“This Is a Witchhunt” 7 Frat Boys Investigated For Assault

This article discusses allegations of sexual assault and may be sensitive for some readers.

Commentary YouTuber Anton Daniels is pushing back against renewed scrutiny surrounding seven former Cornell University fraternity members accused in a civil lawsuit of sexually assaulting a woman in 2024, calling the renewed attention a “witch hunt” while questioning whether enough weight is being given to evidence suggesting parts of the night began consensually.

Daniels was reacting to a CBS Mornings report by correspondent Lilia Luciano, who detailed newly revealed information from a Cornell University Police interview with the woman, identified as Jane Doe. The transcript includes a much more serious allegation than what Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says he had before deciding not to pursue criminal charges in 2024.

According to Luciano’s report, Doe told campus police during that interview, “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”

That statement is important because Van Houten said he had never seen it.

Newly Revealed Transcript Raises Questions

Luciano reported that Doe was interviewed by Cornell police more than three weeks after the alleged October 2024 assault at the Chi Phi fraternity house.

During the interview, Doe reportedly distinguished between the beginning of the night and what she says happened later.

Asked whether she was comfortable with the initial sexual encounter, Doe said she had been “super drunk” but was “pretty okay” with that portion of what happened.

She also told police she was being physically hit “very, very hard,” according to the transcript.

Later, however, she described the night differently and said with complete confidence that she had been raped.

Van Houten told CBS that the latter statement was not included in the six-page sworn summary that Cornell police provided to his office in November 2024.

“That wasn’t information that I had,” the district attorney said.

He added that while the word “rape” itself represents a legal conclusion, hearing Doe use that language would have caused prosecutors to investigate further.

Van Houten said that if such an important statement was left out, the matter needed to be examined by someone outside Cornell.

That is a significant development. Whatever conclusions people may eventually reach about the allegations, a prosecutor deciding whether to bring charges should ideally have access to the fullest possible account given by the person reporting the assault.

Daniels Calls The Renewed Attention A “Witch Hunt”

Daniels took a very different view of the growing public reaction.

He stressed that he does not support sexual assault, domestic abuse or anyone being forced into sexual activity, but said he believes the case is being presented publicly in a way that unfairly assumes guilt before all evidence has been evaluated.

“This just sounds like a witch hunt to me,” Daniels said.

He argued that the woman had already been drinking before going to the fraternity house and, based on the portions of her account he focused on, initially participated willingly in sexual activity.

Daniels also criticized celebrities and members of the public who have begun speaking out against the accused men before the renewed investigation is complete.

His position was that people should wait for all available evidence before drawing conclusions.

That principle is reasonable in any unresolved case, although some of Daniels’ broader comments went further than the evidence presented in the CBS report.

For example, he suggested Doe may have later regretted consensual behavior and then reinterpreted it after speaking with others. Nothing in the material presented establishes that as fact, and Doe’s reported statement that she was raped, along with her allegations of physical violence and incapacitation, deserves to be treated seriously rather than reduced to regret.

Cornell’s Internal Investigation Produced Discipline

Luciano reported that Cornell conducted its own extensive internal investigation.

According to information presented by the university president to student government, two students were expelled, two received multi-semester suspensions, two were found not responsible for sexual misconduct, and another had already graduated before consequences could be imposed.

Those university findings did not result in criminal charges.

Luciano said Cornell has maintained that its police department provided investigative materials to the district attorney, while Van Houten said his office did not receive the conclusions from the university’s later internal investigation.

That gap between the criminal investigation and the university process is now part of the controversy.

CBS News legal analyst Caroline Polisi emphasized that a Title IX proceeding and a criminal investigation are fundamentally different.

A university process addresses violations of school policy, while prosecutors must determine whether evidence is strong enough to prove a crime under criminal law.

Polisi said the case had not been handled well and questioned why prosecutors apparently did not have all of the relevant evidence from the beginning.

“Why didn’t they have all the evidence to begin with?” she asked.

Legal Analyst Says Doe Was Owed More Investigation

Polisi also challenged the reasoning behind the original decision not to proceed.

She noted that Doe did not approach campus police merely to describe a positive sexual encounter and argued that her decision to report should itself have prompted deeper investigation into the circumstances.

“Nobody goes to their campus police to tell them about a great night that they had,” Polisi said.

She cautioned that no one outside the investigation yet knows exactly what happened that night or whether criminal conduct can ultimately be proved.

Still, she said Doe was owed a more complete investigation.

That is perhaps the most measured position available at this stage.

The absence of criminal charges in 2024 does not by itself establish that nothing happened, just as the filing of a civil lawsuit does not prove that the allegations are true.

The newly surfaced transcript matters because it suggests prosecutors may not previously have received everything Doe told campus investigators.

Campus Reaction Adds Pressure

Luciano also spoke with Cornell student assembly member Sania Agarwal, who said the case helped motivate her to run for student government.

Agarwal said students were frightened by the possibility that someone could report an assault and still feel they had never received a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

“What if this happened to me?” she asked.

Daniels strongly criticized that framing, arguing that people should not place themselves into Doe’s situation without considering all of the choices and circumstances that preceded the alleged assault.

He said responsibility should be discussed more broadly when alcohol, drugs and risky situations are involved.

There is value in teaching young adults to recognize dangerous circumstances, but risk reduction and criminal responsibility are separate questions.

Someone can make poor or risky decisions and still retain the right to refuse sexual activity at any point. Intoxication, prior consensual activity or voluntarily entering a fraternity house does not by itself answer whether later conduct was consensual.

That distinction is especially important in a case where Doe reportedly told investigators that the beginning of the night differed from what happened later.

Daniels Compares Case To Past False Accusations

Daniels also invoked the Duke lacrosse case as an example of how public opinion can destroy the reputations of accused men before allegations are properly tested.

His concern was that the seven former Cornell students could face lasting consequences even if the renewed criminal inquiry ultimately does not produce charges.

He argued that once names and accusations circulate widely, reputational damage can be difficult to undo.

That concern about due process is legitimate, but each case has to be judged on its own evidence.

The Cornell matter currently contains contested accounts, an internal disciplinary process that produced several sanctions, a prosecutor who says he did not receive a significant statement, and a civil lawsuit alleging serious misconduct.

Those facts make further investigation understandable rather than inherently proof of a campaign against the accused.

Investigation Reopens With Major Questions Unanswered

Van Houten has now indicated that the case warrants renewed examination in light of information he says was not previously provided.

Luciano’s report also highlighted the practical difficulties investigators face nearly two years later.

Potential witnesses may be harder to locate, electronic messages may no longer be available, and memories may have faded.

Polisi said investigators will now have to work through a large amount of material while also dealing with evidence that may no longer be as strong as it would have been in 2024.

Daniels nevertheless maintained that the renewed investigation is being driven heavily by public pressure and the civil lawsuit rather than genuinely new proof of criminal wrongdoing.

He closed by saying he believes the men have been unfairly targeted after an earlier decision not to prosecute.

For now, however, there is no final criminal finding either way.

Doe alleges that consensual activity at the beginning of the night became nonconsensual later, while the accused men have not been criminally convicted of those allegations. The newly revealed police transcript has reopened questions about whether prosecutors originally received enough information to make a fully informed decision.

Until that renewed investigation is completed, the most responsible conclusion is also the least dramatic one: the allegations are serious, the accused are entitled to due process, and the gaps between what Doe told campus police and what prosecutors say they received deserve a thorough explanation.