|
 e
won't be certain that Congressman Gary Condit is guilty until Alan
Dershowitz defends him. But the possibility that Condit wasn't involved
in the disappearance of intern Chandra Levy grows more remote with
each passing day. And not only because of who's already defending
him.
Because you can't turn on the TV without seeing breaking news on
the Levy investigation, this is like explaining who "John Kennedy
Jr." was, but: Levy is the 24-year-old graduate student from the
University of Southern California who had just finished her internship
with the federal Bureau of Prisons and was about to head back to
California when she vanished without a trace from her apartment
near Dupont Circle on April 30.
The longer Levy remains missing, the more likely it is that she
will not emerge alive. She didn't fit the profile of a runaway (and
runaways tend not to leave their purses behind). There is no ransom
note.
If Levy has been the victim of foul play, chances are overwhelming,
from a statistical point of view, that she was the victim of someone
she knew. It's been two months and the police still haven't found
a body. Suicides don't hide the body, random street criminals don't
hide the body, even serial killers tend not to hide the bodies.
Police dogs have searched nearby jogging trails, and Levy's running
shoes were in her apartment.
If she were involved with someone, the possibility that that such
person is involved is even higher. If she were involved in an adulterous
relationship with a married man, the odds again increase. If she
disappeared during a period when the married man's wife suddenly
came to town, the odds increase further.
Levy was having an affair with Rep. Gary Condit. His wife arrived
in Washington days before Levy disappeared.
Supplementing this mounting suspicion is Condit's practice of acting
guilty. Even as the days grew into weeks and weeks grew into months
with no sign of Levy, Condit kept lying about the affair. We learned
in the Clinton era that affairs are "private family matters" and
"everyone lies about sex." But this was beginning to look like a
murder investigation.
So it was odd that Condit still engaged in Herculean efforts to
conceal his affair. (He must have thought he was being pretty smooth,
but everyone knew anyway. As a rule of thumb, whenever a congressman
calls an intern a "good friend," he's having sex with her.) If the
affair and Levy's disappearance were unrelated, why would Condit
persistently lie about the affair?
After issuing preposterous denials for two months, Condit finally
did the honorable thing and owned up to his relationship with Levy
— right after Levy's aunt went public with the affair. Condit
also lied to Levy's parents about when he had last spoken with Levy,
later giving the Clintonian explanation that he meant "in person"
as opposed to "on the phone."
Maddeningly, the police are refusing to cough up the details of
their investigation to an inquiring press. But the FBI was sufficiently
interested in Condit to contact his other mistress soon after Levy
disappeared. The other-other woman, flight attendant Anne Marie
Smith, knew nothing of Levy (for reasons pertaining to the logic
of mistresses). Thus, early in the investigation, something led
investigators to stray beyond acquaintances of Levy to acquaintances
of Condit.
When Smith told Condit that the FBI had called, he promptly attempted
to suborn her perjury. (Another proven method of looking innocent.)
According to Smith, Condit informed her that she didn't have to
talk to the FBI. He then had his lawyers draft an affidavit for
her denying the affair. Condit, evidently, does not like mistresses
who talk. Smith refused to sign, and took her story to Fox News
Channel.
Condit responded to the subornation charge with more Clintonian
dodges. He swore up and down, in 17 different ways, that he had
told absolutely everyone to tell the truth…about Levy's disappearance.
Thus, he "denied" asking Smith to lie about the affair by saying
he had instructed her to tell the truth about Levy's disappearance
(something Smith manifestly knew nothing about).
Condit's attorney on the affidavit later explained that it was only
a draft affidavit and Smith had been encouraged to edit anything
that was incorrect. (Like changing the part about not having an
affair with Condit to having an affair with Condit.)
But Smith's most intriguing piece of information was that Condit
told her on May 5 or 6: "I'm going to have to disappear for a while.
I think I may be in some trouble." Levy's parents didn't tell Condit
their daughter was missing until the evening of May 6. If Condit
told Smith he was in trouble before being informed of Levy's disappearance,
he's lying about more than the affair.
At least there won't be a DNA-stained dress. Maybe politicians are
capable of learning from the mistakes of others.
|
