Subject: Chung Interview with Condit
First let me say that I am always impressed by
the effort you expend to give
people a chance to disagree with you. Here I am again, asking for a chance
to tell you you're wrong about Gary Condit.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that "A full 80 percent
say he[Condit]'s still
holding back." There they go again, believing their lying eyes and ears.
Yes, Gary Condit IS holding back the details of
his relationship with
Chandra Levy; he told us he would, and he did. You can hardly say he's
lying when he repeatedly refuses to confirm or deny -- in so many words --
an affair. He even has trumped up reasons to hold back, which he repeated
six times, by your count. (If Smirk had managed to repeat several sentences
six times within a 30-minute period, the pundits would have praised him for
being "on message." Condit didn't get such a favorable review. Aren't some
of these experts the same people who said that Dubya won the debates with
Gore?) One thing you left out from Condit's mantra, which he repeated whenever
the question of the affair was raised, was his concern for his own family.
I can disagree with that.
The Condit fire couldn't hardly get any bigger or hotter.
(But then again, I didn't think he could look possibly more guilty - but he does.)
When his affair is 24/7/52 on every network, how is weaseling "protecting" his family?
And what the hell was he doing on TV if all he was going to do
is LIE (says the Levy family) about keeping quiet at their request?
[If that sounds angry, it's directly at Guiltyboy, not you, Margaret]
That happens to be a very good reason not to talk
about the affair to the media,
a reason everyone can understand and accept. It's true, the Levys don't seem
much interested in protecting what's left of their daughter's reputation. They seem
to think that if only Condit told the world how many times and in which positions
the intern serviced the Congressman, the whereabouts of their daughter would
be revealed. I don't think any orgasm is that powerful. Maybe Condit is doing the
only thing he can for the Levys. But it's not enough for them, because it didn't
bring back Chandra.
I don't want to hear about Condit's orgasms, and I doubt the Levys do, either.
All they want is their girl back, and since a great majority of Americans think he's
holding back, how can you blame them? If Condit admitted the affair, maybe
stipulated to 6 "get togethers," then the parents and his constituents could see if he
seemed to STILL be holding back, or if he seemed relieved that ALL was now
out in the open and glad to get it behind him.
Condit actually said a lot during the interview,
but since everyone tuned in
for talk about sex and he refused to talk about sex, what he DID say was
ignored. (The fool continues to behave as if Levy's disappearance were at
issue, not his love life.) Here's the transcript of the interview.
Note that Gary Condit says: Chandra Levy
never said [to him] that she loved him;
he "was not in love with her" [did he ever tell her he was?]; he and Levy had not made
plans for a future together [although her aunt says Levy made such plans]; he "truthfully"
answered every question that he was asked in every interview with law enforcement;
Hold on - that last sentence depends on the meaning of the word "is."
OJ, currently, isn't killing anyone. Does that mean he's innocent?
IF we have the facts right, and he waited weeks or months to level with the cops,
it's cheating to NOW say, "I've answered all their questions truthfully."
...he "never lied to Mrs. Levy" [in one phone
conversation or in all conversations?];
he did not tell Chandra not to carry identification with her; it's "just not correct" that he
"didn't reveal the true nature" of his relationship with Levy until his third interview with police;
he "didn't ask anyone to lie about anything"; Ann Marie Smith did not have a relationship
with him [did he have a "fling" with her?]; he has "not asked anyone to be silent about anything."
Hmmmm... that sounds like you don't believe him, either.
I know that I should think that Condit was evasive,
that he revealed nothing, but I don't.
I believe my own lying eyes and ears, even if I don't necessarily believe Condit.
His assertions contradict the "facts" the media have presented in evidence.
Were some or all of Condit's statements untrue?
I wouldn't know, but someone else does. Now that Condit's on record, people
can come forward and dispute him -- if they would just get their noses out
of his crotch long enough to formulate an argument.
Hopefully the crotch remark wasn't meant for me, but people need to
that the ENTIRE reason for getting Clinton under oath was to ask him questions
about his zipper so they could have reasons to ask him MORE questions about it.
Condit's being quizzed NOT for kicking GOP ass twice in national elections,
but because a girl is missing/dead.
Can Mrs. Levy recall the exact words Condit used
to deny to her that he and her daughter
were having an affair? Are the DC police standing by the "informed sources" who told the media
that Condit lied, or concealed the truth, about his relationship with Levy during the first two interviews?
Does Ms. Smith have a stained dress to back up her claims? Condit would have had fewer arguments
on his hands today if he had just admitted to an affair with Levy. No talking head would dream of
challenging his claim to a sexual conquest of a woman half his age, after an acquaintance of a month or two
-- who wants to spoil the fun? If Condit had thrown out the red meat of an affair in the first minute of the
interview, Chung wouldn't have had the time or the inclination to elicit all those other statements from him.
And somehow, I doubt that the Levys would have been satisfied with that kind of performance, either
("Now that he's admitted to an affair with our daughter, how do we know he's not still lying?").
Nothing short of Condit's showing where the body is buried will satisfy the Levys, but they have a better
excuse for being irrational than the rest of us do.
It's not being cynical to scoff at his denials
of involvement in her disappearance, it's being simple-minded.
Sure, Condit's our best suspect, but that's because he's a public figure; we know his name. None of us
(in the great American public) knows the name and address of any friend, acquaintance, neighbor, fellow
health club member or co-worker of Chandra Levy, or of any stranger who might have murdered her after
abducting her with the intention of raping or robbing her. If you insist that Condit killed Levy, then please
give me a hint: why did he do it, and how and where and when?
I'm not certain he killed her. I'm certain he's currently lying.
When a suspect in a murder lies, one has to wonder why.
(Condit's wife was in town around the time Levy's
family realized Levy was missing -- do you have a role
for Carolyn Condit to play?) How did Condit eliminate all traces of his crime and Levy's body? In the case
of O.J. Simpson, you had more than one person willing to support, with his or her testimony, the theory that
Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in a jealous rage. Isn't there anyone out there
-- her aunt, her mother, a friend -- who can suggest a motive for Condit to kill Levy? So far, no one has.
I'm the only one who likes the cocaine theory.
IF they did coke together, and (for whatever reason) the coke dealer killed her, Condit would want
all that as far away from him as possible. I'm not saying that necessarily happened, I'm saying that's
a good example of why Condit would continue to lie and make this worse every day, knowing that
a cocaine murder, and his subsequent lying, would forever be the end of him.
Are we to believe that Condit kills for kicks?
I don't know why people insist that the existence of an affair
would point to his guilt in her disappearance -- the only scenario I can imagine in which Condit kills Levy is
one in which Levy is murdered after being raped. But has anyone near and dear to Levy even imagined the
possibility that she wasn't an eager participant in what everyone but Condit insists must have been a red-hot affair?
In my opinion, Condit is guilty - AND we have a dead girl.
I can't connect the dots, but Condit can and he refuses to.
The media want to hear from Condit what only he
is in a position to tell them: not where is she, but how was she?
How many times? (Let's not pretend that a flat denial of an affair would be possible for Condit.
There are some "truths" that the media won't accept under any set of circumstances.)
You're applying the Clinton standard to Condit, but it doesn't fit.
Maybe they're piling on Confit because he's a Rep, but that's not why he was accused.
Clinton was always "guilty," but the GOP had to locate a crime to attach to that guilt.
They couldn't, so they settled on embarrassing and impeaching him
To cover their embarrassment over their prurient
interest, and their determination to cater to our prurient interest,
the media pretend that the details of an affair have something to do with Levy's disappearance or the search for her,
as Connie Chung did last night: "you are protecting your privacy, your family's privacy at the expense of a woman
who is missing." It's Condit's contention that talking to the media -- and please remember, it was the media,
not the police, he dared to stonewall until last night -- about the allegation of an affair would be at Levy's expense;
maybe he imagines that she's still alive and still has some privacy to protect. I won't get into the question of whether
Gary Condit "looked guilty" -- the alternative, in this atmosphere, would have been to be accused of "acting innocent."
Not admitting an affair (or denying it, as Mrs. Levy claims Condit did) doesn't get Condit off the hook.
But let's recall for a minute what the hook really is. If a crime has been committed, the crime is making Levy
disappear, not having an affair with her. It seems safe to say that any man who would lie about an affair would
have an affair, but if a man would have an affair and lie about it, does that mean he would kill?
Look at it this way:
The ONLY way Condit could look worse is if he was actually guilty of murder.
His public image is second only to OJ for total shit.
You seem to think Thursday was a success for Condit.
You seem to think he "did right" by evading the questions. I disagree with that 100 percent.
The ONLY time America heard from Condit, he seemed to be ducking some questions
and lying while answering the others.
If I read you right, you're saying, "It was
the media, not the police, he dared to stonewall."
I think he stonewalled his very last chance to get out of this. The reason we took guesses on which
5-minute block he'd break down and cry was because a full mea culpa was his ONLY chance
to get out of this. Instead, he called everyone else, including the grieving parents, liars.
...but don't worry - the Democrats seem willing to die on Condit Hill.