or we had evidence that she,
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: you know, for some reason wanted this bizarre situation to occur,
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: I would actually be on board with that. And that's
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: why they're using the seven. But the seven number is
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: not accurate. The four number in the context that I
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: just gave you, while absurd and extremely ridiculous and beyond
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: reckless and very concerning, especially if you're the parents of
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: this woman, is not necessarily, given all the context here,
• 23:30
  Speaker 2: in the realm of something that a woman at Cornell
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: could not possibly have wanted or consented to. Having sex
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: with four men in three different threesomes over an extended
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: period of time is not completely insane for her to
• 23:49
  Speaker 2: have not just consented to, but to actually have wanted.
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: So that's why that number is so significant in my view.
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: And then there's the issue of what many people would
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: understandably believe to be grotesque details that the media is
• 24:06
  Speaker 2: just not allowed to tell you, which would, and I
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: referenced this vaguely in the segment on News Nation, most people,
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: including women, including many liberal women, if they knew that
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: in the middle of all this, in front of numerous guys,
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: seemingly for their entertainment, she remembered several weeks later, which
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: is important if she's now going to claim that she
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: blacked out, she remembered several weeks later and told police
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: that she snorted ketamine off of the presumably erect penis
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: of one of the guys while several others watched. That
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: was in the middle of all this. I'm sorry, that's consent.
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: To me, that is an act that screams consent far
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: more than anything she could have said or not said
• 24:59
  Speaker 2: during the various acts that occurred. But the media, pretending
• 25:04
  Speaker 2: that they're not allowed to tell you that because it's
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: overtly sexual, when in reality, it's an important detail. It's
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: an incredibly important detail in my view. So You know, unfortunately,
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: one of the many limitations of television is time. And
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: I didn't have time to get into all that. And
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: so I was basically vaguely referencing that. And I also
• 25:27
  Speaker 2: didn't know what News Nation's sensibilities were going to be
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: on a Friday evening to get into the gory details
• 25:34
  Speaker 2: of all that. Now, I also referenced this issue of
• 25:38
  Speaker 2: the governor of New York, Governor Hochul. And boy, oh boy,
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: has she lost her goddamn mind. Holy cow. I mean,
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: I've always maintained that Gavin Newsom is the worst governor
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: in the United States of America, but Hochul is giving
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: him a run for his money. She really is, and
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: this situation is proving it. First of all, she has
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: come out and called the Jane Doe brave. Brave.
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: Brave.
• 26:10
  Speaker 2: Brave. Even if you accept Jane Doe's own... description of events,
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: which has changed and evolved significantly, I really don't know
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: how you get to brave. I mean, even if you
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: accept what's in her lawsuit, I don't know how you
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: get to brave. I really don't. I would love for
• 26:32
  Speaker 2: someone to explain to me how you get to brave.
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: There's a lot of words you could use. Brave ain't
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: in the top 100 that you would use to describe
• 26:42
  Speaker 2: what happened with Jane Doe. Hochul has been absolutely ridiculous
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: on at least two fronts, which were referenced in the
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: News Nation segment. The first is this issue of changing
• 26:56
  Speaker 2: the law in New York. She wants to have an
• 27:00
  Speaker 2: emergency session of the legislature in New York, emergency, to
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: change what she calls the loophole. The loophole, that's the
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: word they're using. The loophole in the law, and the loophole,
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: according to Governor Hochul and the absolutely insane, very progressive
• 27:24
  Speaker 2: liberal feminists, the loophole is that in New York State,
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: you can still give consent unless you are incapacitated via
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: either drug or alcohol use. So in other words, basically,
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: if you're not passed out, and you have given consent,
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: and you have not clearly revoked consent, then criminally, that's
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: not rape. Now, to the feminists, they think this is outrageous,
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: because it fits their agenda on this particular case. They think,
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: my God, there's got to be a better way to
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: have the law read than to draw the line at incapacitation.
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: Because Clearly, at a certain point, there is a stage
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: where you are so intoxicated that you're not physically capable
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: of giving consent. And that's why they think that this
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: incapacitation thing is a loophole, where if you're short of incapacitation,
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: a man can rape you and not be criminally charged
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: with rape. I get why emotionally... they're having this response,
• 28:43
  Speaker 2: but it makes absolutely positively no sense logically. And to
• 28:50
  Speaker 2: change the law dramatically would be a catastrophe on multiple levels.
• 28:59
  Speaker 2: Liberals almost always overplay their hand, especially when they're acting emotionally,
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: and they're incapable of seeing the new reality that their
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: ideas would create if they ever came to fruition. And
• 29:18
  Speaker 2: this is a classic example of this. Because if you
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: change the line from incapacitation, which is pretty clear cut,
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: incapacitation is a pretty clear cut place. There's not a
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: lot of ambiguity with incapacitation. And obviously I agree. incapacitation,
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: you cannot give consent. There's absolutely positively no basis for
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: having sex with an incapacitated woman, or man, for that matter.
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: By the way, the men are trying to now claim,
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: and I think this is interesting, at least one of
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: them is trying to claim that he was sexually assaulted
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: because he was incapacitated. But okay, we're going to view
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: men and women very, very differently in this situation, which
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: is one of the many problems for how the media
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: evaluates these things. The hypocrisy is everywhere. But back to
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: this issue of incapacitation. If you change it from incapacitated,
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: there's no other clear place to draw the line. This
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: is incredibly important. And yet I don't think Hochul is
• 30:27
  Speaker 2: capable of understanding this. So once you eliminate incapacitation as
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: the line of demarcation, the only other place to draw
• 30:39
  Speaker 2: the line becomes having had one drink or one smoke
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: or one hit. Where else are you going to draw
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: that line legally? There's no other place to draw it.
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: It's not possible. It is literally not possible to draw
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: the line anywhere else. Please tell me if there is.
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: This is going to be the strangest maybe analogy in
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: the history of the Death of Journalism podcast, but if
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: you bear with me, I think it'll make sense. To
• 31:15
  Speaker 2: be clear, I'm not in any way, shape, or form
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: equating these situations morally, but I'm just trying to use
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: an analogy to explain. how this works. So I'm a golfer.
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: I hear all the time that the rule, it ought
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: to be changed with regard to divots, right? Bear with
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: me here, folks. I promise you that there are a
• 31:37
  Speaker 2: lot of people out there that think it's totally unfair
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: that you can hit the ball in the fairway. Your
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: ball ends up at a divot. And under the rules
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: of golf, you cannot improve your lie. You don't get
• 31:47
  Speaker 2: a drop from that unless it's ground under repair. Under
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: my analogy here, incapacitation is ground under repair. It is
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: a clear demarcation. There's no ambiguity about it. There is
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: a white line around that area. If your ball's in
• 32:05
  Speaker 2: that area, you get relief. There's no question about it, right?
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: So incapacitation, ground under relief. Bear with me here. The
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: problem in these two situations is that if you change
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: the rule, to provide relief for anything short of ground
• 32:25
  Speaker 2: under repair, you now have an inherent problem of determining
• 32:29
  Speaker 2: what the hell a divot is. And that can mean
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: virtually anything. Anything can be determined to be or thought
• 32:38
  Speaker 2: to be a divot. I'm in a divot, even though
• 32:42
  Speaker 2: it's just the slightest imperfection in the grass. So therefore,
• 32:47
  Speaker 2: you create chaos because now there's going to be all
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: sorts of ambiguity and people are going to take advantage
• 32:54
  Speaker 2: of it. And effectively, the laws and the rules of
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: golf will be fundamentally changed. And we're going to have
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: lift clean in place everywhere because everyone's just going to
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: claim that they're always in a divot. That's actually a
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: pretty darn good analogy, logically, to what Hochul wants to
• 33:12
  Speaker 2: do with regard to alcohol and drug use today. and
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: sexual activity. Because I believe if you get rid of
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: this quote unquote loophole, effectively, effectively what you're doing is
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: a woman is not capable of consenting or is at
• 33:29
  Speaker 2: least allowed to revoke that consent if she has had
• 33:33
  Speaker 2: any alcohol or used any drugs, any. And let's be clear,
• 33:39
  Speaker 2: it's not like we can do, at least not yet,
• 33:42
  Speaker 2: a blood alcohol level, uh, gauge before someone actually decides
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: to have sex. We may get to that point. I
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: can certainly see that's where we're heading, where in order
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: to have sex, you have to take a breathalyzer test first.
• 33:59
  Speaker 2: As absurd as that is, that may be where we're heading,
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: but currently that's not realistic. This is what liberals want
• 34:08
  Speaker 2: to do. They don't understand the ramifications that they're creating.
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: By the way, one of the many ramifications of this
• 34:15
  Speaker 2: is this whole act, this alleged potential law ought to
• 34:20
  Speaker 2: be called the Put All New York City Bars Out
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: of Business Act. Because why in the world would a
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: guy ever go to a bar in New York if
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: their primary or even secondary goal was to potentially pick
• 34:33
  Speaker 2: up a woman? You would never do that because inherently
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: under the law, any sexual activity could become rape if
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: they were at a bar that night. By the way,
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: there's another element of this with regard to the credibility
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: of both Jane Doe and her lawyer regarding bars because
• 34:54
  Speaker 2: she didn't just sue the so-called Cornell 7. She didn't
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: just sue Cornell University. She sued everybody. because that's a
• 35:02
  Speaker 2: sure sign you're really looking for the truth and not
• 35:04
  Speaker 2: money when you sue everybody. She even sued the bar
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: that she claimed gave her one drink. Now, she was underage.
• 35:11
  Speaker 2: She was 20 years old at the time. But there's
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: a couple of problems with that, one of which is
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: that the bar is saying they have evidence that they
• 35:21
  Speaker 2: never served her at all, which, by the way, would
• 35:24
  Speaker 2: be consistent with one of the accused's testimony in this case.
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: So.
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: It should harm her credibility if the bar is accurate.
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: And I presume they probably are. And it would enhance
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: the credibility of one of the accusers. But the media
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: is not going to tell you about that because that's inconvenient.
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: And then there's another part of the lawsuit that's also
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: inconvenient to the narrative that the media has ignored. And
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: that is that her lawyer, who has a terrible reputation,
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: he's basically an ambulance chaser, served the wrong person. got
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: the information wrong on who he was starving, and there's
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: a Marine that's being harassed by the angry mob because
• 36:08
  Speaker 2: they got the wrong person in the lawsuit. So her
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: lawyer has a terrible reputation, isn't credible, and is harming
• 36:17
  Speaker 2: innocent people and making allegations against entities, a bar that
• 36:21
  Speaker 2: really has no culpability here under the worst of circumstances,
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: and may not have even served her any alcohol to
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: begin with. But Hochul, whether she realizes it or not,
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: in an emergency session, that's a sure sign you're in
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: a moral panic. In an emergency session, wants to change
• 36:41
  Speaker 2: the law, get rid of the so-called loophole. It's not
• 36:45
  Speaker 2: a loophole, as I said in the News Nation segment.
• 36:48
  Speaker 2: It is literally what holds society from descending into chaos.
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: Think about the complete... Yes, yes, you're going to have.
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: This is where liberals always want this utopia. They think, well,
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: there's a potential for something bad to happen and it
• 37:10
  Speaker 2: not to be able to be fixed, so we must
• 37:12
  Speaker 2: radically change everything. They let the perfect get in the
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: way of the very good. Utopia, which can never actually happen,
• 37:20
  Speaker 2: is always their goal. And they think, well, It's possible
• 37:25
  Speaker 2: to not be incapacitated and not really be able to
• 37:29
  Speaker 2: give consent and that consent ought to be automatically revoked
• 37:33
  Speaker 2: once you get to that stage. So let's change the law.
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: But they don't even think it through. Maybe they're not
• 37:39
  Speaker 2: capable of doing so. Okay. So what about what happens now?
• 37:45
  Speaker 2: Where's that line now? How can the man possibly know
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: where that line is? And aren't you going to dramatically
• 37:53
  Speaker 2: impact the behavior of men when they think that they
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: might go to jail if a woman has had any alcohol?
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: And by the way, it can be retroactive. It can be,
• 38:02
  Speaker 2: you know, in revisionist history, she can retract consent days, weeks, months,
• 38:09
  Speaker 2: years later if she had any alcohol, because that's the
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: situation you're creating, whether you realize it or not, because
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: there's no other way to do it. So yes, It's
• 38:21
  Speaker 2: an imperfect world, folks. Yes, you can have a situation
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: where a woman is not incapacitated. She's heavily intoxicated. Through
• 38:30
  Speaker 2: the entire night, she has made it clear that she's
• 38:32
  Speaker 2: interested in having sex with a particular guy. But she
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: may go over that line to where the guy ought
• 38:38
  Speaker 2: to stop it. The guy should stop it. But he's
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: a college-age guy, and he doesn't. Is that a crime?
• 38:51
  Speaker 2: It's wrong, it's clearly wrong, but it can't be a
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: crime because if it's a crime, you've just created a situation,
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: a precedent, a standard where all of society is gonna
• 39:02
  Speaker 2: descend into madness. And that's what will happen if this
• 39:08
  Speaker 2: proposal becomes a law. Now, the second thing that Hochul
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: did was to name Letitia James as effectively the new
• 39:16
  Speaker 2: prosecutor in this case. She stripped the DA of authority
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: By the way, the DA, in my opinion, is the
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: only person in this entire situation that ought to be praised.
• 39:27
  Speaker 2: I have not found anybody else in this entire fiasco
• 39:31
  Speaker 2: who ought to be praised other than the DA who
• 39:35
  Speaker 2: decided that charges should not be filed based upon the
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: information he had at the time. And he's done every
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: interview asked of him. He's taken it. unbelievable amounts of criticism.
• 39:45
  Speaker 2: He's endured Jake Tapper virtue signaling about his daughter live
• 39:51
  Speaker 2: on CNN, and he handled it with dignity. The guy,
• 39:55
  Speaker 2: you know, no one's perfect, but based upon his circumstances,
• 39:59
  Speaker 2: I think he did exactly the right thing, and he's
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: getting destroyed, and he got removed and replaced by Letitia James?
• 40:08
  Speaker 2: Letitia James.
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: What?
• 40:12
  Speaker 2: Was Joy Behar unavailable? Letitia James, you got to be
• 40:17
  Speaker 2: kidding me. Now, the only thing positive for these so-called
• 40:21
  Speaker 2: Cornell 7 is that the name Letitia James is so
• 40:24
  Speaker 2: toxic that it effectively ensured that the vast majority of
• 40:29
  Speaker 2: Trump fans in this country are going to at least
• 40:32
  Speaker 2: be somewhat supportive of of them because Letitia James is
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: not a credible person. And she's particularly not credible on
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: this issue because she's already, before she was appointed as
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: the special counsel or whatever they're calling her, she had
• 40:44
  Speaker 2: made very declarative statements supportive of Jane Doe and condemning
• 40:51
  Speaker 2: the accused, saying that she was forced to endure something
• 40:56
  Speaker 2: that was horrific. Forced to endure something that was horrific.
• 41:03
  Speaker 2: And that's the special prosecutor.
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: What?
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: This kind of stuff did not used to happen in America.
• 41:12
  Speaker 2: We are spiraling out of control. This is a kangaroo
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: court here. And it's so obviously so that these guys
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: have no chance. They would have no chance once the
• 41:24
  Speaker 2: story gets to this level under almost all circumstances. But
• 41:29
  Speaker 2: with Hochul and Letitia James in charge, oh my God,
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: look the fuck out. And the media by and large,
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: other than the right-wing media, has just said, oh, well, okay, fine.
• 41:44
  Speaker 2: Nothing problematic here. I mean, there've been some people that
• 41:47
  Speaker 2: have referenced, you know, maybe it's a little uncomfortable that
• 41:50
  Speaker 2: Letitia James already declared publicly what she thinks about the case.
• 41:54
  Speaker 2: And that matters, not just because it shows bias, but
• 41:56
  Speaker 2: it also creates an investment because no one ever wants
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: to admit they were wrong. So what are the chances
• 42:04
  Speaker 2: that Letitia James is going to come to a conclusion
• 42:07
  Speaker 2: that makes herself look like an idiot and goes against
• 42:11
  Speaker 2: her own political agenda and goes against what clearly the
• 42:16
  Speaker 2: governor was? Basically zero. And you know, so much of
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: this story from a media perspective is based on one
• 42:27
  Speaker 2: of the biggest fallacies that I can ever remember. And
• 42:32
  Speaker 2: that's really saying something. I can't stand it when we
• 42:35
  Speaker 2: play pretend, but there's never been, in my view, in
• 42:40
  Speaker 2: my recollection, a circumstance where the media systematically pretended something
• 42:46
  Speaker 2: was true that it was obviously not. More so, there
• 42:52
  Speaker 2: have been other examples similar, but none more so than
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: what the media is doing with regard to this idea
• 42:59
  Speaker 2: of rape culture. Rape culture. At an Ivy League school,
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: a pseudo Ivy League school, Cornell University in 2024, rape culture. Folks,
• 43:15
  Speaker 2: can we just use our brains for half a second?
• 43:20
  Speaker 2: First of all, we had this thing called Me Too
• 43:24
  Speaker 2: in 2017, a complete moral panic, right?
• 43:29
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: If you're at Cornell in 2024, you are a young
• 43:33
  Speaker 2: teenage boy. And you clearly understood this. And you have
• 43:38
  Speaker 2: been taught your entire life by all sorts of different
• 43:43
  Speaker 2: entities how wrong rape is and how women are always
• 43:48
  Speaker 2: right and that men are toxic masculinity is bad. I mean,
• 43:53
  Speaker 2: this has been beaten into your brain your entire life.
• 43:58
  Speaker 2: quote unquote, male existence, at least since puberty. And if
• 44:03
  Speaker 2: you're at Cornell, the culture is the exact opposite, the
• 44:09
  Speaker 2: exact opposite of anything remotely close to toxic masculinity. Are
• 44:14
  Speaker 2: you fucking kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? We
• 44:19
  Speaker 2: are pretending that Cornell University in 2024 was somehow like
• 44:25
  Speaker 2: a military base in 1974. It's absurd. It is completely ridiculous.
• 44:35
  Speaker 2: That's why I refer to this whole thing as the
• 44:37
  Speaker 2: beta male scandal. These guys were incredibly polite during the
• 44:42
  Speaker 2: vast majority of this fiasco, other than the stupid text
• 44:49
  Speaker 2: message or group text, whatever the hell it was, which
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: I think has been misinterpreted, but I fully acknowledge was
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: totally inappropriate. completely wrong. And without that, I'm not sure
• 45:05
  Speaker 2: that we're here because I do think that there are
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: a lot of people that are using that as somehow
• 45:09
  Speaker 2: an indication that something far larger and more nefarious was
• 45:13
  Speaker 2: going on here. I think somebody was just bragging about
• 45:17
  Speaker 2: taking part in this group sex orgy, but I'm not
• 45:22
  Speaker 2: going to defend it. But to say that that is
• 45:25
  Speaker 2: an indication of rape culture, if you read her own
• 45:29
  Speaker 2: description of this. This was not a gang rape. These
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: guys were much more beta than they were toxic, toxically masculine.
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: I mean, and they, and I, by the way, I'm
• 45:46
  Speaker 2: suggesting that they both acted wrong because this was a
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: stupid thing to engage in, but that they also acted
• 45:53
  Speaker 2: appropriately with regard to consent. There were at least five
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: situations where she in my view, by her own statements,
• 46:01
  Speaker 2: clearly gave consent. And there were at least five times
• 46:04
  Speaker 2: where she said she was uncomfortable with something where the
• 46:07
  Speaker 2: guys stopped what they were doing. And at least one
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: situation where they proactively stopped what they were doing because
• 46:13
  Speaker 2: they felt uncomfortable with it. So the idea that somehow
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: there's this horrendous rape culture in universities at large or
• 46:22
  Speaker 2: in general, and Cornell in particular, it's a fantasy. It's
• 46:28
  Speaker 2: an absurdity. And yet the media just buys into it
• 46:33
  Speaker 2: because I guess they know it's a good story. And
• 46:36
  Speaker 2: certainly it's necessary in order to justify their view of
• 46:41
  Speaker 2: this particular case. And we hear this statistic that there
• 46:45
  Speaker 2: was this survey done of women at Cornell where 35%
• 46:51
  Speaker 2: believe or say, claim in an anonymous survey that they've
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: been the victim of some sort of And it's a
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: hard thing to describe what they're saying. I've seen it,
• 47:04
  Speaker 2: different words used. To me, it's misconduct, sexual misconduct. But
• 47:07
  Speaker 2: I've seen media outlets use, they've been a victim of
• 47:10
  Speaker 2: sexual assault of some sort. And it gets very, very
• 47:14
  Speaker 2: dangerous once you give people, especially young women, all sorts
• 47:18
  Speaker 2: of different options and everyone wants to be a victim.
• 47:22
  Speaker 2: That's something that doesn't get talked about nearly enough. And
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: I talk about it a lot. But we live in
• 47:27
  Speaker 2: a world where becoming a victim is a goal. It's
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: a positive. There's no shame in it. You get all
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: sorts of attention and sympathy and maybe even lots of
• 47:41
  Speaker 2: money now. We have swung the pendulum on so many
• 47:45
  Speaker 2: different things, but this issue in particular of victimhood, that's
• 47:49
  Speaker 2: the American dream now, especially for a lot of young women,
• 47:53
  Speaker 2: to be a victim. If you're a victim, you have
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: No responsibility for any of your mistakes. You have an
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: excuse for everything that might have gone wrong in your life.
• 48:03
  Speaker 2: You get attention. You get sympathy. You get empathy. And
• 48:05
  Speaker 2: in this particular case, you're going to get a lot
• 48:07
  Speaker 2: of fucking money. So the idea that somehow claiming to
• 48:11
  Speaker 2: be a victim is a negative or there's some shame
• 48:14
  Speaker 2: in it, that's 1974 talk too. All of this goes
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: hand in hand. We just pretend that that's not the case.
• 48:22
  Speaker 2: We pretend that half the billboards in major cities in
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: this country are not for plaintiff's lawyers advertising for victims.
• 48:32
  Speaker 2: And that's not an exaggeration. I mean, that's a somewhat
• 48:36
  Speaker 2: separate issue, but to me, that's one of the most
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: under-talked about things in American society, where plaintiff's lawyers are
• 48:44
  Speaker 2: are dominating billboard, radio, and local television advertising. How does
• 48:50
  Speaker 2: that make any fucking sense unless the business model is
• 48:53
  Speaker 2: so distorted and the American dream has become becoming a
• 48:59
  Speaker 2: victim of a deep pocketed entity? That's the American dream.
• 49:04
  Speaker 2: But regarding this survey, I've looked into it. I've looked
• 49:07
  Speaker 2: at the results. They make no sense to me. I
• 49:11
  Speaker 2: think most of this is because of the fact that
• 49:13
  Speaker 2: how we define sexual abuse or sexual misconduct has been
• 49:18
  Speaker 2: so watered down. It's so much like racism. Everything is racism.
• 49:22
  Speaker 2: Everything is rape. And by the way, if everything is
• 49:25
  Speaker 2: racism and everything is rape, then nothing is racism and
• 49:28
  Speaker 2: nothing is rape. But I also think that, like a
• 49:32
  Speaker 2: lot of people have said, if this stat is really true,
• 49:35
  Speaker 2: why would women continue to go to Cornell or any
• 49:38
  Speaker 2: other university? It's preposterous. It defies basic logic. It's a
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: lot like if super-rich liberals really believe in global warming
• 49:50
  Speaker 2: and climate change, why the hell are they buying beachfront
• 49:53
  Speaker 2: property and maintaining beachfront property in areas that allegedly are
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: going to get destroyed by rising sea levels and increasingly
• 50:02
  Speaker 2: terrifying storms? It doesn't make any sense. They don't really
• 50:06
  Speaker 2: believe it. It's a virtue signal in a lot of ways.
• 50:10
  Speaker 2: It's a badge of honor. Me too. Literally, me too.
• 50:15
  Speaker 2: Me too. I always thought that that phrasing was problematic
• 50:18
  Speaker 2: in and of itself. Me too. Me too. I mean,
• 50:22
  Speaker 2: I do think there's some legitimacy to that view of
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: what happened with me too. Everyone wanted to be part
• 50:27
  Speaker 2: of this. Me too. Because if you haven't been, then somehow,
• 50:33
  Speaker 2: I guess you're not part of the club. Again, using
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: the racial analogy. We see this all the time. We're
• 50:40
  Speaker 2: very successful, pampered, oftentimes, men who are black or women
• 50:46
  Speaker 2: who are black have to come up with some sort
• 50:49
  Speaker 2: of story from their childhood to show that they have
• 50:53
  Speaker 2: street cred, that they've suffered some sort of racism. Tiger
• 50:56
  Speaker 2: Woods did this on multiple occasions, which drove me crazy,
• 51:00
  Speaker 2: which of course was absurd because he was living in
• 51:02
  Speaker 2: an upper middle class situation in Orange County, California, was
• 51:07
  Speaker 2: a celebrity for the time he was 18 months old.
• 51:10
  Speaker 2: Everyone knew who he was. Everyone kissed his ass. There's
• 51:13
  Speaker 2: not a chance in the world that Tiger Woods suffered
• 51:16
  Speaker 2: any real legitimate racism. And if he had, his dad,
• 51:19
  Speaker 2: Earl Woods, would have been screaming from the mountaintops that
• 51:22
  Speaker 2: he had. But Tiger, like a lot of other Black celebrities,
• 51:25
  Speaker 2: feels like he needs his moment to prove that he's
• 51:29
  Speaker 2: actually authentically at least somewhat Black. I think there's a
• 51:32
  Speaker 2: lot of similarities when it comes to being a victim
• 51:36
  Speaker 2: of sexual abuse of whatever level it is. but the
• 51:41
  Speaker 2: idea that there's somehow a rape culture in general and
• 51:44
  Speaker 2: specifically at Cornell University is ridiculous. Yet we're seeing massive
• 51:49
  Speaker 2: protests at Cornell and the massive protests are as a
• 51:53
  Speaker 2: result of the news media. Without the news media taking
• 51:58
  Speaker 2: a lawsuit and completely blowing it way out of proportion,
• 52:03
  Speaker 2: they could have easily in another time and place said, okay,
• 52:08
  Speaker 2: this is a lawsuit. Come back to us when maybe
• 52:11
  Speaker 2: the trial begins. Because otherwise, all we know is that
• 52:15
  Speaker 2: it's an allegation. It's a very serious allegation. Could destroy
• 52:18
  Speaker 2: people's lives. And it appears to just be for money.
• 52:21
  Speaker 2: And we don't even know if you're going to maybe
• 52:23
  Speaker 2: settle for this. Settle this. Maybe this is just a
• 52:25
  Speaker 2: ploy for a settlement from a weak-kneed academic institution, which
• 52:30
  Speaker 2: the media never understands that academia is a completely different animal.
• 52:34
  Speaker 2: They've got lots of money. It's other people's money. There's
• 52:37
  Speaker 2: no stock price. There's insurance companies involved. They are actually
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: incentivized to give away money. And the media refuses to
• 52:48
  Speaker 2: understand the unique dynamic when it comes to academia and
• 52:51
  Speaker 2: settling these things. So there's a very plausible scenario that
• 52:57
  Speaker 2: this lawsuit was just simply a negotiating ploy to get
• 53:01
  Speaker 2: money from Cornell. and maybe the accused themselves. So in
• 53:07
  Speaker 2: a rational world, the media would go, okay, interesting, but
• 53:11
  Speaker 2: we can't report on this at least until there's a trial.
• 53:14
  Speaker 2: Because if there's a trial, it means that one, a
• 53:17
  Speaker 2: judge has determined that there's enough legitimacy to warrant a trial.
• 53:21
  Speaker 2: And two, this isn't necessarily part of a settlement negotiation.
• 53:27
  Speaker 2: So a trial, I think, is the line of demarcation.
• 53:30
  Speaker 2: If you have a trial that's actually starting, Then go
• 53:34
  Speaker 2: ahead and report on it fairly and objectively and make
• 53:39
  Speaker 2: it clear that this is a civil trial, not a
• 53:41
  Speaker 2: criminal trial, which is completely different with a totally different
• 53:43
  Speaker 2: set of standards. But we're not living in that world.
• 53:46
  Speaker 2: And because the media decided to become the PR firm
• 53:50
  Speaker 2: for this lawsuit, now we have protests at Cornell, which
• 53:54
  Speaker 2: of course is going to do what? Greatly increase the
• 53:59
  Speaker 2: pressure on Cornell to settle the fucking thing. This is
• 54:03
  Speaker 2: how academia works. They're just going to settle this. So,
• 54:10
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's so obvious, yet incredibly frustrating. The media
• 54:17
  Speaker 2: either doesn't understand this, refuses to understand this, or understands
• 54:21
  Speaker 2: it and just doesn't care because the story is fitting
• 54:24
  Speaker 2: their agenda in so many different ways. And one of
• 54:27
  Speaker 2: the ways that it's fitting their agenda is they think,
• 54:30
  Speaker 2: I think, politically. Obviously, we're a month away from a
• 54:33
  Speaker 2: midterm election. There's a lot of people that believe that
• 54:36
  Speaker 2: that's what's driving a lot of the media coverage. It
• 54:39
  Speaker 2: might be. I actually don't necessarily think that this is
• 54:43
  Speaker 2: very helpful to the Democratic cause. I think the Democratic
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: cause is in great shape in the midterms, unfortunately. I
• 54:50
  Speaker 2: don't think this is necessarily going to help it because
• 54:52
  Speaker 2: I think it cuts both ways. I think it only
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: exacerbates the massive divide between the way generally women are
• 55:00
  Speaker 2: going to vote and generally men are going to vote.
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: But to me, all you're really doing is ginning up
• 55:07
  Speaker 2: your base, which is important for a midterm election. You're
• 55:09
  Speaker 2: getting the liberal feminist crazies very, very agitated, and you
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: might increase their voter participation because of this story. So
• 55:17
  Speaker 2: I get that. It's not an irrational view. But there
• 55:21
  Speaker 2: was at least one really ridiculous media example of this.
• 55:24
  Speaker 2: It came on this week on ABC, which used to
• 55:27
  Speaker 2: be a highly respected show. where New York Times writer
• 55:32
  Speaker 2: Michelle Cottle actually not just blamed a rape culture for
• 55:38
  Speaker 2: this story, but blamed the rape culture on Donald Trump.
• 55:44
  Speaker 2: That's right. This is all actually Donald Trump's fault. And
• 55:50
  Speaker 2: here was her rationale on ABC's This Week.
• 55:53
  Speaker 1: It's a fundamental disrespect for women. You can't send those messages,
• 55:58
  Speaker 1: no matter how drunk you are as a frat boy,
• 56:01
  Speaker 1: without having some kind of misunderstanding about what women are
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: there for and whether this is a real person you're
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: dealing with. And that, I think, starts, you know, we
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: can go to the president for this one. I mean,
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: we are in a moment in this culture where the
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: glorification of being thuggish and swaggering and mistreating women is
• 56:20
  Speaker 1: kind of making you a cool kid.
• 56:23
  Speaker 2: That to me is such a stretch and so ridiculous.
• 56:27
  Speaker 2: And it just further creates this fantasy, this pretend narrative
• 56:34
  Speaker 2: that guys at Cornell, you think any of these guys
• 56:37
  Speaker 2: at Cornell were inspired consciously or subconsciously by Donald Trump?
• 56:44
  Speaker 2: By the way, the media won't really tell you this,
• 56:47
  Speaker 2: but they were not all white guys. At least three
• 56:50
  Speaker 2: of the seven We're not white guys. And so, you know,
• 56:56
  Speaker 2: not that even the white guys at Cornell are likely MAGA.
• 57:01
  Speaker 2: It's Cornell. I have no idea what their political views are.
• 57:04
  Speaker 2: No idea. But without any shred of evidence, it's not
• 57:08
  Speaker 2: even like there's social media posts. If you had social
• 57:11
  Speaker 2: media posts from the four guys that actually engaged in
• 57:15
  Speaker 2: this orgy, this sex orgy, that were pro-Trump, okay. Fine.
• 57:21
  Speaker 2: That's an interesting conversation to have. But that evidence, as
• 57:25
  Speaker 2: of this moment, does not exist. And if it did exist,
• 57:28
  Speaker 2: I'm pretty damn sure we would have heard about it.
• 57:31
  Speaker 2: And that's a New York Times writer on ABC. Now,
• 57:34
  Speaker 2: speaking of ABC, this is really amazing. And I could
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: probably do an hour just on this, but I'm not
• 57:42
  Speaker 2: going to. But ABC News did something, and Aaron Katursky,
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: who I've had a little bit of contact with recently
• 57:49
  Speaker 2: on the Jerry Sandusky case, and I thought I had
• 57:52
  Speaker 2: a little bit of respect for, but I'm revising that
• 57:54
  Speaker 2: opinion very, very quickly. Aaron Katursky got leaked clearly from
• 58:01
  Speaker 2: the law team, the law firm of Jane Doe, a
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: phone call. that Jane Doe had with one of the
• 58:11
  Speaker 2: guys she actually had sex with. I believe this is
• 58:14
  Speaker 2: actually the primary guy she intended to have sex with
• 58:18
  Speaker 2: that night. Now, this is extraordinary and a classic example
• 58:22
  Speaker 2: of how the media omits information to create a completely
• 58:28
  Speaker 2: different perception in order to preserve their narrative and to
• 58:32
  Speaker 2: promote their agenda. Because this is amazing what they did.
• 58:37
  Speaker 2: So they get this phone call. Now, the first thing
• 58:41
  Speaker 2: that ABC does not do is that they do not
• 58:44
  Speaker 2: make it clear. They don't make it as overt as
• 58:48
  Speaker 2: they should have. That this is the woman calling the
• 58:54
  Speaker 2: guy that she now accuses of gang raping her and
• 58:58
  Speaker 2: tape recording him without his consent. Now, to be clear,
• 59:05
  Speaker 2: that's legal in New York, but I find this to
• 59:08
  Speaker 2: be incredibly telling and rather hypocritical because obviously this entire
• 59:14
  Speaker 2: case is about consent, right? And there are those that
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: are claiming, well, even if the guys had consent, they
• 59:22
  Speaker 2: shouldn't have done what they did because it was wrong. Okay, well,
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: couldn't you make the same argument where this woman is
• 59:33
  Speaker 2: clearly weeks afterwards, after her story is starting to evolve,
• 59:37
  Speaker 2: I believe by the help of friends and a therapist.
• 59:40
  Speaker 2: So she's starting to now have a change of heart.
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: She's been apparently disinvited to a Halloween party at the
• 59:48
  Speaker 2: fraternity where this all happened because that's what you want
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: to do, right? You want to go to a Halloween
• 59:52
  Speaker 2: party at the place where you were gang raped just recently.
• 59:55
  Speaker 2: That's right. Come on, people. But getting back to the
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 2: phone call, ABC refuses to tell you that this call
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 2: was recorded by her without his consent, which, again, I
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 2: think that that matters from a standpoint of not legality,
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 2: but hypocrisy, if we're talking about how important consent is here.
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 2: But that's just the tip of the iceberg. ABC then
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 2: does something absolutely extraordinary. Absolutely extraordinary. They play the audio
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 2: of the guy being accused now by Jane Doe of
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 2: participating in a gang rape. They do not play her
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 2: portion of the audio. They don't. That gets voiced by
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 2: Aaron Katursky. Now, journalistically, this is un-fucking-believable. Unbelievable. And it's
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 2: all based upon this absurd notion that somehow the media
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 2: must do everything it possibly can to protect the identity
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 2: of Jane Doe.
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 1: Why?
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 2: On what basis? She's an adult. She filed a lawsuit.
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 2: She's trying to get lots and lots of money from
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 2: lots of different entities. She's a big girl. Part of
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 2: the responsibility that must come with that is, okay, you
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: want to make this a public matter, then I'm sorry,
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 2: your identity matters when determining your credibility. This is just
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 2: so obvious to me. This drove me crazy in the
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 2: whole Penn State case because effectively the media did exactly
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 2: the same thing except for the number one accuser. And
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 2: they couldn't do anything about that really because he made
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 2: himself public and then he wrote a book. But the
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 2: reality is the vast majority of Sandusky accusers were totally
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 2: anonymous publicly to the point where even people in their
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 2: own circle didn't know they were Sandusky accusers years later.
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 2: And that mattered dramatically because had those people known, they
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 2: would have called bullshit when it mattered. And that's just
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 2: one way where your identity matters. The identity of this
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 2: woman inherently goes to her credibility in so many different ways.
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 2: And yet the media is doing not just PR for
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 2: her lawsuit, but they're defending her and her identity. at
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 2: all costs, even to the point where Erin Katursky voices
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 2: her portion of the phone call. And that matters, not
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 2: just because it's journalistically absurd. And by the way, ABC
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 2: didn't even explain what they were doing. They just did it.
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 2: But obviously, you cannot discern context and credibility from her
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 2: side of the phone call without hearing her voice. This
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 2: is obvious. So the media is literally, literally on her
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 2: legal team. This was leaked clearly from her legal team.
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 2: They kept her identity from becoming public. Who knows what
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 2: Aaron Katursky did with the voiceover? There's no way. I mean,
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: he did it as straight as he could, but there's
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 2: no way he did it accurately. We could have heard
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 2: all sorts of nuance and context from hearing her voice.
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 2: where she's clearly trying to entrap her accuser. And guess what?
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 2: The person that she's accused, but the person who's being accused,
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 2: the guy did not incriminate himself during the phone call.
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 2: So why is this even relevant? The only relevance would
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 2: be if you have played both of their voices and
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 2: we heard what was going on between them weeks later.
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 2: And by the way, I just So often we just
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 2: miss the biggest point of this. She's having a cordial conversation,
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 2: calling up a guy she now claims gang raped her.
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 2: How does that make any sense? Especially given the totality
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 2: of the evidence in this case. And yet ABC, because
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 2: they've completely become totally invested in this narrative, They're just
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 2: doing everything they possibly can, literally bending over backwards to
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 2: protect her narrative and to protect her identity. And her
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 2: identity became an issue in a big way over the
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 2: last week, in large part because of a guy who's
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 2: been a guest on this podcast on multiple occasions, Michael Tracy.
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 2: And if you remember Michael Tracy from the Jeffrey Epstein case,
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 2: I probably had more frustration because with Michael Tracy than
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 2: any other guest I've ever had. And here we are
• 1:05:09
  Speaker 2: at the time on the same side, basically, of the
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 2: Epstein story, except for the issue of Epstein's suicide, which
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 2: I tried to convince Michael Tracy way ahead of the curve,
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 2: way before the New York Times investigation. And I think
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 2: it was New York Magazine or the New Yorker. It
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 2: might have been New York Magazine, both the Times and
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 2: One of the other New York publications at almost exactly
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 2: the same time did an in-depth investigation much after my
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 2: conversation with Michael Tracy vindicating my view. Epstein absolutely killed himself.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 2: The alternative scenario made no goddamn sense. And I was right.
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 2: And I was trying to convince Michael Tracy that he
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 2: was hurting his cause because the core of that entire
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 2: story changes dramatically if you have to accept that Epstein
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 2: killed himself. It destroys the entire blackmail theory. It clearly
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 2: destroys the entire Donald Trump was in on it theory
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 2: because Trump was president at the time and he's in
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 2: a federal prison. And of course, all bets are off
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 2: if he was somehow murdered in a federal prison. So
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 2: this created a massive conflict between Michael Tracy and myself.
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 2: I was 100% right on that. And I was exceedingly
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 2: frustrated with him. And by the way, he has never
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 2: admitted he was wrong. He's never apologized to me. You know,
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 2: which whatever. I mean, that to me, that goes to
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 2: what kind of a journalist he really is. You should
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 2: at least admit when you're wrong, especially when it's in
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 2: your own self-interest or the self-interest of the narrative that
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 2: you're promoting. And Tracy's so arrogant that he has not
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 2: done that. But that's the history between Michael Tracy and myself.
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 2: And I frankly think that he has harmed the case
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 2: for the truth. in the Jeffrey Epstein case, in large
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 2: part because of his blind spot on the entire suicide issue. Well,
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 2: Tracy briefly publicized the name and the identity of Jane
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 2: Doe on his ex-account, and it went viral. Interestingly, he
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 2: did so with a photograph of Jane Doe. Effectively, a
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 2: photograph was a selfie or someone took a picture of
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 2: her doing this, where she's basically giving, I'm not exaggerating,
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 2: she's basically giving the Empire State Building a handjob. Or
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 2: the Empire State Building is a penis and she's acting
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: like she's giving it a handjob. Which is pretty frickin' telling.
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 2: And I understand why Michael used that as the photograph.
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 2: But he provided her name and he also claimed that
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 2: the source for why he was sure it was her
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 2: was some sort of a a legal website that he
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 2: thought had made a mistake. Now, this gets a little complex,
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 2: but I'm going to try to break it down for
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 2: you what really happened here. So Tracy posts her name
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 2: and her photograph. And I think the photograph is very telling,
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 2: not just because she's giving the Empire State Building a
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 2: hand job. I'm going to get to that in a second.
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 2: But who she is, her background, everything else, that can
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 2: go to her credibility. And Tracy knew that this was
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 2: going to create a massive firestorm. It did go viral.
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 2: But then he took it down. And he took it
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 2: down under a convoluted rationale. And this is where Michael
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 2: is a very, very frustrating guy. And I'm not sure
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 2: that he's completely authentic. I think he's got a massive ego.
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 2: He hates to admit when he's wrong. He refuses to
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 2: admit when he's wrong. And I think he's probably a
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 2: bit autistic, too, or he's got he's got something in
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 2: his personality. where, where there's a, there's a hole there.
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 2: That I think, I believe, I don't, I obviously don't
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 2: have enough information to diagnose him, but there's something off.
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 2: There's something off about Michael Tracy. And he comes up
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 2: with this convoluted rationale that he had made his point
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 2: about that her ID matters, but now it's reached the,
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 2: these are my words, the point of diminishing marginal returns,
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 2: and he's going to take it down. Well, that story,
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 2: in my view, was both bullshit and exceedingly counterproductive. What
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 2: really happened, I think, is that Tracy had the right person,
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 2: had the right name, had the right photo, but that
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 2: the alleged source of the information was fraudulent. In other words, somebody,
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 2: I don't know how this happened, whether it was on
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 2: purpose or whatever, but it seems like someone might have
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 2: concocted a fake legitimate source of information that provided true information.
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 2: That sounds weird and contradictory, but I think the identification
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 2: was correct, but the source of the information was not legitimate.
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 2: And I think Tracy jumped the gun on that panicked
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 2: once he realized, oh shit, I got duped by a
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 2: fake source of information and I'm getting destroyed here on
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 2: X because obviously all the crazies in the media, everyone
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 2: else is going to come after you like a ton
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 2: of bricks because you're, you know, this is a blasphemer. Blasphemy!
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 2: You cannot ID someone who is filing a lawsuit seeking
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 2: millions of dollars from many different entities who's an adult.
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 2: No one explains why. No one has ever explained why.
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 2: On what basis does she deserve anonymity here? Zero, zero,
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 2: literally zero, except that the media has concocted this rule.
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 2: And now that they've concocted this rule, they can't go
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 2: back on it because these precedents matter. Now the feminist crazies,
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 2: they think that this is the rule and that this
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 2: rule is legitimate. And what Tracy did by backing down
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 2: and pussing out, and I told him this on social
• 1:11:17
  Speaker 2: media and in a text that he never responded to,
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 2: although he asked me to promote a media appearance of his,
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 2: so he clearly got the text, which I did not do.
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 2: But what Tracy has done is effectively harmed his own case.
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 2: He's now made it impossible for any legitimate news organization
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 2: to ID Jane Doe. Because he made it toxic, even
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 2: more toxic than it was, because he fucked up and
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 2: then he wimped out. So he actually harmed his own cause,
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 2: not dissimilarly to what he did with Epstein and the
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 2: suicide issue. I wonder whether Michael Tracy might not be
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 2: a double agent. By the way, I'm someone who's made
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 2: a ton of mistakes in the Sandusky case. And I'm
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 2: sure that there are people that firmly believe that I
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 2: have been a negative to the cause of justice in
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 2: that case. So I have a lot of sympathy and
• 1:12:14
  Speaker 2: empathy for Michael Tracy's situation. I've tried to give him
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 2: wide latitude. I've tried to give him the benefit of
• 1:12:20
  Speaker 2: the doubt. But he has absolutely harmed the cause here.
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 2: when it comes to the issue of IDing Jane Doe
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 2: by backing down, because once you back down and you
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 2: delete a viral post, whether it's based in reality or not,
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 2: it's going to be perceived as an admission of guilt
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 2: that you did something wrong. And so if an independent
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 2: quote unquote journalist thinks that they did something wrong by
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 2: IDing Jane Doe, no one else is going to ID
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 2: Jane Doe. And that helps her case in so many
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 2: different ways. Like specifically, ABC won't even play her voice
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 2: in a phone call she made and she recorded with
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 2: one of the guys that she's accusing of gang raping her.
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 2: And that has a massive influence over how this case
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 2: gets perceived and how this case gets perceived has a
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 2: massive influence over how Cornell reacts, over how Letitia James reacts,
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 2: how Governor Hochul reacts, how this person that Cornell has hired,
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 2: Sally Yates, Sally Yates from the Obama administration, a former
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 2: assistant attorney general, has been hired by Cornell to be
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 2: their Louis Free and to investigate Cornell, which is completely absurd. Cornell,
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 2: so many things we're learning almost on a daily basis here.
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 2: Cornell already did a deep, deep, deep investigation of the situation.
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 2: There were already significant punishments handed out. Two of the
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 2: guys got expelled. We keep hearing this, oh, they made
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 2: them write an essay. That's such bullshit. There were huge
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 2: punishments handed out in this circumstance. The fraternity got suspended.
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 2: So the idea that Cornell didn't do anything is ridiculous.
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 2: But I do see, using the Louis Freeh example, that
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 2: the parallels between this and Penn State are increasing on
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 2: almost a daily basis. And that Sally Yates, my God,
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 2: Having Letitia James and Sally Yates and Governor Hochul be
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 2: at the helm of this, there's no chance for any
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 2: sort of justice. She's going to be at least as
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 2: bad as Louis Freeh. She's not going to come back
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 2: and say Cornell did the right thing, even though they
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 2: probably overreacted based upon what we now know of the
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 2: facts of the case. But going back to the idea
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 2: of Jane Doe, and this matters in so many different ways,
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 2: but this is a topic that you're not allowed to
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 2: talk about. But, you know, that's part of what the
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 2: Death of Journalism podcast is about. I talk about things
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 2: no one else has the balls to discuss. Part of
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 2: what makes the identification of Jane Doe relevant is her
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 2: level of attractiveness. Now, I realize that the feminists scream
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 2: bloody murder about this, because they think that rape is
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 2: about power, it's not about sex, and that therefore... how
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 2: attractive a woman is, is irrelevant. Well, that is just
• 1:15:32
  Speaker 2: not reality, especially not the reality of this kind of
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 2: a situation. This was in no way, shape, or form
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 2: a violent rape that was about power. This was clearly
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 2: about sex and drugs, okay? And so her level of
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 2: attractiveness in a real world matters to evaluating the circumstance.
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 2: And if you had asked me, and I've seen other
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 2: people say exactly the same thing, what she was going
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 2: to look like, I would have told you that she
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 2: would be relatively unattractive, but probably have a pretty good body.
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 2: And that's exactly what she is. She is facially not attractive.
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 2: And just like the guy said, She has an attractive body.
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 2: So under those circumstances, I can completely see how this
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 2: transpired because a woman like that to get extreme attention
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 2: from attractive men, and these guys were all attractive guys.
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 2: They're all at Cornell. They got a lot going on
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 2: for them. The only way that she's going to get
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 2: that level of attention is to engage in this kind
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 2: of absurd and risky behavior and to do so consensually.
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 2: That doesn't prove it. I'm saying it's consistent with it.
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 2: Had she been extremely attractive, it would have changed my
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 2: view of the dynamics of what likely happened. Because if
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 2: she was extremely attractive, she has no need to engage
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 2: in this kind of behavior consensually. and the incentive for
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 2: the guys to engage in it or to force it
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 2: would be heightened. But with this woman, that incentive is
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 2: not that strong. And if you read their accounts and
• 1:17:35
  Speaker 2: her account, it sounds like she was at least, if
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 2: not more so enthusiastic about this, at least at the beginning,
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 2: than they were. And that goes to incentive structures. You
• 1:17:47
  Speaker 2: cannot tell me in the real world that the incentive
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 2: structure is different for college-age guys if the woman involved
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 2: is extremely attractive as opposed to not being particularly attractive.
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 2: But you're not allowed to even talk about that. They
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 2: take that completely off the table. Why? Well, because I
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 2: think they know that it's effective because people that understand
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 2: the real world get this, but also because they know
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 2: it's inconvenient for their narrative. And they also know that
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 2: it's going to piss off the feminists. And the extreme feminists,
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 2: this is all tied together, the extreme feminists, much like
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 2: Rush Limbaugh always said, tend to not be particularly attractive.
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 2: I think one of the smartest things Rush ever said
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 2: was effectively that feminism is how unattractive women get access
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 2: to power. Now, that sounds incredibly chauvinistic. I'm sorry. It's accurate.
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 2: Rush was right about this. Look, I have two young daughters. Thankfully,
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 2: they're going to be very attractive. This is not going
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 2: to be a problem for them. I have nothing against
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 2: unattractive women. They're obviously equal in every possible way under
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 2: the law. I actually feel sympathy and empathy for a
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 2: lot of unattractive women because they generally get a raw
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 2: deal in our society. I get that. But if you're
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 2: going to evaluate a situation that's clearly about sex, I'm sorry,
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 2: the level of sexual attractiveness matters. And one of the
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 2: weirdest things, I shouldn't say weird, but maybe most telling
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 2: and fascinating elements of the reaction to this story has
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 2: been a clear divide, a clear divide between the way
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 2: that attractive women have tended to react to it and
• 1:19:37
  Speaker 2: how unattractive women have tended to react to it. Now,
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 2: I have already thought this through quite a bit, and
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 2: I realized that social media, because of algorithms and popularity
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 2: and everything else, you tend not only to see things
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 2: that you agree with more than things you disagree with,
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 2: but you tend, and I think this is a negative,
• 1:19:58
  Speaker 2: which I think goes to my credibility on this issue,
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 2: we tend to see on social media videos of attractive women,
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 2: and men, but especially women, far more than we see
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 2: videos of unattractive women. That's a huge problem going forward.
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 2: I mean, on TikTok, now granted, they got filters. You
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 2: can make almost any woman look attractive. But on TikTok,
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 2: it's impossible to gain traction if you're not an attractive woman.
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 2: Attractive women completely dominate And the same thing happens on
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 2: cable news. Fox News has made a fortune out of this.
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 2: We're seeing the same thing on X videos. So I've
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 2: already put into the equation the reality that you're going
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 2: to be more likely to see the opinions of attractive
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 2: women because men will like those and share those and
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 2: positively comment on those. And so the algorithm is going
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 2: to be far more friendly to those. So I understand that.
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 2: But even accepting that inherent bias in social media, there's
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 2: absolutely a divide here. Because almost universally, the women that
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 2: have supported due process and have expressed skepticism towards Jane Doe,
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 2: and have at least been somewhat defensive of the so-called
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 2: Cornell 7, even though it's actually the Cornell 4, are almost,
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 2: not exclusively, but almost entirely at least above average in
• 1:21:28
  Speaker 2: their attractiveness. And conversely, the women that have been most
• 1:21:33
  Speaker 2: vocal about how horrible this is are almost universally, not entirely,
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 2: but definitely generally below average attractiveness. Now, why is that?
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 2: I think that's an incredibly telling reality. And I do
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 2: think it's a reality. But I think it's very telling
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 2: because attractive women seem to understand the reality of these
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 2: kinds of situations more so than unattractive women do. They
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 2: get it because they've experienced it. I mean, you would
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 2: think it would be the opposite, right? You would think
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 2: that if we lived in a rape culture, which we don't,
• 1:22:18
  Speaker 2: but you would think that attractive women would be much
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 2: more willing to believe any sort of story like this
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 2: one because their entire lives, they have been bombarded with
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 2: oftentimes unwanted advances from men. That's what happens to very
• 1:22:38
  Speaker 2: attractive women. Not as much as it used to, I think,
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 2: now that we've become a society that demeans toxic masculinity.
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 2: But the reality is, if you're a very attractive woman,
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 2: you're going to get a lot of unwanted advances in
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 2: your life. So you would think that they would be
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 2: the ones that were hypersensitive towards any sort of issue
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 2: involving sexual misconduct, sexual assault, or rape. But it's exactly
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 2: the opposite. And the reason it's the opposite is because
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 2: they've had experience with this and they know that's not
• 1:23:14
  Speaker 2: the reality. The unattractive women have generally not had this
• 1:23:18
  Speaker 2: kind of experience. And so they're going by The perception
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 2: that's been created by the media or by their own
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 2: delusions and their hatred of men, I think that's a
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 2: huge part of it. I think that if I was
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 2: going to cut this down to Oxum's razor, attractive women
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 2: tend to like men because men do a lot of
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 2: nice things for them. Unattractive women tend to not like
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 2: men because men don't do as many nice things for them.
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 2: That's really the reality of this. And so if you're
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 2: an unattractive woman, you don't like men because men aren't
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 2: nice to you. Certainly not as nice to you as
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 2: they are to attractive women. That's reality. Is it unfair?
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:23:56
  Speaker 2: I don't even like it. I wish it wasn't the
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 2: case to the extent that it is, but that's human reality.
• 1:24:02
  Speaker 2: And it has manifested itself into this rather interesting, I
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 2: think fascinating and very telling phenomenon that those that are
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 2: generally defending due process and are skeptical of Jane Doe
• 1:24:18
  Speaker 2: tend to be far more attractive women than than the
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 2: women who were on the warpath on this case against
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 2: the so-called Cornell 7. Thanks for listening to today's free
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 2: drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 2: to the entire show, you must become a patron. Please
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 2: go to Patreon. That's P-A-T-R-E-O-N dot com. Patreon.com slash TheDeathOfJournalismWithJohnZiegler
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 2: My name is J-O-H-N-Z-I-E-G-L-E-R. That's patreon.com slash the death of
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 2: journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck to you on that.
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 2: But that's how you can subscribe.