I heard Gloria Allred being interviewed on the Mark Levin show last night. Boy, were there sparks!
Remember that this is the same Gloria Allred who brought a lawsuit against then Republican Gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwartzenegger shortly before the 2003 election claiming that Arnold had groped her client, which lawsuit was dropped after the election.
Meg Whitman, just like Ms. Allred’s former target, is running for Governor in California, and, like Arnold, is looking like she may win. Gloria Allred is, of course, representing Meg Whitman’s former housekeeper, Nicki Diaz, in a claim against Whitman. And, of course, the fact that Allred has donated to Democrat candidate Jerry Brown’s campaigns in the past, has nothing to do with her interest in this case. No, no, why would we even think that?
Anyway, in connection with this, Ms. Allred produced a letter that was sent to Meg Whitman during Diaz’s employ which, according to Allred, proves that Whitman knew that Nicki Diaz was illegal.
First, I don’t think that the letter proves any such thing. If it did, I think Ms. Allred and all those media people who want to take down Meg Whitman would be plastering the text of the letter all over. But I could not find the actual text of the letter reproduced in any of the dozens of news reports I waded through to find information about this. However, I did read in one place that the letter said that there was a discrepancy in Nicki Diaz’s status in that her social security number didn’t match her name. Mark Levin said that he was able to examine a copy of this letter, and that it specifically warned Whitman of legal consequences if she were to use the information in the letter to take any adverse action against Diaz. I kind of think that’s why they’re not so willing to put out the text of the letter.
But what was interesting was the point Mark Levin made with Gloria Allred on the phone. And that point is this: Meg Whitman has documents where Nicki Diaz claimed to be legal, reported a fake social security number and falsified ID, which are federal offenses that, if prosecuted, could result in jail time and possible deportation. The potential benefit to Ms. Diaz would be the recovery of some travel expenses she said that she incurred for which she was never reimbursed, a matter of a few dollars. The downside is potential jail time and deportation. So he question is, why would a decent, ethical lawyer, subject his or her client to such a risk for such a paltry return?
Gloria, you were unable or unwilling to provide a satisfactory answer to this question in the interview. It is a good question, now, isn’t it?
Links:
See my candidates page on the Liberty Musings website.
