• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arrest Meg Whitman

theprestige said:
Isn't it illegal in America to discriminate against someone when hiring, because you suspect they might be an illegal immigrant?
Click to expand...

when interviewing folks for jobs in NYC govt., you are NOT allowed to inquire into the applicant's immigration status.
 
Nova Land said:
So far there appears to be no significant evidence that Meg Whitman knew that Nicky Diaz was an illegal immigrant when she hired Diaz, no significant evidence that she became aware of that prior to Diaz informing her of that in 2009, and no significant evidence that Whitman underpaid or mistreated Diaz. Diaz and Allred have made claims about these things, but so far the case seems to be based mainly on speculation: arguments along the lines that it could have been and it seems likely and it seems reasonable... I'm willing to be convinced that Whitman knowingly employed an illegal immigrant, but in order to be convinced I need to see some substantial evidence.

Likewise, so far there appears to be no significant evidence that Jerry Brown was part of or connected to Allred's and Diaz's actions in making this public. Whitman has claimed he was, and others (including posters in this thread) have echoed those claims, but so far the case seems to be based entirely on speculation: arguments along the line that he could have been and that it seems likely and that it seems reasonable... I'm willing to be convinced that Brown was complicit in this attack on Whitman, but in order to be convinced I need to see some substantial evidence.

It's sad that people who dislike Whitman are willing to accept a purely notional case for proving her guilt in a matter where actual evidence seems lacking, and that people who dislike Brown are willing to accept a purely notional case for proving his guilt in a matter where actual evidence seems lacking.

Hey! Wouldn't it be great if some group devoted to promoting skeptical thinking, possibly one with a website and a discussion forum, were to add a Politics section to their forum? That would give people an opportunity to apply the same kind of thinking we'd like used in discussions of the paranormal to discussions of politics.
Click to expand...

Those of us with opinions on political matters are clearly not worthy!!!11!

Hint: The OP is supposed to be a little bit provocative to start a conversation. It's not meant to be taken literally.
 
Nova Land said:
So far there appears to be no significant evidence that Meg Whitman knew that Nicky Diaz was an illegal immigrant when she hired Diaz, no significant evidence that she became aware of that prior to Diaz informing her of that in 2009, and no significant evidence that Whitman underpaid or mistreated Diaz. Diaz and Allred have made claims about these things, but so far the case seems to be based mainly on speculation: arguments along the lines that it could have been and it seems likely and it seems reasonable... I'm willing to be convinced that Whitman knowingly employed an illegal immigrant, but in order to be convinced I need to see some substantial evidence.

Likewise, so far there appears to be no significant evidence that Jerry Brown was part of or connected to Allred's and Diaz's actions in making this public. Whitman has claimed he was, and others (including posters in this thread) have echoed those claims, but so far the case seems to be based entirely on speculation: arguments along the line that he could have been and that it seems likely and that it seems reasonable... I'm willing to be convinced that Brown was complicit in this attack on Whitman, but in order to be convinced I need to see some substantial evidence.

It's sad that people who dislike Whitman are willing to accept a purely notional case for proving her guilt in a matter where actual evidence seems lacking, and that people who dislike Brown are willing to accept a purely notional case for proving his guilt in a matter where actual evidence seems lacking.

Hey! Wouldn't it be great if some group devoted to promoting skeptical thinking, possibly one with a website and a discussion forum, were to add a Politics section to their forum? That would give people an opportunity to apply the same kind of thinking we'd like used in discussions of the paranormal to discussions of politics.
Click to expand...

Hey we don't take kindly too you and your skeptical and unbiased kind here in politics:p

But anyway thanks for the post. I'm of the mind that Whitman probably knew she was illegal but the evidence is starting to sway me that she didn't know.

As for Brown maybe/maybe not. I don't have enough information to to make a judgement either way.
 
Nova Land said:
Likewise, so far there appears to be no significant evidence that Jerry Brown was part of or connected to Allred's and Diaz's actions in making this public. Whitman has claimed he was, and others (including posters in this thread) have echoed those claims, but so far the case seems to be based entirely on speculation: arguments along the line that he could have been and that it seems likely and that it seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

If the following is true (and I see no reason to discount it at this time)

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/09/30/2099262/whitman-says-brown-campaign-is.html

During the news conference, Whitman mentioned a news report about the accusations Wednesday night on KTVU-2 in San Francisco. In its story, the station said a Brown campaign aide told its political reporter two weeks ago to watch for developments related to a Whitman housekeeper.

KTVU news director Ed Chapuis said its report "was 100 percent accurate."
Click to expand...

then this *revelation* didn't come as a surprise to Brown's camp. Then we need to find out when they knew about the housekeeper, what they knew and how they came to find out about it? And what happened to the information they had? Obviously if this account was true, then the Brown camp knew that there were going to be "developments" related to the housekeeper. In other words, the housekeeper story was going to surface. Again, what did the Brown camp know and how were they connected to those soon to be "developments"?
 
Ziggurat said:
The letter says what it says because the record keeping which triggers it doesn't indicate that the person in question is an illegal immigrant. As the letter itself indicates, even a simple typo can trigger it. All the letter says is that there's a discrepancy, because that's all the SSA knows. Yes, the government is bipolar about illegal immigration, and that might play a role in why the SSA didn't know more, but that's got nothing to do with Meg Whitman's actions in this case.



You can suspect all you want to, and you might even be right. But your claims about what the evidence indicated were wrong.



$23/hour for low-skill light work? Yeah, somehow I don't see that as terrible exploitation. Nor is this a case of paying her under the table to avoid taxes (which is why the 2003 letter got sent in the first place).
Click to expand...

Preparing taxes that are filing electronically the most common reject is for SSN and almost every one has been because of SSN entered improperly, name change because of marriage or misspelled name.

If she was trying to do something wrong it is very easy to find illegal labor at a cheap price
 
Ah … the plot thickens. Apparently Gloria Allred, when pressed, claimed the Nicky Diaz case came to her from an attorney named Mark Van Der Hout. Well Van Der Hout is an extreme leftist attorney in California. Marc Van der Hout has now stated he will not divulge who referred Nicky Diaz to him. He denies any connection to Jerry Brown or anyone else in the democrat party.

Now even if that's true, and we can't know if it is, what about connections to the the same unions that Jerry Brown is beholden to? Allred as much as admitted that union representatives were in her office in the days before Diaz went public. How about Van Der Hout's offices? Who is paying Van Der Hout's fees? Obviously, he wasn't involved for the publicity, since he did everything he could to keep in the background. So where is the payoff here for him?
 
A number of off-topic posts, some directed at other members sent to AAH. Nothing worth infracting yet, but please try to keep it on topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Whitman's ex-nanny believes housekeeper

Jill Armstrong says she has good reason to accept Mexican housekeeper Nicandra Diaz Santillan's tale of working in the household of GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman - because Armstrong herself was a domestic for the former eBay CEO.

"I totally believe" Diaz, Armstrong, 59, of Mountain View, said in an interview with The Chronicle. "I know the family. I know what it was like."
Click to expand...
 
BeAChooser said:
If the following is true (and I see no reason to discount it at this time)

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/09/30/2099262/whitman-says-brown-campaign-is.html



then this *revelation* didn't come as a surprise to Brown's camp. Then we need to find out when they knew about the housekeeper, what they knew and how they came to find out about it? And what happened to the information they had? Obviously if this account was true, then the Brown camp knew that there were going to be "developments" related to the housekeeper. In other words, the housekeeper story was going to surface. Again, what did the Brown camp know and how were they connected to those soon to be "developments"?
Click to expand...

They could have just learned it by doing opposition research. That's standard procedure for a campaign. Doesn't mean they put her up to it.
 
You have to love California politics. The party that supports providing drivers licenses and college benefits to people who are in the country illegally, is using the fact that someone paid an illegal to perform a service.

I guess it's ok if the money comes from the Government, but if it comes from a private citizen...

"BiPolar", as WildCat said, isn't the half of it; this is straight-up schizophrenic.
 
Phrost said:
You have to love California politics. The party that supports providing drivers licenses and college benefits to people who are in the country illegally, is using the fact that someone paid an illegal to perform a service.

I guess it's ok if the money comes from the Government, but if it comes from a private citizen...

"BiPolar", as WildCat said, isn't the half of it; this is straight-up schizophrenic.
Click to expand...

It probably has more to do with hypocrisy.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
It probably has more to do with hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

But where would any real hypocrisy be. She didn't go to the 7/11 looking for cheap illegal laborers. She went to an agency and she paid top dollar. They got a letter and the husband made the mistake of giving it to her to take care of. Would you neccesarily remember that you had recieved that letter several years later?
 
According to this, http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/07/1861542/attorney-whitmans-ex-housekeeper.html , although Van Der Hout won't say exactly how he came in contact with Nicky Diaz Santillan, he's apparently working to allow her to remain in the US despite her illegal status. But the most interesting thing is that "Van Der Hout said Diaz Santillan was referred to him within the last couple of months by another lawyer. He said he wouldn't name that attorney as a matter of policy." Also, "Asked if Brown supporters, including labor union activists, referred Diaz Santillan to him, Van Der Hout reiterated: "I can't go into any of that, who's involved and who referred" the housekeeper to him for immigration law advice." Now he as much as just admitted it, folks, because lawyers (especially like him and Allred) have no trouble saying or denying ANYTHING … when it suits their agenda. :D

By the way, here's a source that seems to indicate that some of the statements by Gloria and Van Der Hout contradict one another:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/05/BAFR1FOMJK.DTL

Van Der Hout, one of the city's pre-eminent immigration lawyers and a self-proclaimed progressive, told us Tuesday that Diaz was referred to him several weeks ago by a fellow attorney. He wouldn't identify the attorney.
Click to expand...

So which is it? Weeks or months?

"I think someone referred her to Gloria on the matter of her hours and back pay as well," Van Der Hout said.
Click to expand...

So did Van Der Hout refer Diaz to Gloria or not? There seems to be some confusion here when there shouldn't be any. There certainly isn't on my part or any thinking, rational skeptic:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/meg_whitman_vs_the_dirty_trick.html
 
eeyore1954 said:
But where would any real hypocrisy be. She didn't go to the 7/11 looking for cheap illegal laborers. She went to an agency and she paid top dollar. They got a letter and the husband made the mistake of giving it to her to take care of. Would you neccesarily remember that you had recieved that letter several years later?
Click to expand...

She is running as a Republican, no? They have pounded the illegal alien drum for as long as I can remember. Like I said, hypocrisy.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
She is running as a Republican, no? They have pounded the illegal alien drum for as long as I can remember. Like I said, hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Why is it hypocritical to hire someone who provided documentation to prove she was legal?

Oh, I know: it's hypocritical because Whitman didn't engage in racial profiling and simply assume it was forged.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why is it hypocritical to hire someone who provided documentation to prove she was legal?

Oh, I know: it's hypocritical because Whitman didn't engage in racial profiling and simply assume it was forged.
Click to expand...

No, because she & her husband didn't unhire her when they got "the letter". But you knew that.

Nice try though!
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
No, because she & her husband didn't unhire her when they got "the letter". But you knew that.

Nice try though!
Click to expand...

Have you read the letter, TCS? If you had, you would know that doing so would have been illegal, as the letter itself points out.

But you DIDN'T know that. Because you don't know what you're talking about.

Nice try though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom