Skip to main content /transcript



Does Gary Condit's Character Count?

Aired July 23, 2001 - 21:00   ET


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight: day 84 passes, no sign of Chandra Levy. Does Gary Condit have an airtight alibi? Joining us to debate it, former federal prosecutor Barbara Olson In Ellison Bay, Wisconsin.

In Washington, former independent counsel Michael Zeldin.

And "Talk" Magazine contributing writer Lisa DePaulo.

Also we will meet Condit's -- discuss Condit's brother Darrell; he is arrested. What if anything does he know that can help find Chandra? Darrell Condit's attorney Jon Sale will join us from Miami.

And with the congressman taking a political beating over the character issue, here to face off whether character counts, in Washington, Dr. Bob Jones, conservative and president of Bob Jones University; Kim Gandy, president-elect of NOW, The National Organization for Women.

And evangelist and top Christian author Tony Campolo all on LARRY KING LIVE.

Lisa DePaulo is contributing writer to "Talk" Magazine; her big article on this breaks in "Talk" Magazine issue when it comes out August 3, your reaction to Condit spokesperson Marina Ein said, if the police or the FBI have anything new to discuss, we will be happy to cooperate.

LISA DEPAULO, "TALK" MAGAZINE: Then why didn't they do it today?

KING: Did you know that they asked for today?

DEPAULO: Well, apparently, they have to work out a time that is convenient for him, yeah.

KING: Do you think he will cooperate?

DEPAULO: Depends on how you define cooperate.

KING: Go down and answer all the questions.

DEPAULO: It took a long time to answer some really important questions. I think there are a lot more left, I think the alibi timeline has some real questionable...

KING: Michael, will he go and cooperate?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Sure, absolutely, as the public will be concerned, he will cooperate, I think as the police will concerned he will cooperate. The police have always said he has been cooperative, and I think he will try to be cooperative. What he cooperates with respect to, will be another matter. That is, there seems to be some extraneous affairs in his life that are just coming to light now, that may bear on his character but may not be relevant to the Chandra Levy case, whether he wants to go there, whether police want to take him there, we will have to see.

KING: Barbara, do you think he is ready to cooperate further?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, you know, this is interview No. 4, and, every time we hear he is cooperating, he is cooperating, and then we get something like we did on July 10 where he goes and hides a box of a watch, and you say what is the man thinking of? He is still in the mind-set where he is hiding things, rather than deciding he is got to be honest, they don't know what he is hiding, and so I hope he does, but, this is a man who's hidden things all his life evidently, so I don't believe he is going to cooperate any more than what we know or what the press has brought out.

ZELDIN: You see, the watch is exactly the point. The watch box which he hid or threw out in a trash can, in Arlington, Virginia a few hours before search of his apartment -- which is crazy, frankly.

KING: Weird.

ZELDIN: It -- it doesn't really it seems, as far as we know the facts, relate to Chandra Levy. It relates to his relationship with a 29-year-old other intern, from 1994. So, there is a pattern of deceit for sure, but whether it goes to the particular...

KING: Does deceit mean murder? Does...

ZELDIN: Or does deceit mean with respect to Levy, we don't know.

KING: Lisa, it seemed logical, he could come on this show or any show and say, look, I don't want to discuss relationships with others, but I'm very concerned about Chandra; I will answer any questions about her. My wife knows about it already. What are you going to do? Turn him down?

DEPAULO: Despicable things, but I had nothing do with her disappearance.

KING: And I'd be happy to help in anyway. How I can help you?

DEPAULO: You know, that is not only consistent with an innocent person, it is consistent with a friend -- someone who is the congressman and Chandra is the constituent, it is consistent for what I would think you would do with a lover.

KING: Obviously, this is a riding out strategy; right? That is... DEPAULO: Yeah.

KING: If there is a strategy.

DEPAULO: Why? If...

KING: What are you riding out?


ZELDIN: It has taken him a long time to get to the point where he should have been 84 days ago, and we don't know why that is, there is nothing that really explains it, especially if he is innocent. Mark Geragos said on a previous show, that it is consistent with, a guilty mind; what he is guilty with respect to, we don't know. But hopefully he is moving incrementally in the direction of being fully cooperative with respect to the facts of Levy.

KING: You have concluded that he is involved, in whatever this is?

DEPAULO: I think that, you know...

KING: Haven't you?

DEPAULO: It is sure seems that way, I mean this is just -- it is very odd behavior and even if he -- I mean, why wait all this time to tell these important facts? I mean, not only -- we might have moved own at this point if he could have been exonerated. But he waited 67 days to admit that he was involved with her.

KING: That hurt him.

DEPAULO: Yeah, I think it hurt the investigation, which is worse than hurting him.

KING: Barbara, if you were prosecuting in this area, how do you read these kind of actions?

OLSON: Well, you know, prosecutors look at the case much as everybody watching this looks at it. They look for, as Michael Zeldin said, what's his character? What's he doing? He's still hiding things, and so you are going about it, at -- as a case you are building, I don't think they have enough to force Gary Condit to speak, if he does decides not to, if he decides to take the 5th, or if he refuses to voluntarily cooperate, so the prosecutors are working against that. They want him to keep agreeing to these interviews, they want to get more information.

I think in the next interview, they are going to have an FBI profiler because clearly, Gary Condit knows things about Chandra that can help them do the profile. Where might she go? How might she react? So they want him to cooperate. They can't push him too hard so it is a little bit of a cat and mouse going on, trying to keep him coming forward and cooperating, without him deciding that he is in some sort of criminal danger and then he clams up, and then they have to go with the grand jury route.

KING: Michael, is he a suspect in every way but the term?

ZELDIN: He may be in the way of the term, too, we don't know. From the police statement to the public, he is not a suspect. In -- in a legal sense. But in every other sense, he is at least a material witness.

KING: They label him a suspect then he would refuse to take lie detectors, right?

DEPAULO: It could be a very smart strategy.

ZELDIN: It could be. The police could be playing some sort of trap with him, but I think he knows better than that. And, this raises the point that, where we are up to besides the fourth interview, is the ongoing negotiation for a second lie detector.

KING: We will take a break. And when we come back, Jon Sale will join us. As we go to break, we've received some newly acquired video from the Levy family of Chandra, watch this and then we will talk with Darrell Condit's attorney. Watch.


CHANDRA LEVY: I mean, I do stuff with my graduate student committee.


LEVY: Yeah, I mean, I would have been, you know, going out this weekend, going out tonight, but...


LEVY: Last night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You went out last night?

LEVY: There's stuff always going on.




KING: We'll spend some moments now with Jon Sale in Miami, Florida; Jon is the attorney for Darrell Condit, the brother of Congressman Condit.

What were the circumstances of his arrest this weekend?


KING: Hi, Jon. SALE: Darrell Condit was living a private life, not hiding, he was arrested, pursuant to an old warrant for a 1996 misdemeanor. Actually, the Fort Lauderdale Sheriffs Office sent out fliers throughout the neighborhood, there was a search for him. And he pulled up in his truck and they arrested him, and he didn't...


KING: I'm sorry -- so when they labeled him, fugitive, that was wrong?

SALE: Well, technically it was correct, but it wasn't too dissimilar from somebody who has an outstanding traffic warrant. There was an old warrant on a misdemeanor, and you certainly don't send out the troops searching for somebody and send pictures around the neighborhood unless there's some reason. And the spokeswoman for the Broward County sheriffs office candidly stated that we did that because of the media hype.

KING: What was the misdemeanor for?

SALE: The misdemeanor was an old DUI case, and the alleged violation of his probation was he did not pay a nominal court cost and he did not submit to a urinalysis. From there there's this innuendo that he has some knowledge or some involvement in some awful things which he has no knowledge of. If he did, he would be the first to come forward. He has no knowledge whatsoever about Chandra or her whereabouts.

KING: Is he out on bail now?

SALE: No, he's not. And my hope is that he's going to be treated like every other person who has been held on an old technical misdemeanor. Rather than -- I mean, I've had my share of experience with high visibility cases. This shouldn't be one. The focus here should be on law enforcement, trying to find this missing young woman. Why are they looking at Darrell Condit? It puzzles me and puzzles him.

KING: To your knowledge, has the FBI or the Washington police tried to contact him or you?

SALE: No, they have not. And, I can tell you...

KING: If they did, he would cooperate?

SALE: Well, I think he would. I would have to discuss that with him, he's been through a very traumatic episode. But I can tell I you he has not spoken to his brother in over a year and he's not been out of the state of Florida in over a year.

KING: Is there a rift between the brothers, to your knowledge?

SALE: No, to my knowledge -- Darrell told me he loves his brother. But Darrell is a different kind of a person. He's a grown man, they've lived separate kind of lives, and they just don't have that type of a close relationship. But there is not a rift. And Darrell told me that he sympathizes with what his brother must be going through, because Darrell has seen his own picture now plastered all over the media, and he doesn't understand why, because he does not have any idea whatsoever what this is all about.

KING: Is Darrell married, children, everything?

SALE: He's not married and doesn't have children, and he's been very private. And as a matter of fact, one of his friends who has an elderly mother, reporters have been staking out her house. And he just doesn't understand it, because if he had any information to contribute, we would be doing it, because we want to find this young woman. He just has no such information. He's never heard of Chandra.

KING: Jon, you're a very well-known Miami attorney. I know this from having lived there. How did you get him as a client?

SALE: Just in the routine way, but I can tell you that there was no connection with the congressman -- that it was typical kind of a referral from attorneys who I've dealt with before.

KING: That recommended him to you because criminal is your specialty, right?

SALE: Yes. You know, we don't handle this type of minor cases, usually, but...

KING: That's what I mean. How did you get involved in what is a minor case, as you say?

SALE: Well, I don't to be presumptuous, but I assume it was anticipated there would be this type of focus. And my efforts really are not to get him any special treatment, but to do what I can to see he's just treated like everyone else similarly situated would be -- that they don't bend over backwards to treat him unfairly.

KING: What does he say to you about his brother's dilemma?

SALE: He says he relates to it, he knows nothing about his brother's personal life. But the concern we have is because this inaccurate information is floating around about Darrell, how much of the information about the congressman is inaccurate? How much of it is just out there for the sake of it being out there? We urge everyone to do constructive things, everything possible to find this young woman, but my client just has no information that can contribute in that endeavor.

KING: And, Jon, has his brother Gary tried to contact him?

SALE: No, he has not. Although now, lawyers...

KING: He, should, shouldn't he?

SALE: No, because now it would be unadvisable from a lawyer's point of view, because it would be misconstrued. But their natural relationship has been one where they just haven't had any contact in a long period of time. We're not going to do anything now to do anything unnatural to have anybody accuse anybody of trying to influence somebody's honest recollections.

KING: Does he have a bail hearing scheduled?

SALE: What we're trying to do is have him transferred as quickly as possible back to Key West and have him address this five-year old misdemeanor.

KING: I see. So he would go -- under best of circumstances, he would go down there and there would be some sort of hearing or trial or something and be disposed of?

SALE: Yes. There should be some kind of a routine hearing in which he'll address whether or not he violated the conditions of his probation four or five years ago on this misdemeanor. And he should be treated, as I said, like anyone else who is in the same situation, and not prejudge.

KING: Thank you, Jon. Good seeing you.

SALE: Thank you. It was a pleasure. Thanks, Larry, nice to see you.

KING: Good seeing you. Jon Sale, the attorney for Darrell Condit. We'll come back with Barbara Olson, Michael Zeldin and Lisa Depaulo, and then our panel will assemble to discuss character issues. Don't go away.


KING: Barbara Olson, is the Darrell matter much ado about nothing?

OLSON: Well, you know, I think the reason we're having this is we have a Gary Condit who the prosecutors and police don't really trust. He's cooperating, but, as we said earlier, it depends on how you define "cooperation."

We have a brother who was missing, and you know, if Gary Condit had been forthcoming, if they had trusted his answers, I'm sure they would have asked him about his brother. They would have found out that he hadn't spoken to his brother in over a year and that would have been answered. But unfortunately, this is what happens. The police now have to go find the brother. They have to investigate it themselves to just cross out every possibility.

KING: Lisa, there's another brother, right?


KING: He's a cop.

DEPAULO: He's a cop in Modesto. He had a few problems.

KING: Did he? DEPAULO: Yes, there was a big scandal in the department over handguns. They were selling the police handguns back to the officers.

KING: What happened to him?

DEPAULO: Couldn't account for eight of them at one point. And...

KING: But he was cleared?


KING: All right. And what about -- what do you make of Darrell?

DEPAULO: You know, I'm fascinated by the fact that he hasn't spoken to his brother in over a year, and I totally agree with Barbara that, you know, this didn't have to get to this point, if Gary Condit had been a lot more forthcoming from the beginning.

KING: Michael, assuming everything Jon Sales said is correct, Darrell is not involved, right?

ZELDIN: You've got your Billy Carter, you've got your Roger Clinton, you've got your Darrell Condit. I mean, everyone's got somebody in the family, it seems.

DEPAULO: But again, this is what his client is telling him.

ZELDIN: Right, but if he hasn't left Florida in two years, according to his attorney, then the likelihood of his involvement becomes many circles removed. When you do an investigation like this, you start with your suspect, and your first ring is her closest acquaintances, and then you move out, and then you move out. And he's pretty many circles removed from here. And if he's been in Florida, I don't think he's got anything to do with this.

DEPAULO: If he's been in Florida.

KING: I'm really anxious for your story because you so doubt this whole thing. I mean, you are skeptical of everyone, right?

DEPAULO: Yes, I am.

KING: You're skeptical of Jon Sale, or at least what his client may have said to him, right?

DEPAULO: Well, it's what -- I believe that what Congressman Condit said about the relationship at the end is very, very different from what her friends say.

KING: And Barbara, shouldn't a brother be calling a brother to see how he's doing?

OLSON: Well, they say they haven't spoken in a year. One would think the natural reaction. However, I'm assuming that Abbe Lowell has told Gary do not call your brother. Let it be. He's in... KING: Why?

OLSON: You know, you've already done enough. Don't call your brother, don't visit any more trash piles. Just do your job, so I'm thinking that he is under advice of counsel, which would be very good advice, not to call his brother at this point.

KING: Really? Even though it's a brother, Michael?

ZELDIN: I don't think. I expect that...

KING: You would say don't call

ZELDIN: Well, I don't think I would have any -- if the brother has had no contact with Gary Condit in a year...

KING: No, I mean wouldn't Gary be concerned about his brother being in jail tonight?

ZELDIN: Yes, and if I were representing Gary Condit, I don't think I'd have any hesitation in allowing him to call him. I would think that what you don't want to do is what is abnormal or not natural.

KING: Not calling is weird.

OLSON: But that's abnormal.

KING: But Barbara is laughing you.

ZELDIN: No, no, it's not abnormal, Barbara, because they haven't spoken in a year.

OLSON: That's right.

ZELDIN: And if he wanted to speak to him now, I don't see any harm coming of it. It only is the fallout conspiratorialist who would see something there.

KING: Barbara, are you saying the call would be suspicious?

OLSON: Of course at this point it would be. I mean, the brother -- this is not the first time the brother has been arrested. It's not a brother who gets in trouble for the first time and you want to reach out and talk to him. This is someone who has had brushes with the law and he knows people, presumably, in that world. So I would advise Gary not to talk to him. He hasn't talked to him for a year, he can see him on TV, and that people will want to know what they talked about. And as a prosecutor, I would want to know what they talked about.

KING: Lisa, is your story printed already?

DEPAULO: Pretty much.

KING: I mean, what if something happened tomorrow? Could you change it?

DEPAULO: I think so.

KING: Yes, because it comes out August 3, right?


KING: All right. We'll be seeing you again tomorrow night.

Michael, thank you, be seeing you again, probably the night after, as this goes on.

And, Barbara, you stay with us. You're going to be part of this upcoming panel. We thank Barbara Olson and Barbara remains with us. Michael Zeldin and Lisa DePaulo, I'm Larry King, and when we come back we'll be joined by Dr. Bob Jones, Kim Gandy of NOW, and Tony Campolo, evangelist and professor of sociology at Eastern College. Don't go away.


ROBERT LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S FATHER: Everything is -- we want Chandra. We'd trade anything for Chandra, and that's all we care about. You know, I know there is a lot of other people out there who are missing, and they deserve to be paid attention to and found, and looked for. There's a lot of people out there. We just hope, you know, and they need a lot of support, too. So we just hope everyone can get what they need. And we still pray that our daughter could be found.




CHANDRA LEVY, MISSING WOMAN: Next semester I'll take a state government course and a federal government course, and do the internships. And actually, we have our -- probably the biggest paper is a 15 to 20-page paper in this city government course. And -- oh, I should show you guys this.


KING: That's a newly acquired tape of Chandra Levy. We now welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, they'll be with us the rest of the way to discuss this, it's an overall issue of character as well. Here in Washington, Dr. Bob Jones, the president of Bob Jones University. Staying with us from Ellison Bay, Wisconsin is Barbara Olson, founder of the Women's Independent Forum, and a former federal prosecutor.

In Washington, Kim Gandy, president-elect of NOW, the National Organization for Women. She assumes the role of president next week.

And Tony Campolo, evangelist, professor of sociology at Eastern College and author of "Survival Kit for College Freshmen." Dr. Jones, Bob, we'll start with you. What do you make of all of this?

BOB JONES III, PRESIDENT, BOB JONES UNIVERSITY: Well, Larry, I guess character really does count. I know character really counts, and I think what we should be surprised about in all of this is that any of us do anything good. When anybody does something bad, it's really no surprise, but when man does something good it's a big surprise.

KING: So this is just another continuing story of the ages?

JONES: Yes, my grandfather used to say there's no sin that's ever been committed that any of us could not commit under the proper provocation. And my heart aches for all of the family involved in the Condit circles. But you know, God says that all have sinned and that all are under sin, and that we're all guilty before God and there's none that does good. not one. But it also says -- and this is the good news, this is the good news -- it says that we are justified by his grace through the redemption in Jesus Christ.

KING: Kim Gandy, from the point of view of NOW, is this a woman tampered with?

KIM GANDY, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NOW: Well, I think we don't know the answer to that yet. But, as the mother of two little girls, I think about her often. Every time I see her picture on television, I think about her mom and dad and what they must be going through now, and I'm glad that we are putting all of the resources at our disposal into finding her, and I hope that in the same way, that Nicole Brown Simpson's death shined a public spotlight on domestic violence, that perhaps all of this -- and I do hope that we find Chandra Levy -- but I hope, too, that it will shine a public spotlight on the 55,000 women who are missing, most of them young women in their 20s.

KING: From what we do know now would now, would NOW, or would you regard this as a woman played upon? I don't necessarily mean harm, just the story as we know it to now. Has she been used?

GANDY: Certainly we know that she was involved with a very powerful man, and that is...

KING: But she's an adult.

GANDY: Yes, she's 24 years old, and some of our staff and former interns who are in their low 20s say: "I sleep with who I want to and I know what I'm doing." At the same time, someone in power does have a powerful pull, and I think has an additional level of responsibility.

KING: Tony, how do you view it?

TONY CAMPOLO, EVANGELIST: I, first of all, agree with Dr. Jones, that it's is very hard to be judgmental. because all of us have a dark side. The line separating good from evil does not separate one group of people from another, but runs right down the middle of each of us. And, you know, we have a tendency cast somebody as totally evil, totally good. It's not that way. And I also agree with you, that -- the power thing. I mean, this man...

KING: Abused his power?

CAMPOLO: I think so. I think that power is a very corrupting influence, more corrupting than money. And I see power, I see somebody who is a risk taker and I see somebody who may have over the years been led into leading a double life. I mean, this isn't something new. He's a minister's son. I wonder how many ministers' kids have to play a role for the congregation.

KING: He attends Bible class.

CAMPOLO: Yes, well, you know, you play a role out here because you're expected to be one kind of person. But there's another self lurking behind that image, and one of those days, it catches up.

KING: And Barbara, before we get into a full discussion of character as an issue and how it plays out in all this, what are your thoughts in the character area?

OLSON: I helped to found the Independent Woman's Forum and back after the Clarence Thomas days, because I saw the power of the women's organization, and one was NOW, that was coming after Clarence Thomas on statements by Anita Hill. And there was another side. I knew Clarence Thomas, and I knew the other women that helped found this group, felt as though that the National Organization for Women and other groups that were attacking him so vocally and so loudly were attacking him more for politics.

And of course, then we come through and we saw what happened with Bob Packwood. He was being attacked and he left Congress. Now, that, I think, was legitimate. But the problem is, we see the hypocrisy that has now happened on the other side, when it's a Democrat. When we had President Clinton, the National Organization for Women refused to stand by the woman who was charging him with sexual harassment that we now know he did lie in that case.

And now we have Gary Condit, and it's interesting that there is not a consistent position that these feminist groups have taken. I think character is important. I think people that lie are likely to continue to lie. But let's have consistency.

KING: I've got to get a break and we'll come right back and we'll let Kim respond, and then Dr. Jones and Tony come in on it. Don't forget, it's time to log on to my "Kings Quiz," We'll be right back.


KING: Kim Gandy, before we get back to the rest of the panel, Barbara Olson is saying that NOW has different standards, depending on who's saying, whose ox is gored?

GANDY: I would love to talk to Barbara on that subject. Barbara, as you well know, the National Organization for Women came out against Clarence Thomas based on his record, long before anybody heard of Anita Hill. And Bob Packwood was a good friend of women's rights; he was a staunch vote on abortion's rights.

But after 26 women came forward to say that he done everything from groping to assault, we said he ought to have a hearing, there ought to be a Senate Ethics Committee hearing. Where was your organization on Bob Packwood? Silent. Where was your organization on Henry Hyde? On Dan Burton?

OLSON: Excuse me.

GANDY: On Newt Gingrich? On Bob Livingston?

KING: Where were you on Bill Clinton?

GANDY: We said on Bill Clinton that his behavior was despicable. That it was deplorable. And that it was up to the American people, whether or not he stayed in office and up to the United States Congress.

KING: So it's been consistent. I don't want to make this just a debate on NOW, Barbara, so...


GANDY: By the way, we did not come out and say anything about Newt Gingrich's affairs, about Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton.

KING: Is your organization consistent, Barbara?

OLSON: Well, our organization is an organization that looks at economic rights for women, and tax issues and a lot of other issues. We have been consistent; and we do believe character matters.

KING: So you have criticized Gingrich and Livingston and them.

OLSON: Insofar as we've done that as an issue, we certainly have. We have been very careful to make sure we are consistent. And I don't want to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it as NOW versus another group. What I think is important, when people have power, when they have positions, whether it's money or it's power such as in Congress or corporate power, that's important that it is not used wrongly.

But it is equally important that these groups don't go after individuals for their politics and then not go after others because of political reasons.

KING: And your opinion against those using power is both Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative whoever uses power incorrectly.

GANDY: But they always come out against Democrats.

KING: She comes out against Democrats; you come out against Republicans. GANDY: I just gave you a list of Republicans we didn't say a thing about.

KING: Dr. Jones, what is the issue, as you look at it, for usages of power? If I have power and I use that power incorrectly, am I the greater sinner than the person -- I mean, Chandra Levy knew he was married. Is one sin greater than the other?

JONES: They are both accountable before God. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) But I do think it's despicable when a man uses power illicitly. Uses it as a tool for self-gratification or self-advancement. I think that's as low as a man can get. But, you know, the truth is, that we have come a long way in our journey in this country, on what the public is willing to accept as tolerable behavior.

KING: Sure have.

JONES: And this is what grieves me, because Clinton's behavior was despicable. The man should have been impeached. His example was...

KING: He was. You mean, convicted.

JONES: His example was deplorable for young people. There has been a whole downward bounce as a result of what was accepted and how we got away with this.

KING: On both sides of the aisle, though.

JONES: Yes. It's not a matter -- but the more visible a man is the more I guess accentuated when he does something like Clinton has done or like Condit has done. The truth is, when the American public is willing to accept this sort of thing, the boundaries are extended. They will accept something worse next time, and it goes on and on, until nothing is bad.

KING: Do you think it's bad, Tony, when they say, well, if he wants to have an affair, that's his business?

CAMPOLO: I want to correct an illusion that I think is widespread in this country, that America is going down the tubes. In my own estimation and with sociological evidence, there is every reason to believe that we are actually on a moral revival.

The truth is that the latest study (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 75 percent of men are faithful after marriage, 85 percent of women. That's way up from the Kinsey study in 1950, where only 50 percent of the men were faithful. I think a lot of things are going on. There's this movement among Southern Baptists -- and I'm not a Southern Baptist -- I go to Disneyland and all of that, but let me say: that thing of true love waits, in which they are encouraging young people to take a vow, to not get involved sexually prior to marriage, it's having an impact.

I'm not into the hierarchy scheme of promise keepers, but we have to admit, that they have had an incredible impact of the men in this country, calling them to spiritual and moral responsibility at a high level. I think America is on an upswing and I think our upset over these people is our outrage. And our outrage is evidence of that.

KING: Do you agree with, Dr. Jones.

JONES: I don't agree with that at all.

KING: The statistics were released today.

JONES: Yes, you look at 40 years ago in America, 60 years ago in America, the family unit was still intact. Marriage was respected, divorce was looked upon (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We have accepted moral (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on today that would never have been accepted 60, 70 years ago in America. The church's influence is nil, the church has embraced the world and culture as a result of that. The culture has infiltrated the church and neutralized its power.

America's stream is becoming filthy with moral pollution and there are no streams to refresh it.

KING: So do you think his statistic is wrong, that there was more adultery when you're referring to it, years ago than there is now?

JONES: I think statistics can prove just about whatever you want to prove. I think you just look at the scene in America.

CAMPOLO: We have opinions.

KING: Let me get a break and we will get Kim and Barbara's thoughts on all of this: character and the United States and politics and men and women, what is new? Don't go away.


KING: Barbara Olson, as Kim just pointed out, maybe you will agree, that Gary Condit is not new. Ben Franklin had women all over the world. I'm sure it goes back before him. Men and women have always have had this.

OLSON: Well, you know, we started going through this. They all do it, it's nothing new. And it's too bad -- I mentioned previous show Thomas Jefferson used to be ranked as one of our top presidents and after the rumors came out that he had had an illegitimate child and affairs, they all do it, his ranking went down. Larry, they don't all do it...

KING: But some have always done it, right?

OLSON: Some have always done it, but I'm going to disagree with Dr. Jones. Our world is sort of spiraling downward. I think as long as we feel an outrage when these things happen, as long as it's not the norm, the danger we had during impeachment was people liked Bill Clinton, so they tend to accept things that I don't think otherwise they would except. They tended to accept actions that they probably otherwise wouldn't have, and that's the danger.

Because if we start accepting these things, such as, everyone does it, everyone lies about sex, if they're going to be embarrassed, or in the case of Chandra Levy, if somebody finds out it will hurt their career, as long as that doesn't become accepted in our society, I don't think we are going down. I think we are having, as you just said, this has happened all along, but it's not the usual.

KING: Before we get a call, Kim, do you want to jump in on this?

GANDY: When people in this country, Barbara, talk about character, they are talking about more than just sex. Sex, infidelity, sure, that is part of character, but they are also talking about a person's behavior in the world. Is it -- politician of good character, if they oppose family planning for poor woman? Is a politician of good character if they oppose Head Start slots for kids that need it? If they oppose funding that helps older people not have to the eat dog food for dinner?

All of these are character issues, and people look at that in that they look at extramarital affairs and they look at all of the character issues in a context. And Gary Condit flunks that test.

KING: Dr. Jones, in the Gary Condit matter, if there is outrage -- for example, 60 percent in his district in a poll today, said they wouldn't vote for him. Isn't that an example that we do show outrage?

JONES: Yes. But I have to ask, what is the outrage all about? Because he has a lifestyle of being unfaithful to his wife or...


KING: Do you agree with that, Tony? It's not his lifestyle they are mad at, they may have done something to his girl.

CAMPOLO: I think it's his lifestyle.

KING: You do.

CAMPOLO: I do. When I talk to people, the first thing that comes up, what must his wife be going through? What must his children be going through? They are disgusted that this wife and these children are going through hell, because of what this man has done. I think they're more outraged over that, because the truth is, most Americans still aren't sure what happened to this woman.

KING: Let me get a break; we'll come back and include your phone calls with Dr. Bob Jones, Barbara Olson, Tony Campolo, and Kim Gandy.


KING: Let me take a call: New York City, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello.


CALLER: Hi, I would like to know, why are we placing ourselves in a position where we are judging Condit morally, when we have all done things we are ashamed of and we are hanging Condit politically for something he may not have done?

CAMPOLO: I think you are hitting us where we should be hit.

KING: Because Condit is not talking to us.

CAMPOLO: That's right. I think that President Clinton for instance made a leap forward when he held that second confession -- the first one, he said, I did inappropriate behavior and the second one he said, I committed sin, and I'm repenting, and I'm asking for forgiveness. To come out and say that directly really cuts down the criticism...

KING: Condit should say that.

CAMPOLO: He should say that. No. 1, he should say I sinned and I need to repent and I need to set things right with my family. I also have to say that -- she is absolutely right -- I'm very afraid of being in a judgmental position because they are -- everybody has a secret side, including myself.

KING: Dr. Jones? Is he right because you are judgmental? Aren't you?

JONES: We are all judgmental. We all are judgmental. It's part of being human to be judgmental. How can we not be judgmental? We all have opinions. We are sitting around this table and we're sizing each other up. We are making judgments about each other.

CAMPOLO: But don't we make judgments about what people do. I'm not about to judge what a person is because a person is far different.

KING: That's a thin line though.

CAMPOLO: No, it's not. I do find, that a lot of people do good things for the wrong reasons and lots of people do wrong things for the right reasons.

KING: Modesto, California, hello.

CALLER: Does your panel think it's fair to compare President Clinton's conduct with potentially with -- the conduct of Gary Condit?

KING: Kim?

GANDY: Well, I think, so far, we really don't know what Gary Condit has done. And what he hasn't done, except that we know he didn't come forward and speak with the police when he should have and that's been cause of great -- very justified criticism.

KING: Barbara, do you compare them?

OLSON: I was going to add what Kim says, I agree, I think what happened, we got to see Gary Condit in a situation where he had to decide, am I going to help the police and give them information which could harm me politically? Embarrass my wife and my family? But it might be the right thing to do for this woman, and we got to see in that. And it's true, we all have sides, the old adage, don't do anything you don't want to do on the front page of the newspaper; we all probably have.

But we got to watch Gary Condit do it very publicly, and it wasn't very pretty that he put his own career and well-being ahead of a girl's life, whether he's involved otherwise, we don't know. But we do know he put himself ahead of her life by not cooperating instantly.

KING: Do you think, Dr. Jones, maybe all of this has always gone on, and we just know more now?

JONES: I think that is certainly true. Man's character has not changed. I said at the outset, it's a flaw of central character, capable of doing anything. And we should not...

KING: We're considerably on the decline, our attitude toward it was on the decline.

JONES: It is. I think we are excusing things that we never would have excused in generations gone by, because we have gone away from a Bible-based judgment about what is good and bad.

KING: South Carolina, hello.

CALLER: Yes, my question is why is it that politicians are above the law? I mean, if I lied on my job, I'd be fired. I went to Bob Jones, and if I had cheated on an exam there, I would have been kicked out. So why are politicians above the law, because they're lying publicly and they're admitting it the third and fourth time, after they can't say anything else?

KING: Maybe it's because there's no law about what he did.

GANDY: Well, certainly he will be called to answer for it. There is no question that, just as your boss makes a judgment about something you do on the job and your teacher makes a decision about a paper if you cheat on it, his constituents will make a decision about whether to keep him in office, and the police will make a decision about whether to arrest him, depending on what they find.

CAMPOLO: I don't think politicians should be above the law. However, I'm wondering whether politicians get a fair break with the law. For instance, nobody spends $50 million to investigate your background.

KING: But I didn't ask for your vote.

CAMPOLO: No, that's true.

KING: And I'm not an employee of the government.

CAMPOLO: I got it. But the truth is that I think that politicians are held up to a higher level of scrutiny.

KING: They should be?

CAMPOLO: I think they should be.

KING: All right. Let me get a break and we'll come back. Time flies. Don't go away.


KING: Log on to our Web site at for the answer to "King's Quiz." And we're in our remaining moments with our panel.

Dr. Jones, it sounds like you're pessimistic about all of this.

JONES: Well, I think we, looking at this present situation, have to conclude that corruptive character corrupts -- corrupts people that it touches. And when character has been trusted, as Mr. Condit was trusted, and it fails, it's magnified. It looks worse than if he were just a ditch digger somewhere. But it is worse, because he was trusted by people who elected him to office and put confidence in him. He betrayed confidence.

And when these examples are so public, it cuts at the very heart of America, and our children. I'm worried about our children, who have to have this whole thing paraded in front of their eyes.

KING: Do you agree with that, Kim?

GANDY: Yes, I agree.

KING: Politician has higher trust.

GANDY: Politician absolutely has a higher level of trust. Anyone in a position of power, I think, has a higher obligation to the people who elected him. He absolutely does, and when you put protecting his own hide ahead of protecting an innocent person, then I think he deserves the attention that he got, and he deserves to be chastised for it.

CAMPOLO: I worry about the hypocrisy. I love Jesus, I love the church. But the church has supported racism over the years, the church has supported the oppression of women. It's done a lot of terrible things. And I think we're getting better. I think we're dealing with the problems of the past and I think we're moving forward. This country has been hypocritical. The Declaration of Independence promises everybody is equal, and then we do Native Americans, to blacks, to Hawaiians, to Hispanics -- the times come for us to do judgment, but I think the judgment has to begin with us. We have to examine our own souls.

KING: Barbara?

OLSON: Well, I was just going to add on what Kim said. I agree, but the thing that's made this such a national issue is the intern. I mean, you know, young girls come, and boys, come from all over the country to learn about our country. And to come to Washington, D.C. to experience the government. And when they're used, then it's something we all see, because every state has congressman. They all send interns. There's probably parents all over this country whose sons and daughters have been interns in Washington.

So it makes it something very personal, something local in every district. And it becomes an abuse of power that maybe we don't see if it's hidden in corporate America, but we do if it's in the House of Representatives.

KING: Are you optimistic, Dr. Jones, that we will learn everything? Or is that not -- predicting is not in the purview of the ministry or the school?

JONES: Well, I'm certainly not a prophet, but I'm not sure we learned anything from Clinton. It looks to me like Condit pretty much took a page out of Clinton's playbook and has gone forward with it. I don't -- there is nothing redeemable about man's character from within man. The redemption comes from Jesus Christ, and as long as man is outside of Jesus Christ, man, the sinner, is able to do anything...

KING: And you believe that, too, right?

CAMPOLO: I believe that God is a transforming power in our lives, and without God we can do nothing.

KING: Do you believe that, Kim?

GANDY: I believe that we're going to find out everything.

KING: You do.

GANDY: As a former prosecutor, I believe that the police and the investigators, the district attorneys will stay after this until they find out what has happened to Chandra Levy.

KING: Barbara, thanks again as always. Come back from Wisconsin already. It's nice, it's only 90 degrees and humid in Washington. You'll love it.


KING: Dr. Bob Jones, Barbara Olson, Kim Gandy and Tony Campolo. Tomorrow, guess what?

Stay tuned now for "CNN TONIGHT." We'll get you up to date on all the late stories and then my man, Jeff Greenfield, will be with us a half-hour from now with his gang and group.

Thanks for joining us on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. From Washington, D.C., good night.



4:30pm ET, 4/16

Back to the top