Skip to main content
CNN.com /transcript


CNN TV
EDITIONS

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

What Does Gary Condit Have to Do With Chandra Levy's Disappearance?

Aired July 25, 2001 - 21:00   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.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, when will Gary Condit talk again and under what conditions? How could an FBI profile of Chandra Levy help in an 86-day-old mystery with no solid clues?

Back for another round of blunt discussion, former federal prosecutor and best-selling author, Barbara Olson. She's in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin.

In New York, former criminal defense attorney, Laura Ingraham, now host of her own syndicated radio show.

In Washington, defense attorney Mark Geragos.

In Seattle, former Clinton impeachment attorney-turned-law- professor, Lis Wiehl.

And back in New York, an investigative reporter who's been on the Levy story from day one, Lisa DePaulo, contributing writer for "Talk" magazine.

Plus later in Miami, the defense attorney for Gary Condit's brother Darrell, Jon Sale. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE!

Good evening. I'm back in L.A. and everybody is everywhere, and we're going to introduce the newest member of our group, and that is Lis Wiehl. She joins us from Seattle. She was deputy chief counsel for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment hearings against Bill Clinton, former federal prosecutor, now professor at University of Washington School of Law. Her expertise is ethics, evidence and criminal law.

So let's start with you, Lis, and introduce you into the rest of the group. What do you make of all of this? Where do you stand? Should Gary Condit come forward? Will the profile help? What's your read?

LIS WIEHL, FORMER CLINTON IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: He should have come forward a long time ago. I think we would have resolved a lot of this mess if he had just come forward, held a two-sentence press conference where he said, yes, I had an affair with her. I'm very sorry for the family. Let's resolve this.

As far as the profile goes, it's hard to say what it can really do at this point, unless he's got new information for the D.C. cops or the FBI. We don't know that.

KING: Barbara Olson, does this get more curiouser or less curiouser, or is it stagnant?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I don't think it's stagnant yet. I mean, the fact that they are negotiating, doing a fourth interview with Gary Condit. What -- and I want to follow up on what Lis said, is by talking to Gary Condit, getting a profile of Chandra, they maybe will get new leads. Obviously, they have hit some dead walls. They've been going through the parks for days now, not finding anything. They have searched everything they can think of.

Maybe, by getting Gary Condit to be really forthcoming, talk about things that only a boyfriend might know, things her mother would know or sister or her aunt, maybe Gary Condit can tell them some things about her that can give them leads and take them off in a direction where they can start finding something. Because it's really hard to believe that no one saw her on May 1st, that she disappeared without a trace. And Gary Condit knows her better than anyone else, at this point, certainly up until the date she disappeared.

KING: Laura Ingraham, should or would the D.C. police be involved in this FBI talks?

LAURA INGRAHAM, FORMER CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think with Gary Condit, it's always half a loaf. I mean, he always comes forward through his spokesman, says that he is going to cooperate, that he wants to help find Chandra Levy, that's his sole goal in all of this. And yet when push comes to shove, he won't just meet with the FBI profiler with D.C. police present. There has to be a condition precedent put on that fact.

And so, you know, again, I think we're back at square one with Gary Condit. He says he'll help, but he'll only go halfway. When it comes to sticking his neck out, legally, for this young woman's disappearance, he won't do it.

KING: Lisa DePaulo, why can't the FBI just say to someone we want to interview you? Why do you negotiate this?

LISA DEPAULO, "TALK" MAGAZINE: Yes, that's what -- I mean, this is amazing to me. Since when do witnesses get to dictate which law enforcement agency interviews them? Especially, you know, when you think of it, the D.C. metro police are under the auspices of Congress. It's really a strange negotiation.

KING: Mark Geragos, one thing strange here, and then we'll all get into the round robin -- and just try, since we're all in different places, not to talk over each other.

Mark, it is...

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I won't take that personally, Larry.

KING: If this were not Gary Condit, if this were John Jones... GERAGOS: If this were John Jones...

KING: Would he be...

GERAGOS: No, he wouldn't be talking. He would not be talking.

KING: He wouldn't be a suspect, he wouldn't be questioned?

GERAGOS: He'd be a suspect. His lawyer would tell him, shut up, you're not going to go see the FBI. The profiler is about the equivalent of somebody who divines jackal tracks with a broken twig. I mean, none of this would be going on, it'd be utter nonsense. The idea that some guy has already turned over his records, that he's talked to them three times, that he's talking about talking to them a fourth time, that he's going to go talk to a profiler, that he is going to let them search the house and he's going to do all of these other things -- none of this happens in the real world! It only happens in this kind of upside-down situation that we've got with Gary Condit. And...

DEPAULO: Who turned it upside-down?

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Now, one at a time.

DEPAULO: Who turned it upside-down?

GERAGOS: Normally there is never a defense lawyer who is ever going to allow his client to go in, to be talked to, when the focus is on him. I mean, it's just not going to happen.

DEPAULO: I agree. You don't...

GERAGOS: When all of America has already judged this guy guilty. I mean, he's presumed guilty in this case.

DEPAULO: But this guy, if he had said everything he had to say in the very beginning, I think we may all have moved on at this point. He's the one that has dragged this out.

GERAGOS: He obviously said to the police, at least the way that it's been leaked, that he has already admitted to having an affair.

DEPAULO: Yes, but that took 67 days.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: And they've said he's been cooperative.

KING: Lis Wiehl, what I meant by the John Jones as opposed to Gary Condit, supposing this happened and it was a John Jones, and John Jones -- I'm asking this of Lis Wiehl in Seattle -- supposing he gets to -- would a John Jones be able to say to the FBI or to the police, lie first and then not lie again and then negotiate with lawyers? Could that all occur with a suspect not well-known? WIEHL: Absolutely. It happens every day. A John Jones, a you or me going in, to talk to the FBI or the police, first of all, we wouldn't have to, and second of all, if our lawyer told us, look, I'm going to negotiate on what you're going to be talked to about, whether you're going to get immunity, whether they are going to be certain things off the table -- Larry, that happens every day with prosecutors, FBI agents, et cetera. It's this case. It's this case, because Condit is stuck between the legal and the moral hard rock. I mean, he's got to...

INGRAHAM: Well, he's also stuck between the political world.

WIEHL: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: He is. He is very different from the everyday, average potential suspect in a case, because as Charlie Stenholm, a blue dog Democrat colleague of his, said today: "His conduct is disgraceful to himself, his family and his constituents." That's the difference here. There's a political reality which overlays this whole legal case.

GERAGOS: Yes, but at the same time, Laura, at the same time, he still has rights. He's still a citizen of the United States of America.

INGRAHAM: Of course he does.

GERAGOS: He is presumed innocent.

INGRAHAM: We're talking, Mark, about how he is different from the average person.

GERAGOS: I understand. But in a criminal investigation, which obviously, this is, this guy still has rights. He shouldn't be presumed guilty.

KING: And, Barbara, doesn't he harm himself? We keep harping on this -- harm himself by not coming forward publicly?

OLSON: Well, of course he does. Politically he harms himself. But understand, what Mark is saying is what every good defense attorney would tell their client. But Gary Condit is a politician. Politically, he's already harmed himself. Most of his constituents are now saying that they wouldn't re-elect him if he were running again, which he is going to be up.

GERAGOS: Which is exactly -- then he pays the price! He pays the price, Barbara, politically. But legally, this idea of pushing this guy to give up every single right, when every -- I have never seen anything like the absolute unabashed assuredness that everybody has that this guy is guilty.

OLSON: He's not giving up every right, and you know that.

GERAGOS: He is. He's given up his Fourth Amendment rights by search, he's giving up his Fifth Amendment rights to speak and he's basically giving up his Sixth Amendment rights to counsel in order to have a profiler talk to him.

OLSON: If Gary Condit wants to take the Fifth. He is now doing all of his...

GERAGOS: Right, and he could pay a political price for that.

OLSON: ... interviews voluntarily. And that is exactly why he's not under subpoena.

KING: I've got to get a break. We'll be right back right after these words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: And what it is he feels he has a need to hide, we don't know. But beyond that, I cannot say that he is either a suspect, or has more information. We simply don't know. The police have not been able to move forward to interview other potential witnesses, because Congressman Condit was slow in being candid with the authorities.

The police will not move on from a witness or somebody who may have information until they are convinced that that person has provided all the information that he or she may have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Laura Ingraham of Westwood One Radio, what's the value of a Chandra profile?

INGRAHAM: I think the authorities at this point, Larry, are trying to you know, grasp on to anything that they can. They are trying to figure out, is this a woman who typically would exercise alone? Is this a woman who would answer the door to someone she didn't know? Is this a woman who, if Congressman Condit's associate would call her, and say, come downstairs, the congressman wants to meet you, would she do that? Was she that open to those kinds of encounters?

I think all of these little tidbits are things that the police and the authorities need to know. I'm kind of surprised that these things weren't thought of 10 weeks ago, 11 weeks ago, why are we just getting around to this right now?

GERAGOS: Because they are desperate. They obviously have hit a wall. When they bring in a profiler you are only one step removed from a psychic, and that is what's going to happen next.

KING: Are you comparing a profiler to a psychic?

GERAGOS: The profiler is -- is not a science. This isn't something you are able to get in admissible. It is a first cousin of a psychic.

KING: Really?

GERAGOS: This is not something that, this is something that is borne out of desperation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm sure the FBI is glad to hear that.

GERAGOS: It's not the first time the FBI has been desperate or...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm sure it's not the first time they have heard it from a defense attorney, either.

GERAGOS: That's true.

KING: We are going to change the name of this show to making friends with Mark Geragos, the Dale Carnegie of our program.

Lisa DePaulo, last night we had an extraordinary call from a young lady who lives in Chandra's building and she said that Chandra was extraordinarily to herself, not around with people, or didn't see her much, never talked to her while living in the same building, et cetera.

Does that back up with what you are going to have in your article on August 3?

DEPAULO: Yes and no. Chandra is a very private person. But the friends she had she was very, very close to. She had a couple very good male friends, platonic male friends, but you have to realize, interns come to Washington, they really don't know a lot of people. And she was dating a married man who had these crazy rules of secrecy.

So she probably wasn't, you know, flaunting him in the lobby.

KING: Lisa, Lis Wiehl, rather, in Seattle. People are asking, they ask me this all the time, I'm sure everyone hears it, and it's the old axiom, if Gary Condit had nothing do with this disappearance, forget everything else he may have had with other women and all that, why didn't he come forward?

What does he have to lose if he didn't have anything to do with this? WIEHL: And maybe if he had come forward sooner that would have been an easy answer but now with all of this other stuff coming out, and him sort of imploding, you know, running out and throwing out watch cases, for example, in the middle of the night, it is really hard for him to do that.

I do think, though, the police are showing signs of moving on. I mean now they are finally going to go and you know, look up those registered sexual offenders that are in those very neighborhoods. And maybe look into those other cases of missing women in those neighborhoods. My question -- why haven't they done that before? Why haven't they been, you know, stalking the neighbors, basically, to get information? KING: Barbara Olson, does this give cause -- the reason people are thinking that Condit is involved is because he isn't helping their thinking any, right?

OLSON: Absolutely. I mean we sit there and watched Gary Condit's staff come out immediately and say that he and Chandra were good friends, there was no relationship. We sort of have been able to watch him disassemble his relationship with her.

And you know, your previous question about Gary Condit, there is two reasons he is acting the way he is. One, he is guilty. And which he has handled this fairly well, because he hasn't been charged. Or, two, he thought more of himself and hiding his relationship than he did of this girl. Both are very revealing about the man, and tell us sort of the inside of who Gary Condit is that is not very pretty.

KING: The first reason is the big story, the second reason is a quasi-story.

DEPAULO: It's the political story. It's the politics, a man who thinks of his career and his politics, and not letting his wife know, although at this point one would think she probably does.

KING: Is he, therefore, Mark, between a rock and hard place?

GERAGOS: Of course he's between a rock and hard place. No guy is going to get into a position where he is going to volunteer that kind of information initially. And you know, the idea that Barbara says either he is guilty or it is something else and we can discern his character from this and everything else, I mean that is an awful reach, I think, and an awful way to condemn somebody, based upon somebody who basically, froze when he shouldn't have froze. And unfortunately, he did.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Froze?

GERAGOS: Yes, he froze, and that's what happened.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good grief.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time, one at a time.

GERAGOS: This is a guy who did, whether anybody wants to accept it or not, he did go to the police, he was the one who initiated at the Levy's request, the police getting involved. He was adamant that they get involved. He has cooperated, you know, because he hasn't gone on to the press he's taken a big hit because of that.

INGRAHAM: Mark, you spend too much time in L.A. Mark, how do you come to these conclusions?

GERAGOS: I am in Washington, D.C. and I have seen what's happened out here in Washington, D.C., and it's unbelievable.

INGRAHAM: Exactly.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time. One at a time, please.

GERAGOS: Laura, you have suspended the Constitution here and that's just a horrible thing to happen.

KING: All right, Laura, go ahead -- Laura.

INGRAHAM: Can I speak now, Larry?

KING: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Is that possible? Great, let's look at this just objectively for a second, and again, assume he is innocent. We are going to assume he is innocent. Why did he wait four or five days before he decided that this was important enough, this young woman's whereabouts was important enough to actually have a conversation with her parents, and actually go to the police? They talked several times a day, they talked several times a day.

GERAGOS: Can I answer that.

INGRAHAM: The talked several times a day. If someone talks several times...

GERAGOS: Can I answer that? The talked several times a day and he left to go to Modesto...

INGRAHAM: I can't finish a sentence. I can't, I can't...

GERAGOS: I was going to answer it for her.

KING: Mark, you got to let her finish. She is making a point.

GERAGOS: Well, when she puts out that misinformation it is a little disturbing.

KING: All right.

INGRAHAM: OK. this idea that he has been the model of cooperation in this case is so preposterous, and it is the kind of obfuscation that the American public is tired of hearing from the defense bar, frankly. And the idea that a man could step forward...

GERAGOS: Well, I'll tell you, as a former defense lawyer...

KING: Mark, let her finish.

GERAGOS: But she should be ashamed of herself. This guy, if he is the focus of the investigation, has an absolute right not to say anything, and he hasn't. INGRAHAM: I didn't say that he didn't, Mark. What I'm saying is that he doesn't have the right to try to come off as a man who is the model of cooperation, and someone who cares deeply about this young woman's whereabouts. He cared about himself!

KING: Let me get a break. We will come back, we will continue with our panel, and please try not to talk over each other and we will bring in John Sale who is the attorney for Darrell Condit. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S MOTHER: There is nothing new but we just want to keep the search intense, and we want to bring my daughter home. This has gone on for 11 weeks, but we feel that there are people out there who might know something, maybe sitting on information that could be helpful, and that they would have the character and the courage enough to come forward and help us bring our daughter back safely to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Our panel remains with us. We are joined now from a Miami by John Sale, he is the attorney for Darrell Condit, and long a veteran criminal attorney in South Florida.

We understand that Gary's brother Darrell has been transferred now from Broward County to Monroe County. Is that where he is?

JON SALE, DARRELL CONDIT ATTORNEY: Yes, Larry.

He was transferred in record time, the Broward County Jail apparently wanted him out of there as soon as possible, three days and he was gone.

KING: And he will be arraigned where? Early August in Monroe to face probation violation. Is that the charge?

SALE: Yeah. He was brought to Monroe County and they took him to the first available judge, that judge said that, well, I understand you have a bond application to lower the bond, but I didn't set the bond, so I'm going to defer to another judge. Now it's been put over on August 7, for his arraignment.

KING: This is all about him doing what?

SALE: The allegation is based upon a 1996 DUI that he was then put on probation, it is alleged he failed to provide a urinalysis, and pay some nominal court costs, and to file a report. It is 3 or 4 years old, and that is -- as of last Saturday that was the only outstanding charge against him.

KING: Will you represent him in Monroe?

SALE: Well, I'm getting some assistance because he doesn't have the kind of resources to transport us to Monroe County. But what I'm hoping and what I'm urging everybody is, treat him in Monroe County like you would anyone else, who is charged with that type of an offense, if that is the case, he will be out of jail and he will be forgotten very quickly.

KING: Has his brother contacted him?

SALE: No. He has not. And that has...

KING: A lot of people wonder about that. Do you, Jon, just as an observer?

SALE: No, that is a good question. Let me explain something. I think the members of the panel would. So that I'm candid with you that, in ordinary practice once there is some kind of investigation in their scrutiny, all lawyers are going to say, folks involved should avoid contact.

But that would be legal advice, but in this case, the significance is not that. It is that their particular relationship is such that they haven't spoken to each other in more than a year, and so that happens to be their relationship. So that is what's key. They didn't speak around the time of Chandra Levy's disappearance and they haven't spoken for over a year since then.

KING: Has he had any contract with the other brother, Burl, the police officer in Modesto?

SALE: Frankly, that I don't know, Larry.

KING: What about -- what about the police of Washington or the FBI? Is anyone interested in talking with Darrell about this current mess involving Gary?

SALE: I don't know if they're interested. But as of Monday, I was sure they were going to contact me, and I was going to arrange for them to talk to him to their heart's content. They have not. And I'm starting -- at first I was puzzled, now I'm beginning to have a theory.

KING: Which is?

SALE: My theory -- and that is all it is -- is that maybe they have done their homework, and they have learned that he has absolutely no involvement, no knowledge, and it is an embarrassment that this situation has been caused and he is now paying the price for it.

KING: Jon, you remain with us, we will come right back. Jon will stay with the panel. The panel may have questions of Jon, he will remain, and we will be back with more, we'll also be including your phone calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We'll be going to calls in a while and reintroduce the entire panel in a little while and Jon Sale will remain with us. Before we invite you into the panel, Jon, what is Darrell's state of mind regarding this whole situation? His brother being on the front page of the newspapers?

SALE: He is puzzled. He is traumatized. Let me tell you, that on this minor charge he has been held in solitary confinement and with lights glaring 24 hours day.

KING: Why?

SALE: For his own safety. There has been some concern and I don't blame them, that possibly some crazy person -- inmate, might have seen this terrible picture in the tabloids and think incorrectly by innuendo he did something wrong, and they want to protect him. They don't want the liability, and this is what he is going through.

KING: Barbara Olson, is he in a weird spot?

OLSON: Well, he is. He is the brother of -- Darrell Condit is the brother of Congressman Condit. He was on the lam when this all broke. Now we find out supposedly that he had spoken to his brother for a year. And so it makes it look a little more intriguing when you have someone who is on the other side of the law that is very close to Congressman Condit, and who possibly could have something to add for a missing person.

According to what his lawyer says, what Jon says, he doesn't know anything, but I think there are questions -- very interesting to ask of him. And similarly to ask of his attorney.

KING: Lisa, are you surprised that the police and the FBI have not questioned Darrell?

DEPAULO: Well, I'm surprised about a couple things. First of all, you keep focusing on the DUI, but you know, this guy has a rap sheet dating back to 1968, all kings of things: burglary, auto theft, there is a lot of drug charges. So you really can't overlook that.

I heard Mr. Sales say earlier today that, you know, he would have talked to the police before and it's kind of curious that he had an alias, if he was so willing to be cooperative. I think there are a lot of questions about Darrell. It doesn't make sense to me that you could see your brother on the front page for two and a half months and not call him.

KING: Lis Wiehl, what do you make of the Darrell involvement? And then we will have Jon respond when we get to comments.

WIEHL: What I'm really curious about, Jon's theory, says the police may have done their homework, so what I'm wondering is, does he think that they have looked up his client's phone records and bank records? To show there was no conduct with his brother in Washington, D.C., and if so, if that is what he thinks and that is why he thinks he is not getting the phone call from them, is he willing to divulge that information to the media?

KING: Jon?

SALE: Well, that is a fair question and the answer is, I'm not going to grandstand to the media. I have -- I will right now invite any legitimate law enforcement agency to contact me, and I will make my client available, and we will provide, the truthful information which will satisfy them at that point I will be happy to releasing everything. .

WIEHL: Do you know whether or not they have -- do you know whether or not they have done -- they have subpoenaed his bank records and phone records, to be able to tell whether or not is saying there is a communication, so you don't know whether they have done that or not?

SALE: No, no, I have no idea what they have done, and I'm not now in this case, I'm not going to vouch for what's in the press, but yesterday's "Miami Herald" -- I have it right here, I'm not going to hold it up. But there is a headline in a story that says, FBI Says Condit's Brother Not a Priority.

And it quotes an FBI spokesman, names the spokesman in saying, we are not particularly interested in speaking to him.

WIEHL: I understand that you think they have done their homework, what is the homework they would have done? To me, as a prosecutor, I would have gone and I would have gotten the bank records, the phone records, any kind of records I could show that to either prove or disprove what your client is saying.

SALE: I agree with you. I agree with you, I was a federal prosecutor for 10 years, I would have done the same thing, I don't know what they have done, I'm saying that if they want to contact us, we will -- I'm not saying he would have been cooperating. I will make him available, answer all their questions, no obfuscation, as one member of the panel said, and we will satisfy them, and then you all.

KING: I'm going to take a break, and when we come back we'll have Laura's comments and Mark's comments, about Jon Sale. Jon will remain with us, we'll get Jon's thoughts away from Darrell about this whole story, and we will be taking your phone calls.

Don't forget, it's time to log on to my King's Quiz, cnn.com/larryking.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's reintroduce our panel. In Ellison Bay, Wisconsin is Barbara Olson, former federal prosecutor and founder of the Women's Independent Forum.

In New York is Laura Ingraham, former criminal defense attorney and Westwood One syndicated radio talk show host.

In Washington is Mark Geragos, defense attorney. His clients include Roger Clinton and Susan McDougal.

In Seattle is Lis Wiehl, deputy chief counsel for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and professor at University of Washington School of Law.

In New York, Lisa DePaulo, contributing writer for "Talk" Magazine. She's been on this case from the get-go, has a big article coming out August 3.

And in Miami is Jon Sale. Jon is the attorney for Darrell Condit, the brother of Gary Condit.

And now I want to get Laura Ingraham's thoughts on what Jon had to say -- Laura.

INGRAHAM: First of all, what is it with problematic brothers? I think Mark Geragos knows a lot about that. We have Roger Clinton, Billy Carter, even the Bushes had some problematic times with their brothers.

But the interesting thing might be with Darrell, does he have any knowledge of a pattern or practice of, you know, deviant conduct of his brother, whether it is extramarital or otherwise? Is there information, that he has just about the congressman's personality, his likes, dislikes, his conduct with women?

Those kinds of things, all are pieces of the puzzle, not only a profile of Chandra Levy is needed here, but a profile of the conduct of Gary Condit.

KING: So, Jon, we will then ask it this way: if you were still a prosecutor, would you want to ask questions of Darrell, for more information?

SALE: If I were a prosecutor, I would want to question anybody who might have any relevant information.

KING: OK, now we will -- Mark, your comments on what Jon had to say and then we will go with...

GERAGOS: I have actually got a question for Jon, if I could.

KING: Sure, absolutely.

GERAGOS: Jon, do I understand this correctly that this guy is being held in solitary confinement in jail, without bail for a misdemeanor probation violation that is five years old?

SALE: He was in Broward County. The solitary was for his own protection.

GERAGOS: OK.

SALE: The misdemeanor probation violation, not without bail, but was on $50,000 bail which, to somebody who is of limited means, that is the same thing as without bail.

GERAGOS: That's tantamount to no bail, so they've got him -- when is his bail review? SALE: Well, as of -- as of now -- this can change, but as of now, August 7. What I can tell you is that there are dozens and dozens of other cases like that in the system every day, and routinely disposed of, time served, something like that.

GERAGOS: Right. I was going to ask, Jon: don't you find that just to be a little bit unusual, from what normally goes on in the criminal justice system?

SALE: It's appalling. And that's why we are representing him. It's a gross injustice.

GERAGOS: Yeah. And you believe he is being singled out because of who he is, right?

SALE: The Broward Sheriffs office said it is the media hype that caused us to go out searching for him.

KING: Jon, I want to get -- someone want to ask something -- or who wanted -- I hear a voice...

GERAGOS: It sounds like Laura yelping.

OLSON: I was going to ask a question. It's Barbara. I want to ask Jon a question. You know, we keep hearing Darrell hasn't spoken to his brother, and are you telling us that he hasn't had any communication even through third persons, with Gary Condit over the past year?

SALE: Yes, I'm not playing games. I'm telling you that their relationship is such that they have had no contact. The last time they had any contact happened to have been when my client was in California, close to two years ago.

OLSON: And does your client know any people that might do criminal acts for hire?

SALE: Oh, my God. I take that...

GERAGOS: Jon!

(LAUGHTER)

SALE: I will take that -- I will take that in the spirit that that is not serious. You know, let me say it is fair game to point out that he had a troubled past. But it was when he was younger, he has not had any problem with the law until last Saturday, prior to -- since the early '90s.

KING: Jon, before you leave us, what's your thought on this whole thing? Regardless of Darrell?

SALE: Very quickly, my thought is, first, I'm hesitant to give it, because I'm not part of Congressman Condit's PR effort...

KING: Just as an onlooker. SALE: As an onlooker, I'm very concerned about all of the innuendo, and I'm more interested in hard evidence, and I can't separate that from the innuendo because I'm biased from what I have seen happen to Darrell.

KING: Yes, I got you. Thanks very much, Jon, for being with us. Jon Sale in Miami, we will call on you again.

Let's get a call for the panel. Atlanta, hello.

CALLER: Hi, my question goes to the point of the profiling they want to do now with Gary Condit. And previously the media divulged how close Chandra was to her aunt, even letting her know her aunt, letting her know her aunt about the relationship that she had, and the seriousness of it. I believe it was even discussed that she told her aunt that she thought that they might get married. Why are they not looking to the aunt or other relationships, that Chandra might have had in her life, for a profile or for more information? The focus keeps being talked about towards Gary Condit. And I'm thinking that somebody else in her life had to have known her better or just as much as Gary.

KING: Lisa, where has the aunt gone?

DEPAULO: I think the answer is that all these other people have already talked at length about all this with the police. I have talked to lots of people who have been interviewed over and over and over, some of them are bullied. They are, you know -- but it is extensive, it is complete and thorough. And I think the reason it is time for him is because he hasn't answered everything.

KING: But the aunt -- everything she had to say has been said, there is no further questioning of her?

DEPAULO: Yeah, she has been talking to numerous investigators from day one.

KING: She has.

DEPAULO: Yes.

KING: Is she prominent in your article?

DEPAULO: Yes. She had a very important point.

KING: We'll be right back with more, and more phone calls.

Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: Why is he acting so suspiciously? I don't know why he may have, if the reports are true, that he may have tried to deposit this watch just prior to the search being conducted by the FBI, occurring. But it is suspicious activity, in his conduct creates this cloud of suspicion, not anything that we accused him of doing or anything that others may feel that he -- information he may know. It is his activities that are just suspicious.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's include some other calls. Hartford, Connecticut, hello.

CALLER: Hello. I'm wondering, having listened to all the panelists, obviously everyone thinks that Gary Condit is the main suspect, but why is it that no one has considered that maybe there is a conspiracy against Gary Condit -- political or otherwise? And there may be someone who has such a grudge against him that they or a group of people could have abducted this woman.

It could be political or otherwise, but this question has never come up. It just seems that apart from Mark, everyone is ready to -- I am going to use the word "hang" -- Gary. And it could be that this is a conspiracy, it could be a political one or otherwise, but you get my drift.

KING: I do, but Lis, wouldn't the answer be then for him to come forward?

WIEHL: Well.

KING: I mean let's take that -- anything goes today. You read it in any fiction. The wife did it, the uncle did it, the husband did, the brother did it. Could it be a conspiracy against Gary?

WIEHL: We don't know, I mean it is possible. Anything is possible. And I think the caller is right, we shouldn't be ready to "hang" Condit. I mean, yes, it is true, he has not been a model of cooperation as Barbara said. I don't think anybody is saying that he was. His lawyer didn't even get involved until after he had already kind of stepped in it, and is trying to educate his client as he goes along.

But just because he wasn't a model of cooperation at the beginning and now is trying to be, doesn't mean we should hang the guy.

KING: But Lisa, we are, in a sense, hanging him, aren't we, Lisa? By we I mean a collective "we."

DEPAULO: From the very beginning I thought it was one two of things, either he was complicit in his disappearance or he had absolutely nothing to do with it. He is the most unlucky philanderer on Capitol Hill. Now I think there might be a third possibility, which is, this guy really is acting like he has major secrets to hide. Now they may or may not have anything to do with the investigation, but wow, you know, he has gone to real lengths here that are above and beyond what most married men do.

You know, he may have some dark side, darker, darker, than we know already. And that will not fly in Modesto.

KING: Laura Ingraham, is there something -- ring wrong?

INGRAHAM: Well, you know, it seems like there are probably more people that know very, very intimate details about what the real relationship was between Gary Condit and Chandra Levy, the kinds of things they did together, you know, whether or not they really did ever talk about getting married, whether it was a total fantasy in her mind, or whether he give her reason to believe that. Was there ever anger between the two? Did Gary Condit tell no one at all, no one about this? I -- that is, that is kind of -- inhuman to think he actually would have that kind of fortitude.

DEPAULO: She didn't mean enough to him to tell people (OFF-MIKE) .

INGRAHAM: And did she not talk to anyone other than her aunt? I just, it seems impossible that nobody on Gary Condit's staff, nobody on his staff, you see that guy trailing him every day, that kid with the glasses, I can't remember his name, and you see him every day, right behind the congressman.

And I know staffers on Capitol Hill. They know a lot more about their bosses than their bosses think. They think they are untouchable, but their staffers know.

(CROSSTALK)

WIEHL: Why is that necessarily relevant?

GERAGOS: It isn't to all of this.

WIEHL: Go after Condit, get everything you can from him but look at other leads.

GERAGOS: It isn't relevant and they, you know, the caller...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Of course they are looking at other leads.

WIEHL: No, but they haven't.

KING: One at a time. Mark hasn't been in a while -- Mark.

GERAGOS: Larry, the caller makes an excellent point. This thing has been used by the Republicans, by the Blue Dog Democrats, they have taken full advantage of this thing.

INGRAHAM: Oh, give me a break, Mark!

GERAGOS: Well, Laura, you are chief amongst them.

INGRAHAM: How surprising, a defender of the Clintons using the politics of personal destruction, That's really a shocker.

GERAGOS: Excuse me, excuse me.

INGRAHAM: How many times have I referred to him as a Democrat, Mark? How many times have I referred to him as Democrat? How many times have I referred to him as a Democrat? You can't answer the question.

GERAGOS: On at least five or six occasions that I have been with you.

INGRAHAM: Zero, zero, zero.

GERAGOS: On at least five or six occasions, maybe 10.

INGRAHAM: OK, all right.

KING: Youngstown, Ohio, hello.

CALLER: My question is, since Gary Condit has been kind of deceptive from the beginning, especially with the affair, how accurate is this FBI profiling going to be? I'm sure he is being coached by Abbe Lowell on how to answer questions and how to give comments, so how do we know if what he is going to say to the FBI will not possibly lead them in the wrong way?

KING: Wouldn't in a profile situation, Barbara, where you are presumably trying to help, that you would tell them everything you know about her?

OLSON: Absolutely. I mean, Abbe Lowell is not telling him the answers. As Mark will say, a defense attorney is not allowed to do that. Obviously, Abbe Lowell is going through those questions with him, but I think what are they going to find out, you know, people talked about there could be other boyfriends and things, well Gary Condit might know was there someone who was causing her problems? Did she have any enemies?

Those are kinds of intimate things that she may have discussed with Gary that she wouldn't have even talked with her mother or her aunt about. There is a lot of information about Chandra that you speak to someone, that you are in love with, that you wouldn't anyone else.

KING: Well, said. Mark, isn't that a good point? He could have information that could help them find the culprit.

GERAGOS: And presumably, during those three interviews he answered those questions. Presumably the reason that...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, obviously not.

GERAGOS: Why do you say obviously not?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. 4 is coming up!

GERAGOS: They are now bringing in a profiler which is something totally different than what interviews are. So they have reached a dead end. So why do you just keep saying, he obviously didn't?

OLSON: They don't keep reinterviewing someone of they get information -- well as a good defense attorney you have to say that.

GERAGOS: They have reinterviewed people in this case repeatedly, not just Gary Condit. They reinterviewed as Lisa mentioned, a number of these witnesses on numerous occasions whenever they collect evidence.

KING: Let me get a break. We'll be right back with more -- hold it -- we'll be right back with more, Ingraham and Geragos go ten rounds on the Roy Jones bill on Saturday night at Staples -- undercard. We will be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: The focus ought to be on finding this young woman. Gary is cooperating with the police in every possible way. That is what he should be doing. As to his future, like all of us, that is between him and his constituents. They make the decision on who serves here. They make the decision on whether or not we continue to serve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Jackson, Mississippi, hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Mr. King.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: My question is for ladies on the panel.

KING: OK.

CALLER: It seems that the representative is trying to hide something. Has a time line been done on his wife?

KING: Do we know, Laura, do we have an idea if a time line has been done on the whereabouts and actions of Mrs. Condit?

INGRAHAM: I don't know for fact, but I do know the authorities have interviewed her after a little difficulty getting in touch with her, a little difficulty in actually being able to sit down with her. But we do know she had planned to be in D.C. during that weekend, and according to reports, she spent that night alone with her husband on May 1, the night after he spent his afternoon in office, after his meeting with Dick Cheney, and they spent a quiet evening at home alone together. So that seems to be what the official line is on the evening of May 1. DEPAULO: I think what Carolyn Condit was doing in town is a really key question. Apparently she did attend this one lunch with Laura Bush as some people believed. It was with 2,000 women at the Washington Hilton. It was not the kind of thing you fly across the country for. I think that is -- that is certainly the first question I would want to know.

KING: Birmingham -- sorry.

WIEHL: Why wouldn't she fly across the country for that and to see her husband. She sat down with the police, I'm sure -- I don't know for sure, but I would think that they have come up with their own timeline. They have asked her all the questions that they wanted to ask.

KING: Birmingham, Alabama, hello.

CALLER: Can law enforcement authorities request that all of Condit's bank records be subpoenaed for the fact that (a) possibly he paid -- God willing -- Chandra Levy to disappear, because she threatened to go public with affair or (b) he could have paid someone who is actually involved in her disappearance?

KING: Mark, can they take bank records?

GERAGOS: They can take the bank records but in this case he has already offered them up, and has said that he will turn over whatever records he wants. They can get the bank records either by issuing a grand jury subpoena for the records, or they can go in and take them by consent which is what they did in this case.

KING: And they can get all phone records the same way?

GERAGOS: they can get phone records the exact same way. In fact, they can get phone records pretty fast, usually, if you've got consent from the subscriber.

INGRAHAM: One thing that might be interesting to find out, Larry, is whether or not Congressman Condit was phoning Chandra in the days following her disappearance, before he had actually gone to police. Was he making phone calls to check in, that is odd, I haven't heard from her in a day. Haven't heard from her in two days, haven't heard from her in three days. Did he call to check up on her, and if not, why?

DEPAULO: Right. That is a great point.

KING: All right, we will go to break and as we go to break before we come back for our final minutes, here is some recent sound just captured, statements by Mrs. Levy. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

S. LEVY: We are perplexed, but we don't give up and quit. We are hunted down, but God never abandons us. We get knocked down but we get up again and keep going. ROBERT LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S FATHER: It's from Corinthians 4, 8 to 9.

S. LEVY: And we are not giving up our hope and faith in our prayers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: You can log on to my Web site at CNN.com/larryking for the answer to "King's Quiz." One more call. Grand Rapids, Michigan, hello.

CALLER: Hi, thanks, Larry. I understand that Gary Condit qualifies for his pension in 2003. So guilty or not, how does this work? Could this be what he stands to lose? Maybe this is why he is stonewalling. If he resigns, does he still get it, et cetera?

KING: What's the pension story? Do you know, Barbara?

OLSON: No. I don't. But I do know once it kicks in, that it stays with them and if your caller is right, that he qualifies in 2003, that would certainly weigh against.

And of course, there is also the problem of, you know, does the party really want him to resign? I mean clearly there is as Mark was saying, there are some Blue Dog Democrats not happy, but does a party really want a special election happening in a conservative area -- Especially one with a House so close? I don't think so.

GERAGOS: You have to, Larry, you have to understand also that redistricting takes place this year, in California, and that is a crucial area there, because it has ramifications for the congressional seats surrounding it as well.

KING: Laura Ingraham, do you see a dip in this story?

INGRAHAM: I think we are seeing it. Notwithstanding this show which is phenomenal, tonight, by the way, just a phenomenal show. No, I think, I think -- I think things are beginning to wear themselves out here.

I'm not sure what else I have to say about this case, frankly, but when the details begin to slowly, slowly, slowly winnow down to one or two a day, I think this case, as I said a week ago, is going to be like a big wildfire and will eventually blow itself out. It will have nothing else to burn.

KING: Laura may I assure you, you are never dull.

OLSON: But Laura, you know what's new? There's a $205,000 reward now. And that tends to bring out people, none of us like to talk about it, but money will cause people to tell on other people, so that may change things.

KING: Lis, do you think... INGRAHAM: I want to know where the staffers are, where the Condit staffers are. Why aren't they coming out and saying anything, and why are there no resignations?

DEPAULO: Because they are being investigated. Now they are being investigated. They are looking at two staffers.

INGRAHAM: Why not resign? Why is nobody resigning?

KING: Lis, do you see any dip?

WIEHL: You know, it depends on what happens the next couple days, what happens with Condit and the profiling. But in the last couple of days, it certainly has seemed to kind of slow down. And the tension is -- you know, let's focus the attention on finding her, and getting the cops out there and following through some of these other leads that they really have not pursued.

KING: And certainly everybody is involved in the attempt do that. We thank you all very much. Barbara Olson, Laura Ingraham, Mark Geragos, Lis Wiehl, and Lisa DePaulo, something tells me they will be back!

Thank you very much for joining us. And we also thank John Sale, Darrell Condit's attorney, for appearing with us from our studios in Miami. Stay tuned now for "CNN TONIGHT" I'm Larry King. By the way, one week from tonight the women of the Senate. Don't miss it. We'll be right back -- tomorrow night with more on this. Stay tuned for "CNN TONIGHT," and good night.

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

 Search   




MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 














Back to the top