Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
The Chandra Levy Case
Aired July 10, 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)
ABBE LOWELL, GARY CONDIT'S ATTORNEY: The congressman will provide whatever additional information or material he can to the police. This includes access to his apartment, telephone or cell phone records, a request that his entire staff make themselves available, and whatever else I can arrange with the police.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: Surrendering to the increased scrutiny over his relationship with Chandra Levy, Congressman Gary Condit tells police his life is an open book. But will his open door policy be enough to satisfy Chandra Levy's parents?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY LAWYER: The family does not believe that anything short of him taking a polygraph, anything short of him having some way to test his credibility would give them any, any confidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA'S MOTHER: We don't feel that the truth has been given to us, and we want the truth -- and we want our daughter home alive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: And will it be enough to get the media off his back?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOWELL: Go take your cameras and your pads and your pencils and try to see if there's somebody else out there who might have some information that can actually find this woman, as opposed to prying into the private lives of the Condits once and for all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: Has media coverage been over the top? Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
Police sources say they will take up Gary Condit on his offer to search his Washington apartment. But Chandra Levy's father suggests it might be too late to get any real, useful information now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. ROBERT LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S FATHER: That's what he will do now, but you know, 10 weeks ago would have been a good time, I think. Like I told the police that time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: Joining us to talk about the latest developments today, CNN legal analyst Roger Cossack, Cal Thomas, columnist with "The Los Angeles Times" syndicate and author of the book "The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas," and Julianne Malveaux, a columnist with the King Features syndicate. Good to see all you, especially good to see you here in Atlanta, Cal, nice to have you here. And Roger, you too.
ROGER COSSACK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you, Bobbie.
BATTISTA: We usually get you all by satellite, so it's our pleasure today to have you here. Roger, let me start with you. Bring us up to date on the legal status of this investigation. Is the congressman a suspect or not?
COSSACK: Well, I think in a sense of that universal word "suspect," I think he is a suspect. It's clear that he was less than forthcoming when first asked by the police about his -- the type of relationship he had with Chandra Levy, and I think that obviously caused problems in the investigation. And so, the question comes up, you know, why was he less than forthcoming, why didn't he tell everything he knew, why did he wait to the end.
Those are suspicious activities, and I think in that sense, in a very broad sense, I think he is a suspect. But I would hasten to add that I don't think that there is anything more than that than what I've added. We certainly don't know anything more than that. And to go any further than that I think would be wrong. I don't think there's any hard evidence -- at least that I've seen -- that would make him any more than a general suspect.
BATTISTA: And aren't we kind of dealing with a police technicality here, because if they publicly came out and said he was a suspect, then they would have to start dealing with reading him his rights and things like that, wouldn't they? So as long as they don't say that, they can interview him as many times as they want, or?
COSSACK: Well, I think that you are right in the sense that we now are starting to get into the area of police technicalities. As you know, they have yet to say this is a criminal investigation, and they say it is a missing persons investigation. Now, many people believe, myself included, that that really is a nice way of saying this is a criminal investigation. I would suspect that at this time, there would be a question of whether or not Mr. Condit should have his rights read to him. If he was interviewed by the police, the law is that when you are the focal point of the investigation, when you are the one that the investigation has centered on, at that time the police must advise you of your rights. Whether or not it's gone that far, obviously I don't know.
But the police would know. But he has an attorney, a very able attorney, and it's clear that he's the one that being looked at.
BATTISTA: So now that he has said that the police can search his apartment, that he will take a lie detector test -- although we didn't know they will actually do that -- but he says he will. And he would even agree to a DNA test -- which I'm not sure what's that for, but I'll ask you that in a minute -- is all of this a little bit too late? I mean, has this investigation do you think been compromised, it's been two months?
COSSACK: Well, again, one, we don't know where the police are in their investigation in this, but, you know, you can hypothesize at least that if he, in fact, he would have been more forthcoming regarding the last time he had seen her, perhaps more forthcoming about his relationship with her, and perhaps other people that he might have met through her at an earlier time, perhaps that would have been helpful to the police.
On the other hand, you know, we have to be very careful here, that may have been of no help to the police. Obviously, the police at the beginning of this investigation want to know as much as they possibly can, and should know as much as they possibly can. Whether or not this actually damaged their investigation we don't know, but it is clearly not a good idea, particularly when it turns out that what you are keeping from the police is your knowledge and your intimacy with this missing person.
BATTISTA: Julianne and Cal, let me get your opinions on -- on -- obviously, the congressman had to approach this in handling it both politically and legally. Do you think he's handled it that well, Cal?
CAL THOMAS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Politically, I think he handled it very poorly, Bobbie. Just the recent history of the previous president, nature abhors a vacuum and so does the media. In the area of 24 hours news cable channels, the worst thing you can do is to hold something back.
If you can bring Richard Nixon back from the other side, wherever he may be dwelling today, he would have said I think, "You know, I should have said as soon as Watergate broke, I screwed it up, I made a mistake, please forgive me." The American people are very forgiving.
BATTISTA: They never do that.
THOMAS: Well, that's because of the arrogance that goes with power. Our prisons are overflowing with criminals who thought they could commit the perfect crime. And in Washington, politicians surround themselves with young interns, especially the male politicians, who testify in many ways to their virility and goodness and power, and this goes to their head, it's an aphrodisiac. It's nothing new, these guys never ever learn.
BATTISTA: Well, they always -- Julianne, I have to say they do seem to advise -- also surround themselves with advisers who tell them to lie, tell them to deny everything, and they get caught every time.
JULIANNE MALVEAUX, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: You know, Sally Quinn did a great piece in the "Washington Post" this Sunday, where she talked about all the things that Mr. Condit did wrong. Upfront, he should have been candid. It was ugly, but hey, if he had the affair, he should have said so. He has impeded the investigation, and I don't blame Chandra Levy's family for being absolutely furious with him as they have been.
The other thing he did that was wrong, he brought legal counsel in before it was clear there was something to hide, and I believe this one very statement, "well, she never slept at his house, but if she did, she slept on the couch." It was like, duh.
This raised so many questions that it was clear to anyone who spent five minutes in Washington, as my good friend Cal has waxed so eloquently about, knew that there was a little more, that something was going on.
He has damaged himself I think irretrievably politically, but I think more importantly, in terms of this young woman, what has happened is that the concern has gone from her whereabouts -- and there are three easy options, it is suicide, it is willing disappearance or foul play -- and one can't believe with these loving parents that this young woman has decided willingly just to disappear, so it appears to be foul play.
There's no body, and so there are all these questions -- sounds ghoulish and I really even hate to go there, but I think we do have to be concerned not only about this young woman, Bobbie, but there are about 140 missing persons in Washington, and it does raise questions about police procedures and how much -- how many resources are placed on looking for missing people and just how we deal with this, especially when dealing with young people.
BATTISTA: Roger, how would you have advised -- if Congressman Condit -- I know I hate to put you in that position, but had he been your client, how would you have advised him to handle this, taking into consideration the political costs as well?
COSSACK: Well, you know, 20/20 hindsight, of course, is always the best. I hope that I would be smart enough -- and I hope these words don't come back to haunt me -- but nevertheless, I hope that I would have been smart enough to say, look, the lesson apparently is that it doesn't go away and the best -- particularly in Washington, D.C., as Cal has alluded to -- that horrible as this may be for you, for your family, for everything else, there is only one way to go here, and that's to fess up immediately, go to the police, you know, make your peace with your family, whoever else you wish to make your peace with and get the beginning, get the middle and get it over with right now, and take your hits.
It just doesn't get away. In Washington, they just don't forget about it. And you know, the business of Washington is politics. There are a couple of newspapers and many reporters and many 24-seven news stations that follow this, and it does not get away. And you know, when you are a congressman, you perhaps have a special kind of responsibility.
BATTISTA: All right. I need to correct something. I heard earlier in the day I thought that the congressman had agreed to take a lie detector test, or said that he would. Now we are being told that he has not said that.
COSSACK: Well, it is my understanding that they -- what they had said was that they were willing to discuss the possibility of taking a lie detector test, and that was somewhat different when originally this idea was brought up, where they immediately said they wouldn't take a lie detector test.
BATTISTA: OK.
COSSACK: So I think the door is opened up now to negotiation, and we talked about this earlier, I don't know what a lie detector test -- if I was advising him, I would advise him not to take a lie detector test, basically because I personally don't have that much reliance on that, and that's the kind of thing that if he flunks, then public opinion turns dramatically against him.
BATTISTA: You know, you don't know why he would flunk.
MALVEAUX: Roger, how much worse can public opinion get?
COSSACK: You know, Julianne you are right, in the sense that, how much worse can public opinion get. And I'm not here to certainly defend him, but what I am saying is that, at least people -- responsible people are trying to say, look, he's a suspect, but that doesn't mean that he committed a horrible act, if he somehow flunked this polygraph test I think it would really galvanize public opinion against him. And I think that it would make it even more difficult. You are right, I don't know how much more difficult it can get than it is right now.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are not always admissible in court anyway, are they, Roger?
COSSACK: Most of the time, they are not admissible. What most of the time, they are used for is investigative purposes, often times people take polygraph tests -- are told by the polygraph operator they didn't pass and they then confess.
BATTISTA: Why would he take that DNA test?
COSSACK: That's a good question. I suppose what that is, is saying that we will give you a sample of our DNA, if in fact, in the future, something or someone is found where that piece of evidence becomes important, you will now have, it is not like we are trying to hide it from you.
And I think that is what Julianne was saying, how much worse can public opinion get, and I think this is just an opportunity to try to say, look, I may have made some mistakes in the past, but I'm really trying to get on board now.
MALVEAUX: That's exactly it, Roger. It's been 10 weeks. These people, the Levys, have been sitting here twisting in the wind, trying to find out what happened to their daughter.
COSSACK: I agree.
MALVEAUX: If he had been more candid more earlier on, he might not have had to make the public admission, he might have been able to say to the police, look, yes, there was an affair, like to keep that quiet, but I can verify her movements on this day and at this time. Her mother had to go through the cell phone records to find out she had that relationship with the congressman. Imagine how she must feel.
This is just for me about him making some amends, whether lie detectors are admissible or not, whether DNA matters or not. If he has a shred clean of a chance of cleaning up his act, he's got to basically just throw himself at the mercy of the police, saying, look, do with me what you will, I want to help find this woman.
COSSACK: And I think that's pretty much what he's doing.
THOMAS: I think I'd throw myself to my wife, first.
BATTISTA: I've got to take a break. I got a bunch of e-mails, I got questions from the audience. And don't forget to take the TALKBACK LIVE on-line viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback, AOL keyword, CNN.
Today's question: Has media coverage of Congressman Condit been fair? While there, check 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, what's wrong with you? Follow the link on our Web site, then watch your comments go on the air.
We will be right back in just a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Couple of e-mails, Mel in New York says: "With all due respect to the Levys, since i can't begin to understand the torment they are going through, it is obvious at this point that there's nothing Mr. Condit can do to satisfy them. He can sense to one thing, and they want something else.
Anna in Virginia says: "D.C. police should have checked that apartment long ago. The congressman has had time to get rid of any evidence of what may have existed."
Of course, we don't know if that's the case at all.
Question from Lonnie in the audience; go ahead.
LONNIE: I have a question for the lawyer. I heard earlier today about him, if he had come out into the open about this, right away when she disappeared, that maybe this affair would have become public too quick, and then she would have shown up and he would have given away. When would be the time for these politicians to start giving out this information, to satisfy the public, and also satisfy the police?
COSSACK: You know, I wish I could tell you there was a specific moment when the light bulb goes on and you say this is the time to fess up and this is the time to not fess up. But I think when you are dealing with a missing person, and I think horribly as it may be, that he has his own problems as Cal pointed out with his family, I don't think there's any option. I think you have to throw everything aside and say, this is what I know immediately.
This is what I think, this is the last time I've seen her, these are the people I met through her, this is anything you want to know. Because we are dealing with a horror of some person, in this case young Chandra Levy, has been abducted or something terrible has happened to her.
BATTISTA: I'm sorry. Let me make a quick announcement that the D.C. police, the chief of police will hold another news conference this afternoon at 4:30 Eastern time. CNN will of course bring that to you live.
Cal, you wanted to get into the issue, as we go into media coverage here, about the language that is used.
THOMAS: Yes. This affair has been mischaracterized in my view as a relationship. The lady asked over there, when should the light bulb have gone on. The light bulb should have gone on about the time this guy was considering taking a 24-year-old intern to his apartment. Hello! Anybody in there? Anybody home?
A little late after the fact. But they call this a relationship; they call it other things. But the relationship is what he had, a romantic relationship was what he had when he was courting his wife. This I hate to sound like a blue nose fundamentalist, was adultery, everybody remember that?
We don't use words like that anymore, because in our age of victimization, all kinds of bad behavior, if indeed there is any anymore, can be explained away.
BATTISTA: I'm not sure anybody knows what to call that anymore.
MALVEAUX: Cal, you do sound like a blue nose fundamentalist. These were adults, there are issues obviously with a 24-year-old and a 53-year-old from my perspective. THOMAS: What issues would those be, Julianne?
MALVEAUX: What do they have in common, so you could guess there's a relationship. But you know, don't judge I think the young woman, she was the one who perhaps characterized this to her aunt as a romantic relationship, she apparently from some of the published reports, preferred older men, it is wrong, adultery is wrong, you won't get me into an argument about that.
But I think you are parsing here, when you start talking about, is it a relationship or what else was it? Whatever it was, it would not have come to light, had this young woman not gone missing, and that I think should be the primary concern, not this relationship.
THOMAS: I don't think you can say that. The Monica Lewinsky- Bill Clinton "relationship" came to light, and she wasn't missing. As a matter of fact, she's now doing hand bags.
MALVEAUX: And your point is?
THOMAS: Well, I guess doing handbags is better than doing Clinton.
(LAUGHTER)
MALVEAUX: Cal Thomas, you know...
BATTISTA: I'm going to start calling these...
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: These little Cal-isms. You drop those right when I have to go to break every time.
THOMAS: Well, that's why we have the book.
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: Good timing. That's right. I do have to go to break, because Roger has to catch a plane, and we appreciate you coming.
COSSACK: I think I'm getting out of here right at the right time.
BATTISTA: I think so. Come on, get out of here.
COSSACK: All right.
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: We will be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has this incident, this most previous incident, at all changed how you view politicians?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, kinds of things that they are probably all are a lot like that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's hard to stay straight when you have that much power, and it just seems to confirm that to me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't trust any of them anyways.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, there's some good ones, some bad ones, and most of them are mediocre.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It just goes to show that a politician cannot be trusted.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BATTISTA: Well, that's encouraging, isn't it? We are back, and joining us now is Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist and a senior scholar at the school of policy planning and development at the University of Southern California. Sherry, good to see you.
SHERRY BEBITCH JEFFE, POLITICAL SCIENTIST: Hi, Bobbie.
BATTISTA: Let me ask you what you think the role of the media is this the story, covering the congressman?
JEFFE: You mean, good, bad or indifferent?
BATTISTA: I guess.
JEFFE: Well...
BATTISTA: I mean, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
JEFFE: That's exactly right, Bobbie. And I am one of those who thinks that there are other stories around that people ought to be taking a look at, but I also understand that it is very slow summer, it is a very slow summer news-wise, certainly politically. This is the equivalent of the summer blockbuster at the movies, and the 24- seven hole that Roger mentioned figures very predominantly in all of this.
What I find a little bit dicey is that, very early on, there seemed to be a willingness in some quarters to simply decide that the congressman was guilty of anything -- you know, forget adultery, murder on down, and I think we ought to go a little slower in all of this. It's interesting -- you know how I first heard about this story, and I'm out here in California and I like to think that I pick up on things politically? I got an e-mail from a friend of mine in the media in Washington months ago saying, "well, is Gary Condit toast?" And my response was, "say what?"
And then I began focusing on it. You guys back East in the media corridor appear to have picked up more quickly than the media out here. BATTISTA: Is he toast?
(CROSSTALK)
BATTISTA: No, we'll get to that in a minute.
MALVEAUX: I think what happened out here is that you have this vacuum, and you have statements that raise questions. A lot of people will say that the media went over the top, but I think a lot of -- some of the speculations have been way off the reservation.
But at the same time, what you had is a vacuum and unanswered questions, and I think had the media not been involved here, we might still have this dithering around. The D.C. police have been notoriously -- inefficient might be the word -- in a number of investigations, but I think they were prodded by the media. I think that's a good thing.
JEFFE: Well, I think that's a good point, and it goes back to the debate over timing. And what it goes back to, and I've been thinking about this a lot and I'm sort of like you guys to react to it, is a dynamic that we saw early on in the Clinton-Lewinsky matter, and it is the natural tension between the demands of politics and the demands of legal strategy.
Legal strategy encourages you to say very little, to say something only when needed, only when asked, and say it through your attorney. The realities of politics demand, as Lanny Davis said it, and I think said it best of all, "demand that you tell it all, you tell it early, and you tell it yourself."
He did not, Condit did not choose to get out there early, to tell anything, let alone everything, or to tell it himself, and that allowed the media, that gave the media the credibility to continue to hound him, to run after him. It made it necessary for him to be running from the media.
BATTISTA: Let me bounce that off Cal.
JEFFE: He really made a basic political decision that was a bad one early on, but one that might have been what was appropriate in terms of legal strategy.
THOMAS: What feeds this story, of course, Bobbie, is the fact that the young woman is missing. If it had been just a, quote, "another Washington affair," it could have passed from the front pages in a moment, but you have the mystery of the missing young woman and the grieving understandably parents, and that is what is helping to fuel this story even beyond the sex and even beyond the congressional power.
BATTISTA: I think what bothers me sometimes too as a member of the media that when you start involving all these high-priced lawyers, all these PR people, spokespeople, police leaks, then it's who's using him?
THOMAS: Death by 1,000 cuts, and we are up to about 800 now for the congressman.
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFE: Well, that's the case politically always anyway.
BATTISTA: I am sorry, guys, I have to interrupt for just a minute and go to Bob Franken in our Washington bureau -- Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bobbie, a top police source tells CNN that Washington, D.C. police are asking Gary Condit to take a lie detector test. They are seeking a lie detector test. They are, in fact, according to this top police official, taking advantage of the comments that were made last night by Condit's lawyer Abbe Lowell in which he said that if the police wanted to take the lie detector test, he would discuss it with him.
I would like you to hear exactly what Abbe Lowell said last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOWELL: With respect to lie detectors, I know there's a great public appeal to lie detectors, but I know from my own practice that they leave a lot to be desired. If the police call me and tell me that at some point they think that no matter how suspect it might be can be helpful, I will discuss it with them. But I will discuss it with them, and not with you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FRANKEN: You of course being the media, but the top police officials says that police say, OK, if he's made that offer, we want to have that discussion, and we would like to give him the polygraph. And you might remember that the Levy family has been demanding that Gary Condit take a lie detector test ever since last Friday night when, according to police sources, Condit acknowledged to the investigators that he had had a romantic relationship with Chandra Levy, the 24-year-old former Washington intern, something that he denied publicly for so many weeks.
Now police are saying that they do, in fact, want to seek that lie detector test of Congressman Gary Condit. It is the same reaction that they had to the offer to allow a search of the apartment of Gary Condit. The police had not, in fact, initiated any efforts to search the apartment, even though they had been there several weeks prior, but now because Abbe Lowell...
BATTISTA: Quickly, Bob.
FRANKEN: ... had said, sure, if you want to search the apartment, feel free. They have said that they are going to take them up on that offer. The latest information...
BATTISTA: Bob, I am going to have to interrupt you just briefly here. There is a news conference going on with Blue Dog Democrats, of which Congressman Condit was one, those are moderate Democrats -- conservative Democrats, rather. They are usually tied with moderate Republicans. Let's listen to what they have to say.
REP. MAX SANDLIN (D), TEXAS: ... let me say this. We are here today focusing on an important issue before the country: energy, something that we have worked long and hard on, something that we're proposing for legislation to be prepared to back up our policy that's important to the American public. And we have no comments to say on these other issues, I don't see that they are relevant, and as a news organization, I think you would be interested in covering our policy, not our particular thoughts or comments on...
QUESTION: You do have responsibility in the area, is this a matter you think...
SANDLIN: We are here to talk about energy, and we appreciate your questions. Are there any other questions about energy?
QUESTION: Several of you have had personal conversations with Mr. Condit over the last several weeks. Are any of you feeling less about him based on recent developments?
SANDLIN: He's a valuable member of this coalition. I don't think we are here to talk about that today.
REP. ALLEN BOYD (D), FLORIDA: Can I say, as the communication chairperson, we didn't -- I want to stop this line of questioning now. We didn't -- these members didn't come here to talk about that, they came to talk about the energy policy. If there's other questions about energy then we will be glad to take them?
QUESTION: Mr. Condit is not making himself available to our questions, he's a vital member of this group, this is a public room, and we are asking public questions. Obviously, people have this story on their radar screens, they are very interested in it. A member of Congress is under a serious cloud right now, and we just want to know what you, as respected members of the same body, have to say about him or to him.
BOYD: All -- we answered that and I just -- we don't have anything to add. All of us have known Gary Condit for all of our days in Congress, and I don't know of anybody that's ever discussed it with him, so we are here to talk about energy. Just, don't know of anything else to tell you.
QUESTION: Has he told you the truth about...
BOYD: Never talked -- never talked to him. Any other questions on energy? Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Does the Blue Dog Coalition support the...
BATTISTA: All right. Bob Franken, are you still there, Blue Dog Democrat news conference going on there, and nobody wanted to talk about energy policy, they wanted to ask questions of course about Congressman Condit, as he's a member of that group.
FRANKEN: None of the members wanted to talk about Congressman Condit. I should point out, that the Blue Dogs, and I'll spare you the history of the name. The Blue Dogs are a coalition of conservative Democrats in Congress, they are particularly conservative, when it comes to matters economic. They were holding a news conference. As you could see, determined to talk about energy.
While Congressman Boyd said, he had not talked to Congressman Condit about the Chandra Levy matter. Several other members have had conversations. They say they have been assured by Condit there was no romantic relationship. Now of course Condit has to come back and explain to them, why he apparently wasn't telling the truth. That is something that will face Condit when he returns.
By the way, he just left his apartment a short while ago, was able to avoid the cameras that were outside, waiting for the search of the apartment that police say could very easily happen today, a search that was brought on when Condit's attorney Abbe Lowell, said, if the police want to search the apartment it's OK with them. So the police said OK, we'll take him up on this.
But the news of the hour is that police also are saying they want to take up Abbe Lowell's offer and Condit's offer that if in fact they want to discuss a lie detector test, they want to discuss taking a lie detector test, that they should do so.
Well, the police are saying, OK, we are going to discuss that. They are seeking a polygraph test of Congressman Condit, that was something that was originally called for by the family of Susan Levy, the parents of Chandra Levy -- Bobbie.
BATTISTA: Bob Franken, thanks very much. Appreciate you taking a break on all of that. We have to take a quick break and we will continue with Cal Thomas, Julianne Malveaux and Sherry Bebitch Jeffe.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Welcome back.
Let me get the audience back in our discussion of media coverage of the Congressman Condit situation. Clint is on the phone from Georgia.
Go ahead.
CALLER: Hey, it seems to me the national media has sort of become obsessed with this story, because it has all the right things: sex, politics, power. And because of its ratings. This is why we are seeing it on every network all the time. Because of the ratings. The same thing happened with O.J. and Monica Lewinsky.
BATTISTA: You know, I wish we were getting the ratings, I'm not sure.
(CROSSTALK) BATTISTA: We are -- you are right, in the sense that when there is a breaking news development in the story, there is a little bit of a spike in the ratings.
But overall I don't think this has been a total ratings grabber. And that's not the main reason...
THOMAS: Well, it doesn't involve the president who has, after all, the highest office in the land, but other people have other things in their lives. Plus, this resembles something of a summer re- run. The ratings are down for entertainment shows, because we have seen them all before and they said, oh, sex in Washington, let's go back for another swim.
MALVEAUX: Cal, except for one thing. I don't know what it going on with the ratings, but I do know this: thousands of young people come to Washington every year to work as interns. Parents all over the country are concerned. The Monica Lewinsky case did raise some concerns. Now this has, as well as rumors it's "dangerous" in Washington, et cetera.
So I think parents who are parents of young people who have aspirations to come to Washington are riveted to this story because they just want to make sure when their son or daughter comes, then everything will be OK.
THOMAS: It used to be unsafe streets, people were worried about the high crime in Washington. Now they fear, oh my Lord, you are going to work on Capitol Hill. That's terrible.
Let me say a quick word about members of Congress, though, because there are a lot of men and woman with great integrity there, who never make the news. One of the previous bumps, the interviews done by one of the producers here of the audience, there was a lot of cynicism in that they are all alike, what do you expect? There are some really decent men and woman in Washington. And it's a credit to them that their names don't get in the paper in this manner.
So let's not paint them all with a broad brush. And let's remember, we the people elect them, so if you don't like what you see, maybe it's not wholly their fault but maybe it's your for putting them in there.
(APPLAUSE)
MALVEAUX: Senator Joe Lieberman wrote a great book that came out in 2000 called, "In Praise of Public Life." And it's really an anecdote to the comments we did hear on the bump.
He talked about some of the challenges of actually trying to serve. I agree with Cal -- I think you get a case like this, and it's very easy to say, gee, all politicians are liars. No, they are not all liars. And the liars are the ones we ought to do something about.
JEFFE: Bobbie, can I interject something here, please? As an academic that is involved in internship programs. Let's not paint the internship experience with such a broad, negative brush either. This is not a pattern. It will never be a pattern.
One of the ways we get people thinking more positively or should get people thinking more positively about public service, is to bring them in and let them understand, what goes on in our state capitals and our nation's capital, and in our city halls.
And I would hate to think that there has been such a chilling effect, and I don't think there has been such a chilling effect on that experience by the Lewinsky scandal, by this tragedy.
MALVEAUX: Well, Sherry, you have to admit that post-Monica the word "intern" did become something of a joke.
JEFFE: Thanks to the media, Julianne, thanks to the media.
MALVEAUX: Not only the media, not only the media. I went to a comedy club and listened to 30 minutes of bad jokes. I mean, you know, I was an intern, 20-some years ago in the Carter White House. And when I said that at a party people were, oh, you were an intern, innuendo, innuendo. I think that the word has been one that has been bandied about. I commend you for the work you do, but let's be clear, it's not just the media that has raised questions about the experience.
JEFFE: Well, then let's call it experiential education and get on with it, shall we?
(APPLAUSE)
MALVEAUX: You are parsing words just like Cal Thomas.
BATTISTA: We have to move on here, exactly.
JEFFE: It depends on what your definition of is, is.
BATTISTA: All right, we I have to move on here and we are going to change topics. This story is not going away but we are going to leave it for the next 20 minutes. We do have to take another break and a reminder that the D.C. Police chief will hold a news conference at 4:30 Eastern time. CNN will bring that to you live when it happens.
In a moment an emerging science called "stem cell research." Among other breakthroughs it could hold the cure for diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. But there are ethical questions haunting this science. We will have more on that in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Turning now to science and ethics, the Bush Administration is preparing take a stand on a controversial new science called stem cell research. Many say the research could help cure several debilitating illnesses -- among them diabetes, Alzheimer and Parkinson's diseases.
But there are very difficult ethical questions that surrounding this science. It would seem that the most promising stem cells come from human embryos. And when they are extracted the embryos are destroyed. The White House could make its decision on this at any time and Julianne and Sherry and Cal talk about another no-win situation. This is a lose-lose here for the president, don't you think? He made promises to the Christian right about getting rid of this research but as turns out the majority of Americans and even Catholics are in favor of it.
THOMAS: Bobbie, speaking as a former embryo and with some experience in this, I am concerned about the creation of new sub categories of humanity. If you look at the history of our country and our dealing with our African-American population, at one time, African-Americans were considered by Supreme Court edict, less than human are were available to be owned by white people who were supposedly superior.
If you look at the dead Jews of Nazi Germany, Joseph Mengal, the doctor of the Third Reich, experimented on only on living, but dead Jews as well. Horrible experience that revolts all of us today. My concern is that in these new categories of subhumanity, the elderly, the retarded, I have a brother who has Down's syndrome. Sure, I would love to have a cure for him, but at what cost?
Science should be the servant of men and women, not the reverse and I am afraid we are losing control of our moral and ethical foundation, and allowing science to do whatever they can do even in the name of good.
BATTISTA: You are worried this kind of science will slip down a slope to extremism.
THOMAS: It's a brave new world. Aldous Huxley already novelized about this. It is "Cocoon" the movie, so whatever can be done ought to be done.
MALVEAUX: I really object to you using African-American people in your argument. That may sway one or two people but the fact is we are talking about science here. No one is supposing that we are talking about retarded people, elderly people. We are talking about nonviable fetuses that are of no use at any time now. It is a non- viable fetus, people are not getting abortions so they can provide the fetuses for research.
These are fetuses that are already there. So, this is just specious argument. The question is what is the use of medicine? It's there to serve humanity. Hundreds of thousands of people could be positively affected by this research. Parkinson, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and I think you are being very narrow in looking at this. Thirty-eight so-called pro-life senators, including Orrin Hatch have urged the president to lift any ban on this kind of research because it is the ultimate pro-life statement to say that you want people to have a better quality of life, and you want to cure some of these fatal diseases.
So don't start your argument by raising African-American people up. We are not in that except for as we are part of all humanity. THOMAS: The problem is we have to begin with a definition of life. Thomas Jefferson chose that great (UNINTELLIGIBLE) phrase: "All of us are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights."
So if we begin to disenfranchise one category of life, which is what I meant when I brought out African-American, Jewish people, the handicapped, the retarded -- on what standard do we hold the line when science, 20-30 years from now comes up with another possibility of doing good by doing evil to other people?
BATTISTA: The core of this argument goes back to how you feel about when life begins.
THOMAS: Yes, of course.
BATTISTA: Not even the great churches agree on that, though.
THOMAS: Well, my standard isn't the churches, but in who's image are we made?
Religion has reformed the law. The Ten Commandments hang on the wall of the Supreme Court, thought they don't practice them, of course and even though Congress opens with prayer it hasn't done them a whole lot of good. But the foundation of law doesn't come from Lawrence Tribe at Harvard University, it comes from the principles and the law in the Old Testament and the beatitudes of the new.
That is the foundation of law. Now if we are going to change that fine, let's have a vote in it and a debate. But let's not pretend it doesn't matter. It does matter, and all slopes are slippery at some point.
BATTISTA: Sherry let's get you in on this.
JEFFE: Well, I'm just watching all of this and marveling at what an incredible case study this of what happens when scientific debate gets caught up in the vortex of politics. This is not a new issue but it's never been so loud, and it's never been so hot, and it's never been so fiercely debated in terms of politics and ideology and religion, or in the media, as it has been in the last few weeks.
And it has everything to do with the equation of politics.
MALVEAUX: You are absolutely right because Mr. Bush has attempted to pander to his far right constituents ignoring many, many others and attempting to pander to that group he now find himself in a quandary. Because some people from that very group look at this research and say this research can really make a difference,.
And I think that when we understand that we are not talking about encouraging abortion, what we are talking about is fetuses that are there anyway that can be used for good. What is the problem with this?
When you have someone who decides to make the issue of choice political, and then you have members of Congress who want to extend this, you are going to end up with this very heated debate. I think meanwhile President Clinton had, two years ago or three, appointed a commission of biomedical ethicists to begin to deal with this and as we look at their recommendations I don't see that there is anything wrong with this research and I hope that President Bush comes down on the right side.
JEFFE: Public opinion spurts it.
BATTISTA: Jeff on the phone quickly from Texas. Jeff, go ahead.
JEFF: Basically, I get a little worried when the state is involved in it. If it's private donors or just everybody else, it's OK, but he's right when he says in Nazi Germany, the state decided that Jews weren't human beings, so therefore you experiment on them. In China today they have prisoners who are going to be killed so they are going to harvest their organs, and in the United States, we have not had a great record on what we have considered what human beings were. And if we could (UNINTELLIGIBLE) this is just not the only (UNINTELLIGIBLE) we can get it from. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) get if from (UNINTELLIGIBLE) get it from (UNINTELLIGIBLE). (UNINTELLIGIBLE) life (UNINTELLIGIBLE) life.
BATTISTA: All right, Jeff, thank you. And Frank in the audience.
FRANK: As I said previously, they're going to be destroyed anyway, a lot of these embryos. If the parents do not want to have those embryos implanted, they're going to destroy them. And if they're going to be destroyed, why not use them to help people who definitely need help? I think we need to consider that.
THOMAS: Well, that's the utilitarian view, sir, and that is a view that is held by a lot of people. But let me ask you this: Let us say that in 15 or 20 years, God forbid, you develop some kind of disease that science has determined that is incurable. And we are already at that point at the point of having a governmental medical commission that has determined who has the right to medical treatment because of the high cost of treating illnesses like yours and who does not. And some committee decides that your life has ceased to have value. What would you think of that?
MALVEAUX: I think that's a very different case, Cal, and I think...
THOMAS: Oh, no, it is the central case.
MALVEAUX: ... you know it's a very different case, and I think it's unreasonable for you to personalize such an example for this gentleman.
THOMAS: Well, it is personal when you're dying, Julianne, if you haven't noticed. You can't get more personal than that.
MALVEAUX: But you currently can't say some mythical commission that... THOMAS: No, Mrs. Clinton wanted to do that in 1993 with universal health care.
(CROSSTALK)
MALVEAUX: ... hyperbole, and I think the gentleman's point is very well-taken.
THOMAS: Well, let me ask you this: You said something earlier, Julianne, that it was pandering by President Bush to the religious right or the pro-life community. Why is it pandering when a Republican president stands on principle and principle when a Democrat president panders to his group? What's the difference?
MALVEAUX: It's not clear to me that he's standing on principle, and I think you know that. I think that there were a whole set of issues that Mr. Bush suppressed discussion of during his campaign. I think if you look at what Republicans are thinking -- you see this with Republican moderates -- they would prefer that he take a more moderate position. However, he sees that far right as his hard base, and he does continue to pander to them.
BATTISTA: I've got to take a quick break here.
MALVEAUX: Now, you're enough of a wordsmith to know what that means, Cal.
BATTISTA: I've got to take a break. As we do, a couple of e- mails. Tom in New Mexico says: "I do not understand all the intricacies of stem-cell research, but to destroy a fetus to obtain these cells is the same as abortion in my mind. Granted these cells could help others who suffer, but to destroy a gift from God is wrong."
And Sue in Michigan says: "Why even for one second think about outlawing something that will save millions of lives and further the human race? If God gave us the knowledge, then he must have intended for us to use it. Think of the possibilities for a minute: a world without cancer or mental illness."
We'll be back in a moment.
Three years ago, developmental biologist James Thompson isolated stem cells from human embryos for the first time. When doing stem cell research, he worked in a secret privately funded lab. For $5,000, the lab provides stem cells to legitimate research scientists, but they must be working in a lab that receives no federal money.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: We only have about minute or so left. Cal, let me ask you what you think the president will eventually do.
THOMAS: Well, I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know. I do believe that he's a man of principle, and I talked with him during the campaign about the whole life spectrum and a lot of other issues, and I believe that he believes in his heart -- he always talks about his heart -- that he should do the right thing when it comes to life issues. And I think he will come up with a way to fund the adult stem cell research from living human beings who have been born and try to discourage the use of federal funds for the embryonic stem cells.
BATTISTA: Sherry, quickly, I've got about 10, 15 seconds.
JEFFE: Well, good legislation is a compromise that's mutually repugnant to all sides, and I tend to agree with Cal on this one.
BATTISTA: Let me take a quick look at the poll before we go. The question: Has the media coverage on Congressman Condit been fair? 60 percent say yes, 40 percent say unfair.
Thank you all so much for joining us today. Cal, very nice to see you, great to have you here in Atlanta.
THOMAS: Thank you, Bobbie.
BATTISTA: Again, the book, "The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas."
THOMAS: Thank you.
BATTISTA: Also Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, thank you for joining us. Julianne, always great to see you.
MALVEAUX: Thank you.
BATTISTA: We will see you again tomorrow 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
