Last week, Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., blew his interview with ABC’s Connie Chung and missed a big opportunity to begin rebuilding his tarnished reputation. That’s a given! What bothers me, however, is the presumption by my colleagues in the media and most of his colleagues in the United States House of Representatives that this is not about sex. The conventional wisdom is: If he really didn’t have anything to do with the disappearance of Washington intern Chandra Levy – and had not impeded the investigation by lying to cover up an affair and if he would just come clean – then, there is no harm, no foul.
Let’s get real here. Of course this is about sex! If it had not been for sex, there would have been no intimate friendship between a 24-year-old intern and a 53-year-old congressman. What possibly could they have in common?
Furthermore, if Gary Condit had not had a sexual relationship with Chandra Levy, he would not be a prime suspect. Never mind the legal two-step, if he were not a suspect, the D.C. police would not be asking him to sit down and voluntarily take a real lie detector test. They would not have interviewed him four times. They would not have gone to the trouble to search his apartment and his car.
When someone disappears and is presumed dead, you look for access and motive. Condit certainly had access. According to Levy’s aunt, Linda Zamsky, she was head-over-heels in love with the guy and was convinced they would be together if she hung in there and would have his children and was at his beck and call. As for motive, perhaps this was the one relationship he had that got out of hand. She was extremely young and, suddenly, she was out of a job and had to leave Washington. She might have pressured him for a position or any number of things. Was she over the top? Was she a clinger? Did she find out about one of his other girlfriends? Was he afraid she would check to see if his wife really was that ill? Was she pregnant? Take your pick. In a situation like that, all these things have to be considered possibilities.
What if it could be proven – beyond a shadow of a doubt – that he had nothing to do with Ms. Levy’s disappearance? What then? We already have learned that this guy can’t be trusted. Apparently, he did more than break the most serious vow a man makes in his life – he made adultery an avocation! In fact, if all the women who allegedly had affairs with this man and have been interviewed by the D.C. police are telling the truth, this represents a lot of work. It is tantamount to his having another full-time job.
We have to assume the man constantly lied to his wife and children in order to account for lost time and money spent on all these alleged women. Since some of his affairs allegedly involved his employees, we must assume he also lied to his staff. He also lied to his colleagues. Rep. David Drier, R-Calif., told Newsweek, “I was told early on that his wife was ill, and he went out.”
If a man lies to the woman that he professes to love and now wants to protect, if he lies to his staff and his colleagues, can we assume that he is playing it straight with his constituents (the Levys excluded) back home in the district? Hello!
The comments made by some die-hard Condit supporters (one wonders how many of these folks are in his employ, have friends or relatives in his employ or otherwise are beholden to him) are hard to take: “But he’s been a good congressman. He’s done good things for the community. He’s represented the farmers and the merchants here.” Let’s set the record straight: Anyone who has the power of the office, a half million dollars a year for offices and staff and free taxpayer money to spread around the district will do things for his community. Imagine how much more he could have done if he had kept his zipper up!
At last, Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., is questioning whether this man should keep his seat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. If you can’t trust a man with someone’s daughter sent to Washington as an intern, should he be trusted with anything less precious?
Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., proposed a dating ban for all lawmakers; married and unmarried, similar to one that prevents lawyers from dating clients or doctors from becoming romantically involved with patients. Under his plan, relationships between members of Congress and interns would be “strictly prohibited.” It’s gone nowhere. In fact, it’s been ridiculed as too obvious, unnecessary and unenforceable.
On July 10, 2001, Judicial Watch, the public-interest law firm, filed a request for an investigation of Condit with the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee. Three days later, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., filed a similar request charging that his “conduct has violated the general principles of public service and reflects negatively on his office and the United States House of Representatives as a whole.”
The Committee issued a letter to Barr denying his request citing a “long-standing policy” of deferring investigations under review by law enforcement officials.” However, the D.C. Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are concentrating only on the disappearance of Levy. The Committee could, if it chooses, investigate his “bad behavior.”
If precedent is followed, don’t expect the Committee to swing into action. Generally, it has been reluctant to investigate anything of a sexual nature. When it does, the punishment it delivers carries the weight of a feather.
For example, the year 1976 was one of infamy in the House of Representatives. Rep. Wayne Hays, D-Ohio, who was the chairman of the administration Committee, allegedly put his mistress, Elizabeth Ray, on his payroll, even though she admitted that she lacked any secretarial skills. He resigned rather than face a hearing. As it turned out, he should have stood his ground. That same year, the House took no action against Rep. John Young, D-Texas, who hired an aide, who said she was put on his payroll primarily for sex. Also, no action was taken against Rep. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., D-La., or Rep. Allan Howe, D-Utah, who were arrested for soliciting police decoys posing as prostitutes.
In 1990, it was discovered that Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., had a boyfriend running a male prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment. Frank eventually was investigated for using his political influence to affect the probation of a “personal associate” and for arranging for the improper administrative dismissal of parking tickets. Frank received a letter of reprimand from the Committee and eventually made restitution for the parking tickets.
The case that comes closest to the one involving Condit surfaced in 1983. That was the year the Committee investigated Rep. Gerry E. Studds, D-Mass., and Rep. Daniel B. Crane, R-Ill., for their “relationships” with House pages. Bear in mind, these were underage high-school students from the surrounding area and pressure from the local community was intense. What happened? The House passed a resolution of censure. It was tantamount to having their colleagues on the House floor wag their fingers at them while going, “Na, na, na, na, na, na!” Incidentally, the punishment for the chief page, James C. Howarth, was much more severe. He was dismissed!
No one is perfect, and no doubt many members have made mistakes they have regretted. Some of those mistakes have been of a sexual nature. However, a responsible, mature person doesn’t repeat his mistakes – he learns from them. Gary Condit obviously has not. In fact, he has been described as a “serial philanderer.”
The ethics manual for House members states: “A member, officer or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.” It is painfully obvious to most reasonable people that Gary Condit has failed to do that. However, before President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, we all thought we knew the definition of the word “is.” Perhaps the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee would be kind enough to give us a definition for the word, “creditably.”
