Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Should Gary Condit Take a Lie Detector Test?
Aired July 09, 2001 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On his own initiative, he took steps to see the police the third time. This was not something requested of us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: It was a week of revelations and renewed pressure for Congressman Gary Condit. After weeks of silence, police sources say the congressman admitted to the affair with missing Washington intern Chandra Levy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From the beginning, while he's not been forthcoming to you, not wanting to be on camera and answer the questions about his private life, he's been totally forthcoming with the police, and what he has told them will hopefully help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD THORNBURGH, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The notion that he made this acknowledgement of an affair on his own hook really doesn't wash with most Americans because they know the aunt came out with this statement last week.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: And now talk of possible political fallout.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I took him at his word that he didn't have an affair with Chandra Levy. He obviously did. At least he appears he did, and it is just an incredible lesson, you need to tell the truth, and if you don't tell the truth then everything else you say is called into question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: And Chandra's parents now want Condit to take a lie detector test. Should he do it? (on camera): Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
It took three meetings with the police, but according to police sources, Congressman Gary Condit finally told police the truth about his relationship with Chandra Levy. But instead of making things clearer, it seems to have created a whole new set of questions.
Joining us now with the latest on the investigation, CNN national correspondent Bob Franken.
Bob, what's going on?
BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the questions are coming from the Levy family, questions about whether Congressman Condit has been truthful throughout this 10-week period in which Chandra Levy has been missing. As a matter of fact, they are asking that there be a polygraph test, that the Congressman be asked questions attached to a lie detector.
His attorney Abbe Lowell has not responded directly to that, but has put out a statement saying that the police pointed out that the congressman had been cooperative with them, and that he was not a suspect. That's where it stands now.
There's another question that keeps coming up, and that is: Why don't the police search Condit's apartment? They emphasize, No. 1, that he's not a suspect. But we are also told, that in the first of the three interviews they conducted, they conducted it (a) at the invitation of Congressman Condit, and (b) at the apartment. What we don't know yet is if they looked around the apartment but that answers that particular question.
A lot of loose ends. Of course, the big one being that they have not found Chandra Levy, the 24-year-old intern, who disappeared, former intern who disappeared on either April 30th or May 1st, and has not been seen since -- Bobbie.
BATTISTA: A couple of questions, Bob.
When do you think it is likely that the status of this investigation might change to a criminal one?
FRANKEN: Well, the answer is quite possibly never. The police say at this particular point they have no evidence of foul play, which would be the first thing. Certainly, they are hoping in fact that there's some other reason that Chandra Levy has continued to be missing. (b) they need some credible evidence that somebody in fact is a target of the investigation -- I don't mean the legal term, target, but as somebody who they consider a suspect.
Police say over and over that despite all the attention that's been paid to Congressman Condit, that they've interviewed about 100 people and many of them as a matter of fact, they spent more time with and watched more closely than Congressman Condit. BATTISTA: What about the political fallout from all of this, Bob? Is the congressman able to do his job there on the Hill or has this been all-consuming for him?
FRANKEN: Well, he's done his job. That is to say, he's attended hearings, he has in fact showed up for just about every vote, but nobody can deny that this is a distraction.
The question is: What will it be like for him when he gets back and he has to face the same colleagues in Congress that he lied to? The colleagues say he told them -- several colleagues have told us that he told them, there was no affair. Now they found out that in fact there apparently was one, and they really are quite put out about it.
Because one of the things that you do when you are in Congress is get things done with your personal relationships with the various members. And quite frankly some of those have been coming under some tension.
BATTISTA: And there were a number of fellow representatives on all the talk shows and news shows this past weekend. Do you expect to see the number of those increase as they come out with opinions on this?
FRANKEN: I suspect that they're certainly going to be asked. The one thing that worked in Condit's favor is that they were all out of town last week. It was the Independence Day break. They start trickling in tonight and tomorrow. And of course, you can imagine that just about anybody who appears in public for anything, who is a member of Congress, will be asked about this.
BATTISTA: All right, Bob Franken, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it, as always.
Joining us now with some legal perspective on this, Victoria Toensing, former federal prosecutor from Washington.
And John Burris, a criminal defense attorney from San Francisco. Good to see both of you.
VICTORIA TOENSING, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Very good to see you.
BATTISTA: All right, John, let me start with you. As a defense attorney -- and if you had Congressman Condit as your client, would you advise him to take that lie detector test?
JOHN BURRIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, not up-front, I would not do that. There's no reason for him to take a polygraph. No. 1, they are basically philosophically unreliable. There are certainly some positive benefits to be gained, but I would not recommend that he just go down to the police department to take a polygraph, particularly when he's answered questions.
That's not to say that I would not do such in private if that's something he would insist upon. It's an interesting point because if he were -- by making this statement -- he could in fact insist upon doing that, but given inherent reliability, given all the different kinds of questions that can be asked, you don't know whether or not his responses is really in response to the direct question or is representative of something else. So there's an inherent danger for him to do that.
As long as he's cooperative with the police, cooperative with the family, his story is being checked out, then I don't see any need for him to go any further to satisfy the family's interest.
BATTISTA: Yeah, Victoria, it is kind of a no-win situation for the congressman -- let's start with the very fact called a lie detector test. I mean, what would it actually prove in light of the fact that they are notoriously not accurate?
TOENSING: Well, we can call it a polygraph here.
(LAUGHTER)
And go on with it. Of course John would tell his client not to do so, but if I'm the Levy family I keep putting pressure on day after day that I want that polygraph, because after all, if you are now -- if you have quit lying after two and a half months, and you are now saying you are doing everything to help her, then a polygraph test would be the way to go.
After all, the Levy family still thinks that he has not come forward with everything he knows, so the way they do that, and put that pressure on is to say we want a polygraph. We want a polygraph.
So John, as much as you are going to tell your client, don't take it. The Levy family will be putting pressure on him. So here is what a good defense attorney will do, a good defense attorney will go out and hire his or her own polygrapher, and they will do it in secret, and see how the client does.
BURRIS: That's exactly what I would do, I would go do my own, see how it comes out, and from there play it that way. Polygraphs are a function of the precise questions that are being asked, and sometimes, a question can be a little bit vague and can cause a reaction that really gives a false reading.
So, from his point of view, it doesn't make a lot of sense to do it at this stage. But he does have to, it seems to me, always give the impression he is willing to cooperate in any way possible, short of doing something that can create himself in a most negative light, but cooperating...
TOENSING: And Bobbie, the viewers should know how a polygraph works, because you don't just get to say, tell us about the last time you saw Chandra.
BATTISTA: Yes. It's interesting you guys bring up that, and the way the questions are asked. Because the congressman's lawyer this weekend Abbe Lowell said basically the reason the congressman didn't come out with the right answers, if you will, about his relationship with the intern was the nature of the questions, which I don't know -- do you think that stretches the credibility just a little bit, because you would think that after the first question, do you know this woman? The second would be, what was your relationship with her? Followed by, are you having an affair with her?
TOENSING: If the D.C. police did not say to him, were you having a sexual relationship with her, at the very first interview, I think the questioner should go back to Police Investigation 101.
I cannot believe that a good police officer did not ask that from the get-go because...
(CROSSTALK)
TOENSING: ...my suspicion, John, when a 50 some-year-old politician puts out a statement that he's a very close friend of a 22- year-old intern, I'm suspicious right away.
BATTISTA: What is...
BURRIS: Certainly, you would be suspicious. I think that it doesn't appear that he had counsel at the time that he went down voluntarily and made these particular statements. Obviously, a congressman or any person giving a statement to the police needs to be real candid and to come forward as clear as they can with definitive information.
Obviously, the less candid you are, the more suspicion is drawn under. Doesn't then mean you are guilty, for him it is different than the average person because he has a number of competing interests that he was obviously trying to protect and be mindful of, a political career, his personal family, obviously the situation with the girl and that relationship.
And his -- the possible criminal investigation -- those are all relatively competing interests, and just because...
TOENSING: Well, he didn't say that though, John, he said the most important thing to him was to help the family find Chandra.
BURRIS: Well, I'm sure that's true, but he also is very protective I'm sure of his political career and of course a particular criminal investigation that could occur even though you are not the person who is guilty. Just the relationship itself can trigger an investigation that you obviously don't want.
BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call quickly from Ivy in California. Ivy, go ahead.
IVY: Hello, Bobbie.
I believe that Gary Condit should definitely take this lie detector test for the simple fact, he lied at the beginning, so he is very questionable. So yes, I think he must take this lie detector test. BATTISTA: Are you in the congressman's district, Ivy?
IVY: No, I'm not. No, I'm not.
BATTISTA: All right.
IVY: But he lied, you see, in the very beginning. It took three police interviews for him to come out for the truth. So you see he is a liar, so they must have this liar (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the test.
BATTISTA: But you know what, she...
IVY: They have to.
BATTISTA: ... Ivy...
(APPLAUSE)
... brings up another point, also. I'm just curious, Victoria and John, if the average person took three interviews to be that forthcoming with the police would we have gotten that much slack.
TOENSING: No.
BURRIS: There's no question that he should have been more candid up-front, assuming he had nothing to do with this. I think in the end he was very protective of trying to keep the relationship quiet for political reasons, No. 1. No. 2, obviously of a personal reason in relation to his family. And No. 3, he didn't want to trigger undue concern for him.
I'm not saying that's the best strategy. The best thing is to find the girl, No. 1, and No. 2, to make sure you don't put yourself in the throes of a criminal investigation. Obviously, he made the choices that were not in his best interests at the time.
TOENSING: I have a question: When are these middle-aged politicians going to learn that 20-some-year-old young girls...
BURRIS: Always talk.
(APPLAUSE)
BATTISTA: On that note, I've got to take a break. As we do, a couple of e-mails. Jane in Missouri says: "Out of the other 99 people the police have questioned, how many of them have the police found to have lied about Chandra as much as the congressman has?"
Harry in Las Vegas says: "Condit was the one who told Clinton to be up-front and tell all. Now that he is in a similar relationship he has not followed his own advice."
(APPLAUSE)
We'll take a break. As we do, take the TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback, AOL keyword CNN. The question today: Should Congressman Condit take a lie detector test? And while there, check out my notes, send us an e-mail or an instant message. Our buddy name is TALKBACK LIVE. If you aren't on AOL's Instant Messenger, follow the link on our Web site and watch your comments go on the air. We'll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Gary Condit, the son of a Baptist minister, grew up in Oklahoma. Married with a baby by 19, his political career began with his election to the Ceres, California City Council at age 24. He later served in the California legislature before his election to the U.S. Congress.
Let me read this quick e-mail, because I think we can't stress this enough. Tom says: "How did this affair and this woman missing tie in? It does not compute."
And like I say, we can't stress enough: The police say that the congressman is not a suspect. There may be no tie whatsoever between her disappearance and their relationship.
But having said that, Victoria, Bob mentioned at the top of the show the fact that people have been asking why the police haven't -- haven't searched Congressman Condit's apartment. Would they need probable cause for that?
TOENSING: Well, if they have to get a search warrant, Bobbie, but -- but not if he allows them to do so and gives his consent. And I for the life of me cannot understand why the police did not ask to search that apartment, and Bob said because he wasn't a suspect. Well, a person doesn't have to be a suspect to have a place searched. I mean, any place you think there might be evidence that could help you is where you as an investigator ought to go search.
And secondly, sitting in the congressman's apartment asking him questions is not a search. You bring in lab technicians, you bring in people who are dusting for fingerprints or blood. And you can't ignore the fact that there could be blood there. You have to look at that place as a possible scene of a crime.
BURRIS: You know, Victoria, I -- Victoria, I don't know that I disagree with you on that. The fact that they are sitting there asking the questions does not then permit them to bring in a whole host of people to conduct an investigation beyond...
TOENSING: No, but if he gives his consent, John.
BURRIS: Of course. Of course, if he consents.
TOENSING: That's what I just said.
BURRIS: Yeah, of course if he consented they could have done that then. They could -- he could do that now.
TOENSING: And so why didn't they ask to do it is what I'm questioning. BATTISTA: Well, do we know whether they've asked?
BURRIS: Well, because they did not focus -- he was a congressman. They don't focus on a congressman.
TOENSING: Because he was lying.
BURRIS: Well, at the outset...
TOENSING: Because he was lying.
BURRIS: But at the outset -- but at the outset, they don't know -- they didn't know that he was lying, and he may not have been lying about anything other than the fact that he had a real relationship with her beyond a good friend relationship. That doesn't mean he was lying about...
TOENSING: But now.
BURRIS: ... everything else about the relationship.
TOENSING: But now they ought to ask.
BURRIS: Of course, and they should have asked. I mean, he basically -- and he has said he will be cooperative. Ask him a question, he will give you the answer. It's up to them then to determine whether or not those answers are truthful or not by whatever corroborative evidence they can obtain. But I think he is trying to be truthful -- cooperative with his wife and his family.
TOENSING: Oh, John!
BURRIS: No, with the family...
TOENSING: Two months he lies about their relationship he's trying to be cooperative?
BURRIS: But that's now. But that's now.
(LAUGHTER)
TOENSING: Oh, I'm sorry.
BURRIS: We're talking about now. We're not talking about two months ago.
TOENSING: Were you lying then or are you lying now?
BURRIS: Well, of course, those are questions that cynics, like prosecutors, like yourself, can always say. But as a defense lawyer, you have him now come forward, and say what he can say to the police, to the family or anyone else that would ask without making yourself a public spectacle by which obviously the media and other people would like for it to occur by making the story bigger than it is.
TOENSING: John... BATTISTA: Well, let me -- I want to come back to that point.
TOENSING: I'm also a good defense -- I'm also a good defense lawyer, and as a good defense lawyer...
BURRIS: You're a better prosecutor, though.
TOENSING: ... I would try everything I could not to allow my client to...
BATTISTA: I want to come back -- I want to come back to the point about how much the congressman is or is not talking, but let me go to the audience quickly. Diana.
DIANA: Yeah, I was just wondering, the police keep saying he's not a suspect. So if he takes a lie detector test, how is that going to play in court? Will that have much pull in court at all? Will that help it at all?
BURRIS: It doesn't go into court at all. It is clearly inadmissible because of the unreliability of -- it hasn't been scientifically shown to be reliable, so it really doesn't help in the case. It's a public relations issue.
Now what the police may say if it was determined that he was not being truthful according to (UNINTELLIGIBLE), they may then use that as a basis to maybe hone in maybe closer on the investigation. But when you really get down to it, it won't cause them to hone anymore than they should, because whatever he has said to them, they should have been trying to corroborate that and determine whether it's true or not based on the information they have now. If they had additional questions, they can ask additional questions. And the client...
TOENSING: But if I'm the Levy family, but if I'm the Levy family, I want to keep putting pressure on it, because we, the Levy family...
BURRIS: But for what purpose, though? But for what purpose?
TOENSING: ... want to play that role. Because I don't think he has come forward with all the information. I can...
BURRIS: Then all he has to do...
TOENSING: Just let me finish. If I can force him into taking a polygraph for public relations, for whatever reason, he doesn't want to flunk it and he may have to tell more than he's already told.
BURRIS: But I think he's prepared...
TOENSING: And that's why the Levy family is pushing.
BURRIS: But what I would say to you as a Levy representative, ask me the question and I will make sure he answers that question. I think that he can do that. There is a question of proper police procedure. TOENSING: Well, no lawyer has been able to do that so far.
BURRIS: Well, you know -- you know what, the police have had ample opportunity. They had him -- the complete weekend they could have asked any question they thought. They don't still feel good about it because the Levys have some other questions they want to ask. Give them to the police, bring him in again, let him ask the question, talk to his lawyer, Billy Martin, whoever -- whoever it happens to be, and ask whatever questions you have, as opposed to maybe they're having hurt feelings, they feel bad about what has happened and they want to embarrass him because of his relationship with their daughter. But that's not the way you conduct a proper investigation, and the fact is...
TOENSING: As a family of a missing young woman...
BURRIS: Then you do the investigation...
TOENSING: ... they have the right to put as much pressure on they the can on him.
(APPLAUSE)
BURRIS: Yeah, but the question is what kind of pressure. I mean, if you're talking about the police investigation, of course. But if it's just a public relations because you don't like the fact that he had a relationship with your daughter, that to me is not a proper thing.
TOENSING: No, if you want more information, John, if you want more information...
BURRIS: I've said ask the question, ask the question, and he will give you the answer.
BATTISTA: Let me jump in -- let me jump in, take Pat on the phone in Texas. Pat, go ahead.
PAT: I agree with the lady, I can't remember her name, from Washington.
First of all, Gary Condit has lied. He needs to take a lie detector test because the police in Washington, D.C. are totally screwing this whole thing up. They should have gone into that apartment from the very beginning with a fine-tooth comb and done forensic tests. And the lie detector test will cause pressure to be put upon, as far as I'm concerned, a botched police investigation.
BATTISTA: I've got to take a quick break here. Pat, thanks very much, and we'll be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Born in Cleveland, Ohio, Chandra Levy hoped to be a sports reporter. In the back of her 1995 high-school yearbook, she wrote: "Look out sports world, here I come! I cannot wait to write about you."
In college, she switched her focus to politics, attending the USC graduate program in government management. She interned for Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan before moving to Washington, D.C. for her Bureau of Prisons internship.
Welcome back. Let's -- let's talk a little bit about the congressman's decision, Victoria and John, to not speak at all really with the public or even his constituents. Abbe Lowell was pretty critical of the media over the weekend and said really the headlines here should be that the congressman is keeping his privacy and helping the police and nothing more.
What do you think of that approach, No. 1? And what are the chances that if he is withholding information he could be obstructing justice?
TOENSING: Well, Bobbie, first of all, that's not the approach that he took. I mean, he said, I'm not going to talk, but what did he do? He gave false information to his congressional staff and had them feed it to the media so that, you know, that premise is absolutely wrong. If he had just been quiet and said nothing, nothing, I could be sympathetic, but he wasn't. He tried to lie and get by with it. He did it the Clintonian way: First, you lie, and then when the lie is found out, then you say, it's -- oh, this is personal or it's not relevant.
(APPLAUSE)
BURRIS: It's going to be difficult...
(APPLAUSE)
BURRIS: It's going to be difficult for him to maintain this approach and maintain some sense of credibility, in large measure because it's a very public matter, he's a public person, there's a mission girl involved. And you know, he basically has got to absolve himself of any kind of taint of involvement. And he's already done great damage to himself by not being as candid as possible.
BATTISTA: Is that -- is there a crime there, John? I mean, if you lie to the police or even lie by omission, is that a crime?
BURRIS: It's a -- it's a crime to lie to the police in the course of an investigation. It's a misdemeanor-type crime. He hasn't given sworn testimony. But it is never good, as Victoria would tell you, particularly with the FBI, to give false statements to the police.
Now, the question is, is this a question of what -- how do you define is or whether a direct question that he gave a false answer to? I -- were you having an affair? And he says, we were good friends -- that could be a problem.
TOENSING: That's a lie. BURRIS: On the other hand -- that's a lie. On the other hand, if they asked him -- they didn't ask him that particular question and he kind of weaseled around it, then of course that's something...
TOENSING: And if the police didn't ask him that question, they have a problem.
BURRIS: Yeah, but getting back to the whole public persona, there are -- obviously, the not talking in a public way is a political decision that his staff apparently is making from a lawyer point of view. If he had nothing to do with it, my view on that is just say it, you know, just say it. You had nothing to do with it and you wish everyone well and you're going to cooperate as best you could. I should have been more candid up-front. I tried to spare my family, but now that it's done, this is what my response is, ask another question and I will tell you straight up-front.
BATTISTA: To the audience here. Janet, comment.
JANET: Well, I had earlier said that I thought that we should be protected from people rushing to accuse us of something when there hasn't actually been a real crime committed. I agree, if I were Chandra's parent, I'd be in everybody's face about this.
But until there is evidence of a crime, I think people do need some protection from people who are overly zealous, you know, going to put you away just on circumstantial...
TOENSING: But what people are saying -- though, what people are saying is that he has lied, and that that is suspicion. Nobody's gone any further than that. In fact, I think -- I disagree with Abbe. I think the press has been quite restrained in how they have presented the story. They've presented it a lot, they've talked about it a lot, but the accusations from the press have not been there.
BURRIS: Well, it is clear he should have been candid. Either he should have said nothing about that relationship ever or he should have been candid about it at the outset. Now, he's created suspicions about everything he has to say, and that's a danger of telling a lie, one lie, because it begets another lie. And to use a phrase, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we seek to deceive," and that is what has happened here.
But he may very well be totally innocent, and I as, as a lawyer, he certainly sounds like a person who is totally innocent of any involvement in her -- in her whereabouts.
And so, that is the position he has to take, and he has to be very candid about that. It's too bad that he was not clear and come forward about his relationship, but I think he was trying to protect his political career in that regard. And he very well may have been right, because he is going to have some problems as a consequence of it.
TOENSING: But the other -- but the other thing that he did wrong that we haven't discussed yet today, and that is sending an affidavit, which was clearly wrong, which he knew was wrong, to a potential witness...
BURRIS: Well, sure.
TOENSING: ... Anne Marie Smith, the stewardess. And although, you know, it was couched in terms of edit it any way you want, to send a statement that said, we did not have an affair, when in fact they did, and he's on the phone telling her that she doesn't have to talk to anybody I think is despicable conduct.
BURRIS: Well, no one would disagree with that and...
TOENSING: Forget illegal, it's despicable.
BATTISTA: Yeah, nobody will disagree with that.
BURRIS: And you cannot condone that type of conduct.
(APPLAUSE)
BATTISTA: Sheila's on the phone in Connecticut. Sheila, go ahead.
SHEILA: Yes, hi, Bobbie. I think this Levy is hiding out somewhere and is going to surface as soon as this Condit is politically raked over the coals enough so people won't want him to run. And I think she's just doing this for revenge to get back at him for breaking up the relationship.
BURRIS: It's a woman scorned.
BATTISTA: I can't imagine that you would put your family through that.
SHEILA: No, I just think it's another fanatical right-wing plot, and I think everyone should listen to right-wingers, to Hank Williams, "Mind Your Own Business" and Harper Valley PTA.
TOENSING: What is the right-wing plot?
BATTISTA: Yeah, what is the plot? I'm not getting that.
TOENSING: What's the evidence of the plot?
SHEILA: I think that they -- well, she's -- they're using this because there's two different issues: Gary is fighting, you know, for proper causes to help the people, and they're like intermingling this.
TOENSING: He's conservative.
BATTISTA: Yeah, he's a real conservative Democrat.
TOENSING: He is the most conservative Democrat. The Republicans love him. Are you kidding?
SHEILA: No, they don't...
BURRIS: Well, they don't love him so much they don't want his seat now.
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: OK. Again, though, I go back to I can't imagine -- I can't imagine this girl would ever put her family through that for some sort of political gain here.
Christie, comment.
CHRISTIE: Yes. Regarding the testing, I mean, I feel horrible for her family, and if I was part of her family, I would be right there and I would be begging him to take that test. But on his side, if there's even the slightest, remote chance he had nothing to do with this incident, I think he should stay far away from the test, because he could be burying himself. The test is not accurate.
TOENSING: Well, I'm sure that's what's going to happen. I'm sure Abbe is going to tell him not to take the polygraph.
BATTISTA: And a final e-mail here from Michael in New York, or for this segment: "It is entirely possible that his affair with Levy has absolutely nothing to do with her disappearance. It may only reflect sadly enough on his indiscretion and hypocrisy. By focusing so much on the congressman, though, it is possible that valuable resources are being misdirected in the search for Chandra Levy. Only the police can make that decision."
Victoria Toensing, John Burris, thank you both very much.
BURRIS: Thank you.
BATTISTA: Appreciate the...
TOENSING: Thank you.
BATTISTA: ... legal perspective. You, too.
In a moment, a look at how the news media are handling this story. Too much, not enough, or just right? We'll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Welcome back.
We are talking about Congressman Gary Condit and the fallout from his disclosure that he had an affair with Chandra Levy to the Washington police. But we are going to turn the argument around a bit and take a look at how the news media are handling the story. Has the coverage gotten out of hand?
Joining us now with their perspectives, Curtis Sliwa, a radio talk show host with WABC in New York City and is founder and president of Garden Angels. Curtis, good to see you.
CURTIS SLIWA, WABC RADIO: Pleasure to be with you again.
BATTISTA: And Matthew Felling is with us, media director with the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
Matthew, thank you for joining us, too.
MATTHEW FELLING, CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Bobbie, good to see you.
BATTISTA: Curtis, let me start with you, since you are a radio talk show host -- and I was just talking with the audience that there are so many outlets and resources out there for getting your news, and so many places that can fuel a story like this, do you think that the media is handling the story responsibly?
SLIWA: I think they have been very fair and square to the Congressman. Remember, I'm from New York, which is the tabloid sleazoid capital of the world when it comes to media. Actually, "The Daily News" and "New York Post" have been doing a very good job. Naturally, the floodgates opened up this weekend after the aunt to Chandra Levy indicated that she has confided in her and told her of her ongoing affair with the congressman.
And naturally, in response to that, the congressman through a spokesperson acknowledging that he had had a long-term affair. So now you see a lot of the stories that no doubt were being held back, flooding into the tabloids and newspapers about possible Hell's Angels connections, organized hit...
BATTISTA: See, doesn't that get a bit dangerous when we are going sort of beyond fact and well into the realm of speculation?
SLIWA: Well, I think -- remember, the congressman has opened up the Pandora's Box by having lied again and again -- probably, the worst lie wasn't necessarily to you or I or the media, but to the family of Chandra Levy.
He met privately with them and the family now demanding that lie detector test, is doing so because they say wait a second, the story he is telling now is so different than the story he told us privately and personally, and I think that has really precipitated all these rumors coming to the forefront.
And quite frankly: Which congressmen do you know have personal contacts and connections with an organized criminal group known as the Hell's Angels, who actually put out contract hits with groups around the country? He is very friendly with the local chapter right there in Modesto, California.
(LAUGHTER)
BATTISTA: Matthew, I'm not going there.
What do you think about how the media is handling this, and do you think this is a story that is growing six heads at this point?
FELLING: Six heads, 12 legs. The media are looking at this and they see it has the trinity of newsworthy buzz words. It has sex, it has politician. And the key one is intern. They -- when the media gets a story like this, I'm sure that most of the people in the audience have begun to notice that it is prevalent all over the airwaves -- at least the cable ones, they look at it as a Kimono Dragon does Sharon Stone's husband's dog.
They lock in their teeth, they clamp and they really don't let go of it, regardless of whether there is an advancement in the story or not. You are correct, that speculation is rampant, and in those dusty journalistic textbooks that some of us in the country have gleaned some knowledge from, nowhere does it say that you allow speculation to drive the story. But yet that's where we are.
Very few facts have come out, but yet, every 15 minutes on the cable news networks, you have Chandra clock, Chandra watch.
BATTISTA: Let me just -- in defense of cable -- because part of that is a programming issue, as much as editorial. We do know that people don't stay tuned to a cable network for an hour or two hours at a time. They tend to click in and out every 15 minutes, so you are picking up a lot of new viewers on the half-hour, which is why you see that story constantly on the cable networks.
FELLING: Yeah, I understand that. But, when you have one of your yeoman reporters buzzing in the morning and uttering his two minutes of update, whether or not there is any update at all -- he goes on camera and announces what is going on, and that is just repeated ad infinitum over the course of the day.
I just wish you guys would you let everybody know that nothing is going on without giving it so much attention. And I do want to point out, the network news, the evening news broadcasts every night on the big three networks, until last Thursday night, only NBC had picked up this story.
ABC and CBS hadn't given it any coverage whatsoever, which shows you the media doesn't really think with the same mind when a big story like this pops up.
BATTISTA: Well, they also don't -- a lot of things don't have to go into their decision. They're a 22-minute newscast for the most part and they have no real competition, except each other, you know? At that time of night.
SLIWA: I think we are losing something here. Congressman Condit had his paying professional spin doctors go out before the media and disseminate lies and use the media to literally lie to America.
Now, all of sudden, we have learned that truth. How do you anticipate the media will react? It will react like a scorned individual and all the stories they may have been holding at the brink, like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, and saying, oh no, not yet. Clearly those stories will emerge. And Congressman Condit could certainly level a lot of these stories by coming forward, addressing, first: His constituents in Modesto, the family of Chandra Levy, and eventually the American public by speaking for himself, not using his paid marionettes to lie, and hide behind.
(APPLAUSE)
BATTISTA: Let me get one of those constituents on the phone. Chakira is with us from the Modesto area -- Chakira.
CHAKIRA: Hello.
BATTISTA: Go ahead.
CHAKIRA: I just see all the media around Modesto. I feel them pretty much giving Condit an unfair bone. He has been a great politician since '89, and while he did lie about the affair and that's unfortunate, he really shouldn't have to address the American public. He should be addressing his constituents because he's representative of our district, not America. And you guys are just treating him unfairly.
BATTISTA: And has he done that?
CHAKIRA: No. A lot of us are wondering why he hasn't done that, but we feel that's an issue for us to decide, not the American public.
SLIWA: Well, I think it's gone beyond just your district, because now it has involved the capital police, it's involved the FBI, it's involved him sending an affidavit to one of his former (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
I might add, if you watch "The Sopranos," you know what one is. The woman on the side. He has had 7 that we know of, God knows how many others. But the worst one, he's telling the airline stewardess not to answer questions, not to answer questions of the FBI, not to cooperate and to deny they had any relationship, and that is a crime.
That goes back to what Bill Clinton was doing with Betty Currie and everyone else, when basically he was using that razzle-dazzle, and he was sort of bisecting and dissecting the English language, and not acknowledging his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Look, he was a blue dog Democrat -- Condit -- he took Bill Clinton to task when he was president over Monica Lewinsky. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
BATTISTA: Let me go the audience. Ed, go ahead.
ED: I think the big problem is, the line is blurred too much between the mainstream media and the sleaze media, you can hardly tell the difference anymore. I think that is the way this thing is being overblown. I think it's being made to look like a big, big sleazy mess. And you have a lot to work with, I agree, but I still think it's being much, much overblown. BATTISTA: I have to go to a quick break here, and then I'll come back and get Eddie's comment and have you guys comment on the blurring of those lines between mainstream and tabloids.
Also, David in Massachusetts e-mails: "The media are looking at this as a sex scandal and can smell blood as they zone in on the Congressman. He owes no one an explanation except the police, and they say he's cooperating."
We'll be back in just a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, CNN'S "LATE EDITION")
ABBE LOWELL, REP. CONDIT'S ATTORNEY: You are not drawing the difference between Congressman Condit and his family being extraordinarily helpful to the police, and not being extraordinary helpful to the thousand media people that are dogging him and his kids and his wife -- and are asking for details of their private lives that they're not going to accommodate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: Abbe Lowell, Congressman Condit's attorney, talking about the media outgrowth on this story, which we're talking about as well. And one of our audience members, you guys came up with -- Matthew, let me get your reaction to this. The fact that there's such a blurring between the mainstream media and the tabloid media, and there are so many resources, we might add, where people get their news information, from the Internet to cable to broadcast, and beyond.
This is what makes the thing grow six heads.
FELLING: Yes. When people have six or seven different Web sites that they can go to and log in and find out what's going on, and CNN is reporting it every 15 minutes, and then the news magazines every night, you know, the more tabloid and the more prurient of them, -- when they start picking up the story, then we start wondering who is driving this story? Is it the tabloid programs trying to dig up any dirt that they possibly can?
I mean, Curtis, just a few minutes ago, mentioned that there were six, seven people who were alleging to have had affairs with Congressman Condit. None of these are founded. Chandra is, as of now, and the flight attendant, most likely she did, but he's becoming part of problem. When you allow the speculation, when you allow the rumors and the innuendo to start driving the story, we start having this news agenda that is driven by wrecks and ruined personalities and ruined media images of people before all the facts are on the table.
I wish that we wouldn't rush to judgment. I'm not defending anybody in this case, but I just wish that we would let the facts speak for themselves and then let the chips fall where they may. Ignore the spinmeisters, ignore the lawyers. They're just playing up to the fact that we're all putting cameras on them. SLIWA: Well, I think in this case, you may be guilty, sir, of shooting the messenger because you don't like the sound of the message. Gary Condit has tried to control the message through his own spin doctors. He has been chicanerous, he has been nefarious. He has not been straightforward, not only to his constituents, to the family, to the American people, but probably even to members of his own staff.
I think, though, there's a lesson to be learned here from the media prying itself into the personal affairs of Chandra Levy and of Congressman Condit and those around them. I was amazed in the blockbuster interview with Linda Zamsky, the aunt over there on the Eastern shore of Maryland. She's the one who told us all that in fact a relationship did exist between the Congressman and Chandra Levy, and that Chandra had been confiding in her. But I was amazed. Later on in the interview, is here is a mature, older adult who should know better. Instead of chiding Chandra and chastising her and warning her this is a one-way trip to Palookahville, she's telling her how to endear herself to her new lover here, by building him a terrarium, having some cactus and some rocks, build him a little garden in his apartment. Then she said, "And be very organized," you know, "go into his closet and rearrange it."
And Chandra says to her, "But he's very organized to begin with."
"Oh, just take all of his long-sleeved shirts and organize them by color." This is almost like a how-to to cheat, and whether it was Monica Lewinsky or Jessica Hahn, what I'm amazed at is that older adults who had their attention never really chastised them, never really warned them that they were getting into lots of trouble in this kind of relationships.
BATTISTA: Karen on the phone from New York. Go ahead, Karen.
KAREN: Yes, hi. First of all, regarding the lie detector, I think if it was warranted, the police would ask for one. Secondly, regarding the media, I think they're putting ideas into people's minds by indicating that, because he didn't come out with an affair -- which I think -- I don't think Victoria or any other person out there would come out in a situation and readily admit an affair, especially if your family or your wife and you wanted to talk to them, et cetera.
But I think they're getting this idea out there that because he wasn't up front with that, that he's lied about other things and held back information. The police have not indicated that in any way. The chief of police has consistently said he's been up front. They found nothing else that challenged anything he said.
BATTISTA: Karen brings a up good point. Karen, thanks.
Curtis, she does bring up a point. The police have been very, very vocal about the fact that he has been a very cooperative person in this investigation.
SLIWA: Sure. And they're probably going to continue to come back to him over and over again. Remember, the moment he becomes a suspect, he basically has to be told his rights and he may end up clamming up totally and they'll have no access whatsoever.
I'm not going to question their tactics. I'm not going to question their investigation. But I will tell you this: We will probably see Condit, if he's true to his colors of trying to stay ahead of spin -- now that he sees America and the family wants a lie detector test taken, he'll do what JonBenet Ramsey's father did when he moved his family to Atlanta and, if you remember, scheduled his own press conference, had his own private polygraph taken and tried to exonerate himself and his family.
And I have a feeling that's what we're going to see come down the pipe as this man attempts to stay head of the spin, as he's done from day one.
BATTISTA: Eden, comment from you as we go to break.
EDEN: OK. First of all, I'd like to say that I'm probably different from anybody else in this audience. I'm from L.A. I myself am a graduate of USC, so I'm very sympathetic towards the girl and her family.
The first point I want to make is, it's very hard to accept that why the police department today did not consider the congressman as a prime suspect. Actually, if he is not who else would be?
Second point is, I think the media coverage is fair, because it's not a battle of equal power. It's a battle between a common family and a powerful congressman, so the media coverage, definitely, they will give the government pressure to help the family seek full justice.
BATTISTA: We'll be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Matthew, let me ask you quickly, in light of competitive environment that the media is in today, how would you do things differently?
FELLING: Well, if I had to do things differently, if I had to be the news director for all the cable news networks -- you're right, it is simply a thirst for competitive ratings that drive the networks to have "Chandra Mystery" at the bottom of the screen and "Where's Chandra?"
Because if you have that at the bottom of the screen, naturally, people's eyes are going to be diverted towards that and that means that you have a viewer and that keeps your ratings up.
I just wish that we could all agree not to show these things unless facts are brought to bare. I think one of the audience had member's comments, and Curtis's rantings, are evidence of this, in that we can't have a suspect when a crime is not known to have occurred. If I lose my wallet at work, if I just dropped it in the kitchen or something, I can't claim that it was robbed and ask who is the suspect. We need more facts brought to bear, before we claim that someone could be responsible for that.
And there is an education bill on Capitol Hill. We're discussing HMOs. Slobodan last week in The Hague made a big ruckus and nobody knows any of this stuff because every 15 minutes we have to get the Chandra rundown. I just wish you would pull back a little bit.
BATTISTA: Well, we had that on every 15 minutes last week. We did have that, and I can guarantee you, though, as we were talking about it, the ratings for Slobodan Milosevic are just not going to be there, which does not say that this story is driven by ratings, but at the same time we are on a business environment as well as a journalistic one.
SLIWA: Not only that, but remember, Congressman Condit purposefully sent his liar for hire, his attorney, to put his spin out on all the national talking head shows this weekend and prior to that. He could have adopted the code of omerta and made no statements whatsoever, saying -- "I'm just cooperating with the police investigation. I'll have nothing to say."
But again, he was trying to steal the thunder and get ahead of the spin. He thought he was slick.
Now, do we have to go back to the day in which Matt Drudge, on his Web site, wrote the story about Monica Lewinsky, because "Newsweek" and the other major media outlets decided to give President Bill Clinton a pass a pass at that time.
I hope we're not going to go back to those days, where major media outlets stonewall information and news because it might be harmful to their contacts, the information they receive from the presidency, or for a story they don't consider important but American eventually did.
BATTISTA: Matthew?
FELLING: Well, I think -- Curtis, we need to just realize that where we are at and -- I mean, we can offer the children ice cream in addition to having a solid mean.
We don't have to just keep feeding the viewers the news equivalent of i ice cream over and over and over again. We need to be able to draw the line.
SLIWA: But if you're pragmatic and common sense prevails, you would you say, where there's smoke, there appears to be fire. And I would say if anyone is near, in terms of knowing what happened to Chandra Levy, it's Congressman Condit. And the fact that he lied to us -- he's got a lot to make up. The best way to make up is by taking that lie detector test, apologizing to the family and making amends, and I doubt we're going to see him do that.
FELLING: Curtis, I'm frighten that I actually agree with you on this. But I do have to disagree with you that Congressman Condit was staying ahead of the spin machine. I mean, think about it . Who in the audience now believes that Congressman Condit has played by the rules? Who thinks that he has manipulated the media until this past weekend to his own ends?
What the lawyers did out there was just damage control after a month -- after two months when Condit should have been doing something. I don't think that Condit is a savvy as you're making him out to be.
SLIWA: Yes, but again, his lawyers, as I call them, the liars for hire, were in on this with him and probably were well aware of what they were saying out there to sort of -- what I call the DID syndrome. Deny it, ignore it, delay saying anything about it and hopefully it will go away.
BATTISTA: I think it is naive to think that when a politician is in potential hot water that they don't sit there and discuss every single aspect of how to handle their response to something like that.
I mean, you'll remember that during a conversation that allegedly had with the flight attendant, he said, "I think I'm going to be in some trouble for a while." So, I mean, he was well aware of that and of course would seek -- I would think, would seek lots of advice, you know, from his staff and advisers and lawyers, whatever.
Yes, and if his advisers had been friends to him at all, they would have known that just putting him in front of camera with a smile on his face, expressing concern over Chandra. Instead we had TV plays just chasing him down stairwells.
BATTISTA: They never get the right advice about that, though. They never do. It happens every time.
FELLING: Well, I mean, what are we going to ask him to do? Wag his finger and say, "I did not have sexual relations with that intern"?
(LAUGHTER)
SLIWA: Well, I would disagree. If we remember, former Governor Romer of Colorado, former head of the DNC -- when the reporters caught him on camera coming out a townhouse here in Georgetown with his (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on the side, he went back to Colorado, had a press conference at the state capitol. His wife held the press conference and said, "It's business between me and my husband. I'll deal with him later, but it's none of your business. And if you remember, that story died right at that moment.
BATTISTA: That's right. Every time they are more up front about it, the story goes away.
FELLING: I didn't realize that watching "The Sopranos" would be required prereading for this show. I'm sorry. He left me out quite a bit.
BATTISTA: Well, I grew in that part of New Jersey, too, so you're outnumbered here.
Let me take A.D. on the phone in Illinois. A.D., go ahead. (AUDIO GAP)
A.D.: In deference to both gentlemen there, I just want to speak to both halves of your program. Not only does the dishonorable Congressman Condit participate in the writing and passage of our nation's laws, he's now given the country a lesson on how to skirt the laws and avoid answering police questions. He really is a liar and a coward who has put both his family and the Levy family through hell.
BATTISTA: All right, A.D. That will have to be the last word today because we are out of time. Matthew Felling, Curtis Sliwa, thank you both so much for joining us. We will see you tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. for more TALKBACK LIVE. Join us then.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
