Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Finding Chandra Levy: The Investigation

Aired July 16, 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)

REP. BOB BARR (R), GEORGIA: He misled and misled badly, the lawful conduct of a police investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: As the search for missing Washington intern Chandra Levy intensifies, so does the heat on Congressman Gary Condit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: Infidelity is always unacceptable. If these allegations are true, obviously, he should resign. And if he doesn't, the people of his district probably will not re-elect him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R), CONNECTICUT: If infidelity is the test, there'd be a number of members of Congress that should resign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S MOTHER: I'm not worrying about anybody's political career or anything like that. My focus is to bring my daughter home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: When it comes to his political career, does Congressman Condit have anything to worry about?

Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

Well, is adultery reason enough to call for Congressman Condit's resignation? We'll explore just how moral and honest we expect our politicians to be and whether Congressman Condit is pushing the envelope. But first, let's update the search for Washington intern Chandra Levy. It has moved out of the landfills and into the area around Klingle Mansion around Washington's Rock Creek Park. CNN's Bob Franken will fill us in on that. We are joined also by former Chicago police detective Michael Anthony, now a private investigator and president of Pinnacle Research Incorporated.

And Mike Rustigan is with us: He is a professor of criminology at San Francisco State University. Good to see all of you.

Bob, let me start with you first. Because there was a development this afternoon. They found something in that park. What was it? Is it significant?

BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they found twice now in Rock Creek Park a bone in one case, and a few bones in another case, but everyone is quick to point out, that it's a forest and there are a lot of animals around, and that, in all probability they will over and over again find bones, which will turn out to be animal bones. But they're checking everything out.

They have really intensified this search, as you know, and the police cadets along with police are going arm in arm, literally scouring every inch of this 2800 park that is frequented by joggers and the like -- it's very popular park, very heavily wooded area in the Washington area.

BATTISTA: And why this park, Bob? Why are they focusing the search, not only in that park, but also the Klingle Mansion that's located in the park?

FRANKEN: The Klingle Mansion showed up on Chandra Levy's computer. The last time she used it, she spent quite a few hours on the computer. We now know that was May 1st. In her apartment checking out travel sites, etc.

This was a mansion that was built in 1822, and it's a favorite gathering place, starting place for people to jog, and also, for people who want to go around and to be alone. In any case, it was a spot that she had specified as she was Web surfing on May 1st. So that's why they started there, and of course, it's in Rock Creek Park.

The other reason for Rock Creek Park, it's right by where Chandra Levy's apartment was, and it is the favorite place for joggers and that type of thing. She was known to be an exercise fanatic. So that combination of things has caused them to go back and search it much more thoroughly -- that area much more thoroughly, than they had the last time they did several weeks ago.

BATTISTA: And where else are they looking at this point?

FRANKEN: Other areas in the city, of course. The last several days, we saw police going through abandon buildings in the large section of the city, looking for something. They were not able to find anything. There is also an area in South East Washington, that they are surveying -- they really are dividing the city into sectors and they are using grids and they are going to try and search and search and search, in the hope -- and we said this several times -- that they don't find a body.

They're also of course operating on the premise that she might be hiding in a disguise. You recall that they put out pictures, which showed her in various forms in disguise. They did that last week.

BATTISTA: All right, Michael, there are several theories as to what may have happened here. That she developed amnesia and that she deliberately walked away from her apartment for whatever reason. That she committed suicide. That she was killed. Which do you think is the most plausible at this point in time, knowing what you know?

MICHAEL ANTHONY, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: Well, based on what I know at this time, it's quite likely that some of the issues that have been raised are probably unfounded. The likelihood of suicide is unlikely, because a body would likely have turned up by now. The likelihood that she may have wandered away and have amnesia or some other issue of that nature is just as unlikely, because with the close media attention and scrutiny, her face is well-known and it is likely that she would have been turned in by this time.

The reality that she has been missing almost 12 week at this point would certainly likely indicate the worse.

BATTISTA: OK, Michael, I will call you Michael and Mike Rustigan, you will be Mike.

Mike, let me get your feelings on that.

MIKE RUSTIGAN, CRIMINOLOGIST: Well, Congressman Condit certainly has been acting suspiciously. But he's by no means a suspect. And I applaud the Washington, D.C. police department for expanding the search for looking beyond Gary Condit.

Obviously, there is a potential for a serial killer here. Washington, D.C. notoriously has had a high homicide statistic, in many years being the murder capital of the nation. So it is always the possibility that it could have been a stranger abduction, that somebody had stalked Chandra, or she had over the Internet dealt with someone and someone tailed her and there was a meeting and she was abducted.

So it's good that this is not one dimensional, that the D.C. police are doing a good job so far.

BATTISTA: Mike, how do you start a missing persons' investigation -- especially when it appears you've lost time, which inevitably you will before a missing persons' case becomes the search for something criminal?

ANTHONY: Especially in adult missing persons' cases, where an adult leaves and there may be some amount of time that passes before authorities are willing to seriously address the case, that something than someone who is just out of touch. But things that would normally be done in this type of investigation are first of all, to do a background inquiry on the person who is missing, to learn about their habits, how they lived their life, what kinds of things that they do.

From an investigative standpoint beyond that, you would certainly want to look at telephone records, credit card records, airline travel records, and a variety of other information, including Internet access and trafficking on the Internet, that might give you some details as to what the person was doing prior to their disappearance, who they were communicating with, and what they may have been discussing.

BATTISTA: Mike Rustigan, speaking of communicating, we know that she was on the Internet for over three hours, apparently, right before she disappeared. What might that tell you?

RUSTIGAN: Well, it might tell us that she was looking for some place to go. There's some indication that -- that she was looking at a map, so perhaps, she had some kind of a plan to go to a specific area in the D.C. jurisdiction. So that's very important that this is pursued. Because that occurred just before her disappearance.

BATTISTA: On Friday, Condit's lawyer Abbe Lowell revealed that his client had passed a private polygraph test with flying colors, but D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey said that he was misled into believing that the police were involved in administering this test, and they were not. And Chief Ramsey said that he was disappointed that the police were not part it. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBE LOWELL, REP. CONDIT'S ATTORNEY: These were, first, did the congressman have anything at all to do with the disappearance of Ms. Levy? Second, did he harm her or cause anyone else to harm her in any way? And third, does he know where she can be located?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHIEF CHARLES RAMSEY, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: We haven't had a chance to analyze the results. I'm not happy with how they did it. It had no input from us at all. I don't know how the examiner could possibly give an exam like that without knowing all the facts of the case. He couldn't have known that, because we have that available to us. They didn't ask us.

In fact, they actually misled us into believing that there is somehow going to be some kind of cooperative effort in trying to get this done. That didn't happen. So we need to take a look and review what they did. I don't like what they did, but it is what it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Bob, nobody likes to be happy with that test except the congressman and his lawyer. Will there be another one at all, or no?

FRANKEN: Well, the chief says it is highly unlikely, for, the main reasons, they are very hard to impose on somebody. The police were unhappy. They felt they had been double dealt a little bit by Abbe Lowell, led to believe that they would negotiate some condition where the police could administer the test.

And the investigators say, that in a lie detector there is so much discretion, in terms of how the question is framed, how it is surrounded, what the follow up questions are, what amount of information the questioner has at his disposal. The police say they have any large amounts of information that they would have included in the lie detector test.

They haven't seen the data yet, by the way. It's not gotten to them. There has been some sort of delay, which Abbe Lowell through his spokesperson says, could have been attributed to the fact that there was a copying problem or delivery problem over the weekend. But the police say they would have conducted a much more thorough one, not by somebody, reputable though he may be, not be somebody who is hired by the client.

BATTISTA: Mike Rustigan, would you give credence to this particular test?

RUSTIGAN: Well, a polygraph test is not admissible in court for a number of reasons. And one of the reasons precisely is the stunt that Abbe Lowell pulled, and that is, to hire his own polygraph expert and to pose the questions in advance to Gary Condit.

Lie detector tests should have the element of surprise, and when the subject already knows the questions, they're desensitized. They can react calmly. And so I look at that as, basically, a stunt, a PR gimmick, and I think that it's backfired on Abbe Lowell.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience. Dan, comment or question here on the lie detector test?

DAN: Yes, I am very skeptical about a lie detector test that is set up by the person who is being tested.

BATTISTA: You know, I think that the thing is that confusing to the audience and intriguing at the same time is that, we hear all of the talk about lie detector tests. Most of the time we hear that they are not terribly reliable -- I heard somebody say today on "BURDEN OF PROOF" refer to it as modern-day witchcraft.

But the point is everyone from the FBI on down uses them. So are they accurate or not?

ANTHONY: Lie detector tests can certainly be accurate. However, it's important to note that the credibility of the examiner is probably one of the most important issues in dealing with that subject. And my understanding is, is that the individual who administered the test to Congressman Condit certainly has the qualifications to do so. I believe he has an FBI background. The real question it raises, is to the credibility of that test, given under very controlled circumstances. And as Michael had mentioned earlier, when the person already knows the questions that are going to be asked, it's certainly restrains the ability to free will to an extent of a polygraph exam.

BATTISTA: Another comment here from the audience. Justin?

JUSTIN: I -- yes, I had a comment. I really don't think it makes a difference if it's a private examination or if it's conducted by the police. I understand that the examiner was trained by the FBI and did some examinations with them. So in my opinion, I don't think it was staged or hoaxed, I think this examiner has good ethics and is credible. So I think that we should look at the results of the test.

ANTHONY: I think that...

BATTISTA: Yeah, go ahead.

ANTHONY: ...one thing that is of great interest is to know what were the restraints on the polygraph examiner? Was he told he could only ask these three questions? Or did he have the ability to query the congressman at his will. If he did not have the ability to be flexible in the questioning, it raises a significant question as to the value of the exam.

FRANKEN: And Bobbie, if I can repeat, that the police say that even if he was given flexibility, he would not have access to the same body of information that the police had. But in fairness, any lawyer will tell you that if his client was allowed to take a lie detector test without some sort of what I will call a control test, similar as this, that lawyer could very easily be charged with legal malpractice by his client.

That's a very wide consensus among lawyers, who say, to protect your client, you have to see how he does under a polygraph test.

BATTISTA: All right. We have to take a quick break here, and we will explore the serial killer theory a little bit more when we come back. The question today: should Congressman Condit resign?

Take the TALKBACK LIVE on-line viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback. AOL key word: cnn. While there, check out my note and send us an e- mail.

And later, do you expect politicians to be moral? Does character matter to you? We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: You know, just to answer that question there quickly that was on the screen, the police have maintained that they have been searching some of these areas all along. That this is not the first time that they have looked, for example, in Rock Creek Park or some of these other areas.

But Bob, I understand that you have an update to the police investigation?

FRANKEN: Right, the police are saying that they are retracing their steps. Adam Reese, a CNN producer, at Rock Creek Park, says the police have found a second site where they've found what they now believe to be animal bones, and they have the evidence-gathering people there, and they will be picking them up to make sure that they are animal bones.

You might have seen a couple of hours ago, if you were watching CNN, that the police that you see assembling to begin this search cordoned off an area during the 1:00 hour Eastern time, after a search all morning and mounted the police, very tightly coordinated police effort, going through every inch just about in the area that they are watching.

Anyway, they found this second collection of animal bones they believe they will analyze them, and then they will probably finish for the day. It's very warm here in Washington, and it's been quite the long day and they will resume tomorrow.

One thing that they will do, which may answer some of these questions more likely, they will bring out the dogs. By the dogs, they mean the cadaver dogs, dogs that are specially trained to find human remains. They will be much more accessible so they can answer some of these questions more quickly. So the search will begin tomorrow as the police try and really put on a massive effort to try to find what they can about the whereabouts of Chandra Levy.

BATTISTA: All right, let's move on and talk more about this serial killer theory. John Walsh of "America's Most Wanted" suggested a serial killer could be operating in the Dupont Circle area of Washington. Do we have a sound bite? I think we do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN WALSH, HOST, "AMERICA'S MOST WANTED": You have to look at the fact that here are three accomplished young women. Ted Bundy said he always kidnapped women between the ages of 20 and 30 and dark hair. That was his preference. Here are three young women, the circumstances are so similar. All of them are walking home or leaving their homes, all of them about the same build, the same color hair, all of them are accomplished young ladies. You know, police, I believe, should have been looking at this in a parallel investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: And they may well be, so far as we know. But Mike Rustigan, I understand that the police -- and Bob, you may know more about this too -- ran these similar murders through the FBI's ViCAP system and came with no matches on this, but can that still mean there's a serial killer involved here, though?

FRANKEN: Well, the answer is could. The answer is anything is possible. But the police adamantly insist that they are not finding indications that there is a serial killer involved. They do think that the possibility exists that there is somebody who in fact is out there praying on women, and that would not be -- put to normal definition of serial killer -- but they are considering that possibility.

But as far as an honest serial killer of the way that we usually use the term, they still say publicly that they don't believe that that is what is involved here.

BATTISTA: Mike Rustigan, what do you think?

RUSTIGAN: Well, the D.C. chief, Ramsey, has emphasized that there's no link between these victims, and that in the two of the cases they were crimes of opportunity, perhaps robberies. So they're saying there's no link.

But still, I think it's important what John Walsh is saying: that we go beyond the Condit investigation and -- and -- and pursue this real possibility of a serial killer.

Again, Washington, D.C. does have a high homicide statistic, and it could well be a predator at large.

BATTISTA: Michael, isn't there usually more signs of a serial killer? Usually they -- they fit a certain profile to some degree, and they follow certain patterns. They often leave souvenirs, for example. And I would think that a serial killer would be a little angry about all of the attention that's focused on the congressman, which might cause him to act again or something. I don't know: What do you think?

ANTHONY: Clearly, serial killers, who the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have looked at, have been patterned and profiled. I am sure that as we speak the FBI and the D.C. Police are taking a look at those possibilities.

The reality is, is that it is a long shot for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons, as you pointed out, there does not appear to be any public disclosure at this point of a connection through the -- through the leaving of souvenirs, as you've mentioned, or through any other pattern profiles that might fit.

The other thing that is important is that after 12 or 13 weeks, unless the body of an individual has been totally disintegrated in some way, it's likely that either the body or body parts may very well have been found by this time. So it is a long shot.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience here quickly for a comment. No? No, we don't have anything.

BATTISTA: Bob Franken, I think we're finished with you, but I know you'll be with us again if you have an update further on this investigation.

Mike Rustigan and Michael Anthony, thank you both for joining us. Appreciate all your input into this.

Joining us in just a moment, the call is out for Congressman Condit to the resign. Has he done anything to make his constituents to lose faith? We'll talk about that. Stay with us.

Saturday night, "America's Most Wanted" featured the search for Chandra Levy: 165 viewers called in with tips.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. Joining us now Janet Parshall, host of the nationally syndicated "Janet Parshall's America" on the Salem Radio Network.

Janet, good to see you.

JANET PARSHALL, RADIO TALK-SHOW HOST: Good to see you, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: And Katrina Vanden Heuvel, who is the editor of "The Nation," joins us as well. Katrina, nice to see you, too.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR, "THE NATION": Thank you.

BATTISTA: All right, Janet, let me start with you. There have been two calls for Congressman Condit's resignation, both from Republicans. Bob Barr says he should resign because basically he feels he obstructed justice, and Trent Lott yesterday said he thought he should resign just basically because he had an affair. Should he?

PARSHALL: I think he should, and I think what's sad here, Bobbie, is that we're not hearing any Democrats make the same call.

Thomas Jefferson said it perfectly a long time ago. He said: "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself public property."

The fact that Gary Condit was not forthcoming means that he's broken trust with his own constituents in his own district, certainly has broken trust with his family. But he's also broken trust with the American people. And if you can't trust a public servant -- and that should be the pre-eminent qualifier -- then that person should step away.

This is really and truly a question about character, and in some respects like that great political philosopher Yogi Berra said, "It's deja vu all over again."

The question is, "Does character count?" The answer is still the same: Yes, it does.

BATTISTA: Katrina, is this enough to disqualify him from public office?

VANDEN HEUVEL: I don't think so. I think until he becomes -- until he's convicted of a crime, this is between Gary Condit, his family and his constituents. I do not speak as a Democrat or a Republican: I speak as a citizen. And Gary Condit, by the way, was more Republican in his politics than -- is more Republican than Democratic in his politics. But I think that there's a standard of public morality here that we forget. Our public morality has been privatized. This may be a personal tragedy for the Levy family, but we have debased our media discourse in the way this has been covered. It has become sexual peccadilloes, and think of what could have been covered with this detail. What about campaign finance reform? What about the corporate padding of our politics, which Trent Lott knows well about and should not have the chutzpah to talk about resigning when he has abused the public trust in so many instances in the past years?

BATTISTA: Well, when you find a way to make those subjects sexy, will you let us know? We try to do that, and you know, we just can't seem to get the interest. And you have to admit that for better or for worse, this story has all the elements of a good beach book.

VANDEN HEUVEL: But that's -- I mean, that -- listen, you're honest, and I think that's refreshing. But there is a role the media needs to play in a democracy, which could be sexy if the media tried to turn its attention to these issues. But it's sensationalism, it's entertainment, and the line between news and entertainment has been blurred forever.

BATTISTA: But there are some serious issues here. You do have to admit that.

PARSHALL: Yes, there are. There are.

VANDEN HEUVEL: But they're lost, they're lost, because one of the serious issues, if we're lucky, is attention paid to the disappeared women in this country. The other might well be relationships between male politicians and women who work for them. With all the talk about liberation in this country, we are still at a place where we see these traditional roles played out, but much of that is ignored in what the stewardess said or what the latest affidavit said, or in charges to accuse a politician, who has not -- there's not a crime yet, according to the Washington police chief.

PARSHALL: Wow! Actually, there is a crime in the District of Columbia.

VANDEN HEUVEL: I mean, there's no case yet.

PARSHALL: There's -- in the District on Columbia, there actually is a crime here. In fact, it's illegal to commit adultery in the District of Columbia. I doubt anybody will prosecute that.

But Bobbie, let me go back to your important question. I sit in front of a microphone 16 hours every week, and there are huge issues being debated in Washington as we speak, issues that affect every single person in this country: their faith, their family, their finances, or their future.

But there is a lesson to be extrapolated out of the story of Gary Condit that I think is worth discussion -- not just on CNN's TALKBACK LIVE but around our kitchen tables -- and that is whether or not there really is a code of behavior, a right and wrong. All of this conversation for years (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about choices, but we've had very little conversation here about consequences. And one of the consequences of Gary Condit's behavior is that he misrepresented the truth to his constituents, to the American people, and he disgraced his office of being a member of the House of Representatives.

When he says to Chandra Levy, when you come to my apartment and you get on the elevator and another person gets on with you, don't you dare get off at the same floor, hit a button on a different floor so nobody can connect the two of us, when he leaves his apartment, and he has to put a baseball cap on, pull up his collar, put on sunglasses so no one will see him, it really goes back to an old idea about deeds done in darkness.

Now, I grieve for Gary Condit in one respect: He's the son, the grandson and the nephew of a pastor. This is a young man who was taught right and wrong, and he was taught a long time ago a saying that says, "Your sins will find you out." This is one of those very unpleasant experiences, but there's an "every man" lesson in this for all of us.

BATTISTA: I think you're going for something -- I certainly think that you're going for something noble. But I also wonder how practical it is to think that we can hold our politicians or anyone, or any members of our society really that, particularly those in powerful positions -- not that it's right, but the two things seem to go together. And so I'm just -- I'm not sure, you know, that that's a reasonable goal of having all of our senators and all of our congressmen that squeaky-clean.

(CROSSTALK)

PARSHALL: ... for our members of Congress, but I think it's a goal for every single one of us as individuals. Lord Atkins said a long time ago: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The primary fuel source in this great town of Washington, D.C. is power and ego...

VANDEN HEUVEL: But Janet, every -- every...

PARSHALL: ... self-actualization...

VANDEN HEUVEL: Every historical figure that Janet has cited committed adultery. I am not here to make the case for adultery. But as...

PARSHALL: Lord Atkins committed adultery?

VANDEN HEUVEL: And so did Thomas Jefferson. As...

PARSHALL: No, no. My question to you is Lord Atkins committed adultery? I'd like the cite and reference to that please. But go on, make your point.

VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, I'm speaking -- I'm speaking of American leadership, and I'm speaking of Thomas Jefferson. I speak also of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, someone I trust you would not kick out of the pantheon of 20th century...

PARSHALL: So does it make it right?

VANDEN HEUVEL: No, no...

(CROSSTALK)

If every president of the United States did it, does it make it right?

VANDEN HEUVEL: But I think this is -- this is politics, Janet. This is not evangelical theology, though. President Bush...

PARSHALL: No, no. This is right and wrong.

VANDEN HEUVEL: ... with his national missile defense...

PARSHALL: This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. This is a right and a wrong issue. We don't want our spouses to be committing adultery, we don't want the presidents of our companies to be committing adultery, and we don't want our elected officials...

VANDEN HEUVEL: And Janet, where do you put people...

PARSHALL: ... to be setting the standard of committing adultery.

VANDEN HEUVEL: ... where do you put the people who stray from the line you have set? Where do you put people who may have committed an error? Do you allow them to pursue politics and maybe do some good for the country?

PARSHALL: I'm so glad you asked that.

VANDEN HEUVEL: Or would you kick them out?

PARSHALL: I'll tell you what you do. First of all, there has to be...

VANDEN HEUVEL: And why do you have the right? Why...

(CROSSTALK)

PARSHALL: ... a consequence...

(CROSSTALK)

PARSHALL: Well, the constituents are going to speak. The man will not be re-elected if he doesn't step aside, and we all know that. But here's what should happen. He should be taken under some counselors' wings. In fact, it grieves me that somewhere along the line someone didn't love the man enough to say, Gary, knock it off, you're going to get into trouble, cut that relationship off. It grieves me that somebody didn't say to Chandra, don't do this.

BATTISTA: I'm guessing somebody might have said that to him.

PARSHALL: Don't do this, Chandra. That's the wrong idea.

BATTISTA: I think people...

(CROSSTALK)

I don't think they listen, Janet.

PARSHALL: ... to be restored. So what do we do? Do we stop saying it?

BATTISTA: No, no. But you know what, but they don't seem to learn that lesson. They don't -- I don't think they listen to that kind of advice. They certainly don't listen to the advice that they should be up-front and forward about it once it leaks out to the press. They never learn that lesson either. So it may be a bit of the arrogance of power that goes on in Washington, D.C. I mean...

VANDEN HEUVEL: And all around -- and all around this country. But I think the consequences for Gary Condit are more severe than they were -- would have been a few decades ago, and I think that's promising.

But let it be with his constituents, and if he is convicted of a crime, let it be with the courts of law in this country and not with evangelical televangelists.

PARSHALL: No, no, let me stop right there, because that's a pejorative argument ad hominem. This has nothing to do with a particular branch of believers in America. It has to do with right and wrong behavior. Whether you're an atheist, an agnostic or a born- again Christian, it has to do with whether or not there is a right and a wrong way to believe.

Chandra Levy took something that didn't belong to her. She took another woman's husband. He took something that didn't belong to him. He took a 24-year-old girl that he was not married to. That is wrong. And that should be spoken against even if we're going to be marginalized in the process of speaking against him. I will continue to speak against him.

BATTISTA: Let me jump in here and take a phone call. Ivy's been hanging on out in California for a while. Go ahead, Ivy.

IVY: Oh, hello, Bobbie. I would just like to say that Washington should back off from Gary Condit, talking about his resignation. He is a very, very good congressman, and he's very well- respected in Modesto. I mean, just because of infidelity -- it just so happens that he was unfortunate to be caught. There will be, many, many more.

If he's doing a good job, just leave him be. He's not found guilty of anything, and at this point, I am sad to say, but I think that Chandra Levy was abducted. That's what I think.

BATTISTA: All right, Ivy, thank you very much. I've got to go to break here, guys, quickly. Susan in Portsmouth, Ohio says: "Congressman Condit should not resign because he had an affair, but because he lied. He cost the D.C. Police and the Levy family valuable time in their search for Chandra."

We'll be back in just a moment. And historically speaking, since we are getting into that there for a minute, do politicians pay a price when they stray? And should they? We'll get that perspective when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: All right, let me find out how the audience feels about this. John, what do you think? Should he resign or not?

JOHN: Well, I believe that he should resign. He is setting a precedent. He is the one, or is involved with making the laws of this country. And if he cannot set a good example, then maybe he should set -- step aside.

BATTISTA: And Kia?

KIA: I think the problem is that we're expecting these politicians to live up to these standards that a lot of us don't live up to ourselves. I don't see how this man's private life has some bearing upon his behavior within like the political sphere. I think that makes no difference at all.

BATTISTA: All right, Kia, and joining us now with a historical look at straying politicians is Carol Berkin, a professor of history at City University of New York.

Carol, thank you for joining us.

From a historical perspective and what has happened over the years -- I know times are certainly different than they were 50 years ago or 100 years ago -- do you think the congressman will survive this?

CAROL BERKIN, POLITICAL HISTORIAN: Well, listening to the debate before this, it was interesting. In the 18th century, morality -- the term morality meant public behavior, the way you behaved in your political life, and it was largely a male issue. It's not until the 19th century that morality becomes something to do with sex and has to do with women and has to do with private life.

So we've reached a point in the 20th century where the two things seem to be coming together, and we can't sort things out. We're not sure whether someone's private life is important or their public behavior is important. And what really does morality mean?

You just heard two very different ideas about what it meant. I was amused to see Thomas Jefferson used as an example, because, of course, he had a long-term affair with a slave who definitely couldn't say no. And most of the men in the 18th century -- Southern men, plantation owners no doubt had affairs with their slaves.

BATTISTA: I was going to say, when it became known -- and of course, that's a big part of the difference between now and then, because we certainly didn't have media like we do today. But when it did become known, what great politicians did survive this kind of scandal?

BERKIN: All of them, every one of them. I've wracked my brain to think of someone in American history who was brought low by some kind of sexual misdeed.

For one thing the audience that was being talked to about this didn't include women. It was exclusively to men. Alexander Hamilton had a raging affair with a blond, buxom prostitute in Philadelphia during the first term of our national government. She blackmailed him for years. Being a gentleman he paid her.

When the political opponents, when Jefferson and Madison revealed this, Hamilton answered as any 18th century man would answer: I've not embezzled funds, I've conducted myself in the Treasury office with honor. What's the issue?

BATTISTA: So when -- when does the public reach a point of outrage over this, or do they ever?

BERKIN: Well, first of all, you have to create a public, certainly in the 20th century with the rise of media, magazines, the idea of celebrity. The notion -- I mean, politicians are suffering from the rise of Hollywood. Once you have Walter Winchell and Hedda Hopper and gossip columnists -- all of whom were before my time, of course -- once you have them talking about the private life of movie stars, and you have to fill magazines with names like people, and you have to, you'll forgive me, fill a news station that says "All news all the time," then you begin to make the private lives of politicians who are recognizable public figures and the private life of Madonna the same thing. It's up for grabs. And this isn't possible until the 20th century, and it gets worse and worse if you can include in this the Internet. So, I think that for better or worse, this problem is here to stay.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience quickly. Is it Bayden?

BAYDEN: Yes. I don't think Congressman Condit should resign. I think it's a political witch hunt somewhere up in Washington to just throw him off the throne. I think he's doing a good job. Until he's found guilty I think he should remain in office.

BATTISTA: Carrie, you have props on that, too?

CARRIE: Well, I think it is. He's -- the standard's been set for years by politicians. They deny everything until they are called under the carpet and then they have to admit it. But this has been going on. Look at FDR in his own state of Georgia. You know, he had his own secretary in (UNINTELLIGIBLE). This has been going on for many years. If we get to do these things, the whole Senate and House, probably 60 percent of the people will resign.

BERKIN: That might not be such a bad idea.

BATTISTA: Well, that's true. Somebody said I doubt they'd able to muster a quorum to conduct business. So...

(LAUGHTER)

BERKIN: There are other people who could step into the positions.

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call from Virginia. Go ahead, Virginia.

CALLER: Hi. I think he should not resign. I think this is what I call a Washington political blood sport. And I just think that the Republicans are the ones that are running him out of office.

Another thing, I would not have him take a political polygraph test, because the leaks. And I think everybody wants him to take that test so they can know more about his personal life.

BATTISTA: All right. We've got a -- I'm sorry, Janet. Do you want to jump in there?

PARSHALL: I was just going to say, as a mother of four, I can't imagine what it's like for the Levys to wake up every single morning and not know where their little girl is. And she will always be their little girl. I wonder what they think, because this is being characterized by some of our callers as political witch hunt. I wonder what they think when they know that the congressman was an obstructer to justice by not coming forth with this information on day one. That's not a witch hunt, that's an obstruction of justice, and that's wrong.

BATTISTA: Well, that's what I'm wondering, is that if people are really more upset about the cover-up that might have been involved here than the actual affair.

What, for example, Janet, would have been the reaction, do you suppose, had he admitted right after the bat: "Yes, I was having an affair with this woman. It's not the right thing to do, but I admit it and I will do everything I can to help in the search for her," and approached it that way?

PARSHALL: Yes, culturally, Bobbie, I think what we would have heard is sort of this collective clucking of the tongues and everybody would have said, that's Washington. Happens all the time between elected officials and interns.

And certainly some of rebound of this would have been minimized, sadly. Because it's still wrong, whether you are a congressman or whether it happens to be the family that lives next door. It is a wrong behavior. It's not party affiliation whatsoever, it's a wrong behavior. But I have to tell you, Bobbie, that certainly his not be forthcoming just simply added gasoline to a fire that's been burning in this town for quite some time. And again, we're forgetting a mother and a father who wake up every day and don't have a clue where their little girl is.

BATTISTA: I have to take a quick break here. We'll continue in a moment. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Couple of e-mails have come in. Doug in Virginia says: "Infidelity is not reason enough for presidents to resign, so why congressman?"

John in Wisconsin says: "Morality consists of more than sex."

And Gary in Florida says: "Mr. Condit shouldn't have the choice to resign. He committed obstruction of justice and has disgraced his office. I believe there should be a vote of his constituency as to whether or not he retains his office. After all, they're the ones who hired him and they should have the right to fire him."

That's not a bad idea. Katrina?

VANDEN HEUVEL: I think live by democracy, die by democracy. That's what I began this program with, by saying it's up to his constituents. And they will weigh in, no question about it. You're hearing some of it today.

But I just want to say, I think this is an occasion and Condit has behaved in a tawdry, squalid way, but this is an occasion to rethink what we mean by character and morally. As Carol said, we seem to be returning, in the 21st century, to 19th century constructs. And what about public morality? How do people feel about living in a country where six -- one in six children live under the poverty line? Is that not an issue of morality?

PARSHALL: Those are very important issues of morality and someday when we have more time, we'll pick up that topic right where you started. But the issue today is the today is the conduct of a man in office. You know, we asked this question in 1992 with Bill Clinton. We talked about this false dichotomy between public character and private character.

Well, here's the reality. Character is defined by what you do when nobody's looking. And what you do when nobody's looking has a profound way of spilling over to where everybody is looking. And the reality is, the man didn't go back to his own district over the 4th of July. The man is having a hard time conducting business because he has been an obstructer of justice. And I don't think we should be lowering the bar and: "Oh, I know it's so old-fashioned to talk about 19th century constructs."

But you know, it's an ancient idea, a very ancient idea that says don't take your something that doesn't belong to you. Don't covet your man's -- the other man's wife. Don't be behaving outside these parameters of protection, because when you do, you get into trouble. And you know it's a great idea. It's been protecting the hearts of mankind since the beginning of time.

And by the way, all of those historical figures that were quoted -- how about talking about the John and Abigail Adams, who were madly in love and whose love letters are very much still great history for us to read. Or the Patrick Henrys who came to Richmond, Virginia and proclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death."

BERKIN: He never said that.

PARSHALL: Yes, he did.

BERKIN: No, he didn't.

BATTISTA: The point is though, Carol, that -- let me get Carol back in here. The point is that you're going to get, I think, your leaders from both of those camps.

PARSHALL: And the point is, Bobbie, we have people who have been making right and wrong decisions since the beginning of this country because, you know what? That choice to behave in a right way or a wrong way has been before mankind since time itself began, to choose right or wrong.

BERKIN: You know, as a historian it's very disturbing to me to hear everything made so simple. You'll have a little guidebook, this is right, this is wrong, it never changes, over time everything is the same.

PARSHALL: Those are called eternal truths.

BERKIN: Well, I don't believe in eternal truths. But I think...

PARSHALL: And I rest my case, and therein lies the...

(CROSSTALK)

PARSHALL: You see, it's the difference between...

(CROSSTALK)

BERKIN: If you don't mind, what I'd like to say is I think one reason people focus on something like Gary Condit's sexual behavior, is we are in a quandary about character, morality, about private and public. And in some ways, this is concrete. It's hard to get our minds around the idea of one in six children under the poverty line. Get our minds around genocide in Rwanda.

In some ways, this is a way to rehearse, if you will, how we feel about moral questions, what we think we ought to do, right or wrong. And it's in this personal, individual case that I think we tend to feel more comfortable than dealing with the kind of large, large tragedies and immoralities that we have in this world. And so it's not surprising to me that we become fascinated by one individual person's choice, instead of by large, systematic and systemic immoralities.

PARSHALL: But I would put before you that Gary Condit is not just one isolated case. Gary Condit is symptomatic of a pandemic problem in a post modern culture. And the problem that Gary Condit is dealing with right now has a funny way of working its way into public policy, like whether or not we introduce covenant marriage laws like they have in the state of Louisiana, as an example, whether or not we should be distributing contraceptives to teenagers because they've been sexually active outside the parameters of marriage.

You see, all of these lofty, transcendent, philosophical discussions that we think should have been relegated to some Ivy League college somewhere really come back to a profound truth, that ideas have consequences. And there needs to be a moral outrage when we see something that's wrong. We speak against that outrage, and then stand next in our own mirrors and say now, am I living accordingly? We used to have discussions like that all the time in this country.

VANDEN HEUVEL: Janet, if I might say a word. How do you score the fact that Gary Condit on social issues, was very conservative, that he voted far more frequently with the John Birch Society than with NOW, the National Organization for Women. That he voted for anti-gay policies, that he voted for anti-choice and anti-pay equity. How do you score that, in terms of character, in terms of Gary Condit?

PARSHALL: Well, and I don't know necessarily that his voting record had a profound connection to his moral decisions. And by the way, make that the National Organization for some Women. I have to tell you that Gary Condit's behavior on Capitol Hill probably would be voting much more in line with my thinking. But the bottom line is, he made a wrong choice. I don't think that's necessarily recorded in the annals of his voting record. It's a wrong choice.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience here quickly. Rick, go ahead.

RICK: Well, I do agree with Janet, that I think the congressman should resign. I feel like when you seek out a leadership position, that you do take on a role of moral and ethical leadership, whether you like it or not. And I think he's failed in those two regards.

BATTISTA: Your wife disagrees with you, but I have to take a quick break, so we'll come back and get Kathy's comment right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Now you guys are waking up. We start talking about morality and you wake up. Rick, you had one comment about this story. Kathy, your wife, disagrees with you. You're not sure he should resign yet.

KATHY: No, I'm not. I think we have to have distinct standards that we hold people accountable for. And what are the standards that are out there that he has violated? You can't just make these arbitrary scandals come up to disintegrate someone.

BATTISTA: Let me take John on the phone in Michigan, quickly. John, go ahead.

CALLER: Yes, is this just another new low that we've come to accept because of the Clinton scandals in the previous regime?

BATTISTA: And you're -- are you blaming the Clinton scandals? Is that where you're going with that?

CALLER: No, no, no. It's just a new low in acceptable behavior.

BATTISTA: I'm not sure you could get much lower than the Clinton scandals, since it was the president we were talking about. But I don't think -- I'm not sure that this is exclusive to one party or another.

CALLER: Oh, no, it's not.

BATTISTA: All right, John, thanks very much. A couple of e- mails here. John in Atlanta says: "Yes, Condit should resign. However, this should be the wakeup call to the wives of all politicians. As a former intern, I have strong beliefs that many of the husbands are in fact cheating on their wives. Wake up, wives."

Mark in Nevada says: "The term 'moral politician' is an oxymoron."

Is that where we've come to, do you think, Katrina? Oh, you know what, I'm sorry, you guys. I'm completely out of time. I just -- I'll have to throw that out there as a rhetorical question. We'll come back and discuss it again on some other day. Checking our poll quickly here. The question was: "Should the congressman resign?" And 57 percent say yes, 43 percent say no.

Janet Parshall, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, thank you both very much for joining us. And also we'd like to say thanks to Carol Berkin. We appreciate you joining us as well today. We'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com