Diego Hernandez's case gets even wilder

Have you ever told your ex-girlfriend you're banging her crazy sister?

I’ve been following the case of Representative Diego Hernandez for almost a year now. At first I was skeptical about the whole thing, then I saw some flaws but was pretty sure Hernandez was at least partially at fault, and now I’m fully convinced everyone involved is terrible person. Some people have accused me of having a bias toward Hernandez in my writing, but I do not, I think he’s done a better job being transparent, however I’ve simply tried weighing all of the facts and testimony to weave a narrative of what’s actually going on. And it’s disgusting, and hilarious.

My last piece on it is here which simply examined the merits of a obviously biased investigation into claims of sexual harassment. Quick summary:

  • Tina Kotek and other powerful Oregon Democrats have wanted to sabotage his career, starting just 5 months after he arrived in Salem as a Legislator. Hernandez says this is because he has broken from party lines on critical votes.

  • Several Democrats have been appalled by this mistreatment of Hernandez, with at least one Representative threatening to leave the party over it.

  • Accusations against Hernandez have been demonstrated to be weaponized false claims of sexual harassment. He has been the subject of multiple investigations exonerated in all previous incidents, yet before investigations are even started Democrat loyalists call for his resignation immediately after he is accused, despite the pattern of false accusations.

A lot of stuff has happened in the last two weeks since I published my article: now the Governor is calling for Hernandez’s resignation, there’s a vote to kick him out of Legislature next week (which will be the first time in Oregon history this has happened), and Hernandez has filed a lawsuit and the papers have started publishing his side of the story (which is unfortunately heavily redacted). Moreover, from testimony and reporting we’ve been able to learn more about the nature of the relationships and power dynamics.

It’s clear now, once you see who the accusers are, that each of the accusations comes with either political/personal vendetta, or obvious signs that their testimony was likely influenced.

For example, this entire concept of him having power or influence over Subject 1 completely falls apart when you learn that Subject 1 is actually Jenn Baker. The papers tried to use the gender stereotypes of Diego Hernandez being a man, a “powerful legislator”, and “Subject 1” being a woman, weaker and less powerful than a man, and a lowly lobbyist who must indulge the whims of a sex-crazed Representative. Yet not only is their power dynamic completely reversed (as I’ll detail below), but very troubling to the merit of her claims is that she received an incredibly lucrative political appointment within a top Democrat institution (working for the Governor of Oregon), the timing of which absolutely reeks of her involvement being quid-pro-quo.

Moreover, as I challenge in my last piece “Would you lie to keep your job?the revelation of these identities is critical to understanding that the testimony people have provided was not impartial. It was not unbiased. Two of the main figures were beckoned to participate, involuntarily, by one of the most powerful women in the State of Oregon. Obviously if anyone refused to participate it would jeopardize their career and connection. Worse, if they inflated claims, if they lied during the investigation, it could enhance careers and connections since at least one very powerful woman would be in their debt.

If these were random people or Hernandez’s constituents that he was accused of harassing, it would be an entirely different story, but in this case, their names have to be revealed - and importantly, once you understand the relationships and toxic behavior of these people, it provides a whole new light on the investigation and characters involved.

How Subject 1 falls apart

It’s not disputed Diego Hernandez and Jenn Baker have a “brief” “romantic relationship” in between January 2017 and February 2017, in her later testimony she says they met in 2016. Keep in mind that the Legislative Session for 2017 started on Feb 1st, which is when Hernandez was 29 years old, the youngest member ever elected to the Oregon House. The relationship certainly started before he began official law-making business. I believe at the time Ms. Baker was working for the Oregon Nurses Association as a lobbyist.

Between February and May 15th, 2017 Rep. Hernandez tries to court Ms. Baker with gifts, but it apparently wasn’t very effective. In the investigation Ms. Baker says the relationship ended in February, Hernandez says April. The report is so poorly worded and deliberately vague that one can only assume that the relationship “ended” only in terms of the last time they had a sexual encounter. In either case, the investigators desperately and falsely try to paint the picture of Diego Hernandez being an obsessed man, practically stalking this woman from February onward. Yet reading between the lines there’s so many clear signs this isn’t’ true: it’s not typical that you agree to go meet you ex-lover for drinks (lots of people would call that a “date”), or accept their invitation to large social parties (lots of people would call that a “date”, too). They mutually exchanged amicable messages, mutually participated at the same events, etc.

May 17th 2017, the couple meet for drinks, Ms. Baker explains they need to end the romantic relationship, he needs to stop sending gifts, but they can remain “friends”. They mutually agree, however in the parking lot Hernandez tries the old line “I think I’m too drunk to drive, can you give me a ride home or to your place?” Which is probably him trying to make a pass at the woman who just friend-zoned him, and that’s certainly the wrong thing to do. They stay in contact after this, exchanging messages on friendly terms throughout summer, even though the investigators paint their mutual friendship and two-sided communication as him stalking her.

Meanwhile there’s a political story relevant to all of this: in May 2017, the most contentious issues the Oregon House faces is PERS reform, Tina Kotek is supporting this legislation but it fails 29-to-31, with junior House member Diego Hernandez leading vocal opposition “Not only am I a NO on this vote, I’m a hell NO”, after the vote failure Kotek calls a 20-minute break and threatens lawmakers into changing their vote, two oblige and the measure passes. At the time Hernandez says “I’ve been threatened, my priorities are now on the chopping block, and I’ve been treated with tremendous disrespect.” Hernandez has maintained that this rift has caused Tina Kotek to target and sabotage his career ever since.

Within the same time period of May 2017, at the height of the #MeToo movement, a rumor is started (very likely by Tina Kotek) that Hernandez is keeping a list of the “hottest lobbyists.” It just so happens that he happens to be trying to court a lobbyist, Subject 1, Jenn Baker. Hernandez is informed of this rumor by House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson in mid-May, and was later quoted in the papers stating “Let's be clear, this is a completely groundless whisper campaign against Diego.”

On June 22nd, 2017, the night of an important Sine Die Party (a close of business, wrap-up party with lots of ceremony) Hernandez and Jenn Baker make plans to get together at 9pm (attend the party together? After party?). It’s unclear why this was such an important event, but in Diego Hernandez’s counter-claims several pages (6-18) detail issues around this event. Ultimately they don’t get together, but postpone and make specific plans for the week after.

During the day and later at the party Hernandez hears the rumors about the Lobbyist List twice more. He now decides he has to fight to get exonerated from this rumor, he demands an investigation. The investigation starts on June 26th, 2017. Eventually on July 1st it ends up in the newspapers when Hernandez takes his denial of these activities to Facebook. August 31st the investigation is concluded, exonerating him, not finding the source of the rumors after interviewing 21 people, with 15 being knowledgeable about the rumor. How did so many people become knowledgeable about a false rumor which everyone knew was “untrue”? Someone powerful was spreading it, likely Tina Kotek, you know, the person who threatened to sabotage his career.

(Although it’s completely missing from the reports, I’m assuming that Hernandez planned to bring Jenn Baker to this Sine Die Party as his date, or mutually they would attend as a couple. The sight of both Hernandez and Baker together at this party caused rumors to swirl and boil up of Hernandez dating lobbyists. Baker and Kotek likely connected at this party, and Kotek influenced Baker to not pursue any relationship with Hernandez, thus the sudden change of plans. Kotek might have made this suggestion to protect Baker’s career, as Baker had a major career change months later.)

June 27th, 2017, the day after the “Hottest Lobbyist List” investigation starts Hernandez texts Jenn Baker, who is a lobbyist he’s had a sexual relationship with just a few months prior, about “sexist, patriarchal, ageist, bros. (including me) that … make things worse.” Subject One responded that Rep. Hernandez did not fit in that category. Surely there was a deeper exchange than that, but that’s all the recent investigators found relevant to print, and I look forward to reading Diego Hernandez’s full transcript of that conversation, but unfortunately he hasn’t released it, likely because he was flogging himself over being a sexist.

It’s clear Jenn Baker or the investigators were lying about the nature of her feelings, as page 15 details how she allegedly felt “uncomfortable around him”, but she was still making plans with the guy, go to big parties, get drinks, and defends the guy when directly asked if he’s in the wrong. There’s some other big detail here that’s blacked out, with the whole nature of their relationship being undisclosed.

In July 2017 Diego Hernandez starts dating a new woman (Subject 4, details below) and stays in contact Jenn Baker. Hernandez claims that at this time they were genuinely trying to pursue a “friendly” relationship, and the investigators provided no convincing evidence to the contrary.

The investigation’s details of Baker & Hernandez’s interactions in the summer is full of major inconsistencies. Jenn Baker alleged that in some point in the summer Diego Hernandez showed up at her apartment and knocked on the door unannounced, she hid in the closet because she was uncomfortable. Investigators produced no evidence of this happening, no text messages or other statements, but printed this claim anyway. Hernandez denied it happened and clarified in his defense (pg 18) that she lives in an apartment complex with a main door that he would need to be buzzed through, so he couldn’t have knocked on her door directly. It’s not impossible to sneak past these types of doors. But ok, so he gets through the main door, why does Baker hide in a closet? She claims it’s because she lived on the first floor and it has a lot of windows - again, that Hernandez is a creeping stalker. In Baker’s in-person testimony The Oregonian published Hernandez “phoned for her to let him in.” Ok, where’s the phone records? Because they could have produced that call record as evidence, especially if it was obviously bootycall time like 10:30~12:30pm that happened any time in the summer. Anyways, the whole situation is offered with no evidence to prove it happened, a definitive “he said, she said” situation, and they simply printed a “more likely than not” that this happened, which is a completely bogus thing to do. No witnesses, no contacting people afterwards, it’s just a disputed rumor, and the only real damning accusation the investigation produced against Hernandez from Jenn Baker.

The careers of Hernandez and Baker take totally different trajectories in the Fall of 2017.

  • Hernandez has been dealt an embarrassing rumor and investigation, he’s mocked in the Willamette Week with a statement “he doesn't seem to know much." Senior leadership threatened his career directly, this is just his first year, he is still the most junior member of Oregon Legislature, still the youngest. If he has any high point, it’s that he’s leading the BIPOC caucus, which has no respect from establishment Democrats in 2017.

  • Ms Baker lands a position as Executive Director of Future PAC. The political arm of Oregon House Democrats that funds local election campaigns for Representatives. This highly coveted role essentially makes or breaks who will be elected to the Oregon House of Representatives. In 2017 this role is directly overseen by Tina Kotek, as Kotek uses it as an extension of her political power, and is used in a complex money laundering scheme to conceal how races are being funded.

In other words, by mid-October 2017 Ms. Baker is in a position of significant power with strong allies, Rep. Hernandez is probably becoming disillusioned and wonders where he has allies.

The investigation completely omits this power dynamic, and instead provides an assumption he is holding ALL of political influence, when in fact he has none, and she has all of it.

This is why it’s critical to understand who this person is. If she was just some random working class citizen off the street, than yeah he would be some “powerful lawmaker” as The Oregonian put it. Jenn Baker in her testimony claims, “he suddenly had more access and power over her since he was a leader in the caucus” but what caucus? The BIPOC one which has gotten nothing done? Just objectively, the most junior member of Legislature would have the least influence. The few times he really stood up during the legislative cycle he was defeated and his career threatened.

Their roles are especially critical to understand when reading the dynamics of their interactions in October 2017, he is at a low point, she is at a high point.

October 20th 2017, at a conference Hernandez approaches Baker, who is now running the PAC which can make or break Democratic candidates, and Hernandez attempts to introduce a person of color wanting to enter an election. It Baker’s role to meet these sort of people, yet she snubbed both the new candidate and Hernandez by walking away. She later claimed she was “late for a bus” which is why she snubbed both them. Again, in this situation, she’s the one with extreme resources. The investigators made it seem as if Hernandez was stalking Baker, and cornered her, that she fled the scene with the excuse of a bus, whereas in reality this was strictly a professional interaction. Hernandez claims that Baker’s unprofessional behavior would be off putting to other people of color who are trying to be introduced to Baker (because she can make or break elections).

The most absolutely patently false accusation in the investigation is on page 17 regarding the events of October 23rd 2017.

A.3.27. In an October 23, 2017 text, Rep. Hernandez told Subject One that he felt pushed aside by her based on her not taking the time to talk to him. In the same text, after saying that Subject One was the perfect person for her job, Rep. Hernandez criticized her work performance. The text noted that both Subject One and Rep. Hernandez were uncomfortable working with each other. Rep. Hernandez’s text requested an in-person meeting so they could discuss having a good working relationship.

A.3.28. Subject One was unwilling to meet with Rep. Hernandez in person, and Rep. Hernandez and Subject One spoke by telephone shortly after his October 23, 2017 text. As a result of that conversation and the text that preceded it, Subject One became concerned that Rep. Hernandez would use his position in the Legislature to jeopardize her professional standing and that Rep. Hernandez was using his position to get Subject One to meet with him in person, which she did not want to do.

A.3.29. Subject One shared her concerns with an elected official.

A.3.30. The elected official spoke to Rep. Hernandez and advised him that his contact with Subject One was making her uncomfortable and asked him to stop contact.

A.3.31. After the other elected official spoke to Rep. Hernandez, he ceased contact with Subject One except that Subject One and Rep. Hernandez exchanged brief text messages regarding legislative business. When Subject One sent Rep. Hernandez brief texts regarding upcoming or urgent Legislative events, she did so because he did not respond to group emails, which she sent to a broader audience.

This is just lie after lie, which is why they didn’t include direct statement from text messages. The report pretends Subject 1 feared for or life, or that Hernandez would immediately assault her if left alone - I speculate that her discomfort with meeting was because she felt her career was in jeopardy associating with a person her boss tried sabotaging.

Hernandez did publish the text messages which vindicate him, including this being published in The Oregonian, this is a sample of the “threat” he sent her:

To be clear this isn’t about you doing your job, I think your (sic) doing really well and will do really well. You’re the perfect person we need to lead (the organization) … My intent in communicating with you is more about how we are going to work together. I know you mentioned that it is uncomfortable for you as well, so I just want to check in and see how we can have a good working relationship … I’m sharing this with you and no one else … I want to have a good working relationship with you and for us to be able to work comfortably with each other. I wanted to have this convo in person and still do.

There is little doubt in my mind that when “Subject One shared her concerns with an elected official” it was Tina Kotek, her boss. If Kotek instructed Baker not to date Hernandez, then Baker would be obligated to inform Kotek if their private communications, no matter their nature.

Rewind and again ask: how could Hernandez, who has no power, and was just snubbed by Baker, threaten the role of Baker? Especially when she is leading a powerful independent organization with vast sums of money and reporting to Tina Kotek, the same person who has been wanting to sabotage and threaten Diego Hernandez’s career? This is complete lunacy - the power dynamic is the exact opposite the investigators suggested, and they were only able to do this by concealing identities of the actors.

It’s abundantly clear that not only was there no “Hostile Workplace”, but Hernandez stopped communicating with her privately at the request of Tina Kotek or whomever the “elected official” was.

The next big question, did Jenn Baker voluntarily participate in this, and provide factual information, or was she incentivized and awarded a lucrative position in exchange for false claims? Perhaps a lucrative position on the condition that she manufacturer stories about Hernandez?

On December 15th, 2020, Jenn Baker joined the Governor’s Office as serving as the Director of SEIU Oregon State Council. There’s no denying she’s qualified for such a role. She was seemingly available due to the fact that she was previously helping the Sam Adams city council campaign which lost in the primaries (losing out just ~2,000 votes to get the run off, a very respectable result for such an unpopular guy, kudos Ms. Baker).

The investigators report initially noted: “several of the witnesses were reluctant to participate in the investigation and, in fact, one of the Subjects of our investigation, while identified early on, was initially unwilling to participate and did not participate until September 2020.” Hernandez’s defense offers a different perspective: “On December 17, 2020, for the first time in this process, Ms. Ryan informed Rep. Hernandez’s attorney that there were two new subjects that she was investigating.


Even if the timing wasn’t suspicious, there is a real coercion factor. While Ms. Baker is a powerful and accomplished woman, she doesn’t hold a fucking candle to Tina Kotek or Kate Brown. If Ms. Baker had hesitation in participating in this charade it certainly would have cost her big time - as long as Kotek is in power Ms. Baker would be the woman who didn’t vanquish foes. Doors that were open would be closed, and that’s a difficult thing when your whole political career is based upon open doors.

It’s unfortunate that Ms. Baker decided to participate in this kangaroo court, and if she was coerced to participate under threat of her job and connections she hasn’t spoken out about it.

A whole new light on Subject 2

Subject 2 was the most transparent of all accusers, because Andrea Valderrama had already performed the injustice of filing a Restraining Order against Hernandez with outrageous claims, and then withdrawing it 1 day prior to their court case where Hernandez could vindicate himself.

MAJOR NEW BOMBSHELLS have demonstrated several new things about this relationship. Critically, Subject 2 and Subject 4 may have had overlapping dates of sexual intercourse, THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT, as the investigation clearly did not bother publishing the specific time period when the relationship with Subject 2 began. Only stating “approximately a year and a half.” If their relationship ended in January 2020, it then began “approximately” in Summer 2018. Note this for later, when we discuss Subject 4, who is Andrea Valderrama’s sister. Andrea started sleeping with the man her sister was involved in an on-off relationship with for over a year.

In my last article I summarized Andrea Valderrama:

I think what we have here is a jealous, manipulative, asshole ex-GF. After being turned down a couple times, she decides to pull the nuclear option and file for a restraining order and sabotage your career. 

Apparently I was dead on accurate. I don’t mean to run a victory lap here, but The Oregonian included excerpts of the text messages, but also that Andrea Valderrama threatened Diego Hernandez’s next girlfriend. I think the words “Crazy bitch” pretty aptly come to mind when sending threatening notes, plus moving in to seduce and screw your sister’s booty call.

“I love you, I hate that we’re not together, that we’re not communicating, that we got here,” the woman referred to by investigators as Subject 2 wrote in a text message to Hernandez on Feb. 20, 2020. “It feels wrong and unnatural, and I want you to know I’m committed to fixing this, healing, growing with you and fighting for you. I miss my best friend and this person I love and care about so deeply.”

Note: this was just days prior to her accusing Hernandez of being an abuser and filing a restraining order.

He responded with a friendly but not remotely romantic “Happy Belated Birthday” text, according copies of texts he provided.

That same day, Subject 2 emailed the woman who’d begun a relationship with Hernandez with the subject line “Things you should know.” In it, she made extensive claims that Subject 2 and Hernandez were still a deeply involved romantic pair who spent time with each other’s families, were physically intimate, frequently sexted and spent time together in public and private. “Happy to send screenshots of all of this,” Subject 2 wrote, according to a copy of the email that Hernandez gave investigators.

In his claim, Hernandez says that Subject 2′s decision to inform authorities about his having thrown a phone toward her eight months earlier “about 10 days” after those exchanges shows that her disclosure was not motivated by concerns for her personal safety but as retribution for his having broken Subject 2′s heart.

So, it’s completely indisputable that Andrea Valderrama wanted to sabotage Diego Hernandez.

Andrea Valderrama did not testify in person, someone else testified and read her statement which includes all sorts of absolutely insane rhetoric and statements that have found to be false during the course of the investigation. There’s portions of her statement which are not even about Hernandez and are simply Valderrama using a podium to score points about the Latinx community. It’s fueled with misplaced anger. But the specific allegations against Hernandez are:


  • He didn’t just throw a phone, he threw “multiple other items.” The other items are not named, nor named in the investigation. Valderrama thinks it’s important to note that it was a “glass table” I suppose because she wants people to see that it’s reckless to throw things at a glass table. And, it is. But this also demonstrates that he didn’t throw anything with enough force to break a glass table, which gives me the impression he was simply discarding his phone. Either way, the injection of “Glass table” is a needless detail that experienced police investigators would note is someone trying to dramatize an incident, typically an indicator they are lying.

  • Hernandez was constantly jealous. Yet evidence of this was not produced in the investigation, with the exception of two text messages. She claims that he would yell at her for hours, but no other romantic partner had similar accusations, because yelling at someone for hours is notable, that is indisputably abuse. Yet if Hernandez has an anger problem is discussed on page 20 of the report, specifically B.3.7. & B.3.8, only relaying anonymous hearsay, providing no conclusive evidence or examples.

  • Hernandez is often intoxicated and under the influence of drugs to the point he forget details. Hernandez voluntarily took a drug test preemptively when the restraining order was filed, showed he was clean from illicit drugs. Hernandez doesn’t have a DUI, unlike Ms. Valderrama, who blew twice the legal limit 90-minutes after cops pulled her over.

  • She wrote, “I purposefully avoided long conversations with men around my age, so that I wouldn’t be subjected to additional violence.” Yet again, this is an accusation not covered in the investigation, nor something repeated by other partners interviewed. How is a socialite, who is dating other socialites, expecting to not have their partner talk to people? This allegation doesn’t make sense in the context of who they are.

Andrea Valderrama wrote several other platitudes about toxic masculinity, racism, domestic violence, and how it impacts her abilities… It’s a whole lot of identity politics nonsense, I’m really surprised she couldn’t find a way to fit in the Patrichary and White Supremacy or include Donald Trump. Her complaints read on their own construct a very scary and sad story of victimization, yet when you factor in that there’s been an investigation into these claims, it’s clear she’s lying.

And in many of these accusations about how Latinx women are abused she provided no specific way Hernandez did these things beyond the specific incidents already established. Her testimony was otherwise a repeat of what she had already told investigators, and investigators largely dismissed her accusations if they were investigated.

Importantly, she never once explained, “Yeah, I was trying to hook back up with him, but that’s because I’m a victim of violence, and I now see that it was wrong to do that and now see the error of my ways.”

She never one explained, “Yes, my relationship started with him in bad circumstances that angered my family.” But she found time to otherwise inject her family.

She didn’t once own up to sending him text messages 10-days prior to filing a restraining order for a single event that happened 9 months prior.

Andrea Valderrama lied through this whole process, and I think it’s a real goddamn shame that there’s not a legal penalty being pursued against her for perjury when filing a restraining order.

Hernandez’s defense piece eviscerated the accusations even further. Valderrama didn’t just say he was violent and abusive, but also “controlling” and hacked her computer on two occasions. If these incidents were much larger within the scope of domestic abuse and 3-hour shouting matches, the investigation gave no hint to it, in fact the investigations noted a witness claiming Valderrama was making untrue statements about her being afraid (B.3.8).

  • In one example she was riding in the front seat with an Lyft driver. Valderrama’s story is that he was following her in a separate vehicle and kept calling her. I don’t sit in the front seat with a chauffeur, cause that’s weird. In Valderrama’s version of the events he perceived her as “flirting with the driver.” In Hernandez’s defense it turns out she didn’t actually book the Lyft. In other reporting it was spelled out that Valderrama didn’t want to ride with Hernandez because they got in a jealous argument at the club, both saying the other was drunk.

  • In other example, Valderrama says she texted him something, but he never received it, and he wanted her to prove it. Evidently she couldn’t send a screenshot (probably because she was lying and never sent the text). Who is the lying and manipulative one in this relationship, again?

  • Regarding hacking, apparently Hernandez never claimed to be a hacker, but wrote once in January 2018, “hack a little” but also admitted in the same thread he was referring to his highschool days. What a crock of shit to misrepresent a single out-of-context statement as an admission of guilt.

Valderrama’s entire conduct in this is just beyond appalling. She started her onslaught against Hernandez is the most wicked and vindictive ways, pretending he routinely used violence against her, suffered from anger problems, and had a drug addiction. Yet, after this long investigation all that could be demonstrated is that he once threw a phone at a table, and that Valderrama is not only a horrible person, but that she needs to recant her statements, publicly apologize, and try to fix what she’s done wrong here.

Valderrama’s participation in this entire charade has also coincided with two seperate lucrative job opportunities.

Subject 4 - All credibility is ALSO lost when named.

In my last piece I thought there was a halfway decent chance that Subject 4 might have a credible claim of hostile workplace. This was based upon the fact that their relationship and lines between romance, friendship, and professional got muddied. My reasoning is that it was inappropriate for Hernandez to be having a sexual relationship that goes hot and cold based upon the level of sexual activity. It was important to note that their relationship was consensual, no allegations of sexual assault, etc. She simply claimed he was ignoring her, and she felt it was because they weren’t having sex anymore. In a professional context that is hostile workplace sexual harassment.

Turns out I was completely wrong about ALL of that. The report doesn’t bother noting that 2 out of the 3 substantiated claims come from sisters.

You see, Subject 4 is Andrea Valderrama’s sister, Ana del Rocio. Aka Rosa Valderrama.

Ana del Rocio is the same woman who lied about the TriMet ID fiasco a while back in 2018, while she ultimately prevailed in court, her conduct during that event was completely inexcusable:

  • Gets caught on March 5th, 2018 on the Max for not having a fare. She claims she had an annual pass (she did not). She presented her Oregon Drivers License without issue.

  • March 13th, 2018: caught again, this time she says she forgot to activate her mobile phone ticket. Records showed she routinely used her mobile phone to activate tickets (she never had nor used an annual pass), but she did not have an active ticket.

  • When asked to produce ID by a Spanish speaking police officer (who TriMet says is familiar with Latino culture), she refused to produce an ID. Probably because she knew that once she presented her ID, they would write her a hefty ticket. Ms. Rosa Valderrama then gave a name that is not her legal name, again know that if she gave the legal name “Rosa Valderrama” as it appears on her ID she would receive a fine, also knowing she provided this same name on March 5th. She was then warned that she would be arrested if she didn’t produce ID, she refused, and was subsequently arrested.

  • Upon search of her purse, the Oregon issued ID of Ms. Valderrama was in her purse the whole time.

  • Ms. Valderrama seized this opportunity to manufacturer a completely false story about TriMet racially discriminating against her, because somehow she’s the first person TriMet has ever dealt with who has a complex non-white name.

She lied to transit cops twice, she lied to the public, she lied on her social media.

BUT - Ok, just because she lied very very very very publically in the past, made up this huge victimization complex, that doesn’t mean she can’t be the victim of sexual harassment via a hostile workplace. (Keep in mind we’re also ignoring that her sister is a liar.) (Keep in mind we’re also ignoring that her sister may have influenced her to lie, because they both have grudges against Hernandez.) If we ignore her past problems, does her allegations still hold up?

No, the “Hostile Workplace” allegation makes no sense. At the alleged time of hostile workplace she has no business Salem. This biography explains:

After moving to Oregon to be closer to family in 2014, del Rocío spent three years working in the office of then-State Representative Jessica Vega Pederson. But following the 2016 presidential election [she moved on] … In May 2017, del Rocío beat an incumbent to become the second person of color on the David Douglas school board. (The first was her sister, Andrea Valderrama, who had been appointed to the board the year before.) 

She’s still figuring out how best to balance other roles, like the statewide committee steering Oregon’s new mandates for K–12 ethnic studies curriculum and Portland’s city task force on sanctuary issues. She started at Color PAC in January [2018].

When Diego Hernandez met Ana del Rocio in “Mid-2017” she was working on the school board and for a Multnomah County Commissioner Jessica Vega Pederson, neither really had business in State-level law making, unlike what the investigation describes. Pederson previously worked in Salem politics, but she had left Salem politics to take over a role as a Multnomah County Commissioner. Diego Hernandez was elected to take over Ms. Pederson’s position in Salem.

Here you might be saying, “Well, isn’t any citizen involved in Oregon politics?” No. Officially by Oregon law if you spend more than $100 or 25 hours trying to influence a Salem policy you need to register as a Lobbyist. This extremely low threshold of participation being regulated exists to identify people who have business in Salem versus those who do not.

If Ana del Rocio was registered a Lobbyist, she would have a clear cut case of Hostile Workplace.

Yet, she has no business in Salem. In Diego Hernandez’s defense he calls this out:

Rep. Hernandez has repeated asked the investigators what “Capitol Business” was being conducted by Subject 4, he asked for examples and asked for the report to include specifics and those requests were ignored. Rep. Hernandez did not conduct any Capitol business with Subject 4.

Hernandez goes on to explain that they dated in July and August 2017, and his side of the story is that she asked him out in May 2017 and he shot her down (keep in mind, he was still chasing Jenn Baker at the time).

In Hernandez’s redacted defense he claims to have evidence that their romantic relationship definitively ended and that transformed into a platonic friendship through the time that investigators claimed he was ignoring her due to lack of sexual activity. He details specific incidents in which they collaborated professionally from early 2018 through summer of 2018, which was the extent of investigation’s report.

Importantly, Ana del Rocio made sexual advancements on him during this time, by offering to go out for drinks, which he declined. They did hook up one last time in the Summer of 2018, remained friends, until fall, when Diego Hernandez decided he wanted to fuck her sister.

Bro, the threesome with the sisters was never going to work.

I really don’t have any respect at all for Diego Hernandez. These investigations show he makes bad choices when it comes to interpersonal relationships. Like, bro, don’t try and date one spicy latina, and then the other spicy latina’s jealous crazy sister.

In Hernandez’s defense piece it just sort of glosses over the fact that:

Subject 4 and Rep. Hernandez’s friendship ended in November 2018 because Rep. Hernandez wanted to end it.

O rly? It’s not because you’re banging her sister, bro? Jesus Christ. People talk about “Incest” in Oregon politics, but this is just hilarious.

Here’s the final parts of his defense case, page 42:

In other words, Ana del Rocio realized Diego was fucking her sister at 11pm at night on November 1st. Ana del Rocio was still trying to hook up with Diego himself.

Again, this last paragraph reads:

Rep. Hernandez never responded to her email. Rep. Hernandez did not want any relationship with Ana del Rocio after that because Rep. Hernandez’s belief was that she knew that Rep. Hernandez was potentially getting in a relationship with her sister and she was going to try to sabotage it because she wanted to be in a relationship with Rep. Hernandez.

You can’t make this shit up. Backstabbing jealous sisters. Both of which tried sabotaging Hernandez’s next relationship.

I think the next big question is which PACs in Oregon have funded Ana del Rocio, Andrea Valderrama, and Jenn Baker’s campaigns?

It’s too bad there’s such a sophisticated money laundering operation in Salem. Either way, since Andrea Valderrama and Jenn Baker both got lucrative careers, I’m curious if any of Ana del Rocio’s PACs got funding.

Who is at fault? Who is the guilty parties?

I don’t trust any of these people. They all should not be in politics. Each of them is lying: Jenn Baker, Andrea Valderrama, Ana del Rocio, and I’m sure Diego Hernandez has butt-loads of lies in there.

The real problem Diego Hernandez now isn’t that he’s lying.

The real fault is that he’s tried to cover for absolutely everyone since day one. It’s a bunch of weak-willed bullshit to try and save face for the Democratic Party of Oregon. He’s being walked off the plank of the ship and still won’t name the people who betrayed him, people who are actively lying to Oregon Legislature. It would be one thing if they simply lied in a small civil case, but here they’re lying to everyone in Oregon by providing this testimony to Oregon Legislature as our representative weigh expelling an elected politician.

I don’t really know anything about Diego Hernandez’s politics, but in researching this I’ve found a lot of information of him declaring himself to be a “Progressive.” I think Hernandez is doing the same injustice to our political process as Bernie Sanders has done in regards to the national Democrats and how they treated him in 2016. Sanders was clearly stabbed in the back by the top architects of the DNC, people resigned for it, a guy likely died over it, and Sanders has never shown his teeth in return to the people who continually mock him. Sanders has maintained loyalty to a party that has betrayed him - and Hernandez is remaining loyal to a party about to expel him.

In the past playwrights would dramatize the salacious allegations of the Royals and retell the stories for the common folks. There’s an absolutely hilarious story here of a guy who fucked two crazy & jealous sisters, having his career ruined by them, plus a ladder-climber all too eager to please jumping into the fray.