posted on August 24, 2001 09:23:46 AM new
The only thing he's been proven guilty of, at this point, is being a totally disingenuous sleaze. And he proved that all by his lonesome.
He apparently wasn't coached all that well. He should have been taught to at least attempt the appearance of spontaneity, if he wanted to convince anyone he was sincere, IMO.
posted on August 24, 2001 09:57:16 AM new
kraftdinner - What a lynch mob. I think most here know there is no 'proof' (yet) otherwise he'd be in jail awaiting trial.
For me, it's his behavior since Chandra first disappeared. Even the FBI profilers are sharing that his behavior is causing more doubts about 'what is he hiding?' His silence has said many things. Usually innocent people don't have problems being very open and answering questions, etc. So, while he may have had nothing at all to do with Chandra's disappearance, his actions look like a person who is hiding something.
When thinking about this issue, have you been able to put yourself in the families position? What if you were Chandra's aunt and knew what Chandra had told you. (Truly believing that to be fact.) Then here's this man who won't talk about it. He denies everything and won't address the issues/questions that were asked of him.
posted on August 24, 2001 10:03:00 AM new
So some of you know for a fact what he's really done? I can't get over how quick you are to judge, whether he turns out being guilty or not. Geez, a person's "persona" says nothing about the person inside. How many times have you tried to be stoic when you felt crummy inside? So if he acted all bent out of shape and was teary-eyed, etc., would that be better? Forget how an "accused" person looks or acts and try to base your opinions on what comes out of the person's mouth, not the media's. You'll get your chance if/when he's arrested.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Aug 24, 2001 10:06 AM ]
posted on August 24, 2001 10:58:26 AM new
Hi kraft...
Okay. His bald-faced assertions and/or insinuations that everyone involved is either lying or confused except Gary Condit, bother me. That seems mighty unlikely.
posted on August 24, 2001 11:49:40 AM new
Now, now. kraft may have a point. OJ was arrested and we all had "our chance" then and look what happened -- he was found not guilty. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for thinking him guilty before the verdict came in.
posted on August 24, 2001 12:00:32 PM new
I understand toke. If you watched him last night (or anytime), then you have every right to form an opinion based on what he's said, and I agree with that 100%. What concerns me most, is opinions that are based on the way he's portrayed by the media, which feeds on itself with rumours and inuendos. Surely we can try to be a little less judgemental of anyone in his position until he's been charged and tried. If he's guilty, it'll come out, and you can give yourself a pat on the back (not you in particular toke), but if he's only guilty of having an affair with a missing person, and not guilty of being involved in her disappearance, then his life will be ruined and that can't be reversed. Wouldn't you want someone to give you the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise?
Edited for clarification
[ edited by kraftdinner on Aug 24, 2001 12:06 PM ]
posted on August 24, 2001 12:11:11 PM new
What came out of Simpson's own mouth plus the unsurmountable evidence is what made me believe he was guilty. I haven't seen one shred of evidence against Condit yet.
posted on August 24, 2001 12:24:04 PM new
Condit is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation regarding any response he makes.
He owes no apologies to the public. Any apologies due would be to his wife.
Comparisons were made in this thread to OJ vis a vis condemnations of Condit for Chandra Levy's disappearance & possible murder. In the OJ case there were clear links. None exist in this instance. After all this time & searching, none.
posted on August 24, 2001 12:26:03 PM new
It's a sad thing, but it seems likely she's dead. If she is, and they don't find a body, it's highly unlikely Condit will ever be charged for a crime against her.
Who knows what he did? I will say that I found his demeanor in the interview rather chilling. Cold, tightly wound, and very hostile, IMO. You could attribute the hostility to the unpleasant position in which he found himself, but it still demonstrated a telling aspect of his personality.
posted on August 24, 2001 01:02:47 PM new
It is very sad actually.
What I find most upsetting is that these men who like to have a little on the side, seem to think there is nothing wrong with that. I mean, think about it.
Voted into public office on the basis of their political leanings, beliefs, ethics etc. Then you find out that they don't have the moral fiber to go through life without living out huge lies.
If someone cannot be truthful to their spouse, the person they have pledged their love and fidelity to, what makes anyone think they are being truthful to the people who voted them into office in the first place.
If a person can lie directly to the face of a family member, how honest do you really think they are to the faceless hundreds who got them where they are today.
No I don't expect a person to go through life with no mistakes. But this type of thing is not a mistake, it's a conscience choice they've made to.
And don't get me started on women, young or otherwise, who will get involved with married men, or men who will get involved with married women. I've seen it first hand, and it makes me ill.
My heart goes out to the parents of Chandra Levy. Not only do they have to deal with their daughter being missing, they also have to deal with the knowledge that she got involved with a married man, and however this turns out, everyone now knows that.
posted on August 24, 2001 01:10:24 PM new
There are plenty of politicians who have never had an extramarital affair that have lied up the ying yang to their constituents, and screwed them over besides.
Edited to ask: anybody know how ell Condit was doing the job he was elected for before the Levy stuff hit the fan? I haven't followed his career myself, and have to rush back to work right now, so don't have time to look it up. *That's* the concern of his constituents, nothing else, unless & until he's found guilty of a crime.
[ edited by bunnicula on Aug 24, 2001 01:16 PM ]
posted on August 24, 2001 01:47:22 PM newbunnicula...
Everything I've heard in interviews with his constituents has been positive...he's been quite popular, as I understand it.
I disagree that their only concern is how well he does his job, though. People vote for all kinds of reasons...simple dislike will ruin him, if he doesn't win back their trust. May not be fair, but reality often isn't.
Mrs. Levy just authorized their attorney to say that if Condit says she misunderstood him, he is a liar. She remembers, quite clearly, specifically asking him if he had had an affair with Chandra. He said that he did not.
posted on August 24, 2001 02:31:02 PM new
Chung spent at least 40% of her time asking the same irrelevant question over and over again and you critisize him for repetiveness? She conducted that session in a manner that made her appear idiotic. Read it. Over and over, in weird and inneffective attempts to be clever she asks the same thing no matter which way the course of the interview turned. She was either directed to find that one thing for the public or she's just as stupid as everyone here who would convict him on no evidence other than a feeling that he MUST be hiding something or a perception that 'he was nervous'.
As far as the fate of Levy goes, whether there was a sexual relationship between her and Condit doesn't matter at all. How any 'failure' to discuss those aspects, even if in fact they are true, could 'impede' an investigation into her disapearance is beyond me.
Who in their right mind would respond to the curiousity of the media, or of the gossipmongering public in any criminal investigation? He answered the people who's job it is to find levy or what happened to her to their complete satisfaction.
The claims of withholding evidence are media generated and are not supported by the actual statements by either the local or federal investigators. Even the claim that the sexual nature of the relationship was not divulged until the third interview has only been attributed to those "informed sources" and not to the police.
Personally, my opinion is not based upon what the media would LIKE me to feel or how the MEDIA would like me to respond. Not at all...It is based on a gut reaction which has always told me the man is a phoney...going back WAY BEFORE his entanglement with Chandra....
We can like or dislike politicians from either side: Dems or Reps...if I get bad vibes from someone, I don't care about their political status, or the Media, or other people's responses...Your judgement of all of us belonging to a Lynch Mob, is rather unfair, and surprizing, coming from you
******** Gosh Shosh! My "About Me" Page
posted on August 24, 2001 03:17:09 PM new
Interesting that it was the House Minority leader, Gephardt...a Democrat that criticized Condit. Abandoned by his own party...he must be pretty concerned about that, poor fellow.
posted on August 24, 2001 03:20:40 PM new
Thank-you krs
You're right Shosh. I did get a bit carried away with my "lynching" term. My comment was not directed at anyone in particular, but more to the way some people had pre-judged him. I apologize if I've offended anyone with my outbursts!
He might be a complete slime-ball, but he might also not be guilty of anything (but what he's done with his personal life.) Sometimes I just wonder why it's so much easier for people to think poorly of others than in a positive light.
posted on August 24, 2001 05:15:30 PM new
It wouldn't have been to Condit's benefit to "open up" and be a regular guy. Of course it's no surprise he offered no details regarding his affair. Nobody expected otherwise.
The issue regarding the statement Condit or his lawyers tried to get the stewardess to sign is A BIG ISSUE and it was the biggest question mark after the interview. Condit dismissed it as "talk between lawyers." Condit's lawyer tried to skip past it, but when cornered, suggested the document was a draft. That doesn't explain why the stewardess plainly states she was asked to sign a statement that she had never had an affair with Condit. Another misunderstanding?
I tend to believe the stewardess. What OTHER type of document could they possibly have asked her to sign? Her story makes perfect sense. And if true, it would mean Condit attempted to obstruct an FBI investigation. Period. That is the real issue regarding his re-election, much more so than his womanizing ways. Voters will excuse philandering before they excuse obstruction of justice.
And yes there were far too many "misunderstandings" to maintain credibility. No lynch mob. Just a strong feeling that Condit is hiding something and not telling the truth. Could he have been any more wooden and rehearsed?
posted on August 24, 2001 05:30:50 PM new
Note: If this reply seems late, I typed and saved it between 5 & 6pm. Didn't get a chance to review it because of dinner (shrimp on the barby and brocolli salad ).
-------
Hi Kraftdinner
Are we reading the same posts? I don't see anyone trying to lynch Condit.
What I do see is a majority of people who do not think that Condit was instrumental in Chandra Levy's disappearance.
My opinion of Condit is based upon his CYA actions up to this point, including last night's farce...er, I mean, interview.
There should have been a point long before 67!!! days had passed where the disappearance of Chandra Levy was more important than him saving face. It wasn't about him; it was about a missing, possibly dead, young lady.
He has only himself to blame for any damage to his career. It would have been more admirable had he, in the beginning, indicated that he, too, was concerned and would be as candid about their relationship(to law enforcement and her parents, notthe media or even you and me) as necessary to help locate her.
Personally, I don't care who he is sleeping with, but if Chandra were my daughter, I would want more cooperation from her lover.
That does not mean I would automatically consider him a suspect. I would have to be convinced one way or the other.
I certainly don't rely on or need the media to tell me what to think about a subject. My husband doesn't even have that kind of pull.
I am quite capable of making my own decisions.
My perception of Condit, from the beginning and after last night's interview, is that he is an arrogant man.
I am reminded of a quote:
"You don't get a second chance to make a first impression."
posted on August 24, 2001 05:54:22 PM newKrafty...I second femme's and Toke's statement: you ARE a class act... (Or should I say: I third???
********
Gosh Shosh! My "About Me" Page
