Let’s start with the maid. She committed fraud by providing those documents. If I was Whitman I would threaten to sue her for her fraud. Now you might say, “ah, well, look, she needed a job, she needed the money, and this was the only way to get it.” Fair enough, but then that means she is willing to be dishonest for the purpose of financial gain. And what do you know? She is now threatening a lawsuit by which she hopes to gain financially. So again, why should we trust her?
Update: Well I barely finish writing on the subject, when Allred produces more alleged evidence. This time she shows the social security letter and allegedly it has handwriting on it:
Update II: And here is a link to the letter. Anyone else notice the part where the SSA tells the husband that this is not proof she is illegal, that they are not required to fire her, and in fact if they do, they might be sued?
Update III: Here’s the full statement from Whitman’s husband:
Update IV: Via Dustin commenting at Patterico, we get Hugh Hewitt making Allred look very, very bad. I will quibble with Hewitt on one point. Very often I do start with the facts and figure out if I "smell" an injustice, and then research how I can translate that sense of moral outrage into a legal cause of action. But that is a quibble, because regardless, you have to eventually know what the law is. And if you are going to say this person acted illegally, you have to know enough about the law to know whether it was actually illegal.
I would add that if she files a case she better know the law by then, and if she doesn't seem to, then if I was opposing counsel, I would use the Hewitt interview as exhibit A in seeking sanctions for filing a frivolous case.
Meanwhile, Mike K. makes an astute observation. If Whitman's husband really thought this meant she was an illegal immigrant, why would he ask her of all people to "look into it?" The message of the note was that he didn't seem to believe at this point that the maid was the fraud she turned out to be, in fact he didn't even suspect anything.
And in any case, that goes against the husband. I mean if Barney Frank can claim he didn't know about the prostitution ring run out of his own house, or that his boyfriend was growing pot, aren't the Democrats being hypocritical about something that Whitman's husband would have a much easier time concealing?