Skip

Gary Condit's Gov't Website
July 14, 2001 1:40 AM   Subscribe

Gary Condit's Gov't Website
Ok, there are some bizarre things on Gary Condit's site like this creepy page titled *intern opportunites* (including handy form) -- and then throughout most of his site, he's got a logo linked to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children down in the left corner... which is, needless to say, ironic, if not down right repulsive. Anyway, maybe it's just me, but he's got some kinda Freddy Krueger thing goin' on. Oh yeah, go here to email the freak! [state:CA / zip:95354]
posted by blackholebrain (47 comments total)

 
I don't like the tone of the above post one little bit. I have no idea whether Condit was in fact involved in the disappearance or whether he has in the past done other nefarious deeds, but nevertheless isn't he innocent until proven guilty?

Condit and his family must be going through enough at the moment. If he's guilty of something, let the state charge and punish him. But don't ask people to "email the freak" - it's exactly the kind of trial by media that we should avoid.
posted by tobyslater at 1:48 AM on July 14, 2001


I'm not convinced Condit has anything directly to do with Chandra's disappearance, but I am convinced that he is a slimy careerist fuck who would rather have not been helpfull in the effort to find her, and who takes advantage of his position to nail interns half his age.
He deserves all the shit he can get.
Yay, lowbrow insensitive website. Thumbs up.
posted by dong_resin at 2:05 AM on July 14, 2001


Condit and his family must be going through enough at the moment.

I feel very sorry for his wife. I do, however, find it hard to shed a tear for Condit.

Under sketchy in the dictionary you see his face.
posted by justgary at 2:48 AM on July 14, 2001


All I know about Condit is that he appears to be an aging, blow-dried narcissist who was boinking his young intern: She disappeared, and he has been dancing the dissemble ever since.

My response to what I perceive to be the Condit "type" is a mild, cynical disgust; but then, that is my misanthropy meter's offset null.

But side-stepping and dissembling and obstructive stone-walling in the midst of an investigation into the disappearance of a young girl who was gullible enough and bored enough to spend some sack time with this crinkling Lothario is off-the-scale unforgivable.

Spineless squared.
Selfish to the tenth.

IOW, it would be hard to imagine a web site that I would find unreasonably insensitive to Mr. Condit. As for his unfortunate family, I suspect that they would, after some reality counseling, agree.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:59 AM on July 14, 2001


Double post.

I’ve seen a lot of guilty until innocent, especially in the press. I thought most folks were more levelheaded than yellow journalists, but recent threads on MetaFilter are prooving otherwise.

There’s one thing that makes me believe that Condit had nothing to do with Levy’s disappearance: he took and passed a lie detector. That he passed isn’t as important as the fact that he took it. He could’ve postponed and dodged until subpoenaed, which is what a person with something to hide would’ve done. That he did it of his own volition (granted, under lots of undue media scrutiny) gives him a pass in my book.

Yeah, they had affair. While sad, it’s not uncommon. Leave the schmuk alone; there are far more important things to get riled up about.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 3:33 AM on July 14, 2001


He may seem slimy, but you must look at the other side of the coin. His career may have just been ruined by something that he had nothing to do with.
posted by ttrendel at 3:35 AM on July 14, 2001


ttrendel, by virtue of his actions, he now DOES have something to do with it: impeding the investigation. I seem to remember a certain blue dog democrat expressing the need to get all the facts on the table (realplayer) during the lewinski debacle, to the point where Condit voted for initiating an impeachment inquiry. If this guy is innocent of any wrongdoing, he could have saved his career very easily, and without a single legal fee. Don't blame coincidence for his troubles, blame his hyprocrisy.
posted by machaus at 4:29 AM on July 14, 2001


There’s one thing that makes me believe that Condit had nothing to do with Levy’s disappearance: he took and passed a lie detector.

15 percent of lie detector test are false. (so says cnn) In any case, they are not the be all, end all.

That he passed isn’t as important as the fact that he took it. He could’ve postponed and dodged until subpoenaed, which is what a person with something to hide would’ve done.

Sure, he could have postponed it and looked more guilty by the minute. He really had no choice. Hell, he didn't even admit to an affair until he had no choice.

You also fail to mention his lawyer hired his own expert and got to choose the questions asked. (by the way, I don't think he did it, but I don't give him near as much credit as you do)

His career may have just been ruined by something that he had nothing to do with.

Then he's a victim? Please. He made his choices. He made the choice to run around on his wife, and not just once might I add. He also chose, and this is much more important in my book, to not come clean in the beginning. You reap what you sow, and he's reaping a lot of crap right now.
posted by justgary at 4:54 AM on July 14, 2001


FWIW, this is nearly identical to a post on Memepool, in wording and linkage, although it isn't quite as bluntly declaring Condit to be a murderer.
Inexplicably, U.S. Representative Gary Condit's office is hiring interns. In what is probably a sick joke, the page has a link to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, though it isn't clear if Mr. Condit supports the site's mission or is simply adding to the problem.
But I suppose the court of public opinion has once again tried, convicted, and sentenced somebody.
posted by darukaru at 7:21 AM on July 14, 2001


A quick recap of what we know:

1) Chandra Levy was NOT a child. She was 24, doing things of her own volition.

2) A representative is allowed to have interns. He is not guilty (unless proven so) and therefore must get on with life.

3) She was not HIS intern, she was his constituent. She was an intern for the Department of Justice, a point the press keeps glazing over.

4) Let the police do their damn job, and leave the poor man alone. If he is guilty, the courts will declare it. I hate the media and its "innocent until reported in the press" attitude lately.
posted by benjh at 7:32 AM on July 14, 2001


why are people responding to a double post?
posted by will at 7:37 AM on July 14, 2001


why are people responding to a double post?
posted by will at 7:37 AM on July 14, 2001


bah, darn browser. yes, i see the irony.
posted by will at 7:37 AM on July 14, 2001


benjh: I agree with your points, mostly, until number (4), and here's why:

Rep. Condit is NOT innocent as far as telling the truth to the police, the media, his constituents, and the Levy family. If and when Chandra's disappearance is elevated from "missing person" to "criminal," his behavior could & probably will be construed as obstruction of justice, a very serious charge, particulary for a public servant who is charged with upholding the law. While his deception/s do not directly incriminate him re: Chandra's disappearance, his behavior to date would make it foolish for the police, media, etc, to discount him as a material witness, suspect, or otherwise involved person.

As I said, however, I agree that he is innocent until proven guilty...but that should not to be taken as a blank check on Condit's part (or his supporters) to absolve him of any criminal activity (yet).

Does that sound reasonable?
posted by davidmsc at 7:42 AM on July 14, 2001


Why respond to a double-post? The story continues to develop as we learn more, and so our attitudes (pro or con) continue to shift, to some degree. A continuing discussion, if you will. It could be worse.
posted by davidmsc at 7:45 AM on July 14, 2001


davidmsc: to a point....

But I just think in this country, the press have pretty much gotten to be another division of the police department, even moreso now than before.

I will never refute he is slimy. Apparently, the Levy's gardner, who is also a minister, has a daughter that Condit was banging as well.
posted by benjh at 7:46 AM on July 14, 2001


His career may have just been ruined by something that he had nothing to do with.

Oh, he didn't cheat on his wife with multiple women? Last time I checked, that was enough to ruin a career, unless you live in Utah. (tee hee)
posted by fleener at 8:11 AM on July 14, 2001


Condit isn't being investigated for infidelity. Try as some of you might, evidence of a roving eye is not proof of that a missing person was murdered.

If this were really about the guilt of infidelity then shouldn't the outraged conservatives be policing the private lives of the Gingrichs and Barrs of this world with equal vigor?

I'm tired of hypocritical panty raids as a political tool.
posted by Sqwerty at 9:24 AM on July 14, 2001


Innocent until proven guilty. That said, Condit's actions have been that of someone hiding something. Again and again he doesn't tell the police the full story, impeding an ongoing investigation. He takes his "own" lie detector test as opposed to the FBI one. Gary Condit is a slime.
posted by owillis at 9:31 AM on July 14, 2001


Condit isn't being investigated for infidelity. Try as some of you might, evidence of a roving eye is not proof of that a missing person was murdered.

That is a true statement. But I hardly think a "roving eye" can be equated with having extramarital sex with numerous partners (some proven, some alleged at this point), bullying/requesting the partners to sign NDAs, and then lying to *everyone* about one of them when the life of a missing person may (MAY) be at stake.

And re: investigating Gingrich, Barr, et al...yup, they're scummy too...but their reluctance to reveal affairs did not prevent law enforcement from gathering evidence that may have found (or saved the life of) a missing/murdered/kidnapped person.

No panty raids here...and certainly no politics on my part
posted by davidmsc at 9:43 AM on July 14, 2001


Gary Condit is the best reality TV show on this summer rerun season.

Have you noticed how chasing Condit down is more entertaining than a fake reality show? I know the news agencies are wetting themselves over it. Condit has that perfect Malkovich/Walken creepiness in his character. There isn't a single person in this country that would say they completely trust Gary Condit and everything he says, so they've got the ultimate villain.

The media should fess up to this fact and instead of calling it "The Condit/Levy Case" they should just say "The Run Gary Run Show."
posted by mathowie at 10:04 AM on July 14, 2001


Would I take a lie detector test under any circumstances? Not a snowball's chance in hell. The American Psychological Association has called them right only half the time. Screw that. Lie detector tests are not admissible in court for such obvious reasons, and no one is under any obligation to take them, which means no one can or should be forced to take them. Condit has acted squirrely enough, sure, but I don't blame him here. Heck, I wouldn't have even had the non-independent test conducted, except as a means of telling the prosecution who has charged me with no crime to bite me and get some semi-favorable PR, which I presume was the point, even if the move is also sort-of blowing up in his face.
posted by raysmj at 10:18 AM on July 14, 2001


the whole mess is all that people here talk about. One thing that everyone keeps forgetting--except an occasional news article in a national paper, is that he is also on The House Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as serving in subcommittees on counterintelligence. If he lies about mistresses, etc....it is absolutely a reflection on whether or not he can be trusted with/about anything else on a professional level--especially when his lifestyle leaves him vulnerable to blackmail.

A recent poll here locally shows 59% and climbing don't think he should be re-elected.

Condit has also always had strong support from republican voters in the area who vote for him because he is a Blue Dog Democrat and shares a lot of the same view...and there is no way in hell they are going to support him anymore.

As a Green, who supports local democrats, i'm not looking forward to the next election here in this already conservative area, its going to be brutal.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:40 AM on July 14, 2001


th3ph17: I don't doubt that he's lost support in an extreme manner, but the linked article refers to a non-scientific poll.

Meantime, check out this insane quote from Bob Novak on CNN's Crossfire regarding your part of the world. The transcript can be found here. Whoa. The person he is questioning is "a Democratic political consultant":

NOVAK: Joe Cerrell, I don't know if you have been in Modesto recently. I haven't been there in many years. You go to Modesto much?

CERRELL: I thought you and I took John Glen there back when he was campaigning for the presidency

NOVAK: It might have been, but I am told that the voters in Modesto might forgive Congressman Condit if they thought perhaps he had done some violence to this girl, not that anybody is accusing him of it, they might forgive him for that, but they could never forgive him for philandering. Is that the kind of place Modesto is?

posted by raysmj at 11:00 AM on July 14, 2001


raysmj: Heck, I wouldn't have even had the non-independent test conducted, except as a means of telling the prosecution who has charged me with no crime to bite me and get some semi-favorable PR, which I presume was the point, even if the move is also sort-of blowing up in his face.

His lawyers would be insane to submit him to an FBI polygraph without knowing he could pass; he's not been charged with anything, so submitting to the FBI polygraph is completely voluntary at this point. If he'd failed this one, we wouldn't have heard about it, and they'd tell the investigators to bite themselves.

Josh Marshall has been all over this like a bad toupee. The same expert that exonerated Condit also exonerated Ron Carey of the Teamsters; Carey was eventually convicted. The lines of questioning were similar in the two cases as well, and not likely to be all that similar to what the FBI would like to ask. Abbe Lowell has been negotiating what types of questions can be asked by the police, which IMHO renders the test moot, since if one knows the questions in advance, one can avoid a physical response to lying.

Besides, a serial adulterer and career politician's probably a pretty skilled liar to begin with.
posted by swell at 11:08 AM on July 14, 2001


yeah. Modesto. My home. *sigh*

the modesto bee is known for its non-scientific polls, but they are usually good indicators since it seems that everyone here thinks about the same, or at least breaks into groups of people who think the same with very little variation.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:11 AM on July 14, 2001


Aside from the specifics of the Condit case, does anyone else has the feeling that we're creeping from the heady "love-in" days to dealing with sex outside of marriage as a sinful activity of questionable characters?
posted by semmi at 11:37 AM on July 14, 2001


As to the fact that Condit took a lie dectector, I would hardly call it a fair judge of his knowlegde of anything that happened to Chandra. It was a private test, taken without police being present, and was only three questions long. It still seems as if hes hiding something to me.
posted by rift2001 at 12:22 PM on July 14, 2001


Oh, he didn't cheat on his wife with multiple women? Last time I checked, that was enough to ruin a career

Didn't hurt Clinton, what people do in their private life is just that. Even if charges are never brought people will still think Condit is guilty unless someone else confesses.
posted by Mick at 12:39 PM on July 14, 2001


Condit has acted squirrely enough, sure, but I don't blame him here.

In a missing person case, time is of the essence. Every day that passes without resolution to the case diminishes the chances that there will ever be a resolution. Condit's stonewalling hurt this case, period. Every day that Chandra Levy was gone and he chose not to tell the full truth hurt this case and reduced the chance that Chandra Levy will ever be found, dead or alive. And I sure as hell blame him for that.

It doesn't matter if he had information because he was diddling her or because he was helping her study for the LSATs. He had information and he withheld, he obscured and he lied. That is inexcusable, no matter who he is.

Aside from the specifics of the Condit case, does anyone else has the feeling that we're creeping from the heady "love-in" days to dealing with sex outside of marriage as a sinful activity of questionable characters?

A lot of people have always felt that way, not just because of the sex but also due to the inherent dishonesty involved in an extramarital affair. Unless you're in an open marriage, adultery is going to involve lying -- not just the basic lies about where you were and who you were with, but also the lie made of the marriage vows. And you'd be hard pressed to find people who don't consider liars to have questionable character.
posted by Dreama at 1:36 PM on July 14, 2001


Dreama, when I refer to "sex outside of marriage", I don't mean adultery. I just mean sex without the institution of marriage; for the sake of love, pleasure, intimacy.
posted by semmi at 2:45 PM on July 14, 2001


dreama: The "here" part referred to one specific thing - the lie detector test. I don't see that as a Condit issue at all. I'd sure as heck be miffed if police were going through the media to pressure me to take a lie detector test about anything, given what I've read of their unreliability. Even wrong 15 percent of the time is unfathomable, and the APA rates the tests about 50 percent right, 50 percent wrong. The rest of the stonewalling was awful, and nothing in my post said otherwise. Whether it's criminal is questionable, that it was a sign that Condit lacked integrity is not.
posted by raysmj at 2:49 PM on July 14, 2001


Didn't hurt Clinton, what people do in their private life is just that.

That's a weak argument. Clinton was an anomaly. He could of had a harem supported by tax money and no one would have cared.

Infidelity has brought down many more politicians than not. I'm not say that's right, but if you're going into public office it's part of the deal.
posted by justgary at 2:54 PM on July 14, 2001


One thing that hasn't yet been commented on is that Bob Barr just asked for Condit to resign. Barr has also filed a complaint with the ethics committee about Condit's "obstruction" of the investigation. This is interesting since Barr himself has been accused of adulterous affairs among other shady things.
posted by miss-lapin at 3:32 PM on July 14, 2001


I think anyone who posts a thread (*another* thread) picking on Gary Condit should get hit hard with the obvious stick, but as long as we're on the topic...what's with that site? Why does the main page have FOURTEEN (!!) applets that appear and then disappear? Why is the top of the main content a thousand pixels down? Why is there half an image overlaid on top of the text? Why is the whole thing shofted 500 pixels to the right? That is the most broken page (in my browser at least) I've ever seen that didn't actually crash my browser.
posted by rodii at 4:58 PM on July 14, 2001


Mick : Didn't hurt Clinton,

no, it hurt gore.

through all history, certain politicians have always had affairs. it only hurts them when it becomes a scandal, and that only happens when the press decides to publicize it.

and since the lewinsky case, I think putting "intern" (not his) and "sex" in close proximity to one another is just irresistable to the press.

for the DC press, it's sort of their own kaycee. there's an answer there, but not enough clues. and if you can't actually break the case, there's sure plenty to speculate about....
posted by rebeccablood at 5:48 PM on July 14, 2001


"And re: investigating Gingrich, Barr, et al...yup, they're scummy too...but their reluctance to reveal affairs did not prevent law enforcement from gathering evidence that may have found (or saved the life of) a missing/murdered/kidnapped person."

What special evidence do you (or other readers of Mefi) believe Condit posesses or controls? I don't see that having sex automatically makes two people intimate with other aspects of their lives.
posted by Sqwerty at 6:50 PM on July 14, 2001


Lie detectors measure truth about as well as the SAT test measures learning. In other words, not.

I am so disgusted with the press at this point that it's impossible for me to watch the news without retching. Bush has got to be loving life since the heat is off him. Another politician in the post Clinton era who can't keep his dick in his pants, what a surprise!

Do I care? Absolutely not. That's for the voters in his district to decide.

The Republicans just blew campaign finance reform to bits. Bush continues to blunder forward with his "make the world a more dangerous place" rigged ABM scam, which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. The mainstream press could care less, because it doesn't get ratings.

Whatever happened to reporting the news?!?
posted by dr. zoidberg at 8:48 PM on July 14, 2001


Sqwerty writes:
What special evidence do you (or other readers of Mefi) believe Condit posesses or controls?


I don't really think he knows squat. I just don't like him.

Condit is gallantry's black hole. That's all I really have against him at this point, and for me, today, that's enough.

Of course, tomorrow I might decide to despise gallantry.

Arbitrary is as arbitrary does, Sir.
posted by Opus Dark at 9:26 PM on July 14, 2001


zoidberg, that is a really terrible analysis of campaign finance reform. It got postponed til the fall. Nothing got voted on, up or down. Whether you think that postponing the vote til fall will kill the momentum of getting it passed is a debatable point. That it is dead, however, is not.

I do agree with your sentiment that the media is ignoring much more important matters.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 9:43 PM on July 14, 2001


What special evidence do you (or other readers of Mefi) believe Condit posesses or controls? I don't see that having sex automatically makes two people intimate with other aspects of their lives.

WHAT? It is possible, perhaps even *probable*, that Condit knows something that will help investigators learn what happened to Levy, or where she is now.

"Doesn't automatically make them intimate with other aspects of their lives?" HELLO? Are you implying, stating, or believing that whenever she arrived at his apartment, they had voiceless sex, and she left without one word being spoken? No way! People naturally and always discuss aspects of their lives with people that they are "intimate" with...like "well, I'm going to stop by the bank on the way home," or "maybe I'll pick up some bagels over on 14th street tomorrow morning." You know, little things like that that could help the people who are trying to find the Levy's daughter.
posted by davidmsc at 10:33 PM on July 14, 2001


Whatever happened to reporting the news?!

Those stories were reported heavily this week and the topics of campaign finance reform and missile defense have been covered in hundreds of stories and news reports since the election. I don't think you can fault the mainstream press for how those stories have been covered this year, in spite of the all-Condit-all-the-time barrage since he admitted to an affair with Levy.
posted by rcade at 6:05 AM on July 15, 2001


It doesn't matter if he had information because he was diddling her or because he was helping her study for the LSATs. He had information and he withheld, he obscured and he lied. That is inexcusable, no matter who he is.

I agree completely. I don't care that Condit stonewalled the press or the public. But misleading police in the early days of the investigation is inexcusable.
posted by rcade at 6:08 AM on July 15, 2001


In all of the coverage I've read or had foisted by the talking heads of television or radio, I still haven't found out what useful information Condit specifically impeded. Be honest people, would this really be all that fascinating if it were about his potential info gleamed from LSAT coaching and not about the lurid implications people might find in extramarital sex?

Prior to this media sin fest I had no knowledge of this man's political career. Having read a bit about his voting record it strikes me that this will work out as incredibly convenient timing for replacing a conservative democrat with a republican.
posted by Sqwerty at 11:34 AM on July 15, 2001


I still haven't found out what useful information Condit specifically impeded.

well, by refusing to admit his relationship with her, he prevented the police from searching his apartment for nine weeks for hints as to her whereabouts or plans....
posted by rebeccablood at 1:11 PM on July 15, 2001


In all the time they have had to search and follow other leads, the focus is not on the two other similar victims found, but on the potential political scandal.

The focus shouldn't be on whom she's played with as much as her last hours in contact with friends and family. I am assuming Condit isn't the only person she ever had contact with. There are thousands of missing people who do not receive this level of attention, this one rose to the top of the anonymous pile not because she is missing but because she might be good tabloid fodder.

This should be about finding the young woman, not about the opportunity for scandal. I don't care who she's shtupped, I do care that it takes that sort of sub-text to get the media and police focused.
posted by Sqwerty at 1:25 PM on July 15, 2001


Looks like LeFile has been reading Metafilter...
posted by fooljay at 1:04 AM on July 17, 2001


« Older   |   This sad chronicle Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post