A BS Smear Job

[Lord Jim]

Campaign stunt: a bunch of garbage

September 30, 2010|By Debra J. Saunders

"What did Meg Whitman know and when did she know it?" publicity hound attorney Gloria Allred asked Wednesday. It was a savvy close to a news conference at which client Nicandra Diaz Santillan, who worked as a housekeeper for Whitman, alleged that Whitman knew that she was an illegal immigrant, then fired her in 2009 as she prepared to run for governor.

Turns out, there are reasons to believe that Whitman did not know that Diaz was illegal when she hired her in 2000.

The campaign released copies of the Social Security card and immigration eligibility verification form presented by Diaz when she was hired. By Allred's account, these documents are phony. Having exhibited a willingness to fake legal status, the housekeeper's credibility is damaged.

I've known smart people who thought they were following the law in demanding documentation, only to find out later that they were duped.

In this case, Diaz also presented a driver's license. DMV spokesperson Jan Mendoza tells me, "It was a valid driver's license." California did not require proof of legal residence until 1994. Diaz got her first license in 1991.

To any voter who ever has hired a nanny, gardener or housecleaner, this would appear to be due diligence - especially for a 15-hour per week job that, according to Diaz, paid $23 per hour.

This story goes to the heart of the dilemma that faces Californians who welcome legal immigrants, but also believe in respecting federal law. What was Whitman supposed to do, not trust Diaz because she has an accent?

Allred repeated Whitman's assertion during Tuesday night's gubernatorial debate: "We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers. And we do have to enforce that law."

That's why, Whitman says, she fired Diaz when she realized she was illegal.

At the press conference, Diaz complained that she felt as if, after nine years' service, Whitman "was throwing me away like a piece of garbage."

Whitman called firing Diaz "one of the hardest things I've ever done."

What proof does Allred have that Whitman knew? Allred alleges that the Social Security Administration sent a letter informing the Whitman household that their housekeeper's Social Security number did not match her name.

Whitman and her husband deny having seen such a letter. So far, Allred has failed to produce it.

"If Ms. Whitman would like to dispute our claims of what she knew and when she knew it, then she should be prepared for the release of evidence," Allred said. And you thought the burden was on the accuser.

"This entire political circus is targeted at one demographic," said Whitman spokesman Tucker Bounds. "New polling numbers show that Jerry Brown is nearly losing in the Latino community. This is a political play."

Brown spokesman Sterling Clifford released a statement that hit Whitman for showing "that she thinks the rules don't apply to her. After more than a year of Whitman demanding immigration policy that 'holds employers accountable,' we learn that accountability doesn't extend to her own actions."

Without proof that Whitman knew about Diaz, that's a cheap unsubstantiated shot from the Brown camp.
E-mail Debra Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.
(C) San Francisco Chronicle 2010

[rubato]

"publicity hound attorney Gloria Allred asked Wednesday. "

If I were going to condemn someone as a "publicity hound" I would be defending someone other than Meg (I just spent $100,000,000 on lying and you still like Jerry Brown better) Whitman.

Only a stupid person would do so.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

It would be amusing to watch Allred and Al Sharpton compete in a hundred yard dash....

With a camera crew at the finish line....

[rubato]

It would be more amusing to see you deal with the truth in any meaningful way, but far less likely.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

It's all the rage Jim;

Former Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears tried to help an illegal immigrant working on her campaign team seven weeks ago – apparently contradicting her claim that she had ‘absolutely no personal knowledge’ of Rhoda Sulaimon’s status

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/electio ... z11EnMDn3C

Immigration officials launched an investigation today into revelations that the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, employed an illegal migrant.

The Government's top law officer sacked her housekeeper, Loloahi Tapui, yesterday after it emerged that the 27-year-old Tongan was in the UK illegally.

Lady Scotland, who has denied knowing Tapui did not have the right to work here, faces a civil penalty of up to £10,000 if found guilty.

A spokesman for the UK Border Agency said: 'The UK Border Agency will conduct this investigation as they would any other investigation into allegations of illegal working.'

The Daily Mail revealed this morning how Lady Scotland has paid Loloahi Tapui, 27, to look after her large family home in West London for the past six months.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z11Enp3waD

[Andrew D]

Unfortunately for Whitman (and for Saunders), Allred [has produced the letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA). It is dated April 22, 2003, and it says that the name and social security number provided for Whitman's employee do not match the SSA's records.

Whitman has said that neither she nor her husband ever received such a letter. But there is a note written on it: "Nicky please check this," and Whitman's husband has said that the note appears to be in his handwriting.

The letter says that it "makes no statement about [Whitman's] employee's immigration status." But it also lists several things under "THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO," and it gives a telephone number to call with any questions.

There is, at least as yet, no evidence that Whitman or her husband ever did any of those things. And if such evidence ever emerges, it will be rather difficult to reconcile with Whitman's flat denial that either she or her husband ever saw the letter: "'Absolutely not true,' Whitman said. 'Neither my husband or I received any letter from the Social Security.'"

So we should be asking ourselves why it is that for seven years after having learned that their employee's putative Social Security Number did not match the SSA's records -- a clear heads-up that she may have been an illegal alien -- Whitman and her husband, despite having been told exactly what they should do, did nothing whatsoever to ascertain whether their employee was in the US legally or illegally. Why?

The answer seems clear enough. And it is exactly why Whitman is desperately flailing to find some sort of answer. Thus far, she is failing.

[Lord Jim]

Well Andrew, this certainly sounds like a perfectly plausible explanation to me:

SANTA MONICA, CA (AP) -- Meg Whitman says her former housekeeper might have intercepted a government letter in 2003 warning that the maid could be in the country illegally.

When asked at a news conference Thursday in Santa Monica whether the worker might have taken the letter intended for Whitman, the Republican gubernatorial candidate said "it's very possible."

The housekeeper's attorney Gloria Allred released "evidence" later Thursday that she says shows Whitman knew she employed an illegal worker.

Allred says Nicky Diaz Santillan kept the 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration after Whitman's husband partially filled it out and told the housekeeper to deal with it.

At news conference Thursday in Los Angeles, Allred produced a copy of the letter and said the housekeeper recognized the handwriting as belonging to Whitman's husband.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story. ... 14&catid=2

Clearly there's both motive and opportunity....

There's also obvious motive for Diaz to be bitter about being let go from such a good job, ($23.00 an hour is nearly three times the minimum wage) and further motive for her to see possible financial opportunity from the publicity involved.

And obviously, it's impossible to accept her word for who's handwriting is on the letter.

[Andrew D]

Yeah, Whitman's dog ate her homework.

Her husband agreed that the handwriting on the note appeared to be his. Did you miss that part? Or do you just not care?

Were it not for the politics involved, you wouldn't consider the "explanation" "plausible" for even a moment.

So why do you consider it "plausible" in this case?

Oh, don't bother answering; all of us already know.

[Lord Jim]

Whitman's husband has said that the note appears to be in his handwriting.

Andrew, I've looked at four different articles about this, (including two that were written today) and I can't find the husband admitting he wrote the note in any of them.

Could you please provide a link to where he is quoted saying this?

[loCAtek]

Look, I know how well an illegal can obfuscate their citizenship to get/keep a job. Plus, 'housekeeping' isn't usually an occupation that requires a background check. Seems the Whitmans did this check and terminated her, when the full knowledge surfaced.

[Jarlaxle]

Now she needs to be fingerprinted, photograpthed, her DNA put on file, and deported IMMEDIATELY.

[Andrew D]

Previously, Whitman herself flatly denied that she or her husband ever saw the SSA's letter:

Earlier, Whitman appeared in an hour-long press conference with Harsh standing at her side and repeatedly denied that either one of them had ever been contacted by the Social Security Administration about a "mismatched Social Security number for Diaz.

"Absolutely not true," Whitman said. "Neither my husband or I received any letter from the Social Security. "As I understand the process, normally they would have sent a letter to the employee and two weeks later to the employers ... we never saw any such letter."

Now, however, Whitman herself says "that she suspects the handwriting on a letter regarding the Social Security number of her former housekeeper is her husband's."

Her husband is now quoted all over the net saying that "it is possible" that the handwriting is his. I no longer have the link phrasing it as "appears to be his" -- the present flood of "it is possible" quotations having buried it -- but given what Whitman herself has said, the difference does not strike me as important.

And, of course, if the handwriting is his -- and doubt about that appears to be rapidly evanescing -- then that makes hash of Whitman's claim that the housekeeper may have "intercepted it".

But the oddest thing of all is this: The handwritten note on the SSA's letter -- which appears right under the "THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO" section -- tells "Nicky" to "check this". Thus, when confronted with a clear indication from the SSA that the housekeeper might have been here illegally (though not an assertion that she was), the only thing that Whitman and her husband appear to have done is direct the very housekeeper whose immigration status was in question to check on it.

What kind of reaction is that? You get a letter telling you that one of your employees has a purported SSN which does not match the SSA's records -- a clear heads up that she might be here illegally -- and the only thing you do is ask that very employee to check on it?

[Lord Jim]

Well, if her husband did in fact see the letter, then Whitman should apologize for this:

On Wednesday, Whitman had said "We never received that letter or that notification," and earlier on Thursday, she had suggested her former maid might have intercepted the letter because she handled the mail.

While it's entirely possible that at the time she made the statement she honestly believed that to be the case, she should admit she was mistaken, apologize and move on. It's the right thing to do ethically, and the smart thing to do politically.

However what Whitman's husband apparently did:

But the oddest thing of all is this: The handwritten note on the SSA's letter -- which appears right under the "THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO" section -- tells "Nicky" to "check this". Thus, when confronted with a clear indication from the SSA that the housekeeper might have been here illegally (though not an assertion that she was), the only thing that Whitman and her husband appear to have done is direct the very housekeeper whose immigration status was in question to check on it.

Certainly doesn't seem all that unreasonable, in light of this:

As we previously wrote, the Social Security Administration website says that when employers receive a so-called "no-match" letter, they should make sure there was not a typographical error and ask to see the employee's Social Security card to ensure they have the right information. If the issue cannot be resolved, they are supposed to ask their employee to contact their local Social Security office.

In other words, the very most that this letter requires of the employer, is that they "ask" the employee to "contact their local Social Security office." It does NOT require the employer to contact the SSA. It doesn't require that the employer verify that the employee has contacted the SSA. It doesn't require anything at all of the employer other than to ask the employee to follow up if there's a discrepancy.

So that being the case, especially since the Whitman's had already checked Diaz's (we now know forged) SS card...(more than a lot of employers were doing at the time) and given the fact that they trusted her and had every reason to believe she was here legally, telling her to follow up on the letter seems like precisely what the communication expected of them.

As for her husband initially not remembering it, that doesn't seem all that odd to me. They trusted this woman, assumed she was here legally based on the due diligence they had done, there's no reason that such an innocuous type letter should loom large in one's memory seven years after it arrived. And when the Whitman's maintained that they had never been notified that Diaz was here illegally, they were absolutely telling the truth since that letter does nothing of the sort.

This being the case, I stand by my statement; this is a BS smear.

However, there's no doubt that Whitman has handled this very badly; she shouldn't gotten out in front with such unequivocal declarative statements; instead she should have made the points I just did. Her mishandling of this has had the effect of blowing it out of proportion and shifting the focus from the smear to her misstatements.

Admitting she was mistaken, apologizing, and emphasizing the points I made is the best way for her to minimize the damage.

[Andrew D]

Look, I know how well an illegal can obfuscate their citizenship to get/keep a job. Plus, 'housekeeping' isn't usually an occupation that requires a background check. Seems the Whitmans did this check and terminated her, when the full knowledge surfaced.

It "seems" that way only if you choose to believe Whitman and disbelieve the housekeeper. Why should we? After all, Whitman has already conceded that she "suspects" that the handwritten note on the SSA's letter is her husband's -- even though she had flatly denied that either she or her husband had ever received the letter in the first place (and claimed that it was "possible" that the housekeeper had intercepted it). On the other hand, the housekeeper obviously submitted false documents originally.

I have no quarrel with Whitman's having hired the housekeeper in the first place. This:

The Whitman campaign released a U.S. Immigration and Naturalization employment eligibility verification form signed by Diaz when she was hired by Whitman in which she asserts under penalty of perjury that she is a lawful permanent resident.

The campaign also released copies of the Social Security Card and California driver's license supplied by Diaz at the time she was hired, and an employment questionnaire in which she checked a box saying that she could legally accept employment.

appears (at least thus far) to be undisputed.

But the issue is the response to the SSA's letter. Whitman and her husband appear to have taken none of the steps listed under "THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO". And the only thing they appear to have done is direct the housekeeper herself to follow up on the matter.

All in all, this is shaping up to turn out badly for Whitman. The polls have been going back and forth for months, and we have a neck-and-neck race.

Sure, lots of strong Whitman supporters are not going to change their minds. (And, of course, strong Brown supporters aren't going to change their minds either.) But in a race this close, it takes only a little swing to determine the outcome.

The Latino vote is very important to both candidates, and Whimtan's conduct appears not to be sitting well with Latino voters -- not just because they seem to think it very unlikely that Whitman did not know about the housekeeper's status long before she said she found out, but also because of the housekeeper's allegations about how Whitman treated her: Despite describing the housekeeper as "being like a member of her extended family," Whitman "refused to help when the woman asked for help pursuing legal residency." That can't bode well for Whitman among Latino voters.

[Andrew D]

In other words, the very most that this letter requires of the employer, is that they "ask" the employee to "contact their local Social Security office." It does NOT require the employer to contact the SSA. It doesn't require that the employer verify that the employee has contacted the SSA. It doesn't require anything at all of the employer other than to ask the employee to follow up if there's a discrepancy.

You should read the letter itself, Lord Jim. (I linked it above.) Under "THINGS YOU NEED TO DO," it says, among other things:

If you or the employee have been using an incorrect name or Social Security number, you must correct it.

(Emphases added.)

But Whitman and her husband did essentially nothing.

[loCAtek]

It appears Ms. Diaz had been working for the Whitmans for about three years, at the time of the letter. Obviously, they liked her service, and liked her personally enough to give her a nickname. I'm assuming that she was instructed simply to 'check this', because by that time the Whitmans trusted her. Instead, Ms. Diaz continued to deceive them by hiding the letter. Now, Mrs. Whitman could have been far more harsh, and could have had Ms. Diaz deported, but terminating her seemed fair. She also went as far as to try to be considerate of her reputation with the kids.

Latinos traditionally vote Democratic, and Meg Whitman has had an uphill battle trying to get the Hispanic vote from the start. This may only have reinforced that existing trend.
If they can find no further evidence of Meg Whitman knowing about Ms.Diaz's status, this may blow over, since legally Mrs. Whitman did the right thing and she didn't have any obligation to help Ms. Diaz. If there is more evidence of false statements, then of course she's sunk as a hypocrite.

[Andrew D]

I'm assuming that she was instructed simply to 'check this', because by that time the Whitmans trusted her. Instead, Ms. Diaz continued to deceive them by hiding the letter.

Huh?

What does that even mean? After Diaz "was instructed simply to 'check this,'" how could she possibly have "continued to deceive them by hiding the letter" which Whitman's husband had already seen and written a note to Diaz on?

You're not making any sense.

[Lord Jim]

Well Andrew, I finally found a copy of the letter with print large enough that I could read it....

The section you quoted comes right after the section I quoted, and it could certainly be argued that the second section wouldn't even come into play if the employer believed that the information wasn't "incorrect", but that it was a mix up on the part of SSA. (Which appears to be the assumption that was being made)

If so, one could assume that the earlier one that I quoted, (instructing the employer to ask the employee to contact the SS office) would be the operative course of action according to the instructions.

The way this letter is written it could be parsed a lot of different ways, and we could argue it all day...

However we do have one area of agreement...

I completely agree with your analysis of the political implications....(Which have been made worse than they would have otherwise been because of the way Whitman has handled this....on top of everything else she teed it up for Brown in last night's debate, and he handled it masterfully)

This is going to be a very close election and a small shift within a voting group could easily make the difference....

This could very well wind up costing her the election.

[loCAtek]

I'm assuming that she was instructed simply to 'check this', because by that time the Whitmans trusted her. Instead, Ms. Diaz continued to deceive them by hiding the letter.

Huh?

What does that even mean? After Diaz "was instructed simply to 'check this,'" how could she possibly have "continued to deceive them by hiding the letter" which Whitman's husband had already seen and written a note to Diaz on?

You're not making any sense.

Whitman's husband may have seen it, gave to Diaz with the note, but it remained in Diaz's possession. She did not return it to the Whitmans, nor did she send it to the SSA (which was what Mr. Whitman may have been led to believe happened).
This is how Diaz was able to show the letter to her attorney. Diaz has not worked for the Whitmans for over a year, she should not have access to their files any longer. There is no record of the Whitmans giving this letter to Diaz's attorney. Therefore, Diaz must have been holding onto this letter, since when she first received it.

Allred says Nicky Diaz Santillan kept the 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration after Whitman's husband partially filled it out and told the housekeeper to deal with it.

[Andrew D]

OK. So what you actually meant by Diaz's "hiding the letter" was that Whitman and her husband did nothing to ascertain whether Diaz had followed Whitman's husband's instruction to follow up on the matter. I can accept that. It is in perfect accord with what I posted previously: In response to the SSA's letter, Whitman and her husband did essentially nothing.