Jerry Brown Sworn-IN!!!

[Common Sense]

"According to a copy released to the media, the letter is addressed to both Whitman and her husband, Griffith Harsh, and informs them, "We can't put these earnings on the employee's Social Security record until the name and Social Security number you reported agree with our records."
At the bottom of a form apparently included with the letter are the scribbled words, "Nicky please check this. Thanks."
Allred said Harsh had written that message, which she said proved at least that Whitman's husband knew of the federal government's concerns about Diaz Santillan's Social Security data.

Read more: Meg Whitman's campaign surprised by federal letter about their housekeeper - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

 

[Si modo]

"According to a copy released to the media, the letter is addressed to both Whitman and her husband, Griffith Harsh, and informs them, "We can't put these earnings on the employee's Social Security record until the name and Social Security number you reported agree with our records."
At the bottom of a form apparently included with the letter are the scribbled words, "Nicky please check this. Thanks."
Allred said Harsh had written that message, which she said proved at least that Whitman's husband knew of the federal government's concerns about Diaz Santillan's Social Security data.

Read more: Meg Whitman's campaign surprised by federal letter about their housekeeper - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

And?

 

[Common Sense]

facts are still facts even if you fail to acknowledge them. they knew, they just didnt care.

 

[Si modo]

facts are still facts even if you fail to acknowledge them. they knew, they just didnt care.

About what fact are you speaking?

 

[Meister]

facts are still facts even if you fail to acknowledge them. they knew, they just didnt care.

But, you have no evidence of that. There is no smoking gun to prove what you suspect. I do believe that the husband knew....but that is my assumption. I'm not so sure with her.
If a person wants to kill another's political career, they should have "facts" to back them up.

 

[Common Sense]

facts are still facts even if you fail to acknowledge them. they knew, they just didnt care.

But, you have no evidence of that. There is no smoking gun to prove what you suspect. I do believe that the husband knew....but that is my assumption. I'm not so sure with her.
If a person wants to kill another's political career, they should have "facts" to back them up.

he already admitted he knew about it. you just dont want to see that.

 

[Si modo]

facts are still facts even if you fail to acknowledge them. they knew, they just didnt care.

But, you have no evidence of that. There is no smoking gun to prove what you suspect. I do believe that the husband knew....but that is my assumption. I'm not so sure with her.
If a person wants to kill another's political career, they should have "facts" to back them up.

he already admitted he knew about it. you just dont want to see that.

"It" what?

 

[Common Sense]

the letter, geez youre really dumb.

 

[Meister]

facts are still facts even if you fail to acknowledge them. they knew, they just didnt care.

But, you have no evidence of that. There is no smoking gun to prove what you suspect. I do believe that the husband knew....but that is my assumption. I'm not so sure with her.
If a person wants to kill another's political career, they should have "facts" to back them up.

he already admitted he knew about it. you just dont want to see that.

He didn't "admit" to anything..."I may have" is not an absolute admission. This is why I said that it was my assumption that he did see the letter, but it's still my assumption. The wording is important.
Having said that, he wasn't running for the office and Meg was. She denied seeing anything, so prove that she knew about it, Common Sense.

 

[Common Sense]

But, you have no evidence of that. There is no smoking gun to prove what you suspect. I do believe that the husband knew....but that is my assumption. I'm not so sure with her.
If a person wants to kill another's political career, they should have "facts" to back them up.

he already admitted he knew about it. you just dont want to see that.

He didn't "admit" to anything..."I may have" is not an absolute admission. This is why I said that it was my assumption that he did see the letter, but it's still my assumption. The wording is important.
Having said that, he wasn't running for the office and Meg was. She denied seeing anything, so prove that she knew about it, Common Sense.

if her husband failed to tell her, then its his own fault for not sharing the information.

 

[Si modo]

the letter, geez youre really dumb.

And the letter says what?



God, dealing with the stupid is tedious, but better than twiddling thumbs.

 

[Si modo]

he already admitted he knew about it. you just dont want to see that.

He didn't "admit" to anything..."I may have" is not an absolute admission. This is why I said that it was my assumption that he did see the letter, but it's still my assumption. The wording is important.
Having said that, he wasn't running for the office and Meg was. She denied seeing anything, so prove that she knew about it, Common Sense.

if her husband failed to tell her, then its his own fault for not sharing the information.

And he ran for office when?

 

[Meister]

he already admitted he knew about it. you just dont want to see that.

He didn't "admit" to anything..."I may have" is not an absolute admission. This is why I said that it was my assumption that he did see the letter, but it's still my assumption. The wording is important.
Having said that, he wasn't running for the office and Meg was. She denied seeing anything, so prove that she knew about it, Common Sense.

if her husband failed to tell her, then its his own fault for not sharing the information.

And your point issssss?

 

[Si modo]

He didn't "admit" to anything..."I may have" is not an absolute admission. This is why I said that it was my assumption that he did see the letter, but it's still my assumption. The wording is important.
Having said that, he wasn't running for the office and Meg was. She denied seeing anything, so prove that she knew about it, Common Sense.

if her husband failed to tell her, then its his own fault for not sharing the information.

And your point issssss?

I swear, Common Sense is Truthmatters' sock puppet.

I would bet good money on it.

 

[Common Sense]

if her husband failed to tell her, then its his own fault for not sharing the information.

And your point issssss?

I swear, Common Sense is Truthmatters' sock puppet.

I would bet good money on it.

so youre basically saying that anything a husband does has no reflection or affect on his wife and vice versa?

too bad the law doesnt work like that. thats why we have things like community property, joint tax filing, common debt. etc etc etc. nice of you to try and deflect, but your claim has no basis. she is just as responsible for this epic failure as he is. but she was the one who was running for public office, and she paid the price for not doing her due diligence. what does that say about her as a business owner? she hires people without finding out who they really are...... great business plan.

 

[Meister]

And your point issssss?

I swear, Common Sense is Truthmatters' sock puppet.

I would bet good money on it.

so youre basically saying that anything a husband does has no reflection or affect on his wife and vice versa?

too bad the law doesnt work like that. thats why we have things like community property, joint tax filing, common debt. etc etc etc. nice of you to try and deflect, but your claim has no basis. she is just as responsible for this epic failure as he is. but she was the one who was running for public office, and she paid the price for not doing her due diligence. what does that say about her as a business owner? she hires people without finding out who they really are...... great business plan.

YOU have shown an epic fail in your posts, and cannot produce one shred of evidence to prove otherwise. Good day, CS

 

[Si modo]

And your point issssss?

I swear, Common Sense is Truthmatters' sock puppet.

I would bet good money on it.

so youre basically saying that anything a husband does has no reflection or affect on his wife and vice versa?

....

Ummmm, actually I just said that I could swear that you are Truthmatters' sock puppet.










Good gawd, now you've gone full retard, which only reinforces my belief.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And your point issssss?

I swear, Common Sense is Truthmatters' sock puppet.

I would bet good money on it.

so youre basically saying that anything a husband does has no reflection or affect on his wife and vice versa?

too bad the law doesnt work like that. thats why we have things like community property, joint tax filing, common debt. etc etc etc. nice of you to try and deflect, but your claim has no basis. she is just as responsible for this epic failure as he is. but she was the one who was running for public office, and she paid the price for not doing her due diligence. what does that say about her as a business owner? she hires people without finding out who they really are...... great business plan.

Even the IRS recognizes the "Innocent Spouse" argument. Community property is a totally different concept from Joint and Several Liability which seems to be your argument.

Try a little research before posting such nonsense.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I swear, Common Sense is Truthmatters' sock puppet.

I would bet good money on it.

so youre basically saying that anything a husband does has no reflection or affect on his wife and vice versa?

....

Ummmm, actually I just said that I could swear that you are Truthmatters' sock puppet.







Good gawd, now you've gone full retard, which only reinforces my belief.

It was a short ride....

 

[Common Sense]

I swear, Common Sense is Truthmatters' sock puppet.

I would bet good money on it.

so youre basically saying that anything a husband does has no reflection or affect on his wife and vice versa?

too bad the law doesnt work like that. thats why we have things like community property, joint tax filing, common debt. etc etc etc. nice of you to try and deflect, but your claim has no basis. she is just as responsible for this epic failure as he is. but she was the one who was running for public office, and she paid the price for not doing her due diligence. what does that say about her as a business owner? she hires people without finding out who they really are...... great business plan.

Even the IRS recognizes the "Innocent Spouse" argument. Community property is a totally different concept from Joint and Several Liability which seems to be your argument.

Try a little research before posting such nonsense.

"By requesting innocent spouse relief, you can be relieved of responsibility for paying tax, interest, and penalties if your spouse (or former spouse) improperly reported items or omitted items on your tax return"

nope pretty sure that doesnt apply to hiring employees. nice try tho.
Innocent Spouse Relief