Author Topic: Gary Condit Interview: To tell the [rehearsed] truth (Read 1573 times)

Nash · « **Reply #30 on:** August 25, 2001, 11:40:00 PM »

Anyone get cabby's reference there?

Brilliant!

Were you doing that little nod of the head thing and making "ha ha ha" noises while you typed that?

Doesn't matter... Absolutely PRICELESS!

Now just add something like... like... "Now Edith make me a gawdamn sammich!"... something like that. Er... But no... no - you're the artist here. I'm just making a suggestion.

You need an agent, I swear to god.

[ 08-26-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]

Yeager · « **Reply #31 on:** August 26, 2001, 01:18:00 AM »

Guy is a diddly face pure and simple. Reminded me of bubba like a slap in the face!

Im tiring of the whole political scene in this country. If they need an bellybutton whooping then Im game. Locked and loaded!

Keep your barrel clear and your powder dry!

I can tell you the 2nd amendmant has a purpose but you wouldnt believe me. What a surprize you dimly lit bulbs are in for!

Yeager

mrfish · « **Reply #32 on:** August 26, 2001, 02:41:00 AM »

i tried to start a revolution in a previous thread and we didn't get very far. toad commited the military on our behalf though!

Sandman · « **Reply #33 on:** August 26, 2001, 07:45:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad:
To me the issue is that a relatively high ranking member of the national government lied to the local police in a missing persons case. Repeatedly.

I don't believe Condit lied to the police. He lied to the media, sure.

Even the DC police spin the case. After their interview, they stated, "Before the interview, Mr. Condit was not a suspect. During the interview, Mr. Condit was not a suspect. After the interview, Mr. Condit is still not a suspect."

Here's the rub though... Missing person cases don't have suspects. Being missing is not in itself evidence of a crime.

I grew up in the 18th Congressional District. With regard to Condit's political record, we've been happy with him. He's on his 7th term. That fact that he's an adulterer hasn't seemed to limit his effectiveness has a politician. This roadkill about wanting leaders suitable for crucifixion misses the point. We want effective representation at the capital. Condit has filled that bill.

Nevertheless, his credibility is shot because he chose to evade the Levy family. Which means we'll get some idiot who's entire platform and reason for running for the 18th District will be his "purity." As if that shrecking matters.

Toad · « **Reply #34 on:** August 26, 2001, 10:48:00 AM »

Well Sandman, in his first two "interviews" with the DC police he denied having an affair with Levy.

In the third "interview" with the DC police he admitted having an affair with Levy.

That's not lying? Or does it depend on what your definition of "is" is?

Maverick · « **Reply #35 on:** August 26, 2001, 12:53:00 PM »

Fscott,

It seems you like this guy. I don't know him at all nor do I care to get to know him.

I have held this thing at a distance throughout the whole sorry mess.

I didn't watch the "interview". I had no need to. I had every expectation that he would stonewall just as much as he has been all along. It is foolish to think that he would admit to ANYTHING that would place him in jeapardy in a court of law. I am sure he demanded to know te questions ahead of the time of the interview and had told Chung what he would and wouldn't answer. I am also sure he consulted with more than one lawyer about what to say and not to say while on or off camera. I would not expect otherwise.

Chung had no qualms about interviewing this sleaze and only did it for the name recognition and the "ratings" push it would give her career. Condit figured he could get this thing "tried" in the media and have it blow by if he played a good part on the TV. After all, he has two examples to follow after. clintoon got out of having much of anything stick to him and kennedy got away with murder. Why shouldn't it work for condit???

I still say the major factor here between clintoon, condit and jackson is that condit's paramour got disappeared. That makes him one up on kenedy who used the old, "it was just a traffic accident" that killed his bed buddy. So far as long as no bidy surfaces there is likely to be little chance of a prosecution for condit, UNLESS he screws up and actually admits to something. I am sure he has enough money to keep plenty of legal advice on hand to avoid that.

As to dignity...... hah.

Last note. Please do not equate me or my life to this individual or his actions again.

Mav

Sandman · « **Reply #36 on:** August 26, 2001, 01:54:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad:
Well Sandman, in his first two "interviews" with the DC police he denied having an affair with Levy.

In the third "interview" with the DC police he admitted having an affair with Levy.

That's not lying? Or does it depend on what your definition of "is" is?

All I've managed to find is that the DC police were unhappy with his lack of candor by not revealing everything he knew. This is not the same thing as lying.

In his third interview, he acknowledged having an affair with Levy to the police. I've yet to find anything stating that the police asked about the affair in the preceding interviews.

As yet, the police haven't shared their Condit interviews with the public. To speculate about what was said is a waste of time.

So he lied to the media about an extramarital affair. Big deal. They can't send you to jail for that.

Fatty · « **Reply #37 on:** August 26, 2001, 02:23:00 PM »

There is the crux of the problem. I don't care if he's technically within legal boundries, I still expect him to be the least bit concerned about what is likely a murdered girl.

To run around hiding an affair answering with half truths and ambiguous answers is one thing. To do so when there is a person missing and probably dead, a person you supposedly gave a toejam about, means you are dealing with a man so self centered and selfish I wouldn't trust him to take out my garbage. Oh the poor media crucified man, woe is him? Screw him.

Oh, but technically he is within the law and they can't send him to jail, right? You're right, what a great guy, I've been wrong about him all along....

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** August 26, 2001, 10:45:00 PM »

Well, Sandman, since the DC police haven't released a transcript of each of their "interviews" with Condit, that fig leaf will hold up, I suppose.

I couldn't document the actual word "lie" with respect to the DC Police interviews in all the news reports either.

So, I'll amend my previous statement as follows:

****
To me the issue is that a relatively high ranking member of the national government failed to cooperate fully with the local police in a missing persons case. Repeatedly.
End of story. End of need for such a person in government, national, local or dogcatcher.

I like to foolishly believe that a man worthy of such a national office would immediately cooperate fully with the authorities investigating the case.

But that's just idealistic old me.
****

I hope they get him on obstruction of justice.

Here's the fig leaf that hides the word "lie": http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29029,00.html

Condit met with investigators for a third time on Friday. Police requested the third meeting because they were "uncomfortable" with what they had learned in the first two interviews, according to Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance Gainer.

"We challenged him for clarity. He provided the clarity and answered each one of our questions," Gainer said.

Ganier would not comment on the substantive issues discussed in the 90-minute meeting. Unnamed police sources, however, said that the "clarity" was Condit's admission that he had a romantic relationship with Levy.

Police sources said that, in his first two meetings with authorities, Condit only said he was good friends with Levy and that he broke off his "close friendship" with her two days before she disappeared.

But that's not a lie, right?

Oh, yeah, the ... cooperate fully.... thing:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,32798,00.html

Washington Police Official Disputes Condit Assertion

Friday, August 24, 2001

MODESTO, Calif. — Washington's deputy police chief is disputing Rep. Gary Condit's assertion that he cooperated fully with investigators after Chandra Levy's disappearance.

Terrance Gainer said "It took us three interviews and a lot of effort to get as far as we got."

and this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,32911,00.html

Levy disappeared on May 1, shortly after her internship with the Federal Bureau of Prisons ended. Washington, D.C., police said that Condit only admitted having had an affair with her in his third interview with them, and that he tried to block the investigation into her disappearance in other ways. They still insist, however, that he is not a suspect and that there is no evidence of a crime.

and this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,32911,00.html

Smith's Lawyer to File Legal Action Against Condit Monday

The lawyer for Anne Marie Smith, the flight attendant who says she had an affair with embattled Rep. Gary Condit, said on Fox News Sunday he plans to take legal action Monday against the California Democrat. ...

Without stating exactly what claim he would file against Condit, Jim Robinson, Smith's attorney, said that it would be related to Condit's nationally televised interview with ABC's Connie Chung this past Thursday night...

...Condit denied to Chung that he had had a relationship with Smith, who had earlier said that the FBI had interviewed her about her affair with the congressman in relation to another affair he was allegedly having with 24-year-old missing intern Chandra Levy.

So, if this is the kind of guy you think should be holding one of the higher posts in our government....

we'll always disagree.

Sandman · « **Reply #39 on:** August 27, 2001, 07:57:00 AM »

Hmmm... same source all the way through, Fox News.

I'm sorry. I trust the media even less than I trust the politicians (or the police).

Toad · « **Reply #40 on:** August 27, 2001, 08:02:00 AM »

Hmmm... if you look you'll find essentially the same information on all the news sites. Fox just has the best "library" search set up.

But all the news sources are deliberately misleading the public. Condit is just such a great human being. Mother Teresa in Congress from California.

I can see why you don't trust politicians, however, if you think Condit's behavior in this issue is without blemish.

Denial is great isn't it?

Join the Ostrich party today!

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

Sandman · « **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2001, 12:55:00 PM »

Just the other end of the spectrum. Ostrich on one side, bandwagon on the other.

I'm shooting for somewhere in the middle. I'm not interested in letting the mainstream media form my opinion for me. To listen to the media, Condit has accomplished nothing. There's only the Levy case.

Politically, it may have cost him but he's doing the right thing personally. You ask any cop and he'll tell you that most criminals give themselves away during interviews. Condit has wisely chose to take a guarded position with the police. Guilty or not, your best bet when dealing with the police is to keep your mouth shut. I have family members in the police. They all say the same thing. Shut the hell up.

No one has a single shred of evidence to suggest that Condit had anything to do with Levy's disappearance nor do they have any evidence to suggest that his testimony would have helped find her. A beautiful woman is missing and probably dead. The court of public opinion wants somebody to pay and has decided that Condit is to blame.

So now we have two victims.

Toad · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2001, 01:04:00 PM »

Like I said, if this is the kind of person you want representing you, we'll just always make different choices.

He had three choices talking to the cops:

"Did you have an affair (or whatever) with Levy?"

Answer 1. "Yes." - Investigation continues on appropriate lines and no time is wasted.

Answer 2. "No." - This would have been a lie (because he has since admitted the affair). While I'm no lawyer, I'd think that would fit under "obstruction of justice". The investigation would have been sidetracked, time would have been wasted.

Answer 3. "We were 'good friends'." This is the answer he gave in the first two interviews. I believe this is called "evading the question". It's an answer that is not an answer. It used to be called "weaseling" around here. Clearly, it is a deliberate attempt to withold information. The investigation is not necessarily sidetracked but much time is wasted. I'd also think there are possible grounds for obstruction of justice charges here as well; it certainly delayed the investigation.

As I said, if you're happy with a relatively high ranking member of your government "weaseling" around questions asked by the legitimate authorities in a missing persons case....

Fatty · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2001, 02:38:00 PM »

That is the very reason he's a weasel and a coward.

Quote

He's doing the right thing personally

Perhaps that is what you would do if a girlfriend of yours disappeared without a trace. Fortunately most of the rest of people aren't in that category, which is why they are so justifiably pissed at this idiot.

Toad · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2001, 02:51:00 PM »

The court of public opinion wants somebody to pay and has decided that Condit is to blame.

That's the topic where some people hope to "spin" this issue.

I don't think that's what "public opinion" wants.

I think people simply want a Representative that is responsible and accountable for his actions.

They want a Representative that doesn't "fail to cooperate" with the investigating police agency in a missing person case when said Representative is DIRECTLY and intimately involved in the life of the particular missing person.