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.
 |
Who’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
23 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
48 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
50 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
112 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 Comments
Categories: Immigration,Politics
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
I don’t think it is about purity. It’s about one particular scorching hot issue: the invasion across our borders by a mostly socialist and America bashing invasion force being abetted and even encouraged by our ‘elites.’
We are being invaded. We are being destroyed. Just because bullets aren’t flying and bombs aren’t going off in this invasion … much … yet … doesn’t mean America and what has made America exceptional is not being destroyed.
So as critical as some of the other issues are, this one still stands out. If “comprehensive immigration reform” happens, we are done. All other issues become moot. Obamacare, for instance: They’ll have the socialist votes. Even if we manage to stop it in 2013, it’s eventual victory will have been sealed.
However, although I’m always inclined to give our hostess the benefit of the doubt, it certainly seems like she has gone off the rails on this one.
This is the time to ask ALL pols; do you know whether your lawns are being mowed by illegal aliens?? (ICE would go CRAZY here in in Queens!)
James Greenidge
Queens NY
– Roland
On the other hand, SOME sort of reform of the right sort seems necessary. . .the sort that would help remove the incentives to come here illegally (i.e. healthcare benefits/education benefits/etc)
NO WE DON’T NEED “REFORM.”
WE NEED ENFORCEMNT
GEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZ!!!!
One illegal alien in 20 million!
I wouldn’t go this far.
I think Michelle is operating on good faith here. She probably believes that Whitman is apathetic regarding employing illegal immigrants which caused a possible lapse in handling the no-match letter properly.
Remember, it’s quite possible that Whitman was legally required to inquire about the no-match 90 days after receiving the letter and file an I-9 if the no-match wasn’t settled. Someone very concerned about employing an illegal immigrant may have been more diligent about following the law.
I just don’t know what the law was at the time.
Just deport the husband and call it even! What a waste of time this all is! IDIOTS!
Our country (especially Kalifornia) is falling apart. I am sick and tired of stupid so-called Conservatives who get bogged down in THIS insignificant crap!!! This is like worrying about brushing your teeth as you are being led to your execution.
STOP! It is time to fight these a$$holes who are hell bent on destroying this country…no holds barred and open rules of engagement! Beat them by any means necessary.
Corkie,
I would and did go that far and will again.
I like Michelle Malkin. I agree with her most of the time.
But she has a pattern of unfairly attacking those who don’t agree with her on everything and the “Waah, If I don’t get my way on everything I’m taking my ball and going home” approach she employs only helps elect Democrats.
Look at the facts here: Whitman hired the maid from an employment agency. The maid had forged documents which apparantly were good enough to fool the agency as well. Whitman paid the FICA taxes on the maid’s salary. The so-called “proof” that Whitman or her husband knew the maid was illegal only says there’s a record problem. It specifically states it isn’t questioning the citizenship of the maid.
And you want to tell me Michelle Malkin is deliberately distorting this issue to make it appear Whitman was knowingly hiring an illegal because she “cares so much?”
Nope. Not buying that for a second.
Republicans and conservatives should be rallying around Whitman in the face of this smear. Instead we have Michelle Malkin joining the Democrats and distorting what actually happenned.
The SSA correspondence clearly states that the notice in no way postulated that Nicky was an illegal, and that criminal charges could result should Whitman use the notice to fire or harass Nicky over her status.
It seems there is no way for an individual or private business to discern whether someone really is legal or not without inviting horrendous consequences.
The potential legal, financial and reputation risks of hiring anyone who looks Hispanic or has an Hispanic name – regardless of their “officially issued” licenses and ID cards and stated/written assurances of legality – are just too grave to ignore.
But the law may have required Whitman to file an I-9. If she didn’t do that, then she may have violated the law.
When it comes to fiscal responsibility I agree 100% with Michelle.
It hurts Republicans for RINO candidates to get elected to office that don’t know how to keep the spending down. Excessive spending WILL hurt states regardless of whether it’s at the hands of a Republican or Democrat. We’re much better off forcing Democrats to take ownership of government spending problems.
Having heard the attacks by Gloria Allred and Meg Whitman’s response, it’s pretty clear this was nothing more than a well timed personal attack over a NOTHING issue. Ms. Whitman did everything by the book, which included firing the maid when she revealed her true status.
Anyone who wants to buy in to the smear of Meg Whitman on this issue has been suckered by the left’s attack tactics.
Sorry Michelle,
You are dead wrong on this one.
Whitman did everything she was supposed to do. You cannot fire for receiving that letter. It is a request to check info, not notification of illegal status.
I got one of those for my wife because they typed in her SSN wrong. It was years before it was ever fixed and it was all on their end.
Sad to say Michelle but your really missed the boat.
EMPLOYERS…BEWARE!
Think hard before hiring prospective employees with foreign accents or any indication they and their ancestors were not U.S. born going back to the Mayflower.
If your employee lied with falsified documents as did this Hispanic woman, you may find yourself being vilified by some scumbag lawyer with a political agenda.
Hispanic and other immigration groups ought be outraged and concerned that a good employer who hired a Hispanic woman, paid her very well and did the right things, is getting blasted.
The backlash of what Allred and the Dem operatives representing Brown, behind this smear, might cause some good employers to avoid hiring anyone who appears foreign born.
Why risk unknowingly hiring an illegal with fake documents when liberal operatives are waiting in the wings to crucify you for being a good employer?
___‹^›__‹(•¿•)›__‹^›___
Did her employer file an I-9 after 90 days?
The Whitman’s did exactly what the direction was at the time. Place I worked at we used to get alot of these. Consulted with an immigration attorney and their direction was to notify. Legally, the employer could not take action on this. The employer cannot remove the person from their position until it “gets fixed”.
The SSA stopped sending these letters out sometime in 2005 or so. There was alot of discussion that they were going to simplify the rules or give specific timelines and direction on how to handle them. However, these rules were never fully implemented. It became a political football and the letters stopped coming. The alternative now is to use eVerify which isn’t foolproof but does screen out and catch a number of falsifiers. If a company doesn’t eVerify, there is a good chance they have some people with wrong SSNs.
Corkie,
What’s with this “may have been required nonsense?” You either are or you aren’t, no “may” have been. And the fact is, she wasn’t charged by the gov’t for failing to produce documents.
Looks like you, like Malkin, are looking for an excuse to attack Whitman because she fails some impossible purity standard on some particular issue. You should have watched Sean Hannity last night top see how a smart conservative recognized this is nothing more than a falsehood filled Democratic smear.
As for the I support Michelle getting rid of RINOs that’s great..as long as you run better candidates like Joe Miller or Nikki Haley. It isn’t OK when they’re replaced by poor candidates like the O’Donnell woman.
Here’s the stakes this election. Democrats hold the Senate and the House, the entire Obama agenda will become law. Once enacted into law it will be next to impossible to repeal. It will change this country forever.
And in California using this bogus smear to undermine the Whitman campaign means electing Jerry Brown and pushing the most insolvent state in the nation over the cliff.
Let’s recall:
President Obama’s Auntie Zeituni was an illegal alien, living in Public Assisted Boston housing, living off welfare.
Auntie Zeituni, after refusing to comply with court ordered deportation, claimed ‘The System Took Advantage Of Me,’ once she was mysteriously granted asylum this year in a courts procedure that’s been sealed from public view.
America has devolved to the point where criminals have become so emboldened with Demorcrat operative support, as to now blame generous, well meaning, taxpaying, U.S. employers for their crimes as is Whitman’s former criminal employee who falsified her work documents.
Liberals HATE employers.
___‹^›__‹(•¿•)›__‹^›___
Spare me. I’m the first one to challenge Michelle about this issue on the other thread.
And you don’t know what the law was at the time.
Seems to me the primary voters of Delaware got rid of the poor candidate. It was their decision and they chose O’Donnell, get over it.
This sole simple terrible reason alone should be imputus and rallying cry to get conservative leaning candidates into office. I would even swallow a “fringe RINO” who is more or less anti-Obama with a 50-50 chance of winning than a “full-strength Conservative” with a snowball’s chance in hell of winning against a Dem. Things are far too perilious to play favorites now. We have to be coldly pragmatic else end up with an irreversibly socialist country, and it’s ever going to be an upward struggle because socialism is an irresistible candyman in times of strife and to the “underclass.”
James Greenidge
Queens NY
I am in California and I support Meg Whitman. I like her even more after this Allred attempt to smear her on immigration! What she told everyone is plausible. The note her husband wrote on the notice asked the housekeeper to do what was necessary. Follow-up was the housekeeper’s responsibility! Apparently, the latter did nothing until June 2009, when she confessed to her illegal status and asked to be sponsored/helped in changing it.
http://tinyurl.com/2cgw9qx
Meg and her husband followed all the rules. Meg did not use Diaz-Santillan to enhance her candidacy. Between June, 2009 till before Allred called her press conference with Diaz, she could very well have said, “I am tough on immigration, see I fired a housekeeper when I found out she is here illegally.” Meg did what she had to do but did not out Diaz, out of concern for the woman who now could very well be a target for ICE deportation. What was Allred and Diaz doing during that time, were they attempting an extortion? Was it foiled? It didn’t work? So ~ on to Plan B: the press conference!
Gloria Allred’s interview in our local radio station was similar to Greta’s interview. What a lowlife Allred is. Why doesn’t anyone ask Jerry Brown what else would he have done, if he was in Meg’s shoes? He is an attorney, he is CA’s AG, so he ought to know the rules. Brown should be embarrassed with the statements coming out of his campaign!
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/02/video-greta-vs-gloria/
Corkie,
I don’t know what the law was at the time? Obviously you don’t know or you wouldn’t have posted that it “may” have been against the law.
I do know that it was clearly stated in the document that it didn’t apply to the citizenship of the maid and that firing her on the basis of receiving it would be against the law. I do know that neither Whitman nor her husband have been charged with or fined for failure to comply.
But, hey, if joining forces with Jerry Brown and Gloria Allred in this smear is what appeals to you (and Michelle Malikin), it’s a free country.
Solo,
You’re right. The primary voters in Delaware replaced a poor candidate who had a history of voting conservative only just over half the time.
Unfortunately, the replaced him as the candidate with a person who is better on the issues but has no chance of winning because she has more skeletons in her closet than the Smithsonian.
So instead of getting at least half the votes from that senate seat against the Obama agenda. The Democrat will vote for them all the time.
If the Obama agenda becomes law, will you or the nation “get over it?”
What’s lame about it? Didn’t they deny receiving a letter stating their maid was illegal? To date, no one has produced any evidence proving otherwise.
A Republican with a conservative rating of 52 (Castle) is worse than a Democrat with a conservative rating of 20. Maybe even 10.
The great majority of a politicians’ votes don’t matter as to whether or not the bill will pass. The politician is free to pad his resume.
Castle was a truly horrible choice.
From what I understand, neither Whitman nor her husband properly complied with the requirements outlined in the letter. I don’t know if that’s against the law or not, but it’s certainly stupid for you to definitively claim that they did nothing wrong.
Again, I’m the one that first called Michelle out for definitively claiming that Whitman did something wrong.
You’re darned right I’m calling you out for definitively claiming that Whitman did nothing wrong.
It’s stupid for you to accuse me of joining a smear campaign simply because I want to know the actual law before I start passing judgment in a legal sense.
If you want to defeat Obigears and his agenda I suggest you do everything you can to support
O’Donnellthe (R). Doing otherwise could be considered treasonous. Or so I’ve been told.On October 2nd, 2010 at 6:34 pm, Roland said:
Gets it.
Just keep humping that chicken…..
MM is wrong on this issue.
To all you that keep harping on the Castle race, grow up. This isn’t a 1 race election. If we are in such bad shape that that is the best we can do then shame on us. We need to get better candidates. If Mike castle is the best you can come up with then you have missed the point.
The GOP let all of us down. They screwed up by not fielding a better candidate and selling their soul to Castle.
I suspect MM is on the bash Whitman bandwagon in part because she sees Whitman as a potential threat for the Presidency.
Normally, a Republican Governor of California is automatically a contender for the R nomination for Pres. Ahnold couldn’t become President because he isn’t a natural born citizen, and he’s a Republican, so he has to actually follow the law.
California is in such horrible shape whoever gets elected Governor will get credit for the ‘improvement.’
A ‘successful’ two year Governor of CA will be formidable in the primaries. Six years from now such a R Governor will likely be unstoppable in the R primaries.
This doesn’t mean MM actually wants Whitman to lose to Governor Moonbeam. But she probably finds it hard to get worked up about whether or not Whitman is getting smeared, especially when we see all of the smears coming from Whitman’s natural political allies against candidates like O’Donnell.
I know that’s how I would feel about it if I didn’t live here in CA and will actually end up having to deal with the madness of another four years of Governor Moonbeam.
So I’m not claiming to be able to read her mind, only that there’s a simple and reasonable explanation for what appears to be a bit of unusual ‘irrationality’ on her part.
Corkie,
You’re moving the goal posts every post. First it was “may have” done something wrong. Then it was “may have” been against the law to not properly reply. Now it’s “I don’t know” if it’s against the law.
Here’s the deal. You don’t cast suspicion on people unless you do know. And that’s what Michelle Malkin has done plus more.
There’s not a smidgen of evidence Whitman herself knew about the request for info on the maid. Her husband’s a neurosurgeon, she was a CEO of a major company. Do you really think they sat around discussing a form requesting info? He directed his employee to look into it.
Here’s the facts we do know:
The Whitmans made a reasonable effort to hire a legal employee by using a reputable employment agency. The employee deceived all of them with fake documents.
When they learned the maid was illegal they fired her.
We also know Gloria Allred is a partisan Democrat with close ties to Jerry Brown.
So please, no more may ofs, or might haves, or could have possibly beens. To use your description, that’s stupid.
Roland, I agree that Castle is a lousy choice. I also agree that all the votes don’t matter because it’s when it’s close that matters. That cuts both ways as conservatives from liberal states jump ship to gain favor with the bhoe state when conservatives have the votes.
What I don’t get is how 50+% is worse than 20%. And there’s no way Coons will be a 20%, he’ll be a 0-5%.
Solo, It’s not up to me to support O’Donnell. I don’t live in Deleware. If I did, I’d cast a very reluctant vote for her, the same as I’d have done for Castle.
As for support for out of state candidates, my modest contributions to out of state candidates have gone to conservatives who have a reasonable chance of replacing liberals, not to lost causes.
If Castle pads his votes to make his average look more conservative by voting on the conservative side when his vote won’t matter even though he would have voted liberal if his vote had mattered, and the typical Democrat pads his average toward the liberal side by voting even less conservative than he would have if his vote mattered, then it is quite easy for a 30 to turn into a 52 for Castle and a 32 turn into a 20 or even a 10 for the Democrat.
Yes, this kind of padding definitely goes on a great deal.
Also, I agree Coons is no 20 or even a 10. If we were forced to choose between a leftwing loon and a flaming marxist, sure, I’d pick the leftwing loon, but don’t kid yourself about what you are voting for.
Will O’Donnell lose? Probably. It’s Delaware. Should we have voted for the leftwing loon so the flaming markist doesn’t join the other flaming marxists in the Senate?
Hell, no. There was no guarantee Castle would have won. There is no guarantee O’Donnell will lose.
Give the people a choice. If they choose wrong, then we all burn, but at least no one can whine and snivel afterword about not having a real choice …..
Er, well, okay, they’ll always whine and snivel, but you get the point. The real difference between Castle and Coons (not the pretend 52 vs 5) isn’t enough reason to sacrifice the chance to avoid having yet another treasonous, Constitution savaging Senator, which is what we’d get with either Castle or Coons.
I haven’t moved any goal posts.
I’ll definitively state every single one of those again proudly.
Whitman may have done something wrong.
Whitman may have done something against the law.
Whitman may not have properly replied to the no-match letter.
I don’t know if any of Whitman’s actions or inactions were against the law.
Now, try to use a shred of logic. Since I don’t know the law, I don’t know if the law was broken.
And since you don’t know the law, you don’t know that the law wasn’t broken.
But here’s the thing. Only one of us has made a definitive statement with respect to whether or not the law was or wasn’t broken – and it wasn’t me.
I’ll say this again: Michelle doesn’t know that the law was broken, and you don’t know that the law wasn’t broken.
Now stop saving face and accept the realities of what I’m saying.
Here’s another deal. You don’t exonerate people unless you know they should be exonerated. And that’s exactly what you’ve done.
Seems to me that Michelle isn’t dumping on Whitman for failing some “purity test” so much as to chastise her for her claim of ignorance of the existence of a letter. No one (other than Allred) is making the letter out to be anything but a question raised about the accuracy of the SSN the maid supplied falsely. Had Whitman or her husband said the only correspondence they received was a query from SS regarding the number, and that it was properly handed over to the employee to follow up on, this would’ve blown over on day one and Allred would’ve slithered back under her rock. The appearance of hiding something is what trips up most politicians. Whitman may truthfully not have been aware of the letter, but she should’ve gotten everything squared away with her husband to make sure there would be no “uh, oh” moments.
Allred’s goal was to smear. A smear thrives on ‘casting doubt.’ You are playing into that.
Sure, you are technically correct about the ‘rational’ position. That is why smears work. “Gee, she could have done something wrong!”
Yeah. And you could secretly be a Nazi.
You should stop it, unless it is your intention to participate in what is obviously a smear. Attack the smearer, not the victim. Whitman is obviously the victim of a smear. We know enough of the facts to know that, even if she did not do everything exactly perfectly, which we have no evidence she did not do.
BTW, tpitman, you also point to one of the reasons smears almost always work, to one degree or another. Victims of smears always do ‘something wrong’ when first responding to a smear. They find it hard to believe anyone is going to take this garbage seriously. They know they did not do what the smearer is implying (or outright claiming, initially) they did.
The rotten garbage here is the Brown campaign. If anyone is guilty of doing anything for which they should get politically hung by the voters, it’s Jerry Brown.
If the Idiot American Electorate can assert they want to retain an impeached president (Clinton), then the Idiot California Electorate can vote for governor someone who chose to “Diss” the Big Gummint Bureaucracy.
If for no other reason, please Californians: Vote Whitman in so that we can all watch Allred gulp her Crap Sandwich on November 3rd!
I don’t think so. Allred is claiming that the form instructs the recipient to provide information which is requested on the form and to mail it back.
Is Allred wrong about this?
Please. I’m not playing into anything.
I was the first one to question Michelle on this topic. This is from the other thread.
We now have information. We’ve learned that Whitman’s husband DIDN’T give the letter to a lawyer, and it seems as if he ignored the instructions in the letter and gave it directly to the housekeeper.
It’s disappointing that he was this stupid. Doesn’t he know that illegal immigration is a big issue in this country and that questions arising about immigration status of your employees should be taken seriously and handled properly?
No, I shouldn’t stop it. I should continue to be the voice of reason about this topic. Such voice of reason is required when Investor612 and others continue to make irresponsible comments.
Yes, such as stupidly denying the receipt of a no-match letter.
Let’s all cut through the BS already;
This was a well orchestrated, political tar-brushing bomb strategically placed within days of the televised Spanish speaking debate to stoke fears of Whitman with Hispanic voters, regardless how correct or legal Whitman may have comported herself as employer.
Who, what and when did Brown operatives or Brown himself know of this?
Who tipped off Allred and perhaps financed this?
Why hasn’t ICE arrested the employee who admitted to falsifying and lying on her I-9 forms…in what is now, a public admission of guilt in a criminal act?
Jerry Brown is the California AG…he is derelict in his duty to ensure that “the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced” (California Constitution, Article V, Section 13).
The fact that voters and pundits are focused on Whitman (the victim of fraud) and unconcerned with an illegal being given aid, comfort and representation by the Brown operatives, is a sorry statement about California’s and, Amerca’s future.
___‹^›__‹(•¿•)›__‹^›___
In 2003? It was not a ‘big issue.’
And we still do not know they did not handle it ‘properly.’ They were supposed to notify the employee of the discrepancy. I have seen no proof they were required to do anything more.
Yes, it was.
And we still don’t know if they handled it properly.
corkie,
You wrote:
“You don’t exonerate people unless you know they should be exonerated.”
Really? Here’s hypotheticals:
So you’re a Communist, a shoplifter, a closet Lesbian etc., etc. Now I wouldn’t have a shred of evidence to back those accusations, but they certainly could possibly be true and impossible to disprove.
There’s not a single shred of evidence to back the claim Whitman knew anything about request for information or the maid’s status. The only evidence is that she made the effort to hire a legal employee and that she fired the employee upon learning she was illegal.
In the absence of evidence to back the accusation you do exonerate the accused. At least, that’s what reasonable people do.
You mean besides the letter from the IRS addressed to her, which her household did in fact receive, which requested information?
Is that proof that she knew? No. But it sure as hell is evidence that she actually did, and very very strong evidence that she at least should have known about the query.
No. We know she fired her at some point. There is no evidence besides Whitman’s own statement that she was actually unaware up until 2009 when the maid was fired.
I don’t think there is anything illegal per se about ignoring the requested follow-up to the IRS (and don’t fool yourself; this is exactly what Whitman and/or her husband did when they passed the buck to the employee). But it certainly is compelling evidence of willful ignorance on the Whitmans’ part. And I am surprised anyone here would let that slide.
IRS is not ICE.
Anyone who has been a responsible employer regularly receives myriads of Fed/State letters regarding their employees e.g.; names don’t match due to marriage or name match problem like ‘Steven v. Steve.’ Employers get letters regarding employees allegedly not paying child support (deadbeat dads and moms). It never ends.
And responsible employers check with the employee and respond as requested.
Almost all the time after you follow up, ya get the same document back to be filled out again or never hear from em.
Of course to the left who largely never made a payroll or created a single job in their life paying $23 an hour for unskilled help, filing I-9′s, 1099′s, FICA, FUTA Workers Comp, etc as did Whitman, that one Whitman IRS letter is the smoking gun.
Guilty as charged Ms. Whitman…your employee admitted lying on her legal work documents and now, you’re to blame.
Moral of this story to employers; next time a prospective employee has an accent or detectable indication they may not be U.S. descendants of the Mayflower (e.g.; Asians like MM), hiring these folks could be held against you no matter how responsible, fair, legal and/or generous you may be.
___‹^›__‹(•¿•)›__‹^›___
If it’s impossible to disprove then I shouldn’t be declared “free from guilt or blame.” However, the charge should be dismissed by all involved if there isn’t a shred of evidence.
However, as chapoutier implies, there is at least a shred of evidence that the matter should have been taken more seriously. I wouldn’t be stating this if Whitman’s husband had given the letter to an attorney or complied with the letter’s instructions.
Now, failure to take an immigration issue seriously, doesn’t necessarily mean that conservatives shouldn’t vote for Whitman, but let’s be honest about the situation.
Likewise, Michelle shouldn’t be declaring Whitman guilty of embracing the practice of hiring illegal immigrants.
But, Investor612, you’re not any less guilty of overstating your case than Michelle.
(Emphasis mine)
It seems as if you’re going a step further than me by implying that Whitman and her husband were irresponsible employers.
No, it wasn’t. It only became a big issue to most people (it being a “big issue” only once most people have developed strong political opinions about it) when our elites tried to cram McCain-Kennedy down our throats. And Whitman was a CEO of a Silicon Valley company, not a potential CA Governor who would be expected to be extra-sensitive to the possibility her employee had lied both to her and to the employment agency.
And, btw, you are still playing the Smearing Game. The attack on Whitman is about the accusation she knowingly hired or kept on an illegal alien.
That accusation is not true. Flat out not tru. It is a smear.
Nobody gives a rip about whether or not Meg’s husband did or did not file this or that particular useless, bureaucratic piece paper, or whether or not they were supposed to have done it.
No one other than people trying to smear her, that is.
Aw, drat. I should have used preview. I completely messed up the stuff I wanted to emphasize there.
I just realized MM has not posted a link to the full form, so anyone just reading her blog might not realize it would have been illegal for the Whitman’s to have fired the maid on the basis of the letter. The threat against the employer using the letter that way is right there in the form.
I am very disappointed with MM for excluding critical information.
The letter:
http://www.megwhitman.com/userfiles/pdfs/Social_Security_Administration_Doc.pdf
Corkie,
I haven’t overstated my case because there isn’t a shred of evidence against CHRISTINE WHITMAN. Therefore by your standard, she’s”free from guilt or blame.”
Christine Whitman and her husband are not the same person. And the worst you can say about her husband is that he naively, but understandably, directed his employee to handle the request for info from the federal government because it involved her.
Roland,
I like Michelle Malkin. I’ve bought and read her books. At times she’s brilliant.
But there’s a flip side in that she is often unfair and uses the selective application of standards to attack people who don’t meet her standard of conservative purity while exempting those who do.
A Michelle Malkin Republican party would be a pup tent, not a big tent and doomed to be the vocal opposition forever.
Wait…you base this on what, exactly? The fact that she claims she didn’t know her maid was illegal? Because other than that, there is nothing. It is her word against the maid’s, with the added fact that Whitman should have been alerted that there was at least an issue as early as 2003. Maybe she didn’t actually know until 2009. It is possible. But it isn’t likely, let alone “fact” with what we know.To say otherwise is an absurd overstatement.
Plenty of people “give a rip.” You just happen to not be one of them because her election is more important to you than whether or not she knowingly hired and/or kept on someone illegal, until which time it became politically necessary to fire her. Which is fine. We all have our priorities, and I won’t presume to tell you how to rank this in your personal pantheon. But don’t pretend that, in the exact same fact scenario except with a “D” at the end of Whitman’s name, you and the other apologists here wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder and would certainly not be calling a government agency verifying employment information “useless” or bureaucratic.
I don’t think you understand the definition of the term “evidence.” There certainly is evidence against her. The maid’s claim, for one. The letter, for another. You may not think these are particularly convincing pieces of evidence, but to deny they are no evidence at all pretty much ruins any credibility you have in this argument.
You have exactly zero evidence. That makes your lie a smear.
And, yes, this kind of smear is always a lie until it is proved not to be one, and, no, I am not the one who has to prove anything.
If you had any intellectual integrity at all, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Wow. I did not realize you were so dimwitted. I obviously did not say no one cared about whether or not she knowingly hired someone here illegally.
I cannot speak for others here, but unlike you I have some intellectual integrity. If I wanted Brown elected, I would be making exactly the same argument, if I said anything.
This is a smear. It is a particularly gross smear. That you can’t smell it because it’s being done to someone you oppose says a great deal about your character.
Sigh. Obviously when we legal ‘amateurs’ use the word ‘evidence’ we are talking about evidence with some significant degree of credibility, not obvious garbage people pushing a smear are flinging out hoping it will stick and calling evidence.
You obviously care yet you’re not one of the people trying to smear her.
Therefore, your statement is false.
And Christine Whitman and Margaret Whitman are not he same person.
No, I can say more than that.
Nope. There is evidence. I have pointed out two specific pieces. You repeating that there is not doesn’t make it any less false.
The only lie here is that you think you can definitively say she didn’t know.
No. You just said that no one gave a rip about a very significant and real piece of evidence to the notion that she knowingly hired (or actually, kept on–I concede there is a fair chance she thought the maid was legal at the time of hiring). Which pretty much amounts to the same thing.
The letter from the IRS stating they didn’t have a SSN for this woman is not garbage. Your continual denial of this does not make that any less true. The maid’s testimony is at least as credible as Whitman’s, which is the ONLY thing you have to go on. Don’t pretend Whitman wouldn’t have any incentive to lie about this.
Anyway, all these absurd, and unsubstantiated, sweeping statements from the apologist side (like there is absolutely NO evidence, that they know without a doubt Whitman is telling the truth) seem…shall I say…desperate?
What is the old saying? “Thou doth protest too much”?
Yes, it’s a smear. Stick with that. Don’t stupidly try claiming that zero evidence exists. Such a claim ruins the message that it’s a smear.
Exactly. I was originally defending Whitman.
Now, sweeping statements from Roland and Investor612 have forced me to appear to be arguing AGAINST Whitman.
Guys, stick with the facts. Feel free to claim that Whitman and her husband handled this in a reasonable matter. Claim that people shouldn’t be forced to hire an immigration attorney prior to hiring an immigrant. Claim that the issue shouldn’t be important.
But I’m going to challenge any definitive statements you make without knowing the law.
Heck, they’ve even forced YOU to defend Michelle Malkin. Hilarious.
No, Corkie, what is truly hilarious is both you and Chap basing your arguments against us on the meaning of the word ‘evidence,’ all the while knowing perfectly well what we meant.
The ‘evidence’ is garbage. You know it and agree. You’re just being anal.
Chap knows the ‘evidence’ is garbage, but disagrees that it is garbage because he’s lawyer arguing his side, and like most well trained lawyers the concept of intellectual integrity is alien to his world view.
All in all, quite funny.
Yes, we stubbornly insist on using the correct one. My apologies for that.
How is a letter from the IRS, saying…”um…we don’t have a record of this woman” garbage? It isn’t. Not even close. It also isn’t definitive. But only a damagogue or a fool would claim that it doesn’t fall somewhere on the spectrum of reasonable evidence.
I gave the link to the letter in comment 161. Anyone is free to go check it out and see for themselves if that is meaningful evidence Meg Whitman knew the maid she had hired was here illegally.
There is no point listening to Chap’s opinion if the evidence is meaningful or just garbage. Go look for yourselves.
BTW, the letter itself says it cannot be used as evidence the maid was here illegally. It warns of punishments for the employer using it that way.
So go check it out. This is all nothing but a particularly ugly smear by rabid partisans.
From the letter:
It certainly is meaningful evidence. It is not proof. You don’t seem to know the difference.
The letter says nothing of the sort. It says that this letter, in and of itself, is not a basis for belief or action. You do understand there is a significant reason between that statement and what you claim, right?
It also doesn’t say “Feel free to ignore this letter.” They send it for a reason, Roland. And that is to raise red flags to employers.
And let’s not forget that this was apparently not the only “red flag.”
Now, you can choose to believe the Whitmans over the maid with respect to the other no-match letters. And maybe she is lying. but let’s look at the facts surrounding the one letter we are sure of.
Maid: There is a letter.
Whitman: There is no letter!
(Maid produces letter.)
Whitman: We never saw it! The maid probably stole it!
Maid: Yes, you did see it. And then gave it to me.
(Maid produces letter with husband’s handwriting.)
Whitman: ummmm…well…my husband was the only one who saw it. And he (conveniently) forgot all about it!
One side has changed their story time after time with respect to this incident. The other, as far as I can tell, has not. Pretty easy choice for me as to who to lend more credibility.
chapotier,
You’re conveniently distorting the chain of events. The letter was initially described as a clear inference the maid was illegal. The actual letter was not. It clearly stated the opposite in fact. That’s a reasonable explanation as to the initial denials.
As for the rest, the maid appareantly had documents tat were clever enough forgeries to fool the employment agency and the Whitman’s. Having seen the documents, Dr. Whitman did an understandable thing with what appeared to be a paperwork snafu. Gave it to the person affected, their employee, to “take care of it.”
corkie,
I’m sure you can more about Dr. Whitman. Go ahead. What do you think he did that was so awful?
Um, nope. It was always described as a “no match” situation.
Here is the original TMZ story from when they broke this on the 29th.
Wanna try again?
And don’t be stupid. The letter certainly did not state the opposite of “Your maid is illegal” which would be “Your maid is definitely here legally.” Are you claiming that this letter states the maid was a legal resident?
The letter does say “We don’t have a record of her SSN.” It also says that this letter, in and of itself, is not evidence of illegal status (and for good reason. As has been pointed out, there are several other explanations for a no match). But again, there is no way you can claim it says the OPPOSITE of her illgal status.
Again, these inane overstatements do nothing but make you guys look desparate.
Oops. Now there I go. The letter doesn’t say anything about evidence. It says that it cannot be the sole basis for firing.
But it certainly is evidence.
Ah, evidence…
Like transcripts from elite prep school through Harvard Law proving Obama actually graduated, that have been put under lock and key at great expense and effort…or, an original birth certificate?
Who was asking about evidence again?
___‹^›__‹(•¿•)›__‹^›___
And this has to do with Whitman how, exactly?
Maybe you meant to post this on another thread.
What must lack of transcripts and original birth certificates (lack of evidence) say about claims made about the President?
The common thread here is; Whitman is being held to a different and higher standard than our President was willing to withstand if we are to come to conclusions and opinions based on documents or lack thereof.
___‹^›__‹(•¿•)›__‹^›___
Okay…
There is no lack of transcripts. It is just you aren’t privy to them. Schools can’t release them without permission an permission has not been given nor was it, to the best of my recollection, a requirement for the job. Do you think he didn’t graduate from those schools?
In any case, still doesn’t seem to have any relevance here. But the shift in your argument is interesting. And telling.
There is no evidence from IRS that Whitman failed to act any why other than appropriately as employer.
Before and after receiving the IRS letter, Whitman withheld FICA and matched payments as employer that was paid to IRS, who took the funds.
There is no evidence that the IRS had any further communications with Whitman as employer regarding this employee nor further questioning regarding matching information.
There is no notification or evidence what so ever from any other Government agency stating, implying or questioning if the employee was an illegal.
It wasn’t until the employee confessed lawbreaking herself as an illegal, that Whitman would have any evidence, reason or cause to terminate the employee as an illegal…and had she done so prior to the confession, it very well could have been deemed a wrongful termination.
All that darn evidence (lack thereof) is…so telling.
___‹^›__‹(•¿•)›__‹^›___
Incorrect. There is Whitman’s claim to this vs. the maid’s claim of otherwise. And considering Whitman’s ever changing story about the one letter we do know of, I am inclined to be skeptical.
And she certainly did not act appropriately as employer when she failed to follow through on the one letter we know about. The onus was on them. Why do you willfully ignore this fact?
Not at all. I’m definitively stating that Whitman may have had a legal obligation to do more than they did. I’m making this statement independent of any evidence that you think is or isn’t weak.
This sentence doesn’t make any sense, but you obviously don’t understand this case much.
First, you thought Margaret (Meg) Whitman’s first name was Christine.
Second, you think her husband’s last name is Whitman. In fact, it’s Dr. Griffith Harsh.
Why should anyone trust you to accurately portray any of the facts in this case?
I never claimed he ever did anything “so awful[.]” I’ve claimed that you don’t know that he didn’t violate the law and that he may have been negligent with respect to assisting a government agency tasked to resolve difficult issues related to the employment of illegal immigrants.
Read the letter again. Whitman’s husband clearly ignored the instruction to “return this letter in the enclosed envelope.”
Notice that the letter doesn’t instruct the recipient to “give this letter to the employee in question and assume that she will properly handle it.”
And you don’t know that he didn’t have a legal obligation to follow-up after 90 days and file a form I-9 if the matter wasn’t resolved.
The letter does not say “in and of itself” at all. I can’t see where in it you would imagine the letter is implying that. The letter is not supposed to be used that way. Period. It is quite straightforward.
Again, I encourage anyone still following this thread to read the letter for themselves.
Ummm…it is not implying that at all. It comes right out and says it, genius.
From the letter:
“It is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse action against the employee…”
Christ on a cracker, before you encourage anyone else to read the letter, maybe you should actually look at it yourself.
Oops. Okay. You win the argument, Chappy.
As anyone who decides to employ a maid should know, when you receive a letter like this you should carefully study its meaning so when lawyers are using it to attack you for what it was telling you not to assume from it, you will understand your receipt of the letter can be used as evidence that you assumed it.
So now that we know anyone who is not an attorney should never consider hiring a maid …….
Uh, so because I forgot the part I hadn’t copied into a comment of mine, and I did not review the letter again after you made your comment, then people should not check out the letter for themselves?
I think we have both made my point about people checking it out for themselves, actually.
It didn’t say “don’t assume.” It said. “don’t take action based solely on this letter.”
I wouldn’t think it would take a lawyer to understand the plain meaning of those words.
And it certainly remains strong evidence (but not the only evidence) that Whitman should have been alerted to the possibility that her maid was illegal 6 full years before she decided it was time to fire her.
But of course, six years ago Whitman probably didn’t anticipate running for office as a border hawk.
Curious thing, that is…how she happened to discover this just in the nick of time prior to her campaign…
Again, if it were a Dem, I highly doubt you would be so blase about this incredibly fortunate coincidence.
Not what I said at all. I said before YOU go encouraging people to read the letter, it would be a good idea to demonstrate that you take your own advice.
Of course I would, in general, encourage people to look at the letter themselves. Why wouldn’t I? It supports my argument.
As far as I’m concerned Whitman’s husband KNEW he was assuming some risk when he decided NOT to comply with the instructions on the letter.
Sure, as everyone here will tell you, I’m always a die hard defender of RINO’s like Whitman. Just ask txvet2 or jsmiddleton.
If you had any intellectual integrity, you would admit this is just a nasty smear. Since you do not have an ounce of intellectual integrity, it is no surprise to me you fail to recognize it in others.
Yes, Roland. I doubt anyone still reading this thread believe that you and Investor612 have the ability to make accurate statements about this issue.
I just have to ask. Why on earth wouldn’t you check the letter again before strongly claiming that it didn’t state something that it most clearly did???
What makes me believe that you’re being careful with your other facts?
Up for debate. But at least I have reading comprehension skills.
It is entirely possible that the maid is lying through her teeth and that Whitman had no idea. In which case this would be a smear by the perpretrators. But the vast majority of the evidence, mixed with just a dash of common sense should indicate to you otherwise.
And, without a doubt, given what we know, there is no way you are in any position (again, unless you are a demagogue or a fool) to conclusively say it IS a smear. That is just insane.
Initial campaign people probably started asking some difficult questions about Vicky which resulted in the confession. Questions which Whitman and her husband should probably have been asking all along.
Then at least we can agree on that.
If every voter in the state reads the letter, then they’ll all know this is a smear, and Whitman will win in a landslide.
You disagree. Great.
Smears don’t need to be factually inaccurate to be considered smears. A smear is merely something used to destroy a reputation. I’m pretty sure that this was the objective of the press conferences and pr campaign.
But they’ll also know that Whitman’s husband made the decision to ignore the instructions on the letter and give it directly to Vicky. Many of the voters in the state might want to elect people that take such matters more seriously.
Because I hadn’t had my first cup of coffee, and I shouldn’t have trusted my foggy morning memory, and I’m getting bored with the argument. I should have just dropped commenting on the thread.
Chap knows it’s a smear. He is not stupid enough not to know it.
And you’re just a jerk.
So I give up. You guys are soooooooo clever.
But this would also (if true) be exposing a fundamental hypocrisy in a candidate for major office.