Diana Andrade Paid By Jack Wohl to Accuse Fauci of Sexual Assault

"Let me tell you something, Diana," says Burkman. "This guy shut the country down. He put 40 million people out of work. In a situation like that, you have to make up whatever you have to make up to stop that train and that's the way life works, OK? That's the way it goes.

Paid to Lie

The main guy in this, Jacob Wohl is a smear "artist"

Jacob Wohl's Failed Smear Attempts

Ten days later, the woman reached out to journalist Nancy Rommelman to say she was really named Diana Andrade, that she had been romantically involved with Jacob Wohl, and that she’d received five figures in cash from him and Burkman to say she had been assaulted by Fauci. “The reality is that I’ve known Jacob since 2018 and that he charmed me into taking money to do this (see attached picture of us together),” she wrote. She also said that she believed the notorious pair are “trying to get another girl to do it, too,” and had asked her if she knew anyone.

I hope Gateway Pundit stops using him as a source.

But really, how easy is it to wreck a career? Everyone on both sides of the political isle should be nervous about this.

Say it once and for many it becomes true.

This clown Wohl hopefully ends up behind bars.

a reply to: ColoradoJens

Warnings were made. Scenarios offered. It all fell on deaf ears and the precedent has been made.

Guilty until proven innocent.

originally posted by: ColoradoJens
But really, how easy is it to wreck a career? Everyone on both sides of the political isle should be nervous about this.

Nah! Only Republicans need to worry. Look at Biden.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I think that is a limited view of how this works. It applies equally to everyone.

Also I think Jacob Wohl has about 17 of these false sexual assault claims under his belt.

Point is you spread enough manure something may grow.

a reply to: ColoradoJens
You have the manure part right.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: ColoradoJens
You have the manure part right.

No comment on the story? This guy has been outed over a dozen times concocting sexual allegations.

Using the logic that one political party is more culpable than the other does not excuse us as individuals to use the same logic.

Hold yourself to a higher standard.

Edit to add: As these stories that will go no where continue to dominate the news, a record 100 million Americans are out of the job force.

a reply to: ColoradoJens

I hadn't heard of either of these two until this OP. Hadn't even heard of any sexual assault allegations against Fauci.

But regardless, isn't the real problem those who would condemn someone for unsubstantiated charges? People can make whatever claims they want to make. People can believe whatever they want to believe. It's not a problem until actions are taken against someone with no evidence or proof. And even then, it's those manipulating the law and the process who are the bigger problem.

In other words, the ones with power who use that power for illegitimate purposes.

Sounds almost like a bunch of controlled opposition designed to make purposeful failures that produce "automatic" desired opinions and thinking 😎

Sparkling water enthusiast?

Who is this kid?

Looks to be some "nobody, narcissist", looking for his 15 minutes of fame, and failing spectacularly.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ColoradoJens

I hadn't heard of either of these two until this OP. Hadn't even heard of any sexual assault allegations against Fauci.

But regardless, isn't the real problem those who would condemn someone for unsubstantiated charges? People can make whatever claims they want to make. People can believe whatever they want to believe. It's not a problem until actions are taken against someone with no evidence or proof. And even then, it's those manipulating the law and the process who are the bigger problem.

In other words, the ones with power who use that power for illegitimate purposes.

Hey Boadicea,

I don't believe anyone should be condemned. But think about what "unsubstantiated charges" means.

You have nothing but your word. Legally, that is going to be difficult to prove. Most DA's would say, "No thanks".

That does not make it right, but the police routinely close cases where there is no evidence but the claims of a person.

It's not a problem until actions are taken against someone with no evidence or proof.

Yes, like Jacob Wohl paying people to lie openly.

I'd also say anyone, regardless of position, who uses power for illegitimate purposes should be held accountable.

a reply to: ColoradoJens

It's not a problem until actions are taken against someone with no evidence or proof.

Let me be more specific... legal action... or any official action.

As already stated, I never even heard of these allegations against Fauci... but I sure heard about the allegations against Kavanaugh. In both cases, we are talking about unsubstantiated allegations.

Why did I hear about one ad nauseum and not the other? Why were the allegations against Kavanaugh forced into hearings at the highest level of government? Who is responsible for that?

I think we are seeing the foundations being built for a new type of "justice" system. One that has little to no legal restrictions or requirements, but all the social consequences.

It is comprised of accusations (baseless or not) that are given weight and awareness through Approved Authorities and Sources.

This has largely been used against "the right," but is certainly an agnostic framework.

Basically, anyone can make any accusations they want, but only "approved" accusations will be given the weight needed to have meaningful impact in social, economic, etc. consequences for the individual(s). Veracity is irrelevant.

a reply to: Serdgiam

The bigger question and concern I think would by why it works so well.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ColoradoJens

It's not a problem until actions are taken against someone with no evidence or proof.

Let me be more specific... legal action... or any official action.

As already stated, I never even heard of these allegations against Fauci... but I sure heard about the allegations against Kavanaugh. In both cases, we are talking about unsubstantiated allegations.

Why did I hear about one ad nauseum and not the other? Why were the allegations against Kavanaugh forced into hearings at the highest level of government? Who is responsible for that?

As you said earlier:

But regardless, isn't the real problem those who would condemn someone for unsubstantiated charges?

If a lawyer is dumb enough to take legal action with no substantiated evidence, they will most likely lose.

See Kavanaugh

a reply to: ColoradoJens

That's crazy, Fauci and sex, no one would believe that lol

a reply to: ColoradoJens

If a lawyer is dumb enough to take legal action with no substantiated evidence, they will most likely lose.

One would hope so... but that's not always the case. Note how many convicts on death row have their convictions overturned with DNA or other evidence not available at the time of trial. Obviously, jurors convicted on a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, why were the allegations against Kavanaugh blasted across every venue while the allegations against Fauci were not? How many people chanting "believe women" against Kavanaugh have nothing to say about Fauci? Or Biden? Why on earth does "believe" even have any value at all in criminal charges?

Because people wanted to "believe" what they wanted to believe. And were encouraged and enabled to do so. Especially with that mockery of a hearing for Kavanaugh. That never should have happened. It was a waste of time, energy, money and emotion.

That is what needs to be called out and changed. When people demand evidence and substantiation for any wrongdoing, no one will be paid to lie because there will be no return on the investment.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I think we are seeing the foundations being built for a new type of "justice" system. One that has little to no legal restrictions or requirements, but all the social consequences.

It is comprised of accusations (baseless or not) that are given weight and awareness through Approved Authorities and Sources.

This has largely been used against "the right," but is certainly an agnostic framework.

Basically, anyone can make any accusations they want, but only "approved" accusations will be given the weight needed to have meaningful impact in social, economic, etc. consequences for the individual(s). Veracity is irrelevant.

I agree. It is a mob mentality.

Although it is a very controversial subject to broach, the metoomovement has some extremely unsavory lawyers who are recklessly using the social temperature to destroy people. One of them is currently suing Trump for his DNA in a way old absurd case.

That is another thread but I believe there is clearly an agenda with a lot of this.

a reply to: ColoradoJens

OH Man.. Thank you for this thread Colorado. The article was interesting and the expose of these two guys was incredible.
The article mentions that they also tried to defame Elizabeth Warren with allegations of sexual impropriety for hiring an ''escort'' for sado masochistic sexual encounters.

Here is the video of their press conference to smear Warren. I would offer highlights but that might detract from the whold gestalt , the whole ambiance of their attempt.



Another funny thing here is that these two clowns expected to be taken seriously. For almost half an hour they stood there trying to keep straight faces though the laughter of the ''press'' that had showed up. . Brazen.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Serdgiam

The bigger question and concern I think would by why it works so well.

True. The social stigma of sexual assault in that it is obviously repulsive and criminal is enough to destroy someone regardless of guilt.

Removing the stigma for a victim is similar.

And it doesn't help much that it has become such a profitable industry for lawyers.

Dig a little into Roberta Kaplan. The quote below in my view is a good purveyor into her duplicity.

Roberta Kaplan
Kaplan is a co-founder of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, and has been a leading advocate for women in the #MeToo era. It is startling to find her, on p. 116, accompanying Weinstein to a meeting at the Times building. Kaplan was there to defend Weinstein from an entirely different scandal, in which the amfAR AIDS charity had agreed to help reimburse investors in a Weinstein musical. Kaplan, a well-known crusader on gay rights issues, told the Times reporters that their story would hurt AIDS patients, according to the book. Kaplan issued a statement clarifying her role: “Rodgin Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell asked me to be part of a conversation regarding the AMFAR controversy. Since I was not adequately briefed on the specifics of the transaction, I explained that the only thing I could talk about was the challenging fundraising environment for HIV/AIDS organizations like AMFAR, which I knew well as a longtime member of the Board of GMHC, the oldest AIDS services organization in the country. At that time, I was completely unaware of the serious sexual assault, abuse and harassment committed by Harvey Weinstein or that it was then being investigated by the NYT and others. Had I known then what I know now, I never would have agreed to meet with Harvey Weinstein.”

Weintstien Trial Witness

She started TimesUp and there are some interesting things within this description:

The TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund was started by women in Hollywood who were moved by the outpouring of support from the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, a national farmworker women’s organization. These actresses and activists wanted to show solidarity with survivors of sexual harassment, assault, abuse and related retaliation in all industries — especially low-income women and people of color. They worked together in a historic first to design a structure that would be both inclusive and effective.

As she is representing the hoax of Amber Heard against Johnny Depp (a whole different thread) I wonder who those actresses were?

Time's Up

There is a tangled web there and its ugly.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: ColoradoJens

OH Man.. Thank you for this thread Colorado. The article was interesting and the expose of these two guys was incredible.
The article mentions that they also tried to defame Elizabeth Warren with allegations of sexual impropriety for hiring an ''escort'' for sado masochistic sexual encounters.

Here is the video of their press conference to smear Warren. I would offer highlights but that might detract from the whold gestalt , the whole ambiance of their attempt.

Another funny thing here is that these two clowns expected to be taken seriously. For almost half an hour they stood there trying to keep straight faces though the laughter of the ''press'' that had showed up. . Brazen.

Ha! Yes they are actually kind of funny in a very sad way.

In the context of setting back sexual assault accusers being believed, I believe people like this do a lot of damage.

They are the SWJ's of the right.

At a hilariously ill-conceived press event, which featured a TV screen on a table, displaying the incredible graphic, “Elizabeth Warren Cougar?” Burkman and Wohl disseminated a“bombshell” document containing accusations by a man named Kelvin Whelly, who actually showed up to the event, unlike other “witnesses” of Wohl’s in the past. The document claimed that Whelly met Warren on “COWBOYS4ANGELS,” which bills itself as “a site for attractive young men who provide companionship escort services to well-heeled women,” and that, in August of 2018, Warren flew him to Massachusetts, where met her at a Hilton Hotel in Woburn. He also claimed, with no evidence, that she asked him to participate in BDSM play, and told him “You wouldn’t believe how many studs like you show up to the Congressional retreats.”