WASHINGTON — “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.”
Has Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., lived up to that standard?
Members will more than likely have to judge their embattled colleague’s behavior based on that broad ethical guideline – known officially as “House Rule 43, clause 1” – when they return from summer break in two weeks.
Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., has filed a misconduct complaint with the House Standards of Official Conduct committee against Condit, who refuses to step down over his affair with missing intern Chandra Levy. That means the GOP-controlled committee, which reviews ethics cases under Rule 43, will have to take up the matter.
If it finds that Condit ran afoul of the rule, they’ll likely recommend punishment, and then the full House will vote on whether to carry it out.
This would be in addition to any action House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., might take, unilaterally as party leader, against Condit, such as stripping him of his sensitive House Intelligence committee assignment, a choice position. The feds fear that Condit, who has Top Secret, as well as ultra-secret code-word, clearance, may be a blackmail target and a national security risk.
Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat, said Condit’s behavior was “embarrassing” but said on “Fox News Sunday,” “there’s nothing that we can do in the Congress. Unless there is something to take before the ethics committee, I don’t see how we can do anything.”
Later on CNN, Rangel said: “What is it that we could possibly charge him with in the ethics committee? Not one thing.”
Though most members of Congress don’t have much stomach for punishing their own, particularly when it comes to sexual misconduct, they have investigated and disciplined several members in the past for sexual improprieties.
Of course, the circumstances surrounding Condit’s affair are unprecedented and far graver. No member has been sexually involved with a federal employee who turned up missing. In fact, authorities now presume Condit’s 24-year-old mistress to be dead.
But here is a brief history of past sex-related ethics cases:
- In 1983, the Standards of Official Conduct panel, then run by Democrats, recommended that Rep. Daniel B. Crane, R-Ill., and Rep. Gerry E. Studds, D-Mass., be reprimanded for “engaging in sexual relationships with House pages.”
Reprimand is an official expression of strong disapproval. The House voted to “censure” them, a stiffer sanction.
In addition to the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds – who had sex with a 17-year-old male page – of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine subcommittee.
Still, Studds didn’t resign and, remarkably, ran and won reelection a year later. He’s gone now, and so is Crane.
- The ethics panel in 1990 publicly disapproved of the conduct of former Rep. Gus Savage, D-Ill., for sexually harassing a Peace Corps volunteer. The full House took no action against him.
- That same year, the Democrat-run panel recommended reprimanding Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., for fixing parking tickets and writing a misleading memo that could have influenced the probation of Stephen Gobie, a homosexual prostitute and drug offender who worked as Frank’s driver and household aide.
By a 408-18 vote, the House agreed to reprimand Frank, who made a contrite appearance before the House. A motion to censure him was rejected, 287-141.
- Also in 1990, the ethics committee looked into punishing Rep. Donald “Buz” E. Lukens, R-Ohio, for having sex with a 16-year-old girl, whose mother accused him of offering her daughter a government job to keep her silent. But Lukens, who was convicted of the crime of contributing to the unruliness of a minor, resigned before the panel could conclude its inquiry.
Condit has no plans to resign and is pressing ahead with a major October fund-raiser in California’s Central Valley to finance his 2002 campaign.
Former GOP Sen. Bob Packwood, in contrast, chose to resign after Senate colleagues from both parties spoke out against him for sexually harassing female staffers.
Gephardt this week finally denounced Condit’s evasiveness throughout the Levy mystery as “wrong,” and Hill sources say he may be joined in his rebuke by other Democrats next month.
But some argue he should take the next step and at least reassign Condit to another committee, so that he will no longer have access to highly sensitive intelligence. Gephardt has only floated the idea, though his spokesman says he plans to meet with key Democrats about Condit after they return.
Gephardt named Condit to the House intelligence panel in 1999. Like all members of the select committee, Condit was automatically cleared for Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance. He did not have to undergo background checks, which may have turned up his alleged affairs.
Federal guidelines for determining eligibility for access to classified information cite sexual behavior as a security risk if it presents a target for “coercion” or “exploitation.”
The briefings Condit gets come from information gathered from the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies. The material is so sensitive that the intelligence committee has to meet in a high-security, soundproof room with no windows in the top of the Capitol.
Interestingly, Condit says he talked with Levy about her getting a job with the FBI, CIA and NSA.
Though Condit’s lawyer Abbe Lowell argues, reasonably, that his client is probably the least likely blackmail target now, thanks to all his bad press, some Hill sources argue that he still has the propensity for reckless behavior and therefore cannot be trusted with such super-sensitive information.
Republican members of the House Standards of Official Conduct committee are: Joel Hefley, chairman, Rob Portman, Doc Hastings, Asa Hutchinson and Judy Biggert.
Democrats include: Howard Berman, ranking member, Martin Olav Sabo, Ed Pastor, Zoe Lofgren and Stephanie Tubbs Jones.
The panel will likely investigate whether Condit:
- Had a sexual relationship, and not just a friendly or professional relationship, with Levy.
- Withheld information from police that could have aided them in their search for Levy.
- Hid evidence relevant to the police investigation.
- Suborned perjury by asking Anne Marie Smith to lie about their sexual relationship in a sworn affidavit.
- Tried to obstruct the police probe by asking Smith not to cooperate with authorities.
- Asked staff members to lie for him to the press and public.
- Enlisted staff members to help him hide evidence or coach potential witnesses.
See WorldNetDaily’s exclusive Condit-Levy chronology
