Claim $10 in US Stablecoin (USA₮) free and send your first tip with Rumble Wallet. Use code NateTheLawyer10 at signup: http://wallet.rumble.com/natethelawyer Promotional funds may only be used to tip creators on Rumble and cannot be withdrawn, transferred, or cashed out. Void where prohibited. No purchase necessary. Offer available to US residents only. Offer not available in New York State. Must be 18+. Offer is available for a limited time and for the first 500 wallets activated and funded. Restrictions apply. Details and full official rules available at http://rumble.com/promoofficialrules. This is a paid advertisement for Rumble Wallet. Rumble is compensating me for this ad. One night. A sworn statement. A later lawsuit. How do the accounts compare? The Cornell 7 allegations have sparked national outrage. In this video, I compare Jane Doe’s original sworn statement, as presented by the district attorney, with the allegations in her civil lawsuit and examine the differences involving consent, intoxication, force, and what happened inside the fraternity house. We start with the law, walk through the timeline, and evaluate the evidence. I also examine the recorded conversation, Sunny Hostin’s comments on The View, and one male participant’s claim that Jane Doe assaulted him. What actually conflicts? What requires more context? And how should those differences affect our assessment of the allegations? Credibility matters. So does applying the same standard to both sides. CHAPTERS 00:00 The Cornell 7 controversy 00:46 How we’ll evaluate the evidence 01:09 Two competing assault claims 01:55 New York law and intoxication 02:57 Sunny Hostin weighs in 04:07 The timeline before the fraternity 05:41 How the sworn statement was prepared 06:50 What the statement describes 07:33 The recorded conversation 12:12 Applying the law to the account 13:12 The district attorney’s explanation 13:44 The “100% confident” report 16:47 Comparing the statement and lawsuit 20:17 C