E

[E @gingerswagg4]

@ASFleischman The fairer takeaway is: New York law made this a difficult prosecution, especially because of its narrow intoxication rules. That is not the same thing as saying the facts established consent or that no rape charge was legally conceivable.

[E @gingerswagg4]

That framing assumes the central disputed fact — that it was all “legal and consensual” — has already been established. It hasn’t.

The DA initially declined charges based on the material he says he had, but the investigation has since been reopened. Cornell separately conducted a Title IX/student-conduct process and imposed expulsions and suspensions.

And the fuller 2024 record is not simply “she consented.” It reportedly includes her saying she was “instantly horrified,” “finally gave in” after repeated requests for sex, that it “felt like coercion,” that she was the most intoxicated she had ever been, was slurring, and felt “unable to make any decision.” A separate police-interview transcript also records her saying, “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”

So this is not a clean “consent-based morality passed, but the sex was gross” case. The actual dispute is over whether there was consent to specific acts at specific points in the night, under extreme intoxication and escalating circumstances. Calling that settled is arguing past the facts, not from them.

[E @gingerswagg4]

This is exactly why the DA’s Sept. 28 summary shouldn’t be treated as the full 2024 record. He did not release the six-page signed statement; he quoted selected passages he said were “relevant and determinative” to his charging decision. Now that ABC/CNN have reported from the actual statement, there is a lot of context his summary left out.

The differences are significant: the DA highlighted that she was “pretty ok” with the first threesome, but the fuller record says she also described herself as “super drunk.” He quoted her saying “Sure” when asked if the men could do ketamine off her body, but the full statement reportedly says she was extremely tired, had her face covered with her hands, and essentially just uttered “Sure” as they poured substances on her. He emphasized that she voluntarily took more ketamine, but the fuller statement says she had become “extremely uncomfortable with how this night was turning out” and thought taking more might make her pass out.

The DA summarized the final encounter as her being 8/10 intoxicated, participating in a threesome, and the men stopping when she said she was tired. The full statement reportedly adds that 8/10 was “the most intoxicated I’ve ever been in my life,” that she was slurring, felt “unable to make any decision,” said she “finally gave in” after being asked for sex repeatedly, and wrote “To me that felt like coercion.” She also said she was “instantly horrified” when the larger group of men entered.

And separately—not in the six-page statement, but in the underlying police-interview transcript—she reportedly said in 2024, “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.” The DA says his office never received that transcript.

None of this proves the 2026 complaint is identical to her 2024 account, or that the DA necessarily reached the wrong legal conclusion under New York law. But it does show that “her 2024 statement described everything as voluntary, conscious and consensual” was a far more categorical characterization than the full six-page statement appears to support. That is why screenshots of the DA’s selected excerpts should not be treated as the complete evidence.

[E @gingerswagg4]

Jane Doe’s account is not simply “I was drunk, therefore I couldn’t consent.” The fuller 2024 record reportedly says she was “instantly horrified” when multiple men entered, “finally gave in” after being asked for sex repeatedly, said it “felt like coercion,” described herself as the most intoxicated she had ever been, said she was slurring and “unable to make any decision,” and separately told police she was “100%” certain she had been raped.

So “the men were drunk too” doesn’t resolve any of that. Their intoxication may be relevant to what they perceived, but it does not create her consent or erase evidence that she was expressing fear, limits, coercion, or inability to decide.

And consent isn’t a gendered symmetry test. You don’t decide whether one person consented by asking whether the other person was also intoxicated. You ask what this person agreed to, what they communicated, what they were capable of deciding, and what the other person knew or reasonably understood at that moment.

In this case, reducing all of that to “women get to have no agency when drunk but men do” sidesteps the actual evidence and turns a fact-specific consent question into a culture-war talking point.

[E @gingerswagg4]

But even setting that aside, the DA still chose not to release the full six-page statement and instead quoted selected passages to characterize it as “voluntary, conscious, and consensual.” Now that ABC/CNN have seen the full statement, we know it also included her saying she was “instantly horrified,” “finally gave in” after repeated requests for sex, that it “felt like coercion,” that she was the most intoxicated she had ever been, and felt “unable to make any decision.”

So the DA may genuinely never have seen the separate transcript — but his public summary of the document he did have was still far more categorical than the fuller statement appears to support. And unfortunately that framing helped fuel the idea that she completely changed her story in 2026.

[E @gingerswagg4]

This comparison falls apart on several points. The Cornell students were not “deemed innocent by the DA.” The DA declined charges in 2024 because he said the six-page statement did not establish the statutory elements of a sex offense; he has now reopened the investigation and is preparing it for grand-jury review.

Cornell also conducted a completely separate Title IX/student-conduct process and imposed expulsions and suspensions, meaning the university did find serious policy violations under its own standards.

And Duke is not a clean analogy. That prosecution collapsed after exculpatory evidence and prosecutorial misconduct; here, the dispute is over what the 2024 evidence showed about consent, intoxication and coercion, and the criminal investigation is active again.

Also, saying public officials are defaming people who were “already deemed innocent” assumes the very thing that has not happened here. A decision not to charge is not an adjudication of innocence, and certainly not when the case has since been reopened.

[E @gingerswagg4]

There are two separate processes here. Cornell does not prosecute crimes; the DA does. Cornell’s Title IX/student-conduct process determines whether students violated university rules and policies, under a different standard and with different possible sanctions. The DA separately decides whether there is enough evidence to prove a New York criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the question isn’t “why did Cornell expel two students if it found they did nothing wrong?” Cornell plainly did find policy violations serious enough to warrant expulsions and suspensions. The unresolved question is why the university process reached serious disciplinary findings while the criminal process initially produced no charges — and whether the DA had the full evidence Cornell had when making that decision. Cornell says they gave them all of the investigatory material.

[E @gingerswagg4]

I’d add that the mismatch goes beyond the “100% confidence I was raped” quote. The fuller 2024 record reportedly says she was “instantly horrified” when multiple men entered, “finally gave in” after being asked for sex repeatedly, said “to me that felt like coercion,” described herself as the most intoxicated she had ever been, said she was slurring, and felt “unable to make any decision because of how intoxicated I was.”

So it’s very hard to square all of that with the DA’s sweeping public characterization that her statement described the night as “voluntary, conscious, and consensual.” That doesn’t necessarily prove his 2024 legal conclusion was wrong, but it does make his 2026 summary look much more selective than the full statement appears to be.

[E @gingerswagg4]

It’s hard to square the DA saying she “does not say that she was … incapacitated at any point” with the fuller 2024 statement now being reported. She reportedly said that by the final encounter she was 8/10 intoxicated, the most intoxicated she had ever been, slurring her words, and felt “unable to make any decision because of how intoxicated I was.”

That may not satisfy New York’s narrow statutory definition of “mental incapacitation,” but it’s very different from saying she never described herself as incapacitated in any ordinary sense. The DA’s wording is much broader than the underlying statement appears to support.

[E @gingerswagg4]

This thread treats the DA’s Sept. 28 summary as if it were Jane Doe’s full 2024 statement. It wasn’t. The DA released selected excerpts he said were “relevant and determinative,” and newer reporting from ABC/CNN on the actual six-page statement adds context that materially changes some of those quotes.
For example, the thread cites her saying “Sure” when asked about ketamine being done off her body. The fuller statement reportedly says she was extremely tired, had her face covered with her hands, and essentially uttered “Sure” as men poured substances on her. It also says she was “instantly horrified” when multiple men entered the room.
The thread also reduces the final encounter to “she can’t remember, so who knows.” But the full statement reportedly says she was 8/10 intoxicated, the most intoxicated she had ever been, slurring, felt “unable to make any decision,” “finally gave in” after being asked for sex repeatedly, and said “to me that felt like coercion.”
And separately, the police interview transcript contains her saying in 2024, “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.” The DA says his office never received that transcript.
Also, consenting to one person, one act, or one encounter does not establish consent to every later act involving that person or anyone else. Consent has to be assessed act by act and moment by moment; prior attraction or prior consensual sex does not answer whether a later sexual act was consensual.
So it’s fair to say there are real inconsistencies between the 2024 account and the lawsuit. It’s not fair to say the 2024 record establishes that “everything was consensual” or that only Male #4 is even arguably at issue. The fuller 2024 material is much more complicated than the DA’s selected summary.

[E @gingerswagg4]

Just one important clarification because I think it changes how the comparison should be framed: the DA has not released Jane Doe’s complete six-page signed statement. His Sept. 28 statement quoted only the portions he said were “relevant and determinative” to his decision not to charge. So right now this is really a comparison between the lawsuit and the DA’s selected summary of the 2024 statement, not the lawsuit and the full statement itself.
And now that ABC and CNN have obtained the full six-page statement, some of the missing context is pretty significant. For example, the DA highlighted that when the men asked to do ketamine off her body, she answered “Sure.” But the fuller reporting says she described herself as “extremely tired” at that point and said she essentially uttered “Sure” while covering her face with her hands as the men poured substances on her. She also said she was “instantly horrified” when the group of men entered the room.
Similarly, the DA emphasized her numerical intoxication levels — 5/10 or 5–6/10 earlier and 8/10 later — but the fuller statement reportedly says that by the final encounter 8/10 was “the most intoxicated I’ve ever been in my life,” that she felt “unable to make any decision,” was slurring her words, and thought the men should have known how impaired she was. She also said she “finally gave in” after being asked for sex repeatedly and wrote, “To me that felt like coercion.”
None of that necessarily resolves whether the conduct met New York’s criminal standard for rape, and there are absolutely differences between the 2024 account and the lawsuit. I just think it’s important not to treat the DA’s excerpts as though they are the complete sworn statement, because the fuller reporting shows that some of his quoted lines had important surrounding context that materially changes how they read.
There’s also a separate two-day police interview transcript, which is not the six-page statement. CNN reports the DA says his office never received that transcript, and it contains Jane Doe saying in 2024, “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”
So I’d just be careful about concluding from the DA’s summary that her 2024 account was simply “I voluntarily took drugs and consented to sex.” The actual 2024 record that’s now coming out appears considerably more nuanced than that.

[George Conway ⚖️🇺🇸 @gtconway3d]

This could wind up being the most-watched newsmagazine segment in television history!!

Congratulations to the Ellisons and Bari Weiss!!!