• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper

The SSA said the SSN number submitted was registered to a different name. They sent another letter, and Whitman ignored both?
As of now we only have the word of a known liar (the maid) that more than 1 letter was received. They only send them if the individual employs more than 9 people. Does Meg employ more than 9? Did they send the one by mistake and not send the others because she didn't employ 9? Did she only employ 9 individuals that one year? I obviously have no idea.

My statement just states the fact that she didn't speak English well, and that would have caused Whitman to question her background. That in no way indicates that all people that don't speak English well are undocumented, but if they are legal Americans they usually have a good reason for not speaking English well. And considering Whitman's position on illegal hiring, there is no excuse for her to be complacent in her own situation.

One of my neighbors/friends have a stong hispanic accent. Thank you for clarifying for me that I should be very suspicious of her immigration status. I hadn't realize it before. Maybe I should call INS on to check?

I haven't seen any information where the IRS is backing up that she paid taxes.

Think you may have misunderstood. I just meant that if she hadn't paid taxes, the IRS would be all over it by now. They are desperate for money, and would not be letting tax fraud go.



Like I said, it might not matter that she was paying taxes. Where were the taxes going if the the name registered for the maid's SSN was different?
I would assume they would be credited to the individual whose identity the maid stole.

Also, another question, if Meg Whitman is so against illegals being hired, how come she didn't report her? All she did was fire her?

I am against the hiring of illegal immigrants, and I would have done the same. Especially after 9 years. I am too nice, and I suspect that if Meg had turned her in, that would have been the attack (she's heartless). Kind of damned if you do damned if you don't situation.
 
It might turn out that she paid taxes under an ITIN, after her SSN was identifed as belonging to a different name. According to this article, it is not uncommon for illegals to pay taxes even when they don't have a Social Security number.

Point being, the fact that she paid taxes does not signify that she was legal,

OK, let's stop right there. No one is saying that she is legal. However, there is solid evidence that Meg Whitman had every reason to believe she was legal because the woman did everything in her power to decieve her.
 
Meg Whitman should have reported her, that would have been upholding the law.

Did Whitman report her when she found out that she was illegal? NO.

So much for Whitman not being at fault.

Actually, there's no requirement for her to report her as being illegal. Her only obligation was to terminate the employment until the woman showed legal documentation. So much for Whitman being at fault. :shrug:
 
californians, who have never known such desperation in all the proud and progressive history of our once golden state, symbol of optimism, are NOT focused on w4 forms

taxes, jobs, water, ab32, housing, borders, budgets---these are the overwhelming concerns of sober, mature californians

if they're not speaking these things, they're certainly worrying about them, burdening their hearts

whichever side dwells instead on such trivial gotcha---while simultaneously calling the lady running against it a whore---INSULTS almost every voter, precisely where she lives

i'm stunned this needs to be pointed out

that said, carry on

exactly what did the whore do wrong, again?
 
Last edited:
As long as the IRS confirms that the taxes were paid by Whitman, I am fine with that. :shrug:
Well then, where is that IRS confirmation?

I've hired housekeepers through agencies in California and after paying the one time agency fee, I paid the housekeeper in cash after each time she came. I suspect it was the same for Whitman.
 
Well then, where is that IRS confirmation?

I've hired housekeepers through agencies in California and after paying the one time agency fee, I paid the housekeeper in cash after each time she came. I suspect it was the same for Whitman.

If the IRS isn't coming after her, then that's all the confirmation needed.

And you can suspect all you want. When you have proof, get back to me. Thanks for confessing that you break the law freely with your housekeepers.
 
Last edited:
If the IRS isn't coming after her, then that's all the confirmation needed.

And you can suspect all you want. When you have proof, get back to me. Thanks for confessing that you break the law freely with your housekeepers.
When you have proof that Whitman didn't know her housekeeper was an illegal, then you get back to me. I paid the going wage for a housekeeper and I could've cared less if she illegal or legal and I suspect it was the same for Whitman just as it was for those who hire illegals to take of their kids, their yards, to work in construction, work in restaurants and hotels.
 
When you have proof that Whitman didn't know her housekeeper was an illegal, then you get back to me.

That's called proving a negative and it is a logical fallacy. You think she DID know so the onus is on you to prove it.

I paid the going wage for a housekeeper and I could've cared less if she illegal or legal and I suspect it was the same for Whitman

You can suspect it all you want. When you have proof, get back to me.

just as it was for those who hire illegals to take of their kids, their yards, to work in construction, work in restaurants and hotels.

And those who knowingly hire illegals, including you, should be held accountable for their criminal activity.
 
Ok, so the only thing you are upset with is that she didn't turn her in? Wouldn't you have then been screaming how unfeeling Whitman is to the plight of undocumented workers in CA at that point?
No, that isn't the only thing I'm upset about. I'm upset at all conservatives who keep screaming "illegals, deport them" and then come to the rescue of a Republican running for office, who hires an illegal, claims she didn't know, and then doesn't even report her. That is the height of hypocrisy.

Tell us, will you be voting for Brown? Even after one of his staff members is heard on tape calling Whitman a "whore"?
I'm not from California, but if I was I would certainly not vote for Whitman. I don't guess Brown is any more responsible for what his staff members say any more than Ron Paul is responsible for racist letters going out from his campaign headquarters, or at least that is what most cons say.

Where's the money trail for Nicky's attorneys fees coming from? Who hired Alred? Who referred Nicky to her? Why won't Alred answer that?
Would that change the fact that Whitman admits having her under her employ for 9 years? That is not the issue in question. The issue is that Whitman says one thing (she is against hiring illegals, but not when it comes to her).

Are you satisified that Brown wants this campaign decided on this distraction instead of telling Cali voters what he will do if elected?
I frankly don't care if Brown gets elected - I have my own issues with my governor being all about himself, typical Republican that he is.
 
As of now we only have the word of a known liar (the maid) that more than 1 letter was received. They only send them if the individual employs more than 9 people. Does Meg employ more than 9? Did they send the one by mistake and not send the others because she didn't employ 9? Did she only employ 9 individuals that one year? I obviously have no idea.

I think you misunderstood the statement. SSA only sends the letter if the employer has had more than 10 people whose SSNs and names did not match. It is possible that Whitman has had other illegals working for her.

Agency spokesman Mark Lassiter said that from 2003-2006 an employer had to have more than 10 employees whose Social Security numbers and names did not match to receive a warning letter. It was not immediately clear how many domestic employees Whitman had during that time.

"An employer with one or two employees in 2003 to 2006 would not have gotten an employer ... letter," Lassiter said.


And, it appears that the liar is not Nicky but Whitman and her husband. The letter that they claim they never saw, apparently was partially filled out and it appears to be Whitman's husband's handwriting.

One of my neighbors/friends have a stong hispanic accent. Thank you for clarifying for me that I should be very suspicious of her immigration status. I hadn't realize it before. Maybe I should call INS on to check?
Having a strong spanish accent is not the same as not being able to speak English fluently. But if you are suspicious and you are an advocate of deporting all illegals, I'm surprised you haven't done it already.


Think you may have misunderstood. I just meant that if she hadn't paid taxes, the IRS would be all over it by now. They are desperate for money, and would not be letting tax fraud go.
If you are being paid under the table, the IRS has no way of knowing you are working and not paying taxes. Your statement sound as if you were sure that the IRS had verified that taxes were paid.

I would assume they would be credited to the individual whose identity the maid stole.
Well, then in that case, the maid would not have taxes credited to her name.

I am against the hiring of illegal immigrants, and I would have done the same. Especially after 9 years. I am too nice, and I suspect that if Meg had turned her in, that would have been the attack (she's heartless). Kind of damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

After reading some of the posts from conservatives who hate illegals and want to deport them, call them names and accuse them of taking their benefits and jobs, and want to deny their children born here their US citizenship all of a sudden turn nice and wouldn't report her. What a crock.
 
OK, let's stop right there. No one is saying that she is legal.
Exactly, so why would you assume that because she paid taxes that Whitman thought she was legal? (If she even paid taxes.)

However, there is solid evidence that Meg Whitman had every reason to believe she was legal because the woman did everything in her power to decieve her.

Yeah sure, like the maid forced Whitman's husband, Dr Harsh to partially fill the form out and then forget about it?

But Allred produced a copy of the letter Thursday that she says shows Whitman's husband partially filled it out. If true, that would mean Whitman and her husband were aware of the immigration problem years ago.

"At bottom of letter, "Dr. Harsh has written: 'Nicky, please check this. Thanks,'" Allred said, adding that the housekeeper recognized the handwriting as belonging to Whitman's husband.

Husband possibly saw letter on Whitman maid glitch - USATODAY.com
 
Actually, there's no requirement for her to report her as being illegal. Her only obligation was to terminate the employment until the woman showed legal documentation. So much for Whitman being at fault. :shrug:

Not as a regular citizen. But as a Republican candidate for Governor, vocal about trying to fix the immigration problem, getting tough on employers that hire illegals, that would have made more sense. Instead, she has made herself out to be a hypocrite. Apparently she doesn't feel that her rules apply to her also.

The Whitman story also seems to point to a larger Republican hypocrisy on immigration. Republicans have generally favored a “get tough” policy on undocumented immigrants, but have not been as vociferous in their pursuit of the people who employ undocumented immigrants. Voters will often vote for a candidate they may disagree with, but they will rarely vote for candidate who hypocritically disagrees with himself.

Meg Whitman could create larger problems for Republicans this November (Video) - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com
 
exactly what did the whore do wrong, again?

Speak out of both sides of her mouth. She's a hypocrite like most conservatives who call illegals names, want them all deported and then claim to go soft because they feel sorry for them! Yeah, right!

But it also shows that Whitman's most severe sanctions would be reserved for employers who "knowingly" hire illegal immigrant labor – something she claims she did not do.
On the John and Ken Show in Los Angeles last month, Whitman reiterated her view that employers found to hire illegal immigrants should face sanctions. The first offense, she said, should be a fine:
First what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to tell people you’re going to hold them accountable.
Then there needs to be a system that they can verify, and then you are going to have a three-strike program, and I’ve outlined it very clearly. First strike if you have found to hire illegal immigrants you are going to have to pay a fine. Second strike you’re going to have to pay a fine, you may lose your business license for a period of time. Third you’re going to pay a fine and you are going to lose your business license for a permanent amount of time.
It's a view she's repeated a number of times, also bringing up the economic understanding that as long as incentives (read: good jobs) exist, illegal immigrants will continue to seek opportunities in the United States.

After allegations, reconstructing Whitman's immigration stance | California Watch

Let's make sure she is held accountable.
 
If the IRS isn't coming after her, then that's all the confirmation needed.
The IRS doesn't have a crystal ball to tell them someone is working and getting paid under the table. That is probably what Whitman has done, shame on Whitman, she's the one with the education, the one with the money, the one who believes in getting tough with employers who hire illegals. Maybe you are not familiar with the tactics of unscrupulous people, like Whitman.

And you can suspect all you want. When you have proof, get back to me. Thanks for confessing that you break the law freely with your housekeepers.

It's more than a suspicion, they have disclosed that the SSA letter has Whitman's husband's handwriting - a note she wrote to Nicky to handle the letter. Apparently he didn't want to be bothered.
 
And those who knowingly hire illegals, including you, should be held accountable for their criminal activity.

Aha! The truth comes out. Republicans who want tougher laws on immigration want those who knowingly hire illegals to be held accountable, unless they are Republicans running for office!:shock:
 
Aha! The truth comes out. Republicans who want tougher laws on immigration want those who knowingly hire illegals to be held accountable, unless they are Republicans running for office!:shock:

Wow reading tea leaves and making wildly nonsensical, assumptions to fit your own bias.

Good work there. I love how your type does this.
 
If the IRS isn't coming after her, then that's all the confirmation needed.

That's not really a good measure of anything. Considering how understaffed the IRS is (consider the hundreds of billions in unpaid taxes every year) them not going after what amounts to as a small potato really doesn't mean anything.
 
Wow reading tea leaves and making wildly nonsensical, assumptions to fit your own bias.
Not nonsensical assumptions - that is what Whitman has claimed.

Good work there. I love how your type does this.
Yeah, if my type were defending one of their own, your type would be saying the opposite. You all need to own up to what you claim! You either want tougher immigration laws, or you just want to say you want tougher immigration laws.
 
Wow reading tea leaves and making wildly nonsensical, assumptions to fit your own bias.

Good work there. I love how your type does this.
Actually, Mertex has presented a very well reasoned arguement backed up with credible evidence that not one of you cons have been able to refute with anything but your usual dribble.

Kudos Mertex, very impressive work.
a075.gif
 
Actually, Mertex has presented a very well reasoned arguement backed up with credible evidence that not one of you cons have been able to refute with anything but your usual dribble.

Kudos Mertex, very impressive work.
a075.gif



:lamo where? :lamo her argument was blown out of the water 12 pages ago....:lamo


j-mac
 
Meg Whitman is the victim in this episode? That's rich! She receives nine years of loyal service and when her employee asks for help Meg Whitman discards her like so much disposable Ebay crap.

The obvious answer would be to only hire lily white people who speak perfect English. Your chances will be less that you'll be hiring an illegal. Apparantly, hiring through an agency, having all the documents, drivers license, SS card, signed tax form stating they are legal to work in the country is not good enough.
After this fiasco, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets harder for legal immigrants to find work in Ca.
 
If Whitman was innocent then why doesn't she just show Nicki's W-4s???? Nicki couldn't have thrown those away because they had to be filled out by the employer and copies made. So your analogy to Obama's birth certificant is stupid and irrelevant, because unlike the braindead birthers, no one on the left could or would dispute Nicki's W-4 statements if in fact they even exist. So show us money, hunny bunny.

Is Whitman being accused of not paying the taxes for Nicky? Someone should notify SS, and the IRS.
Next we'll find out she forced Nicky to do their dirty laundry. Yep... Whitman should just drop out of the race. She's an obvious con artist.
 
If Whitman was innocent then why doesn't she just show Nicki's W-4s???? Nicki couldn't have thrown those away because they had to be filled out by the employer and copies made. So your analogy to Obama's birth certificant is stupid and irrelevant, because unlike the braindead birthers, no one on the left could or would dispute Nicki's W-4 statements if in fact they even exist. So show us money, hunny bunny.

Why do you hate Nicky?
You are as bad as alred and may get her in more trouble if she received tax refunds for the last 9 yrs. I'd think she might have to pay those back.
 
Back
Top Bottom