posted on July 8, 2001 07:52:15 AMLadies and Gentlemen, I have never had sex with that woman.....Levy...umm...Lewinsky...<whispers>"what was her name anyway?"
posted on July 8, 2001 07:55:22 AM
Now I see people are posting about what a "police source said", not what Congressman Conduit said. More he said, she said. What responsible and reliable "police source" would leak such information. In the Enquirer, the main headline says she died in Conduit's bed and her body was dumped. This information was from a "police source"
[ edited by mark090 on Jul 8, 2001 07:56 AM ]
posted on July 8, 2001 08:10:26 AMMore he said, she said.
Actually it is more what the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, AP, CNN, etc. are saying. I haven't kept up on what the Enquirer has said but that's never been one of my trusted news sources.
posted on July 8, 2001 08:24:08 AM
Where do you think they got that story? Not from Conduit or the Investigators. They are merely rehashing what the tabloids reported. I just watched Harry Reasoner on one of those Sunday Morning News programs state in the beginning of his show, out loud "Gary Conduit admits having an affair with Chandra Levy according to police sources". He then turned to one of Conduit's advisors and asked, "Did he admit it?" The advisor's answer was the usual no answer spin/doublespeak, probably more out of habit than trying to cover something up. The main thing is Harry Reasoner wasn't even sure if the story was true or the source was reliable, however, for ratings sake he stated it as fact in the beginning of the show. On several other news forum this same morning were others saying the same or similar things as concrete facts, with their sources being once, twice or more removed. It was obvious, from what I read while standing in the checkout, they were merely rehashing the story from the Enquirer. Never did anyone use Congresssman Conduit as a source, the one who was supposedly have admitted it.
posted on July 9, 2001 09:51:15 AM
Lie detectors will work on a politician. They are able to use the most basic polygraph machines on a politician. These units only have one sensor that is place on the politician's lips. If movement is detected it registers as a lie, they are very, very, accurate.
posted on July 9, 2001 11:01:09 AM
Condit ought to take the polygraph to everyone's satisfaction. Then he can just get on trying to repair his reputation as a Kiss 'n' Tell kinda guy. Because the more that he tries to make himself innocent, the worse the media will portray him.
In about a week or two, the body of Chandra Levy will be found by hikers or campers somewhere in the hills and then Condit will really become a murder suspect, just as parents often are at the death of a loved child. this will end his career, even though it will never be proved that he had anything to do with it -- unless you read the Enquirer or Globe.
posted on July 9, 2001 11:08:57 AM
On a PARANOID THEORY, the body of Chandra Leevy was found before the matter was sent to the press as a Missing Persons case. It was covered up in order to destroy Condit's political career. When the media can't get another mis-fact out into the open, only then will they "find" the body. That will lead to no less than three months of "examining the body for evidence of foul play", which in the meantime, Condit will be labeled as having murdered Chandra.
Why, do they ask, would anyone want to do this? Not, I say, for the petty reason of wasting a political opponent. It is to cause a news media black-out, such as the O.J. Simpson trial did, wherein the trial took so much press time that important events never got to be aired. Now, such events as back-door double-Dubya-dealings will get no press at all. But this will occur just as soon as the Republican Party has run out of dirt to throw at Democrat politicians.
posted on July 9, 2001 11:13:11 AMCondit ought to take the polygraph to everyone's satisfaction.
No he shouldn't. Those aren't worth squat. If he fails (which is possible even in innocence) what will people think? If he passes, no one will remember it. They're not accepted in courts for a good reason. Maybe they're good as a tool for secret police forces but that's pretty much it.
posted on July 9, 2001 11:20:19 AMIt is to cause a news media black-out, such as the O.J. Simpson trial did, wherein the trial took so much press time that important events never got to be aired
Shrewd observation....I wonder what trail they're trying to get the press off of...
Maybe it's a trail that doesn't exist yet....and on a completely unrelated subject...hmmm
Hey, they haven't said (IIRC)....Chandra never bought a plane ticket before she disappeared, did she? I recall her aunt saying Chandra had sent or told her about some airfares....
Personally, I think she's getting a nice tan on some Carribean beach... Anyway, that would be a much nicer outcome than the alternative...
posted on July 9, 2001 11:46:39 AM
Here's a reality theory to ponder. Someone at the justice department might start looking into the flight attendant's (Anne Marie Smith) allegations. Law enforcement officials told ABCNEWS that Smith's story might not have any direct relevance to the Levy case, but it raises questions about possible obstruction of justice. Condit supporters could use the 'Republican conspiracy' defense and say it was a private affair and try and hide the obstruction of justice charges in a dialog of 'it was a private matter'.
I am jealous of one thing, in my entire life I never had a girlfriend that was as understanding as some of these politician's wives.
posted on July 9, 2001 12:22:14 PMI am jealous of one thing, in my entire life I never had a girlfriend that was as understanding as some of these politician's wives
Yeah, me too...
My wife had an interesting observation...perhaps the Condit's, long-married and with grown children, have an "arrangement" like the Clinton's seemed to have....
Power and notoriety can do interesting things to people...and relationships...
posted on July 9, 2001 05:36:20 PM
Well, he has finally admitted it, apparently. He had an affair. So now the press took it to another level. Since the affair business is old news, I heard one news commentator state that this is a story about sex and "MURDER". Again, not a shred of concrete evidence of a murder. But if they say it enough times, it will become fact.
posted on July 10, 2001 12:45:50 AM"Again, not a shred of concrete evidence of a murder. But if they say it enough times, it will become fact."
EXACTLY!!
First, stir the public's imagination. Next, keep the focus on a Democrat Politican. Stir the public's imagination some more. On a slight confession, move onto the next phase and say MURDER, even though the police have yet to rule it as anything other than a missing persons case; that is, there's no proof that she's even dead.
Now, simply because Chandra had an illicit affair with a married man, the parents are now pushing the onus on the congressman to "come forward", not on the police to find the missing girl to determine if a crime has even been committed. Can you spell P-A-Y-O-F-F?
posted on July 10, 2001 01:16:28 AMBorillarCan you spell P-A-Y-O-F-F?
I'm not sure if you're talking about a shakedown or a bribe. Who is paying off who in your imagination?
If my daughter had been missing for 2 months and the man she was having an affair with was denying that for 2 months to investigators then I'm probably going to have more questions for that man.
posted on July 10, 2001 01:31:49 AM
Remarkable how the memory improves when there's media bucks involved. Where was the aunt two months ago? Where the flight attendant?
These people bear a resemblance to some I saw at Tahoe one day. A rearender occured and of course traffic crawled in both directions. When I finally got to the 'wreck' I saw no damage to any vehicle and I also saw no less than nine cars with drivers sitting in them holding their necks and grimacing.
posted on July 10, 2001 01:49:25 AMHere's a reality theory to ponder. Someone at the justice department might start looking into the flight attendant's (Anne Marie Smith) allegations.
posted on July 10, 2001 02:03:20 AM
He said at the outset that he knew her, and that they were friends. The fact of a relationship between them of any kind is covered sufficiently by that. That the relationship was a loving or sexual one is not per se germaine to any aspect of her disappearance at this point except to gossipmongering dirt throwing sleazeloving republicans.
Also note that there is very little in the way of republican fire and brimstone from the persons who are elected to office. They, unlike the bulk of their constituancy, have the sense to know that people in glass houses should not throw rocks.
posted on July 10, 2001 02:27:44 AMkrsAlso note that there is very little in the way of republican fire and brimstone from the persons who are elected to office. They, unlike the bulk of their constituancy, have the sense to know that people in glass houses should not throw rocks.
So true, and the elected democrats are keeping mum also, they aren't casting questions about the integrity of Chandra's aunt or Anne Marie Smith either. I don't think I've heard any elected democrats spell out P-A-Y-O-F-F either.
posted on July 10, 2001 07:52:17 AM
uaru,
"the elected democrats are keeping mum also, they aren't casting questions about the integrity of Chandra's aunt or Anne Marie Smith either. I don't think I've heard any elected democrats spell out P-A-Y-O-F-F either"Did I hear some glass break?
It may have seemed like a loud crash to you, but no, it wasn't glass breaking. It is that revalationary experience of for once bearing witness to, and acknowledging, the essential difference between republicans, which you are used to, and democrats, which you only deride irrationally. That difference is summed up in a word-- "class". Democrats generally have that as an innate and long standing tradition while republicans as a whole,....don't.
posted on July 10, 2001 09:05:24 AM
Where's your 'dog pissing' GIF? I thought that that was standard issue for republicans without legs to stand on.
Did you get to see any of the bush family golf coverage? What is that? Are they trying to create an association with Dwight Eisenhower, the last republican president who made any sense at all?
posted on July 10, 2001 10:15:50 AM
"He said at the outset that he knew her, and that they were friends. The fact of a relationship between them of any kind is covered sufficiently by that. That the relationship was a loving or sexual one is not per se germaine to any aspect of her disappearance at this point except to gossipmongering dirt throwing sleazeloving republicans."
No, actually anyone having an affar with her would not only be suspect but heavily questioned as to their knowledge of her whereabouts leading up to the day she disappeared.
He chose to 'protect' the wife he cheated on which now may have hampered the investigation into finding his mistress. Great guy - Condit is.
However, - anyone who thinks any male in a position of power can be left alone in a city for months at a time and truly believe he isn't going to have sex with anyone is nuts. Men are not made that way. His wife chose to say in the Modesto area and he went to WA DC - travel records show she only traveled there maybe 2-3 times a year and he about double that.
NO -
I am not saying he is okay cheating. I am just saying common sense says it was inevitable.
You can argue all you want but reality is the male species needs sex and yes, sex for a lot of men does not have any deeper meaning than the gratification of the act.
It doesn't mean it is okay or right -but the situation - powerful man in Washington with a lot of women dying to be with him. They offer - he accepts - simple as that. Happens everyday.
Bottom line -
His lying may have hampered finding this woman and that is why he is being taken to task for it.
[ edited by ypayretail on Jul 10, 2001 10:18 AM ]
posted on July 10, 2001 10:39:25 AM
When did not saying become lying? Only in republicania.
Gee, that's funny, but every report released by the police (who, lest we forget, have the purpose and responsibility for all investigation into this matter) has been quite clear in emphasizing that Condit has answered all questions, and that he is not a suspect at this time.
Perhaps the rumor mongering folks here should take issue with the media reportig to them for not having been sufficiently quick to generate unfounded interpretations for them to rely on, but Condit himself certinly cannot be held to be responsible for that, now can he? Or possibly a complaint to the investigating agency(s) would yield a more satisfactory result if it's pointed out to them that they have been hindering the investigation of these non-events by restricting information to those who need to know while ignoring all of those who WANT to know what is essentially none of their business.
posted on July 10, 2001 10:44:04 AM
[i]"anyone who thinks any male in a position of power can be left alone in a city for months at a time and truly believe he isn't going to have sex with anyone is nuts.
Men are not made that way. His wife chose to say in the Modesto area and he went to WA DC - travel records show she only traveled there maybe 2-3 times a year and he about double that"[/i].
I'm sure that Mr. Smith would take exception to that judgement. As to the ridiculous comparison of Condit's wife's travel to DC and Representative Condit's--well, that's ridiculous. HE has a job there, SHE does not.
posted on July 10, 2001 10:59:49 AM
You live in a fantasy world if you do not think this takes place daily in DC.
As for my moderation -
Not a problem. We can discuss women, kids, psycho's in much more graphic terms but I will sure make it a point never to offend the males on this board every again. Please -
Good day all - no point in discussions here -heavy handed subjective moderation in the RT is interesting to say the very least.
Good luck to you all in your auctions -
AW -
Love your services - but the heavy handed moderation gets a bit much. I did not call anyone names or personally attack anyone. Simply my opinion and backed by scientific proof about the male species - of whom, are the majority of my best friends. I am being moderated because I said men need sex - whatever floats your boat.
PLEASE - review the threads where women are trashed daily - interesting the inconsistency..... who e-mailed you, huh??
I know take it up with the moderation e-mail whatever - not a point - I truly have better things to do.
[ edited by mark090 on Jul 8, 2001 07:56 AM ]
