Jacob Wohl gives Elizabeth Warren a lock on the presidency


Once again, Jacob Wohl claims to have a sexual assault victim, and once again he gives a presser in Burkman’s driveway. This time, it’s an accusation against Elizabeth Warren, that she had sex with a Marine bodybuilder. Surprise, the “victim” showed up this time.

Whoa. A 70 year old woman had sex with a muscular 24 year old man? As long as it was consensual, good for her. I have to agree with this sentiment.

Spectator writer Caroline McCarthy joked, “Look, I get that this is BS and the “decorated, former U.S. Marine” will mysteriously cancel on the event, but Elizabeth Warren being a voracious cougar who hooks up with 24-year-old bodybuilders would make me want to vote for her.”

Except, of course, that this is a Jacob Wohl story, so you know it’s all lies. It’s also already falling apart. The Marine tried to claim that the scars on his back are a result of wild crazed sex with Warren (woohoo!), but unfortunately someone dug into his instagram feed and found his original explanation.

I prefer to imagine a naked Elizabeth Warren totally dominating a beefy young man, lashing him viciously with a chain, but I’m sorry, it just didn’t happen. Jacob Wohl never says anything accurate.

Why isn’t he in jail already?

Comments

  1. petesh says

    OK, I’m upgrading my nomination for Veep after Pence bites the political dust. Wohl’s the One!

  2. Joé McKen says

    Wohl somehow makes James O’Keefe look competent.

    I honestly can’t imagine how anyone, even the most addled Trumpists, might still listen to him and Burkman. Though given how only a handful of bored journos show up at their pressers, I guess no-one does anyway.

  3. nomdeplume says

    Remind me again about how “democracy is the worst possible system of government except for all the others that have been tried”? The sort of outrageous lies being told in America just in the last day or so (Trump on Ukraine and Biden, and now this nonsense) will kill democaracy stone dead. And I guess that is the intention.

  4. says

    I predict Wohl will be on Faux News replacing Starnes RSN. He’s every bit as trust worthy and reliable, and I’m sure would be perfectly willing to work for less money to kiss the Donald’s kiester.

  5. jffordem says

    That poor, dumb ox obviously forgot the safe word. (It was ‘Pocahontas’.)
    Let’s hope the other vulnerable young men she takes to her ‘special island’ don’t forget, or we’ll see more like this.
    She’s unstoppable, Warren 2020!!!!!

  6. says

    I sometimes ponder if factual lies are not one more thing that should be exempted from freedom of speech.
    Free speech is a great idea when it means educated people exchanging letters where they discuss concepts, but fails when charlatans make up stories and lies to extract money and power from those gullible enough to believe….

  7. wzrd1 says

    Here’s a capture of his posting of his back a month after the claimed event.
    Numbnuts can’t manage to avoid fizzling out. He even ordered his security guard to remove someone heckling him from the street – the security guard, not wishing to enjoy the experience of being locked in the local jail, didn’t budge.

    About as pathetic as Trump’s throwing treason around at various people over time.

  8. Ridana says

    And his buddy Jack’s zipper is down again at just short of 3 min into the video of the “press conference.” How are these two clowns so inept that they can’t even properly dress themselves before going out in public?

  9. waydude says

    hahaha! He’s got a Triple X tattoo, you know from that movie where they thought Fast and Furious was too cerebral

  10. says

    @#12, Gorzki:

    Lies are exempted from freedom of speech — if they can be shown to hurt somebody, preferably in a way which involves physical injury, money, or power. That’s what libel and slander are, and this is slander. (Always remember: ssssslander is sssspoken, llllibel requires that you be lllliterate. Statements on TV are slander.)

    The problem is that Elizabeth Warren would have to show that she was materially harmed for the courts to smack Wohl down seriously. That not only might be difficult to prove, because it is so ludicrous, but also might be a politically unwise move.

  11. John Morales says

    Vicar, I think you have entirely misread Gorzki, especially when you then refer to Elizabeth Warren.

  12. brain says

    Spectator writer Caroline McCarthy joked, “Look, I get that this is BS and the “decorated, former U.S. Marine” will mysteriously cancel on the event, but Elizabeth Warren being a voracious cougar who hooks up with 24-year-old bodybuilders would make me want to vote for her.”

    This is one of the most sexist remarks I’ve read in this blog,
    And, the scars in the old photo are on the right shoulder and different from the ones in the first photo (which are on the left side).

    Nothing against consensual sex between a 70yo and a 24yo, but that’s not the point here.

  13. quotetheunquote says

    Brain #70

    I’m probably going to regret asking, but … , just what do you believe IS the point here?

    Signed,
    Perplexed

  14. Akira MacKenzie says

    The fact that its 24 hours later and not even the right-wing news sites are running with this story should indicate just how seriously everyone takes Wohl and these… ummmm… “allegations.”

  15. says

    They should have had him read the script before going out because his laugh when he got to “green strap-on dildo” showed that this was something he wasn’t prepared to be reading out loud.

  16. brain says

    quotetheunquote #22
    Ask this to PZ, it’s his blog after all.
    I can tell you what is not the point, however: trying to prove that this guy was lying by showing a picture of obviously totally unrelated scars. Ok, so maybe the point is: don’t let your feelings matter more than facts. And, maybe, also: just picture in your mind PZ making the same remarks in the same situation, but with sex switched.

  17. jack16 says

    Try using DuckDuck.go
    to get quick definitions. Its a pretty safe source.
    Don’t have a good acronym. (Too much competition; DDG ,etc.)

    jack16

  18. says

    @brain, do you seriously believe we should take Wohl and Burkman’s latest nonsense seriously, when their previous “revelations” have proven to be hoaxes?

  19. brain says

    @timgueguen: no, I don’t believe that.
    What I believe is :
    1) you don’t counter a lie with a lie. You check facts and do not spread blatantly false rumors just because they support your beliefs (and please note, this is independent of who is right).

    2) you want gender equality, you do not mock your opponent in a way that you would regard as extremely sexist with genders switched.

  20. Athaic says

    @ Brain

    2) you want gender equality, you do not mock your opponent in a way that you would regard as extremely sexist with genders switched.

    That one is interesting to unpack (I mean, that made me check my assumptions and biases)
    I came with these justifications, which may or may not be full of fallacies:
    1 – the statu quo, still today, is that many people consider it OK, or almost OK, for an old dude to date/marry a young, or very young woman. I believe it’s your point.
    However, the reverse, still today, is frown upon or mocked.
    As proof, in addition to Wohl’s ham-fisted attempt at painting Warren as an old hag with unbridled sexuality, I’ll submit my First Lady, Mme Macron. The amount of flak she it taking for being way older than Mr Macron… Just recently, from the Brazilians at the G7. Or from my boss whenever he opens his mouth about President Macron.
    OK, the previous previous French First Lady, Carla Bruny, also took some flak for marrying a somewhat older dude, Mr Sarkozy. But the clincher? Sarkozy took some flak for marrying a younger lady, but it was en passant. It wasn’t the issue or topic of mockery defining him. It was accepted, as “boys will be boys”. While this is the topic defining these wives.

    My point? Until this statu quo is reversed, I don’t mind letting women getting their share for the time being. Or more precisely, I don’t see it as sexist to tell an old woman with a young lover “you go girl, it’s your turn”.
    If people feel that a man having a young wife is reason to vote for him, I don’t see why we couldn’t assert that a woman having a young lover is reason to vote for her. It may be a shallow reason, but I’m not sure it’s sexist. Of if it is, it’s sexism applied equally.
    More concisely: wishing a woman good because she is doing that men are praised for is gender equality.

    2 – “extremely sexist with genders switched”
    But would it really be?
    I think part of the issue is that you are also switching the protagonists’ body frame (and so the physical power’s imbalance): frail old woman + fit huge boy becomes huge dude + frail young girl. It’s the picture most have in mind when talking about old dude/young woman relationship (if only because a prime example is Trump).
    Try this picture instead:
    Old frail dude is a literal Amazon chaser, dating a butch-type muscled young woman who happens to be ex-Marines.

    That being said, I agree that, talking about power imbalance, there is the whole “gigolo/prostitute/escort” angle which is annoyingly muddying the water.
    Your question could be rephrased like this: are we saying that we would approve of a female candidate who is hiring prostitutes? And if so, would we be equally approving of a male candidate doing the same?
    My answer will be like this:
    1 – Men hiring ‘escort girls’ is the current approved statu quo. See point 1 above.
    2 – Actually, about the ‘no, I wouldn’t approve of a male politician hiring prostitutes’, it’s more like this:
    Taking some examples from the current US administration, I don’t care about Trump banging Stormy Daniel or the whole Playboy calendar. My concerns are just about that this say about his character (cheating on his wife), and where the money is coming from (if I was an US taxpayer).
    Another example, the customers from the Chinese Madam operating near Mar-a-Lago? I’m concerned about the human trafficking and the influence peddling. IOW, let’s talk about the abuse, harm and crimes surrounding the hiring of these sex workers.
    I think I would apply the same concerns to a female politician.
    But it’s good to be reminded about the risk of double standards.

  21. John Morales says

    Athaic, you wrote well, but I would have put it more simply: it’s a “man bites dog” story.

  22. John Morales says

    Giliell, brain’s thesis is “This is one of the most sexist remarks I’ve read in this blog” in reference to “Elizabeth Warren being a voracious cougar who hooks up with 24-year-old bodybuilders would make me want to vote for her”, and clumsily elucidated @25 and @28:

    just picture in your mind PZ making the same remarks in the same situation, but with sex switched.

    you want gender equality, you do not mock your opponent in a way that you would regard as extremely sexist with genders switched.

    Leaving aside that there’s no mockery (but admiration, rather) being expressed, the crude point being expressed is that if it were a man expressing admiration that an older male politician hooks up with 24-yo bodybuilder women, that would be one of the most sexist things ever.

    (Athaic addressed it directly)

  23. John Morales says

    [also, brain imagined what PZ quoting a remark was PZ making that remark, which is quite indicative of what’s important to brain.

    (lowercase brain indeed! ;) )]

  24. says

    So, the thesis is “if things were different, they would be different”?
    Amazing. If I could sit up for 10 minutes I try to untangle that nonsense, but it ain’t worth the additional painkiller.

Leave a Reply