McCain's Defense of 'Cornell 7' Skepticism Against Marcotte's 'Trumpism' Charge
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "Is ‘Trumpism’ to Blame for the ‘Cornell 7’ Circus? | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." October 7, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author argues that people doubting the 'Cornell 7' sexual assault case aren't just following Trump-style politics—they have good reasons, like the fact that no criminal charges were filed and the accuser's own police statement described the encounter as consensual. He also attacks feminist writer Amanda Marcotte, pointing to her track record of wrongly defending other debunked rape allegations, to argue she has no credibility calling skeptics biased.
Conclusion
Skepticism toward the 'Cornell 7' narrative (that 'Jane Doe' was gang-raped) is a reasonable, evidence-based response to media bias and a flawed legal/factual record, not a product of 'Trumpism' or anti-feminist malice as Amanda Marcotte claims.
Premises
- Amanda Marcotte has a documented history of wrongly insisting on guilt in high-profile sexual assault cases that later proved to be hoaxes (Duke lacrosse case, UVA/Rolling Stone case), and never admitted error.
- The local district attorney reviewed Jane Doe's own sworn statement and concluded it described voluntary, conscious, and consensual drug use and sexual conduct, not a crime.
- No criminal charges were filed against any of the accused despite extensive investigation by police, the DA, and Cornell University.
- The case only became a national story after a civil lawsuit was filed nearly two years after the incident, suggesting media and political opportunism rather than organic newsworthiness.
- National media outlets (e.g., ABC News/Good Morning America) are treating a minor, already-investigated local incident as a major national story, revealing a partisan pattern of using campus sexual assault stories to advance a political narrative ('vote Democrat').
- Marcotte mischaracterizes skeptics as 'anti-feminist' or 'rape deniers' when they are actually objecting to media sensationalism and premature declarations of guilt, not denying that rape occurs or opposing punishment of actual rapists.
Assumptions
- Past instances of false rape accusations (Duke, UVA) are sufficiently analogous to the Cornell case to justify skepticism here.
- A DA's decision not to prosecute and a victim's own statement describing consent are reliable indicators that no assault occurred, despite a university investigation reaching different conclusions.
- Mainstream media coverage of sexual assault allegations on campus is primarily driven by partisan political motives rather than genuine newsworthiness or concern for victims.
- Skepticism expressed by commentators (including personal attacks, implications the accuser is lying, or threats to reveal her identity) is categorically distinct from genuine anti-feminism or victim-blaming.
- Cornell's own disciplinary findings (expulsions, suspensions, fraternity shutdown) are less credible or relevant than the DA's non-prosecution and the accuser's sworn statement.