Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Should Gary Condit Resign?

Aired July 13, 2001 - 19:30   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.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Tonight: Gary Condit's lawyer says a polygraph proves the congressman had nothing to do with the disappearance of Chandra Levy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBE LOWELL, GARY CONDIT'S LAWYER: The congressman was not deceptive in any way and, in fact, had a probability of deception of less than 100th of 1 percent to the only questions that mattered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Will that change the mind of a colleague who is calling for Condit's resignation?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington: CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press; on the right, Robert Novak. In the CROSSFIRE: former independent counsel Michael Zeldin, and in Atlanta, Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia.

NOVAK: Good evening.

Congressman Gary Condit, battered and bruised the last few days, took the offensive a little this afternoon. His lawyer revealed that the California Democrat had taken a lie detector test at his own expense and passed with flying colors. In this successful polygraph test, Lawyer Abbe Lowell said, Congressman Condit denied knowing anything about the disappearance of intern Chandra Levy.

But that is unlikely to satisfy Congressman Bob Barr. The Georgia Republican was out front during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and now he's the first House member to call for Gary Condit's resignation.

That was yesterday, and today Congressman Barr asked for a House Ethics Committee investigation of Condit to determine whether he interfered with the law enforcement investigation.

Is this a matter of ethics or is it political? And whatever the answer to that question, is Condit's congressional career about to be a thing of the past -- Bill Press.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Congressman Barr, Gary Condit has been accused of no crime. The police say he's not a suspect in any crime. The police say he's cooperated fully, he has taken a polygraph test and passed it. And yet you are saying he should resign. Isn't that a horrible rush to judgment on your part, congressman?

REP. BOB BARR (R), GEORGIA: A young lady's life is at stake here. And at a critical time, at the beginning of this lawful investigation of her disappearance, Congressman Condit was not forthcoming. He did not tell the police the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He misled them, and apparently misled them badly. And that is why I've called for a House Ethics Committee inquiry -- not because of his self-serving activities now, but what he didn't do at the beginning of a very critical and perhaps life-threatening investigation.

PRESS: But congressman, you sound like you know all the facts and have all the facts, and you're saying things that the police aren't even saying. So first you say he ought to resign, then you say there ought to be a House Ethics Committee investigation to see if maybe he obstructed justice. Congressman, don't you think you've got the cart before the horse? If there should be an investigation and the investigation finds something, then you call him to resign. Again, aren't you out there half-cocked before you know all the facts?

BARR: No, I'm going on the facts as you know them, as well as...

PRESS: I don't know them.

BARR: Well, you know an awful lot about the case, Bill, and that's why you've been talking a lot about it. I certainly know that you wouldn't talk about it unless you knew about it.

The fact is, though, that I'm going simply on what we know publicly already. You don't have to know all of what the police know to know that early on in this investigation Gary Condit was not forthcoming. And that is the critical phase of an investigation of a missing person. For all his self-serving lie detector tests now and whatever else his lawyer spins in his favor, it will not erase the fact that he misled, and misled badly, the lawful conduct of a police investigation. A member of Congress should not do that. It brings disrepute on this House. And I believe that he ought to do the right thing and step down at this time.

NOVAK: Michael Zeldin, although we identify you for the purpose of this program as a former independent counsel, you're also a Democrat. And -- as the way Democrats act when these things come up, I guess it's OK to overlook the fact that he had been very uncooperative with the police, that he has aggravated the police most recently on the -- the police wanted do their own polygraph tests and he preempted them with his own. But I guess if you're a good Democrat, or even a not-so-good Democrat like Gary Condit, it's OK, is that right?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: No, not at all. It's morally reprehensible. I don't think it's acceptable for anybody to interfere with a police investigation.

What I don't know is, factually, whether that occurred in this case. And so, with respect to Congressman Barr's assumption that we should move forward with a House Ethics investigation or that the congressman should take the further step of resigning, I'm not there yet factually.

If it turns out factually to be the case that he did obstruct an investigation -- and those are legal terms, and in a legal way -- and the U.S. Attorney's Office feels that he did that, then I think there's good reason for the House Ethics Committee to investigate this. We're just not there yet.

My fear is that the process of injecting politics into this now may, itself, be an interference with the police and U.S. Attorney's investigation of it, and that that is not helpful.

NOVAK: Well, Bob Barr made the point that it's a little late now for the -- Congressman Condit to come up with all this investigation -- all these facts, when it might have been helpful 10 weeks ago, but...

ZELDIN: But 10 weeks ago, the U.S. Attorney's Office, or the Justice Department, if they felt that he was a suspect, had it within their legal means to demand that he do this. They didn't. He can't be blamed for that.

NOVAK: I just want to preempt my good friend Mr. Press, who is probably going say that Bob Barr is all by himself, the only member of Congress. There's a lot of liberals who agree with Bob Barr. Not liberal professional politicians or professional Democrats, but "The New Republic," a liberal magazine in his masthead said in the current issue, it's time for him to resign.

Now let me tell you something else...

ZELDIN: May I ask you a question about that, though?

NOVAK: Yes.

ZELDIN: What we have to talk about, I think, when you ask for resignation is: for what conduct? If we're talking about immoral extramarital conduct, I agree with you, but let's apply it across the board to all members of Congress who admitted that. If we are talking about obstruction of justice...

NOVAK: We're not talking about sex.

ZELDIN: Well, if you're talking about obstruction of justice, then make sure you define your terms legally. "The New Republic" is not a legal periodical.

NOVAK: No, let me just finish this. Marianne Means, one of the most liberal columnists in the country, writing in "The Seattle Post- Intelligencer" said: "Condit's political career is finished. After doing all the wrong things since she disappeared, the bounder should finally do one right thing and resign."

And I want to have one more source: David Gergen. Do you remember David Gergen -- was a defender of Bill Clinton? Let's ask -- hear what he has to say about Gary Condit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID GERGEN, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: He withheld information from the police, he withheld information from the family, he had his staff lie to the country, he is now under investigation by federal authorities for possible obstruction of justice. Gary Condit is unfit for public office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: He is unfit for public office, isn't he?

ZELDIN: Not yet. And in fact, though, I believe that ultimately one's fitness for public office should be determined by the constituents of that congressman's district. So ultimately if his constituents feel that way, they have the means by which to exercise their political prerogatives.

But it's not yet in the realm of the criminal. And I think that, like in my independent counsel investigation, where Elizabeth Tamposi was fired by President Bush, where Janet Mullins was accused of criminal conduct, we ended our investigation by apologizing to Janet Mullins for conduct that she never committed. And President Bush ended up apologizing to Elizabeth Tamposi for firing her based on information that was reported in the press which turned out to be factually incorrect.

PRESS: Congressman Barr, I think this discussion proves what's wrong with this case -- that the focus -- we're still talking about Gary Condit, we're not talking about the person who is missing, Chandra Levy.

I want to ask you about the polygraph today, because Gary Condit's attorney Abbe Lowell said the three questions I think all of us want the answers to were asked Gary Condit during this polygraph. Here are the questions. Here's Abbe Lowell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOWELL: First: Did the congressman have anything at all to do with the disappearance of Ms. Levy? Second: Did he harm her or cause anyone else to harm her in any way? And third: Does he know where she can be located?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: And according to the former FBI investigator who gave the test, Mr. Colvert, I believe his name is, there was a less than 100th of 1 percent chance that Gary Condit's "no" answers to each of those three questions would be would have been inaccurate.

Again, Bob Barr, isn't that all we need to know about this, and so shouldn't we move on and start looking at people who might know something about where she is? BARR: Bill, you're so naive I'm absolutely amazed. We had a case back when I was the U.S. Attorney here in Atlanta, and Michael Zeldin will remember, it involved a former Republican Congressman United States congressman named Pat Swindall. He was eventually convicted of obstruction of justice for misleading and lying to a federal grand jury.

He came out and waved around the results of his polygraph exam, exonerating himself, saying he had answered all of these questions properly by a renowned former government official who was now a polygraph -- polygraphist. And he thought that he should be let off. Well, thank goodness for the American people that we have judges and prosecutors and members of the jury that look at these things with a little more skepticism, Bill, than you do. Anybody can go out and get a self-serving polygraph exam asking the questions they want in the way they want at a time they want in a setting that they want without any lead-in or follow-up questions to establish their true veracity.

This was a snow job, and I'm surprised that somebody as learned and as skeptical as you was taken in by it.

PRESS: Well, I'm not surprised that someone like you would question the credentials of this respected former FBI agent that everybody says has impeccable credentials in the field.

These are the three questions -- I'll repeat them again -- did he have anything to do with her disappearance, did he harm her or cause anyone else to harm her, does he have any idea where she is. What more do you, Bob Barr, need to do?

And again, without knowing that, aren't you way far out ahead irresponsibly in calling for him to resign?

BARR: Bill, you're also following into another trap that Abbe Lowell has laid. You're making the polygraph the issue. That's not the basis on which I have called for his resignation. The basis on which I have called for his resignation and for an inquiry is the fact that at the beginning and during the early phases of this investigation he did mislead the authorities, he was not forthcoming.

Even if you presume he's been very forthcoming now, he wasn't early on.

PRESS: Bob, let me interrupt you. Isn't that -- isn't that for the police to say and not for Bob Barr to say? They have not said that, sir.

BARR: Bill, he's admitted it. He has admitted it.

PRESS: The police have not said...

BARR: It doesn't have anything, Bill, to do...

PRESS: The police...

(CROSSTALK) BARR: ... with the police. They can put whatever spin they want on it. The fact of the matter is early on, Bill, in the investigation he mischaracterized his relationship with Ms. Levy. He has admitted now that it was very different from what he told them and the American people early.

What more do you want to establish that he misled and impeded an investigation?

PRESS: All right. We're going to take a break right there, Michael Zeldin, Congressman Bob Barr. When we come back, let's look into the question are there some reasons perhaps why the Democrats don't want Gary Condit to resign. And as we go to a break, the police department is still holding out hope that Chandra Levy is alive, maybe hiding somewhere. They put out these pictures of what she might look like in various disguises today. Take a look. Have you seen her at your local 7-Eleven?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. In the police investigation and the media's coverage of the disappearance of intern Chandra Levy, the focus is still on Congressman Gary Condit, but his attorney says he's passed a lie detector test and now it's time to get off Condit's back. Not everybody agrees.

Congressman Bob Barr in Atlanta still says he should resign, attorney Michael Zeldin says he should hang in there for now -- Bob.

NOVAK: Mr. Zeldin, Billy Martin, the attorney for the Levy family, has just put out a statement in which it criticizes Congressman Condit for making a private polygraph examination, making private arrangements, quote, "while we and the authorities were trying to reach an agreement on the questions to be asked during the polygraph."

And Mr. Martin goes on to say, "The Levy family feels that Congressman Condit's actions were not in the spirit of cooperating with the Levy family." That's undeniable, isn't it?

ZELDIN: Well, I think it would have been better for Abbe Lowell and for Billy Martin to have agreed to the procedures here, that Congressman Condit's actions unilaterally was necessarily not going to satisfy the Levys or perhaps even the police. But at the same time, the results are the results, and if you believe in lie detector tests, it's hard to imagine anything other than the truth that's been revealed by the contents of it.

So you have this funny dynamic of the parties trying to work things out, but the undeniable results of the polygraph still underlie the matter here as it relates to Condit's liability.

NOVAK: But Congressman Barr mentioned the Congressman Swindall case, which I remember, in Georgia, where he waved around a lie detector test. And you've seen a lot more than I, and I've seen quite a few cases of lie detectors... ZELDIN: Lie detectors -- but they've improved the technology a great deal since then.

NOVAK: But I mean, just -- just to give -- if anybody has the impression that the D.C. police are happy with this, let's listen to what the executive chief of police, Chief Gainer, had to say just this afternoon after he -- after the statement by Abbe Lowell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASSISTANT CHIEF TERRANCE GAINER, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: I've never been involved in a polygraph in all these 30-some years of policing and homicide investigations where the polygraph examiner didn't want to know the facts of the case. And generally, the honest facts of the case, quite frankly, are given by law enforcement authorities. So this is a bit self-serving.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: He's not happy, is he?

ZELDIN: No, he's not happy. He feels like he's been sandbagged. At the same time, of course, as I said earlier, if the police had reason to believe that Congressman Condit was a criminal suspect, they have the mechanism to compel things...

NOVAK: But they're not at that point.

ZELDIN: ... and force him to take his Fifth Amendment. He's not there yet. That's his problem.

In the meantime, Abbe Lowell is acting in a way that he thinks is in his client's best interests. We'll see down the road whether it turns out to be the case.

PRESS: Congressman Barr, you've made reference several times tonight to the fact that Gary Condit has not been cooperating with the police. I'd like to read you a list of what Abbe Lowell presented to the media today about the steps that Mr. Condit has taken since Ms. Levy's disappearance.

Very quickly, I'll read through them.

First of all, after her father called him, it was Gary Condit who called the police and the FBI. He immediately offered the reward. He invited the police, I think the next evening, into his home to be interviewed -- since has met with him three times. Canceled his 4th of July plans to fly here with his wife so his wife could be questioned for three hours by authorities. Turned over all the phone records, his cell phone and his home phone. Allowed the police department to search his apartment the same day they asked. Provided a DNA sample, has made his staff available to authorities, and took a polygraph.

What more could he do to cooperate, Bob Barr? BARR: Well, let's -- let's do another list of those areas in which he was not and has not been forthcoming. First of all, did he tell the police, the American people and the family of this unfortunate missing young lady that he was having an affair with her? Second, did he tell the police at the very beginning of the extent and length of his relationship with Ms. Levy? No, he did not on either of those questions.

That would have perhaps moved them in a different direction had they known the truth of their relationship, and it might have made him a suspect a lot earlier, so then the police could have taken these other steps early and I don't think that he would have been quite as forthcoming early on, perhaps.

PRESS: Let me suggest something to you, Congressman Barr, that maybe the D.C. police are not as interested in Gary Condit's sex life as you are. Chief Ramsey, I'll paraphrase...

BARR: Bill, that's a cheap shot because...

PRESS: No, it's not because you keep raising it.

BARR: That has nothing to do with it, that nothing to do with it. It has to do with the investigation. You know as well as I do that if the police suspect that there's an intimate relationship between two people and one of them has disappeared, that is a relevant fact. I'm not commenting on what it means morally. I'm saying it's a relevant fact.

PRESS: Congressman, I will paraphrase Chief Ramsey, who told us about a week ago they were interested in finding Chandra Levy. They were not the sex police. They asked Gary Condit all the questions, he said, relative to leads to where she might be. He answered those questions.

Four or five times tonight you keep saying he ought to be investigated or he ought to resign because he refused to admit right away that he was having an affair with her. You're the one focusing on the sex life.

BARR: Bill, what I'm focusing on is facts that are relevant to a police investigation at a crucial stage of that investigation. And for you to say or believe that it's irrelevant for purposes of trying to locate a missing person, to know the circumstances of her relationship with people that she was with, and knew, and worked for, and associated with, is naive beyond absolute belief.

NOVAK: Mr. Zeldin, Michael Zeldin, one of the most amazing things for some of us is the degree to which Mr. Condit's fellow Democrats have supported him. Even had Nancy Pelosi, who was running for whip, come out and make a statement in his behalf. But isn't the dirty little secret that they don't want him to resign because that is one of the most conservative districts in the state.

A Republican would probably carry the state, the district, in a special election, and they would like to have the Democratic- controlled state legislature redistrict...

PRESS: Bob, I hate to interrupt. We are going to have to go -- this is Billy Martin, the attorney for the Levy family, is going to make a statement now.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: ... released a written statement to the wire services. I'd be glad to take a question or two if anybody has any.

QUESTION: What did the Levys say when they heard about Congressman Condit passing the polygraph.

MARTIN: I just spoke with Dr. and Mrs. Levy not more than 10 minutes ago and they're very disappointed. Disappointed because the idea of a polygraph, of a lie detector test was raised by me on behalf of the Levy's and we asked the congressman to cooperate with law enforcement authorities on agreeing to a term that would avoid any questions as to the objectivity of the polygraph.

We asked that some time ago, and yesterday it seems that the congressman and his attorneys snuck off to a private polygraph examiner, and took a term, a polygraph on his terms. Once again it shows to us that the congressman is releasing information on his terms and when he wants to release that information. We are wanting him to be fully cooperative, an not cooperate on his terms.

I'll take one other one if there's another question. Thank you.

QUESTION: Have a good weekend.

PRESS: Congressman Bob Barr, any reaction to Billy Martin's statement?

BARR: He seems to have a much greater grasp of the reality of law enforcement and polygraphs than perhaps some on this program do. The fact of the matter is that anybody can ask isolated questions without leading up to proper objective questions to sort of frame the key questions and basically determine the result of the polygraph. That is a well known technique and apparently Mr. Lowell and Mr. Condit have done that in this case.

NOVAK: Michael Zeldin, do you have a comment on what Billy Martin said?

ZELDIN: We discussed it a little bit. I think it was probably not the smartest strategy for them to take a unilateral polygraph. I think they would have better off working it out with Billy Martin, and if possible the police, so we don't have to deal with these questions.

And Congressman Barr is absolutely correct. You can stage a polygraph to get results which are not true results. If that was the case here as the police officer said, the examiner didn't know the facts, then it's not a good test. If he did, it is a good test. I also want to make one other comment which is, to your questioning of Congressman Barr.

Congressman Barr is correct. If in the early stages of an investigation you have material that you withhold from the police, it could interfere with their investigation. If the congressman did that, then that was wrong and we don't know, in my mind yet, whether he did do that.

NOVAK: And it doesn't matter whether it was sex or not. That's irrelevant.

ZELDIN: It doesn't matter what it is. If it reflects on her state of mind, so that it would have been helpful to the police in the course of their investigation, he had an obligation morally and perhaps legally to do so.

PRESS: We don't know.

ZELDIN: We don't know. That is the problem. We don't know.

NOVAK: Michael Zeldin, thank you very much, Bob Barr in Atlanta, thank you.

BARR: Thank you.

NOVAK: And counselor Press, who has lost all the legal arguments tonight, will try to do better with me in closing comments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Join Mark Shields and me taking on John McCain on "EVANS, NOVAK, HUNT & SHIELDS" tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. Eastern, 2:30 Pacific.

PRESS: From the left I'm Bill Press have a good weekend. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

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