Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Do New Signs Suggest Condit's Involvement in Levy Disappearance?

Aired July 26, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: An aide to Congressman Gary Condit said he never urged a San Francisco woman to hide her affair with Condit from investigators.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: I do wish that he would, once and forever, come forward with all of the information that he has, and quit hiding little things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: And it's the little things, like a discarded watch box that continue to peek the interest of investigators in the Chandra Levy case. The FBI is pressuring Condit to help profile Levy. D.C. police want to know more about what Condit was doing May 1, the day Levy disappeared. They would also like to administer their own polygraph. And his behavior is generating increased criticism on Capitol Hill.

As for Chandra's parents...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD VANCE, LEVY FAMILY FRIEND: All they want is for the congressman to open his heart, in some sort of compassion, and tell the truth so that it will help find Chandra.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: But will digging into Condit's private life turn up anything to help find Chandra?

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. Well, new developments in the Chandra Levy missing persons' investigation, and they all have to do with Congressman Gary Condit. CNN national correspondent Bob Franken joins us with David Lindsey, national editor of "USA Today," and editor of the paper's coverage of the Levy investigation.

David, let me start with you. This woman that we're talking about from San Francisco, this is the woman who gave him the watch, supposedly, from which he discarded the box in Alexandria, supposedly, and...

(LAUGHTER)

BATTISTA: If you could, who is this woman? What is her story?

DAVID LINDSEY, "USA TODAY": Well, she is a former staff member of the congressman's, who was on the staff for about eight months in 1994. She said she carried on an affair with the congressman for about three years beginning before she was actually on the congressman's staff. She says she talked with the FBI in mid-May, and after that she contacted us.

And over the course of about the three weeks we interviewed her, drawing her out about her story, her relationship with the congressman, or what she says was her relationship with the congressman. And she also included in that, some details that she said that had come from her, from Michael Dayton, who is a high school friend of hers who is a top aide to the congressman.

She had told the FBI that Dayton had told her not to talk to the authorities or anyone else about her relationship with Condit.

BATTISTA: All right. So -- OK, so what you're saying is when she heard about the Chandra Levy disappearance, she called the congressman's office and had a conversation with Mike Dayton?

LINDSEY: Right. So clearly she felt enough of a relationship remained with Condit, or at least his staff, that she could call and make some sort of request, or have some sort of contact with the congressman and encourage him to come forward in the Levy probe.

BATTISTA: And Bob, as we found out this morning now, Mike Dayton, this aide, denies that this conversation ever took place, is that correct?

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. His one on-the- record comment is that it is quote, "absolutely not true," that he did nothing of the sort. That is the claim that he is making. Now the way that the things work in the Condit camp is that the people who are involved, on his staff, people like that, are supposed to filter all of their comments through the lawyers or the public relations' people who have thus far had no comment other than, that is absolutely not true.

BATTISTA: But he has gotten a lawyer, correct?

FRANKEN: He does have a lawyer. As a matter of fact, his lawyer is Stan Brand, who is very familiar to people who watch CNN. He has been on "BURDEN OF PROOF" numerous times. He also was very much involved in the Monica Lewinsky case and also is the partner, former partner, excuse me, of Abbe Lowell who is of course representing Condit.

BATTISTA: What do we know about Mike Dayton? What can you tell us about him ,first of all? LINDSEY: He is a high school classmate of Ms. McKay, who is the source of our story today. He's a longtime aide to Representative Condit, very loyal, and is one of the top people in the Washington office of the congressman.

BATTISTA: Somebody was with the congressman when he reportedly dumped the watch box into the dumpster. Could it have been Mike Dayton?

LINDSEY: I suppose that it could have been.

FRANKEN: It was as a matter of fact.

(LAUGHTER)

It was Mike Dayton.

BATTISTA: It was?

FRANKEN: It was Mike Dayton's, law enforcement sources have told me that it was Mike Dayton, who by the way, lives in that area and according to various sources, that are saying that this is not exactly what it looked like, that this was really running a bunch of errands out there, one of which turned out to be dumping that garbage bag which had the watch case in it.

BATTISTA: That's exactly what it looked like. I mean, dumping stuff from his apartment. I know he went eight miles away to do it, so maybe that is not as suspect as we thought.

FRANKEN: The point that they are trying to make and any number of people who are associated with Condit have made the point that this was not an effort specifically to drive out to just dump that, that it was something that was done among the course of doing other things too.

BATTISTA: Do we know, Bob, whether there was anything else that was dumped into that trash bin that day? Or was it just the watch box that had some kind of significance?

FRANKEN: It was in a garbage bag and presumably there was other trash. And when they were spotted doing it, by either somebody who was making it a point to follow him or some private citizen, when they were spotted to doing it, that citizen called the police, the police fished it out, they took the bag and traced it back to the person to whom "USA Today" has spoken and that would be Joleen Argentini McKay.

BATTISTA: Let me bring Michael into the conversation. You are the former homicide detective here, Michael. That watch box, why do you suppose hat the congressman went to such great lengths to get rid of it, or maybe not great lengths, whatever, but he got rid of it. Would you have looked twice at a watch box if you were searching his apartment?

MIKE BROOKS, CNN CONSULTANT: If I was going through and searched his apartment I would ask him, does this belong to anyone? It wouldn't really stand out, though. A watch box probably would not stand out unless there was a note or something inside of the box, and then there would be some questions about that. But the box itself probably would not stand out.

So you know, that leaves the question why he wanted to get rid of the box.

BATTISTA: David, I want to know, still a little bit more about the congressman's relationship with the woman from San Francisco. First of all, though, why -- why did -- did it just take this long for this story to come out? I mean, why didn't she come out earlier with it?

LINDSEY: Well, she went to the FBI in mid-May. She is a reluctant witness, to put it mildly. She was very anxious about how this would look, how it would affect -- she has a new life now, how it would affect that. And so she had a lot of personal concerns in coming forward. And in talking with us over three weeks, what she was up to the very moment, and I think she still is having concerns about that.

What clinched it for us in terms of putting it into print was a confirmation that the FBI was looking into her story, which amounts to an obstruction of justice allegation against a staff member of Condit's. And that, the confirmation that they were looking into it, and that she had told someone else besides us her story, was enough for us to put into print.

BATTISTA: Why...

FRANKEN: As a matter of fact, Bobbie, I might point out that they are known to believe, they, the family, that what -- in their brief conversations with "USA Today," that what they said was off the record, meaning it was not supposed to be used.

BATTISTA: Why do you suppose that she decided to talk to -- to you guys? I mean, may be that's a tribute to your powers of persuasion, but if she was concerned about publicity, why do you suppose she decided to sit down and talk with you all?

LINDSEY: Well, that's a good question. She called us several weeks ago and said she was concerned about the Levy investigation. And she said -- and we said, you know, this story is going to get out, if what you're telling us is true. And we had an agreement with her that we would not use her name initially, unless her name got out.

And it became a part of the public arena and certainly we were not the first to print her name. I believe "The New York Post" did the day before we did. So the investigation was kind of closing in around her and this was our agreement with Joleen McKay.

BATTISTA: OK, Bob, the fourth meeting that is supposed to take place here will possibly take place with the congressman and the FBI. What's the status of that? And as I understand, once again, this is caught up in certain parameters and rules, et cetera. FRANKEN: It's a work in progress. We do know that the congressman, through his lawyer, Abbe Lowell has agreed to meet with the FBI. But what are they going to talk about? Are there going to be constraints on the line of questioning? We do know that he it going to contribute to a psychological profile that is being put together by the FBI expert who does that type of thing.

And that, of course, is because, according to our sources, he admitted to investigators he had the intimate relationship with Chandra Levy and therefore investigators believe that he can provide unique insight into how she might think and what that might have contributed to her disappearance.

What we don't know is if, in fact, that there will be the kind of questioning that D.C. police investigators wanted to pursue, such as: Why did he dispose of that watch case? What was involved in that, questions about the time line that he has provided to investigators, gaps that they feel are still there and his accounting of the time around the time that Chandra Levy disappeared. Will those questions be allowed?

Will there be questions about the lie detector test that was given that the police think is suspect? Questions like that are really still up for negotiation.

BATTISTA: Mike, does that bother you, as a former homicide detective, all of these rules and parameters? Is that normal procedure when you have a meeting with someone who is quote, "not a suspect?"

BROOKS: This is the fourth interview, and again, he's now represented by legal counsel. You know, police say that he's "lawyered up." So the lawyers will try to negotiate a little bit. But there going to be certain questions, and I am sure that they are not going to be negotiable, that the FBI wanted to ask.

And as Bob said, there are certain things that the law enforcement would find out, that I would want to find out as an investigator, about their intimate relationship. There is a lot of things you share with someone you are intimate with that you wouldn't share with your mother your aunt, your friends and even your closest friend.

So I am sure that there are a lot of questions that they want to ask and again I know that the police would like to repolygraph him. The FBI would be giving the polygraph if he agrees to that and I know it is something that they would like to do.

FRANKEN: And might I add by the way, Bobbie, and I know Mike will agree with this, that Condit and his lawyers hold a very strong hand, because there's no way he could be forced to do this interview. This is not a criminal investigation. Mike will agree, there is not the necessary probable cause to force it to happen, so they do have some leverage when they are negotiating.

BATTISTA: All right I have to take a quick break here and then we have lots of questions from the audience. Our question for you today: Should Congressman Condit take a police-administered lie detector test? Take the TALKBACK LIVE, online viewer vote at CNN.com/TALKBACK. AOL keyword: CNN. While there check out my note and send us an e-mail. We will be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We're back, and questions from the audience now. Woody, is it, over here?

WOODY: Mr. Brooks, what will it take for the congressman to be considered a suspect?

BROOKS: Well, it would take probable cause. Probable cause is any set of facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent investigator to believe a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.

So that's the definition of probable cause. So right now, there is still, again there is a lot of things that he, I think, may still have to give information-wise to investigators that the investigators could follow some leads. Until then I don't think that you are going to see him as a suspect.

BATTISTA: Bill, in the audience, go ahead.

BILL: I am sure this has been a ratings boom for all of the media and it probably will be during the summer doldrums but when in your opinion, will this investigation be over?

I think a lot of people are interested in other things and want to move on.

BROOKS: Right, I wouldn't want to put -- and investigators would not want to put -- a time limit, say it's going to over by October 1. And again I want to say that they are going to run out all leads. They are going to run out every piece of information to the last, to the Nth degree until they decide to suspend the search for Chandra. And I think that that's, you know, that they have to. And that's -- that's the way that the investigation will run.

The metropolitan police and the FBI are working together very well. And there have been rumors that they hadn't been and, they are working together extremely well and they are going to work together on this until they either find Chandra alive or, unfortunately, find a body.

FRANKEN: And of course, we know that the FBI and the police are checking with us to see how our ratings are doing, and that'll affect it -- obviously, that's not the case.

BATTISTA: David, a little more, if we could, about Joleen McKay. How did she meet the congressman? And is it she from his district? Does he know her family, anything like that? Do we know anything about the personal background? LINDSEY: She is from Modesto which is in his district, the largest city in his Northern California district. She met the congressman through Dayton, actually. Dayton is a high school classmate of hers, and an aide to the congressman. And she was introduced by Dayton to Representative Condit.

BATTISTA: OK, that we are getting, e-mails that we're getting, Peg in Ohio says, "The media focus on Condit has led most people to believe that there is reason to believe he has something to do with her disappearance and probable demise. There is no evidence of that at this time."

And -- I can't get them apart today -- ah! Tom, in New Mexico, says: "We all know Condit had affairs, but I just can't see him having anything do to with this woman's disappearance. It just doesn't make sense."

Michael, I am kind of curious that when police conduct these, sort of, they are not interrogations, they are interviews with -- with people involved in the case who are not suspects, the more they learn about the congressman, the more that we learn about his personal life and these affairs, does the tone of these interviews start to change?

In other words in the beginning I am sure that it was, yes, sir, Mr. Congressman, this sort of thing. Is it now to the point where they say look, we have to settle some things. Does it change?

BROOKS: I would say it depends on the investigator. You have to have good investigative skills, you have to have good interviewing skills, you have to be a good people person to be a successful investigator. But especially when the congressman was not forthcoming in the first one, maybe second interview, I think the tone may change a little bit.

But again, the people who are doing this are professionals. They're good at reading the body language. They are good at looking at people that they are interviewing, and knowing what questions and how to ask the questions to get the best answers and get the most information from the interview questions.

BATTISTA: And Bob, another point we haven't covered yet today: There was the first, sort of, shot fired by a fellow Democrat on Capitol Hill against the congressman. What was that all about?

FRANKEN: Well, not just a fellow Democrat, but somebody who has been closely associated with Condit. The two of them together formed the Blue Dog Coalition, probably everybody has now heard what that is. It is the group of conservative Democrats who banded together on Capitol Hill.

So when Charlie Stenholm, Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas, came out the with this statement -- by the way, at the request of a local TV station -- nevertheless, when he came out with this statement, which accused Condit of bringing discredit to the Congress, that really reverberated through the Capitol. First of all, that's a loaded word. That is one of the grounds for Ethics Committee action against a member of Congress, that action by the way has been deferred. But not only that, but it was the words of the -- it was the words of a friend, somebody who, in fact, would expect to have quite an impact. This has really had serious consequences for the tone of the debate about this on Capitol Hill.

BATTISTA: Another question -- I am sorry, David, go ahead.

LINDSEY: Well, that is -- this investigation -- or the media interests in these investigations are essentially along two tracks, one is obviously Chandra Levy and where she is.

The other one is Condit's response to the Chandra Levy investigation and the trouble that that could mean for him, both in terms of the law and in terms of politics, and what Bob is referring to there is the kind of the political storm that's brewing for Condit on Capitol Hill.

And on the other hand, you have federal prosecutors looking into Condit and his staff about his actions allegedly in the light of the Chandra Levy investigations. So, it's very serious, and in fact, that represents the greater jeopardy, if you want to call it that, for Condit at this time.

BATTISTA: And up to the back row here for a question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I had a question about Chandra Levy. Is it possible that she could choose to disappear, maybe to bring focus to Condit and the fact that she was jilted?

BATTISTA: Is that still an option?

FRANKEN: Of course, it's possible. It's possible. I mean, excuse me for interrupting Mike, but I want to point out that the police are being very, very aggressive about saying one of their scenarios is that something exactly like that happened. They put out pictures, crude though they may have been, showing her she might have appeared in disguise, in addition to pursuing the sadder outcome, which is to say looking for the body.

BATTISTA: All right, we got to take another break, and we say goodbye to Bob Franken, David Lindsey and Mike Brooks. Thanks you all very much.

Has there been an obstruction of justice in this case? We'll ask some leading criminal lawyers when we come back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back. For some legal perspective on all of these developments, joining us now criminal defense attorney Ed Garland here in Atlanta. In New York, criminal defense attorney Joe Tacopina. In Los Angeles, former New York Assistant District Attorney Robert Tanenbaum. He is the author of several books, including his latest, due out in August, called "Enemy Within." Also with us, attorney Jack Burkman. He appears on the syndicated program "Power of Attorney."

Welcome to all of you. I want to ask you all basically this question, but Ed, I will start with you. Based on what you know of the actions of the congressman and possibly his aides so far, do you see any indication of an obstruction of justice here?

ED GARLAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, there is an indication, but there's certainly no clear proof that he was behind certain conduct. If an aide does something that they think might help him, he's not responsible for it, unless he caused it, directed it, or authorized it. From what I have read, there is some indication that he may have attempted to state to one witness, "don't talk." That could be construed as an obstruction or a false statement.

BATTISTA: Jack, what do you think?

JACK BURKMAN, ATTORNEY: Bobbie, bear in mind that we are talking about just these new revelations. I think there is strong evidence that Condit has committed obstruction in at least two other incidents. Remember, this is the guy who asked the flight attendant, Ann Marie Smith, with whom he had an affair, or allegedly had an affair, to sign an affidavit, which is a legal document, the substance of which he knew to be false.

Also, this -- this is a U.S. congressman who lied to the police about his adulterous affair in the course of a murder investigation. So remember, when we are talking about obstruction of justice, it's not just some of these -- these new events today from San Francisco and some of the materials concerning his staff, it's some of the things that have already gone on.

And I think when people in the House are looking at, should we bring a proceeding against him, should we begin the process of at least thinking about expulsion, whether or not -- whether Condit had anything to do with the death or disappearance of Chandra Levy, we don't know. But I think there is a strong case to be made for at least two counts of obstruction up until now.

BATTISTA: Joe?

JOE TACOPINA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Bobbie, I am not really so ready to jump to that lock-solid conclusion as Jack was. I mean, first of all, I don't think Condit or his people have agreed with the flight attendant's assertions, so I don't think just because she said it's necessary true.

I mean, you have to be careful in these cases, Bobbie, as lawyers who worked in high-profile cases know, they all come out of the woodwork. Some of them are truthful, and some of them want their 15 minutes, and we have to be careful when people come out of the woodwork and make these allegations and get paid.

BURKMAN: Joe, Joe, respectfully, if I could just follow up. Respectfully, that's not really the issue. Her state of mind, the fight attendant's state of mind and who solicited whom, and whether it was his attorney and not him, that's not the issue. The point is, that affidavit is false, and we know it to be false. There is no issue there, and that's what constitutes the obstruction.

TACOPINA: Well, Jack, if in fact, all those scenarios are true the way you pose them, that's correct. But you know, also obstruction -- and especially when you are talking about in federal court -- it's not just as simple as I lied to investigators, therefore I am guilty of obstruction. There's a different charge.

BURKMAN: But a false affidavit is obstruction.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: A false affidavit would make an obstruction case.

TACOPINA: Again, Jack, if in fact it's true that Congressman Condit was behind the drawing of that affidavit -- you know, there are a lot of ifs that still need to be finalized before I think we can jump to the conclusion.

BURKMAN: But Joe, I have to jump in because we are getting off the track. Whether his attorney did it, he is responsible for the actions of his attorney. Unless you are going to make an argument that this was somehow gross and extreme malpractice, Condit has to bear the responsibility. I mean, you're down -- your defense is now down to the fact, well, can he disavow the actions of his own lawyer. I mean, that's absurd!

TACOPINA: No, no, quite frankly, I think, Jack, you have to wait and see how the facts shake out here. We haven't heard from the lawyer who drew up that affidavit as to why he drew it up.

BURKMAN: But that's not important...

(CROSSTALK)

TACOPINA: You don't even know it's relevant -- how do you know that the flight attendant's attorney didn't initiate that conversation to...

(CROSSTALK)

TACOPINA: Because if Condit was not behind -- if Condit was not behind the drawing up of that affidavit, nor did he adopt it, he cannot be on the hook for it, and he cannot be...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: ... because it's sounding like -- and we are all the way back to the beginning. Are we being led to believe here that lying to investigators is not obstruction of justice?

TACOPINA: Bobbie, absolutely not, not in and of itself -- I'm not saying it can't be. There has to be an element that you thought the information you were putting out there, the false information, was going to make it before a grand jury. A federal grand jury.

BATTISTA: Let me get Bob in here.

BURKMAN: He's a great lawyer; he's a great lawyer. But he knows that an affidavit is a legal document admissible in court, and it can be used for the legal proceeding. He knows full well that that's obstruction.

TACOPINA: All right, you backed me down.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: OK. Bob, what do you think?

ROBERT TANENBAUM, FORMER NEW YORK ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, it's clear that these lawyers are getting paid by the word, I think.

(LAUGHTER)

TANENBAUM: The fact is, in order to -- in order to lay out the obstruction case, you're right, Bobbie. The notion is, lying to the police, how it all interfered with it. Did he knowingly do that to interfere with the investigation? Or in fact, was he doing that to protect himself and his family? Or was he doing it so that the police would not know that he had sexual relationship and that would make him a suspect in the case.

Moreover, what he said to Anne Smith is critical. Can you corroborate in any way what was said to Anne Smith, that's the flight attendant from United. Whether or not in fact he told her to lie. He also may have made other incriminating statements. The only way to get to the bottom of this is simply, you can't have your people, Condit's people speak to the police's people and then do lunch attitude. You have to give him a subpoena, you have to convene a grand jury, and then we'll find out, with respect to all the other people to go before the grand jury, who is telling the truth and who is not?

And moreover, Congressman Condit will be asked to weigh his Fifth Amendment privilege before the he goes to the grand jury, and we will find out, bottom line, whether or not he's really cooperating.

BURKMAN: Part of what is going here, Bobbie, to the D.C. police screwed this investigation up big time, from the beginning. And as such, they have a vested interest in not letting the public know the extent to which Condit had lied to them. So they cannot -- their word cannot be taken because the District of Columbia police are not going to say that Condit lied. That will make them look like fools, because they were six weeks waiting for a search warrant. The girl was missing for two weeks before they even so much...

TACOPINA: Jack, hold on a second. Hold on a second. Why are the police on the hook for that? I mean, how about crediting the police in this case for getting a potential suspect in a criminal investigation to speak to them that many times? I mean, I am a defense lawyer, and if anyone who practices criminal defense will be able to tell you that you don't ordinarily bring your client in to discuss the investigation with the investigators.

BATTISTA: But that wouldn't have looked very good.

TACOPINA: Now it wouldn't have. And Bobbie, there is a major league tension in this case, between Condit's appearance as a congressman and a good person, and his standing as a criminal suspect. And sometimes, that tension, when a person's in a political light, doesn't sit well with the public.

BATTISTA: Let me get Eddie back in here; if you were his attorney, Ed, what would concern you most about his behavior? Would you give him similar advice that Abbe Lowell is giving him, or no?

GARLAND: I think that he is having a double problem. He is having to explain his relationship, at the same time, trying to preserve his image. I would tell him to forget the image, come straight out, admit his conduct and so far as having an affair...

(APPLAUSE)

GARLAND: ...and then seek forgiveness for that. And at the same time, deny firmly that he had nothing to do with it to the public.

BATTISTA: Every lawyer we've had on this show has said that they would give him that advice.

BURKMAN: Bobbie?

BATTISTA: What happened?

TACOPINA: One last thing, you would have think that he would have taken a cue perhaps from the last president. We went through this a few months ago. You know?

BATTISTA: I know.

TACOPINA: The same thing happened, he lied about the affair and then everything else blew up as a mushroom.

BATTISTA: It's remarkable, I have to say. I have to take a quick break, you guys, we will continue here in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We are back.

Peggy in California says: "Congressman Condit has done a fine job for our district, but I am not the least bit interested in his sex life. I'm sick and tired of hearing about it. I support the man, but my personal feeling is, he should take a police lie detector test, and make some kind of statement."

Good question. Who wants to take that one? BURKMAN: I will tell you, Bobbie, with respect to the lie detector test. A lot of people, when you listen to some of my friends on the left, there seems to be the argument we should have privatized law enforcement, and I think of some poor kid in the ghetto or some person without means and can't afford Abbe Lowell, and can't afford his own private lie detector test. Who, in many cases, has no option but to face the music, you have a Gary Condit who has own service because he has a lot of means and power.

I will tell you that that lie detector test, as I think we all know by now, did not even deal with the issue of his relationship with Chandra Levy. You know, from the outset...

TACOPINA: That's not the issue, Jack.

BATTISTA: What are we...

GARLAND: I would have to say you are misstating the situation there. An average citizen does not have to take a lie detector test, and that's available to anybody if they know about their rights if they know about their rights in our country.

BATTISTA: But if you're going to take a lie detector test and you volunteer to take one, why set up such a bogus one? I mean, to not even ask the basic question, "Are you having an affair with this woman" wasn't even on the test.

TACOPINA: Is that an issue anymore? I mean, I don't think that's an issue anymore. I think we're all pretty clear on the fact that Gary Condit had an affair with Chandra Levy. I think the real issue, and I hope we don't forget this, is: where is she, is she alive or dead and can he help in this investigation?

BURKMAN: Yes, but you see, Joe, if you're really worried about the progress of the investigation, had Gary Condit had come forward six weeks ago and told instead of lying.

TACOPINA: Absolutely, Jack.

BURKMAN: ... this investigation would be a lot further along today than it was. And it is because of his lies to the police that the police are where they are today, which is not very far.

BATTISTA: Let me come back to that point. Let me ask Bob about this, because one of things that is a little bit disturbing about this, is that if you're involved in as many affairs as it appears the congressman was, that involves a fair amount of lying. You know, he's also a politician. I won't take that any further.

(LAUGHTER)

BATTISTA: But the point is, when you engage in that much playing around with the facts or whatever, can that have affect on a lie detector test?

TANENBAUM: Well, first, with respect to legitimacy of the lie detector test, it shouldn't be just cast aside. The FBI and law enforcement relies upon lie detector tests to a great extent, and that is to say, most every city -- large city in America has experts in the PD who are trained to give a polygraph, a lie test. And the FBI uses it all the time with respect to federal employees, background checks, issues that relate to job performance and various accusations. So there is legitimacy to it.

Now, what is the essence of this whole lie test? It's for the average Joe person who, when they lie, there's a reaction, and the reaction is depicted demonstrably on the exam. So, but if you get someone, like our politicians, perhaps, some of them, and Condit in particular, who is involved in double life, a life of deception, a life of deceit, maybe he can beat this test.

But the problem for Mr. Condit is, when he relies upon his lawyer to have a private test done, which is not improper, they did the right thing, but they should have given it over to the police and asked that their expert, who they relied upon, who has a terrific background, be present. And for that matter, now, even submit to a third party expert. There are people in New York, for example, Richard Author and Company and others, who have trained police around the country, who are third-party, independent, disinterested parties who can honestly give this test.

So if he projected out on the press conference that Lowell had, his lawyer, that he was cooperative and he took the test and he allegedly passed the test, now he has a burden to go forward and at least have a third party do it who is not associated with the police, FBI and/or Condit.

BURKMAN: You know, Bobbie, I would just add, one of the things that's confused me on this, there's certainly no direct evidence that Condit is at this point in any way involved with the disappearance. But I will tell you, I continue to be puzzled by his hiding.

For instance, even now with the fourth interview upcoming with the police, he still continues to negotiate. There still continues to be all this discussion. There is still a desire to run and hide. And I know this defense attorney mentality, they want to hide him. But one of the things that puzzles me, is everything is now out. And people like Joe and others said a month ago, well, there might be things he doesn't want revealed, this, that and the other...

(INTERRUPTED BY CNN COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)

(AUDIO/VIDEO GAP)

BURKMAN: ... his affairs -- I mean, the tabloids are making allegations of sex slaves and every other kind of nonsense. Everything is out. If he is not guilty, why must there be this continual hiding and evasiveness and dodging the police and negotiating the terms of the interview? Again, I would give him the same legal advice -- I understand Joe's legal point -- but I'm speculating as to a broader substantive point of why does he continue to hide. TACOPINA: He has given -- he is about to give his fourth interview, Jack, in about a month and a half, two months, so I don't really see that as hiding. I mean, he's not supposed to live at police headquarters, and just hang out with them, and say, "what else do you need, guys?"

TANENBAUM: Bobbie, this is not a defense attorney problem. The defense attorneys have a job to do, and you don't like to the defense attorneys at this stage of the proceedings to find out the truth. Their job is to protect the person and keep him quiet. The burden is on law enforcement here to do the right thing, and the right thing is not being done by the D.C. police. It's a pathetic performance by Chief Ramsey and all the silly comments he's made.

BATTISTA: That's going to be our last word, because we're out of time. Ed Garland, Joe Tacopina, Robert Tanenbaum and Jack Burkman, thank you all for joining us very much.

A quick glance at the poll question today, and we will see you tomorrow.

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