Megyn Kelly on the Totalitarian Absurdity of the Cornell 7 “Rape” Case

Summary

Megyn Kelly gives a strongly defense-oriented account of the “Cornell Seven” case, concerning events at a Chi Phi fraternity house on October 19–20, 2024. She says Jane Doe was invited by Matt Engels and had sexual encounters with several fraternity members. Kelly maintains that the encounters were consensual, citing the men’s accounts, messages exchanged afterward, and passages from a statement Jane Doe reportedly gave to Cornell police. She says the statement described Jane Doe agreeing to sex, setting limits at points, and remaining aware of what was happening. These details reflect Kelly’s presentation of the case; the subtitles do not include Jane Doe’s own response.

Kelly says Jane Doe later described the encounters as rape after friends and others encouraged her to view them that way. She also discusses a recording of a call in which Jane Doe reportedly told one of the men that she did not remember much and that most of the sex was nonconsensual. Kelly contrasts that account with messages she says Jane Doe sent earlier, including statements expressing affection and saying the events were not illegal.

Criminal case

Kelly says Cornell police prepared a six-page statement that Jane Doe reviewed and signed under penalty of perjury, and that the local district attorney initially concluded it did not establish a crime. Kelly interprets New York law as requiring more than voluntary intoxication to show incapacity to consent—such as physical helplessness or being secretly drugged—and argues that Jane Doe’s reported account did not meet that threshold. This is Kelly’s legal analysis, not a court ruling presented in the interview.

University and civil proceedings

Kelly says Cornell expelled Matt Engels and John Newell through its Title IX process, while a civil lawsuit names seven men. She describes a fraternity group chat containing crude and degrading remarks about Jane Doe, but argues that the messages, though offensive, do not by themselves establish that the sexual activity was nonconsensual.

Kelly also says New York Attorney General Letitia James took over or reopened the criminal investigation after the local prosecutor faced pressure. Kelly criticizes James and other officials, suggesting their public statements show bias; these claims are presented as her opinions.

Media coverage and anonymity

Kelly and Tucker Carlson criticize news outlets for naming the accused while keeping the accuser anonymous. They argue that anonymity in a public civil lawsuit is unfair to defendants and can presume victimhood before the facts are resolved. Carlson says he once avoided reporting a robbery because he felt ashamed. Kelly argues that the same anonymity is not generally available to other crime victims seeking damages.

Broader commentary

The conversation broadens into commentary on gender politics and institutions. Kelly argues that anti-male attitudes, modern feminism, permissive sexual culture, and declining religious influence have contributed to harmful choices and confusion about responsibility and consent.

She also criticizes Cornell and elite universities, alleging that they prioritize diversity and ideological conformity while failing students. The hosts question why Cornell receives federal funding and dispute claims about high campus sexual-assault rates, which Kelly says rely on overly broad definitions. They also suggest that officials focus on high-profile campus cases more than assaults elsewhere.

Presenters and contributors

• Tucker Carlson — Host
• Megyn Kelly — Guest, journalist and former litigator