 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball
|
|
|
Subject: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: GUEST,RL at work Date: 22 Aug 01 - 01:59 PM Looks like a real battle of the lightweights coming up. Apparently the invisible congressman has been advised by his legal team to start dealing with this tragedy by going on TV and facing the probing questions with courage and dignity. I could either throw up, or deflect some of my anger with this. Possible hard hitting questions from Ms. Chung. *Congressman, do you think you could use your political clout to get my husband Maury a better job? * How do you feel about 'mentoring' programs between experienced Govt. personel and young people who want to service, err, SERVE their country? * Have you asked Ex President Clinton for advice, and will you too be announcing that you're going for Christian councelling soon? * I want to thank your team of Lawyers for not forbidding me to ask certain questions when I was begging for this job, so here's one that all America wants to know: Is it true that 'The American people' just want you to 'move ahead' and put this behind you so that you can continue to do your important work in Congress? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Rick Fielding Date: 22 Aug 01 - 02:03 PM Coulda been worse, Larry king could have won the "Grovel-off". Disgusts me too. However if Mike Wallace had got the job, I might have watched it. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: DougR Date: 22 Aug 01 - 02:31 PM I'd like to see Britt Hume in the "asker's" chair myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: GUEST,Celtic Soul Date: 22 Aug 01 - 02:43 PM I just want one question asked: "Where'd you hide the body?" Do you suppose they'll let me interview him??? ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 22 Aug 01 - 04:18 PM I don't think anyone wants to know where Chandra Levy's body, living or dead, is--if they found her, or whatever is left of her, that would be the end of the "public interest"-- I am curious to know what you are angry about, RL--Is it the sex? Do you actually think that Condit took time out from his busy schedule to kill this woman? Do you think she is dead? Enquiring minds want to know!!! My guess is that you are angry because you thought that Congressmen were decent, honest, and hardworking people, and not sex-and-power-obsessed ego-maniacs--if you did, you have no one to be angry with but yourself-- The real lesson in all of this is that thousands of people disappear every day, some turn up in the river, some never turn up at all, and most of the time, no one pays any attention. If you want people to remember you, have some "Cover Girl" style professional photos taken before you go-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: SharonA Date: 22 Aug 01 - 04:48 PM Amen to that last comment, M.Ted. In Philadelphia, they just found the body of a very attractive woman (wife and mother, very vibrant-looking from the candid photos) who had been missing since May and for whom a diligent search had been conducted. Her husband, apparently, had killed her, wrapped the body in plastic and duct tape, and entombed her behind a concrete wall in the basement of a rowhouse where he had been doing some contracting work. The husband has since died from a heroin overdose. The kids are in the custody of the husband's sister, who incidentally had contracted the work on the house. The victim's brother worked relentlessly to have this woman found, alive or dead. Still, had she been ugly, I don't think her disappearance would have gotten as much press coverage as it did over the last 3 months. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Aug 01 - 04:56 PM I imagine this is in the news in some part of the world... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: GUEST,RL at work Date: 22 Aug 01 - 05:37 PM Ted I'm angry because I've heard time and again how the police need to investigate while the 'trail is warm'. Apparently Congressman Condit took several weeks to tell the truth about his relationship with the young lady. They obviously felt that searching his apartment was neccessary but didn't do it until long after anything incriminating could be disposed of. Because this is a celebrity situation doesn't diminish it in my eyes, and yes I guess I'm being more than a little naive considering the behaviour of our leaders. As you say, I guess I am to blame. being a voter. Do I think he took time out from his busy schedule to try and save his political hide and marriage, by arranging something possibly nefarious? Ted Kennedy did. Bubba did. Nixon did. Reagan did. I see no reason why he wouldn't, and plenty of reasons why he might have. RL leaving work |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: SharonA Date: 22 Aug 01 - 06:46 PM Sorry, McGrath, I was talking about LOCAL (Philadelphia, PA area) news coverage in the particular case I mentioned. Lots of disappeared persons don't even get that much; a day or two of having their pictures flashed on the screen during the local TV channel's newscast, if they're lucky. Or were you talking about the Condit/Levy story? Is this in the US national news only? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: harpgirl Date: 22 Aug 01 - 06:51 PM Well, Sharon...that sounds like a typical day at work for me...I'm hoping Chandra is pregnant and hiding out until the baby is born....otherwise I'm guessing it was a contract murder...ooops my niece is IM'ing me....bye |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 22 Aug 01 - 07:47 PM If you want to wonder about some things, RL, join me in being extremely curious why, even after her disappearance had become national news, no one from the police dept bothered to look at the apt bldg security camera video tape of comings and goings in the lobby until a day or so after the tape had rewound and recorded over--and why, though promised, the hits from her last days on the internet were never released to the press--and why Israeli security has censored and supressed a newswire report by an Israeli journalist who said that she has been seen there since the disappearance, by people who apparently know her-- The police claim that the residents of her building refused to cooperate in their investigations, while the residents say that no one ever approached them, and that those that volunteered to give information were never interviewed-- Another curious occurance, early in the investigation, Chandra's mother said that it was more important for her to her Condit admit that he had had an affair with Chandra than it was for her to know where Chandra was--- And I am still puzzle by the fact that first thing out of the gate, the Levy's hired a PR firm and lawyers, rather than investigators-- I also wonder why, since this is a missing persons investigation, not a criminal investigation, that none of the media who are covering the event have hired their own team of investigators? WR Hearst did it on many occasions, and often he succeeded where police had not-- As I said, it seems like no one is really trying to find her--which is kind of odd, given all the fuss about her disappearance--
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Coyote Breath Date: 22 Aug 01 - 08:12 PM Alas M. Ted, the list of laptop hits IS available. I was able access them through the Chandra Levy website. The list is meaningless, though. If CL actually visited those sites it is a wierd bag indeed. I suspect that someone simply used her "favorites" randomly. Her email might be secured by a password but general access to her laptop probably wasn't. After all, she lived alone... who would want to use her laptop? You could walk into my house and use my PC without knowing my password. I'm not on a net work, no one lives with me. I don't have any sensitive data here... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Aug 01 - 08:42 PM Or were you talking about the Condit/Levy story? Is this in the US national news only? Yup. Both. Or neither. We've got enough missing-feared-dead stories of our own I'm afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Rick Fielding Date: 22 Aug 01 - 10:42 PM Ted, what's this about her being "seen" in Israel? That's a new one to me. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 23 Aug 01 - 02:40 AM The link is in the Chandra Levy Website--She apparently has been seen on several occasions entering the Mossad Headquarters--the piece points out that Israeli intelligence is in the habit of recruiting Americans, often young women for intelligence work in Washington, that she would have been a prime recruit (or should that be Condit-date?), being a police/security buff (and she did tell her aunt that she'd be working for the FBI) and that she had spent time in Israel previously. The idea that she was an Israeli spy who was sleeping with a congressman and gathering information is both easy to dismiss and easy to believe--I like it-- Anyway,I read the thing before I I realized I was hooked on the story, so I didn't save it--As usual, I haven't been able to dig it up again--When I do, I will post it here--
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: katlaughing Date: 23 Aug 01 - 03:21 AM Here's what some of his constituents would like to ask him:
Condit's constituents offer suggestions for Chung interview MODESTO, Calif. - Connie Chung isn't the only one who has questions for Rep. Gary Condit. Residents in the Ceres congressman's district have plenty. Some on Tuesday offered suggestions for the ABC News correspondent. Chung's interview with Condit is scheduled to air on "PrimeTime Thursday" at 10 p.m. PDT. Chung is the first reporter Condit has agreed to talk to since 24-year-old Chandra Levy disappeared in Washington, D.C., nearly four months ago. Michael Paddy, 45, of Los Banos, wants to know why the married 53-year-old Democrat waited until his third interview with police to reveal that he had an affair with Levy. Numerous media organizations have reported that but Condit has never confirmed or denied the matter. "Why did he put his self interest and protection before the needs of the people?" Paddy asked. B.J. Osborn, 63, of Modesto thinks Chung should ask Condit if he believes he is being unjustly singled out by the media for having an affair. "She should ask him if (cheating on your spouse) is business as usual in Washington, D.C.," he said. Condit has been the subject of intense worldwide media scrutiny since Levy disappeared. Her parents have said on television that they think Condit is withholding important information that could help locate their daughter. Don Vance, 57, an outspoken Condit foe and Levy family friend, hopes the congressman will explain why he has refused requests to meet with Levy private investigators. He also wants Condit to say whether he tried to contact Levy after he last saw her and if not, why. And he hopes the congressman will shed light on message on the "big news" Levy had shortly before she disappeared. Levy left a message about that on her aunt's answering machine. Lucille Mejia, the 47-year-old organizer of Thursday's Condit rally in Merced, doesn't think the congressman should reveal any details about the nature of his relationship with Levy. If he does, Mejia said she will push the mute button on her television during the interview. "That's between Carolyn and Gary and his family and I don't want to know anything," she said. Jim DeMartini, chairman of the Republican Central Committee of Stanislaus County, wants to know why police found no computer in Condit's Washington, D.C., apartment during their search. "Obviously, he had one but he took it out," he said, adding that he's sure all congressional representatives have computers at home. The 48-year-old grower also thinks Condit should explain why he asked stewardess Anne Marie Smith to sign an affidavit saying she didn't have an affair with him. Smith said on television that she did have an intimate relationship with Condit. Denair resident Sylvia Kallman, 79, only really wants Condit to answer one question: Did he have anything to do with Levy's disappearance? "The main thing is whether he knows what happened to Chandra Levy," she said. She doesn't blame him for the affair because she thinks Levy is equally responsible for the illicit relationship, "and perhaps more so." Charles Byrd, 24, of Modesto, thinks Condit should address some of the claims in the tabloid papers. He wants Condit to say whether he engaged in kinky sex or was vulnerable to blackmail in his work on the House intelligence committee because of his relationship with Levy. Modesto resident Loyce Curb wants Chung to ask Condit whether he really told police he had an affair with Levy. He said he's not sure he believes media reports about the matter. Curb continues to support the congressman. "He's not been proven guilty of anything except lying about his sex life, and all men are going to lie about that," he said.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: katlaughing Date: 23 Aug 01 - 03:27 AM Was it this one, M.Ted?:
Missing intern Chandra Levy spotted in Israel Los Angeles - July 15, 2001 - (ACN) La Voz de Aztlan has just received a report that missing Washington D.C. intern Chandra Levy was seen yesterday afternoon entering an Israeli government building in Tel Aviv which reliable sources believe houses the "Institution for Intelligence and Special Assignments". The "Institution" is the official "spy" agency for the Israeli government and is more commonly known as the Mossad. The as of yet unconfirmed report by independent journalist Uzi Cohen is presently being distributed to independent news sources because, as Mr. Cohen says, his report has been heavily suppressed in his home country. La Voz de Aztlan can not as of yet confirm whether the report is true or false. There are, however, many tantalizing elements to this and other cases involving Washington D.C. interns to lead us to speculate about what may be occurring. Most American citizens are not aware of the extensive intelligence operations by the Israeli Mossad in high level U.S. government activities. In November of 1985, the FBI arrested Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, on charges of being a Mossad spy for Israel. Pollard was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment and his wife received five years in jail for being an accomplice. The information they provided Israel led to the country developing nuclear weapons. Both Pollard and his wife are American Jews. Recently, Zionists in Israel as well as in the United States have been trying very hard to have U.S. Presidents issue a pardon for Pollard. Bill Clinton was ready to do so but was stopped at the last minute by very heavy handed activities by present and ex-government officials. The Israeli Mossad's primary "modus operandi" is to work through high level appointed and elected American Jews in the U.S. government. They also work through the "U.S.A. Government Internship Program" to place personnel in key positions. Young bright and well educated American Jews are first indoctrinated, trained and then placed in key U.S. government agencies in order to carry out specific intelligence operations. Many Americans do not know that U.S. government intern Monica Lewinsky ended up working at the Pentagon after Bill Clinton was compromised. Ms. Lewinsky was given the "highest" security clearance any person can obtain. It is called a "Top Secret Clearance" with a "Compartmentalized Designation". The U.S. Defense establishment rarely gives a "Compartmentalized Designation" to anyone. There are six levels of clearance: unclassified, sensitive, confidential, secret, top secret, and and then the one provided to Ms. Lewinsky. She was behind a computer connected to all the military secrets of the United States! La Voz de Aztlan is working diligently at this time to obtain additional information on the sighting of U.S. intern Chandra Levy. We have no doubt about the possibility that Mr. Uzi Cohen's sighting is in fact true. With the Palestinian/Israeli situation approaching crisis proportions, who knows what political "machinations" are behind the Levy/Condit situation. Stay tuned!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: RangerSteve Date: 23 Aug 01 - 08:03 AM I was watching TV the other morning and John Walsh (Americas Most Wanted) was being interviewed. He said that in the last couple of years, two other interns were found murdered. Walsh believes that all three incidents may be related and is somewhat angered over the fact that the DC Police aren't taking this up. (the two murders are unsolved). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: SharonA Date: 23 Aug 01 - 12:24 PM I have to chuckle at the concept that tonight's interview is likened to playing "hardball". This is network TV; they can only play so "hard" before they alienate viewers, which they are loathe to do. I'd be surprised if Chung went for the jugular, and I'd be shocked if any new information that was significant in any way were to be disclosed. If she does ask any "hard" questions, I have no doubt that Condit will deflect them with political double-speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 23 Aug 01 - 03:31 PM That was the one--Isn't it great? I was watching the Fox News daily Chandra Discussion, and wondered why, since all of the other speculations seems to be discussed to death, no one has spent a single second talking about this one-- Ranger Steve,I am not sure which murders John Walsh was talking about--one of those "unsolved intern murders" that is mentioned on the Levy site seems clearly to have been a suicide--there is another high profile unsolved murder, at the beginning of the year, a jogger, but she wasn't an intern, and her body was found in an isolated wooded area, not far from the jogging trail--both sad cases, but not much like the Levy disappearance-- Washington and the adjecent counties, particularly Prince Georges County, have lots of lurid, brutal crimes, including unsolved murders (many committed by police officers--an woman officer was just found guilty of turning her police dog loose on a homeless man and killing him--)-but those don't get this kind of attention--It isn't very entertaining when people sit in a circle on TV and talk about crimes that are a product of poverty, despair, racism, drug addiction and alcoholism, and it is a real downer when people discuss the roots of violence in our society and in our families--We don't mind murder, as long as the sex lives of celebrities and political figures are involved, but forget the rest of that stuff-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: JedMarum Date: 23 Aug 01 - 04:46 PM I think all the would-be questions miss the mark. The first thing I want to ask (and I'd ask the voters, not congressman), "Why is itever appropriate or justifiable behaviour for a 53 year old, married man to have a romantic/sexual relationship with a 20 year old subordinate?" The man apparently has a history of this type of behavior, the man apparently has no concern for others, the man deserves to be sent home by the voters - and probably will; unless the "Run OJ get your freedom" point-of-view prevails. If the good people of his district like his political perspective they can find a good replacement from among their midst. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: SharonA Date: 23 Aug 01 - 07:36 PM Then again, why is it ever appropriate or justifiable behavior for any married man of any age to have a romantic/sexual relationship with someone other than the wife he lives with? Yeah, if they're separated, and the divorce is in the works and there's no hope of reconciliation, then I could see where someone would at least want to start looking again (though, for my own part, I'd ask to see the signed-sealed-and-delivered divorce papers before getting involved with a previously-married guy) (even then, I'd want to be sure the marriage was truly irreconcilable). But back to Condit's affair: let's not forget that Chandra made it very clear that her purpose was to break up Condit's marriage. She had a five-year plan, at the end of which she intended to be his next wife. Sorry, but that's not appropriate or justifiable, either. The fact that Condit took advantage of Chandra's naivete in believing that she was any more special than his other mistresses should not make us forget that her behavior was no further above reproach than his. Also, BOTH he and she were supposed to be working for our government, and therefore for the American public. Yep, he deserves to be sent home. And no, she didn't deserve to be abducted or killed (if, indeed, that's what has happened), but I think she should have been fired if she hadn't quit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 24 Aug 01 - 03:17 AM SharonA, Condit was having ongoing sexual relations with possibly as many as four other women besides Chandra (assuming of course, that he was still sleeping with his wife), quite a trick for a guy who doesn't even have his own car, so he probably didn't even think about her when she wasn't around. I bet that he thinks about her a lot more now that she is gone-- Jed, you seem like a decent guy, with principles, and a sense of what is right and wrong--that is probably why you are so confused on this issue-- The thing is, this town is full of married elected officials who do the same thing as he does, figuring anything goes between consenting adults--even worse, some are not even picky about either the adult or the consenting part. And most of the ones who don't do it have been drunk for so long that they can't do it anymore--So if he deserves to be sent home, so do all the rest of them--of course, that would create two new problems--Who would run the country? And who would protect the folks back home from all those drunken lechers? Sorry to be seem so cynical, but I live here and get to see this stuff close-up--to someone who is not part of it, it all looks pretty unsavory--though the town is full of young, eager types, who buy into the whole thing-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: kendall Date: 24 Aug 01 - 07:28 AM The DC Police dept. is a joke. They couldn't track an elephant through a snowdrift. Condit didn't kill her, but, he knows who did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: WyoWoman Date: 24 Aug 01 - 08:18 AM I think it's a vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. WW |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Rick Fielding Date: 24 Aug 01 - 08:55 AM Absolutely stomach turning revolting. I find it very troubling that Condit UNEQUIVICALLY denied things that he admitted to the police. Leads me to believe that his "team" KNOWS that the only person who can contradict his story (in court) will never be able to do it. Had he (like most of us) only SUSPECTED she'd never be found, he would never have made such an about face. I'm a liberal leftie, but so help me if I see in the future that Dick Gebhart (who said that Condit was "an honourable man") becomes a Presidential Candidate, I pray that Democrats finally support Ralph Nader. Uggh! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: SharonA Date: 24 Aug 01 - 09:44 AM Rick: I missed that part of the interview last night (I nodded off after the 6th or 7th time Condit made his statement about how long he was married and how he wasn't perfect...) What I heard him saying – very carefully – was that he answered the police's QUESTIONS during each of his interviews with them. So if the police didn't ask him till the third interview whether he had an affair with Levy, he would technically be telling the truth. So what was it that he denied (after I fell asleep)? Loved that part where he declined to talk about any sexual relationship with Levy because HER family requested that he not say anything about it! Isn't it a bit late for them to want to keep it out of the media? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: harpgirl Date: 24 Aug 01 - 10:21 AM ...we watched "The Wedding Planner" instead. I find talking to, watching on TV, or having anything to do with psychopaths so unsettling, that I just couldn't be bothered to watch. When I find one in my office, looking me in the eye and saying, for instance "I'm not a child molester, I don't do that, I'm not that way," like I did yesterday, I just want to go home and hide... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: GUEST,LoopySanchez Date: 24 Aug 01 - 02:09 PM The one question I wish Connie had asked Condit: "Why didn't you announce that you were submitting to a lie detector test BEFORE you took it? Why did you only mention the fact that you had taken one AFTER you had passed it? You see folks, it's easy to pass a lie detector test when the information will only be released IF YOU PASS IT! This is the same strategy the Ramseys used after Jonbenet's murder--Take the test secretly, then release the results only if you pass. Makes it much easier to lie in a relaxed and convincing manner, don't you think? That pretty much clears up any question as to why he wouldn't submit to a lie detector test administered by the FBI, doesn't it? Well, if you'll excuse me, I have to drive over to the next county to find a dumpster and throw away the soda can I just finished. Hope everyone's Friday is going well! Don H. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Aug 01 - 02:24 PM This is a music forum, of course, so what comes to my mind is Lonnie Brooks' (I think) blues item, "IT'S LYING TIME AGAIN." About the fella coming home in the early AM anticipating a few questions. This will turn out to be just one more story whose actual facts and truth no one can ever be sure about. I hate it that so many of those are piling up. Seems the more "information" we seem to have in our "info Age, the less it is actually functional as information. I had the distinct impression Condit actually believed most of the crap he dished out last night, and that it was (or would become) credible to a large number of people. Scary. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 24 Aug 01 - 03:14 PM Kendall, If you think that Condit had Chandra killed, it shows that you don't know how Washington works. Condit is a congressman--he doesn't do anything himself, he is surrounded by staff, and they do everything, only they don't do anything--they only write speeches, letters, and legislation, oh, they bring him coffee, pick him up and take him to work, bring him home, feed him, and when he feels the need(which is quite often, apparently) one of the female interns takes care of it-- They *could* have drafted a bill to have Chandra killed, but it would probably have been watered down to a resolution that she *should be killed* in committee--there would have been a lot of entitlements and corporate tax breaks added by the time it made it to the House floor--fundamental differences between the House and Senate bills, and by the time the final bill made it through, all references to Chandra and killing would be gone, and it the bill would have endorsed Middle East peace, given a tax rebate to gentleman farmers, forbidden homosexual marriage except in cases where the mother's life was threatened, and allowed oil drilling in endangered wetlands-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: GUEST,Doc Date: 24 Aug 01 - 04:00 PM Yeah, harpgirl, as a forensic psychiatrist listening to the interview last night it did seem a lot like just another day at the office. As such, however, it was mildly interesting to see what appeared to me to be an example of one of the key features of narcissism and psychopathy: the utterly immutable determination to remain in control of the interview, the solar system and the cosmos. He wouldn't let Chung be the one to formulate the questions, (kept answering questions she had NOT asked and steadfastly refused to ask the ones she did); indicated he had sought to direct and control how the Levy's investigators conducted their investigation (wouldn't meet with them except to "clarify" documents he had offered to provide for them, saying that was all they should need); was adamant that he had told the police agencies what, (in HIS opinion) they "needed" to know. This disregard of and contempt for how others may see fit to conduct their own professional and personal affairs is actually a form of grandiosity that is sometimes a little harder to put one's finger on, because the one exhibiting it is not overtly claiming an elevated status for himself. Nevertheless it is clearly grandiose not even to consider that others may deserve to have some sovereignty over the conduct of matters within their own authority, ownership or expertise. I have no idea what has happened in this particular case, but I do know that it can be very dangerous for a woman to leave a man with this kind of need to control, because he will often see any leaving as an abandonnment and betrayal and may have as little regard for the innate value of her life itself as he does for her right to determine its course. I find it ominous that she was reported, even by Condit, to be happy and "up-beat" about leaving her job, leaving Washington, leaving him and moving on, which sounds to me as if the decision to end the relationship had been hers, not his. However grandiosity sets its own traps. Condit may have been confident that he could control the course of an interview on national television and thereby fulfill his desperate desire to control what the public and his constituents will think of him at the next election, whereas his very evasiveness, manipulativeness and obvious contempt for the common sense of the interviewer and viewing public, and NOT his cutely worded but transparent responses, were what would more likely establish the viewers' lasting impressions of him. If you're going to be grandiose it pays to be a bit brighter than Condit appeared to be last night. But of course being grandiose means that no matter how smart you are you always think you're smarter. There is indication that Ms Levy favors a bit of excitement, melodrama and intrigue in her life. First she took a job as a govenment intern, a handmaiden at the seat of power, engaging in an affair with a married congressman. Moreover, she is reported to have sought to work for the FBI, the CIA or the NSA, certainly more swashbuckling and romantic ambitions than average. If this were a mystery story I was writing I would say that if both apartments were clean as a whistle, and given the two people involved, they probably would have carried on their sexual affair at a third, secret, location. If there was a final fatal confrontation on the day of her planned departure it would have happened there, and THAT is where the evidence of foul play and hints as to where the body might lie would be found. If that were the case, the LOCATION of the trysts, not their existance, would be what Condit would have been trying to conceal in last night's interview, by evading details of the relationship, including the number of meetings. (For if they met several times a week and witnesses say she visited his apartment only a few times, the question of where else they met will arise. And if there was an unplanned, fatal outburst of rage at the point of separation, the crime scene would likely be replete with information.) Of course you understand that I have merely been exercising the "storytelling" part of my brain. It is that part which, when confronted by any set of facts, perceptions or observations, makes up a story to connect all the dots. Mr. Condit has revealed himself to be who he is, regardless of where Ms Levy may be. As does everyone I hope that she is safe, but when my daughters were not much younger than she is it came home to me that the world is fairly bursting with predators who would victimize any young girls or women not under the obvious and immediate protection of a truly formidable family. That mantle of protection is difficult to extend very far from home. I was not actually thinking of Condit in this category, as his more passive demeanor and tendency to verbal trickery suggest that his affairs with women may have been more slyly opportunistic than aggressive. Young women themselves, however, hardly feel the weight of that protective mantle, so accustomed they are to wearing it, and so think little of casting it off, having developed a general impression of safety and security and being unaware that it has derived in subtantial part from the fact that from their birth their parents would, without a moment's hesitation, LITTERALLY have given their own lives to protect their children. It puts me in mind of why people leave bear or lion cubs alone: because somewhere close by there is almost certainly a mother who will kill you in an instant despite any cost to herself, if you even give the appearance of threatening them. However despite the best efforts of parents, sometimes our children come to harm. Doc
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Ebbie Date: 24 Aug 01 - 04:22 PM I thought Ms. Chung's tactics were self defeating. I personally don't need to hear Condit admit that he had a sexual relationship with Chandra Levy. I think it would have been more revealing, for instance, if Chung had asked him for his views on the power ploys that elected officials enjoy regarding their subordinates. The atmosphere of the whole interview was disturbing and scary to me. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Lepus Rex Date: 24 Aug 01 - 04:34 PM I was sick of this story when it was about OJ... ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 24 Aug 01 - 05:19 PM Doc, I enjoyed your post immensely, and a lot of what you said connected-Especially when you mentioned your own daughters, and the fears that we parents have about their vulnerability--there is that intuitive reflex, when one child is missing, all parents are engaged, which is part of why we respond to this--even though on a rational level, we know that we can't contribute in any way to a resolution-- Anyway, politicians, when in Washington, have no privacy--there is no place that they can go without being recognized--"Guess who I saw a lunch?" is a stock conversation element--"Third, secret" locations are really risky, because there is more likely hood of drawing attention when a congressman is in a unusual place, home or office are the best places to avoid notice--after all, Congressmen have lots of visitors, but very few are visited by Congressmen-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Aug 01 - 05:26 PM Lepus Rex - You are a kindred spirit when it comes to that. How's the weather out your way? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Justa Picker Date: 24 Aug 01 - 05:26 PM Great post Doc! My theory (and I hope I'm dead wrong.) She was in love with him possibly pregnant with his child; was going to go public if he didn't make a committment to her; and looking at the situation and deciding he's not going through what Clinton went through, hired a contract killer; job done; body will never be found. Phone's OJ and asks if he's up for a round of golf. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: DougR Date: 24 Aug 01 - 05:37 PM K.C.! Watch it! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: JedMarum Date: 24 Aug 01 - 05:44 PM Great posts here - M Ted and others who said similar things; I know when I was a young musician many people thought we were all long haired, wild and reckless living drug takers - and it wasn't true. Some of us were, to one degree or other - and some of us never were, but many thought of us ALL in that category. Years later in my corporate life phase (thank God that's over) many people thought we were all traveling the world living high, and cheating on our wives in every city, spending our companies' bloated expense accounts on selfish pursuits -and it wasn't true. Some of us were, to one degree or other - and some of us never were, but many thought of us ALL in that category. I think when we're angered by the behavior of others, we tend to put an "all of those guys do that" sort of judgement around them - and we need to remember, there are few behaviors that everybody in group follows; good, bad or otherwise. I do take your meaning though, I too feel very cynical sometimes that our political professionals, our gov't leaders find it too easy to engage in purely selfish pursuits - and want to damn the whole lot of them! And maybe there are too many what Mr Condit-types in DC (and surely on BOTH sides of the ailse). But Mr Condit has certainly risen to the top because of the disappearance of the young woman - and even if he is innocent of any worng doing with respect to her disappearance - his behavior, his attitude about his behavior and his apparently long history of such liassons would make me vote him out of office, if I were in his district. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Aug 01 - 06:03 PM Golly, Doc, stick around. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Aug 01 - 06:13 PM I thought the better interview was the one he did with a local reporter. She was able to work the local angle pretty heavily, lean in to him to draw out his flirting side, and show him for even more of a fool. It was priceless-- she kept going back to things like, "Yes.... but sir, we have a pile of e-mails here from your constituents, who say the want to hear you explain (this or that)....." He finally went over the edge when she asked him to apologize to the constituents, and he waffled and waffled as she pressed more and more enticingly. At last he pointed out that since it had been the media misleading the people, it was the media who should apologize. (He did have a point.) But as TV, it was, I thought, the more effective interview performance. That reporter ought to get a bigger job-- she was great. In fact as a cross-examiner for OJ she'd have been perfect, so she should actually change careers I think! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: JedMarum Date: 24 Aug 01 - 06:17 PM great thoughts, Doc - well written. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: harpgirl Date: 24 Aug 01 - 06:45 PM Doc,I think the narcissism engendered by a charmed and well-protected life, makes such young women believe they are invulnerable to heartbreak and easily able to win such men away from wives of thirty plus years, not to mention being able to have the jobs of their choice and everything else they feel entitled to. But then again, maybe it is just the folly of youth. We do our beautiful, privileged daughters a disservice by not providing them with a more realistic view of the world, including affording them the tools to resist psychopathy in other human beings. But one of those tools is a good moral compass, don't you think? I agree that Gary Condit is only a moderately intelligent psychopath. But like OJ, with the primitive reptillian instincts of a shark, he may be able to hide the evidence, hire the right lawyers, play on public sympathy, and with a little luck, (if he is guilty of murder) not be revealed to be what he really is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Sorcha Date: 24 Aug 01 - 06:49 PM Condit is a snake. Possibly only a small snake in a den of large snakes, but a snake nevertheless. Rich, connected snakes can get away with damn near anything, anywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: DougR Date: 24 Aug 01 - 07:06 PM One item that I think may have been overlooked in regard to Miss Levy losing her job at the Justice Department. If Condit had WANTED to keep her in Washington, he could have pulled some strings and got her a job back in the Justice Department. Acccording to him, she wanted to work at the FBI or CIA. As a member of the important committee he sits on, you think he couldn't have secured her a job? I think he was relieved that she was leaving town, and I really don't think he had anything to do with her disappearance. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time. I grew a bit tired of Connie Chung trying to push him into admitting he had an affair with the young lady. Does anyone doubt that he did? If had answered, "Yes I did," would Connie have had a follow-up question? I think he did obstruct justice by not coming forward immediately and aiding the police as quickly as he could. That could have made a difference in helping to find Miss Levy. Unfortunately, I really doubt she will be found alive though. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Gareth Date: 24 Aug 01 - 08:43 PM From this side of the pond. 1 Innocent until proven guilty. 2 What frightens me is the assumption that a congressman can pull strings and get a mistress a security job. Not that us Brits can moralise on this. Two senior politicians convicted of perjury in the last few years. And once upon a time a King was reputed to say "Will no one rid me of this turbulant Priest." The City of Canterbury has been living off the tourist trade on that for 800 years. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Sorcha Date: 24 Aug 01 - 08:48 PM ooooooooooo Gareth!! too funny, and too true. Lots of others as well; Ed and Wallace, Portho, Andrew, Charles, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 24 Aug 01 - 10:26 PM The thing about obstruction of justice is that there was and is no judicial action in progres, so no obstruction of justice. Also, there is no evidence that a crime has occurred--none! Only an assumption, in some quarters, that since the girl is missing, therefore she was killed, and therefore the congressman is culpable--The fact that there is no evidence or testimony relating to the crime seems to be regarded as proof, at least by some people, that something terrible happened, since it then is assumed that the reason there is no evidence is that the congressman has amazing powers to order crimes and to totally obliterate evidence-- And so, for lack of evidence, and for need of an explanation, the man becomes a demon, with powers that are almost inconceivable in their reach-- Nixon, after all couldn't conceal Watergate--and that was only a burglarly--Condit had more to worry about, with fewer resources--Where's the body? Where's the blood? Where was the oportunity? Even the idea of a motive is shakey--some people say his motive was that he wanted to get rid of her and some say he did it in a rage because she was leaving him-- The third, less entertaining, possibility, is she wanted to leave and he wanted her to leave, so she left--the good news, she had somewhere to go, and went--This explanation is no less likely than the other, in fact, what little evidence there is, points in this direction-- Of course, murder or not, he seems a fairly despicable character, and, murder or not, Washington is a place that opens its arms to those such as he--
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Aug 01 - 11:16 PM M. Ted, her keys, ID, and luggage were left in the apartment. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Lepus Rex Date: 25 Aug 01 - 06:35 AM Oh, the weather, LH? Maybe 30 degrees hotter than I like it, but not bad for August in Minnesota... How's it up there? ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 25 Aug 01 - 10:02 AM There were keys, a drivers lisense. credit cards and luggage, but people have duplicate keys, in Washington, especially, people often have a couple driver's Lisenses(one from wherever they came from, and a Washington one) and many people have credit cards they don't use, as well--as to the luggage, people have extra bags--there is really no way to tell what she might have taken with her, because there is no way to tell from what is in the apt what else she had-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: DougR Date: 25 Aug 01 - 12:56 PM MTed: I'm sure you are right on the legal stuff and what I posted is not correct. Legally he has done nothing wrong, I guess. If Chandra is the kind of person her parents and friends describe, though, I really can't buy your theory that she simply went away. I simply can't believe she would do that to her parents. DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: GUEST,Doc Date: 25 Aug 01 - 01:16 PM Thanks for the comments on my post, all duly appreciated. I have no large investment in the scenario I proposed. In the course of any investigation many working hypotheses may be put forward that suggest various places to look for information, and it was in that spirit that I offered my, "perhaps it happened this way" story. I didn't see the local interview Susan, but I particularly liked the way Ted Coppel handled Condit's lawyer on nightline when he essentially pulled the same evasions and, like Condit, attempted to hijack the interview by telling Coppel what questions he SHOULD be answering (instead of the ones the lawyer didn't want to answer). Coppel, with only a slight hardening of his features and voice, said words to the effect of, "Well, Abbie, why don't you just leave the questions to me and you stick to trying to give the answers." Direct confrontation can be done very easily and matter-of-factly when you are confident of your authority. It may come more easily to men, and women may more naturally have the subtlety you described in the style utilized by the local newswoman, although either can do either. Condit's lawyer also brought up the "innocent until proven guilty" argument, Gareth, which is often brought up to quash inquiry during periods of unbridled speculation among members of the public and new media. During my misspent youth one of the things I did for a couple of years was law school. My recollection of U.S. constitutional and criminal law is that in many but not all countries, as in the U.S., persons ACCUSED of crimes are considered innocent BEFORE THE LAW. There is no such guarantee in the court of public opinion and we are all free to think what we please and say what we think. Condit has not been formally accused of a crime either by indictment or by a grand jury, and he is not before a court of law. Interestingly the police often say, as they have in this case, that an individual, "is not a suspect", so that they may have more freedom in investigating him. Once a person is identified as a "suspect", for example, he must be cautioned to obtain a lawyer and search warrants must be obtained. The whole process becomes adversarial instead of the "cooperative" and dealings become at arm's length. And, M.Ted, perhaps as you say my "third location" idea doesn't fit the Washington celebrity circumstances, or perhaps it means that the location would have to have been somewhere just outside Washington, where people don't pay nearly so much attention to the city's self-absorbed little social scene. Anyway, as I understand it Condit has an alibi for when she is presumed to have dissapeared. Her apartment contained her luggage and keys and other items. It has all the elements of mystery that invite wild speculations. Yes, harpgirl, although I had stopped short of saying it I was thinking that the daughter in this case was reported to have some traits suggesting at least grandiosity. I agree that it is the parental dilemma that if we protect our daughters too well, we deny them the healthy awareness of danger that they may need soon after leaving home. But I have the feeling that there is another aspect, that is the WAY in which we relate or are "attached" to our children, that influences whether they live in real life or in a fantasy when they leave us. I think that if we are "really" connected to THEM, and really see THEM and really talk to THEM and listen to THEM during the years they are with us, rather than to them solely as representations or reflections of ourselves, that they will in turn really live in the world with real people and be the safer for it. Although it is frightening to comtemplate, adversity is a great teacher, and if we can bear to allow our kids to suffer a certain number of consequences of their own less than perfect judgments, or of ours, they will obtain a much better preparation for what comes after. Of course, sometimes fate provides serious, even tragic adversities that no one would ever choose, but even then among the outcomes strength, courage and endurance are included. I cling to the unlikely story that Ms Levy has been seen at Mossad headquarters, for then it would mean that Mr. Condit has suffered a period of embarrassment he has clearly brought upon himself, and Ms Levy can go of and play at being a spy, which appears to be what she had in mind. (Of course it may be that she HAS been a spy, recruited, as they often are, in college by, say, the Mossad, who was then assigned to obtain information from the chairman of an important congressional committee, then discredit him by the circumstances of her disappearance. Or, given that it is unlikely she would intentionally have put her parents through the past two months, perhaps the circumstance of her disappearance was s surprise to her, too.) Oh, never mind me. I do this in movies, too. Always trying to figure out what's going on. None of my speculations are intended to be disrespectful of Ms Levy, who, at twenty, is still entitled to experiment with a foolish liaison, and to be flattered and charmed by the attentions of a powerful older man with a (and this is why I REALLY can't stand Condit) youthful physique and the ability (I'll wager) to affect a boyish charm. And of course we are all reluctant to speak ill of someone who may be dead. Tragically, women and children are snatched from the street or their homes every day, never to be heard from again. Although the odds greatly favor that harm has come to a woman at the hands of a husband or lover, and the moment of separation is the most frequent trigger for violence, one can only hope that while the focus has been on Condit some random psychopath has not made off with her. If she has come to harm I can only pray for the Levys that they may eventually be given the serenity to accept that which they cannot change. Doc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 25 Aug 01 - 03:53 PM You speak for all of us, Doc, and have managed to sum this all up very well--as a parent, with a child who has recently taken a plunge into the real world in a big city, is a bit like someone else living one of my nightmares, and I am holding on to the Mossad story, and have cooked up a couple of other unlikely possibilities on my own--one of the saving graces is that every possibility is unlikely-- Years ago, in my home town, a man walked into a gift shopped, held it up at gunpoint, and kidnapped the sixteen year old girl who worked behind the counter, she was the daughter of a former and popular mayor--there was a monumental search, but she disappeared without a trace. The town alternated between hope and despair for months--there was no resolution, and gradually, other things occupied peoples minds--One of the homicide investigators was a the father of a close friend, and he told me later that he never got over it, it connected with like no other case did, because she was only a few years younger than his daughter-- The sad ending came nearly 15 years later (if I remember correctly) when the remains of a young girl were found in an isolated wooded area--too late for him-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: Rick Fielding Date: 25 Aug 01 - 11:26 PM Just one question. If it was your daughter who's situation had paralelled the one in question...would you act in the ways that the Levys have? I have this nagging suspicion that THEY know more than they're saying. Were it my daughter I'd have been absolutely raising hell from day one....total confrontation mode.(and being IN Washington during all of this) Why do I feel they've acted so "politely"? Dunno....just thinking. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: khandu Date: 26 Aug 01 - 01:23 AM Amen Sorcha! "You knew damned well I was a snake before you took me in". Too bad Chandra wasn't familiar with this song! khandu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Aug 01 - 01:30 AM I have been enjoying the image of Chandra coming home annoncing she has single-handedly solved the problems of peace in the Mideast. Seems she's over there getting both sides to agree on the meaning of the word PUTZ. From there all things are possible. But I keep getting distracted by the idea that having one's picture out to the FBI, the press, and probably Interpol as missing in action would probably tend to negatively influence one's career viability in covert intelligence. The sad thing is, these sorts of politicians and mouthpieces really think that the skills it takes to wheel and deal and sell oneself to the public are the same skills we look for when we actually want to KNOW something and UNDERSTAND it and think about it for ourselves. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gary Condit vs. Connie Chung. Hardball From: M.Ted Date: 26 Aug 01 - 01:55 AM Rick, I've been thinking about that too--I know I'd have been on the first bus to Washington--well, I am here anyway, but you know what I mean-- It occurs to me that no one has asked the parents any probing questions--like, "is she hiding at home right now, letting Condit dig himself in deeper and deeper in order to get even with him for screwing her over?" or "Did you get into a big fight with her when she told you that even though she had lost her job, she was staying in Washington because she was having an affair with a Congressman?" There is someone on the Chandra Levy Discussion Forum who keeps saying that no one at the Modesto Police Department followed up report that he sighted her at a convenience store there, or some such thing--Again, no less improbably than any of the other possibilities-- |