Whitman’s illegal alien maid-gate update
Well, the dueling press conferences are over.
California GOP gubernatorial candidate and corporate whiz Meg Whitman, with her husband standing at her side, repeated her denial that the couple knew about Nicky Diaz-Santillan’s illegal alien status before June 2009.
Crapweasel lawyer Gloria Allred produced the document she promised yesterday — a Social Security Administration no-match letter addressed to both Whitman and her husband with what she claims is his handwriting on it directing the maid to “check” into the issue.
Diaz-Santillan apparently never followed up. And neither did Whitman or her husband. Not in 2003. And not in subsequent years, during which Diaz-Santillan reportedly saw other SSA no-match letters in her employers’ trash.
Allred noxiously compared Diaz-Santillan to Rosa Parks, cranking up the illegal-immigration-as-a-civil-right demagoguery.
But setting that typical Allred self-aggrandizement aside, this is what we are dealing with:
The Whitman household, contrary to the candidate’s flat denials, did in fact receive the red-flag letter six years ago. Contrary to Whitman campaign supporters’ insinuations that the maid stole the letter, she was apparently in legal, legitimate possession of it. Whitman’s husband gave it to her and passed the buck.
Will the campaign deny that Whitman’s husband’s handwriting is the real deal? Will they absolve Whitman by putting sole responsibility for the matter in her husband’s hands? Will they continue to harp on the maid’s fraudulent representation of her status in 2000, instead of dealing with the red flags [not just the no-match letter(s), but also the fact that Diaz-Santillan was banned from traveling back to Mexico] from 2003 onward?
California politics. Never a dull moment.
Update (DP): Mark Levin had Gloria Allred on the air, and it went pretty much as you might expect — but it was an interesting semi-conversation nonetheless. Listen here.
Update (MM): Whitman’s husband responds — and contradicts his wife’s plain defense that they never received the letter — by admitting that why yes, the handwriting on the letter could be his, but it’s the maid’s fault for not following up.
Lame.
More on Whitman’s “detail-oriented,” “wicked smart” husband.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Subscribe to the Michelle Malkin newsletter
February 22, 2012 12:44 PM by Michelle Malkin
33 CommentsSurprise: UK’s Version of ‘Buffett Rule’ Failing to Bring in Expected Revenue
February 22, 2012 11:05 AM by Doug Powers
47 Comments
The high priests of eco-destruction
February 22, 2012 07:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
118 Comments
Gallup: Unemployment Climbing Back to 9% for February
February 21, 2012 02:56 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
Overnight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 CommentsDisability Claims Up As Unemployment Benefits Run Out
February 19, 2012 11:16 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
It Wouldn’t Be Saturday Morning Without Another Friday Night Solyndra Document Dump to Sift Through
February 18, 2012 09:52 AM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Categories: Immigration,Politics
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Redstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?Redstate
» Daily Links – February 22, 2012Redstate
» Dahlia Lithwick Hates Medical Research
You really should have given up about 20 posts ago. You haven’t added a thing to this, except to post patently incorrect information and repeat the same “smear” meme time and time again.
Can you please tell us all other claims you made before having your first cup of coffee and all other claims you made whilst being bored with the argument?
Because you’ve just admitted that these are valid reasons for someone to question your credibility.
Doesn’t proof of hypocrisy destroy one’s reputation?
The claims being made about Whitman can be have some elements of truth and be a smear.
Gee, thanks. I’m a jerk for defending Michelle against overreaching attacks on her.
Actually, we are. But frankly, we didn’t need to be so clever to best you in this argument.
Probably. But I think that elevates this attack above a “smear.” Unless you are defining it as ANYTHING that damages a reputation, deservedly or not. I wouldn’t agree with that broad a definition.
But in any case, I don’t think that is the definition Roland is going by. He clearly believes (or at least is clearly arguing) that Whitman did nothing improper.
OK, but do check the dictionary definitions of smear and let me know what you think.
One mentions slander and one mentions unsubstantiated in their secondary or tertiary definitions. The primary point seems to be the reputation damaging aspect.
Concur. And it’s strange that Roland would force me to argue against Whitman while I readily accept that it’s possible that Whitman didn’t do anything improper.
But that simply can’t be all there is to it. If a woman accuses the man that raped her (certainly damaging to the reputation), is that accusation by definition a smear, regardless of the veracity?
I think the real heart of the meaning lies in the intent, not the act. If the primary intent is to ruin the reputation (as opposed to my rape victim above) then it is a smear.
Absolutely. The term “attack” is the same.
What do you think the intent was in this case.
Exposing her hypocrisy, as revenge for firing her as a matter of political expediency.
But what was the intent of exposing hypocrisy?