UPDATED 20 May 2010

Barbara Olson Faked Her Own Death on 9/11: Exposing Her & Her "Husband", Ted--then Solicitor General of the United States working for then President Bush--who LIED on 9/11 Putting out the Ragheads-with-Box-Cutter-Knives Cover Story--Unravels the Entire Conspiracy

+ =

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known, and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor. He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in hearts of men. He rots the soul of a nation. He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A Murderer Is Less To Be Feared."

-- Cicero, 42 B.C.

Ted: "George, Let's do the false flag raghead attacks on 9/11, my birthday!"

George: "Great idea! It'll be our inside joke--only we will know"

Barbara: "And I get to go into hiding, get my boob job and travel!"

All agreed; "Let's Do 9/11 and please our [violence-obssessed Rockefeller Illuminati] handlers"

This makes both Olsons and Bush ACCESSORIES BEFORE THE FACT in the murder of 2, 000+ Americans on September 11, 2001 and two concocted-premise wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have killed over 100, 000+ people (conservative estimates, pardon-the-pun).

Before 9/11: Barbara Olson on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect TV show in 1999

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyXBClMC6WA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ESU0IXLwow

After 9/11, Traitor & Liar Ted Olson exposes a couple flashes of truth on CNN's Larry King Live!

Bad actor, non-grieving husband Ted reveals: "It's Impossible to think of her as gone" at 3:30 in Part 1 of the video.

Of course! She's not dead! So yes, "it's impossible to think of her as gone".

Part 1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaNj5nz9a6w

Ted later says: "Love for my wife, Barbara"--all in present tense at 8:10 in Part 2:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTgkE3Lo-p0

SUMMARY

Barbara Olson

1. Guilty Demeanor on MSNBC and CNN Larry King Live! Broadcasts (transcripts included below)

a. Inordinate preoccupation with Gary Condit/sex aspect of fellow femme fatale Chandra Levy case as if under orders to provide public smokescreen of Mossad sexpionage links to her, flies in face of experts concluding she was murdered by a professional and made to disappear

b. Preoccupation with being "on the lam", "talking through cut-outs", "career being over"-- cryptically refering to her soon faked death and new life with new identity

c. Living separated from Ted in obscure location in middle of Lake Michigan in strip of land on Ellison Bay, Wisconsin indicates motive and means to quickly disappear and start new life outside U.S.; frustration with men remarks like a femme fatale. In the 1946 classic film noir movie, Gilda, the old man troubling sexy Rita Hayworth fakes his own death by flying out across the ocean in an airplane that explodes--after he parachutes out. Why not pick-up Barbara Olson at the appointed time by a seaplane and remove her from the country into hiding?

d. Odd on-camera behavior beginning August 2, 2001 on Larry King Live! TV show indicates something was up in her own life that "something must happen in the relationship" and complaints about men being insensitive seem more autobiographical than just of Levy

2. Ties to right-wing Jewish extremists ("Zionists") and Bush AmeroNazi mafia family persons who are THE prime suspects of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks (re: transcript of memorial service at Jewish law school, pic attending James Baker party for President G.W. Bush)

3. Reports of having second thoughts about being right-wing attack dog shows motive for faking own death to start new life

4. Stated she's a "friend of Kenneth Starr" the federal prosecutor who did half-hearted job of investigating the Clintons; Olson herself is a former federal prosecutor aware of witness protection means to start a new life with false identity, means opportunity

5. Participation in Ted's "Arkansas Project" funded ($2M) by billionaire Scaife, wrote two books attacking Clinton crime family

6. Took monies from right-wing, AmeroNazi fascist billonaire Scaife to create Independent Women's Forum, had expensive home in Virginia and expensive cars; flew first class on airline flights (re: FBI Z-trial documents shows first class cabin seat position next to where the raghead hijackers are alleged to have been but did nothing, news stories on their glamorous lifestyle)

7. Evidence that she was a risk-taker, femme fatale who was capable of faking her own death for a cause she thought worthy; would welcome the mata hari excitement (re: former law professor's comments), was likely stuck in opressive marriage with deadbeat Ted much older (15+ years) than her, femme fatales Monica Lewinsky and Chandra Levy might have been inspiration for Barabara Olson to take-on similar but hopefully happier ending role

8. Lack of any children indicates marital problems with Ted and thus both motive and opportunity to disappear and start new life after 9/11 attacks; lack of children by Ted from his previous 2 former wives indicates problem is with him; even the criminal Clintons came together to produce 1 daughter, Chelsea, why not adopt at least one orphan?

9. Story of not taking an earlier flight to be either with Ted for his birthday the night before (it wouldn't be his birthday then) or to have a hurried breakfast with him before catching a morning flight to LA on the day of is illogical and doesn't wash with the common realities of real people

10. Location of where Ted allegedly buried Barbara in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin demands exhumation to see what--if anything is inside the coffin (web link and photo of cemetary provided)


Ted Olson

1. Obstruction of justice involvement in Vince Foster murder supplying a fake picture of a suicide gun; he should be in prison not rewarded with high public office

2. Defended Israeli spy Pollard; guilty demeanor shows he puts Zionist cause and money before American people

3. Represented Bush to Supreme court to force them to declare him President shows no loyalty to the American public-at-large and their choice for their executive branch leader

4. Boiler-plate statements about Barbara after 9/11 show no love or sense of loss, indicating either he did not love her and/or she didn't die on 9/11 but went into hiding ie; no wife died for Ted to grieve over

5. Created "Arkansas Project" to defame Clintons using Scaife monies, Skolnick says actual intent was to protect both Clintons and Bushes by collecting adverse evidence on their misconduct to keep it from authorities and the general public

6. Guilty demeanor and clear felony acts: Lied on 9/11 and thereafter publicly changing his story of the 9/11 phone calls to Barbara on alleged Flight 77 numerous times. Current story he holds to is not possible since cell phone technology in 2001 wouldn't allow individual cell phones to be used from airliners and American Airlines 757s didn't have air phones

7. Guilty demeanor of even being interviewed on 9/11 by a CNN reporter when he should have been grieving loss of wife--doesn't pass the smell test; looks like acting under orders to place cover story for the other conspirators

8. Immediate romantic involvement with new woman within 6 months after 9/11 shows guilty demeanor of a lack of grief towards Barbara--who may have been estranged from him, numerous observations of viewers watching Ted Olson speak in public and on TV verify this

9. As the former Solicitor General of the U.S., was aware of witness protection means to start a new life with false identity, establishes opportunity and his job working directly for the President Bush shows motive to lie and offer the 9/11 passengers-hijacked-by-ragheads-with-box-cutter-knives cover story to enable the neocon agenda of illegal corporate wars-for-profits

10. Ties to numerous conservative, authoritarian-friendly (aka fascist) law special interest groups funded by tax-payer intelligence agency funds to propagandize the general public; sits on board of American Spectator magazine

Applicable to Both Olsons

1. Weight and balance of 60 passengers (6 tons) packed into rear of plane as per Ted Olson cover story would throw off flight controls and possibly cause a crash of even a 757 airliner

2. What NTSB report calls "Flight 77" disappears from radar screens by transponder turn-off and loss of even blip screen return over West Virginia mountains happens near Tri-Cities civil-military Airport at Huntington, WV: a perfect place for a switch (6, 200 foot runway) to land passengers and put a remote controlled drone plane like an A-3D SkyWarrior resembling a 757 into the air to dive into Pentagon (see new map comparisons)

NTSB Flight 77 Report

3. The right-hand turn to accelerate to the NTSB's reported 530 mph speed would not be done by a pilot in the left hand seat because he'd lose sight of the Pentagon--nor even from the right seat because its going AWAY from visible landmarks below like the Washington Monument (obelisk) and this speed is not attainable in a 757 at low-level due to ground effect to strike as the "whatever" (A-3D drone plane aka "UAV", cruise missile, missile etc.) that did impact did! The "whatever" is going too fast to be a 757...good for fooling witnesses on the ground--but bad for the airliner cover story since its now disqualified as a possibility.

4. Guilty demeanor of alleged Flight 77 pilot "Chic" Burlingame (prior work on terrorist attacks while in Pentagon) and his daughter Wendy's suspicious death in a fire in New Jersey when someone posing as her was scolding 9/11 researchers in a public internet forum at the same time from England!

5. Ponerologist revelation that 1 out of every 4 human beings has no conscience offers highly probable explanation that Ted is a psychopath--a conscienceless person who doesn't know right from wrong and Barbara is a sociopath--a conscience-less person who does know right from wrong--but just doesn't feel it. Note Barbara's mean-spirited remarks she wouldn't have made if she had empathy that she mentally regrets. Those that say a 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy is not possible don't understand the significance of 25% of all people having no conscience means plenty of people are willing to go along with evil murders; the Milgen experiments show another 40% will go along if an authority figure tells them. This means 65% of society only needs to fool or force their way on the 35% that truly have strong internal moral compasses. If government agencies are nearly 100% populated by psycho/sociopaths and weaklings who do whateverthey are told all sorts of misdeeds are possible without any kind of general public scrutiny. This is why whoever controls the executive branch is a matter of life and death: if Clinton's Eyes Wide Shut group sits in the White House expect sex sins and some small-scale blood baths to remain in power (Waco, Vince Foster and Ron Brown murders, OKC bombing etc.) if Bush crime family "Jesus Camp" Zionist neocons are in power expect wars and large-scale violence for corporate profits covered in patriotic fascism. Choose your poison well; the 40% sheeple will follow whatever their president authority figure tells them to do--even down to the fashion of their clothes.

IN DETAIL

Barbara Olson Faked Her Own Death on 9/11: Exposing Her & Her "Husband", Ted--Solicitor General of the United States Unravels the Entire Conspiracy

"If you want to see these monsters in action, you need to get two books by Barbara Olson, Hell to Pay and the Last Days or the Final Days, Barbara Olson got paid off when she vanished from Flight 77, we know if you look at the information that that plane never hit the Pentagon"

--"I Am Against the New World Order" video presentation by Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Action Officer retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Cuppet

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDv3ij3kHK4

3:42-4:06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Cuppett

Questions that Must be Asked of Guilty Suspects

Once you realize Ted Olson did not talk to his wife Barbara on any airliner but lied to the entire world giving out a cover story of ragheads-with-box cutters, both of them become chief suspects and their entire life needs to be scrutinized in light of the probable cause that they are traitors to the United States of America who created a false flag attack that murdered 3, 000 Americans and set in motion illegal wars that so far have killed another 5, 000 and wounded 24, 000 American servicemen out of 1.6 million deployed overseas of which 1/3 are going to be damaged people-for-life requiring $1 BILLION of VA medical care for every 300, 000 veterans.



As you can see, no competent U.S. government justice agency has investigated the Olsons nor the 9/11 fiasco--so we can conclude they are all in on it. The best we can hope for is someone honest in those organizations leaking out a "bread crumb" of a clue for us to get off our asses and do it ourselves; which I criticize the 9/11 truth movement for not hiring former prosecutors and private detectives to go after these leads privately before the conspirators can cover-up their tracks. Reluctantly, I'm going to scream out some questions that demand answers that show the guilty demeanor of the Olsons who are to 9/11 what Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby are to the Kennedy assassination: the patsy and the drain plug. In the JFK murder, there were two Oswalds, one a southern redneck fishing pole type "Lee" and a shorter, eastern European type "Harvey" who was sacrificed as the patsy by Ruby shooting him; the latter being the last tenuous ties to the conspirators themselves. Both Oswalds had fake identification documents exploiting the asymmetric lack of left side and right side matching facial appearance that we all have. This is yet one of the subtleties of life that the permanently esconced national security racket exploits that the majority of Americans who think life is only the obvious ignore. Sherman Skolnick described it:

www.rense.com/general18/sucker.htm

Some people are just busy with their personal lives. So all they know about the world is what they ingest from the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press. If it is not mentioned there, well, it did not happen.

Other aspects are handwriting analysis, picture analysis, facial and body language, handwriting analysis, voice stress analysis, reverse speech analysis, on top of the polygraph that could be employed against the Olsons to determine their true selves. None of this is happening because the smokescreen of Ted as Oprah-style "boo hoo!" grieving victim because the American public is unaware that Ted is a dirty political operative for years long before the 9/11 attacks and of course, the United States Government (USG) doesn't want itself found out as the criminals behind the 9/11 attacks. What should happen here is WE THE PEOPLE--should demand a foreign friendly government's crime investigation unit come to the U.S. to investigate the 9/11 attacks because the USG's agencies are suspects and must recuse themselves accordingly. A sad state of affairs they have earned for themselves by letting the crime scene on 9/11 get destroyed.

Life is not only the obviois--that's TV brain-washing where the camera films staged actions where the good guys and bad guys show themselves clearly for benefit of the viewer. The pre-TV, WW2 generation knew the enemy Soldier isn't going to stand up and show himself to give a clear-cut target. The WW2 generation knew to look out and anticipate where the enemy would be hiding and to "recon-by-fire"--open fire at suspected hill tops and clumps of trees and see what kind of German tanks or infantry pop out. That's what we need to do to get 911 truth on the march again and our ".50 caliber heavy machine guns" need to point and shoot at Ted Olson and see if Barbara and other things might pop out.

QUESTIONS

1. Why was Ted Olson, the 4th highest USG justice department official LYING on 9/11 about phone calls to his wife that didn't happen and not mourning for his wife at home or in his office?

What are the sources for all of these FBI declarations of calls (Renee May) or no calls (Olson)? Where are the actual phone records? Who is Ted Olson's secretary? Where is her sworn statement of receiving a call from Barbara Olson on 9/11? What did Barbara supposedly say to her? Where is Olson's sworn statement? Has he even made one EVER about this whole mess? How can we even have an official government lying story when the facts of the events haven't even been established? At least go through the motions of due process for crying out loud.

2. Why did Ted and Barbara Olson take millions of dollars from right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife whose mother and father were Hitler business backers and the latter was in the OSS in WW2 (making son a CIA asset today and our "Clay Shaw") to attack the left-wing Clintons in TV appearance and books? Right-wing mafia versus left-wing mafia? Or just one elite masquerading in two differing forms?

www.skolnicksreport.com/gsecrets2.html

In December, 1941, the U.S. entered World War Two when Germany declared war on U.S. The pro-Hitler Mellon family of Pittsburgh, and their Aluminum Company of America, ALCOA, for 6 months thereafter refused to step up aluminum production urgently needed for production of U.S. warplanes. Rockefellers' Standard Oil of New Jersey, tied to I.G. Farben by patent deals, treasonously refused to go into synthetic rubber production needed after Japan's invasion of Southeast Asia and such, cutting off natural rubber production. Rockefeller did not want to violate the arrangement with Farben, war or no war. Other firms had to hurry-up development of a synthetic rubber by a different method, in effect, having to re-invent the wheel because of Rockefellers treachery.

Was this Olson dues-paying to ingratiate selves into a rival "Jesus Camp" neocon secret society focused on the sin of violence to the "Eyes Wide Shut" Illuminati secret society focused on sex sins the Clintons belong to?

Sex vs. Violence Conspiracy Groups

www.rense.com/general36/lew.htm

Thomas Reveals Mossad's
Role In Lewinsky
Affair
From Qasim Y. Khanzada
qasim@jumeirahbeach.com
4-2-3
Gordon Thomas discloses Mossad's role in the "Monica Lewinsky" scandal
Monica Lewinsky may have been a Mossad agent. It appears that Mossad's information on the affair was leaked to the media, to block Clinton's attempts to impose a Peace Settlement on Israel.
The Mossad-Likud blackmailing of Clinton is an example of the clash between two conspiracies: the Socialist one (of Clinton and the EU) and the Tory-Zionist one promoting the current war in Iraq.
Excerpted From -
Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad by Gordon Thomas Macmillan, London, 1999
Don't even think of offering the 9/11 commission as an objective investigation!

www.picassodreams.com/picasso_dreams/911/index.html

Which the committee members themselves declare is a bogus effort. (see above)

3. Why did Barabara Olson take millions from Scaife to form the Women's Independent Forum? What strings were attached? Who bought her place in Wisconsin? Are payments still being made? Who is living there? Someone with hair dyed a different color and had plastic surgery? How many people total live there?

4. Why didn't Barbara and Ted have any children? One or both of them were infertile? Was she and/or him bad in bed; hence the Judaic anti-sex-obsession? Why didn't they adopt? What kind of woman doesn't want at least one child? Did they lack money? (Hardly). What is lacking in their humanity that they don't want at least one kid? Even sickos like the Clintons have one child. Does Ted Olson have any children from his two previous marriages? Was infertility why Barbara's first marriage failed? Sorry, but when you become a public figure and are connected to evil murders, all of this is fair game for public scrutiny.

Was Barbara Olson trapped in a loveless, childless marriage with Ted Olson? Would she do anything to get out? Note her frustrated remarks about men "not getting it" on Larry King Live! Would she KILL or do anything to get out of it? Why does she have the personality of a Femme Fatale?

www.washingtonlife.com/.../01mar/bush2.htm

Washington Life Magazine March 2001

Pic

Honoring the Bush Family at the International Trade Center

H.P. Goldfield

Michelle Jimenez & Barbara Olson

Pic

Wynonna Judd

Pic

James Baker, Former Pres. George H.W. Bush & Barbara Bush

Pic

George P. Bush & Susan Baker

Pic

Janet & Daryl Bristow

Pic

Joanne & Jack Kemp

Pic

Mr. and Mrs. Joe Allbaugh

Pic

Bill & Diane Moss

Beth & Wayne Gibbens

Pic

Cokie & Steve Roberts

Pic

Anna & Bo Polk

Was Barbara a lesbian? Look at this pic with Michelle Jimenez? Who is she? Why isn't Ted at this gala festival of conscience-less psycho/sociopaths? Where's Jimenez's hubby? What's in Barbara's hands in the pic?

http://mediamayhem.blogspot.com/2005_10_02_archive.html

Michelle Jimenez, the then-wife of Miami federal prosecutor Marcos Jimenez, says cheese with the late Barbara K. Olson at a Bush family fete thrown by James Baker's law firm.

Maybe one or both Olsons are psych/sociopaths and the lack the common touch of empathy for mankind enables them to join the ranks of other like-minded "conservatives without conscience" as former White House attorney John Dead labels them?

5. Why did Barbara become a Catholic? To rule over her lack of empathy with a justifiable need for a controlling external moralistic framework? Why did she go to a JEWISH law school to try to rule over her femme fatale passions?

www.picassodreams.com/picasso_dreams/2007/04/stranger_than_f.html#more

This did not sit well with the hard core Zionists who ultimately hope to expand Israel's borders even more. Hopes for a lasting peace deal were soon dealt a major setback when a flurry of five bullets were pumped into Prime Minister Rabin at close range as he was attending a 1995 Israeli peace rally. It was not an Arab that killed Rabin. It was a Zionist fanatic named Yigal Amir. Amir was a law student at Israel's Bar-Ilan University. He later told investigators that he had no regrets for his actions. (44) Amir, a bright young law student was willing to throw his life away in the service of the Zionist cause. (More on that concept later on.)

Was Barbara a Jewish fanatic like Amir?

Rabin Assassination: Security Didn't Cover His Back: LITERALLY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BnljC_BHts&NR=1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPCKxy1Sois

NOTE: no security body guards covering his back-side allowing Amir to slip in and shoot Rabin at close range with a pistol

Did her successful stint at Jewish law school get her tied into the Jesus Camp Neocon power elites? Why was she so popular aside from her nice looks? Was it because she was a fervent pro-violence kill-the-evil-doers legalistic stoical mentality?

6. How many and what cases did she try as a prosecutor with the Justice Department? According to below she did 48 cases in 3 years or 16 per year, an average of over 1 a month. What dealings has she had with the witness protection program?

www.pbs.org/.../july-dec98/lawyers_10-19a.html

The Simpson trial also spawned "Burden of Proof" on CNN with hosts Greta Van Susteren and Roger Cossack. The show airs twice a day and has a whole gaggle of barristers parsing the law. But the Lewinsky scandal has wrought a new chapter with a new cast of characters, among them Attorney Barbara Olson, here arriving for an appearance on CNBC's "Hard Ball" with Chris Mathews. Olson was a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia for three years. A self-described conservative and close friend of Kenneth Starr, Olson quit her job as chief counsel for Republican Senator Don Nickles to hit the pundit circuit full-time.

BARBARA OLSON: I kept watching all of these people who were former federal prosecutors talking about the independent counsel investigation. And basically their statements were that this was outrageous and that Ken Starr was taking actions that no prosecutor had ever taken in the history of mankind. And it just wasn't true. And I knew it wasn't true, and I thought, you know, it's one thing to have a political agenda, but they're all being subtitled, former federal prosecutor. And I thought, well, I want to say, here's another viewpoint.

TERENCE SMITH: On "Hard Ball" that night there was no reference to her political leanings or friendship with Ken Starr. Olson was identified as a former federal prosecutor and founder of the Independent Women's Forum. But Olson says she often sets the record straight herself.

BARBARA OLSON: When I'm asked a question about Ken Starr, I will quite often preface it with, "I'm a friend of his."

TERENCE SMITH: Olson has tried 48 cases to verdict. Most were drug busts and other drug-related crimes in the District of Columbia. These days she's a paid legal analyst for NBC, who will sometimes put in a full day doing commentary on MSNBC. Often, she's pitted against lawyers from the other side of the political fence.

MSNBC Anchor: Here to talk about it, MSNBC legal analyst Barbara Olson, who was a former - was a federal prosecutor, and she's also a founding member of the Independent Women's Forum; MSNBC legal analyst Cynthia Alksne was also a federal prosecutor, now has ties to the Democrats. So we know what team everybody's on.

7. Why is Barbara constantly on CNN's Larry King Live! interview program leading the charge to focus in on Satanist sex pervert Congressman Gary Condit and not other suspects in the Chandra Levy disappearance just prior to the 9/11 attacks? Defense Attorney Mark Garagos on camera confronts her with this. Was it because she was under orders to keep the heat on the Eyes Wide Shut guy Condit and off Levy who was a MOSSAD sexpionage spy who had milked intelligence committee secrets from him? For such a "charming" person her August 2001 Larry King Live! segments seem bitter and vindictive.....was she uptight about her upcoming fake disappearance?

8. Why is Barbara living in an obscure strip of land in the middle of Lake Michigan in WISCONSIN when making these CNN Larry King Live! talking head appearances and not living in Washington D.C. with hubby Ted? Were they separated and in the process of getting a dicorce due to Ted having an affair with someone? Did Barbara want out of the relationship and a faked death on 9/11 would provide a face-saving and heroic end? Was Ellison Bay a great place to exit the country on order through Canada? She's would be already almost out of the U.S. from that precarious position.

9. WHAT if ANYTHING is buried in the cemetary in Wisconsin marked "Barbara Olson"? If a burned-up woman's body is inside how do we know it isn't some homeless woman the 9/11 murderers didn't barbeque for this eventuality of someone actually demanding verification of the 9/11 story? Who was Barbara's dentist? Can we get to him before the USG does so the truth can be gathered?

10. Why hasn't CNN and Larry King (Jewish) been confronted with his appearance in the 1998 movie "Enemy of the State" BEFORE the 9/11 attacks having a make-believe interview with a fictional Congressman talking about buildings going down? In the movie the villain played by Jon Voigt is born on September 11th; was his participation in this "revelation of the method" supporting the murder of 3, 000 people why his daughter Angelina and him don't get along today?

www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Hollywood_911.htm

11. Why on Larry King Live! was Barbara cryptically talking constantly of being on the lam, talking through intermediaries and hiring professionals in her remarks about the condit case? Was she unknowingly projecting her own throughts about her upcoming stage 9/11 disappearance?

12. Why was Barbara on the August 2, 2001 Larry King Live! show out of it? Was this when she had just signed up to play the part of heroic 9/11 victim patsy?

13. Has any of Barbara's relatives talked to her since 9/11? How about Ted? Why don't we get some surveillance on this? How about folks in Wisconsin?

14. How much of a physical make-over can be done to a person to change identity? Enough so a new appearance Barbara could circulate amongst Americans and not be detected? Could Barbara stay quiet for 7 years and counting? Is she writing under a pen name? What authors look like its her style? Since she's such a big fan of Israel, is that where she is today as some have suggested? Skolnick offers proff that the Czar Nicholas and family lived in hiding and were not executed as popular myth holds. Certainly Barbara Olson and some or all of the 9/11 "passengers" could play their Operation NORTHWOODS Option 8 roles. Another sad truth Americans and people in general don't relaize is how truly BIG our planet is and hgow easy it is to melt into the 7 BILLION people of the world and vanish--especially if the power elites don't want you found.

The Russian Royal Family Lived Undetected...

www.skolnicksreport.com/great_secrets.html

By 1970, documents were being released by the British, after more than 50 years of suppression, showing the British monarchy, cousins of the Czar, secretly with U.S.aid rescued the Czar and his family. So to perpetuate the big lie of royal murder, the Rockefellers financed an elaborate movie "Nicholas and Alexandra" which in its final scenes shows the alleged assassination by the Bolsheviks of the Czar and his family in Siberia. In only one edition, the pro-British monarchy Chicago Tribune had a story headlined "U.S. Aided Rescue of Czar Nichola, British hint" [Chicago Tribune, 12/14/70.) Excerpts: "British government documents which recently were placed in the public record office in London indicate that President Woodrow Wilson backed a secret mission to Russia which may have resulted in the rescue of Czar Nicholas and his family in 1918." and "A retired U.S. official, who has aided the investigations and asked to remain anonymous, said continued secrecy on the part of the British and American governments 'frustrates or makes liars out of all those who are ridiculed for stating the assassination never took place.' He said some who participated in the rescue are still alive and 'should be interviewed'" While not mentioning the Rockefellers and their banks, the story stated quoting that official " 'It is a preposterous claim that full disclosure would strain the relations among any of the involved governments', he said. 'A whole new breed has taken over in all the chancelleies. Certainly there can be little fear anywhere of a Czarist revival.' "

In 1974, I and research associates of mine, spent two whole days in New York interrogating the one who claimed to be ALexei Romanov, heir to the throne, and son of Czar Nicholas 2nd. He candidly and accurately without hesitation answered each and every one of my critical questions to my satisfaction. He said his parents lived out their lives in secret exile in Poland, and that some of his sisters, such as Anastasia, were still alive and he has met with two of them in the United States, one living in a suburb of Chicago. As a cover, he stated, he was trained as part of Polish Intelligence, and studied Marxism, and supposedly became part of the Post World War Two Communist regime in Warsaw, using the cover name Michal Goleniewski. About the time John F. Kennedy was inaugurated President in January 1961, Alexei defected to the U.S. By a private act of Congress he made a U.S. citizen and promised a sizeable pension by the American CIA. His disclosures caused the fingering of some 60 Soviet spies in the West. The CIA, he claimed, reneged on his yearly stipend, and he went public through ads, for example, in the dissident publication in the U.S. Ramparts Magazine. He wanted publicity to help him collect. A hemophiliac, he had the marks on his feet of having worn for many years metal leg braces, part of a plan to prevent him from falling down and bleeding to death as others with the disease.

He gave us many specific, verifiable details how the Russians to keep mum about the survival of the Czar, have been blackmailing large sums out of the Rockefellers and their banks. Also, Russia claims ownership of Alaska. In 1967, "Seward's folly", the U.S. obtained Alaska from Russia BY A 99 YEAR LEASE, NOT AS HISTORY PROCLAIMS, an outright purchase. The lease was arranged by a secret, midnight deal following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln who obtained aid during the American Civil War from the then-Czar of Russia. Forcing the Rockefellers to disgorge the long-secret Romanov family deposits would severely wreck the Rockefeller banks. Note: Rockefellers' Chase Bank is the advertiser on major TV Network talk shows.

15. Why are Barbara's books on the Clintons being ignored all during Hillary's presidential run? Has Hillary cut a deal with the Jesus Camp elites? Why did Hillary visit Scaife's newspaper recently seeing how he ruthlessly attacked her and her husband for YEARS? Why did Scaife suddenly ENDORSE her as a candidate? To split the Democratic party or because Hillary is now one of them?

16. Has anyone HONEST questioned sex fiend Condit about whether Levy was pumping him for intelligence? How about Monica Lewinsky?

17. What was Ted Olson doing defending Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard? Where is his loyalty to the U.S.? Or is he a Zionist like Barbara? Is Ted Olson of Jewish descent? Why did he obstruct justice by supplying fake photos of a suicide gun near Vince Foster?

**********************************

The Rosetta Stones of 9/11

A 65% majority of Americans are stupid by choice as the Milgen experiments prove. Being ignorant makes their lives easier than having to face off and fight powerful, evil men and women who are acting in the good name of our country or using its freedoms to rob, murder and enslave millions of people. Watching TV for 8 hours a day facilitates this ignorant state. Sherman Skolnick described it:

www.rense.com/general18/sucker.htm

Some people are just busy with their personal lives. So all they know about the world is what they ingest from the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press. If it is not mentioned there, well, it did not happen. And common Americans, occupied with their personal circles, often do not make time to sit and listen to their elders. Some rather ship their elders into expensive warehouses called nursing homes. [The nursing home rackets are a story for another time.] So the wisdom to be learned from past generations and their mistakes falls into the black hole of the unknown.

As long as it doesn't affect them directly, they are content to buy into the 19 ragheads did-it U.S. Government conspiracy theory for the 9/11 attacks. The only thing that will force these moral cowards to admit that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job would be if A PROMINENT GUILTY PERSON CONFESSED OR WAS FOUND GUILTY IN PUBLIC TO DOING THE ATTACKS. Let's say if George W. Bush got terminal cancer and had a miraculous generation of a conscience. Until this happens, the "Rosetta Stone" of the 9/11 attacks is the obvious high explosive IMPLOSION of the WTC towers which 9/11 researchers have delved into to such a degree that a growing number of thinking Americans--say the 35% who have a moral compass--now realize they have been had.

"The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival...It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is a state of war should exist. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact."

-- G. Orwell, 1984.

If you want to solve the 9/11 attacks go ask Ted Olson.

On 9/11, he lied to the entire world giving out a false cover story. He was then the Solicitor General (SG) of the United States, the 4th highest official in the Justice Department--who worked directly for President George W. Bush. There is the "hand-writing on the wall" and it reflects either the stupidity and/or the arrogance of the conspirators on display.

"This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder."

--Stanley Hilton, Republican operative but moral--"George W. Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider", Tuesday, 20 May 2008 06:20

DETAILS:

www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3789-george-w-bush-authorized-911-attacks-says-government-insider.html

The weirdness factor of the Solicitor General lying to his wife Barbara--another public person in melodramatic but mythical cell phone calls that never happened is "revelation of the method" in real time. Usually this is done months and years before-hand in a "Kilroy was here" kind of way. Either the perps were showboating or felt they needed some bona fide public AUTHORITY figure to "sell" the ragheads-with-box-cutter knives lie--but is a very dangerous aspect to the plot that collapses the whole thing if found out if you try to pull this off on AWAKE ADULTS. Only the BIG LIE hypothesis can explain it being chosen. The perps also had to find an unhappy compliant couple to stage this Mr & Mrs. heartbreak stunt. It all smacks of Madison Avenue, public relations psychological manipulation conjured up before-hand with sample test groups. What would the ODDS be that the 4th highest justice department official's wife would be on a hijacked plane and have such a convenient cell phone conversation? ZERO? Then it was no ACCIDENT; FDR: "nothing in politics happens by accident".

Fortunately, there is another "Achilles Heel" to the 9/11 attacks--the non-airliner attack on the Pentagon to take-out financial records showing $2.3 TRILLION dollars of miss-placed aka embezzled tax dollars. The conspirators really shouldn't have launched a drone plane/missile "whatever" into the Pentagon as it also puts the entire effort at extreme risk because the building obviously wasn't hit by a huge airliner and they PLACED A PROMINENT PUBLIC PERSON ON THE MYTHICAL FLIGHT 77 to fake her death: Barbara Olsen--former U.S. government prosecutor and TV talking head critic of the liberal establishment and wife of the Solicitor General of the U.S., Ted Olson--[former attorney for Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard and Bush 2000 campaign attorney who argued Bush v. Gore on Bush's behalf at the Supreme Court gaining him the presidency] and was later rewarded with the post of SG and who also lied about receiving cell phone calls from his wife that were not possible from moving airliners in 2001, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT DIDN'T HAVE AIR PHONES. The Olsons will cause the undoing of the entire 9/11 hoax.

What is the 4th highest justice department official of the U.S. doing LYING to the world and giving out a false 9//11 cover story?

WHY HASN'T TED OLSON BEEN INDICTED FOR LYING? How about a polygraph exam? Why is he lying? Unless--he is absolutely, positively involved up to his damn neck in the 9/11 conspiracy. Since he didn't actually call Barbara, THEN HE PASSED ON MAKE-BELIEVE LIES. That AIN'T INNOCENT. And it can only be INTENTIONAL to put out a COVER STORY for the conspirators, which he is one.

"But what do you have is someone you cannot explain why he would act that way if he's innocent, but you can explain why he would act that way if he's not innocent."

--Barbara Olson on CNN describing Gary Condit's Guilty Demeanor on July 20, 2001 just two months before 9/11!

More:

OLSON: "This is how prosecutors build a case. And this basically what we're doing, we're looking at evidence. We're looking at his actions. We're trying to see if he is suspect."

GERAGOS: "Right, and as a prosecutor..."

OLSON: "And he is acting like someone who has something to hide."

Even More:

OLSON: "Well, you know, prosecutors look at the case much as everybody watching this looks at it. They look for, as Michael Zeldin said, what's his character? What's he doing? He's still hiding things, and so you are going about it, at -- as a case you are building, I don't think they have enough to force Gary Condit to speak, if he does decides not to, if he decides to take the 5th, or if he refuses to voluntarily cooperate, so the prosecutors are working against that. They want him to keep agreeing to these interviews, they want to get more information.

I think in the next interview, they are going to have an FBI profiler because clearly, Gary Condit knows things about Chandra that can help them do the profile. Where might she go? How might she react? So they want him to cooperate. They can't push him too hard so it is
a little bit of a cat and mouse going on, trying to keep him coming forward and cooperating, without him deciding that he is in some sort of criminal danger and then he clams up, and then they have to go with the grand jury route."

Olson ran Ken Starr

www.larouchepub.com/other/1998/olson_starr_salon.html

This article appeared in the March 13, 1998 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Secret Operation vs. Clinton Is Run by Olson-Starr Salon

by Edward Spannaus

Dramatic new information developed by EIR on the role of Washington lawyer Theodore B. Olson as the power behind independent counsel Kenneth Starr, suggests that President Clinton is the target of an illegal, rogue intelligence operation being carried out under the putative authority of the 1981 Presidential Executive Order 12333.

There are close parallels between the operation being run against Clinton, and that carried out against Lyndon LaRouche by some of the same circles, in the 1980s. The railroad against LaRouche was conducted as a covert foreign intelligence operation under the provisions of E.O. 12333--which permitted the "privatization" of intelligence operations. Key to the ensuing prosecution and judicial frame-up of LaRouche was a "softening up" process of defamation conducted through news media assets of George Bush's "secret government."

This propaganda campaign was coordinated through a series of secret "Get LaRouche" meetings at the New York apartment of Wall Street spook/financier John Train--in what has become known as the "Train salon"--which included representatives of government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, plus news media representatives, including the Wall Street Journal. The "Train salon" was a project of the "Public Diplomacy" effort run out of the National Security Council, under the direction of George Bush's national security adviser Donald Gregg, and Gregg's associate, longtime CIA propaganda specialist Walter Raymond. According to evidence obtained by the Congressional committees investigating Iran-Contra, the initial financing for the Public Diplomacy program came from two intelligence-linked sources: Richard Mellon Scaife's foundations, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation.

As we shall see, the same sort of "public-private" operation is now being conducted against President Clinton, by circles around Theodore Olson.

In the LaRouche case, the "foreign counterintelligence" hook for the investigation was the allegation--circulated by Henry Kissinger and circles in the FBI--that LaRouche was a Soviet agent of influence, or a Soviet disinformation agent. It is likely that, in the case of Clinton, the pretext is the charge, circulating widely among circles within the FBI and private right-wing networks, that Clinton is guilty of treason for allowing secret intelligence to flow to China, in exchange for campaign contributions.

The Olson salon

The "Get Clinton" salon meets regularly at the home of former Justice Department official Olson, a longtime close friend and associate of Kenneth Starr, and of Olson's wife Barbara, chief counsel for Rep. Dan Burton's House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Burton's committee has been noisily conducting investigations of the "Chinagate" allegations around Democratic Party campaign fundraising, and of other alleged Clinton administration transgressions.

The gatherings include: Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, Federal appeals court judge Laurence Silberman, former judge Robert Bork, Supreme Court associate justice Clarence Thomas, Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley, American Spectator editor Emmett Tyrrell, and many others.

A glimpse into the Olson salon can be found in the July 1997 Esquire magazine, in an article by David Brock, titled "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man." Brock was the author of the Scaife-financed "Troopergate" article in the January 1994 American Spectator--on whose board Ted Olson sits. Brock described how he had been a guest at the wedding of Ted and Barbara Olson in the summer of 1996, where "the entire anti-Clinton establishment" was on hand, including Starr, former Bush White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, and the Wall Street Journal's Bartley. Brock says that Barbara Olson then dis-invited him from another party at her home a few weeks later--after word had leaked out that Brock's new book, The Seduction of Hillary Clinton, was too sympathetic to the First Lady.

The collaboration between Olson and Starr goes back over 20 years, when they were both partners in the Los Angeles-based law firm Gibson Dunn and Crutcher; both men came to the Justice Department in 1981, when Gibson senior partner William French Smith was named U.S. Attorney General at the beginning of the Reagan administration. Olson is now back at the Washington office of the Gibson firm; Starr has gone on to the Chicago-based law firm Kirkland and Ellis.

Olson--to put it bluntly--runs Kenneth Starr. He is the one with the "overview," and is said to be the direct link between Starr and the Justice Department permanent bureaucracy around Jack Keeney and Mark Richard. Olson played the central role in putting together Starr's staff, and is responsible for the collection of career Justice Department prosecutors who have been recruited to Starr's operation. Since Starr himself is not a prosecutor, and has never tried a criminal case in his life, he is totally dependent on the thugs whom Olson is responsible for bringing on board.

In our last issue, we described some of Starr's prosecutors. Some of them are especially notorious for targetting black and Hispanic elected officials. For example, Hickman Ewing, from Memphis, Tennessee, conducted a long--but ultimately unsuccessful--vendetta against Rep. Harold Ford, and was also involved in the cover-up of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Sol Wisenberg and Ray Jahn, from San Antonio, Texas (Starr's hometown), targetted mayor and later Clinton cabinet official Henry Cisneros, plus Rep. Albert Bustamante, and Rep. Craig Washington. Starr's deputy Jackie Bennett, from Justice Department headquarters, also went out to San Antonio to help in the Bustamante case. Starr's office includes longtime Federal prosecutors from Mississippi, Florida, Virginia, and Los Angeles.

Olson is also the link between Starr and Paula Jones's attorneys. Olson and Robert Bork played judges in a "moot court" practice session with Jones's lawyers before they argued the Jones v. Clinton case at the U.S. Supreme Court. The practice session was held at the Army-Navy Club in Washington.

There is also a tie-in to Linda Tripp, who, as we detailed in the Feb. 27 EIR, met with Paula Jones's lawyers on the evening of Jan. 16, right before they took President Clinton's deposition. Tripp briefed Jones's lawyers on her conversations with Monica Lewinsky, which were electronically monitored by the FBI under the direction of Starr's office. Tripp's lawyer James Moody, who says that he was hired to put Tripp in contact with Starr, is in the orbit of the right-wing "public interest law firms" tied to Olson and Starr, and which are funded by Scaife. Moody has done legal work for both the Landmark Legal Foundation and for the Washington Legal Foundation--previously known as the Capital Legal Foundation.

The legal network

Olson and Starr are both part of a tight network of lawyers who work in "conservative" legal foundations and other organizations. They both sit on the Legal Advisory Councils of two such groups: the National Legal Center for the Public Interest and the Washington Legal Foundation--both of which are bankrolled by Mellon Scaife.

The National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI) is the umbrella group for a nationwide network of "public interest" law firms. In addition to Starr and Olson, its Legal Advisory Council includes George Bush's former Attorney Generals Willim Barr and Richard Thornburgh, plus Robert Bork, former Federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova (who has been prominent recently in publicly defending Starr), and Eugene Meyer, the executive director of the Federalist Society. NLCPI's Board of Directors includes former FBI Director William Webster and Dr. David Davenport (president of Starr's next planned stop, Pepperdine University).

Up until recently, Ted and Barbara Olson and Starr were members of the Legal Policy Advisory Board of the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF). This board also counts among its members: Prof. John Norton Moore (a fervent hater of LaRouche and one of the authors of E.O. 12333); former Virginia Governor George Allen; former DOJ official and later Massachusetts Governor William Weld, who orchestrated the frame-up of LaRouche in 1984-88, first from Boston, and then as head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division; and Joseph diGenova. WLF's National Board of Advisors includes Senators Jesse Helms, Fred Thompson, and Orrin Hatch, and Reps. Dan Burton, Bob Barr, Robert Livingston, Chris Cox, Henry Hyde--and indeed, much of the Congressional Republican leadership.

Olson is also on the legal advisory committee of an offshoot of the WLF called the Center for Individual Rights, whose major funders are the intelligence agency-linked "four sisters": the Smith-Richardson, Carthage (Scaife), Lynde and Harry Bradley, and John M. Olin Foundations.

Additionally, Starr and Olson are activists in the Federalist Society, an organization of "conservative" lawyers and businessmen which especially targets law students for recruitment; Starr's and Olson's law firms are significant financial supporters of the society, along with the John M. Olin Foundation and others. The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 under the guidance of now-Supreme Court associate justice Antonin Scalia. Olson chairs the Washington, D.C. chapter; Starr has been a regular speaker at Federalist Society events, and is closely associated with appeals court judge David Sentelle in that organization. It was Sentelle who headed the three-judge panel which fired the first Whitewater independent counsel and replaced him with Starr in August 1994.

The national co-chairmen of the Federalist Society are Bork (a regular at the Olson Salon) and Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Also on the Board of Trustees are former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, former Attorney General Edwin Meese (who presided over the secretive Council for National Policy for four years), and CNP members Holland Coors and Donald Hodel (now also head of the Christian Coalition).

Get LaRouche, Get Clinton

LaRouche recently concluded that the operation being run against Clinton is the same one that was used against him. "This is a group of people who meet weekly, or approximately weekly, in a `Get Clinton' operation, who are evidently steering and coordinating the attack on the President, and running Kenneth Starr's operation as a subsidiary operation," LaRouche said in a March 4 radio interview with "EIR Talks." "This is being run as a foreign intelligence operation, in style, under Executive Order 12333, a foreign intelligence operation targetting our own President! That's what the facts show is a pattern. In other words, you can't do what's being done, legally, except in this quasi-legal covert operations provision of Executive Order 12333 and other things, and the guy who wrote that thing, or drafted it, is a part of the same ambience that's running this style of operation."

LaRouche said that whether it's being run formally under E.O. 12333 or not, "is not crucial, because it's a 12333-style operation. . . . If it is legal, or quasi-legal, it is run under that Executive Order, which is a foreign intelligence operation against our President, directed, overall, from London!"

"Now, this is pretty close to high treason," LaRouche declared.

Noting that Olson is also running the operation in the Paula Jones case, LaRouche said that this means that Starr's Office of Indpendent Counsel is "being run under the management of an extra-governmental agency, operating in a mode which corresponds only to a secret foreign intelligence operation, under provisions of 12333. And these are the guys who managed, with Olson's help, managed the appeal to the Supreme Court from the Paula Jones lawyers, to go ahead with this case against the President, while he's sitting in office."

Adding into this mix another British asset, "a crazy man, but with more money than is good for his mental health--Richard Mellon Scaife," and then, "the usual CIA-type foundations, which were used against me," such as the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bradley and Olin Foundations, he said. LaRouche then summed it up: "These are all the same groups I was up against, in the 1980s, the same groups that framed me up, and pulled all these phony charges against me. And, the same crowd is going after the President."

The Chinagate connection

As noted above, the "predicate," in legal terms, for the 12333 operation against LaRouche was a phony allegation that LaRouche had some sort of Soviet connection; this allegation was circulated through certain factions of the U.S. intelligence community, and into the Reagan-Bush National Security Council, particularly among the above-mentioned Walter Raymond, and Roy Godson--an NSC consultant who personally participated in the Train salon meetings. In fact, one participant in the Train meetings reported that Train himself insisted that LaRouche and his organization be characterized as "KGB."

In the case of the current operation being run against President Clinton, the corresponding allegation would likely be that Clinton allowed Chinese espionage to go on in his administration, in return for campaign contributions. Such charges--and worse--are being widely circulated in sections of the FBI and DOJ, and in private circles which overlap the Olson-Starr network.

This reporter had occasion to sit in on a briefing given about a year ago, by a private investigator who is working with Rep. Dan Burton's congressional committee investigating "Chinagate"--the committee for which Theodore Olson's wife Barbara also works. A few weeks prior to that meeting, the investigator, Neal Hogan, charged on NET Television that Clinton is responsible for treason in his administration. "Let's be honest," Hogan said. "Charlie Trie and John Huang have committed treason. And they are responsible to the President. Therefore, the President is responsible for this treason."

"The evidence is there!" Hogan proclaimed. "We've got the evidence just in the DNC financing reports. . . . We know that John Huang attended 39 security briefings. We know that John Huang was given a security classification even before he became a government employee. We know that Charlie Trie was given a security clearance and allowed to wander around the White House at will despite the fact that he's still a Chinese national, has a home in Beijing, and a restaurant in Beijing." Hogan, a CNP member, is also the head of the Washington, D.C. chapter of the Christian Coalition. In addition to working for Congressional Republicans, Hogan also works closely with a group of renegade FBI agents; Hogan has described himself as a friend of former FBI agent Gary Aldrich (who is also a friend of Linda Tripp), and Hogan said that he and his wife have been among the recipients of leaks from FBI agents and Justice Department officials which began immediately after the November 1996 elections. Hogan stated that the allegations being passed around within U.S. law enforcement agencies are that Clinton has put the lives of longtime U.S. intelligence agents in danger because of leaks of sensitive intelligence information through John Huang and other Chinese agents.

Olson a Bag-Man for Conspirators; Wife Alive in Sweden says Skolnick

www.rense.com/general66/dot.htm

Dot-Connectors'

Notebook - Part 1

By Sherman H. Skolnick and Lenny Bloom

www.cloakanddagger.de
www.skolnicksreport.com
www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html

7-1-5

Detailed listing, from time to time updated, of stooges and scapegoats of the Anglo-American Aristocracy. Also the re-emerging backwards-facing crowned heads of Europe, and the on-the-throne Papacy, and the secret enforcers the Jesuit Black Nobility. Together with Israeli blackmailers; antagonized, sometimes falsely accused, provocateur Moslems; and conniving Persians. Interlocked with spy agency bombers and assassins and false-flag creaters, blackmailers. extortionists, and embezzlers.

In sum, an on-going detailed list of men and women of the real criminal world.

JAMES A. BAKER 3rd. Texas law firm fixer and creep. Once part of the administration of Daddy Bush and facilitator of falsely and corruptly installing George W. Bush as the occupant and resident of the White House. Reportedly one of the super "bagmen" in the crucial Florida vote, necessary to capture the Presidency, in the year 2000 Election.

Baker and his team were ostensibly bribers of top level southern Florida Democrat officials, as traitors to their Party, to stop recount of the Albert Gore, Jr. vote. Used, in part, was concealed offshore loot of Coca-Cola and Mickey Mouse to corrupt the Democrat officials as well as the five Judge majority on the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush versus Gore.

THEODORE B. OLSON. From early on, Olson was an apparent fixer and cover up expert. Olson played a role after the demise in 1993 of Clinton White House deputy counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. Olson apparently arranged and/or supplied the phony picture of a gun in the hand of Foster, tending to help Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and the monopoly press falsely assert that Foster was a suicide when there was real proof that Foster was murdered.

_________________________________________

www.skolnicksreport.com/tripwire.html

VINCENT W. FOSTER, Jr.,prior to his short term in the Clinton White House, was long-time covert fund handler for Systematics, Arkansas-based reputed CIA/NSA proprietary in the bank computer software services field. Foster was expert on money laundering for espionage agencies as well as their dirty tricks. Foster was the unnamed middle man in the Jonathan Pollard spy case of 1986. Vice President Bush and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger secretly worked deal with Israel, using Foster, to steal a room full of records on nuclear missile tracking. This was pay-off for Israel staying mum on their knowledge of Bush's treason in 1980, in arranging to delay the release of 52 U.S. hostages held by Iran, to aid the Reagan/Bush ticket win over Jimmy Carter's bid for re-election as President. The delay caused Carter to seem to be a wimp. Hostage release was done at the moment in January, 1981, when Reagan and Bush were inaugurated. Pollard was the lower level naval intelligence analyst, who removed the records, upon secret orders through Foster, and Pollard became the "patsy" sentenced to life in prison, served in the basement of a maximimum security jail, in the dark 23 hours of the day. Foster's testimony could have sent George Herbert Walker Bush and Weinberger, later chairman emeritus of Forbes Magazine, to prison for treason.

Foster was murdered in July, 1993, near the White House by three Israeli contract assassins, not representing the State of Israel. The proof of Foster's body being moved from near the White House to Fort Marcy Park, Virginia, is contained in satellite images of the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office. NRO official in charge of the imaging, Daniel Potter, was murdered in March, 1998, an unsolved crime. Fort Marcy Park is near the CIA headquarters, under 24 hour satellite surveillance of every square inch nearby. Clinton knows he benefits from the Independent Counsel Starr's fraudulent "suicide" verdict of the death of Foster. Linda Tripp reportedly has been in a position to know about much of this.

KENNETH W. STARR, former federal judge, and since 1994, Independent Counsel investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton. Starr is part of cover up because he is subject to blackmail. Starr has been the reported UNREGISTERED FOREIGN LOBBYIST for the Red Chinese government, an offense for which Clinton's Justice Department could send Starr to prison at any time. Further, Starr's PRIVATE LAW CLIENT, Wang Jun, is the head of the Red Chinese Secret Police. Wang Jun has met with Clinton in or near the White House repeatedly. Clinton has committed treason as known to several dozen U.S. Admirals and Generals who have vowed to arrest him under the Military Code but several of these flag officers have been assassinated.[I am about the only journalist writing exclusive stories about that.] Clinton through Wang Jun has reportedly given over to the Red Chinese, U.S. industrial, financial, and MILITARY secrets, in violation of various federal criminal statutes. As part of a blackmail scheme directed against Israel, Starr ORDERED Linda Tripp to continue taping phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky, as mentioned Monica being a double-agent, for and against Israel.

Starr has apparent knowledge, and possible participation with, his private law client WANG JUN. In that, Wang Jun heads the Red Chinese government and military enterprise, Poly Technologies, making and shipping AK-47 submachine guns. Some secretly sent to the U.S. headed for inner-city narco-terrorist street gangs. Did Starr aid Wang Jun promote shoot-em-ups with the American big city police?

MARY CAITRIN MAHONEY, White House intern, and as a lesbian was well aware of goings on inside the Clinton White House, including Hillary's apparent love affair with another White House woman, who was able to reportedly get top secrets from Hillary. Mahoney was murdered in a Starbucks Coffee Shop, right in the District of Columbia, July, 1997, and covered up by the FBI. It was a intelligence agency contract "hit" and the FBI is covering it up by blaming a "lone assassin", an FBI specialty. Newsweek reporter and reputed foreign intelligence agency asset, MICHAEL ISIKOFF, was working on getting details which led up to the murder of Ms Mahoney. If there was a proper grand jury inquiry into the Mary Mahoney murder, would Isikoff be a target? Was it just accidental that he reportedly caused her to be murdered? Isikoff's employer, Newsweek, is a British-owned firm tight with foreign intelligence agencies and dirty tricks, including disinformation. Isikoff's book, supposedly a best-seller, is a whitewash. Ms. Mahoney reportedly knew about the Clinton-Wang Jun treason.

In a reported conversation between MONICA LEWINSKY and LINDA TRIPP, discussed was they did not want to end up like Mary Mahoney, a sort of mutual understanding that people in the White House who know too much sometimes get murdered.

If the Linda Tripp wire-tapping criminal prosecution proceeds toward trial, some of the foregoing details might even get into the state court records. The various characters mentioned have a variety of things to lose. Was the vehicle accident of Monica Lewinsky a few days after the release of the indictment against Linda Tripp, merely an "accident"? And why was Ms Lewinsky taken by ambulance apparently to a military hospital? Just another story suppressed by the liars and whores of the press, those with the fifty dollar hairdoes and the nickel heads.

___________________________________________________

At the time he was private law partner of Eugene Scalia, son of high court judge Antonin Scalia, Olson was the presenter in the U.S. Supreme Court of the Bush position in Bush versus Gore litigation. After Bush was corruptly and arbitrarily installed in the White House and inaugurated, Olson was made Solicitor General. He twisted around litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in Disney having their copyrights and other intellectual properties extended by some 75 years. Thus Mickey Mouse is to be enriched by many billions of dollars at the dirty hands of Theodore B. Olson, reputed "super bag man".

In the 9-11 bogus "terrorist" atack, Olson's wife, Barbara, supposedly perished in a Moslem "terrorist" controlled plane hitting the Pentagon. Astute researchers contend, however, that it was a drone or missile, not a passengered plane, that hit a side of the symbol of American Imperial might.

Olson's wife, reportedly survived and face-lifted and otherwise disguised, is concealed in Sweden. Her emergence would unravel the entire 9-11 bloodshed, falsely blamed on Moslems who had been residing on U.S. naval and other military domestic bases; the Arabs being bought and paid for patsies on behalf of the American CIA.

White House occupant Bush sent former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to inquire whether Saddam Hussein was getting uranium, that is, yellow cake, from the African nation of Niger. Wilson found no such thing and said so in an opinion piece in a major newspaper.

As a reprisal, Bush reportedly released secret data showing Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, has been a deep covert CIA operative, in charge of a more than 70 person CIA penetration agent team secretly operating in Central Asia, the Mid-East, and Africa, in places not friendly to the U.S. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak fingered

Plame in a story. As a consequence, many of Plame's team, under deep cover, were assassinated. To so identify a covert CIA operative is a Federal criminal offense.

Reputed Beltway male prostitute, Jeff Gannon, had visited George W. Bush at his White House apartment some 200 times, on one-day passes, according to U.S. Secret Service records which do not show when Gannon left Bush's apartment.

Some assert that Gannon is actually Johnny Gosch, who disappeared or was kidnapped when he was twelve years old, and was put into service as a teen-age male prostitute, by way of a pedophile ring orchestrated by Daddy Bush, Omaha, Chicago, Washington, D.C.

George W. Bush apparently turned over the Valerie Plame records and details directly to Gannon who in turn made them reportedly available to or for Matt Cooper of Time Magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times. Fearful of apparently getting involved in fingering George W. Bush himself, Ms. Miller, according to some of her circle, is considering fleeing the U.S. to save her life.

Both reporters have been facing jail after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider their "reporter being questioned by a federal grand jury and immunity" case. Suddenly, Time Magazine's attorney in this controversy, Theodore B. Olson, relented, stating the documents and/or reporter testimony would be made available to the Special Federal Grand Jury including in Chicago.

Typical of the Bush Family, they do not pay for what they promise, whether by way of stiffing supper guests with a fifty dollar restaurant bill (by going to the washroom and disappearing) or in huge sums. Some contend that reputed "super bagman" Olson was not compensated by the Bushies for Olson's role in Bush versus Gore and the corrupting of the five-judge majority of the high court. And that Olson was reputedly not compensated for the role of his wife in 9-11 cover up of the high-level inside job, White House and mass media bogus described situation.

Some raise technical reasons that Barbara Olson could not have been in communication with her husband directly from the plane. The alleged conversation was only by Ted with a call center operator not Barbara Olson. The purported operator is apparently under instructions to say almost nothing thereaafter. Further, according to some published accounts, Ted was on the outs with his wife Barbara and would not be inclined to being talking to her from the airplane.

Will the Time Magazine testimony/records, that is Matt Cooper, directly link to George W. Bush being guilty of a federal criminal offense in outing Valerie Plame? And is this not true of the New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, as well?

TONY BLAIR. He has been British Prime Minister, a vassal and stooge of the Queen of England, Elizabeth 2nd, herself actually a member of German, not British royalty, of the House of Hanover.

For Blair's role in supporting the Bush pre-emptive attack on Iraq, Blair was promised by the Bushies some sixteen billion dollars bribe parked in a bank in the Arab Emirates.

Typical of the Bushies, when Blair's agents showed up to collect the pay-off, they were rebuffed. Blair got zero. Result? Leaking of the "Downing Street Memo" to the major London newspapers. The documents tend to prove that George W. Bush knowingly received false data from Blair as to Saddam Hussein.

Some references: as to Coca-Cola, see the series "Coca-Cola, the CIA, and the Courts", and the role of FBI and Homeland Security in covering up the corruption of the Five-Judge Majority on the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush versus Gore.

www.skolnicksreport.com

Without mentioning us by name, a very small portion of our project identifying the corruption of the Five-Judge Majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush versus Gore, December, 2000, is contained in the October, 2004 issue of Vanity Fair magazine, followed up by a radio interview of one of the magazine's writers on the Terri Gross program on National Public Radio.

Others raise questions about Barbara Olson, wife of Theodore B. Olson. See, "Painful Questions---An Analysis of the September 11th Attack", by Eric Hufschmid, page 108.

See the series by Skolnick as to the role of Jeff Gannon, and George W. Bush, in "Gannon Cannon", www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html

More coming. Stay tuned.

=======================================

Mr. Skolnick's commentaries on his group's investigations and research projects are archived at www.skolnicksreport.com as well as

www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html

Skolnick along with Lenny Bloom co-host an internet radio program, via audio streaming with guests www.cloakanddagger.de

Also available through previous website address

www.cloakanddagger.ca

http://crashrecovery.org/911/#olson

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:08:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Robert M. Stockmann stock@stokkie.net

To: cloak.dagger@gmail.com, skolnick@ameritech.net, tips@infowars.com, prisonplanetweb@hotmail.com, chamish@netvision.net.il, eric@vaticanassassins.org, tarpley@tarpley.net, takingaim@pacbell.net, stewwebb@sierranv.net, webmaster@rense.com, prophecy@texemarrs.com, iamthewitness@hotmail.com, waynemadsendc@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: Barbara Olson was on Flight 77, BBC reports!

On Wed, 17 May 2006, Robert M. Stockmann wrote: Hi, The audio also reports about Stonebridge International, LLC, a Mega-Mossad front operation, where Samuel R. Berger, Chairman of Stonebridge International, and former National Security Advisor to President Clinton reportedly was the mastermind behind the Pollard/Vince Foster operation to sneak out remote US missile control codes to Israel. http://www.usiraqprocon.org/BiosInd/samuelberger.html http://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=stonebridge&near=Washington,+DC &radius=0.0&latlng=38895000,-77036667,12891802080164828164&sa=X&oi=local&ct=resul t&cd=1 stonebridge.jpgstonebridge.jpg

Stonebridge International

(202) 637-8600

555 13th St NW # 300W

Washington, DC 20004

0.4 mi E - Directions

Someone in the D.C. Area should file a court order to seize the complete operation of this company. The thing which is reported as "Flight 77" to hit the Pentagon, surely looks like some missile to me.

Regards, Robert M. Stockmann ------------------------------------------------

---------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:32:24 +0200 (CEST)

From: Robert M. Stockmann stock@stokkie.net

To: cloak.dagger@gmail.com, skolnick@ameritech.net, tips@infowars.com, prisonplanetweb@hotmail.com, chamish@netvision.net.il, eric@vaticanassassins.org, tarpley@tarpley.net, takingaim@pacbell.net, stewwebb@sierranv.net, webmaster@rense.com, prophecy@texemarrs.com, iamthewitness@hotmail.com

Subject: Barbara Olson was on Flight 77, BBC reports!

Hi, Download the following BBC video : rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/news/media/avdb/news_web/video/9012da680042b40/bb/09012da 680042d53_16x9_bb.rm (e.g. inside linux using the following command : $ mplayer -dumpfile 09012da680042d53_16x9_bb.rm -dumpstream rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/news/media/avdb/news_web/video/9012da680042b40/bb/09012da 680042d53_16x9_bb.rm )

Play it with your favorate real video player and be amazed when the BBC lady tells that Barbara Olson was on that Flight 77 plane inside the video. But inside the BBC video we only see a very tiny 747. I bet its a scale model of 747 with tiny nitro-octane engine :)

Now, and here comes the kicker, on OCT.2, 2004 , Cloak and Dagger reported that Baraba Olson is alive in a foreign country after face surgery by a german doctor :

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/shows/_archives/_Tom Briefings/BARBARA OLSON/10_02_arch_1.mp3 10_02_arch_1.mp3

original non-lineair VBR mp3 10_02_arch_1-2.mp3

linear formatted mp3

goto 4:10min into the audio, and you will also hear that a Mega Mossad operation was carried out, in which Vince Foster jr. handed over launch codes of US Missiles to the Israeli Mossad.

Cheers, Robert

NOTES: Cloak & Dagger says the Olsons were involved in OPERATION PEARL. As in short for "Pearl Harbor" the remake? Ted Olson's "Arkansas Project" was really to clean-up evidences that would get both Clinton and Bush convicted of treason. Vince Foster nickname "the rabbi" helped spy Pollard get U.S. missile codes and documents smuggled out to the Israelis. Former Clinton National Security advisor Sandy Berger in cahoots with Wolfowitz was interested in French nuclear missile codes to give them to Israel. Fear of an anti-semitic backlash in the west is causing this Israeli paranoia. Why did Bush senior pardon Weinberger? Skolnick. Hillary Clinton is Jewish and actually a republican. C&D says Hillary is also a Mossad agent. Add to this a plain-looking femme fatale.

Barbara Olson as Femme Fatale Ready To Assume False Identity?

"Femme fatale literally means 'fatal woman' in French. According to the movie Mildred Pierce, it can be defined as 'the kind of woman men want...but shouldn't have!".

--How to be a Femme Fatale

www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Femme-Fatale

Was Barbara Olson trapped in a loveless, childless marriage with Ted Olson? Would she do anything to get out? Note her frustrated remarks about men "not getting it" on Larry King Live! Would she KILL or do anything to get out of it? She said on the August 2, 2001 Larry King Live! program:

OLSON: Are you all defending maleness or something? How come all of the women on the show get it and all of the men don't?

www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/noir/np05ff.html

No Place for a Woman: The Family in Film Noir

The Femme Fatale

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"He keeps me on a leash so tight I can't breathe." Double Indemnity (1944)

Of the three types of noir women, the femme fatale represents the most direct attack on traditional womanhood and the nuclear family. She refuses to play the role of devoted wife and loving mother that mainstream society prescribes for women. She finds marriage to be confining, loveless, sexless, and dull, and she uses all of her cunning and sexual attractiveness to gain her independence. As Janey Place points out, "She is not often won over and pacified by love for the hero, as is the strong heroine of the forties who is significantly less sexual than the film noir woman." [26] She remains fiercely independent even when faced with her own destruction. And in spite of her inevitable death, she leaves behind the image of a strong, exciting, and unrepentant woman who defies the control of men and rejects the institution of the family.

The classic femme fatale resorts to murder to free herself from an unbearable relationship with a man who would try to possess and control her, as if she were a piece of property or a pet. According to Sylvia Harvey, the women of film noir are "[p]resented as prizes, desirable objects" [27] for the men of these films, and men's treatment of women as mere possessions is a recurring theme in film noir. In a telling scene from an early noir thriller, I Wake Up Screaming (1941), three men sit in a bar lamenting their unsuccessful attempts to seduce the femme fatale, clearly resenting her inexplicable refusal to be possessed. When one man complains that "Women are all alike," another responds simply, "Well, you've got to have them around - they're standard equipment."

In Out of the Past (1947), Kathie Moffett shoots her way out of a confining relationship with gambler Whit Sterling, but Whit hires detective Jeff Markham to retrieve her. When Jeff asks Whit for some assurance that he will not harm Kathie if he gets her back, Whit answers by comparing her to a racehorse that he once owned. Whit obviously thinks of Kathie as his prize possession. Similarly, Rip Murdoch (Humphrey Bogart) in Dead Reckoning (1947) wishes aloud that women could be reduced to pocket size, to be put away when not desired and returned to normal size when needed.

This attitude is not lost on the women themselves. They feel trapped by husbands or lovers who treat them as "standard equipment" and by an institution - marriage - that makes such treatment possible. Marriage for the femme fatale is associated with unhappiness, boredom, and the absence of romantic love and sexual desire. In Double Indemnity (1944), Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) feels like a caged animal in her husband's home and is driven to murder him largely because he shows no affection for her, only indifference: "I feel as if he was watching me. Not that he cares, not anymore. But he keeps me on a leash so tight I can't breathe." As Sylvia Harvey suggests, film noir attributes the femme fatale's violent behavior at least partially to women's lack of status and fulfillment in conventional marriage:

Other imagery in these films suggests that a routinised boredom and a sense of stifling entrapment are characteristic of marriage. . . . The family home in Double Indemnity is the place where three people who hate each other spend endlessly boring evenings together. The husband does not merely not notice his wife, he ignores her sexually . . . . [28]

Double Indemnity (.wav file, 290K)

In some films, the husband's lack of interest in his wife seems almost sadistic. The elderly husband of young and beautiful Cora Smith (Lana Turner) in The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) encourages his wife to spend time with Frank Chambers (John Garfield), as if he enjoys tempting Frank and frustrating Cora. Rita Hayworth receives similar treatment in both Gilda (1946) and The Lady from Shanghai (1948). In the latter film, Hayworth is married to a much older man who compensates for his physical paralysis and spiritual ugliness by arranging and then frustrating her relationship with Michael (Orson Welles). Even his insistence on calling her "Lover" has ironic and sadistic overtones, considering her obvious aversion to him.

The image of disabled, paralysed, or elderly men married to much younger women is a further indication that marriage and family life restrict sexual desire and romantic love. Sylvia Harvey sees this recurring image as a critique of traditional family relationships, which appear dull and lifeless, particularly from the point of view of the young, sexually exciting femme fatale:

It is perhaps most clear in this movie [Double Indemnity] that the expression of sexuality and the institution of marriage are at odds with one another, and that both pleasure and death lie outside the safe circle of family relations.

Moreover, there is clearly an impetus in film noir to transgress the boundaries of this circle; for the presence of husbands on crutches or in wheelchairs (Double Indemnity, Lady from Shanghai) suggests that impotence is somehow a normal component of the married state. [29]

Another sign of the sterility of film noir marriages is the absence of children produced by these marriages. Childless couples are far more common in film noir than the traditional father-mother-children nuclear family. The husband of the femme fatale may have a full-grown child from a previous marriage (Double Indemnity, Murder, My Sweet), but the child's age implies that the father's sexual activity is long past and that his current marriage is empty of sexual desire.

The family home only intensifies this atmosphere of coldness and entrapment for the married femme fatale. In Double Indemnity, Phyllis paces the living room as she describes the routine of her life to Walter, crossing and recrossing bars of shadow cast by a window blind - like a prisoner in her own home. When Walter first enters the house, he notices a pair of framed photographs of the father and his daughter - no pictures of Phyllis are displayed, as if she has been frozen out of the family unit. The family home in Murder, My Sweet (1945) is a vast, marble-floored mansion, where echoes drown out people's voices and statues outnumber human beings. Detective Philip Marlowe (Dick Powell) remarks sarcastically that the house is somewhat smaller than Buckingham Palace, and he later describes it as a "mausoleum" and a "fun house."

The lighting and mise-en-scène of the family home contribute further to its image as a trap or "mausoleum," particularly for the femme fatale. Nina Leibman writes that the living space inhabited by the married femme fatale and her husband creates an atmosphere of alienation between the characters:

In Double Indemnity and The Lady from Shanghai, the family home is a huge gloomy mansion. Stairways, room dividers, and davenports split the rooms and the characters. The lack of light gives a haunted feeling to these homes, which are invariably filled with too many knick-knacks, oversized portraits, and fishbowls. [30]

These visual cues contradict the myth of the family home as the center of safety, fulfillment, and love. The benefits normally associated with marriage and the family - especially in conventional Hollywood films - are conspicuously absent from the film noir family.

In stark contrast to the visual and narrative representation of the family home is that of the femme fatale herself. She exudes a unique sexuality, which she uses to define herself and manipulate men in order to gain independence from an oppressive family life or relationship. Her body, her clothing, her words, her actions, and her ability to hold the camera's gaze create a highly charged sexual image that defies attempts by the men in her life and by the film itself to control her or return her to her "proper sphere" as a woman. Although she often is destroyed in the final reel, she lingers in the audience's imagination as a sexually exciting, living character who never accepted the role that society had chosen for her. Even in the few films in which she is actually converted to a more traditional role, the violence and power of her rebellion against that role earlier in the film overcomes the contrived ending, so that the dominant image of the femme fatale is one of defiance against the traditional family and woman's place in society.

The inevitable (and ineffectual) destruction of the femme fatale.

Double Indemnity (1944)

Noir films create this image of the strong, unrepressed woman, then attempt to contain it by destroying the femme fatale or converting her to traditional womanhood. But the femme fatale cannot be made to serve the status quo so easily - even if that is the film's intention. Both Sylvia Harvey and Janey Place suggest that the femme fatale effectively undermines the supremacy of the traditional family and its values in spite of her final punishment or conversion. Harvey argues that the femme fatale's transgressions against the traditional family constitute a far more enduring image than her final punishment:

Despite the ritual punishment of acts of transgression, the vitality with which these acts are endowed produces an excess of meaning which cannot finally be contained. Narrative resolutions cannot recuperate their subversive significance. [31]

Place agrees, asserting that the audience remembers the nontraditional female as free and powerful, not punished and neutralized:

It is not their inevitable demise we remember but rather their strong, dangerous, and above all exciting sexuality. . . . [T]he final "lesson" of the myth often fades into the background and we retain the image of the erotic, strong, unrepressed (if destructive) woman. The style of these films thus overwhelms their conventional narrative content, or interacts with it to produce a remarkably potent image of woman. [32]

Place attributes the femme fatale's unique power to her willingness and ability to express herself in sexual terms. [33] The femme fatale threatens the status quo and the hero precisely because she controls her own sexuality outside of marriage. She uses sex for pleasure and as a weapon or a tool to control men, not merely in the culturally acceptable capacity of procreation within marriage. Her sexual emancipation commands the gaze of the hero, the audience, and the camera in a way that cannot be erased by her final punishment. Place writes that "the visual style gives her such freedom of movement and dominance that it is her strength and sensual visual texture that is inevitably printed in our memory, not her ultimate destruction." [34]

Noir films immediately convey the intense sexual presence of the femme fatale by introducing her as a fully established object of the hero's obsession. Since the camera often represents the hero's subjective memory - revealed via flashback - it projects his privileged knowledge about her dangerous sexuality even before he actually acquires that knowledge. Thus, according to Janey Place, the femme fatale's visual and sexual dominance - and the threat that she poses to the hero - are felt from her very first scene:

The femme fatale is characterised by her long lovely legs: our first view of the elusive Velma in Murder My Sweet (Farewell My Lovely) and of Cora in The Postman Always Rings Twice is a significant, appreciative shot of their bare legs, a directed glance (so directed in the latter film that the shot begins on her calves, cuts to a shot of her whole body, cuts back to the man looking, then finally back to Lana Turner's turban-wrapped, angelic face) from the viewpoint of the male character who is to be seduced. [35]

Pic

Visually dominant and unrepentent to the end.

The Lady from Shanghai (1948)

Her ability to hold both the hero and the audience spellbound continues throughout the film to the point of her death and beyond. In The Lady from Shanghai, director Orson Welles uses the camera to roam over the tanned, swimsuit-clad body of his real-life wife, Rita Hayworth, engaging the audience in the hero's growing obsession. Later in the film, when Elsa (Hayworth) and Michael (Welles) confront each other in an amusement park hall of mirrors, the gun-wielding femme fatale fills the screen via multiple reflected images - at once supremely powerful, cold, and vulnerable.

The hero and camera are visually obsessed with the femme fatale. Laura (1944)

Even after her death, the strong female character has the power to intrude visually on the narrative, often continuing to "live" through her portrait. In Laura (1944), certainly the most famous illustration of this point, a striking portrait of the dead woman commands the center of every scene in her apartment. The detective assigned to solve her murder actually falls in love with her portrait without ever having seen her alive. Thus, Laura actually re-asserts her independence and power from beyond the grave.

I Wake Up Screaming (1941) features a less celebrated but more extreme example of the femme fatale whose portrait commands the gaze of the camera and the other characters even after her murder. In many key scenes, Vicki's photograph appears at the center of the camera's field of vision. She seems to be watching each character as the investigation of her murder places that character in danger. In the final scene of the film, the camera reveals the full visual power of the murdered femme fatale - the detective's entire apartment is filled with her photographs in a shrine to his obsession.

Attempts to neutralize the power of the femme fatale by destroying her at the end are usually unsuccessful, because her power extends beyond death. But film noir does not always deal with women's transgressions against the family in this way. A handful of noir films add conventional happy endings, in which a converted femme fatale or a "good" woman marries the hero and restores the status quo. In The Lady in the Lake (1947), the supposed femme fatale - an independent, gold-digging career woman during most of the film - suddenly abandons her dream of money and a high-ranking position to become the wife of seedy private eye Philip Marlowe (Robert Montgomery), who has spent the entire film demonstrating his misogyny at her expense. In Dark Passage (1947), Vincent Parry (Humphrey Bogart) escapes from prison to clear his name of a murder charge, but decides in the end to flee the country for a romantic rendezvous with Irene Jansen (Lauren Bacall). Yet, such resolutions seem tacked-on and contrived, and they cannot compensate for the disturbing images created earlier in these films. Rather than reinforcing the status quo, these last-minute reversals merely emphasize the more subversive elements of film noir's visual style, characterization, and narration. [36]

In the majority of noir films, however, the femme fatale remains committed to her independence, seldom allowing herself to be converted by the hero or captured by the police. She refuses to be defined by the male hero or submit her sexuality to the male-dominated institution of the family; instead, she defines herself and resists all efforts by the hero to "put her in her place." [37] As Kathie Moffett explains to Jeff Bailey in Out of the Past, "I never told you I was anything but what I am - you just wanted to imagine I was."

Pic

The lingering image of the exciting femme fatale. Out of the Past (1947)

It is not surprising that Kathie - alive, independent, and defiant - exerts a much more powerful hold on our imagination and our memory than her ultimate destruction. Even when we acknowledge that the femme fatale is killed at the end of the film, we are more moved by how she is killed. Kathie controls even her death. She chooses to die rather than be captured. Her death is essentially a murder/suicide, because she shoots Jeff while he is driving the car and while she is caught in a police crossfire. Thus, unlike the independent women of non-noir films, the femme fatale remains true to her nature, refusing to be converted or to accept capture, even when the alternative is death.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Women's Anti-Family Function Film Noir

The Good Woman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First posted: January 1996

Last updated: April 1999

Someone needs to question legendary movie maker Brian Depalma about his film, "Femme Fatale" made in 2002 just after the 9/11 attacks.

www.imdb.com/title/tt0280665

femmefatalemovie.warnerbros.com

femmefatalemovie.warnerbros.com/photos.html#

DePalma is politically conscious as seen with his recent movie criticizing our occupation of Iraq. So why is DePalma making Femme Fatale in 2002 and not say a government conspiracy film? Unless of course, Femme Fatale IS a government conspiracy film and you just have to be astute enough to see its focused in on the Barbara Olson (who is a real-life femme fatale) disappearance. DePalma is also protecting himself from being murdered if he is too obvious. Remember what Oliver Stone has done with his awful 9/11 movie that buys into the bogus U.S. governmental conspiracy theory? Did someonme threaten his life? Most people focus in on the sexual and visual aspects of the DePalma movie and overlook the TIMING of it and its obvious cryptic references to real world femme fatale, Barbara Olson. Laure Ash is a sexy blonde involved with a bait & switch at the Cannes Film festival to get diamonds as the people watch a movie; a metaphor for the public at large watching the raghead terrorist "movie" as corporations rob them for oil, drug poppies and a security and reconstruction racket in Afghanistan and later Iraq. The scheme goes awry and Laure gets mis-identified as another person and goes into hiding for 7 years MARRIED TO A HIGH U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. I always thought it strange that DePalma has her marrying the U.S. ambassador to France in the movie and not say a more plentiful rich businessman--its clearly not an accidental plot choice. She goes from France to the U.S. to start a new life as a brunette. Is DePalma's script not Barbara Olson in reverse? The crime was done in the U.S. and she fled to Europe from her Solicitor General of the U.S. husband, Ted, who looks eerily similar to Peter Coyote in "Femme Fatale". Take a peek below.

Sorry for spoiling the movie, but Laure has a CHANGE OF HEART over her life once she sees the damage she's done and CHANGES. She is still a femme fatale but she does the right thing to help someone else who wants the married life. In other words, even though its not for her she's developed a respect for what others want at least in her head. Could this not be a veiled overture to Olson to do the same in light of how the conscience-less neocons have murdered so many innocent people after her disappearance?

www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Femme-Fatale

How to be a Femme Fatale

Femme fatale literally means "fatal woman" in French. According to the movie Mildred Pierce, it can be defined as "the kind of woman men want...but shouldn't have!". Ever seen females who are seductive and alluring, yet clever, a bit evil, and mysterious? Like Poison Ivy or Cat woman? Allure, mystery, and classy, dark glamour embody the femme fatale. You can become one too!

Steps

Speak in a low voice. Not creepy low, just attractive low. Practice some vocal exercises for a few weeks and it will become habit. Listen to Scarlett Johanssen speak for an example of this kind of voice.

Wear dark, sexy, retro clothes. Not too gothic-looking, though. Think Angelina Jolie in the mid-90's. Subtle, well-cut clothing that draws attention to you, but in a tasteful way. Stick to colors like black, maroon, and emerald green. Look for silk cocktail dresses, dark-wash, high-waisted jeans, expensive-looking, dramatic jewelry, and fishnet tights.

Hang out in mysterious places. Not sketchy or scary. Just unusual. Remember that when in interesting places, one meets interesting people. Try out an obscure, artsy coffee shop, clandestine night club, or unique antique shop.

Be "one of the guys". This means means holding your own with the guys in their poker/pool/video games and occasionally winning. You'll earn respect and allure as a result. But dont loose your femenine side trying to hang out with men.

Be mysterious. Dont let everybody know what you are feeling or what's going on. The very mystery proves to be the allure of the femme fatale.

Find something unique to your femme fatale and work it. Some unusual interest, skill, accessory: anything!. Individuality contributes to that mystical allure.

Wear a signature scent. I'm not talking wimpy little fruit-foodie sprays here. Something oriental or woody like Shalimar, Allure, Opium, or Poison. It will set you apart;every time somebody smells it they will remember you and your aura. Better yet, go to the Body Shop and make your own blend. Sandalwood is a good start. Add something feminine, though, to balance it out. The last thing a femme fatale wants is to smell like a man.

Wear your hair in an extreme side part with Veronica Lake-esque waves. Wearing it in a dramatically short style is also a good choice. Stick to true, bold hair colors, like bright auburn, dark brown, or platinum blonde.

Wear pale foundation, 'cat's eye' eyeliner, and red or maroon lipstick. Avoid glitter and 'teenager' makeup at all costs.

Watch old movies. Mildred Pierce is a great starter. As far as music goes, Fiona Apple in "Criminal" is a good example. Let them inspire you. But don't let them take over--a femme fatale is individual.

Make guys wonder. Call his phone number, then hang up after two or three rings. Do not call back! Your number will register on his phone. Then he'll keep calling, wondering why you called (if he's interested). Sometimes it's pretty fun to see how many times he'll call. Do not answer! He'll keep wondering why and will keep trying to figure it out. Voila! Instant mystery. If he does ask in person, act aloof or as if uninterested. He'll keep wondering. Either he'll be repulsed and give up on you or be way more interested in you. Either way, it doesn't matter to a femme fatale as there are millions more where he came from.

Being well-educated is something that will set you apart from the flock. Being beautiful with brains adds sex appeal.

Tips

Be real. It's okay to follow a few of the tips, but don't go overboard.

Have an air of charm about you. It's not enough to just be withdrawn, quiet and therefore "mysterious". Mysterious human beings are also very interesting--they might know meaningful, famous quotes; speaking sultry, and a touch of aloofness; never being direct, desperate, or obnoxiously immature; you have a brain & you're gonna need to use it now; and always be classy. Never be obnoxious to downright trashy. Mysterious people don't stand for all that fake and commercial behavior.

Remember meaningful, famous quotes perhaps like: Kurt Cobain's trademark quote "I'd rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I am not."

"Nothing in life is to be feared, but rather, understood."

"When life sucks, it's your karma. When you do something about it, it's your mission."

"If it's wrong, than I don't want to be right."

"People in hell want ice water."

"Women marry men thinking they'll change and they don't; men marry women thinking they won't change and they do."

"I might not always like you but I'll always love you."

"Well, maybe you can save you & your lectures for a convention of people who like lectures."

Person 1: "Be careful when you say mean comments."

Person 2: "Why?"

Person 1: "Just be careful."

Person 2: "Because you have nothing clever to say back."

"Be yourself. Everyone else is taken."

"Carpe Diem". A Latin phrase for 'seize the day' (it means live like there's no tomorrow and you'll have less regrets)."

Warnings

Don't be mean! Femme fatales generally end up killing the man they love or destroying his life. Be femme without being literally fatale. But breaking his heart is okay (assuming he deserves it).

Do not be an "available" girl. A femme is always classy.

Make time for the girls too! More than the guys, because a femme goes through guys like mascara. Friends, however, are forever( along with diamonds). Besides, girls might get jealous of your newfound magnetism, and we wouldn't want that.

Things You'll Need

Eye-catching, classy clothing

A mysterious allure

Mad poker/pool/video game skills

Deep voice

Great hair

Unique, memorable perfume

www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/spring2002/lost/

Barbara Olson: An Intern, Author, and Legend
John O. McGinnis
Professor of Law

I knew Barbara Olson in three separate contexts. I first met her many years ago when she came to the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of Justice to work as an intern. Although I am now a professor at Cardozo, I had never heard of Cardozo or known anyone who had been a graduate, and thus she was my first contact with the School.

She was an excellent ambassador for Cardozo because she was a superb intern. She was eager to learn and took well, as not all interns do, to the intense editorial suggestions that she received on her drafts. She was eager for work-always pleased to undertake the last-minute research requests one got from the White House Counsel on lovely Friday afternoons. She even was able to indulge her taste for adventure, volunteering to deliver the order to close the PLO mission in New York that followed an OLC opinion that such an action was legal if authorized by the President.

But most of all she contributed her spirit to the office. One of the best things an intern can do is to renew the collective sense of wonder at the majesty of work for the public good-in this case of effectuating the rule of law throughout the often unruly executive branch. This is what made Barbara a truly great intern.

I next knew Barbara as a student legend, for when I came to Cardozo many of my colleagues wanted to talk to me about her. No doubt one connection that impelled colleagues here to describe her in my presence was that we were both conservatives. To some of my colleagues, I daresay, we were two of the handful of conservatives they knew. But they also wanted to convey to me how a student like Barbara improved their lives. They spoke of how her relentless class challenges kept them thinking and entertained. Even her activities off campus were still fondly remembered. My colleague David Carlson, once a visiting professor at Michigan, spoke of a weekend when Barbara attended a Federalist Society convention at that school and ended up in a late night poker game with such outstanding jurisprudential scholars as Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg.

The explicit message from my colleagues was always the same: here was a truly amazing student, intent, engaged-always with some initiative, and never, never dull. Perhaps the implicit message was that if more conservatives were like her, people would take conservatives more seriously.

Finally, I knew Barbara as a best-selling author and ubiquitous talk-show pundit. When impeachment rolled around, I myself went on one or two TV shows with Barbara, and she offered me sage advice to improve my presentations. Now I was the student and she was a fine teacher, both through instruction and by example. But she was hard to imitate because her television style was so rooted in a character that combined friendliness and, indeed, joyousness with firm conviction and resolve.

Although I knew three avatars of Barbara, as intern, student legend, and pundit, one of Barbara's great virtues was that she was always the same-her own self-directed character and not a person molded and distorted by situation and circumstance. In particular, success never changed her way of dealing with people. This trait is especially rare in Washington because it is a town where human relations are often defined by status and where contacts are made in direct proportion to their usefulness. Moreover, after success in such a hierarchical place, a certain dull ponderousness can set in. But Barbara was not changed by Washington. She was the same kind, effervescent human being as an intern and as a best-selling author and TV commentator. And she still approached everyone with the openness of an engaged student. Now, of course, one cannot say that Barbara changed Washington-no one can do that-but she created her own little oasis where individuals were, to use the Kantian phrase, treated as ends in themselves rather than means.

To remember Barbara in this way is to underscore the outrage that was perpetrated on her and thousands of others on September 11. The way terrorists treated Americans that day was the antithesis of the Kantian ideal. They used the lives of human beings simply as instruments to advance an ideology. And that ideology flows from a joyless anger that is the antithesis of Barbara's spirit. No act could be more in counterpoint with Barbara's life and being. Disagreement for her was an opportunity for human engagement rather than destruction, and those with whom one disagreed could be, and often were, friends rather than enemies.

The juxtaposition of the spirit of her life and the circumstances of her death should always remind us of what we are fighting to defend-ideals of liberty and tolerance that made Barbara's life possible. And she exemplified these ideals in so many respects-through her enthusiastic debates with intellectual sparing partners in the classroom and on TV, through her kind solicitude for those she knew regardless of status, and perhaps above all through her determination to not be dull, to shape her own life through challenges that she chose and that enriched those around her.

Barbara Olson on Lying to the Public

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/26/lkl.00.html

OLSON: "Well, as Mark knows, yes, that's the classic, but most prosecutors never get that. People don't call others up and say, I want you to lie. What they call up and say, don't say anything or it'll ruin your life..."

GERAGOS: I -- well -- I'm not saying they're acceptable or unacceptable. What I'm telling you is that it is not a crime to lie to the media.

KING: In other words -- in other words, Lisa, he can lie to you.

GERAGOS: Yes. Lisa, you can be lied to.

OLSON: But Mark, what you're...

DEPAULO: Amazing.

OLSON: ... overlooking is that the lie was not just to the media. If indeed Gary Condit did call Anne Marie Smith, as we were reported, and if indeed he did ask her to sign a false affidavit and tell her in that conversation, this won't come to trial, he's connecting it to this investigation.

Barbara Olson on Spouse as Alibi

KING: Barbara, is it a stretch to involve the wife?

OLSON: Well, let's not forget that the wife is his alibi for that evening. You know, a staffer took him home at 7:00, and she is his alibi. And she came back in the town, she was in town to visit with Condit just today. So, this is someone who is with her husband, standing next to her husband, and -- because she is his alibi, sure, they are going to look at her.

They are going to see if she had any problems. Did she know any people that might have gone out and done harm to Chandra? That is all relevant, because the police have to follow everything, absolutely.

OLSON: Well, I mean, first of all, let me correct that: Gary Condit was a Blue Dog Democrat, and he was considered one of the more powerful Democrats. He is clearly one that the Republicans would go to when we needed Democrat votes.

That said, though, he was actually, you know, he was under the tutelage of Willie Brown until he tried to take Willie Brown out, and then Willie Brown did what he does best, he put him on the back bench.

But I had to laugh at that comment, because, what happens is we have something in Washington, a scandal, and the first thing that Congress wants to do is pass some rule and regulation, the idea that our Congress needs to pass a rule that you can't have sex with your interns is pathetic! I think, when do we how many rules do we need?

NOTE: Willie Brown knew not to get on an airliner on 9/11 then lied about it all.

Barbara's Last Larry King Appearance was on August 31, 2001: was she under Orders to Keep Heat on Sex Aspect of Condit Case to Keep Attention Away from Levy's Sexpionage and up-coming 9/11 attacks?

Her Bio:

She went to Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University in New York, not necessarily the obvious choice for a blond Catholic girl from Texas. She was even told that she would never fit in, and that she would be miserable. But the people who told her that really did not know Barbara. She thrived at Cardozo as she had thrived at St. Thomas and in the ballet and in Hollywood. She loved the people, the classes, the professors, and she was a huge success, popping up for one reason or another with embarrassing frequency on the cover of Jewish Weekly.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/22/lkl.00.html

Weird Barbara Olson statements on the August 22, 2001 Larry King Live! Show:

1. Ramseys are guilty when they at that point may have been innocent

2. Richard Jewell was a bystander when actually he was a hero who found bombs

QUOTE:

"Either they were guilty, such as the Ramseys or completely innocent, of course, with Richard Jewell we know he was an innocent bystander."

3. Her assertion that Levy was leaving with only keys to meet Condit implying SEX at the mansion building at the park----why didn't anyone pick up on this?

QUOTE:

"And what other people said, this is a congressman, this congressman has no history. The only thing that we can go on is that we know she left without her ID. We know she left with only her keys. We know she had a relationship, that she was very close with the congressman, and he asked her to leave without an ID, without any keys. So we want to know answers.

That is exactly why it is so important that Gary Condit answer the real questions, and not dodge the real questions."

What if using voice morphing techniques her MOSSAD handlers and/or 9/11 Satanist Illuminati traitors lured her to a sexcapade only to be murdered and then placed in refrigeration until after the 9/11 attacks?

WHY is Barbara Olson fingering Condit as the guy Levy was going to meet at the park as if it were a TALKING POINT she was ordered to plant? Where is her information to say such a thing?

Maybe no one is paying close attention to what the talking heads are saying, huh?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/31/lkl.00.html

OLSON: But Mike Dayton was in Washington, and although he never asked Gary Condit, he sure knew how to trash Anne Marie Smith. I think one of the ladies even said the exact talking points that they had had about that she was doing this for publicity, to get on television, and how sad that she was using it.

It was very interesting that these people, who had never talked with him about any of his relationships, were able although to start trashing this woman.
So where did they get that information? If they were telling us...

OLSON: Everybody is lying. Everybody lies.

KING: G.O.P. strategist Tony Blankley said -- he is former press secretary for Newt Gingrich -- said, "The general theory in politics is that all staff are expendable. The staff throws themselves in front of the bullets to protect the boss."

Honestly, Barbara Olson, if the Congressman were to say, "I'm not going to run again, this is my last term in Congress." Doesn't that effectively put this story away until she is found?

OLSON: Well, I mean, it puts the story about Gary Condit's relationships with other women away. It doesn't put it away about Chandra.

KING: It takes her disappearance off the front page, though.

OLSON:
I don't think it will.

KING: No?

OLSON: I think basically -- you know, you asked Nancy Grace if there was -- whether she thought still thought Gary Condit was involved. He still looks like he is hiding something. I believe he was lying when he was interviewed by Connie Chung. And our common sense says, why? What are you trying to hide? That is still out there. The police are now saying they are not ruling out another interview. They had to come out and say he wasn't forthcoming after listening to Mark, night after night, screaming how forthcoming he was. So I think all that is still there, and it doesn't add up to a completely innocent man.
It adds up to man who, although maybe he wasn't involved in her disappearance, what is he hiding?

OLSON: There's a real good reason not to do that.

GERAGOS: Why? Why, Barbara?

OLSON: Because perhaps...

GERAGOS: I'd love to hear.

OLSON:
Gary Condit knows if he opens that door to his closet, a lot more tumbles out than Anne Marie Smith and Joleen McKay and Chandra Levy.

NOTE: HOW ABOUT LEVY IS A MOSSAD SPY BLACKMAILING CONDIT FOR SECRETS?

OLSON: Well, the real problem is dealing with someone that you don't have probable cause, that you have things that don't quite add up. You have -- and we know that from the very beginning, they knew there was a relationship, yet Gary Condit was refusing to talk about it, as a matter of fact challenging the police to cite the relevance. The problem with that is that if you push a witness too hard too fast, they are going to take the Fifth or tell you to walk away. They are going to say, I'm not going to talk to you anymore. And as a prosecutor, unless I have probable cause, unless I can go forward, I'm stuck with an uncooperating person. Gary Condit was talking, they didn't want him to shut up. They are going to not push him further than they think they can.

EPSTEIN: The reason, the legal reason if you are sitting there counseling him, you would say not to speak about it for two reasons, even though I agree with Mark in this day and age you have to do it. If you say something that in any way, in even a minor degree, differs with something you have said before, it's off to the races with the press.

Secondly,
whatever you say out of court, under the rules of evidence, something known as statements against interests or prior inconsistent statements, if you say a statement that somehow damns you, in the light of a prosecutor they can take that out-of-court statement and use it against you in a court of law. That's why a lawyer in a lawyer's prudence tells you not to do it.

But again, I agree with Mark, in this day and age, you've got to figure out a way of meshing the public relations with the legal, and they could have done it, and they didn't.

KING: Barbara, Nancy, do you -- let's start with Barbara first. Do you understand that from a legal standpoint why they would advise him not to?

OLSON: Well, I mean, yes, that is true
. If he's at trial and he's made statements publicly on television and they differ and they conflict, it is against interests. But you know, Mike Dayton came on here...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/21/lkl.00.html


Barbara's Fixation with Condit's Sexual Relationship with Levy Harms The Search for the Actual Murderers?


EPSTEIN: It's absolutely a relevant question. The question is that Mark and I have talked about for months at this point is should that exclude everything else? And I think the answer to that has to be no.

KING: Do you know who the suspect is?

EPSTEIN: Well, there is actually been rumors now for several weeks that they are actually talking about another person who she had had regular contact with.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: A relationship, a romantic...

GERAGOS:
It was a relationship in the fact that they knew them. What bothers me about what Barbara keeps doing here...

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Where is that coming from?

GERAGOS: ...
don't bother me -- don't bother me with the facts, I have got an agenda here -- the agenda is to keep pounding on Condit.

KING: So, you know for a fact that -- hold it, hold it...

OLSON: No, Mark. Mark, where does that come from?

GERAGOS:
Where it comes from is from the police. The police know it, Barbara. The police know for a fact that there is somebody else that's there, that that somebody else who was there who they are investigating was somebody who was affiliated with the gym where she worked out, that that person was stalking her, that they had, that she...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Wait a minute...

GERAGOS
: There is someone who she perceived to be stalking her. And they know it, and they've invested quite a bit of investigative time into following this up. And the idea that the reason the police are so frustrated by this is that people won't let go of the Condit thing.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/28/lkl.00.html

KING: Nancy, you are a veteran of these kind of things. Perplexing?

GRACE:
Well, to the sense that she has not been located yet. But it does signify to me a major clue. Random rapists and killers -- the body normally turns up fairly quickly. That means to me that this is very well thought out, and not random.

KING:
A planned killing.

GRACE:
Yes, very much so. And a planned disposal of Chandra Levy.

KING: Julian.

EPSTEIN: Well, I think the likelihood is -- given that we don't have any clues over four months -- is that it is the work of a professional. And, you know, while your heart goes out to the Levys ,I think your heart also has to go out to the tens of thousands of other parents whose children go missing and who weren't having an affair with a member of Congress or an elected official, and didn't have therefore the cachet so it didn't get coverage every night on LARRY KING LIVE and everywhere else.

You know, everyone who is familiar with the way the police investigates this, at least in the nation's capitol, will tell you that the system is a very primitive system for many reasons. And I hope if nothing else, this can at least develop some type of consensus so that we can take these tens of other thousands of cases, and the equal pain that their families feel, with greater seriousness.

KING:
When you say "professional", you mean hired person?

EPSTEIN:
I tend to think that if you don't have any clue after four months, it is somebody who really knows what they are doing. I don't know if it is hired or not hired. But it is somebody who -- who is quite skilled at making a person disappear.

KING: And not helped, Nancy, by a $250,000 reward?

GRACE: Well, you know...

KING: Only one person knows what happened.

GRACE: That's right. And the other issue is, not only is it someone who had planned this out very carefully, it is
someone who has motive stronger than $250,000 reward to keep it quiet.

NOTE: HOW ABOUT DEATH? How about up-coming 9/11 terror attacks?

OLSON: And the person hasn't talked, because you're right, Larry, 250,000 if someone did this -- usually they talk to someone who talks to someone and at some point the money makes a person come forward and give them clues.

GERAGOS: If we are going to use that logic, then -- and this is a hired killing -- then whoever it was must have been paid more than 250,000.

OLSON:
Not necessarily.

GERAGOS: Then I can pretty much say that it's not Gary Condit, because he hasn't earned that much money in the last two years.

OLSON:
That's not true. As you know, people can be killed for nothing.

GERAGOS: You explain to me. Did he go -- well, then why wouldn't this person who killed for nothing come forward and take the $250,000?

KING: Because he is the killer. He would be confessing.

OLSON: I was going say because murder one is life.

GERAGOS: I've got who it is. I will go and I'll surrender and cut a deal.

OLSON: Oh!

GERAGOS: They'll give him whatever he wants.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/24/lkl.00.html

EPSTEIN: Terrible performance on Condit's part last night, but if he can't dispose of a watch box inside a French fry container in a Virginia trash can in a competent way, I don't think he can dispose of a body for four months with no clues. I think actually it is exculpatory for him.

NOTE: we need to indict and/or civil law suit Gary Condit and see if he was being sexually blackmailed by Levy for Intelligence committee secrets?

Future Example: Zionists Diverting Attention from LTC Zack in the Anthrax Attack Letters to Hatfill in Media--Just Like Barbara Olson Fixating on Condit Before?

www.picassodreams.com/picasso_dreams/2007/04/stranger_than_f.html#more

Dr. Assaad had been cleared and Dr. Zack was coming under a small amount of media and FBI suspicion. Enter, from stage left, one Barbara Rosenberg, a jewish environmentalist professor and political activist with no expertise in bio-warfare. (146) Rosenberg suddenly went public with the claim that she knew who the anthrax killer was. (147) She was supported in this effort by another Zionist New York Times journalist named Nicholas D. Kristof, who openly called for the arrest of Hatfill! (148)

Quietly and behind the scenes, Rosenberg began directing investigators towards an American scientist named Dr.Stephen Hatfill (and therefore away from Dr. Zack). The Washington Post confirmed that it was Rosenberg who helped put authorities on the trail of the innocent Dr. Hatfill. (149)

The name of Hatfill trickled forth from the news media. In a matter of weeks, the trickle became a media flood. Dr. Hatfill became a household name. Hatfill called a news conference to protest his innocence. There is not a shred of evidence against him and he passed an FBI lie detector test. (150) But the Zionist controlled media lynch mob, led by the evil Rosenberg and the yellow journalist Kristoff, continued to pursue and harass Hatfill. Dr. Hatfill may never be imprisoned, but his life and career have been destroyed by these false allegations and the media hype. Lt. Col. Zack is off the hook.

NOTE: the Anthrax letters were PRINTED which shows knowledge of tradecraft to deny hand writing analysis and any match to anyone's known signatures!


Is Ted Olson, a Zionist and/or MOSSAD operative, too? (written in 1998 before 9/11)

QUOTE:

"It should not be overlooked that the appellate attorney for convicted spy Jonathan Pollard was Theodore Olson--Kenneth Starr's long-time colleague and close friend, and host of the "Get Clinton" salon. Olson was still Pollard's lawyer as late as 1993, when Olson was already launching the anti-Clinton "Arkansas Project" with the American Spectator magazine and Richard Mellon Scaife's money--out of which operation came the Whitewater investigation and the Paula Jones case."

www.whatreallyhappened.com/mossadbug.html

DID THE MOSSAD BUG MONICA (HONEY TRAP) LEWINSKY'S PHONE?

The New Federalist

September 21, 1998

What Was the Mossad Role in the Lewinsky Affair?

by Edward Spannaus

Sept. 16 (EIRNS)--According to a little-noticed passage in the Starr Report, during March 1997, President Clinton told Monica Lewinsky that he suspected a foreign embassy was tapping his telephone conversations.

Nothing more is said in the report about the incident, but according to information received by this news service, that reference could provide the key to the entire Lewinsky scandal and to the setting-up and entrapment of the President. Reportedly, the embassy involved was that of Israel, under the control of the right-wing Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

First, the time-frame of the Lewinsky affair should be taken into account. It is bounded by two events: (1) the assassination of President Clinton's partner in the Middle East peace process, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, on Nov. 4, 1995, which opens the path for Netanyahu becoming Prime Minister in May 1996; and (2) Netanyahu's visit to Washington in mid-January 1998--just as the Lewinsky affair was breaking in the U.S. news media. On this visit, Netanyahu publicly insulted the President by meeting with Bill Clinton's worst enemies, televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson [SEX SIN OBSESSED].

Netanyahu carried out this affront over the objections of both President Clinton and moderate Jewish leaders in the United States.

The question must be asked: Was the set-up of President Clinton part of the effort by the Likud fanatics in Israel, and their "Temple Mount" backers in London, to punish the President for his efforts to force through an implementation of the 1993 Oslo peace accords?

The Real Lewinsky Tapes

British investigative journalist Kevin Dowling has released an article for publication to a variety of British and American news organizations, charging that the Israeli Mossad was bugging the Watergate apartment telephone of Monica Lewinsky, and was able to obtain material used to blackmail the Clinton administration into shutting down a probe of widespread Israeli espionage in Washington.

Dowling reports that well-placed sources in Tel Aviv say that full transcripts of more than 30 sexually explicit conversations between Clinton and Lewinsky are held by the Israeli foreign intelligence service, the Mossad.

The backdrop is as follows, Dowling reports, and it is backed up by published sources in the U.S., that the U.S. government was aware, from late 1995 on, that the Mossad was carrying out extensive espionage activity in the United States. When the Defense Investigative Service issued a warning to defense contractors about the Israeli spy program, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith went into an all-out mobilization to denounce the DIS memo as "anti-Semitic." Of course, just one year earlier, the ADL had been the subject of a lengthy espionage probe by the FBI and the San Francisco Police; and the ADL had earlier been deeply implicated in the Jonathan Pollard spy affair.

In May of 1997, the Washington Post and other media reported that the U.S. National Security Agency had intercepted a phone conversation between a Mossad officer posted at the Israeli embassy in Washington, and Danny Yaton, the Mossad chief, in Tel Aviv, during January 1997. The Mossad agent was seeking clarification whether he should attempt to obtain a copy of private letter from then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Yassir Arafat, via a Mossad mole high-up in the Clinton administration codenamed "Mega." The Mossad boss told the agent that under no circumstances should "Mega" be approached, as he/she was the top Israeli penetration agent inside the Clinton inner circle. An extensive FBI counterintelligence probe to determine the identity of the high-level Israeli mole in the U.S. government was triggered by the NSA intercept.

Comparisons to the Pollard spy affair were naturally raised; the deeper issue is that many observers believe that Pollard's controller (sometimes referred to as "Mr.. X," or the "X Committee") is still burrowed deep in a high-level position in a U.S. government agency.

According to the Tel Aviv sources cited by Dowling, there was an emergency meeting of top Israeli intelligence officials, as soon as the NSA intercept was discovered; a Mossad electronic-bugging team of yalohim was dispatched to Washington, and one of the targets of their operation was the home telephone of Monica Lewinsky.

According to the Dowling sources, the Mossad obtained wiretap tapes of at least 30 X-rated conversations between the President and Lewinsky. These tapes, according to the sources, were hand-carried back to Tel Aviv, and were then used to blackmail the Clinton administration into calling off the search for "Mega"; the threat was that if the search for "Mega" were not shut down, the Israelis would begin leaking material from the tapes.

According to Michael Isikoff, the reporter who first started investigating the Lewinsky story, he first learned about a story involving the President and "an intern" in March-April of 1997.

The Dowling story is consistent with many leads assembled by this news service over the past several years, suggesting that the Israelis were operating against the Clinton Presidency in underhanded ways, as well as in an overt policy was, to sabotage the Middle East peace process.

It should not be overlooked that the appellate attorney for convicted spy Jonathan Pollard was Theodore Olson--Kenneth Starr's long-time colleague and close friend, and host of the "Get Clinton" salon. Olson was still Pollard's lawyer as late as 1993, when Olson was already launching the anti-Clinton "Arkansas Project" with the American Spectator magazine and Richard Mellon Scaife's money--out of which operation came the Whitewater investigation and the Paula Jones case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 9/14/98, during a White House press conference, a reporter asked Mike McCurry , "Is it true that the White House is bugged by a foreign country?"

McCurry said he had no comment on that and moved on to other things.

It is known that Bill Clinton ordered the FBI to stop searching for a White House mole code-named "Mega".The prevailing story is that Clinton was being blackmailed by a recording of Bill having phone sex with Monica Lewinsky. It's now known that the Israeli owned companies providing billing and tapping sevices were well positioned to intercept any and all phone calls going into Monica's Watergate apartment, as well as all phone calls in and out of the secure White House communications system.

Game-On: the False Flag Terror Attacks Begin on 9/11

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNcUUHQxb60

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: "Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN." According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77," saying that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters." [2] Ted Olson's report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation's support for the Bush administration's "war on terror." Ted Olson's report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters. [3] However, although Ted Olson's report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.

Olson's Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone." But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the "airplane phone," he surmised, because "she somehow didn't have access to her credit cards."[4]

Oops! wtfo? who goes on a trip without money? wait a minute. she's going into hiding so she has got traveler's checks or better yet untraceable cash. credit cards can be verified that a call was even made...or show your location in hiding.....

Olson on credit cards of a disappeared person

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/30/lkl.00.html

OLSON: Well, it gets more unanswered questions. I mean, tonight we've now opened even more unanswered questions. It stays that way, and it seems like week by week you would think that you could exclude them. And I disagree with Julian. I don't think all the evidence is conclusive about Mr. Condit. I think we have a lot of unanswered questions. We wish we had them.

NOTE: Maybe that's Barb's mission? To fan the flames of the sex-angle and keep the spy angle off the public consciousness?

And one thing that stuck in my mind, if I may, is that, you know, Chandra -- we all talk about she left the apartment with just her keys. Is she someone who normally carried a purse? I know there are people who do, who don't, who maybe put things in their pocket. When she came over, did she normally have a purse?

OLSON: Julian, we're counting for his time with people that we have questions about. We have questions about the staff now, because of what happened with their telephone calls. We have questions about his wife, because of a lot of unanswered things and the way she reacted.

OLSON: As we said earlier, we have more questions than answers. I think that the same thing holds, it would be nice if Gary Condit would come forward and tell us, why, the last time he saw Chandra Levy was questioned about it, supposedly, he didn't remember if they were intimate. Why he talked to Anne Marie Smith and said on May 6th, a week after Chandra disappeared, that he might have to disappear for a while.

[NOTE: Barbara herself is going to do just that.]

All of these things are still unanswered. I would like to know the answers to that. I'd like to know if the police are really trying to have their investigation quiet, and what leads they have? Because this woman didn't disappear in thin air. Someone saw her and there's a reward of over $200,000 now and I hope that someone comes forward.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNcUUHQxb60

Continued:

However, this version of Olson's story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone. Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well."[5] After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used "the phone in the passengers' seats" because she did not have her purse.[6] By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson's statement that "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well" was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.[7] However, Olson's second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson's Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA's website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: "That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack."[8] In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

David Ray Griffin says the FBI report does NOT say any calls from Flight 77 went through

NOTE: the Flimsy flash presentation of the 9/11 flights presented at the Missouwi trial does say Renee May made 1 call to her mom and 5 unknown calls went through from Flight 77 but how? There were no air phones! Personal cell phones don't work! No sworn statements or evidences back up the government's flash presentation.

www.rense.com/general78/newev.htm

In the first edition, I presented extensive evidence that reported cell phone calls from the airliners, including the approximately 10 reported cell phone calls from United 93 (which crashed in Pennsylvania), could not have occurred, because the cell phone technology at the time did not allow calls to be made from airliners flying at a high altitude (Flight 93 was at 34,300 to 40,700 feet when the calls were reportedly made).

I argued not that the relatives of the passengers had lied about receiving the calls but that they had been duped- by means of voice morphing, which is now perfected to the point that, advertisers brag, you can fool your spouse. Even after my book appeared, Popular Mechanics continued to claim, on the basis of very weak evidence, that high-altitude cell phone calls were indeed possible (see the History Channel special, "9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction").

However, as I reported in the Revised and Updated Edition of my book, the FBI had in 2006 presented, as evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (sometimes called "the 20th hijacker"), a report on phone calls from the four airliners. According to this report, there were only two cell phone calls from United 93, and they were made at 9:58, shortly before the plane crashed, when it was down to 5,000 feet. When the FBI had to present evidence in a court of law, therefore, it would not claim that any high-altitude cell phone calls had occurred.

(These two low-altitude calls from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell phone calls made from all four flights).

The most well known of the reported cell phone calls from Flight 93 were four calls that Deena Burnett reported receiving from her husband, Tom Burnett.

She knew that he had used his cell phone, she reported on several TV shows and later in her book, because she saw his Caller ID number. However, as I reported, there are now devices, such as "FoneFaker," that will produce the person's Caller ID as well as his or her voice. Deena Burnett and the others, I believe, were not lying; they were duped.

The most famous of the reported calls from the flights supposedly came from Barbara Olson, the well-known commentator on CNN who was married to Ted Olson, who was then the U.S. solicitor general. Olson reported that his wife had called him twice from American Airlines Flight 77, stating that hijackers with knives and boxcutters had taken over the plane. Besides providing evidence of hijackers, this call also provided the only evidence that Flight 77 was still aloft (it had disappeared from radar and there had been reports of an airliner crash nearby).

Although Olson went back and forth on the question of whether his wife had used a cell phone or an onboard phone, he finally settled on the latter.

In the first edition, I challenged this claim on the basis of evidence from American Airlines that their Boeing 757 (which is what Flight 77 was) had no onboard phones. After publishing the book, however, I became worried, because of some new evidence, that that statement from American Airlines, made in 2004, had referred only to their 757s at that time - that their 757s in 2001 may well have had onboard phones. So I published a retraction, saying that the claim was uncertain.

That retraction, however, evoked new evidence, including a statement made by American Airlines in 2006 that their 757s in 2001 had had no onboard phones, so that anyone calling out from Flight 77 had needed to use a cell phone. Barbara Olson, therefore, could not have used a passenger-seat phone. That left open, of course, the possibility that Ted Olson was correct when he said that his wife had used her cell phone.

However, the evidence from the Moussaoui trial ruled out this possibility. In its report on AA 77, it listed one attempted call from Barbara Olson, which was "unconnected" and hence lasted "0 seconds."

This was an astounding discovery. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. And yet it had undercut the testimony of the DOJ's former solicitor general, saying in effect that the two calls that he reported had never happened. The implication is that unless Ted Olson had, like Deena Burnett, been duped, he had lied. Although this should have produced front-page headlines, it has thus far not been reported by any mainstream publication.

The Revised and Updated Edition of "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" provides the documentation for these reports from American Airlines and the FBI, which pretty thoroughly undermine the idea that any of the reported calls were genuine: If the cell phone calls were faked, why should we believe that the reported calls from onboard phones were genuine?

Proving that Barbara Olsen had the psychological make-up as a Tory fascist or a Zionist to be a conspirator to stage a False Flag "New Pearl Harbor" to place her faction into immense political power is possible by scrutinizing her TV appearances, and two books attacking the justifiably hated Clintons and Ted and her's foreknowledge that she would soon be offering up her public identity and life to the cause that can possibly be ascertained by reverse-speech analysis [Ken-Welch.com] of her last TV appearances before faking her own death and going into hiding in Europe as well as Ted's recent comments when the subject is close to 9/11. Its reasonable to assume she knew at least 30 days in advance so around August 11, 2001 there should be hidden in her and Ted's reverse speech "tells" of her coming faked death in videos. She seemed unhinged on her August 2, 2001 appearance on Larry King Live!

Was August 2, 2001 When Barbara Knew Her Death was going to be Faked? Or did she find out Chandra Levy was murdered as a MOSSAD agent in the know about the upcoming attacks? (see web page at bottom or go to www.geocities.com/northstarzone/LEVY.html )

COSSACK: We're back with LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Roger Cossack sitting in for Larry King tonight. Barbara Olson, you've been sitting there quietly, unlike of what I normally get from you. Come on, Barbara, talk to me about a little bit about Congressman Condit's future after this article and everything that has been said.

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think Senator Dianne Feinstein came out today and said that she thought that his career was over. And I think I have to agree with her, although, I am a little confused as to why lying to her is somehow worse than lying to the police or the FBI or what Bill Clinton did.

But what I've been listening to and I think that it's very interesting, what Lisa's article did -- and I want to respond a little bit to what Mark said and Julian -- how does this advance the ball?

We have a real good picture of what was going on this weekend before Chandra's missing. We have Gary Condit with his wife in town. He's calling Anne Marie Smith saying that everything's OK.

He's calling, you know, Chandra is calling his pager. And he's got all of these thing going on. This is a man who, evidently, the relationship, I think, with Chandra was coming to a head, at least in her mind it was. She had lost her internship at the Bureau of Prisons. She didn't want the relationship to end in the way other relationship had.

She was going to have to go back to California. I think that obviously from what she was telling her friends then and everyone else, it was to the boiling point. It was boiling over. She had been at his apartment the week before. The day she talked to him for the last time, on the 29th, she suddenly calls her aunt and everything's fine. It seems that it's very clear if that whether Gary Condit is involved in her disappearance or not, certainly there was a lot going on with this relationship.

It's not, I don't think, just a coincidence that Chandra Levy is deciding that something must happen to this relationship.

EPSTEIN: And you know, Barbara...

OLSON: And obviously this is the last week for it.

EPSTEIN: Barbara, the issue about that is yes, all of this that is true, but the police have considered all of that information and more that you and I don't know about at this point.

And the police now have come out and said that whatever was going on with this affair, we all stipulate that Gary Condit was trying to keep this a secret. There is no argument about that, there's no defending that, but what the police have said -- and they know more than any of us -- is that not only is he no longer a suspect, but he is not a central figure.

So, you have to ask the question, are we teetering...

OLSON: Julian...

EPSTEIN: Barbara, if I just could -- are we teetering on the edge of irresponsibility by making this all Condit all of the time,
when the police are telling us that we should be doing exactly the opposite.

OLSON: Well, Julian, you may be teetering, and but I think...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS:
Barbara is way over the wall, she's not teetering anymore. She's gone completely over the wall.

OLSON: I'm not over the wall, Mark. I think what you have to do is look...

GERAGOS: Barbara, give me a break.

OLSON: ... at the profile that Lisa has given us.

GERAGOS: What difference does it any of this make? What difference does it make?

DEPAULO: Mark, I never expected you to get this, OK? There is no way you were going to get this.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON:
Are you all defending maleness or something? How come all of the women on the show get it and all of the men don't?

DEPAULO: Yeah, isn't that amazing?

ALKSNE: Let me tell you how it advances and why Barbara and I agree on this -- because we have done a lot of criminal investigations in our day, and one of the things that we know when you have actually conducted criminal grand jury investigations is, there is rarely such a thing as a coincidence, and when you add up things like this double- secret probation relationship, a demand for secrecy, a young lady who is bound and determined to have a confrontation with the man over his marriage, and his wife comes to town, and he lies to her family at a bare minimum, and possibly the police, and then he throws evidence away...

(CROSSTALK)

ALKSNE:
The conclusion is, you don't throw away that person as a victim -- as the potential perpetrator.

[NOTE: LIKE TED OLSON!!!]

 

SUMMARY: Barbara Olson's last appearance on CNN was Larry King's show on Friday August 31, 2001. AFAIK she did not appear on TV again until Sunday September 9, 2001 two days before her disappearing stunt?

F S S M T W T F S S M T

_____________________________

31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

This gives her a weekend and an entire week plus Monday to get her personal life together before the dissapearing act, 10 days. Where was she?

VIDEOS

www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-79665374.html

On the last Sunday of her life, Barbara Olson was a guest on Washington Journal, a C-SPAN morning call-in program that is frequently civil. This time, it was not. The topic was the Thomas hearings, on their tenth anniversary, and the calls that came in were electric with fury, as if no time at all had passed. Names, charges, and threats were flung around wildly. At one point, Bill Press, Olson's co-panelist, became rattled, pleading for tolerance, saying that people could argue as friends. But the hate kept on coming. Close to the end, one woman called Olson "evil" and said she was "too filled with hate" to live long. On the very last point, she was only too accurate. Two days later, Barbara Olson was killed when her plane hit the Pentagon, and that age, and its rancor, died with her. It is a great shame that she is no longer among us, to fight on in this braver new world.

http://archae.livejournal.com/

The following disgraceful piece demonstrates how badly liberals detest any departure from their articles of faith. It was written the day after the 911 attacks that killed so many of us. While the vast majority of American citizens were numb with grief, shock and disbelief, Otto Ross Sauer of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, thought it would be appropriate to tell the world of his smug satisfaction at the death of Barbara Olson, whose jet had slammed into the Pentagon the day before, killing her and about 150 other Americans. Brace yourself for this one, folks.

Sept 12, 2001

FROM: ROSS SAUER

TO: ALL

SUBJECT: Karma?

Isn't it, "What goes around, comes around?"

Barbara Olson was a guest on CSpan's (sic) Washington Journal recently along with Bill Press.


Most of the callers who got through expressed their extreme displeasure of (sic) Mrs.Olson and her smarmy and dishonest tactics and her making a career of slandering the Clintons.

One caller, who appeared to be a black woman judging by her voice, firmly told Barbara just what a despicable woman she indeed was, and ended her call with, "You are evil. You won't be around much longer. You have too much of the Devil in you."

That was two days ago.

I do feel sorrow for Olson's family.

But to those other than the HCAAC club she will be remembered as a partisan who would say anything she wanted to slur Bill and Hillary Clinton.

(Barbara Olson was like Ann Coulter. In fact the two of them were good friends. A hyper-partisan hack, who made up whatever she wanted to about any of the Clintons.)

Indications that Barbara was going to cease being a public figure attack dog and go into private life where she couldn't attack anyone publicly:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104
x4103885

Barbara Olson had evidently had, in the weeks before September 11, a change of heart about her life. She supposedly told colleagues that she was tired of the scorched earth dirty tricks coming out of the GOP, and was feeling remorse for her part in it. Some of you may remember her attack on Virginia Kelley Clinton, Bill Clinton's mom.

I found it more than odd that she would get on an airliner without her purse (according to her husband,) for a cross-country trip. It was even more odd to me that she supposedly called him on an Airphone without a credit card.

Without donning my tinfoil hat, let's consider the following: John Ashcroft was told to stay off commercial airliners. So was Colin Powell, and Mr. Powell would not allow immediate members of his family to fly, either. Ted Olson didn't get the memo?

Julie


all_hail_gwb (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-14-05 10:59 PM
Response to Original message

89. Well he probably knew about MIHOP and scheduled her to be on the flight
Probably all of 'em knew. And they all got a last call to get relatives on planes in WTC that they wanted to get rid of.


After her death, I saw him on Crossfire being interviewed about it and his sadness was like the fakest shit I ever seen in my life. He's such an insincere POS. He was probably having an affair when Babs died, so it was all he could do to hold back his giddiness in those interviews.

She was filth and he is the scum of the earth. May they both rot in hell.

**********

[NOTE: I like Barbara, she may have a conscience in all of this. Ted looks like a total asshole psychopath.]

www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b9e62981d6a.htm

To: ThomasMore

She was just on C-Span on Sunday morning with Bill Press. Her eyes twinkled and she was, as usual, sharp, witty, and informed. We will all carry her spirit with us in the future battles ahead. God bless.

38 posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 4:16:56 PM by jayadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: KLT

This is so strange. I was listening to the C-span morning call-in show (yesterday?) and some angry democrap woman called in attacking Mrs. Olsen. She called her evil and said she "wouldn't be around long". Did anyone else hear that caller?

39 posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 4:17:37 PM by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Cyber Liberty
Barbara was a FReeper, named BKO.
She was also a friend. My wife and I cried upon hearing the news.

Thank you CL for the info...I knew she was on these threads, we are all going to miss her terribly....it's a tremendous loss....I miss her already.

40 posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 4:19:53 PM by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Barbara & Ted Together Video

There are two very short clips of Ted and Barbara and their very pretty Jaguar in a documentary about media control titled: Orwell Rolls in His Grave. you can order a copy from
www.911truthdvd.com

It is interesting nevertheless. You can even get their license plate # from the video. I wonder if
Ted and Barbara did any "real property" transactions shortly before that fateful day? This can be checked at the county recorder's office.

Ted's Videos

Olson really pours on the BS here for co-conspirator former Mayor Guliani!!

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ted-olson-introduces-giuliani-to-the-federalist-society-1/1807337853

Ted Olson video on CSPAN
www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=olson

Someone should wire-tap Barbara Olson's relatives and Ted Olson's phones and computers and physically surveil his actions to see if he makes contact with his wife through secure conduits. Be advised--both Olsons with experience working in the Justice Department would know exactly how the witness protection program works to allow people with false identities to make contact with loved ones. I know how this is done but cannot state this here. Ted Olson should be sued by someone who lost a loved one on 9/11 for civil damages since he's a conspirator.

Guilty demeanor or checking-out demeanor?

WTFO is Barbara Olson doing living in a REMOTE LOCATION IN WISCONSIN and not in Washington D.C. by her husband's side in their mutual home? What the hell IS she doing in the middle of Lake Michigan? Watching sunsets?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/26/lkl.00.html

KING: So, we can guarantee we'll see you all Monday! This goes on and on. Thank you all very much. Barbara Olson in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin -- when do you come home, Barbara?

OLSON: Tomorrow morning at 6:30 a.m.

KING: So, we can guarantee we'll see you all Monday! This goes on and on. Thank you all very much. Barbara Olson in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin -- when do you come home, Barbara?

OLSON: Tomorrow morning at 6:30 a.m.

Was she separating herself from him?

Or her attack dog ultra-conservative life in preparation for the final disappearance on 9/11?

We know she was living in remote Ellison Bay, Wisconsin because she was doing "talking head" segments as a regular on CNN's Larry King Live show just weeks before 9/11 focusing in on the DISAPPEARANCE OF CONGRESSMAN GARY CONDIT'S INTERN CHANDRALEVY. Some of her comments about Levy possibly sneaking out to meet a lover using the excess time of a train trip eerily suggest future autobiographical behavior on her own part and her scrutinizing of Condit's actions and the chess game of prosecutors to get him to talk is EXACTLY what needs to happen to her former husband Ted, TODAY over his 9/11 public lying. Maybe Ted did to Barbara what Gary did to Chandra? Is Levy a "revelation of the method" of what's going to happen to Olson?

WAS THE LEVY DISAPPEARANCE DESIGNED TO GET THE PUBLIC USED TO OLSON'S DISAPPEARANCE BY MONTHS OF TV COVERAGE?

Larry King's show has been used before for "revelation of the method" by the mock appearance on the movie, Enemy of the State where King interviews a ficticious congressman about towers toppling. Hmmmm.

Olson on Levy:

"Because it's really hard to believe that no one saw her on May 1st, that she disappeared without a trace."

WHERE ARE AIRPORT TV CAMERA FOOTAGE OF BARBARA OLSON GETTING ON FLIGHT 77? Is there any?

Barbara on Condit's brother "on the Lam"

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/25/lkl.00.html

OLSON: "Well, he is. He is the brother of -- Darrell Condit is the brother of Congressman Condit. He was on the lam when this all broke. Now we find out supposedly that he had spoken to his brother for a year. And so it makes it look a little more intriguing when you have someone who is on the other side of the law that is very close to Congressman Condit, and who possibly could have something to add for a missing person.

According to what his lawyer says, what Jon says, he doesn't know anything, but I think there are questions -- very interesting to ask of him. And similarly to ask of his attorney.
"

OLSON: "I was going to ask a question. It's Barbara. I want to ask Jon a question. You know, we keep hearing Darrell hasn't spoken to his brother, and are you telling us that he hasn't had any communication even through third persons, with Gary Condit over the past year?"

SALE: "Yes, I'm not playing games. I'm telling you that their relationship is such that they have had no contact. The last time they had any contact happened to have been when my client was in California, close to two years ago."

OLSON: "And does your client
know any people that might do criminal acts for hire?"

SALE: "Oh, my God. I take that..."

CNN telecast of reporter Tim O'Brien's Interview with Ted Olson

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_2HsqxuUH4

1:47: Barbara was not supposed to be on the flight but was going to fly to California the day before on the 10th, but wanted to not leave until the 11th because it was Ted's birthday? Ted in the Telegraph interview said she left when she did because she wanted to have late night dinner with him the day before 9/11 his birthday? Which story is it today?

Why did she need to leave EARLY Tuesday morning to tape a LATE NIGHT Bill Maher TV show when you GAIN 3 hours when flying east coast to west coast and would be in LA at 11 am even if the flight was 6 hours long. Bill Maher stated on September 17, 2001 on Larry King's CNN show:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/04/lkl.00.html

MAHER: For those of you who are just joining us, I wanted to mention that that chair is empty all week. We announce this each night for Barbara Olson, who was a favorite guest of ours, and a friend. And she was supposed to be here last Tuesday night. She was on one of the planes. So we leave that open in tribute and cherished memory for her.

QUESTION: if you had to be in-person "panelist" doing Maher's night show (which you don't you can be shown on screen taped from another location but wouldn't be a "panelist") why not leave at NOON or even later depending on when Maher wanted you there?

CNN Aaron Brown's Live interview with Tim O'Brien on the Olsons

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB8DQahMLJg

Says she stayed to "have breakfast with him" on his birthday

WTFO? So she leaves on the 11th early in the morning and spends no quality time with him on his birthday? WTFO? If she wanted to celebrate his birthday with a party she should have postponed leaving until the 12th and told Maher to use her as a talking head from a Washington D.C. studio.... Ted told her about the two crashes in the WTC? Why didn't the people huddled in the back revolt if they were going to die anyway?

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-barbara-olson-still-alive.html

Apparently, Barbara was Olson's 3rd wife. What happened to wives #1 and #2? Why can't he keep a wife? Is he a lying asshole psycho/sociopath perhaps?

WTFO? Olson is already remarried to wife #4 within 6 months!

September 14, 2007

www.youtube.com/watch?v=imaoz6u6gSU

www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74

On Ted 'Perjurer General' and Barbara 'Paid Liar' Olson: "It's 'Ted and Barbara' just like it's Fred and Ginger, and George and Gracie. They were so perfect together."

-- Ann Coulter, National Review Online, September 2001

Note from Morrie: She forgot "Adolf and Eva", or "Bonnie and Clyde". And I've gotta say -- I've seen Ted and his brand new curvy blonde, over-made-up squeeze in a Washington eatery. They are SO perfect together...

www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/lady_and_teds_excellent_advent_1.php

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200052.html

Napa Nuptials for Olson and His Lady

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts

Sunday, October 22, 2006; Page D03

Top Washington lawyer Ted Olson and his fiancee, Lady Booth, tied the knot yesterday in Napa Valley, Calif., starting a happy new chapter in Olson's personal life. "She's a Southern girl," he told us. "She's just a marvelous person."

Olson shot to national fame when he successfully argued the 2000 election case for George W. Bush in the Supreme Court, and was named solicitor general by the grateful president. On Sept. 11, 2001 -- his 61st birthday -- his wife, conservative commentator Barbara Olson, was killed when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. His personal loss became part of the public narrative of the tragedy, making him perhaps the most famous widower in Washington.

The following year, Olson was introduced to the Louisville native (she's named "Lady" after an aunt) by mutual friends who thought he would hit it off with the 40-something blond tax lawyer. Their first few dates included the Kentucky Derby (both like horse racing) and the Napa Valley charity auction (both like fine wine). Olson popped the question on Oct. 21, 2005, and the couple set the date for exactly one year later at Napa's Meadowood resort.

More than 300 guests attended the midafternoon ceremony on the golf course, including Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, former justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, legal commentators Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova, NPR's Nina Totenberg, legal names such as Robert Bork, Kenneth Starr, David Boise, and Olson's law partner Bill Kilberg. U.S. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman performed the ceremony, and Wall Street Journal Publisher Gordon Crovitz served as best man.

This is Booth's first marriage and Olson's fourth. The couple will honeymoon in Hawaii.

POSSIBILITY: Olson Murdering Younger femme fatale Wife Barbara to be Rid of Her?

http://verdade.no.sapo.pt/destruction/wtc_conspiracy.html

9/11 for dummies - The Five Basic Facts, by Matt Marriott

the choice of the combination of personalities used to convince people, in the first days and in the first year, about the 'passengers'. Ted Olson was just a conspirator celebrating the murder of his wife; for the sheep Barbara Olson was one of the last personalities that they would imagine that the 'conservatives' would murder, but that was not the case for anyone aware of how the illuminati had closed all controversies about Clinton immediately after his 'acquital'. That proved that Barbara Olson was not playing an illuminati role.

Genius was the choice of the other one, Lisa Beamer, the one that really mattered all along the first year, the period of time that really mattered in the illuminati planning, who was truly grieving the death of her husband. And as planned, she didn't get it, until that was irrelevant for the illuminati.

At that time, they were already rolling.

NOTE: it is troubling that Olson's books on the Clintons have been ignored. Olson is playing a Jesus Camp Zionist role against the Eyes Wide Shut camp.

Without the Olson Cell Phone Lie there'd Be No Ragheads with Box-Cutter Knives...the "Patsy" is offered

www.geocities.com/subliminalsuggestion/olson.html

Without the "eminent" Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial "seed" that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.

About the last thing on your mind [especially if you happened to be the U.S. Solicitor General], would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a "scoop". As a seasoned politician you would already know that all matters involving national security must first be vetted by the National Security Council. Under the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill existing on September 11, this vetting process would have taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.

The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is therefore as impossible as the New Zealand press release back in 1963 about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As reported independently by Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up, accidentally launched a full international newswire biography on obscure "killer" Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the trouble to check his world clock.

It was still "yesterday" in New Zealand on the other side of the International Date Line when the biography was wired from New York, enabling the Christchurch Star newspaper was able to print a story about Oswald as the prime suspect in its morning edition, several hours before he was first accused of the crime by Dallas police.

If the CNN story about Ted Olson had been correct, and he really had called them about Barbara on September 11, then he would most surely have followed the telephone call up a few days later with a tasteful "one-on-one" television interview, telling the hushed and respectful interviewer about how badly he missed his wife, and about the sheer horror of it all.

There is no record of any such interview in the CNN or other archives. Indeed, if you key "Barbara Olson" into the CNN search engine, it returns only two related articles. The first is the creative invention on September 12 at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT], and the second is on December 12, about President Bush, who led a White House memorial that began at 8:46 a.m. EST, the moment the first hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center three months before. CNN includes this comment about Ted Olson:

"In a poignant remembrance at the Justice Department, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson referred to "the sufferings we have all experienced." He made no direct reference to the death of his wife, Barbara Olson, who was a passenger aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon..."

Regarding the same event, Fox News reports that, extraordinarily, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson then said Barbara Olson's call, made "in the midst of terrible danger and turmoil swirling around her," was a "clarion call that awakened our nation's leaders to the true nature of the events of Sept. 11."

So Ted Olson avoided making any direct personal reference to the death of his wife. Clearly this was not good enough for someone somewhere. By the sixth month anniversary of the attack, Ted Olson was allegedly interviewed by London Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden, with his exclusive story "She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane" appearing in that London newspaper on March 5, thereafter renamed and syndicated around dozens of western countries as "Revenge Of The Spitfire", finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday March 23, 2002.

I have diligently tried to find a copy of this story in an American newspaper but have so far failed. The reasons for this rather perverse "external" publication of Ted Olson's story are not yet clear, but it seems fair to observe that if he is ever challenged by a Senate Select Committee about the veracity of his claims, the story could not be used against him because it was published outside American sovereign territory.

Theodore Olson's own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled "The Limits of Lying" by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.

Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out."

Hypothesis for Disappearing:

1. Personal Safety Concerns

Barbara Olson was lucky to be alive in 2001 as many (about 100) Clinton critics had ended up "suicides" by "multiple gunshot wounds to the head" thanks to the sex-crazed, left-wing conspiracy that they belong to. However, she was and still is connected to the "vast, right-wing conspiracy"--the alternate Zionist, fascist, ruling, ponerologic class obsessed with violence which kept her alive and funded her polemic book writing against the "vast, left-wing conspiracy". However, such protection is not air-tight--Hillary would be running for president and would want Olson out of the way. Consider how today because Olson is allegedly "dead" her books are "dead" when they should be front and center in the debate over her lack of morality to be President of the U.S. Killing a prominent public person who threatened the establishment by PLANE CRASH has happened several times in the past (Congressmen Hale Boggs and Larry MacDonald, Former Senator John Tower, threat to Clinton presidential run John F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Paul Wellstone) as the recent Secretary of the Interior Ron Brown's political assassination shows.

BEWARE plane crash "assassinations"

Dr. James Fetzer on the Wellstone Political Murder-by-Airplane

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vbf49kzWFw

1. IFR flight plans have to be filed ahead of the flight giving the saboteurs plenty of enough time to position selves to shoot an electro-magnet (EM) weapon at Wellstone's plane.

2. Mis-directed the navigational aids of a plane has already been used to sabotage a plane to kill Ron Brown. I'm disappointed that Wellstone's pilots did not look out at the ground to navigate by dead reckoning of terrain features but that's what VFR flying is...if they were in IFR because of poor visibility or monochrome terrain like endless woods in Minnesota they might have been totally reliant on instruments making them vulnerable to their sabotage

3. A plane whose adjustable pitch propellers were suddenly turned to no forward thrust setting would "wind mill" the props would actually increase the plane's drag and cause it to drop like a rock instead of be glided to a safe landing. Non-inline Twins are so unsafe insurance companies will no longer cover them. If one engine or prop races and the other dies the plane will spin into the ground from asymmetric thrust. The only twins that are safe are ones where the engines are front/back or at the rear very tightly together in case of one engine conking out. Twins are perfect planes to assassinate someone with.

4. Notice the pic how an actual body looks look like after being burned with fuel---plenty of the body and even clothes are left--nothing like the cremation of the Wellstone flight's passengers and crew

5. EM weapons researchers might have through trial & error learned that if you coat a plane with say magnesium or white phosphorous based-paint the beam might cause it to catch fire in-flight

6. We need to DEMAND that Congress pass laws requiring the NTSB include criminal sabotage as crash scene possibilities on ALL accidents period. Experts in sabotage methods must be hired and be on crash investigation teams. A CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT panel must participate on EVERY crime scene investigation like a grand jury. If the civilian oversight team sees foul play in the investigation they have the power to throw down a flag and get a foreign nation crash team in to re-do the investigation. ALL crash scenes will be open to the media and ANY citizen to document with audio/visual means IMMEDIATELY and their findings will be kept in their possession though copies can be subpoenaed from them for investigation.

6. In the meantime ALL politicians should avoid flying in ANY airplanes here in the U.S. and use ground transportation means that while subject to sabotage offer less kinetic energy and fire risks than aviation. Wives should NOT travel with husbands in event they get murdered they can fill-in his elected office.

7. A twin-engined turboprop like Wellstone's KingAir can and should have a recovery parachute MECHANICALLY ACTIVATED so in event of an electrical system sabotage the entire aircraft can be brought down safely as the ultimate "PLAN B".

www.combatreform.org/parachute.htm

Planes that are totally dependant upon electronic fly-by-wire without mechanical cables and pulleys are totally unsafe and unsound. There is no reason that mechanical back-ups are not in place. Ideally they should be 3 flight control systems:

a. Mechanical cables/pulleys
b. Hydraulic assisted controls
c. fly-by-wire electrically actuated controls

www.skolnicksreport.com/shistory.html

EXCERPT from THE SECRET HISTORY OF AIRPLANE SABOTAGE, Part One on the murder of E. Howard Hunt's Wife who were blackmailing President Nixon over the Watergate break-in and JFK assassination

Also getting on Flight 553 was a reputed "hit-man", pursuing Mrs. Hunt and others, and going under the "cover" of being a top Narcotics official with DALE (Drug Abuse Law Enforcement). He used the name Harold R. Metcalf. He is an unusual "narc"; he worked directly for Nixon. Metcalf told the pilot he was packing a gun, and so Metcalf was assigned seat B-17, near the stewardesses' jump seat and also near the food galley and the rear door of the plane. After the crash, he walked out of the cracked open fuselage of the pancaked plane wearing a jumpsuit. A former Military Intelligence investigator, who used his credentials to get into the crash site, identified the person posing as "Harold Metcalf" as an overseas CIA parachute spy. (Investigator's testimony at re-opened N.T.S.B. hearings, 6/14/73). Also see Metcalf's statement about being a "narc" and his gun on the plane. (N.T.S.B. Docket SA-435, Exhibit 6- B, p. 17, surviving passenger statements). Metcalf evidently supervised certain foul play, possibly cyanide, directed at certain passengers, but he didn't know of the over all sabotage plan. One of our staff investigators confronted Metcalf about a week after the crash.

(a) Metcalf, supposedly a government narcotics bigshot, knows nothings about dope. (b) in response to our question, "Did you know the plane was sabotaged?", he blurted out half a sentence, "It was not supposed to....", turning purple, he then left the room. Evidently, he was a double cut-out, an espionage term for an operative to be himself eliminated by someone else. His survival was an oversight. (N.T.S.B. testimony, 6/13-14/73).

Beware the ATC Instigated Mid-Air Collision!

www.skolnicksreport.com/goldenboy2.html

On July 9, 1999, Air Force Two, with Gore onboard, was flying over the Chicago-area air corridor. Somehow, two or more other planes were vectored, by FAA Air Traffic Control from the suburb of Aurora, that is, directed directly into a path to crash into Gore's plane reportedly. Only one major newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, in its print version, not internet version, ran a story about the strange event, delaying the story until July 14, 1999. [A previous article by me on Internet has also dealt with this, 7/15/99.] The newspaper item could have been used to blackmail various folks, such as the Clinton White House, the Pentagon, and others. For you see, among the major owners reportedly of the Sun-Times, are Red Chinese and ethnic Chinese, reportedly implicated in the apparent stealing of U.S. industrial, financial, and MILITARY secrets, with the connivance of Bill Clinton. The FAA could not explain the event.

Sources at the Sun-Times and the FAA confirm there were actually THREE airplanes vectored to Gore's plane. Aviation experts contend two or more such planes thus vectored would have to be intentional. The U.S. Secret Service reportedly did not have, as required, their people on duty at the Air Traffic Control Center while the Gore plane was passing over the Chicago-area.

7. A few days aftr July 9, 1999, Admiral Engen, former top official of FAA and a known expert on Air Traffic Control was apparently assassinated, when his power glider disintegrated in the air. He was one of several dozen admirals and generals, not identified by me while they were alive, who were the subject of my exclusive stories about how they sought to arrest Commander-n-Chief Clinton, as authorized by the Military Code for his treasonous activities with the Red Chinese and others. These flag officers vowed, to arrest Clinton for treason with sworn enemies of the United States, a charge they had documents to prove. If arrested by Bill for mutiny, if they survived and were not murdered, they were prepared to defend themselves at Courts Martial with their proof of Clinton's treachery. My previous stories named some of those murdered since April 17, 1995, when a planeload of them perished by sabotage.

Sabotage of Navigation Aids: Ron Brown Murder Preview

www.skolnicksreport.com/aircrashes.html

I opened up several suitcases containing THEIR records. In front of numerous national reporters and spectators, about 250 in all, I defied the NTSB panel to then and there arrest me for having THEIR file. They ordered me as the subpoenaed witness together with my other witnesses to proceed. I demonstrated it was most likely a fraud that the NTSB claimed the "black box" from the rear of the plane, the Flight Recorder, had been supposedly "jammed" and no recording made of the technical features of the flight. I showed THEIR transcript of the Cockpit Voice Recorder, proving the airport "Outer Marker", a key navigation instrument, had been turned off ONLY for the Watergate plane. Another key landing instrument device, according to the documents, was turned off for this flight as well. Result: the plane was falsely steered into the ground, and the plane pancaked short of the airport.

I showed THEIR own documents proving the electrical system of the plane had been sabotaged. I put into their faces THEIR own report showing the bodies of Mrs. E.Howard Hunt and her group had an unexplained high-level of cyanide.

I put on the witness stand two witnesses regarding a federal espionage operative who, in a jumpsuit, escaped from the tail of the plane. In an interview, he had blurted out that it was NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN, meaning the pancaking of the plane was not to have occurred. Mrs. Hunt and the others with her were supposed to have been arrested by the FBI when they were to have gotten off the plane at Midway Airport.

I had the documents and pictures all spread out on a large table in front of the NTSB panel. During a recess, a reporter for the Hearst Newspaper chain said to me, "You have not proved, Mr. Skolnick, there was a bomb on that plane. Without that, you don't have anything." Angry, I replied, "Look, friend, not every plane put down by sabotage is because of a bomb onboard." He said, "I don't care. I am not reporting anything from here unless you prove there was a bomb."

NOTE: what dumbshit or liar who clings to anything to evade the truth

The Chicago Tribune photographer and a reporter took a picture of me at the huge table full of suppressed NTSB documents and pictures. In their newspaper, however, they chopped off part of the picture showing the table with the pictures and documents laid out there, and only showed a picture of me. Their story alongside their phony picture, said "Skolnick has no documents of any kind to prove his charges of sabotage."

NOTE: Both Olsons had to be Psycho/Sociopaths in order to belong to their Evil Group

2. Disgust with Living with Ted (femme fatale)

3. Fanaticism for Zion and/or American Empire

4. Attack of Conscience

But maybe Barbara's attack of conscience meant it was time for her to go?

http://ponerology.blogspot.com/2005/12/role-of-psychopath-in-generation-of.html

Psychopath Definition

Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.

You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.

How will you live your life?

What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?

The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people - whether they have a conscience or not - favor the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are somewhere in between. There are violent people and nonviolent ones, individuals who are motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites. [...]

Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all.

If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction. [Sounds like NeroBush, doesn't it?]

Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population....

The prevalence rate for anorexic eating disorders is estimated a 3.43 percent, deemed to be nearly epidemic, and yet this figure is a fraction lower than the rate for antisocial personality. The high-profile disorders classed as schizophrenia occur in only about 1 percent of [the population] - a mere quarter of the rate of antisocial personality - and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that the rate of colon cancer in the United States, considered "alarmingly high," is about 40 per 100,000 - one hundred times lower than the rate of antisocial personality.

The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.

Bush Administration Full of Psychopaths

...questions being formulated by many psychologists and psychiatrists about the state of our world and the possibility that there is some essential difference between such individuals as George W. Bush and many so-called Neocons, and the rest of us.

Dr. Stout's book has one of the longest explanations as to why none of her examples resemble any actual persons that I have ever read. And then, in a very early chapter, she describes a "composite" case where the subject spent his childhood blowing up frogs with fire-crackers. It is widely known that George W. Bush did this, so one naturally wonders... "

We also began to realize that the profiles that emerged also describe rather accurately many individuals who seek positions of power in fields of authority, most particularly politics and commerce. That's really not so surprising an idea, but it honestly hadn't occurred to us until we saw the patterns and recognized them in the behaviors of numerous historical figures, and lately including George W. Bush and members of his administration.

Current day statistics tell us that there are more psychologically sick people than healthy ones. If you take a sampling of individuals in any given field, you are likely to find that a significant number of them display pathological symptoms to one extent or another. Politics is no exception, and by its very nature, would tend to attract more of the pathological "dominator types" than other fields. That is only logical, and we began to realize that it was not only logical, it was horrifyingly accurate; horrifying because pathology among people in power can have disastrous effects on all of the people under the control of such pathological individuals. And so, we decided to write about this subject and publish it on the Internet.

Even if different ponerogical groups are opposed to each other, they will still exclude "normal people" from their confidences. It is only the "normal" people who have been induced into their webs that provide the "leaks."

They are aware of being different as they obtain their life experience and become familiar with different ways of fighting for their goals. Their world is forever divided into "us and them" - their world with its own laws and customs and that other foreign world full of presumptuous ideas and customs in light of which they are condemned morally.

Their "sense of honor" bids them cheat and revile that other human world and its values. In contradiction to the customs of normal people, they feel non-fulfillment of their promises or obligations is customary behavior.

They also learn how their personalities can have traumatizing effects on the personalities of those normal people, and how to take advantage of this root of terror for purposes of reaching their goals.

This dichotomy of worlds is permanent and does not disappear even if they succeed in realizing their dreams of gaining power over the society of normal people. This proves that the separation is biologically conditioned.

In such people a dream emerges like some youthful Utopia of a "happy" world and a social system which would not reject them or force them to submit to laws and customs whose meaning is incomprehensible to them. They dream of a world in which their simple and radical way of experiencing and perceiving reality [i.e. lying, cheating, destroying, using others, etc] would dominate, where they would, of course, be assured safety and prosperity. Those "others" - different, but also more technically skillful - should be put to work to achieve this goal. "We," after all, will create a new government, one of justice [for psychopaths]. They are prepared to fight and suffer for the sake of such a brave new world, and also of course, to inflict suffering upon others. Such a vision justifies killing people whose suffering does not move them to compassion because "they" are not quite conspecific.

And there it is. Lobaczewski has said outright that psychopaths - from a certain perspective - are a different type of human being, a type that is aware of its difference from childhood. Put this together with his statement that such individuals recognize their own kind, and consider normal people as completely "other," and we can begin to understand why and how conspiracies can and do exist among such individuals. They collect together, with similar worldviews, like fat floating on a bowl of soup. When one of them begins to rant, others like them - or those with brain damage that makes them susceptible - "rally round the flag," so to say. And what's more, they know this and know how it works.

Speaking of networks, we need to take a closer look at how psychopaths affect other human beings whom they use to create the basis for their rule in macro-social dynamics. This highlights the fact that the lack of psychological knowledge among the general public, not to mention the general neurosis of most people, make them vulnerable to such predators.

Lobaczewski: Subordinating a normal person to psychologically abnormal individuals has a deforming effect on his personality: it engenders trauma and neurosis. This is accomplished in a manner which generally evades sufficient conscious controls. [Wolves in Sheep's Clothing] Such a situation then deprives the person of his natural rights to practice his own mental hygiene, develop a sufficiently autonomous personality, and utilize his common sense. In the light of natural law, it thus constitutes a kind of illegality which can appear in any social scale although it is not mentioned in any code of law.

Now, just imagine that the almost 1 in 25 people mentioned by Martha stout: "The Sociopath Next Door," being the very ones who seek and achieve positions of power and authority in just about any field of endeavour where power can be had, and you begin to understand how truly damaging this can be to an entire society. Imagine school teachers with power over your children who are "covert-aggressives." Imagine doctors, psychologists, "ministers of the faith" and politicians in such positions.

With this understanding, we begin to get an even better idea of how psychopaths can conspire and actually pull it off: in a society where evil is not studied or understood, they easily "rise to the top" and proceed to condition normal people to accept their dominance, to accept their lies without question.

Here I want to comment that, if we speculate the actual number of psychopaths to be around 6 percent - or even just 4 percent as Stout claims - then these other "people" Lobaczewski is talking about could be as frequent as 12 to 18 percent of the population. That would mean that the total number of psychopaths plus "almost psychopaths" would be 16 to 24 percent of the total population.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQjdaEUcTAE

_____________________________________________________

SIDE BAR 1: No one should be eligible to hold public office if found mentally ill with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or lacking a conscience. When the founding fathers formed our Constitution we were not aware of such things and had the means with which to test persons for these dangerous evils.

SIDE BAR 2: Bible codes say some "great evil will be revealed on July 4, 2008". I predict a PLANE CRASH instigated by the Eyes Wide Shut Illuminati Clintons will murder Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Certainly, the Clintons have NPD and are almost if not full-fledged psycho/sociopaths.

_____________________________________________________

Sub-theory A:

The Olsons aware of the 9/11 attack plans to do an OPERATION NORTHWOODS False Flag incident Option #8, "called in her/their markers" for her/their dues paid to the Bush cause and insisted she be given x amount of dollars to go into hiding in Europe with a new identity with her public name sacrificed on the altar of get-the-ragheads.

Sub-Theory B:

Another option is the conspirators approached her with this offer with idea that they needed a public figure who would go along with Northwoods Option #8 to meet a manipulate-the-public human interest profile of the mythical flight 77 victims and needed to fake the impossible cell phone exchange to generate sympathy and establish the ragheads-with-box-cutter-knives story line. They knew Ted would do it, too either by blackmail and/or his own willing Tory, fascist mentality.

www.takeourworldback.com/zionistcrimes.htm#nineeleven

Zakheim, a dual nationality Israeli-American and a rabid Zionist, had co-authored "Rebuilding America's Defenses", a position paper by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 2000, which called for a new "Pearl Harbor" type of incident which would provide a pretext for US military moves to boost its global hegemony. The other signatories on the document included neocons I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol. Rabbi Zakheim's career included various posts at the Department of Defense (DoD), foreign policy advisor to George W Bush, and also in the private sector on defense and consultancy. In the years running up to 9/11, he was corporate vice president of System Planning Corporation (SPC) and chief executive officer of SPC International Corporation. SPC is a manufacturer of highly sophisticated military specification technology such as its "Flight Termination System". FTS includes SPC's Command Transmitter System. It enables remote operators to control up to eight planes simultaneously, from a single position either on the ground or airborne (or, say, in WTC Building 7). The technology provides the capability to take remote control of aircraft already in flight.

Zionists had tricked the Bush Administration into carrying out a relatively small scale false-flag terrorist operation. An unmanned, remote-controlled plane would be crashed into a section of the Pentagon that was under renovation; hence, casualties would range from zero to very low. The remote control technology for the Pentagon incident would be provided by Raytheon. Since it was necessary to claim that "Arabs" had hijacked a passenger plane and the U.S. government had not signed up to deliberately murder dozens of their own civilians as part of Operation Pentagate, the claimed flight that the "suicide pilots" had taken over would be one that ran fairly regularly, but was unscheduled on the particular day of the operation. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) flight records could be falsified after the fact - unless, of course, the planners were to slip up, as they did...

The "dead passengers" were to be individuals linked to government (e.g. Barbara Olson), and the defense contractor Raytheon,
who would be paid to fake their own deaths and provided with sanctuary in Israel. As confirmation of the official version of events, it would be claimed that the "passengers" had made cell phone calls to report a hijacking by men of "Arabic" appearance. (Never mind the fact that such cell phone calls were impossible with 2001 technology at cruising height and speed; the fact that it takes at least an hour and 30 kg of coke to cremate a cadaver had not stopped the indoctrination of millions of people with a physically impossible ludicrous conspiracy theory about a secret German plot to gas and cremate 11 million "undesirables".) If required, fictitious names could be concocted. In order to save on names, it would be claimed that the passenger count just happened to be unusually low that day, say, around one-third of capacity.

[NOTE: the pictures of the burned bodies in the Pentagon presented at the Z. Missouwi trial are far from being incinerated to dust]

American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles was scheduled on most days, but was not scheduled (and did not fly) on September 11, 2001. The date had been chosen from the US "911" emergency number. Hence, the official Bush-Cheney story would claim this as the plane which hit the Pentagon. The Bush Administration would then have a pretext for invading Islamic oil-rich nations and looting their oil wealth, and for granting itself with authoritarian powers by introducing legislation such as the Patriot Act. More to the point, Rumsfeld and Cheney - along with other corrupt leaders who had been bribed or blackmailed into the scam - would have a pretext for doing the Zionist Mafia's bidding of supplying the servicemen of the US, UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, etc, as Israel's proxy army to fight its enemy neighbours. I.e., the offering up of national armed forces as a supply of private mercenaries, or cannon fodder, or uranium-ingesting leukemia and cancer cases waiting to happen. These sacrifices were primarily for the personal profit of the avaricious Zionist Mafia, along with the corrupt Mafia-appointed government leaders who lapped up the few scraps and morsels tossed their way by their Zionist handlers

Sub-Theory C: Plane was landed, Barbara and Renee made calls on the ground

BS:

www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm

Published on Thursday, April 27, 2006 by The Crisis Papers
The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View
by Ernest Partridge

The same critical reader can identify and set aside pronouncements that are devoid of supporting evidence, such as this narrative by James Fetzer of the fate of American Airlines Flight 77 which, if it didn't hit the Pentagon, as Fetzer contends, must be somehow accounted for:

Flight 77 went off the radar screen in the vicinity of the Kentucky/Ohio border. This whole dotted path [on a map displayed by Fetzer] is a hypothetical or an imaginary path that the plane may have taken, but it was not recorded on radar. And my belief is in fact the plane actually went down in the Kentucky Ohio vicinity... Then a plane, probably an A-3 Sky Warrior was substituted here very close to Washington DC.

Fetzer gives us no citation of the alleged disappearance from the radar screen. (I have heard nothing about this "radar disappearance." Have you?) Then it gets much worse: "hypothetical or imaginary path," "may have taken," "my belief." Not a shred of evidence is offered in support of this fantasy.

FACTS:

Actually, Fetzer is correct and Partridge is an incompetent idiot who hasn't even done a beginner's due diligence looking into the 9/11 attacks. He may even be a deliberate misinformation specialist.

The NTSB reports the Flight 77 flight path shows the plane going off the radar by its transponder being turned off at 8:56 am WHILE OVER THE WEST VIRGINIA-OHIO-KENTUCKY BORDER--right over TRI-STATE AIRPORT IN Huntington, WV. See pic attached.

From 8:56 until allegedly 9:11 we didn't hear squat from an airplane on that flight path beginning with the alleged Renee May non-existent air phone call from 25, 000 feet that was not possible since American Airlines 757s didn't have them in 2001. Why the delay of 20 minutes to make cell phone calls if the passengers were herded into the back at 8:50?

How about this?

Flight 77 LANDED at HUNTINGTON as it went off the radar and the selected passengers were herded off to start new lives as per Operation Northwoods Option #8.

SIDE BARS:

Then, Barbara Olson or Renee May ON THE GROUND COULD MAKE all sorts of cellphone calls which could by deceptive ground means be received by Nancy May and Ted Olson since it was not possible to relay this from the air. I want to see cell phone company or any records of this. This would explain the inexplicable 20 minute delay from hijacking to cell phone calling. This is the Barbara-only theory--but it doesn't fully wash because Ted still put out the cover story to CNN when he should have been grieving for the loss of his wife. We should put out a world-wide APB and large cash reward for ALL of the flight 77 passengers to see if any were remade into new people identities.

Barbara Olson said this on finding Levy through a reward for information:

OLSON: "But Laura, you know what's new? There's a $205,000 reward now. And that tends to bring out people, none of us like to talk about it, but money will cause people to tell on other people, so that may change things."

9/11: A Fighter Pilot's Conspiracy

EVERYTHING about 9/11 is about fighters pilots.

Why didn't fighter pilots scramble?

Where were the fighter pilots? Why didn't they shoot-down the planes?

Why did a Air National Guard F-16 pilot shoot down Flight 93 with a Sidewinder air-to-air MISSILE when a short burst of 20mm Gatling cannon fire into an engine could have brough the plane done with those inside at least having a chance to survivea crash landing?

It was almost as if a FIGHTER PILOT CONCOCTED THE WHOLE CONSPIRACY UP.

"There's no such thing as bad publicity".

So how about a fighter pilot creating a scenario that would enhance more budget from Congress for more sexy warplanes....how about oh, I don't know Navy reserve LTCDR Charles Burlingame the alleged pilot of AA Flight 77 who was working on such plans at the Pentagon?

The Hook Turn at 8:56 a.m.: carrier landing or just getting down real quick?

How about the hook-turn right past West Virginia's western edge at 8:56 a.m. spiraling down into Tri-State Airport in Huntington, West Virginia like say a FORMER F-4 Phantom pilot would do if in a hurry to line up on a aircraft carrier flight deck or "pulling max gs" over a land runway instead of a lengthy traffic pattern that would increase the chances of someone on the ground seeing you?

Enter the Whale....of a wallop....

And as the passengers off-load for a new life and identity, a good ole' Navy A-3D SkyWarrior (unofficial nickname: the Whale) Burlingame would surely be familiar with takes off on an American-made Kamikaze mission into what? Burlingame's old office section in the Pentagon????....maybe he had pissed off some people their with his oversized pilot ego and wanted some "pay-back" or the conspirators wanted his steps burned into ashes?

Ooops! Weight & Balance There it Is!

But he is a FIGHTER PILOT and one thing they don't do is "ash 'n trash"; that's what inferior cargo plane pilots do and one thing they are aware of is WEIGHT & BALANCE. So Mr. Top Gun aeronautical engineer forgets when crafting his ragheads cover story that 60 passengers (one a scrawny raghead hijacker with a box-cutter knife to keep these folks who were told they were going to die at bay) @ 200 pounds on average each = 12, 000 pounds (6 tons) and this weight ALL AT THE BACK OF THE PLANE would adversely affect the plane's weight and balance even on a big 757. Ooops! No matter, it landed at Huntington before anyone herded into the back.

360 degree TV head on Kamikaze A-3D SkyWarrior

The tail-heavy plane ehhh, A-3D SkyWarrior is lined up perfectly for its airborne controller in a chase plane business jet to fly it remotely with a TV camera in the nose....no need to worry about turning either way and losing sight of the Pentagon with a 360 degree swiveling head when building up some speed for a final plunge into the Pentagon but maybe the remote pilot was leaving us a clue with the right-hand turn which no pilot in command in the left seat would do....


Birthdays, Birthdays. It just so happens Burlingame had a recent birthday but couldn't get a seat at a baseball so he told stewardess wife, Shari to stay safe--at home plate.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/passengers.html#Charles%20Burlingame

Top Gun's Daughter Attacks 9/11 Theorists--from England? It gets Worse. She dies in a Suspicious Fire later on in New Jersey!

Maybe she was in England to visit dear old dad in hiding? Then she started shooting her mouth off to 9/11 researchers on the internet so "they" BBqued her to keep her from further violating witness protection integrity?

Or maybe....

She was wisked away into a new life and identity using the fire as cover story...notice her boyfriend was not charged with any crime and NO AUTOPSY.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70015&page=2

JREF Forum General Topics Conspiracy Theories

Captain Burlingame from Flight 77's daughter passed away in a fire

User Name Remember Me?

Password

Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags: 911, charles burlingame, fire, flight 77, wendy burlingame

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Thread Tools

6th December 2006, 09:14 PM

Brainster

Illuminator

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 3,538

My Profile Originally Posted by gumboot

To any local people... can you update us if any more news comes of the investigation?

It's not really a significant enough event to make international headlines, and it sounds like there could potentially be more to this story than we have so far. I'd like to find out more if it turns out there's more to know.

If you go to Yahoo News and search for "Wendy Burlingame", it will give you the option to get regular email alerts when that term pops up in a news story. I've already got it set up for that with her and "Dylan Avery" and "Loose Change" as well as about a dozen other keywords. You'd be surprised how many stories are written every day about "loose change" being stolen from a car.

__________________

Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog.

Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Brainster

View Public Profile

Visit Brainster's homepage!

Find More Posts by Brainster

6th December 2006, 10:41 PM

Zep

Non-Contributor

Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: In the past.

Posts: 23,500 Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

These guys are repulsive. Period.

What you should do is stage a little guerrilla theater at the taping of the debate.

Get four or five guys to come in and comandeer the room with box cutters threatening that they have bombs under their jackets. Let's see Dylan take 'em down!

Way to get shot by security and/or police, more like....

Zep

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Zep

7th December 2006, 02:11 AM

Oliver

~The Rascal~

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 11,141

My Profile http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/12/rip.html

Originally Posted by Dylan Avery

R.I.P.

Wendy Burlingame, the daughter of Charles Frank Burlingame III, the pilot of Flight 77, passed away yesterday, due to a fire that investigators, not us, are calling suspicious.

+=+=+

Daughter of 9/11 Flight Pilot Is Found Dead After a Fire

NY Times

Wendy Burlingame, 32, was discovered by firefighters in a short hallway between the kitchen and the bedroom of her 10th-floor apartment where the four-alarm fire began, said Edward DeFazio, the Hudson County prosecutor.

Mr. DeFazio said the fire, which law enforcement officials are calling suspicious, began shortly after midnight in the apartment Ms. Burlingame shared with her companion and was still under investigation, as was the cause of Ms. Burlingame's death. No one else was injured in the fire, Mr. DeFazio said.

Shortly before the fire erupted, Mr. Rojas said, there were "louder noises than usual" coming from the apartment upstairs, "like somebody running around up there, like somebody doing something up there in a rush."

Then he said he heard a thud - "like somebody dropped something"- and three or four minutes later the building's fire alarm sounded. Mr. Rojas said that within minutes his apartment filled with smoke. He then safely left the building.

Fire claims life of daughter of airline pilot killed on 9/11

Newsday

Wendy Burlingame's death was being investigated as a suspicious death, according to Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio.

Her live-in boyfriend, whose name was not released by authorities, was also in the apartment when the fire started shortly before midnight Monday, investigators said.

According to investigators, the boyfriend told them that he and Burlingame had tried to extinguish the fire with water from a sink. When tried to flee, the boyfriend made it into the hallway, but accidentally shut and locked the front door before realizing that Burlingame was not right behind him. He wasn't able to get back in.

As firefighters rushed into the 44-story building to put out the blaze, the building resident assigned as fire warden for the night found the boyfriend outside the apartment door, visibly shaken, and led him to safety.

Blaze kills daughter of 9/11 pilot

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Tragedy struck a 9/11 family for a second time when the daughter of one of the hijacked pilots was killed in a suspicious blaze in New Jersey yesterday.

Wendy Burlingame, 32, and her two dogs died when flames ripped through her 10th-floor apartment in Guttenberg, Hudson County.

Burlingame was the daughter of American Airlines pilot Charles (Chick) Burlingame, whose plane crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

"It's just an extreme tragedy," said Tim Sumner, who knew Wendy Burlingame from the 9/11 Families survivor group. "It's an amazing blow to that family."

Wendy Burlingame's aunt, Debra Burlingame, a member of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation board, was too heartbroken to speak last night.

[NOTE: at least somebody gave a shit and felt grief. Compare this to Ted.]

The fire broke out about 12:30 a.m. in the Galaxy Towers apartment Burlingame shared with her fiancé, Kevin Roderick.

NOTE: Somebody should haul Roderick's ass in for question and put him under surveillance. Where is the Patriot Act when you need it?]

Neighbors said Burlingame moved into the apartment overlooking the Hudson River about a month ago. Roderick escaped the fire.

Firefighters battled the stubborn blaze for about three hours before bringing it under control. Firefighters found Burlingame's body in a hallway between the kitchen and a bedroom, investigators said.

"It is suspicious at this point because the cause and origin have not been established," Hudson County Prosecutor Edward De Fazio said.

+=+=+

Now, first and foremost, let me clarify that this is a terrible tragedy, and in no way, shape, or form do we wish any disrespect upon Wendy Burlingame, her late father Charles, or her aunt Debra, who has had some choice words for us before.

Second, we would like to clarify a little something that, of course, SLC is pushing front and center.

Someone by the username wendyb posted in the old Loose Change forums back in July.

Here is the post:

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/750...echange7gm.jpg

However, if you check the account details of WendyB, this is what you come up with:

I.P. addresses used: 85.234.144.XXX

Total Cumulative Posts 2 ( 0.00% of total forum posts )

Posts per day 0

Joined 12-July 06

Last Activity: Sep 4 2006, 12:14 PM

User's local time Dec 6 2006, 04:50 PM

85.234.144.XXX comes back to:

person: Matthew Munson
address: Euroconnex Networks LLP,
BlueSquare House,
Priors Way,
Maidenhead, UK
phone: +44 870 744 1700

So, Wendy Burlingame allegedly made two posts from the United Kingdom, and never posted again, but remained in the United Kingdom until September 4th, 2006, where she last logged in? And since relocated to an apartment in New Jersey?

Again, no disrespect is intended towards Wendy, or the Burlingame family. But unless it can be proven that Wendy was in the United Kingdom from July to September, then we have to assume someone was impersonating Wendy.

No one has ever claimed that Charles was "involved" with the terrorists. Au contraire, Charles Burlingame was perhaps one of the finest people you could ever meet.

In fact, I'll leave it to my good buddy Russ Pickering to sum things up.

Rest in peace, Wendy and Charles.

__________________

Bush urges Arab nations to "treat their people with the dignity and respect they deserve."

Oliver

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Oliver

7th December 2006, 03:14 AM

IronSnot

Scholar

Join Date: Jul 2006

Posts: 76

My Profile What do you all think of the extremely shabby treatment of Christian Adams in the movie UA 93 then? Since you're all so concerned for the victims, do you think Silke Adams would be justified in suing the last dime out of Greengrass and United Artists?

IronSnot

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by IronSnot

7th December 2006, 03:44 AM

Brainster

Illuminator

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 3,538

My Profile Originally Posted by IronSnot

What do you all think of the extremely shabby treatment of Christian Adams in the movie UA 93 then? Since you're all so concerned for the victims, do you think Silke Adams would be justified in suing the last dime out of Greengrass and United Artists?

Although there have been many articles written about how unfair that characterization was, nobody to my knowledge has checked with Silke over whether she was unhappy with it. The film is a little unclear exactly what was going on with his (apparent) character. Certainly his initial appearance, where he suggests that they cooperate with the hijackers, is hardly offensive. This was (as the CT crowd always forgets) considered SOP for dealing with hijackers prior to 9-11.

It is only the brief scene where he appears to be either warning the hijackers or at least making a fierce argument against storming the cockpit that is controversial, and that was so brief I wasn't even sure what was going on when I saw the movie in the theatre.

I thought it was a mistake for them to fictionalize anything in the film, and that was one of only two problems I saw (the other was not including the transmission that Jarrah made about a bomb on board that was overheard by the air traffic controllers).

__________________

Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog.

Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Brainster

View Public Profile

Visit Brainster's homepage!

Find More Posts by Brainster

7th December 2006, 04:03 AM

PerryLogan

Banned

Join Date: Oct 2006

Location: In the earth's deep core

Posts: 980

My Profile If the fire were part of a conspiracy, officials would not have called it suspicious. It would not have looked "suspicious." So we almost certainly have no conspiracy.

Truthers are so weird.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by PerryLogan : 7th December 2006 at 04:07 AM.

PerryLogan

View Public Profile

Visit PerryLogan's homepage!

Find More Posts by PerryLogan

7th December 2006, 04:45 AM

Oliver

~The Rascal~

 

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 11,141

My Profile @DYLAN AVERY:

It could have been indeed Mrs.

Burlingame, >>>Master Researcher<<< :

http://85.234.144.215/

http://whois.domaintools.com/85.234.144.215

http://www.publicwebproxies.com/proxies/306.html

Quote:

inetnum: 85.234.143.0 - 85.234.144.255

netname: PH-NETWORK-VASERVE

descr: PoundHost Internet London

country: GB

admin-c: MM5420-RIPE

tech-c: MM5420-RIPE

status: ASSIGNED PA

mnt-by: EUROCONNEX

mnt-routes: EUROCONNEX

source: RIPE # Filtered

person: Matthew Munson

address: Euroconnex Networks LLP,

BlueSquare House,

Priors Way,

Maidenhead, UK

phone: +44 870 744 1700

e-mail:

nic-hdl: MM5420-RIPE

remarks: ************************************************** ****

remarks: Please contact for any abuse issues

remarks: E-mail sent to other addresses may not be acted upon.

remarks: ************************************************** ****

mnt-by: EUROCONNEX

source: RIPE # Filtered

Originally Posted by DYLAN AVERY

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/12/rip.html

However, if you check the account details of WendyB, this is what you come up with:

I.P. addresses used: 85.234.144.XXX

Total Cumulative Posts 2 ( 0.00% of total forum posts )

Posts per day 0

Joined 12-July 06

Last Activity: Sep 4 2006, 12:14 PM

User's local time Dec 6 2006, 04:50 PM

85.234.144.XXX comes back to:

person: Matthew Munson

address: Euroconnex Networks LLP,

BlueSquare House,

Priors Way,

Maidenhead, UK

phone: +44 870 744 1700

So, Wendy Burlingame allegedly made two posts from the United Kingdom, and never posted again, but remained in the United Kingdom until September 4th, 2006, where she last logged in? And since relocated to an apartment in New Jersey?

Again, no disrespect is intended towards Wendy, or the Burlingame family. But unless it can be proven that Wendy was in the United Kingdom from July to September, then we have to assume someone was impersonating Wendy.

No one has ever claimed that Charles was "involved" with the terrorists. Au contraire, Charles Burlingame was perhaps one of the finest people you could ever meet.

In fact, I'll leave it to my good buddy Russ Pickering to sum things up.

[RULE8]!

__________________

Bush urges Arab nations to "treat their people with the dignity and respect they deserve."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by Oliver : 7th December 2006 at 04:58 AM.

Oliver

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Oliver

7th December 2006, 07:17 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

Philosopher

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Making Stargate Worlds pwn ur face!

Posts: 7,151

Originally Posted by Oliver

@DYLAN AVERY:

It could have been indeed Mrs.

Burlingame, >>>Master Researcher<<< :

http://85.234.144.215/

http://whois.domaintools.com/85.234.144.215

http://www.publicwebproxies.com/proxies/306.html

[RULE8]!

Since you still have access over there, please report him through the invisionfree forum abuse link. What he is doing is a direct violation of their (LC's) ToS with invisionfree.

__________________

Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc.

Bender: I am forty percent zinc.

Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort.

Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

Arkan_Wolfshade

View Public Profile

Visit Arkan_Wolfshade's homepage!

Find More Posts by Arkan_Wolfshade

7th December 2006, 07:36 AM

realitybites

Graduate Poster

Join Date: May 2006

Location: Harrisburg, PA

Posts: 1,037

My Profile I love Killtown's thought process. From his blog:

Quote:

BREAKING: Daughter of alleged Flight 77 pilot found dead from "suspicious" apartment fire just 3 days after Doubletree video released. Apt complex never had a fire related incident before.

How many buildings in Jersey, apartment or otherwise, have never had a fire related incident before? Is this to mean that if a building has never caught fire before that it is impervious to flames?

I should tell my landlord that the fire extinguishers and smoke alarms in my building really aren't necessary.

__________________

This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers. A Must Read.

realitybites

View Public Profile

Visit realitybites's homepage!

Find More Posts by realitybites

7th December 2006, 07:47 AM

Oliver

~The Rascal~

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 11,141

My Profile Originally Posted by realitybites

I love Killtown's thought process. From his blog:

How many buildings in Jersey, apartment or otherwise, have never had a fire related incident before? Is this to mean that if a building has never caught fire before that it is impervious to flames?

I should tell my landlord that the fire extinguishers and smoke alarms in my building really aren't necessary.

Oh God! Killtown must be kidding.

__________________

Bush urges Arab nations to "treat their people with the dignity and respect they deserve."

Oliver

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Oliver

7th December 2006, 07:48 AM

Trigood

Muse

Join Date: Oct 2006

Posts: 600

My Profile Originally Posted by realitybites

I love Killtown's thought process. From his blog:

How many buildings in Jersey, apartment or otherwise, have never had a fire related incident before? Is this to mean that if a building has never caught fire before that it is impervious to flames?

I should tell my landlord that the fire extinguishers and smoke alarms in my building really aren't necessary.

This be the same reasoning that GW Bush used in one of the 2000 debates, when, in response to a question about health insurance for children, he remarked that, of course, children who weren't sick didn't need health care.

And regarding Dylan Avery's slander of a woman barely cold in her grave, methinks one's ISP can route through many far-and-wide places while one sits comfortably at home. Pah. Rule8 indeed.

__________________

Many of us spend our whole lives running from feeling with the mistaken belief that you cannot bear the pain. But you have already borne the pain. What you have not done is feel all you are beyond that pain.

-Kahlil Gibran

Trigood

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Trigood

7th December 2006, 07:52 AM

Oliver

~The Rascal~

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 11,141

My Profile Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Since you still have access over there, please report him through the invisionfree forum abuse link. What he is doing is a direct violation of their (LC's) ToS with invisionfree.

Its not my intention to grass about him to invisionfree,

beside the fact that the message of him was at their

blog, not their forum.

__________________

Bush urges Arab nations to "treat their people with the dignity and respect they deserve."

Oliver

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Oliver

7th December 2006, 07:57 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

Philosopher

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Making Stargate Worlds pwn ur face!

Posts: 7,151

Originally Posted by Oliver

Its not my intention to grass about him to invisionfree,

beside the fact that the message of him was at their

blog, not their forum.

The data was taken from the Invisionfree forums from someone acting as an administrator on the LC forums.

 

Quote:

4 Prohibited Behavior:

Users may not interfere with InvisionFree's servers or software.

Users may not attempt to access any restricted area that they do not have access to: this includes private forums, password protected forums, accounts of InvisionFree staff or other members, Control Panels, or any board's Admin CP.

Users may not post harmful or disruptive html/javascript.

Users may not reproduce, distribute, or publish Content posted by other users without the prior permission of the owner.

Excessive hotlinking by sites not located on an InvisionFree server of images hosted by InvisionFree is prohibited.

Users may not hotlink images from other websites without proper permission.

You may not abuse the report system by sending in false reports or flooding the system with duplicate reports.

You may not abuse the support ticket system by flooding the system with tickets.

http://invisionfree.com/index.php?p=tou

(bolding mine)

__________________

Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc.

Bender: I am forty percent zinc.

Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort.

Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

Arkan_Wolfshade

View Public Profile

Visit Arkan_Wolfshade's homepage!

Find More Posts by Arkan_Wolfshade

7th December 2006, 08:10 AM

njslim

Critical Thinker

Join Date: May 2006

Location: Jooisy - You got a problem with that?

Posts: 403

My Profile Fire is being labeled "suspect for the reason that the origin has not been

established , not because of any foul play. Live not too far from there and

know people in North Hudson FD (which covers that part of Hudson County)

and fire photograpers who photograph fire scenes. If anything funny going

on will probably hear about it. Till then looks like nothing but tragic accident

njslim

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by njslim

7th December 2006, 08:11 AM

Oliver

~The Rascal~

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 11,141

My Profile Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

The data was taken from the Invisionfree forums from someone acting as an administrator on the LC forums.

http://invisionfree.com/index.php?p=tou

(bolding mine)

http://invisionfree.com/report.php

__________________

Bush urges Arab nations to "treat their people with the dignity and respect they deserve."

Oliver

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Oliver

7th December 2006, 09:11 AM

Brainster

Illuminator

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 3,538

My Profile Candle Likely Culprit in Blaze

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to this story:

Quote:

The fire "started under the bed," said Hudson County Prosecutor Edward De Fazio, adding the burns were consistent with that of a candle.

And:

Quote:

De Fazio said Burlingame's death was not considered a homicide, but it had not been ruled out, adding: "Alcohol was likely involved." It was unclear which of the couple had been drinking.

__________________

Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog.

Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Brainster

View Public Profile

Visit Brainster's homepage!

Find More Posts by Brainster

7th December 2006, 09:36 AM

Pardalis

Penultimate Amazing

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Montréal

Posts: 12,513 Originally Posted by realitybites

I love Killtown's thought process. From his blog:

How many buildings in Jersey, apartment or otherwise, have never had a fire related incident before? Is this to mean that if a building has never caught fire before that it is impervious to flames?

I should tell my landlord that the fire extinguishers and smoke alarms in my building really aren't necessary.

My apartment building also never had a fire related incident before... Should I start to worry?

__________________

"It's much better to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has got it wrong because it doesn't share your point of view." aggle-rithm

"The twoofer mindset in a nutshell: If there's no video, it never happened; if there is video, it was faked." Horatius

Pardalis

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Pardalis

7th December 2006, 10:23 AM

realitybites

Graduate Poster

Join Date: May 2006

Location: Harrisburg, PA

Posts: 1,037

My Profile Originally Posted by Pardalis

My apartment building also never had a fire related incident before... Should I start to worry?

I've never been shot before, so I fear no mugging.

__________________

This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers. A Must Read.

realitybites

View Public Profile

Visit realitybites's homepage!

Find More Posts by realitybites

7th December 2006, 07:11 PM

Hamradioguy

Pyrrhonist

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Northern Vermont

Posts: 1,509

My Profile

The wind really blows hard up here on my hill. Last winter it blew over a tree that had never blown over before.

Hamradioguy

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Hamradioguy

7th December 2006, 08:59 PM

orphia nay

Ninja Wave: Rebel Ninja

Join Date: May 2005

Location: In Command of the Revolution's Gorilla Group II of Monkeys, Camels and Penguins (all named 'Spod').

Posts: 7,572

Originally Posted by PerryLogan

If the fire were part of a conspiracy, officials would not have called it suspicious. It would not have looked "suspicious." So we almost certainly have no conspiracy.

Truthers are so weird.

Exactly, Perry. If it was suspected arson, they would have called it 'suspected arson'. If it was suspected murder, they would have called it 'suspected murder'.

If you don't know exactly how a death happened, the death is 'suspicious'. I work for a Coroner's Court, and even when it's obvious it's suicide - when a known sufferer of depression and attempter of suicide has written 3 suicide notes and placed them next to themselves, and overdosed on tablets and left the packets next to themselves - it's still classified as 'suspicious' until a post-mortem, toxicology and police report have been done and a Coroner's finding has been made.

 

Originally Posted by Gravy

Loose Change Forum, September 4, 2006

...

Jack D:

No hijackers.

flight 77, if indeed it took off according to BTS data, was co-opted, or co-erced, into the war game -- either landed prematurely, crashed, shot down, or towed via the airborne AWACs planes that were airborne that day (out of tinker AFB and Omaha)

wendyb (apparently Wendy Burlingame):

"How can posters like Merc, Russell Pickering and Killtown sleep at night? How far will you go with your theories to take down a man who did nothing but serve his country and be a great father his whole life?

My father was in on it? I dare you people to make these allegations about my father to my family and I on 9-11 at Ground Zero. Make these allegations to our face.

You people make me sick."

I notice JohnDoeX has excelled himself at jumping to conclusions yet again.

Quote:

Wow... this is unimaginable.

Someone posting as Wendy responded to me over at Loose Change awhile back. Not sure if it was really her as i was having a spat with many different JREFers at once and it was a time when they were in their prime of making all kinds of sock puppets so i wouldnt put it past one of them to pose as Wendy.. But just in case it was her, i did send her my condolences and told her one of the main reasons we are investigating 9/11 is for the families and if she could contact me so we could talk about why we are investigating and that we mean no disrespect. That was the only post which came from someone who said she was Wendy and never heard a thing again. We were discussing The Common Strategy prior to 9/11 and how i dont know any pilot who would give up their aircraft (as suggested by Barbara Olsen to her husband Ted, via cell phone when she said all passengers, including the pilots were hearded to the back of the plane with a boxcutter). Deb Burlingame agrees that Charles would not have given up his plane without being 'eliminated'. So we are still researching this issue.

However, i cant fathom not making sure your girlfriend is right behind you (let alone IN FRONT OF YOU!).. not to mention not being able to get back in the apt. A friend of mine just recently broke his ribs breaking down his own door cause he locked himself out. I couldnt image leaving a live person inside a burning building that you just left.. especially a girlfriend. I hope they get to the bottom of it and i hope the boyfriend is known world-wide as the new 'George' (as in when George from Seinfeld ran out of the burning building first..)

Rest in peace and Godspeed Wendy.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...showtopic=2646

(Emphasis mine.)

Give with one hand, take away with the other, JDX. Whether it was Wendy Burlinghame or not, you know the points the poster made were valid, and you responded to her and tried to weasel your way out of your embarrassment, yet here you are yet again, casting aspersions without any evidence. When will you learn?

__________________

"You're weird." - Marquis de Carabas.

The 9/11 Truther (Twoofer) Credo.

orphia nay

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by orphia nay

7th December 2006, 11:21 PM

gtc

Master Poster

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: the land down under (not to be sung in German)

Posts: 2,916 I love the way, JDX talks positively about how stupid his friends are.

How do you manage to break your ribs trying to open a locked door?

gtc

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by gtc

8th December 2006, 10:09 AM

fuelair

Cythraul Enfys

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 10,637

My Profile Originally Posted by Oliver

Oh God! Killtown must be kidding.

Not enough brains has he to be kidding.

fuelair

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by fuelair

8th December 2006, 10:21 AM

Skeptic4Sure

Banned

Join Date: Sep 2006

Posts: 464

My Profile Originally Posted by Gravy

Loose Change Forum, September 4, 2006

Merc (apparently Skeptic4Sure here)

Well, **** anyone can only guess which "anti-terrorism" strategies he was working on at the Pentagon.

He's a pilot for crying out loud.

Gee. How many coincidences can you have in one day?

Oh the irony.

He could have been not been in on it.

wendyb (apparently Wendy Burlingame):

"How can posters like Merc, Russell Pickering and Killtown sleep at night? How far will you go with your theories to take down a man who did nothing but serve his country and be a great father his whole life?

My father was in on it? I dare you people to make these allegations about my father to my family and I on 9-11 at Ground Zero. Make these allegations to our face.

You people make me sick."

Nice to know you that your warmth and intelligent compassion brought some comfort to this 9/11 victim before she passed, isn't it, boys?

Mr. Roberts,

If you please note, Merc, not Skeptic4Sure, said he "could have been *not* been in on it."

Which is what he meant.

Why don't you post the link to the thread? Interesting how you didn't do that. Because if you did, people would have seen that a good portion of those posters, including Mr. Pickering, were commenting on the coindences surrounding the late Mr. Burlingame, his work at the Pentagon, and the fact that the impact point was in the section he used to work in-NOT that he was in on it. In other words he could have been sacrificed or double-crossed and "could have not been in on it".

Nice selective "quote mining".

You really shouldn't behave like a disinfo agent saboteur...it only fuels those conspiracy theorists.

Skeptic4Sure

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Skeptic4Sure

8th December 2006, 10:27 AM

yodaluver28

Scholar

Join Date: Oct 2006

Posts: 110

My Profile Quote:

You really shouldn't behave like a disinfo agent saboteur...it only fuels those conspiracy theorists.

Since only insane people see saboteurs who don't even exist hiding behind every door, I don't think he needs to worry about that.

yodaluver28

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by yodaluver28

8th December 2006, 11:53 AM

Gravy

Effectively ruled out by the persistence of the Moon

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Toasty in the argyle

Posts: 14,549

Originally Posted by Skeptic4Sure

Mr. Roberts,

If you please note, Merc, not Skeptic4Sure, said he "could have been *not* been in on it."

Which is what he meant.

Why don't you post the link to the thread? Interesting how you didn't do that. Because if you did, people would have seen that a good portion of those posters, including Mr. Pickering, were commenting on the coindences surrounding the late Mr. Burlingame, his work at the Pentagon, and the fact that the impact point was in the section he used to work in-NOT that he was in on it. In other words he could have been sacrificed or double-crossed and "could have not been in on it".

Nice selective "quote mining".

Remedial reading class continues:

"Well, sh** anyone can only guess which "anti-terrorism" strategies he was working on at the Pentagon.

He's a pilot for crying out loud.

Gee. How many coincidences can you have in one day?

Oh the irony.

He could have been not been in on it."

What a disgusting creep that Merc is.

The page with those quotes is saved on my computer. I don't have a link to the thread. Please provide it, Skeptic4Sure.

__________________

"I wouldn't give two cents for a girl without a temper." -High Sierra

"Some days are like that. Everyone you meet is an idiot. Then you look in the mirror and wonder about yourself." -Godard, Pierrot le Fou

........... My links for 9/11 research ---------Ben Stein's Expelled Exposed

Gravy

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Gravy

8th December 2006, 01:17 PM

Skeptic4Sure

Banned

Join Date: Sep 2006

Posts: 464

My Profile Originally Posted by Gravy

What a disgusting creep that Merc is.

Do you think that is very fair to call Merc that, without him here to represent himself?

Reported.

Skeptic4Sure

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Skeptic4Sure

8th December 2006, 01:40 PM

Bell

beautiful freak

Join Date: Sep 2006

Location: The Netherlands

Posts: 4,855 Originally Posted by Skeptic4Sure

Do you think that is very fair to call Merc that, without him here to represent himself?

Reported.

__________________

You gotta love Complexity.

Bell

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Bell

8th December 2006, 02:41 PM

chipmunk stew

The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy

Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: Media, PA

Posts: 5,381

My Profile

Originally Posted by Skeptic4Sure

Do you think that is very fair to call Merc that, without him here to represent himself?

Reported.

It's a good thing he has you here to "represent" him, then!

__________________

What exactly is this irrecoverable insight that allows our infinitely ineffective

masters to fail to rule us from deep within their impenetrable penumbra?

--PixyMisa, on the lost knowledge of the ancient philosophers,

and its exploitation by secret societies of the ruling elite

chipmunk stew

View Public Profile

Visit chipmunk stew's homepage!

Find More Posts by chipmunk stew

9th December 2006, 09:58 PM

fuelair

Cythraul Enfys

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 10,637

My Profile Originally Posted by Skeptic4Sure

Do you think that is very fair to call Merc that, without him here to represent himself?

Reported.

Sounds maroonic to me. Can I be reported please??!!!

fuelair

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by fuelair

9th December 2006, 10:00 PM

Pardalis

Penultimate Amazing

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Montréal

Posts: 12,513 S4S, shall I report you for accusing people like M. England of lying?

__________________ "It's much better to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has got it wrong because it doesn't share your point of view." aggle-rithm

"The twoofer mindset in a nutshell: If there's no video, it never happened; if there is video, it was faked." Horatius

A-3D Looks Like 757: lined up to hit the right wall, too

www.youtube.com/watch?v=r81u55jWTg8

As the Flight 77 passengers were off-loaded, an A-3D Skywarrior with underwing engines of the same configuration as a 757 painted to resemble an American Airlines bare metal plane took off or was already in the air to resume the phony flight 77 route masquerade to ram into the Pentagon. NOTE: the physical orientation to the west of the Pentagon places it conveniently in-line with the reinforced wall...over Smoky mountains to lose the ATC radar signal and just where there's a GAP in radar coverage!

Would Saudi civilians know where gaps in radar coverage would be? No! That's something a fighter-bomber pilot in the USAF or USN would know or be concerned about!

Why the Right-Hand Turn before Ramming Pentagon?

...after doing a RIGHT-HAND TURN when a pilot in the left hand seat would do a LEFT-HAND TURN to keep the Pentagon in view for the maximum time to circle back around to gain speed. The FACT that the whatever did a RIGHT-HAND 330 degree turn shows it was done REMOTELY and not by a pilot in the left-hand seat. Another "tell" perhaps by the remote controller to give us a clue without giving himself away to a body bag?

Why the turn at all? Why risk losing sight of the Pentagon? Why not fly straight-in? The plane was already lined up.


Explanation 1: BECAUSE VELOCITY WAS NEEDED TO HELP MASQUERADE A SMALL PLANE FOR A BIGGER 757 and the reinforced side had to be hit.

Explanation 2: We want to showboat to the Satanfolk down below at Illuminati Headquarters.....using the George Washington Masonic obelisk as Reference Point?


*****************

Wild Cards: Let's say Ted has a conscience: the main conspirators may have told Olson no one would be hurt in the 9/11 attacks because they'd happen early in the morning and high enough on the buildings so everyone would get out, the Pentagon would be hit on the reinforced side etc. However, if Ted had a conscience and some balls he would have already spoken out and exposed the conspiracy at great risk to himself. Apparently he's "no profile in courage" and has no conscience, either.

Barbara Olson's Mind-Set

WHY are her books not being quoted during the Hillary run for president? Maybe it was she who had at least a mentally overlaid conscience and Ted the psychopath who wanted to get rid of her? Her books are not being brought up today as they should to stop the Hillary-for-President madness...straight out of the book and movie, "The Manchurian Candidate".

Hell to Pay: the Unfolding Story of Hillary Clinton

http://books.google.com/books?id=yzLalExbVVUC&dq=barbara+olson+hell+to+pay&pg=PP1&ots=_VN-nwlI0w&sig=ta8UVh1B-RF7Y2gN2tkasU1SMWM&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dbarbara%2Bolson%2Bhell%2Bto%2Bpay%26btnG%3DSearch%26hl%3Den&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA1,M1

Observations:

The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=EXqxzRjUC80C&dq=barbara+olson+days&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=wpMxpKKy9m&sig=k8dtPKyPVi8ejYivtuFa1KYl5Po

Observations:

Page 10

Political compass vs. moral compass awareness by Barb

13

Co-presidency crap = Dick Cheney is FLOTUS, American people no oversight precedent handed to BushChen

Hillary: cold-blooded liar = psychopath

14

Federalist Society might be where 9/11 conspirators abide

16

Pardon Motive #1: Help Hillary for POTUS in the future

Some empathy for two boys left fatherless in FALN bombing

17

Lists primarily political expedience and not right/wrong reasons for not granting pardons to FALN bombers

Page 19

Former AG says PR terrorists pardons to help Hillary's political career

20

"Get away with it" as long as Americans are economically fat and happy...

22

640 pounds of HE; awareness of bombs

25

"Clinton needs people" = narcissistic supply

Clinton was gone from White House 1/8th of the time dodging controversy, Bush learnt same evasion; $500M cost

28

Barb like a neocon buys into anti-commie Domino theory reason for Vietnam ignoring actual corporate greed cause, mentions word "psychotic"

Pro-Dubya marine guard fascist remark

How is our bombing of civilians propaganda and exploitation? Did we do it or did we not?

31

Moral equivalence remarks by Barb shows ignorance that we refused to allow free elections in 1958 as promised causing the 2nd Indo-China war, very Stalinist of us, huh?

Barbara on Sneaking Away

www.dailyhowler.com/h072301_1.shtml

23 July 2001

Our current howler: Train wreck

Synopsis: When Barbara Olson studied Amtrak, all (rail)roads led straight back to sex.
Commentary by Barbara Olson, Larry King, Nancy Grace
Larry King Live, CNN, 7/20/01
Commentary by Susan Levy
The Today Show, NBC, 5/17/01
Missing Intern's Family Asks Condit for Help
Petula Dvorak and Allan Lengel, The Washington Post, 6/15/01


Where do they find them? Where in the world do they find human beings as disordered as Larry King's pundits? On Friday, the police released a list of websites which Chandra Levy visited on May 1. "Barbara Olson," King asked Friday night, "do we learn anything from the web sites released today?" And when Olson responded, we got a real treat. We saw the way a "former prosecutor" can tear a tough case right apart:

OLSON: Well, it's interesting. I was looking-you know, they said her travel plans. I thought that was interesting. Southwest Airlines, seems like they do fly not into San Francisco but Oakland. And then I looked at Amtrak. I thought, well, she wouldn't be going from Washington to Modesto on Amtrak. But if you flew into Oakland, you could take a train down.

KING: Yes.

OLSON: The problem is, that doesn't seem like the kind of travel she would take to go back home to see her parents. She would fly closer in. So I don't know what other travel sites she was looking at. I'm sure they see-they know the exact location for Amtrak that she was looking at. Was it to meet someone, to see someone?

Amazing, isn't it? Let's examine the way Olson's mind works.

Pursuit of the facts

A former prosecutor, Olson is strangely unskilled when it comes to pursuit of simple facts. In this instance, she's done some nosing around about Southwest Airlines. "Southwest Airlines," she reports to King, "seems like they do fly not into San Francisco but Oakland." We couldn't help chuckling at Olson's construction. It "seems" that Southwest goes into Oakland? She makes it sound like the airline's operations are some sort of closely-held corporate secret. You have to check with shadowy sources, and even then you're not sure of the facts.

In reality, Southwest Airlines now publishes "schedules," which it hands out at airports and has placed on the web. As it turns out, Southwest does indeed fly into Oakland, as Olson has heard from her unnamed sources. But it also flies into Sacramento-a straight shot up Route 5 from Modesto (see road maps, published by Rand McNally)-and Southwest flies into San Jose, the closest site to Levy's home.

Life on the streets

Olson is weak at pursuit of the facts, but she also seems to lack those key street smarts. To Olson, Southwest Airlines just doesn't smell right. "That doesn't seem like the kind of travel she would take to go back home to see her parents," Olson says. "She would fly closer in." Surely, no one familiar with life on this planet will need to be told just how stupid this is. In today's world, people go ten states out of their way to take advantage of Southwest's fares. Apparently, Olson has been lounging on corporate jets for so long she doesn't know how the great unwashed do it. King might as well revive Piltdown Man and let him discuss Levy's travel strategies.

Background research

Far more striking is Olson's refusal to do any homework on this case. Indeed, she seems to have open contempt for her responsibilities as a national commentator. "I looked at Amtrak," she reports to King. "I thought, well, she wouldn't be going from Washington to Modesto on Amtrak." She wouldn't? Is there anything Olson does know about this case? Here was Susan Levy, Chandra's mother, on the May 17 Today show:

SUSAN LEVY: She was talking about possibly taking an Amtrak train across the United States, as she likes to train travel.

Oops! But then, the same information also appeared in the June 15 Washington Post:

DVORAK AND LENGEL: Chandra canceled her membership at the Washington Sports Club on Connecticut Avenue NW on April 30. At some point, she e-mailed super-saver airfares to her mother. She also told Susan Levy that she might take the train home.

Doh! If Olson had made the simplest effort, she would have known these basic facts. In case you're wondering, by the way, there's an Amtrak station right in Modesto. You take the "California Zephyr" from Chicago to Martinez, CA, and connect for Modesto two hours later. Following Southwest Airlines' lead, Amtrak releases this info.

So here's our question: Do you know anyone-anyone at all-who knows less about her daily business than Olson knows about this case? Could normal people function like this? For example, what would happen to a real estate agent who knew next to nothing about her listings, and didn't have the slightest idea how she might find out? A normal person couldn't survive in Olson's total know-nothing state.

But Olson isn't a normal person-she's an important national figure, offering nightly commentary on one of our most influential TV shows. And, despite her ignorance of basic facts, she constantly insinuates that a public figure has actually committed a murder! It's hard to believe that such repulsive conduct would be tolerated for a minute in any other sector. Why in the world does Larry King keep pundits like this on his show?

Why she's there

Clearly, there is absolutely no due diligence required of Larry King's guests. They aren't required to know basic facts; and they aren't required to make accurate statements. (They are required to wring their hands, of course, and swear this is all about Chandra.)

But there's one other thing they're expected to do-they're expected to rub their thighs each night, and bring the thrilling tale back to sex. And so Barbara Olson's laughable "research" did have an obvious method. Rejecting the notion that Levy would go home by train, Olson took the train where she wanted to go. She quickly concocted a thrilling speculation: Was Levy considering Amtrak "to meet someone, to see someone?" We'll say out loud what Olson implied: Chandra Levy was checking out Amtrak to meet Gary Condit and fuck. (Olson, of course, also spent time complaining that Condit has dragged Chandra through the mud.)

Read back through Olson's risible comments on what those travel sites meant. Nowhere else are people allowed to be so incompetent in public. But, irresponsible and hapless though the pundit may be, there were methods to her surface dysfunction. As a partisan, she wants to hang the Democrat Condit (and keep the president out of the news). As a pundit, she wants to bring the tale back to sex. As such, she is willing to say whatever it takes to make all (rail)roads lead to sex. And Larry King allows this conduct-indeed, his producers now seek it.

Yep. Barbara Olson's repellent conduct was on display again Friday night. But so, of course, was the new tabloid soul of Larry King's irresponsible program.

Tomorrow: What did Condit tell the police? The pundits know what they can't mention.

The occasional update (7/23/01)

Not so amazin': Nancy Grace don't reed much neeither. On Friday night, King mentioned a Newsweek report about Condit's May 1 schedule. Predictably, King was wrong on his basic facts; the report to which he referred was already posted on Newsweek's website:

KING: Newsweek magazine will report on Monday, panel, that Condit on May 1, the day in question, had a private meeting with Dick Cheney on Capitol Hill to discuss the California energy crisis. The meeting began at 12:30, lasted for 20 to 25 minutes. And then Newsweek reports that Condit went back to his office and stayed there until 5 p.m. doing office work. Does that, Nancy, give him an alibi?

GRACE: Absolutely not. We know she logged off her computer around 1:00. That was the last that was seen or heard of her.

KING: But he's working till 5 o'clock.

GRACE: Till 5 o'clock. And then what?

KING: Well, we don't know.

GRACE: Then we don't know. I'd like to know.

Grace spends so much time accusing Condit of murder that she doesn't keep up with her reading. As she spoke, the full timetable was on Newsweek's website. Among other things, the Isikoff/Hosenball report said this: "Around 5 p.m., Condit left his office and went to a doctor's appointment, returning to Capitol Hill sometime after 6 p.m. to vote twice on the House floor on resolutions involving autism and supporting National Charter Schools Week." Those, of course, are recorded votes. By the way, nothing kept Grace and her Court TV staff from finding that out on their own. As she endlessly intones on King's show, she's had [insert number] days now to do it.

"Well, we don't know," the hapless King said. That's so true. Now our question: "Why not?"

Ted Olson-Psycho/Sociopath like George W. Bush?

http://ponerology.blogspot.com/2005/12/role-of-psychopath-in-generation-of.html

They learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to them.

Many of them can be found in white-collar professions where they are aided in their evil by the fact that most people expect certain classes of people to be trustworthy because of their social or professional credentials. Lawyers, doctors, teachers, politicians, psychiatrists and psychologists, generally do not have to earn our trust because they have it by virtue of their positions.

Psychopaths make their way by conning people into doing things for them; obtaining money for them, prestige, power, or even standing up for them when others try to expose them. But that is their claim to fame. That's what they do. And they do it very well. What's more, the job is very easy because most people are gullible with an unshakable belief in the inherent goodness of man which, I should add, has been programmed into normal people by psychopaths.

A SURPRISING CONCLUSION

The awful nightmare presented here does not have to end in personal destruction of everyone involved--I am talking about of even the conspiracy group people themselves. In the final analysis, whether you gain control of the world or not is at best a temporary relief from death which is really our common enemy. Being able to state you had the entire world playing to your sheet of music isn't going to cut-the-mustard with God the Creator, either. The metaphysical verdict is going to be against each one of us as individuals for what we did or did not do in this life, so we should realize we are all in the same boat and that we are all really fighting for eachother once we get our causes sorted out for the good. We are not doomed as long as we yet live and have the ability to choose to do the right thing. God offers a complete pardon by himself dying in our place through the Lord Jesus Christ, google John 3:16 for more details on how to sign-up to receive it.

Moreover, this ugly chain-of-events of people having been born with no conscience doing horrible crimes does not have to conclude like a Greek tragedy with everyone falling in the end as the only justice possible. There is an even better justice than personal destruction possible; the enemy can have a change of heart and become our friends. Consider the recent film about the American Gangster documenting the true story of prosecutor Ricky Roberts and mobster Frank Lucas.

Its been an honor to fight with you so we can all come to our senses sooner.....

I wish you only the best in persuading you to change your views for your own ultimate best interests--and all of mankind's as well. I care for you. This may not mean anything to you, you may have been born without or have lost your conscience.

If you don't feel anything for your fellow man, I ask you one favor;

Don't choose that to be your appointed, defeated end; If you can't feel love for your fellow man, then THINK IT, chose it, choose to give-a-damn, let this be your definition, go out a winner, a hero---because there's HONOR in it. Go against the stereotype, go against the script, you still have that choice to stand in the face of it all. There's honor in doing what's right--even if you don't feel it in your heart, there's honor in standing up for human beings, because such men deserve a new heart when the Creator comes back and restores all things. Be THAT MAN.

If you know things that will expose the guilty men who did the 9/11 murders, come forward. End this plague of death that has swept across America and over the world. You may have thought at the time, a fake attack would stir up the best in America; but we all know now it was wrong. If you would change your mind and chose honor over evil, your place in the hearts of all mankind will be of a beloved who came to his senses in the face of perilous opposition and came through for us all. WE WILL SALUTE THAT MAN.

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness
."

-- William O Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.


NOTES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods OPTION

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

Cell Phones Don't Work

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials

by David Ray Griffin

Global Research, April 1, 2008

David Ray Griffin

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: "Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN." According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77," saying that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters."[2]

Ted Olson's report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation's support for the Bush administration's "war on terror." Ted Olson's report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.[3]

However, although Ted Olson's report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.

Olson's Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone." But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the "airplane phone," he surmised, because "she somehow didn't have access to her credit cards."[4] However, this version of Olson's story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live! that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well."[5] After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used "the phone in the passengers' seats" because she did not have her purse.[6]

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson's statement that "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well" was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004. [7]

However, Olson's second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson's Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA's website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: "That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack." [8]

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Olson's Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson's story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an "unconnected call," which (of course) lasted "0 seconds." [9] According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77. [10] And yet the FBI's report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ's former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson's Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson's story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.[11]

According to Olson, his wife had said that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers." [12] This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even "[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5'5" and 5'7" in height and slender in build" [13]), and that the pilot, Charles "Chic" Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as "really tough" by one of his erstwhile opponents.[14] Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: "I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane." [15]

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that "the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots." [16]

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson's story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson's claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.[17] In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson's report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

NOTES

1. This essay is based on Chapter 8 ("Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?") of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).

2. Tim O'Brien, "Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane," CNN, September 11, 2001 (
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).

3. This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8.

4. Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html).

5. "America's New War: Recovering from Tragedy," Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).

6. In his "Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture," delivered November 16, 2001
(
http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),

Olson said that she "somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call." He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, "She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane," Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html).

'She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane'

by Toby Harnden
The Telegraph
March 5, 2002

U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson's wife, Barbara, was the first victim of the September 11 terrorist attacks to be named. He tells Toby Harnden of her bravery during her final call from the hijacked plane - and of his determination to fight back

A little over two months after his wife was killed on September 11, Ted Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, received a photograph from the U.S. Air Force. It showed a laser-guided missile before it was launched from a strike aircraft against a Taliban target in Afghanistan. The name Barbara Olson had been chalked on the side of the weapon in her memory.

"It looked like a 500lb bomb," says Ted Olson, his grief-racked face creasing into a smile for the first time in nearly an hour. "She would have liked that. Barbara was a warrior, so she would have wanted to fight back. And she would have applauded the people who did go and fight back."

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, has described Barbara, a writer, lawyer and political commentator, as "Ted's departed Spitfire". Apart from the Clintons, she and her husband were probably America's most combative couple - he in the courtroom and she on the talk shows, America's 21st-century court of public opinion. The couple liked to joke that they were at the heart of what Hillary Clinton - the subject of Barbara's excoriating biography Hell to Pay - famously described as a "vast, right-wing conspiracy".

Their beautiful colonial-style mansion in Great Falls, Virginia, was the venue for huge parties at which the conservative intelligentsia would gather. The Olsons were wine connoisseurs and would often travel to California to replenish their cellar.

She always drove a Jaguar; he preferred a Mercedes, after years of favouring Porsches. They shared a love of poetry, Shakespeare and the opera and were keen collectors of modern art. He named their first Australian Shepherd dog Maggie, after Lady Thatcher. She called the second one Reagan, after the president her husband had represented during the Iran-Contra hearings in the 1980s.

They were married in 1996, he for the third time and she for the second, but they seemed more like high-school sweethearts. Throughout the working day, they would speak on what they called the "bat phone". Each would turn down dinner invitations if the other was not included.

Today, Ted looks wretched; his eyes begin to redden and he occasionally wipes away a tear as he talks. He returned to work six days after September 11 and has been putting in 80-hour weeks ever since, leaving home each morning at 5.30am. Among the issues he has championed has been new anti-terrorist legislation.

He has rationalised his wife's death, but still seems unable to accept she is gone. "You see a blonde woman walking through a crowd, or you see something that reminds you of that person, the way a person turns their head, or their shoes - Barbara wore these very flashy, high-heeled shoes - things like that," he says. "I get reminded of her in scores of ways every day, in something I see or something that flashes through my mind."

We are sitting in the office of the Solicitor General on the fifth floor of the Justice Department building in Washington. One wall is lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court arguments. An ancient, well-thumbed copy of the U.S. constitution is propped up on Olson's reassuringly untidy desk.

This is the man who argued in the Supreme Court for the winning side in the Bush versus Gore case that decided the presidential election in 2000. As a result, Olson's Democratic opponents in the Senate came close to blocking his nomination as the Bush administration's chief courtroom advocate. Soon, he will be defending Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to hand over documents to Congress as part of the investigation into the Enron scandal, and he will have to do so without his staunchest ally.

In their 11 years together, the Olsons seemed indivisible, as well as formidable. "Everybody identified us as 'Barbara and Ted'," he says. "It wasn't 'Ted' and 'Barbara' separately. It was a love affair, and a deep, abiding friendship. It was a partnership in every sense of the word."

The final time I saw them together was last summer, at a small dinner on Capitol Hill. Olson had just won his nomination fight and gave us an update on the partisan struggle that was shaping up in Congress. "We are at war," I remember him saying, as his wife nodded vigorously in agreement.

A few weeks later, I interviewed Barbara and three other conservative women about the new mood in Washington. A loose comment of hers - that President Bill Clinton's late mother had been "a bar-fly" who had allowed herself to be used by men - was noticed by the Washington Post and Democrats rushed to castigate her for being cruel and unfeeling. Many people would have blamed the journalist for misquoting her or tried to wriggle out some other way, but Barbara Olson didn't.

"Barbara's reaction was, 'I did say it'," says Ted. "She would never duck responsibility. It was a hurtful thing and she wished she hadn't said it. She thought the right thing to do was to make a forthright, unequivocal, direct apology, so she did. That's the kind of thing that I respect. She didn't try to soften it. She would not run away from the consequences of her actions."

It was her last newspaper interview. On September 11, American Airlines Flight 77 plunged into the Pentagon with Barbara Olson on board. It was Ted Olson's 61st birthday that day and Barbara had delayed flying to Los Angeles so they could celebrate over dinner the night before.

That morning, a nightmare began to unfold in the room where we are now sitting. "Someone rushed in and told me what had happened. I went into the other room, where there's a television," Olson says. "It went through my mind, 'My God, maybe - Barbara's on an airplane, and two airplanes have been crashed', you know."

Then his secretary told him that Barbara was on the line. "My first reaction when I heard she was on the phone was relief, because I knew that she wasn't on one of those two airplanes." But Barbara then explained calmly that she had been herded to the back of the Boeing 757 she was on, along with the other passengers.

"She had had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats," says Olson. "I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy."

He was able to tell her about the World Trade Centre attacks before the line went dead, then he called his departmental command centre to let them know another plane had been hijacked. The phone rang again and it was Barbara.

"She wanted to know, 'What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?' I tried to find out where she thought she was - I wanted to know where the airplane was and what direction it was going in, because I thought that was the first step to being able to do something.

"We both tried to reassure one another that everything was going to be OK, she was still alive, the plane was still up in the air. But I think she knew that it wasn't going to be OK and I knew it wasn't going to be OK."

They were able to have "personal exchanges", he says, before they were cut off in mid-conversation. "It just stopped. It could be the impact, although I think she would have There's no point in speculating."

As soon as he heard a plane had crashed at the Pentagon, he says, "I knew it was her". Olson's voice, which his wife once described as a "rich, rumbling, sort of makes-your-ribs-vibrate" sound, begins to scratch like tired feet wading through gravel. It drops to a whisper and he fetches a glass of water.

He returns and explains that his wife's last moments were typical of her. "It was a deeply embedded part of Barbara's character that she would not have stood by and done nothing. She was engaged in living. She would not accept that things could be done to her without her doing something about it. She was passionate. She was brave. She was involved."

He remained in the office for several hours, telephoning friends and family to let them know Barbara was dead. "There was no point in trying to go home," he says. "The streets were jammed with people trying to move, and no one was moving. So I stayed here until about two o'clock."

Soon, Barbara Olson became the first victim of the attacks to be named on television. She was also the most famous person to die that day.

That afternoon, friends began to gather at the Olsons' house. Ken Starr, the independent counsel who nearly removed president Bill Clinton from office, manned the telephone. Among those who rang to offer their condolences were the two busiest men in America - Mr Bush, who called from Air Force One, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York.

Finally, at 1am, Olson went upstairs to bed. On his pillow he found a note his wife had left less than 20 hours earlier. "I love you," it said. "When you read this, I will be thinking of you and I will be back on Friday."

Olson compares her defiance at the end of her life with that of the heroes of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. "Barbara didn't have as much warning, and I don't think she had as many resources," he says. "But it would have been entirely within her character to take action herself."

By killing Barbara Olson, the terrorists incurred the wrath of America, from the White House to the scores of thousands of ordinary people who turned her posthumously published The Final Days, about the controversial end of the Clinton presidency, into a best-seller.

During a recent visit to Florida, when Mr Bush was asked by schoolchildren in Orlando how he had felt on September 11, he told them: "I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America." His use of the title of Barbara Olson's first book was no accident.

"9/11 has stiffened the resolve of people in this country, and Barbara was quintessentially American," says Olson. "She was Texan. She was a ballet dancer. She worked in the movie industry. She went to a Catholic college and to a Jewish law school. She was a lawyer. She worked as a government investigator, best-selling author, television commentator. And she was only 45. She was successful because of something about the culture of this country."

Suddenly, the Solicitor General, who has been slumped in his chair, sits bolt upright. "We are going to fight back," he says, deliberately. "We are not going to quit. We are not going to stop. We are not going to forget."

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002.

7. I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97.

8. See the submission of 17 February 2006 by "the Paradroid" on the Politik Forum (
http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75.

9. United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution
/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in "Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights"
(
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).

10. FBI, "Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic]," "9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11," 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
(
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-docum
ents.html).

11. Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007).

12. O'Brien, "Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane."

13. 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf).

14. Shoestring, "The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?" Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-r
eally.html).

15. "In Memoriam: Charles 'Chic' Burlingame, 1949-2001," USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html).

16.Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007), 12.

17.
Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are records proving that the Department of Justice received two collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning. Evidently no such records have been produced.

This article is based on Chapter 8 of Dr. Griffin's new book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).

This book reframes the central events of 9/11 as a series of 25 internal contradictions. The only way that its readers will be able to continue to accept the official story is to accept mutually contradictory accounts.

9/11 Contradictions may have the best chance of any of DRG's books (or indeed any book) of opening up a new investigation into 9/11.

David Ray Griffin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by David Ray Griffin

Ted Olson

www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/tolson

Theodore B. OlsonHome > Lawyers > Theodore B. Olson

Partner
tolson
T: (202) 955-8668
F: (202) 530-9575
Washington, D.C. Office
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
USA

Theodore B. Olson is a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Washington, D.C. office; a member of the firm's Executive Committee, Co-Chair of the Appellate and Constitutional Law Group and the firm's Crisis Management Team.

Mr. Olson was Solicitor General of the United States during the period 2001-2004. From 1981-1984 he was Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. Except for those two intervals, he has been a lawyer with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. since 1965.

Mr. Olson is one of the nation's premier appellate and United States Supreme Court advocates. He has argued 49 cases in the Supreme Court, including Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board and Bush v. Gore , stemming from the 2000 presidential election; prevailing in over 75% of those arguments. Mr. Olson's practice is concentrated on appellate and constitutional law, federal legislation, media and commercial disputes, and assisting clients with strategies for the containment, management and resolution of major legal crises occurring at the federal/state, criminal/civil and domestic/international levels. He has handled cases at all levels of state and federal court systems throughout the United States, and in international tribunals.

Mr. Olson's Supreme Court arguments have included cases involving separation of powers; federalism; voting rights; the First Amendment; the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses; sentencing; jury trial rights; punitive damages; takings of property and just compensation; the Commerce Clause; taxation; immigration; criminal law; copyright; antitrust; securities; telecommunications; the internet; and other federal constitutional and statutory questions.

As Solicitor General, during the presidency of George W. Bush, Mr. Olson was the Government's principal advocate in the United States Supreme Court, responsible for supervising and coordinating all appellate litigation of the United States, and a legal adviser to the President and the Attorney General. As Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan Administration, Mr. Olson was the Executive Branch's principal legal adviser, rendering legal guidance to the President and to the heads of the Executive Branch departments on a wide range of constitutional and federal statutory questions, and assisting in formulating and articulating the Executive Branch's position on constitutional issues.

Mr. Olson has served as private counsel to two Presidents, Ronald W. Reagan and George W. Bush, in addition to serving those two Presidents in high-level positions in the Department of Justice. He has twice received the United States Department of Justice's Edmund J. Randolph Award, named for the first Attorney General, its highest award for public service and leadership. He has also been awarded the Department of Defense's highest civilian award for his advocacy in the courts of the United States, including the Supreme Court, on behalf of that Department. He was a visiting scholar at the National Constitution Center in 2007.

Mr. Olson is a Fellow of both the American College of Trial Lawyers and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. The National Law Journal has repeatedly listed him as one of America's Most Influential Lawyers. The American Lawyer and Legal Times have characterized Mr. Olson as one of America's leading advocates. In December of 2007, Washingtonian magazine listed him as number one on its list of finest lawyers in the nation's capital. The New York Times columnist William Safire has described Mr. Olson as this generation's "most persuasive advocate" before the Supreme Court and "the most effective Solicitor General" in decades.

Mr. Olson received his law degree in 1965 from the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall) where he was a member of the California Law Review and Order of the Coif. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of the Pacific, where he was recognized as the outstanding graduating student in both forensics and journalism. Mr. Olson has written and lectured extensively on appellate advocacy, oral communication in the courtroom, civil justice reform, punitive damages, and constitutional and administrative law.

Selected Appellate Litigation [PDF]

PRACTICES
Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice
Appellate and Constitutional Law
Crisis Management
Intellectual Property
Media and Entertainment
Public Policy
Securities Litigation
White Collar Defense and Investigations

EDUCATION
University of California - Berkeley, 1965
Juris Doctor
University of the Pacific, 1962
Bachelor of Arts

BAR ADMISSIONS
California
District of Columbia

Ted doesn't look too upset about losing "Barbara Olson" referring to her in the third person. His speech is canned boiler plate!

www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/spring2002/lost/

Cardozo Memorial Speech

Innately American
Theodore B. Olson
Solicitor General of the United States

Four and one-half seemingly endless months ago, on September 11, our nation was savagely attacked, thousands of our citizens were murdered and tens of thousands more lost spouses, children, parents, family members, neighbors, co-workers and friends.

This was a brutal assault on America, Americans, and American ideals. The victims of September 11 were persons of all races, backgrounds, religions, ages, and qualities. They were walking, talking, living symbols of America to the impoverished, enslaved, and persecuted people of the world who long to come to America or to live lives of freedom, democracy, and equality, and to enjoy the right to pursue happiness and prosperity.

Sadly, two of the persons so cruelly taken from us on September 11, Barbara Bracher Olson and Andrew Steven Zucker, were alumni of this wonderful law school. I did not know Mr. Zucker, but I was blessed to know, love, and be married to Barbara Olson. Let me say just a few words about her.

Many people loved and admired Barbara. But whether you loved and admired her values, her spunk, her energy, her passion, her courage, her unconquerable spirit, or her incredible warmth, whether you knew it or not, underneath it all, you admired and were captivated by Barbara, in part because she was pretty darn close to being a quintessential American.

Barbara was a Texan, from a family whose ancestors came to this country from Germany, so she was a descendant of immigrants, like virtually all of us.

Barbara went to the University of Texas and a Catholic university, St. Thomas, in Houston. She became a professional ballet dancer in San Francisco and New York because of the beauty of dance and the rigor of its discipline, and because you have to be extraordinarily tough and ambitious to do it. And Barbara was extraordinarily tough and ambitious.


She could be charming, tough, indefatigable, ferocious, and lovable. And all those things at once.


But Barbara always wanted to be a lawyer and to be involved in government. In order to afford law school, she invented a career out of whole cloth in Hollywood because, she calculated, that was the fastest way to earn the money she needed. It did not trouble Barbara that she knew absolutely nothing about the motion picture and television industry. And, in fact, it really didn't matter because, as she later explained to the unwitting producer who gave her a first job, she was a "fast-learner."

And, of course, she succeeded. She turned down the last job tendered to her because they were offering too much money and she did not want to be tempted to forego her dream to be a lawyer.

She came here to Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, not necessarily the obvious choice for a blond Catholic girl from Texas. But she thrived at Cardozo as she had thrived at St. Thomas and in the ballet and in Hollywood. She loved Cardozo, the students, the classes, the professors, the dean.

Barbara created a Federalist Society chapter here in this hotbed of conservative legal thought. She loved to tell me how she talked the dean into allowing her to use his conference room for the first meeting, how she convinced 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kolinsky to be her first speaker, and how she schemed to find the right kosher food to entice a respectable audience to her subversive gathering.

In her third year of law school, Barbara somehow managed to finesse herself into an internship in the Department of Justice in Washington. And, as a very brassy and gutsy intern, she managed to be the only employee of the government of the United States willing, feisty, and fearless enough to personally serve the papers on the PLO mission to the United Nations in New York announcing that it was being expelled from this country-because they were terrorists. How proud Barbara was to tell that story to her friends at Cardozo!

After law school, she turned down jobs with the finest law firms in New York to go to Washington where, it seems, she was always destined to be. In rapid succession, she succeeded as a lawyer at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in private practice, as a hot and very successful federal prosecutor, as deputy general counsel and solicitor to the house of representatives, and as a top congressional investigator, television personality, and lobbyist.

It was typical of Barbara that when her publisher suggested that she write a book about Hillary Rodham Clinton, she literally jumped at the chance. She told me at the time that she wasn't sure that she was a writer, but a friend of ours told her that she didn't have to be a writer to be an author. So, with her legendary energy and limitless self-confidence, she poured herself into the book, finished it in nine months and, against seemingly insurmountable odds, without any previous experience with serious writing, climbed onto The New York Times best-seller list during the most competitive time of the year, and stayed there for nine weeks.

Her second book, written in about six months last year and finished just days before her death, has been in the top seven on The New York Times best-seller list for 13 successive weeks.

Barbara was everywhere in Washington. A witness for Clarence Thomas at his confirmation, a cofounder of the Independent Women's Forum, hosting Federalist Society members from all over the country in her home, at the epicenter of the Travel Office and Filegate investigations, the second-most invited guest ever on Larry King Live, appearing on MSNBC, Fox, Meet the Press, Cross-Fire, Politically Incorrect, you name it. Ready to talk about any subject, ready to face down any adversary. She always had an opinion. And she always had that disarming, captivating, endearing smile.

In short, Barbara partook of everything life gave her. She saw no limits in the people around her, and she accepted no limits on what she could accomplish. She could be charming, tough, indefatigable, ferocious, and lovable. And all those things at once.

Barbara was Barbara because America, unlike anyplace in the world, gave her the space, freedom, oxygen, encouragement, and inspiration to be whatever she wanted to be.

So, sadly and ironically, Barbara may have been the perfect victim for those twisted, hateful terrorists: because she was so thoroughly and innately an American. And such a symbol of America's values, ideals, and robust ambition. And she died as she lived. Calling for help repeatedly from her hijacked flight, fighting, believing in herself, and determined to succeed. So, if she was the perfect victim, she is also a perfect symbol of what we are fighting for now and for America's strengths, ingenuity, passion, and determination, the qualities that assure ultimate success against hatred, evil, and brutality.

I know, and Barbara knows, that her government and the people of America will win this war, however long it takes, whatever we have to do. We will prevail for Barbara Bracher Olson and Andrew Steven Zucker and all the other Americans we lost on September 11. And for the American spirit for which they stood and which their lives embodied. And, most of all, we will defeat these terrorists because Barbara and Andrew and those other American casualties of September 11, and our forebears, and our children, would never forgive us if we did not.

www.fed-soc.org/BKOlsonMemorialLecture/bkolsonlecture-111601.htm
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987032/posts

Ted Olsen Discussed Barbara and WOT - 11/16/01
Federalist Society | November 16, 2001 | Ted Olsen

Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 10:50:13 AM by Peach

A friend and neighbor worked with Ted Olsen in the Reagan Justice Department and sent this via e-mail.

Although it is nearly two years old, the speech highlights excellent analysis regarding the war on terror and why the terrorists want to destroy America.

Ted Olson, 11/16/01:

"As you have been told, the Federalist Society envisions that the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture each year will address the ideals and principles that the Federalist Society holds dear and that Barbara cherished: limited government, liberty and freedom.

I felt that it would be fitting to inaugurate this series with some words about Barbara, why she died, and how much of her life and death were interwoven with those very principles that will animate the lecture series in her name.

On September 11, 2001,
Barbara Olson and thousands of other Americans were murdered.

There were victims from other nations that day as well, but they were accidental casualties. Barbara and her fellow Americans were the targets; selected at random to be slaughtered that day precisely because they were Americans.

And the places of their deaths were carefully chosen for what they meant to America, and to the world about Americans, and because they were unique symbols of America's vitality, prosperity and strength.

The World Trade Center Towers were an emblem of America's largest and most prosperous city and an internationally recognized symbol of America's leadership in commerce, free enterprise and international trade.

The Pentagon was an even more fitting target for the perverted minds that planned this day of terror. Construction on it had begun precisely 60 years earlier, on September 11, 1941, as America was awakening to the nightmare of Adolph Hitler and Nazi terror in Europe. Since its construction, the Pentagon has stood for the power, strength and seeming invincibility of a free people. It has been the place from which America, again and again, sent its men and women to fight and die to save not only our own citizens, but millions of others as well, from tyranny, oppression, brutality and murder.

One additional symbol of America, the Capitol I believe, was spared that day only because the brave Americans on that fourth aircraft did what Americans instinctively do when their lives and their country are threatened. They fought. They died, but they saved the lives of countless others and averted an even greater and barely imaginable tragedy.

Barbara Olson had less time, and maybe not as many resources, as the heroes on United Flight 93 that was brought down in Pennsylvania short of its target. But the moment her flight was hijacked, she began to try to save herself and her fellow passengers. She somehow managed (I
think she was the only one on that flight to do so) to use a telephone in the airplane to call, not only for help from the outside, but for guidance for herself and the flight crew in the battle that she was already undertaking in her mind. She learned during those two telephone conversations that two passenger jumbo jets had already that morning been turned into instruments of mass murder at the World Trade Center. So she knew the unspeakable horror that she was facing -- and I know without the slightest doubt that she died fighting -- with her body, her brain and her heart -- and not for a moment entertaining the notion that she would not prevail. Barbara died therefore not only because she was an American, but as one more American who refused to surrender to the monstrous evil into whose eyes she and her fellow countrymen stared during those last hideous moments.

September 11, 2001 was unprecedented in our nation's history. Our country has been attacked before. Our soldiers and innocent citizens have been the victims of terrorism before. But never before in our history have so many civilian citizens, engaged in the routines of their daily lives, who neither individually nor collectively had done anything to provoke the savage attack that they were to experience that day, been brutally murdered for the simple reason that they were Americans, and because they stood, in their countless individual lives, for all the things that America symbolizes.


As President Bush immediately recognized, September 11 was an act of war. But, as he has also explained, it was much more than that. It was also a crime, an act of pure hatred and unmitigated evil. It was a ruthless, brutal, intentionally malignant attack on thousands of innocent persons.

Think of the sick calculation that gave birth to these acts. The victims were persons of all races, backgrounds, religions, ages and qualities. They had one thing in common. They were Americans, Americans who believed in the values that their country stands for: liberty, democracy, freedom and equality. Their lives were cruelly extinguished because they were the living embodiment of the aspirations of most of the world's peoples. The people who killed them, and who planned their death, hate America and Americans for that very reason. They despise America and the beacon that America holds out to people who are impoverished, enslaved, persecuted and subjugated everywhere in the world. The men who planned the savage acts of September 11 cannot prevail, they cannot even long exist, as long as American ideals continue to inspire the very people they hope to tyrannize and enslave. Hence they have declared war, in fact they have declared hatred, on this country and the values that we hold dearest.

It is a cynical lie that the animals that killed our loved ones two months ago were motivated by Islam, or because this nation of ours is anti-Islamic. Among our most cherished values, enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution, is freedom of conscience, liberty of expression and the free exercise of religion. This continent was populated by people who surrendered their homes and crossed a terrifying ocean to reach a rugged and inhospitable frontier in order to escape religious persecution and to seek religious freedom.

From its birth, this nation and the American people have offered sanctuary and shelter to persons of all faiths. Our Constitution -- always with the support of our people -- has again and again extended its embrace to the unpopular, the unusual, the unconventional and the unorthodox. We protect not only those who will not salute our flag, but those who would spit upon it or burn it. We regularly pledge our allegiance to a constitution that shelters those who refuse to pledge their allegiance to it.

Far from tyrannizing those who worship a particular God or embrace a particular religion, we protect those who worship any God - or no God. Indeed, Americans have defended with their lives persons whose religious convictions preclude them from taking up arms to defend the same Constitution that gives them the right to refrain from defending it.

It is true, I suppose, that there are many in the Middle East who hate this country for its support of Israel. But how tragic and misguided to despise us for extending comfort and defense to a people who have so long, and so recently, been the victims of indescribable ethnic persecution. Nor has America's support for Israel ever been rooted in or manifested by hostility to the Muslim faith or those who practice it. The terrorists and their apologists have lied about these things, but what is another lie when their goals and tactics are so vastly more evil?

So, while the terrorists of September 11 invoke the name of Islam, that is simply a mask for their hate, envy and despicable ambitions. The terrorists who seek to destroy us do so because America and Americans are everything that their hatred and motives prevent them from being. They are tyrants, and so they hate democracy. They are bigots and religious zealots who persecute Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and women. So they must hate America because America stands for tolerance and freedom and respect for all races, all religions, and all peoples, regardless of their sex, color, national origin or accent. They are despots who will not permit children to go to school. So they must hate the nation that commits vast resources to the education of its children, and whose Supreme Court has said that free public education cannot even be withheld from those who are in this country illegally.

These terrorists can succeed only through corruption, cruelty and brutality. Thus they hate and must tear down America and its system of laws which shields its people from those malevolent acts. And these terrorists can enslave the people they wish to subjugate only by keeping them
poor and destitute, so they must undermine and discredit the one place in all the world that stands the most for the rule of law and individual liberty and that allows its people - and the people who flock here daily by the thousands -- the opportunity to rise above all those conditions.

Abraham Lincoln was paraphrasing our declaration of independence when he characterized our nation as having been "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." That revolutionary document set down our collective belief in unalienable human rights to liberty, freedom and equality, the proposition that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, the principle that tyrants who would oppress their people are unfit to be rulers of a free people, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. How can these terrorists ever prevail if these American ideals are not only allowed to be expressed, but to succeed so dramatically, and to inspire so many people throughout the world for so many centuries?

The answer is simple, the terrorists of September 11 cannot prevail in a world occupied by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the Statue of Liberty, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the White House. They cannot co-exist with these ideals, these principles, these institutions and these symbols. So they cannot survive, much less prevail, in the same world as America and its people. So they must try to destroy America, and the principles for which it stands.

We do not claim that America has been or is today without imperfections and shortcomings. Our constitution was undeniably flawed at its origin. Implementation of our lofty ideals has never been without error, and some of our mistakes have been shameful. But the course of our history has been constant, if occasionally erratic, progress from the articulation of those lofty ideals to the extension of their reality to all our people - those who were born here and those, from hundreds of diverse cultures, who flock to the American soil because of those principles and the opportunities they promise.

Reflect on the fact that there is no segment or class of the world's peoples who have exclusive claim on the term "American," and no segment of the world's population to whom that claim has been denied. We welcome 100,000 refugees per year into this country. Over 650,000 people immigrated legally to America in the most recent year for which we have reliable statistics. Over 5,000,000 people are in this country today who were so desperate to come here that they did so illegally.

There are more Jews in New York city than in Israel. More Poles in Chicago then any city in the world except Warsaw. America is home to 39 million Irish-Americans, 58 million German-Americans, 39 million Hispanic-Americans and nearly a million Japanese-Americans. And there are seven million Muslims in America, nearly the population of New York City.

How tragic it is that the agents of the September 11th terrorist acts were people whom we welcomed to this country, and to whom we extended all of our freedoms, the protections of all of our laws, and the opportunities this country affords to everyone to travel, work and live. But, we welcome immigrants because nearly all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here to enjoy America's freedoms, rights, liberties, and the opportunity, denied elsewhere, to pursue happiness and prosperity. People from all places on the globe give our country its identity, its diversity and its strength.

Ronald Reagan often said that "every once in a while, each of us native born Americans should make it a point to have a conversation with someone who is an American by choice." "A few years back," he said, "a woman who had fled Poland wrote a letter and said: 'I love America because people accept me for what I am. They don't question my ancestry, my faith, my political beliefs . . . . I love America because America trusts me.'"

President Reagan was also fond of quoting from a letter he had received from a man who wrote, "You can go to live in Turkey, but you can't become a Turk. You can't go to live in Japan and become Japanese, [and so on for Germany, France, etc.] But . . . Anyone from any corner of the world can come to America and be an American."

So it is particularly sad and a bitter irony that the 19 savages who took the lives of thousands of Americans on September 11 were able to come here because we welcomed them, and trusted them, and allowed them to learn to fly our airplanes and the freedom to travel. And they took these precious gifts and turned them into instruments of hatred and death. How perverse and twisted. How incredibly sick they must have been - that not one of them had a moment of conscience after all that time in this beautiful and free country. Everywhere they looked they saw Americans and immigrants to America, at work and at play exercising the freedoms and opportunities that this country offers unstintingly to everyone, including them. But their hatred was so intense, their malignancy so advanced, that they never, as far as we know, even for a moment, paused to reconsider the despicable, unconscionable and evil acts they planned to inflict on the people they were walking, working and living amongst.


It has, I suppose, always caused some resentment that we believe so passionately and so unquestioningly that freedom, equality, liberty, democracy and the rule of law are concepts and rights that should belong to all people. But how can that be seen as arrogance, as some have called it? I simply cannot accept that. What can possibly be wrong with the aspiration that moved the founders of this country to believe that people are entitled to self-determination, the right to chose their system of government, the right to freedom within an orderly and secure society, and the maximum liberty to pursue happiness and fulfillment? We know that these are enduring values. We can debate nearly everything else, but we don't need to debate that. We know that these principles lift everyone up. And we know that these principles are only questioned by those who would seek to advance their own twisted agendas by withholding freedom, liberty and prosperity from others.

We have now been reminded, in the most horrible way, that there are those who not only hate our principles, but who would dedicate their lives - and surrender their lives - to banish those ideals and the incentives they provide for tyrannized and impoverished people everywhere to do what Americans did in 1776.

We have tragically learned again, in the most unthinkable fashion, that our values and our principles are neither self-executing nor self-sustaining, and that we must sacrifice and fight to maintain what our forebears sacrificed and fought to bequeath to us.

And now the rest of the world is learning again that Americans will not flinch from that fight or tire of it. Americans will fight, they will sacrifice, and they will not give up or leave the job unfinished. This war is for all living Americans. It is for the parents, grandparents and great grandparents that fought and sacrificed to come here. And it is for our children and generations to come. And it is for those who choose to become Americans in the future.

America will not lose this war because we cannot tolerate, we cannot contemplate, we cannot even consider that we will lose what centuries of Americans fought to create, improve and maintain. We cannot, and we will not, betray the people who gave us this glorious heritage. We cannot and will not, dishonor or wash away the memories of those who somehow clawed their way out of poverty, tyranny and persecution to come to this country because it was America, and because they were willing to risk death to become Americans, and to give their children and grandchildren the opportunity and freedom and inspiration that makes this place America. Americans could no longer call themselves Americans if they could walk away from that legacy.

People who write regularly for newspapers and who offer opinions on television, or who send advice to us from other parts of the world, sometimes say that America is too rich, lazy, complacent, frightened, soft and enervated to fight this fight. That we have no stamina, strength, will, patience, or steel. That we will collapse.


They are so wrong. We will prevail for the very reason that we have been attacked. Because we are Americans. Because the values that made us free, make us strong; because the principles that made us prosperous, make us creative, resourceful, innovative, determined and fiercely protective of our freedoms, our liberties and our rights to be individuals and to aspire to whatever we choose to be. Those values and those characteristics will lift us and will defeat the black forces who have assaulted our ideals, our country and our people.

The very qualities that bring immigrants and refugees to this country in the thousands every day, made us vulnerable to the attack of September 11, but those are also the qualities that will make us victorious and unvanquished in the end. These dreadful, despicable people have hurt us, but they can never conquer us.

So let me return to
Barbara Olson. So many people loved and admired Barbara. But whether you loved and admired her values, her spunk, her energy, her passion, her courage, her unconquerable spirit, or her incredible warmth, whether you knew it or not, underneath it all, you admired and were captivated by Barbara because she was pretty darn close to being a quintessential American.

Barbara was a Texan, from a family whose ancestors came to this country from
Germany. She went to the all-American University of Texas and also a Catholic college, St. Thomas in Houston. She became a professional ballet dancer in San Francisco and New York because of the beauty of dance, the rigor of its discipline, and because you have to be extraordinarily tough and ambitious to do it. And Barbara was extraordinarily tough and ambitious.

But she always wanted to be a lawyer and to be involved in politics. In order to afford law school, she invented a career out of whole cloth in Hollywood because that, she determined, was the
fastest way to earn the money she needed. It did not matter in the slightest to Barbara that when she went to Hollywood she knew absolutely nothing about the motion picture and television industry. And, in fact, it really didn't matter because, as she later explained to the unwitting producer who gave her her first job, she was a fast-learner. And, of course, she succeeded. She turned down the last job she was offered in Hollywood because she had finally earned enough money to go to law school, and they were offering her so much money she did not want to be so tempted to forego her dream to be a lawyer.

She went to
Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University in New York, not necessarily the obvious choice for a blond Catholic girl from Texas. She was even told that she would never fit in, and that she would be miserable. But the people who told her that really did not know Barbara. She thrived at Cardozo as she had thrived at St. Thomas and in the ballet and in Hollywood. She loved the people, the classes, the professors, and she was a huge success, popping up for one reason or another with embarrassing frequency on the cover of Jewish Weekly.

Barbara created a Federalist Society chapter at Cardozo because she believed in the Society's principles - and it only served to goad her on that almost no one at Cardozo shared her political views. In her third year of law school, she somehow managed
to finesse herself into an internship with the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice in Washington. And, as a very brassy and gusty intern, she managed to be the only employee of the government of the United States willing, feisty and fearless enough to personally serve the papers on the PLO mission to the United Nations in New York announcing that it was being expelled from this country -- because they were terrorists. How Barbara loved to tell that story to her friends at Cardozo!

She turned down jobs with the finest law firms in New York to come to Washington where, it seems, she was always destined ultimately to be. In rapid succession, she succeeded as a lawyer in private practice, as a hot and very successful federal prosecutor, as Deputy General Counsel to the House of Representatives, and as a top Congressional investigator, television
personality and lobbyist.

It was typically Barbara that when Al Regnery suggested that she write a book about Hillary Rodham Clinton, she literally jumped at the chance. She told me at the time that she wasn't sure that she was a writer, but a friend of ours told her that
she didn't have to be a writer to be an author. So, with her legendary energy and limitless self-confidence, she poured herself into the book, finished it in nine months and, against seemingly insurmountable odds, without any previous experience with serious writing, climbed onto the New York Times best seller list during the heaviest competitive time of the year, and stayed there for nine weeks. Ten days ago, her second book, written in about six months and finished just days before her death, opened at number two on the New York Times bestseller list, ahead of Bill O'Reilly, Jack Welch and Tiger Woods. Not bad.

Barbara was everywhere in Washington. A witness for Clarence Thomas at his confirmation, a co-founder of the Independent Women's Forum, hosting Federalist Society members from all over the country in her home, at the epi-center of the travel office and filegate investigations, and the China campaign contributions investigation, the second-most invited guest on "Larry King Live," appearing on MSNBC, FOX, "Meet the Press," "Cross-Fire," "Geraldo," "Politically Incorrect," you name it. Ready to talk about any subject, ready to face down any adversary. She always had an opinion. And she always had that smile.

I could tell you Barbara stories for hours, and I think that you would be glad to listen. But, in short, Barbara partook of everything life gave her. She saw no limits in the people around her and she accepted no limits on what she could accomplish. She could be charming, tough, indefatigable, ferocious and lovable. And all those things at once.

Barbara was Barbara because America, unlike anyplace in the world, gave her the space, freedom, oxygen, encouragement and inspiration to be whatever she wanted to be
. Is there any other place on earth where someone could do all these things in forty-five years?

So, sadly, and ironically, Barbara may have been the perfect victim for these wretched, twisted, hateful people. Because she was so thoroughly and hugely an American. And such a symbol of America's values, ideals, and robust
ambition. But she died as she lived. Fighting, believing in herself, and determined to succeed. And, if she was the perfect victim, she is also a perfect symbol of what we are fighting for now and for why we will prevail.

[NOTE: DON'T EVER CALL ME THE "PERFECT VICTIM". FUCK THAT] I know, and she knows, that her government and the people of America will win this war, however long it takes, whatever we have to do. We will never, ever forget or flinch. We will prevail for Barbara and all the other Americans we lost on September 11. And for the American spirit for which they stood and their lives embodied. And, most of all, we will defeat these terrorists because Barbara and those other American casualties of September 11, and our forebears, and our children, would never forgive us if we did not."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson

Barbara Olson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find out more about navigating Wikipedia and finding information

Jump to: navigation, search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barbra_Olson.jpgBarbara Olsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barbra_Olson.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barbra_Olson.jpgBarbara Olson

Barbara Olson (December 27, 1955 - September 11, 2001) was a conservative American television commentator who worked for Fox News Channel, CNN and several other outlets. She was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 en route to a taping of television show Politically Incorrect when it was flown into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Contents

[hide]

 

[edit] Biography

Olson was born Barbara Kay Bracher in Houston, Texas. (Her older sister, Toni Bracher-Lawrence, has been a member of the Houston City Council since 2004.) She graduated from Waltrip High School[1] and earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Saint Thomas in Houston.

Olson became a professional dancer, performing with the San Francisco Ballet and the Harkness Ballet in New York City. She switched careers and went to Hollywood to work as an assistant producer for television and movies. As a newcomer, she achieved a surprising measure of success, working for HBO and Stacey Keach Productions. When she had raised enough money, she quit to pursue her dream. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. In the early 1990s, she worked as an associate at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Wilmer Cutler & Pickering where she did civil litigation for several years before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney. In 1994, she left to work for the United States House of Representatives, becoming chief investigative counsel for the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. In that position, she led the Travelgate and Filegate investigations into the Clinton administration. She co-founded the Independent Women's Forum with Rosalie Silberman.[2] She was later a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the Alabama law firm Balch & Bingham.

She married Theodore Olson in 1996.

She was a frequent critic of the Bill Clinton administration and wrote a book about First Lady Hillary Clinton, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (1999). Olson was working on her second book, The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House (published October 2001) at the time of her death. She was a resident of Great Falls, Virginia.

 

[edit] Death

Olson was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 on her way to a taping of Politically Incorrect in Los Angeles (host Bill Maher left a panel seat vacant during the first week the show aired after the attacks), when it was flown into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

 

[edit] Memorial lectures

The Federalist Society has established the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lectures, "an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom",[3] held every November. The first lecture was a eulogy for her by her husband.[4] Subsequent speakers have included Justice Antonin Scalia, Vice President Dick Cheney,[5] and Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

 

[edit] Books

  • Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (November 1999; ISBN 0895262746)
  • The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House (October 2001; ISBN 0895261677)

 

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ "Waltrip Trivia Page," Waltrip High School
  2. ^ "Remembering IWF Founder Barbara Olson", Rosalie Silberman, Independent Women's Forum, December 1, 2001
  3. ^ Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, Federalist Society website
  4. ^ First Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, Theodore Olson, November 16, 2001
  5. ^ Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture - Past Lecturers, Federalist Society website

 

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson"

Categories: 1955 births | 2001 deaths | American television personalities | American murder victims | American political writers | Murdered writers | Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the United States | People from Houston, Texas | Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks | Washington, D.C. lawyers | University of St. Thomas (Houston) alumni | American Airlines Flight 77

 

www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=2866

 

Has Barbara Olson been arrested?

Posted in the database on Saturday, October 08th, 2005 @ 18:18:23 MST (215 views)

by Eric Hufschmid iamthewitness.com

Several people have asked me what I think about Tom Flocco's latest article, and several people enthusiastically told me that the 9/11 case has been solved because Barbara Olson has been arrested.

Unfortunately, his story about Barbara Olson is like his story about the grand jury indicting Bush and Cheney, and the story about the gunfight in the Chicago subway. Specifically, there is no way to verify anything he says.

Christopher Bollyn was living in Chicago at the time Flocco's story came out about the indictment and the gunfight. Bollyn called various people trying to figure out if there is any truth to either story. He found nothing.

Is it possible that what Flocco says is true? Sure, it is possible that Tom has received secret information far in advance of everybody else. But the only way he could have access to such secret, important information many weeks before the rest of us is if:

Flocco is part of the gang of criminals that gave us 9/11 and other crimes.

His source is part of that gang of criminals.

His source is an honest government employee who is leaking the information in order to keep his own identity a secret.

No normal person could possibly have access to such secret, information without inside contacts.

One problem with Flocco's stories is that they are never verified, even after months. If Flocco was getting information before anybody else, then eventually other people would have access to the information, thereby verifying Flocco's claims. But nothing he has ever said has been verified. He announced that Bush and Cheney were being indicted at the beginning of August 2005. How much longer do we have to wait before this information becomes public?

One of Flocco's sources of information is Tom Heneghan. On 19 July 2005, Tom Heneghan and Stew Webb posted a news report that four British secret agents were shot and killed as they were trying to put a bomb on the Chicago subway. Sure, it is possible that this event occurred, but that requires that somebody pick up the dead bodies, mop up the blood, and convince the families of the victims that their missing relatives must have run off to another nation to start a new life.

Examples of this story:

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t39570.html

and

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3388

However, if four British secret agents were really shot to death, that means the murders were covered up extremely well. This in turn means we have to ask how Tom Heneghan and Stew Webb were provided with this information. Only somebody with inside information could possibly have access to such secret information.

Let's assume that Tom Heneghan, Stew Webb, and Tom Flocco are being provided with information by some honest government employees who are trying to expose the corruption in our government. In such a case, those government employees are wasting their time because there is no evidence to believe what they are saying. They may as well tell us that the crop circles in England are being created by Martians. Unless secret, insider information can be verified, it has no value.

Actually, unverifiable information does have value. Specifically, it has value for people who are trying to confuse, mislead, and deceive. For some examples, unverifiable information can be useful to:

Give a bad image to the "Barbara Olson is alive" reports

What if Barbara Olson really is alive and living in Europe? Tom Flocco has just created a story that is being ridiculed by thousands of people. If an honest person announces on the Internet that Barbara Olson is living next to him, most people will just laugh, "Oh no, another of those idiotic, Barbara Olson is alive stories!" In other words, Flocco's absurd story will cause people to disregard the truth.

Give a bad image to all conspiracy theories

Another possible reason for Flocco's story about Barbara Olson is to give all conspiracy theories a bad image.

Some people will notice that none of Flocco's stories can be verified, and they might come to the conclusion that the conspiracy theories are coming from sloppy investigators who are at the intellectual level of a teenager. They will be more likely to disregard other conspiracy theories, such as September 11, the USS Liberty, and the Oklahoma City bombing.

For an example of how this concept works, the enormous number of UFO and crop circle articles on the Internet seem to be an attempt to give the field of conspiracy theories a bad image.

For those of you who believe in UFOs, you've got to face the fact that if there are aliens on the earth, nobody has any serious evidence of them. All they have are photos that show mysterious blobs. And crop circles are real, but there is no evidence that Martians created them. The evidence suggest they come from humans, such as www.circlemakers.org

Send investigators down the wrong path

Another possible reason for Tom Flocco to produce false stories is to send us looking in the wrong direction. For example, in his article about JFK Jr., he blames the Bush family, the Clintons, and the CIA. But what if the Mossad and Army intelligence was involved in the killing? In such a case, the people who trust Tom Flocco will wander down the wrong path and never find anything.

The same may be true with Flocco's story about Barbara Olson. She may really be alive, but she may be in Australia. The people who trust Flocco might look for her in Poland, or in Europe, but that might be the wrong side of the planet.

Or, perhaps Barbara Olson has always wanted to be a man, and in return for her role in 9-11, she was provided with hormone treatment and surgery, in which case anybody looking for a woman would be looking forever.

Sacrifice Flocco for some other agent

Another possible reason for Flocco to create a false story is so that some other agent can expose Flocco. This will give credibility to that other agent.

To discredit Tom Flocco

Some of Flocco's supporters suggest that perhaps Tom is being fed false information in order to discredit him because his other stories are accurate. But which of his other stories are accurate?

It is true that when an investigator is providing information that the criminals don't want exposed, they might try to feed him false information in order to make them look like a fool. But this only happens to the investigators that actually provide dangerous information.

Christopher Bollyn is in this category. Bollyn often exposes important and verifiable information. Not surprisingly, he is frequently contacted by people who try to persuade him to report something stupid.

Tom Flocco's friends are suspicious

Everybody who Tom Flocco considers a source of information, and all the people associated with Flocco (e.g., Sherman Skolnick, Lenny Bloom, Mary Schneider, Tom Heneghan, Mae Brussell, Stew Webb, Stefan Grossmann) must be put into the same category as Flocco. In other words, all of them may be government agents, or members of the criminal gang, or useful idiots who are being fed false information.

Some people have accused Stew Webb of being a COINTELPRO agent. For example, there is a person named Ken Adachi who has a site full of articles where various people accuse one another of being government agents.

Take a look at Adachi's site, and see if you can figure out which people are the COINTELPRO agents. There are so many articles, and so many accusations, that no individual who must work for a living has time to research all of these people and all of their connections. For all we know, Ken Adachi is an COINTELPRO agent, also!

A tangled web of accusations

This brings up an issue that many people that I personally talked to have trouble understanding. Specifically, one way for the government to protect their agents is to create a lot of fights and accusations between them. If a hundred agents accuse one of or two of the others of being a government agent, they will create so many conflicting accusations that most people will be overwhelmed with the complexity. None of us ordinary citizens will have the time to figure out that all of them agents.

To further confuse the issue, some of the agents could accuse some honest, ordinary citizens of being agents. This causes people to be suspicious of those honest citizens. The honest citizens will likely react by accusing those particular agents of being agents. How will any ordinary citizen be able to figure out who is telling the truth?

To confuse the issue even further, some government agents could provide slightly inaccurate information to an honest citizen. The honest citizen will announce silly news items, such as the arrest of Barbara Olson. Other people will assume he is an agent, when he is actually what we would call a "useful idiot". In this particular situation, the real agent is invisible to us; he is feeding false information to the honest citizen.

Is Flocco a useful idiot? Or is he an honest agent who is trying to expose the truth? Or is he part of the criminal network?

My guess is that he knows he is lying to us, but what I do not know who he is working for.

Could Flocco be America's hero?

This brings up another interesting issue. Specifically, some of the people that we expose as liars may actually be trying to help America. They may have been fascinated by the James Bond movies and the Mission Impossible television shows, and they may believe that by running some secret, counter scam they will defeat the forces of evil and save the world. In other words, Tom Flocco and his friends may be honest government employees, and they may believe that my posting silly articles they are going to stop the evil doers.

If that is the case, we are in real trouble. If our government thinks they are going to defeat this criminal network with stories of Barbara Olson being arrested, we have no hope.

Or does Flocco work for the Zionists?

It is possible that Flocco and his friends are actually working for some group of Zionists. The reason I say this is that all of them avoid the issue of Zionism. Most of these "truth tellers" put the blame for the world's problems on the CIA, the Bush family, the Italian Mafia, Great Britain, and/or the Vatican.

For example, in this Skolnick article he avoids Israel, Zionists, and the Jewish Mafia and explains that five U.S. presidents were assassinated for the benefit of Great Britain and the Vatican / Jesuits.

Everything Skolnick writes seems to be accurate. However, he avoids certain issues, thereby giving us a distorted view. For example, in that particular article, he mentions the "French Mafia". However, there are more than just French involved in organized crime. There are also Russians, Canadians, and probably every other race, religion, and nationality.

There are also Israelis involved in organized crime. Meyer Lansky is one of them. In Michael Collins Piper's book, Final Judgment, he shows evidence that Meyer Lansky and many Israelis and Zionists were the masterminds in the assassination of President Kennedy.

For another example, Skolnick doesn't mention that some of Britain's policies are due to Zionists within the British government, so they are more accurately described as Zionist policies, not British policies.

In Flocco's article about the murder of JFK Jr., he also avoids implicating Israelis or Zionists. Instead he blames Clinton and Bush. If Tom was truly an unbiased investigative reporter, wouldn't he at least mention that there are some people who believe that Zionists were also involved in that killing?

The evidence that Bush and Clinton killed JFK Jr. is no better than the evidence that Zionists were involved, so why doesn't Flocco provide us with all of the information? Why is he restricting us to only the Zionist's side of this issue?

I think Flocco is trying to manipulate us. The people who trust Flocco will be fooled into looking at Clinton and Bush for the answers to JFK Jr's death, and they will get nowhere with their investigation because they will be on the wrong path. I would bet that Skolnick is also deliberately misleading us.

I also find it interesting that Skolnick sometimes put the following remarks in his articles:

The Middle-Finger News

Sticking It To The Poobahs

Example: click here

What is a Poobah? Perhaps he is referring to you and me.

While that may seem like an outrageous statement, consider the remark at the end of the television show "Dark Side Of The Moon":

No goy was mistreated during the filming

Or watch the Penn and Teller television episode about conspiracies in which they show a person drilling a hole in a Bible.

All of these people may be Zionists, and all of them may be making fun of us goys.

Zionists are not identical

Before I go on, I should point out that Zionism is not a group of people with identical goals and attitudes. Zionism is just like all other organizations. Specifically, what Zionism is depends on who is in control of the organization. Consider the Republican Party to understand this. There are Republicans who support abortions while other Republicans oppose abortions. Whether the Republican Party supports abortion depends on who gets control of it.

There are also Republicans who cover up the raping of boys at Boystown, and there are other Republicans who want to stop all forms of rape and pedophilia.

Zionism is the same. What Zionism becomes depends on who gets control of the movement. In the case of Zionism, it might depend on who in control of Israel, or the Mossad. Ariel Sharon, Sherman Skolnick, George Soros, and Senator Lieberman may all be Zionists, but each of them may have slightly different attitudes on what Zionism should be, and what the Zionists should do with us goys.

Just as Republicans fight among themselves for control of the Republican Party, the Zionists fight among themselves for control of Israel, America, Europe, and the horde of goys.

In fact, there are some Jews who do not support Israel, and who do not seem to care if goys live among them. Take a look: http://www.nkusa.org/

Did Al Gore win the presidency in the 2000 election?

An example of the fighting is the 2000 election between Al Gore and George Bush. Both Democrats and Republicans routinely cheat in elections, but in the 2000 elections, the Gore supporters wanted us to believe that the innocent, honest Democrats were being cheated in Palm Beach by the dishonest Republicans.

I think what was really happening was a fight between the Bush Zionists and the Lieberman Zionists. I think the 9/11 attack had already been planned at that point in time. The Lieberman Zionists desperately wanted Al Gore to be elected so that they could set up Al Gore to die in the 9-11 attack. Lieberman would then become president, and the Lieberman Zionists would have control of America, and then Israel.

Israel may not survive much longer

The Zionists and Israelis may not be laughing at the goys much longer. The American economy is deteriorating, and the result will be that the U.S. Military will soon discover that its weapons systems are less advanced than those of other nations, and their equipment is not properly maintained. The U.S. Military will also find it increasingly difficult to find American companies to produce their weapons and supplies.

Furthermore, each year Americans bring in millions of Mexicans, Chinese, and other people to become a low-cost source of labor. Already some parts of the Southwest are more than 50% Mexican. A nation will cannot survive when it has the attitude that it is acceptable to use other races for labor.

Once America is gone, Israel will be on its own. The Israelis will find themselves surrounded by angry Arabs, Persians, and other nations.

To summarize this, the Zionists may destroy America before they become established. This is as stupid as a horde of ticks sucking so much blood out of their host that the host dies.

Will the Zionists try to save the day for themselves with another fake terrorist attack? Will they make one final attempt to get control of America and destroy the Arabs?

Or are the Zionists planning to set Bush and Cheney up to take the blame for 9/11? Are the Zionists truly holding Barbara Olson in a jail somewhere? Will the Zionists soon provide their Flocco puppet with the actual location of Barbara Olson, thereby bringing down the Bush administration and the top U.S. Military leaders? Will the Zionists then install other puppets in America?

Or will the situation become even worse for us? For example, George Soros might be a member of the gang that is running the sex slaves, or he might be a member of the Russian mafia, or the Jewish Mafia. What if the Soros Zionists gets control of America? How do we know that group of criminals will be better than what we have now?

For the past few years Soros has been trying to get control of the tens of millions of people who call themselves "liberals" or "Democrats". Do you think that Soros is doing this for the benefit of you or I? Do you think that Soros is truly interested in making America, or the world, a better place?

What if George Soros sets up Bush and Cheney to take the blame for 9/11, and then a Soros puppet, such as John Kerry, gets control of America?

Many of the supporters of Kerry and Soros that I have personally met are the failures of America; they are failures in their jobs, marriage, businesses, and other activities. They have a strong "feel sorry for me" attitude. Some of them are so hopeless that they depend on their girlfriends or wives for financial support.

Lots, probably most, of the supporters of Soros are mental nitwits, and they want handouts and pity, not skills, jobs, or responsibility. They remind me of the supporters of communism in Russia during the early 20th century. If Soros were to get control of America, he would have tens of millions of these nitwits supporting him. How is that an improvement over what we have now?

Most of the Kerry supporters are so incapable of thinking that they did not even notice that John Kerry was not the person they wanted as president. They had originally wanted Howard Dean. Obviously, these people are easily taken advantage of. How could such mindless people possibly make America a better nation?

Even when I point out to the Kerry supporters that Dean was their candidate, they ignore me and continue to support Kerry with such expressions as, "Anything is better than Bush!"

We must face the fact that most Kerry supporters are incapable of intelligent reasoning. I am not saying that Howard Dean is a good leader; rather, I am pointing out that the Kerry supporters are such nitwits that they cannot understand that they are being taken advantage of. Don't make excuses for them; don't feel sorry for them. People who are this easily manipulated are dangerous. And you should not be surprised when such people fail repeatedly in life. They are the losers, but feeling sorry for them will not help them, and it will not help you or me.

The anti-war and peace movements are frauds

The Zionists also seem to be getting control of the anti-war movement, the peace movement, and all other anti-Bush movements. I mentioned earlier in this document that Christopher Bollyn is often contacted by people who try to persuade him to believe something stupid. He is also frequently contacted by people who try to become his friends, or who try to recommend that he considers somebody else a friend.

For example, as of September 2005 (when I wrote this) he has been frequently contacted by a woman named Ilene Proctor, and she has been promoting a man named Brad Friedman. Friedman has such web sites as.

http://www.bradblog.com/

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/

Why would Proctor want Bollyn to become friendly with Friedman? Is Friedman really interested in helping make America a better place? Or does Friedman want to manipulate Bollyn? Or does Friedman want to claim Bollyn as a friend in order to increase his credibility? Is Friedman just another Zionist in anti-war clothing?

One of the techniques the Zionists use to manipulate people is to become their friends, and after gaining a person's trust, they quietly stab them in the back. In fact, David Wolper makes a brief remark about this in his autobiography. I mention it here.

In the long run, the nitwits suffer

Life is a competitive struggle for all animals, plants, and humans. A nation needs intelligent, responsible leaders. Unfortunately, the American voters routinely select between one worthless puppet or another.

America is like a child in a boxing ring, and the Zionists are pounding this child so hard that he is about to fall unconscious. Blood is running down his face, his nose is smashed, and his legs are wobbling, but he thinks he is winning the contest because his coach, a Zionist, is telling him that he is the greatest boxer in the world, and that he is doing a great job.

For more on the issues of deception, consider how Jenna Orkin and other "truth tellers" hide the dangers of the dust at the World Trade Center.

 

Go to Original Article >>>

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.

Email: editor@lookingglassnews.org.

 

19 It has been widely accepted that the (alleged) call from Renee May was made on a cell phone, because this is what was stated in a story published in her mother's home town. See Natalie Patton, "Flight Attendant Made Call on Cell Phone to Mom in Las Vegas," Las Vegas Review-Journal, September 13, 2001 (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-13-Thu-2001/news/16989631.html).

Thursday, September 13, 2001
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Flight attendant made call on cell phone to mom in Las Vegas

By NATALIE PATTON
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Renee May, a flight attendant who a source said made a call on a cell phone from the hijacked American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon, left behind a mother in Las Vegas.

Linda Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Community College of Southern Nevada, confirmed Wednesday that flight attendant Renee May was the daughter of college employee Nancy May.

Nancy May works as a clerk in the admissions and records office on the community college's Charleston Boulevard campus.

Campbell said Nancy May had asked college officials not to release information about her or her daughter.

Information about the age and hometown of Renee May was not available.

Nancy May could not be reached for comment.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a colleague of Nancy May's said the woman was devastated.

The mother, according to the source, received a phone call Tuesday from her daughter after 6 a.m. Renee May asked her mother to call American Airlines to let them know Flight 77 had been hijacked. Her mother called the airline, the source said.

"She told her mother they were all told to move to the back of the plane," said the source, who declined to share other personal details about the phone call.

Pat Nelson, a spokeswoman for the Clark County School District, said she was unable Wednesday afternoon to retrieve student graduation records that could show whether Renee May went to school in the Las Vegas area.

However, the government's report on calls from this flight, which was presented as evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, did not indicate that the call was a cell phone call (see United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 [http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html]; this information is more readily accessible in "Detailed Account of Phone Calls From September 11th Flights" [http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html#ref1]). However, even if the government is now implying, as we discuss later, that the call from Renee May was from a passenger-seat phone, the idea that only two people availed themselves of these phones would be little more credible than the idea that only one did.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:2WzAtI34Bq8J:pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html+fbi+moussaoui+trial+cell+phone+calls+FLIGHT+77&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A

Prosecution Trial Exhibits

Exhibit Number

 

Description

P200054

 

Summary of Flight 77 depicting: the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight [Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11]


Download this exhibit. It is a Flash presentation contained in a ZIP file.
This is a 27 MB set of files and may take several minutes to download

 

www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html

 

Stills from the DOJ flash presentation:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html#ref1

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/calls/Flight77/PhoneCalls.jpg

www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/flight_77.htm

Flight 77

Let's start by looking at the key points in the story of Flight 77 as told by the 9-11 Commission Report.

8:20 Takeoff
8:51 Last routine radio communication
8:51-8:54 Likely takeover
8:54 Flight 77 makes unauthorized turn to south
8:56 Transponder is turned off
9:05 AA headquarters aware that Flight 77 is hijacked
9:25 Herndon Command Center orders nationwide ground stop
9:32 Dulles tower observes radar of fast-moving aircraft (later identified as AA 77)
9:34 FAA advises NEADS that AA 77 is missing
9:37:46 AA 77 crashes into the Pentagon
10:30 AA headquarters confirms Flight 77 crash into Pentagon
American 77 began deviating from its flight plan at 8:54, with a slight turn toward the south. Two minutes later, it disappeared completely from radar at Indianapolis Center, which was controlling the flight.138
The controller tracking American 77 told us he noticed the aircraft turning to the southwest, and then saw the data disappear. The controller looked for primary radar returns. He searched along the plane's projected flight path and the airspace to the southwest where it had started to turn. No primary targets appeared. He tried the radios, first calling the aircraft directly, then the air-line. Again there was nothing. At this point, the Indianapolis controller had no knowledge of the situation in New York. He did not know that other aircraft had been hijacked. He believed American 77 had experienced serious electrical or mechanical failure, or both, and was gone.139
The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.
According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 re-emerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 9:05, east of its last known position. The target remained in Indianapolis Center's airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's airspace at 9:10.As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected path, not east-where the aircraft was now heading. Managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.143

This completely contradicts the testimony of Col. Alan Scott at the 2nd hearing of the Commission (9-11 commission hearing, 23rd May 2003)

"And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio."

Download and view the Flytecomm video from http://irvingshapiro.tripod.com/cgi-bin/Flight_93/crashother.avi. You will see that Flight 77 actually did reappear to the West. If this radar track (labelled by the FAA with the Flight 77 data block) is Flight 77, then it cannot have hit the Pentagon. The timeline simply does not allow it.

If you are unable to download the video you can view some screenshots and a timeline here..

If this is not Flight 77 then the only other explanation would be that the FAA somehow managed to either automatically or manually label another plane with as Flight 77. How could this happen? How could the controllers not have spotted that it was the wrong plane for such a long period? Why do the locations of this plane fit so tidily into Flight 77's flight path (the red dotted line in the video)?

Now let's look at some diagrams that show how Flight 77 "disappeared completely from radar".

images/Flight77_radar_midpoint.jpgimages/Flight77_radar_midpoint.jpg

Click on the graphic for a larger image. The air traffic control sector that Flight 77 is shown flying through was using the secondary radar site labelled QHY-E. When the transponder was switched off this, in itself would cause the plane to disappear.

If the controller decided to try and find the plane using either of the two primary radar sites QWO-E and QRI-E he might also run into problems. Flight 77 is shown heading directly for the centre point between the two radar sites.

A relatively low flying plane would not be picked up at this point simply because of the distance from the radars and the curvature of the earth.

images/Flight77radar.gifimages/Flight77radar.gif

This image shows the official flight path from the Commission Report superimposed onto the FAA map of the radar sites. Notice how the attackers used the radar layout to hide the plane for as long as possible. The white area is a mountainous region that is not covered by primary radar at all. The crinkled edges of the radar are caused by the mountains.

Notice also how the attackers came in through the least protected area around Washington D.C.

Ask yourself how they knew exactly where to turn and where to attack.

images/Flight77_return_journey.jpgimages/Flight77_return_journey.jpg

Here is an analysis of the official return journey of Flight 77. Note how neatly it flies over the two small airports and follows the green ATC sector boundary after it crosses into Washington airspace.

images/kansas.jpgimages/kansas.jpg

The Detroit News clearly obtained its data from Flytecomm.

www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm

9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes
by Snake Plissken as told to Carol A. Valentine

March 10, 2002 - Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon ...

By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [...]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:

"Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology." (John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.


Carol,

You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion.

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 "Flight of the Bumble Planes."

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.


THE CLUES

First Clue - Few Passengers On The Four Flights

Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast-to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.

Second Clue - First Report of First WTC Crash

The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description - most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

[CV cmments:
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter airplane. It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."

http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html]

Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked.

Third clue - Pentagon Crash

The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue - No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site.

By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.

[http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200]

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

[US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg]

After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry - limestone - not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage. But there was none.

[CV comments:
[I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/firetruck.html
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/capitolview.html
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/cars-damaged.html
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg
and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows what was shown by the Pentagon.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/planepiece.html
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition.

OK. Now back to Snake Plissken.]

  • Fifth Clue - Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash

As you point out

[Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS, http://www.Public-Action.com/911/robotplane.html]

the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car ..." The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons.

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270-degree hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is your fifth clue.

  • Sixth Clue - Transponders Turned Off

As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.

["Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets?" Part 1
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html]

  • Seventh Clue - Confusion On Radar Tracks

As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. [See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.

  • Eighth Clue - Second WTC Tower Barely Hit

Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.

[See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at: [http://www.Public-Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1/southtowerpath.jpg.]


HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

  • A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.
  • The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.
  • After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."
  • The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.
  • What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

  • A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives - a cruise missile, if you like - is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.
  • The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control - without passengers - and crashed into the second tower. Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

  • Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives - a cruise missile if you like - hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.
  • Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.
  • Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.
  • Flight 93 is taken aloft.
  • Flight 93 is shot down or bombed - makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.
  • The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed its course.
  • The trail is further confused by having The Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).
  • The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as - did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.


WHY DO IT THAT WAY?

So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four took off from the East Coast airports: the four scheduled Boeings, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in "NO SUICIDE PILOTS"? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smoothly. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

[CV comments:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " ... we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited in "Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets?" Part 2. See Eberhart testimony at

http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html]

Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not. You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a pre-programmed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

[http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html]

I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact.


OTHER DETAILS

  • Pentagon Security Photos

On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001. Look at the photos:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner - possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56670-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.

  • Fireman's Video of First Crash

The NBC eyewitness said the plane that flew into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.gp.med.asf [link expired]

[Note to reader: There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip. If you can find a verifiable copy, let me know. CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

[CV's comments, January 1, 2004: Another version of the "fireman's video" is now available at:
http://www.serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/north_tower.htm
Footage from that clip shows a large plane - not a small plane - approaching the tower and crashing into it.]

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet made the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[http://www.public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
and
http://www.public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]
  • The Hijackers

I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on.

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers' names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 - the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist]

Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but nobody's perfect.


Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News: "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes]

Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ...

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html]

And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife - she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service.

[The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93]


Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes. This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth. All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing to be deceived.

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

- Snake Plissken (as told to Carol A. Valentine)

 

EXHUME HER BODY

And have Cyril Wecht do the autopsy.

www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6048175&ptBarbara%20Olson

Barbara K Olson

Birth:

 

Dec. 27, 1955, USA

Death:

 

Sep. 11, 2001
Arlington
Arlington County
Virginia, USA


Former United States Federal Prosecutor, Attorney, Author, Television Commentator and wife of United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Passenger aboard American Airlines flight 77. Killed in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. (bio by:
Erik Lander)

Search Amazon for Barbara Olson

 

Burial:
Ellison Bay Cemetery
Sister Bay
Door County
Wisconsin, USA


Record added: Dec 25 2001
By:
Erik Lander

Cemetery Photo

Trinity Lutheran Cemetery
Ellison Bay, Wisconsin
1938

Added by: vitalrec.com
8/28/2007

Accuracy and Copyright Disclaimer

 

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-memory-of-barbara-olson.html

 

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

 

In Memory of Barbara Olson

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4695/878/1600/barbaraolson.jpghttp://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4695/878/1600/barbaraolson.jpg
Barbara Olson (December 27, 1955 - September 11, 2001)

Door County encompasses nearly the entire Wisconsin peninsula.

It's a beautiful place. Little towns rim both the Green Bay and the Lake Michigan shores of the county.

Although I like the lake side, it's the bay side of the peninsula that I love.


From the time I was a very little girl, my family would vacation there. We would stay in a cottage steps away from the beach. I spent hours building sandcastles. I loved playing on the swings. I can remember when my grandpa would gently push me, how accomplished I felt when I no longer needed to be pushed, and how proud he was of me.

Door County was where my parents spent their honeymoon. My husband and I spent our honeymoon there, too.


My children would play on the same beach that I did as a child.

I understand why Barbara Olson loved Door County so much.

She used to appear on
Larry King Live from Ellison Bay, a little town toward the tip of the peninsula on the bay side.

Her husband Ted Olson talked about Barbara's feelings for the place on a
tribute show that Larry King did in her honor. It aired on December 25, 2001.

T. OLSON: ...[S]he's buried up in Door County, Wisconsin, very close to where she appeared on your show so many times last summer and a couple summers before, because she loved that place so much, and she's there now. Thank goodness...

KING: Whenever we see that scene, when it was not this set, it was Wisconsin.

T. OLSON: Ellison Bay, Wisconsin. She just thought it was so great to be on your show from Ellison Bay, Wisconsin. She was proud of the fact that both Larry King in Los Angeles and somebody in New York and somebody in Washington and Barbara Olson in Ellison Bay would sit...

KING: Ellison Bay, Wisconsin.


I remember once seeing her on The Late Late Show with Tom Snyder. Being that Snyder was born and raised in Milwaukee, they talked a bit about Door County and Wisconsin.

In addition to admiring Barbara Olson for her incredible intelligence and her wit, I felt a sort of kinship with her because of the Door County connection.

A popular Door County activity is watching the sun set into Green Bay. People gather along the shore and just watch the day come to an end. (Door County doesn't have much of a nightlife.)

When I was there in the summer of 2006, being treated to a spectacular sunset, I was caught off guard a bit when my thoughts abruptly turned to Barbara Olson.

There I was, staring at the beautiful scene, and I felt so sad.

It tore me up to think that Barbara Olson was
buried at Ellison Bay rather than watching the sun go down and looking forward to another day.

And why?

Because on September 11, 2001, she was on board American Airlines Flight 77 and hijackers on a suicide mission crashed it into the Pentagon.

My sadness turned to anger. At that moment it seemed like I had stepped back in time and was feeling the shock of the attacks all over again.

The beauty of that sunset made the gut-wrenching recognition that terrorists had robbed the experience of such moments from close to 3000 individuals even more painful.


I thought of all that the terrorists had taken from us, and all they had done in the name of God. Part of me still finds that incomprehensible.

On this sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I'm thinking of Barbara Olson, her husband, family, and friends. I'm thinking of all the victims' loved ones.

Today, I wish them peace.

I'm reminded that the sun doesn't really set. To our eyes it appears to be gone, but it actually is just shining somewhere else until we see it again.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/31/lkl.00.html

 

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Can Gary Condit's Staff Save His Political Career?

Aired August 31, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Gary Condit's publicist steps aside, a week after a media blitz backfired. And just yesterday, his staff spoke out for the first time in an exclusive interview. Can their boss save his political career?

Squaring off in Washington, former federal prosecutor, best- selling author Barbara Olson. In New York, former prosecutor, now Court TV anchor Nancy Grace. In Los Angeles, defense attorney Mark Geragos. And back in D.C., former chief minority council for the House Judiciary Committee, Julian Epstein.

They're all next with your phone calls, on LARRY KING LIVE.

OK, before we talk about the appearance last night of the staff, we will start with Mark Geragos this time. What do you make of Marina Ein who has received a lot of publicity, she is a top publicist in Washington, coming off this?

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I don't think she'd give herself an A-plus for the performance here. I mean, she obviously, she was under tough circumstances, but this has not been handled -- and we have said it all along -- this has been a media strategy that has been doomed from the beginning. I mean, obviously they didn't plan this well, and they didn't understand the media and they didn't understand how this thing was going to play out.

KING: Was she hired by Abbe Lowell?

GERAGOS: That's my understanding, yeah.

KING: Barbara, what do you make of it?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I mean, Marina Ein has been put into the background since there was the talk about whether or not she was bad-mouthing Chandra Levy, and so I think when we start seeing Condit's political people coming to the foreground, Marina Ein knew that it was basically done for her and that it was a good time to step out.

But I think it is interesting, she said that since it's clear Gary Condit is not going to have any more interviews, it was time to go.

KING: Julian Epstein, your read on this? JULIAN EPSTEIN, FORMER HOUSE JUDICIARY COUNSEL: I think generally Marina Ein is a very competent public relations expert, but I think in this case it was handled very badly. I think -- even though I think Gary Condit most likely had nothing do with the disappearance, almost overnight with the interview he has gone from what people thought was a Clinton-like situation to an O.J.-like situation, so I agree with Mark -- this has been a disastrous handling from the public relations point of view.

KING: Nancy? Are you going to make this unanimous?

GERAGOS: For the first time?

NANCY GRACE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: No, I disagree. We are all assuming that Marina Ein was taking her orders, that she was planning the whole media blitz, but I say she and everybody else get their marching orders from Condit, and now she is another unfortunate victim of Condit's finger-pointing. First, it's the police targeting him, then it's Anne Marie Smith, then it's the press, now boot Ein. It's not going to help.

KING: All right, what did you make, Julian, of the appearance last night of the staff?

EPSTEIN: Well, you know, again, I don't want to make comparisons to Clinton, but when Clinton was in trouble, and I think one or two ex-staff made some criticisms of him -- I think that was very unpopular. I think if nothing else what you saw last night was some very admiral loyalty, and I think the loyalty was genuine, I don't think it was contrived. The story about the woman who had a 32-year- old son who passed away and Gary Condit was the first person in the living room, I think that was remarkable. If nothing else, he has been a very good boss.

Essentially what they were character witnesses in a court of public opinion, and I think that character witnesses are very important when a kind of case is too close to call. The problem here is that public opinion has really hardened, and the issue, the real issue is that there has been obfuscation by Mr. Condit and by his team on the critical questions relating to his relationship with a missing person.

And when the public senses that you haven't been clean about that, it doesn't matter how many character witnesses you have, even if you had good ones, and I think they were good ones last night.

KING: Nancy, were you surprised that they apparently really had no interest in the congressman's any aspect of his private life?

GRACE; You know what, Larry? I'm not surprised that they have no interest in his sex life, but I'm very surprised, because the issue really isn't his sex life anymore, it's a girl that is presumed dead or missing, and for them to sit back and say, gee, you know, I never thought to ask him about that -- I was dumbfounded, and there is a certain degree of derision I have for misplaced loyalty when you've got a possibly dead girl. KING: Mark?

GERAGOS: Look, I don't know how -- maybe Nancy and I were watching two different programs. I watched that program, I saw some people there who had obvious affection, great deal...

GRACE: I saw that too.

GERAGOS: ... an infinite reservoir of affection for Gary Condit, and contrary to some of the stuff we've seen for thousands and thousands of hours during the coverage of this, these were people who actually know him, day in and day out, for years, and who just do not believe for a second that he could be involved in the disappearance...

GRACE: They never even asked him.

KING: Well, if I were -- if I were -- if this were, let's say, Larry King being involved -- I hate to put myself in things -- the people around me would have asked.

GERAGOS: Well, your staff would have, yeah. Nonstop at you, I have seen it.

KING: I can just picture Wendy Whitworth, my producer, not mentioning Chandra to me.

GERAGOS: Exactly. And Dean (ph) would be calling 15 times a day, so I understand...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Were you surprised that they didn't ask?

GERAGOS: Not really, because I think that immediately here, you could sense that there was this -- I don't want to say distance -- but there was a firm kind of a pecking order amongst the staff and the people who were there. They view him -- I think Mike Dayton was clear -- viewed him as a mentor, I think the other women there all viewed him with a great deal of admiration and awe.

And I don't think that's the place they would have gone. Plus, you know, there is -- you know, this is a workplace, and in a lot of workplaces, especially government workplaces, the last thing you are going to do is start talking about sex and people's personal lives.

KING: And Barbara, Mike Dayton was driving him around every day and with him every day, you would have think that might have come up. What are your thoughts?

OLSON: Well, I mean, when I got done listening to the interview, I thought I had just seen a series of the Stepford staff after the Stepford wives movie. None of them asked him -- it seemed like they had been morally anesthetized by Condit. They were incapable of making moral judgments.

And I think at one point Ms. Moore likened Condit's problems to her back surgery and how he didn't think less of her after her back surgery, so she wasn't going to think less of him after this. It was odd. Yes, they were loyal. Yes, they even said they loved him. Some of them thought of him as their son.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: ... why is it that people have to subscribe to your morality or your idea of being a moral scold? Why is it that people can't say, I have had an affection for this guy for 20 years, or in the one case say he was in my living room within an hour of my son dying?

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: ... I don't see where that's Stepford wives or anything else.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: ... put a finer point on the question, if we can. There is nothing unusual, Barbara will attest to this having worked on the Hill before, about members -- about staff not asking members about their personal life. The workplace is the workplace, the personal life is the personal life.

KING: Even when it's front page?

EPSTEIN: Let me continue with the point, if I may. I think what happened after she went missing was that I'm sure that Gary Condit made it clear to the staff that he had nothing to do with the fact that she was missing, and the staff stopped it there.

The point, however, I think Mark that we cannot argue, we cannot get away from, is to have the staff out there making public denials about the nature of the relationship when at the same time the police are saying he is not forthcoming about it. No staff...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time!

EPSTEIN: I love you like a brother, but I don't think having worked up there, having worked up there, that a staff person on a matter this important can be out front in press without the boss stopping them or the boss correcting the record. There is no way around that issue.

OLSON: And the other thing is, let's talk about what we heard last night. We heard Mike Dayton, who said he had never asked Gary Condit about the relationship. Now, Mike Dayton is in the Washington office. The other staffers who are out in the district office, I understand. Chandra Levy was in Washington, they may not have seen that.

But Mike Dayton was in Washington, and although he never asked Gary Condit, he sure knew how to trash Anne Marie Smith. I think one of the ladies even said the exact talking points that they had had about that she was doing this for publicity, to get on television, and how sad that she was using it.

It was very interesting that these people, who had never talked with him about any of his relationships, were able although to start trashing this woman. So where did they get that information? If they were telling us...

KING: Let me get a break...

OLSON: ... I was just going to say, if they're telling us we are wrong to condemn Gary Condit on what we know, why are they able to condemn those women?

KING: Let me get a break, we will come right back. By the way, if you missed the interview with Chad Condit, it will be repeated tomorrow night on LARRY KING WEEKEND. Also, the last major interview the Levys did will be repeated on Sunday night.

Next Tuesday, Oprah Winfrey in an exclusive hour appearance with your phone calls. We'll be including a lot of your phone calls tonight too, don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LARRY KING LIVE")

KING: Driving around the car with your boss, you are his major deputy, administrative assistant, it's in all the newspapers, you don't say "what happened?"

MIKE DAYTON, CONDIT'S TOP D.C. AIDE: I feel if that's something he wants to share with me, he will. But, no, I have never asked him, and you know, I don't think I ever will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Did you know about Chandra Levy, Jackie?

MULLEN: No. I never met Chandra. No.

KING: Did you?

MEJIA: No. Never met Chandra.

KING: Never heard the name?

MEJIA: No. Never heard of Chandra.

KING: Mike, you obviously knew.

DAYTON: Knew her, yes. I knew her. She came by the office, you know, probably four times over a six-month period. But, you know, no -- no idea, never seen her in a social setting with my boss. (END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Nancy Grace, what do you think it is going to be like for the Congressman when he goes back to work Wednesday?

GRACE: Well, I think that...

KING: Tuesday.

GRACE: Back home, apparently with his staffers, they all are "see no evil hear no evil do no evil." You know he could commit mass murder in the parking lot, they wouldn't see a thing. But back in Washington -- I would like to finish, back in Washington, it will be a different story.

The other issue, regarding the employees, the staff, I certainly do not fault loyalty. In fact, I admire it. But there is a certain point where you cannot turn the other way and wash your hands and pretend nothing is happening. Sex, affairs, who cares? But you know what? When there is a dead or missing girl, that is a time you cannot turn away. It is not okay.

GERAGOS: Where are they turning away? The people answered the questions. I don't think anybody who watched that...

GRACE: They were making public statements for him.

GERAGOS: You know as well as I do -- you know as well as I do, Nancy...

KING: One at time.

GERAGOS: ...that anybody who is put on as character witness, so to speak, does not have to ask about the supposed event, that if they know the person, they know him by reputation, that they can render an opinion as to whether or not they think this is something they are capable. That's what a character...

GRACE: These are not character witnesses.

GERAGOS: That is what they have been described as, is character witnesses in the court of public opinion.

GRACE: But Mark, put that -- no. They do not have the right to speak for him publicly.

GERAGOS: Do they have the right to give their opinions?

GRACE: And then never ask the truth. It is not okay.

EPSTEIN: That's the key point. That is -- it's ...

GERAGOS: Do they have the right to give their opinion, because they apparently know him.

GRACE: Even if it is false? GERAGOS: There are people all over the airwaves giving their opinion who've never even met this guy. I think I would like to -- at least for one hour out of 1,500 hours hear from somebody who actually knows the guy.

GRACE: It is not okay to look the other way.

OLSON: Mark, how do you explain the fact that the staff talked lovingly about Carolyn and all the work she had done and they obviously -- you could see -- they became very comfortable talking about how wonderful Gary Condit's wife Carolyn was. Yet they find out that Gary Condit is here in Washington telling people his wife is sick and ill, she has encephalitis of the brain. Yet this is a man they would think no less of after all of these things, and they love -- they love his wife. It doesn't make sense! There is a certain -- there is a certain character.

GERAGOS: May I (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

OLSON: Of course.

GERAGOS: Because -- because the only person who has supposedly reported the fact that he is telling people he has encephalitis, that she is sickly and everything else -- they're getting those reports from the press and obviously they know a different .

OLSON: No. David Dreier, excuse me,

GERAGOS: Excuse me.

OLSON: But there are members of Congress that said he had told them his wife was not feeling well. So it is not just the women who you think are lying, there are members of Congress.

GERAGOS: Barbara, calm yourself for a second. David Dreier is a member of the California delegation. David Dreier has seen Carolyn Condit for years, knows her very well. That story is just painfully unbelievable.

OLSON: David Dreier had been told that she was sickly. That is exactly -- so. So, Mark.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Everybody is lying. Everybody lies.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Julian, you are a veteran of the Hill. How is he going to do?

EPSTEIN: When he comes back?

KING: yeah.

EPSTEIN: Well, I think I said it the other night. It's like Caesar entering the Roman Senate in 44 B.C., and I think that the Brutus will probably be the Blue Dog Democrats who believe -- I don't think most of the members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, believe that he had a role in the disappearance of Chandra Levy. But it is the way in which this thing has been handled. And you know, you have spoken about Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, if I can make an analogy -- the five stages of death, before.

I think the stages of political death, the final stage of political death, is when somebody becomes very isolated, and somebody becomes very defiant. They believe that the press has treated them unfairly and they kind of dig themselves in. Unfortunately, even though I still don't believe that he has had a role in the disappearance, I think that is where he is today. And I think probably his days in the Congress, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which side of the argument you're on, are probably numbered at this point.

KING: Nancy, you think -- do you still hold the opinion that he was involved?

GRACE: Well, I do hold the opinion that he has impeded the investigation. And at least -- if nothing more -- for that reason let a trail go cold, a trail that could have led us to Chandra Levy if he had been forthcoming and told the truth in the beginning. And frankly, all fingers point back at this point to Condit.

KING: We'll take a break and come back. We'll be including your phone calls. Our panel with us for the full hour. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Did Gary Condit ever knowingly lie to you?

DAYTON: No.

MOORE: No.

MEJIA: No.

KING: A lie where you could say, "Mr. my boss, you lied to me."

MULLEN: No.

MOORE: Never.

AUSTIN: Never.

KING: Never?

MOORE: On any occasion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAYTON: ... have made statements in the past that there was not a relationship.

KING: do you regret those statements.

DAYTON: I don't regret making those. What I regret is -- you know, if I have any said anything that has caused anybody pain, especially the Levys.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: G.O.P. strategist Tony Blankley said -- he is former press secretary for Newt Gingrich -- said, "The general theory in politics is that all staff are expendable. The staff throws themselves in front of the bullets to protect the boss."

Honestly, Barbara Olson, if the Congressman were to say, "I'm not going to run again, this is my last term in Congress." Doesn't that effectively put this story away until she is found?

OLSON: Well, I mean, it puts the story about Gary Condit's relationships with other women away. It doesn't put it away about Chandra.

KING: It takes her disappearance off the front page, though.

OLSON: I don't think it will.

KING: No?

OLSON: I think basically -- you know, you asked Nancy Grace if there was -- whether she thought still thought Gary Condit was involved. He still looks like he is hiding something. I believe he was lying when he was interviewed by Connie Chung. And our common sense says, why? What are you trying to hide? That is still out there. The police are now saying they are not ruling out another interview. They had to come out and say he wasn't forthcoming after listening to Mark, night after night, screaming how forthcoming he was. So I think all that is still there, and it doesn't add up to a completely innocent man. It adds up to man who, although maybe he wasn't involved in her disappearance, what is he hiding?

KING: Mark, he has contributed to his own dilemma.

GERAGOS: Well, there is no question that the perception out there has become reality. Obviously. But at the same time, this idea that the -- that he's given four interviews, that he's turned over his records, that he's invited them to search, that he has done all of those things which he -- as anybody will tell you, nobody is going to do if they have the finger pointing at them. People say it means nothing, but it could have easily just told them to go pound sand. It would have -- he could have stood right out (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time, ladies. GERAGOS: Hold on. He obviously would not have been in worse situation than he is now, because if he had just told them to go...

OLSON: But that's their...

GERAGOS: My lawyer tells me I can't cooperate -- he couldn't be any more of a pariah than he is right now.

OLSON: But let's be clear. Now, that search that you talked about he invited, that occurred after he put the watch box in the McDonald's french fry in Alexandria, which Mike Dayton wouldn't talk about, under his...

GERAGOS: Let's also be clear that he invited them into his townhouse, the same place they searched...

OLSON: After he cleaned it up.

GERAGOS: Within -- within three days, and gave them that first interview without a lawyer present. So don't forget that as well, Barbara.

KING: Julian, do you think if he says I'm not going run again that that, in effect, for the Levy standpoint, this story disappears?

EPSTEIN: Larry, I would ask you that question. You're the expert on this. I don't know. We just come on and talk about it. But you know, it certainly has less cache if you're not dealing with a public official. But just to segue way this conversation between Mark and Barbara for a second, you know, F. Scott Fitzgerald once said the test of intelligence is whether you can keep two seemingly contradictory thoughts in your mind at one time. Nobody can dispute the fact that he has behaved irresponsibly, I think, to the police and publicly, during the course of the investigation.

But at the same time, we have to say, regardless of the french fry watch container box and regardless of all these other things, there still is no evidence that we are aware of, that in any way connects him to the fact that she's missing. So I think that we have to avoid turning this into a star chamber, into a Salem witch trial. We have to struggle to remember that he has behaved irresponsibly, but again, we shouldn't be trying to convict him here in the court of public opinion.

KING: And, Nancy, it appears at times -- don't you think that when you look at yourself that you might be guilty of that? Convicting before...

GRACE: You mean of a witch...

KING: Yes.

GRACE: No, I don't.

EPSTEIN: Nancy doesn't care.

(LAUGHTER)

GRACE: Because I haven't convicted him. I'm simply evaluating and making deductions on the evidence that I have. So far, I know that he allowed police in, after he cleaned out his apartment. He had a polygraph-not, that meant absolutely nothing to me. He lied to the Levys, and he's still having his children and his staffers go out and bite the bullet and take the heat for him. He's still being evasive with police, and to me, that adds up to a highly suspicious suspect.

EPSTEIN: But I think he's suspicious, Nancy, if I may, I think he's deeply suspicious and perhaps even guilty of attempting to cover up one, maybe several extramarital affairs. And I think that all of the conduct that he has been found to have engaged in and the poor public explanations, I think you can relate all of that back to the fact that he's covering up extramarital affairs. I don't think that any of that evidence necessarily links him to the fact that she's missing.

GRACE: That is one possibility.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: He could be covering evidence that does link him to Levy.

KING: Yeah...

EPSTEIN: That's possible. Yes, that's possible.

KING: One or the other.

GRACE: It's highly possible.

EPSTEIN: But it's hard to square that. And again, I don't defend any of the conduct. I think it's been odious. But it's hard to square that when you have police coming out and saying things like, he's not a central figure in the investigation. The police have contradicted themselves, they said he's being cooperative, the next day they said he's not being cooperative. So I think at this point, we would see a little bit more evidence at this point, particularly from a guy, as I've said before, that can't dispose of a watch box in a Virginia trash can. I think we'd see a little bit more evidence if the guy was connected to it.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: I'd also like to know...

GRACE: I've noticed that you've used that example over and over, but frankly speaking, the fact, the mode of her disappearance puzzles me. This is not a random rape or murder. Someone with the wherewithal to dispose of Chandra Levy, highly meticulous job here, did this. And I think that rules out a lot...

EPSTEIN: Agreed.

(CROSSTALK) EPSTEIN: We agree.

KING: Let me get a break. We'll come right back. We're going to include your phone calls, and we'll pick up with Mark right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE DAYTON, CONDIT'S TOP D.C. AIDE: There's been a lot of hay made about that watch box and, you know, I regret that that has added to suspicion, or some people pointing to that and said, you know...

KING: What was going on.

DAYTON: Yes, what was going on. But I can tell you, I've sat down with the police, and I sat down with them over a two-day period, I've told them everything I know about that. And that's, you know, one area that, as you know, is under investigation. My attorney thought I was crazy for coming on here tonight to talk. But, you know, so I'm not going to be able to go into the details on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Let's take a call. Los Angeles, hello.

CALLER: Yes, I've watched your show every night since Chandra Levy has been missing, and my question is since his staff has become so verbally loyal to him, and we can understand that his son would be, maybe Marina Ein, a publicist, was too outspoken for him and too successful and too smart, and talked back. It doesn't seem like he really likes those kind of people, meaning smart and people who talk back. And I enjoy the ladies. I think they're quite intelligent.

KING: These two ladies have become heroes in many circles. An FBI agent's in our studio tonight, who loves them both. I'm not going to mention...

EPSTEIN: Can I respond to that, Larry?

KING: You may, Julian.

EPSTEIN: First of all, let me say I enjoy these two ladies, too, and I think that their intelligence knows no bounds. But secondly, I think that the caller really ought to be doing spin for Gary Condit if she thinks that he -- which he could use right now -- if she thinks that the reason that she is leaving is because the job that's been done was too good a job.

I don't slight her at all. I think she's a superb publicist.

GRACE: She said she'd talked back.

EPSTEIN: Well, I don't think that's really what it was. I don't think it was a lack of public information out there that was the problem. I think what it was is that, as Mark said, it indicates that the public interviews are probably over, and I think that this has not been a happy occurrence for those that have handled the Condit camp right now. I think it really leaves a little bit to be desired. But probably, Nancy is correct. A lot of these decisions are coming, in fact, from Gary, and he is ultimately the person that takes responsibility.

KING: Well said.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Mark, if this had to do it all over, he would do it differently, right?

GERAGOS: Well, you sure hope so. You sure hope that initially that this thing would have been handled in such a way where there would have been a media strategy that was markedly different from this. But at the same time, there is a disconnect here. If this guy is so calculating, and if this is all done for his political career, and if it was so easy to just, as Chad said the other night, take the advice of the people who were telling him, whether it was Richie Ross or anybody else, come out and do a mea culpa, or to say the kind of formula words that Barbara and Nancy want him to say, and that would have ended that.

OLSON: There's a real good reason not to do that.

GERAGOS: Why? Why, Barbara?

OLSON: Because perhaps...

GERAGOS: I'd love to hear.

OLSON: Gary Condit knows if he opens that door to his closet, a lot more tumbles out than Anne Marie Smith and Joleen McKay and Chandra Levy.

GERAGOS: But at the same time...

OLSON: That is the only reason that makes sense, and you know that.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Nancy, yes.

GERAGOS: If that is the case, how does that have anything to do with the disappearance of Chandra?

KING: Nancy?

GRACE: You know, I don't think anyone has considered the fact that maybe Marina Ein just had a stomachful of the whole kit and caboodle. And I think that if she was fired, as opposed to resigning, I think that she's just another casualty in Condit's finger-pointing game. It's everybody's fault but his.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more phone calls for our panel on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. We're going to switch the bid a little on Monday night. We're going to have a wing-down debate here on Labor Day night. We're going to have the famed psychic, Sylvia Brown, and the equally famed skeptic, the Amazing Randy. Randy thinks it's all a bunch of baloney. Sylvia Brown thinks she communicates with (WHISTLING). They're going to go at each other and I'm just going to referee.

We'll be right back with more of our panel your calls. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKIE MULLEN, CONDIT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: I would have liked to have seen him go out in the very beginning and say to media, "I'm not going to talk about this. I have nothing to say to you folks. You know, this is something that is between me and my family -- this is private."

But I wish he would have said, "I'm not going to talk," to the press.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Let's reintroduce the panel -- not that they need introduction at this point. Barbara Olson, the former federal prosecutor and best-selling author, she is in Washington. In New York, Nancy Grace, anchor of "Trial Heat" on Court TV. Here in Los Angeles, the famed defense attorney Mark Geragos. And in Washington, the former chief minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, Julian Epstein.

Back to the calls. Garland, Texas, hello.

CALLER: Larry, my question to the panel and especially to Mr. Geragos, which I appreciate this time -- I haven't always agreed with him in the past.

GERAGOS: Thank you. It's a lonely job out here, but somebody has got to do it.

CALLER: Well, I appreciate that you are doing it. But for the panel, the police have talked to Gary Condit four times -- his wife -- if they had anything on that man, Ms. Olson, they would have charged him. Now get off his back and get back to what you are supposed to be doing.

KING: All right, Barbara, her statement is, if they had something they would have come right after him.

OLSON: Well, the real problem is dealing with someone that you don't have probable cause, that you have things that don't quite add up. You have -- and we know that from the very beginning, they knew there was a relationship, yet Gary Condit was refusing to talk about it, as a matter of fact challenging the police to cite the relevance. The problem with that is that if you push a witness too hard too fast, they are going to take the Fifth or tell you to walk away. They are going to say, I'm not going to talk to you anymore. And as a prosecutor, unless I have probable cause, unless I can go forward, I'm stuck with an uncooperating person. Gary Condit was talking, they didn't want him to shut up. They are going to not push him further than they think they can.

GERAGOS: Barbara, I have heard you on this show, and I have known many a prosecutor who -- the one way that they think they are going to break a case is if they've got somebody, like you suggested, a Mike Dayton, and they think they've got some kind of an obstruction or anything else, all they have got to do is put the pressure on that person, try to roll him over onto person who is the target, and that is how they break a case open.

Now, if they had any of this, if they had any obstruction, if they had even a false statement against Gary Condit -- because everybody has always said, well, he changed his story, blah, blah, blah, but why wouldn't -- why haven't they pursued that?

KING: But Dayton has a lawyer. In fact, he said last night he couldn't speak because he had...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: But Dayton also said last night for the first time...

OLSON: And Mike Lynch, who we didn't hear from.

GERAGOS: Except Dayton said last night for the first time, he talked to the police for -- on two occasions over two days, for a number of hours. And they haven't come forward. They haven't done anything with him. Nothing at all.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Julian.

EPSTEIN: Barbara and Mark can go on all day long about the fact -- and I would probably agree with Mark that the dots don't quite connect up, even though some of the conduct is suspicious, and again if you lie about small things people think you lie about the bigger things. So there is no question about that. It is really not the issue at this point.

I think most people -- I may be wrong about this -- a lot of people don't think he had anything to do with the disappearance, it's the way you handle it. And if you don't handle something as important as a missing person, then I think that is when the public begins to condemn you. You know, I think the public was on the precipice of forgiveness with Mr. Condit, if he had come out and he said he had an affair, he was irresponsible, because he panicked, but that then he was going to meet with the family.

You know, we are not even talking about the family -- if he is going to meet with the family investigators, as he has requested, I think a lot of people would have been more forgiving. So, it's the way you handle it, as is so often the case when it comes to public officials.

KING: New Port Richey, Florida, hello.

CALLER: Yeah, hi, good evening, Larry.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: This is to the panel. I'm a little perplexed about that Mr. Dayton last night. Why, if it's not such a big deal, can he not once and for all talk about the watch box? And Nancy and Barbara, you are great.

KING: Why can't he, Mark? Why can't he?

GERAGOS: Well, look, he said last night, and I think a lot of lawyers have this -- take this position, that his lawyer thought he was crazy to be on here in the first place, lawyer says until you get some kind of a resolution of this that you shouldn't talk.

You and I have talked about this before. In cases like this, where you have this kind of media scrutiny, that just doesn't work anymore in the last six years.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Because I think specifically, the only reason that he was -- that he was talked to, obviously, was on obstruction, and the only thing that had to do with obstruction has to do with the watch box.

KING: So, he could have told the story of what happened to the watch box?

EPSTEIN: Can I tell you why a lawyer would say it, Larry?

KING: Yeah, Julian, why?

EPSTEIN: The reason, the legal reason if you are sitting there counseling him, you would say not to speak about it for two reasons, even though I agree with Mark in this day and age you have to do it. If you say something that in any way, in even a minor degree, differs with something you have said before, it's off to the races with the press.

Secondly, whatever you say out of court, under the rules of evidence, something known as statements against interests or prior inconsistent statements, if you say a statement that somehow damns you, in the light of a prosecutor they can take that out-of-court statement and use it against you in a court of law. That's why a lawyer in a lawyer's prudence tells you not to do it.

But again, I agree with Mark, in this day and age, you've got to figure out a way of meshing the public relations with the legal, and they could have done it, and they didn't.

KING: Barbara, Nancy, do you -- let's start with Barbara first. Do you understand that from a legal standpoint why they would advise him not to?

OLSON: Well, I mean, yes, that is true. If he's at trial and he's made statements publicly on television and they differ and they conflict, it is against interests. But you know, Mike Dayton came on here...

KING: No, he hasn't on the watch, he hasn't made any public statements on it.

OLSON: Well, no. That's right, that's why we're explaining why he wouldn't answer your question.

But what was interesting is he kept saying he wanted to enlighten you, he wanted to tell you, and some day he will. Well you know, if the watch box was just him driving over there, I can't imagine why he can't answer that we were going to my house or we were coming back, and he was throwing away French fries. Tells me Mike Dayton knows more than he's telling, and Stan Brown probably gave him very good advice, not to talk.

KING: Nancy -- Stan Brown is his lawyer -- Nancy, what you would add to that?

GRACE: Yes, what concerns me is if he finds himself at trial one day, trial for what? What is he worried about going to trial for? Another thing, if it's the truth...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: ... obstruction of justice, that's what this is.

GRACE: ... why is he so afraid to tell the truth? He also said yesterday that his lawyer said he was crazy for coming on. Coming on for what? He didn't say anything. We wanted to find out about the watch box, why Condit was throwing out evidence. He wouldn't talk. What's so incriminating about him throwing out the watch box? But Dayton wouldn't talk. Why?

EPSTEIN: Well, first of all...

KING: We will take a break and will be back with more, and Julian will respond, as we go at it. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LARRY KING LIVE")

KING: Has he made a decision about his political life?

CHAD CONDIT, GARY CONDIT'S SON: He has been in public life for 30 years, never an allegation, never a charge. I don't know if he will run again. My family vote would be that he doesn't. I don't think he deserves this. I don't think my mom deserves this. But that will be decided in the next few weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Julian, if the redistricting plan drawn up today passes, his district will change considerably, and it will be about 37 percent Hispanic, and will go from about 52 percent Democrat to about 63 percent Democrat. What do you make of that concept, if approved?

EPSTEIN: Well, it's very close, that district, to the San Andreas fault, and in a sense this is kind of like a political earthquake for Gary Condit if it occurs, because if you follow his politics closely, he is a very, very conservative Democrat, he often votes with the Republicans. He voted for President Bush's tax program. If that becomes a more minority, more liberal district, I think it's difficult to square that with his politics. It is a sign that Gray Davis, that the other Democrats think that, again, his handling has become too big a burden for them to bear.

KING: Jacksonville, Florida, hello.

CALLER: Hello, Nancy. My question for you is, don't you think that when Gary said, in the Connie Chung interview, several times "I have not been a perfect man," can't you read between the lines and see what he was saying? He was basically saying, "I had a sexual affair."

GRACE: Yes, I can see that, and I'm not all hung up on Condit saying, hey, guys, I had sex with Levy and a whole lot of other people. I couldn't care less about that than I do.

But what concerns me, Caller, is that he stonewalled police. You can't tell me he didn't. He let the trail grow cold. He is still hiding something, and his staff and his family, by turning the other way, through loyalty, are washing their hands of the whole thing, looking the other way. I don't agree with it.

GERAGOS: You know, it's an interesting thing. I've heard this theory about how he let the trail get cold. If he is responsible, then he's drawn attention to himself. If he isn't responsible, he threw the police to somebody else. So how did he, by as you say, stonewalling, which nobody's ever said he did, how did that impede the investigation, Nancy?

GRACE: By taking the focus off other suspects, if there really are any, and having police focus solely on him. He was her lover. He was one of the last men with her. He clearly was evading. He clearly was evading police questions.

GERAGOS: They said the same time they were interviewing him, they had interviewed some 99 other people. So I don't think that for a minute that he had impeded any investigation.

EPSTEIN: Again, there's a middle ground between the two positions.

OLSON: Mark, you want to answer the question then, why all of a sudden with Connie Chung we hear about a train? If that was true, if Chandra Levy had told him she was going on a train, why didn't the public hear about that early on, so that possibility?

GERAGOS: I'll tell you why. Because the D.C. police didn't leak it. I mean, that the simple answer.

OLSON: Oh, come on.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Gary Condit did not tell the Levys. He didn't even tell the Levys. Not only if he told the police did they not leak it, but he didn't tell anyone.

EPSTEIN: Again, I think that my guess is that when Gary Condit went in for the first interview, they asked about the nature of the relationship. He essentially said mind your own business. My guess is -- it's only a guess -- the police had an idea that their affair was romantic. However, you can make no excuse for the fact that -- and the police have said this -- that it was like pulling teeth from him. And when you're dealing in the context of a missing person, no matter what you want to infer as to what the police knew or didn't know, or trails going cold, the responsibility in his part is to be as up-front and forthcoming as possible. I think the police have said that they didn't think that he was doing that, and that is where the real problem is.

GRACE: Julian, in missing persons cases, every -- I know -- every minute counts. Hour by hour...

EPSTEIN: I'm not disagreeing with you. Nancy, I'm agreeing with you, here.

(LAUGHTER)

GRACE: I understand you are. And this is back to the caller, Julian, what the caller was asking. The hours you wait could mean the difference between life and death, and I hold Condit responsible for stonewalling.

EPSTEIN: Well, I don't think anybody could argue on that point.

KING: Ohio, hello.

CALLER: Hi. First, I'd like to say hi to Nancy Grace. I'm a huge fan.

GRACE: Hi.

CALLER: The reason for my call is I was wondering why -- Gary Condit obviously went to Bill Clinton school of how to not answer a question. Why is everybody so quick to rally around him, but as soon as Anne Marie Smith opens her mouth, everyone already automatically attacks her and says she's got ulterior motives. I just don't understand why she's getting attacked and she's done nothing wrong.

KING: Who's attacking?

EPSTEIN: Take a shot at that?

KING: Yeah, Julian, go ahead.

EPSTEIN: I don't -- I, for one, have not attacked her. I've said that I believe that she's probably telling the truth. I think in the context of Bill Clinton and, Barbara, I can hear her huffing and puffing already, before I've gotten the words out of my mouth -- there wasn't a missing person. And secondly, it may have taken him a little bit long, but he did concede on television and before the grand jury to the inappropriate affair, and he did say he was going to try to make right. I think that is a long way from where Gary Condit was, both before the police and on television with Connie Chung.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: There's only one reason...

OLSON: Bill Clinton started...

GERAGOS: The difference is, it's the poll numbers. Period, end of story.

OLSON: No, it's not, Mark. You know better than that.

GRACE: The difference is, Clinton's girlfriend is alive and Condit's is missing. That's the difference.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: That also explains the poll numbers.

KING: Go ahead, Barbara.

OLSON: I was just going to say that with Bill Clinton, we were asked that it was a private affair about sex. And that's the beginning of it. It is stark. I disagree with Julian on one thing, that if Gary Condit apologizes, everything is OK. I do think there is some moral authority our elected officials have.

Yes, I'm going to pass judgment. I'm going to say that I think someone who is telling friends that his wife is very ill and sick, and is going around with young girls and having multiple affairs -- because I think Anne Marie Smith wasn't lying -- I don't necessarily say that's private, that's personal. I think it's character. I think it's who he is. I think it's how he treats people, I think it's how he treats women. And I think it's relevant in a political sense, that may not be relevant to finding Chandra Levy, whether or not Anne Marie Smith was telling the truth. But it's relevant to who he is.

EPSTEIN: But it's not what I said, and I don't think the public has a kind of Victorian-like voyeurism interest in these extramarital affairs. And its not that I said -- and I think that's what people perceived during the Clinton crisis. But it's not that I said if he simply accepted responsibility everything would be all right. But what I think people wanted to hear was that he made a mistake. Why did he make a mistake? He was in fact having an affair. OLSON: And what was that mistake?

EPSTEIN: I think the mistake was he wasn't forthcoming with the police. I think that was the big mistake.

OLSON: So it wasn't a mistake to have the affair with a girl while you're married -- just don't lie about it.

EPSTEIN: No, no, no, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in the context of -- we're talking about relative things, here. I think in the context of a missing person here, there is no excuse for not being up-front with the police. And I think that people may have understood that he did in fact panic, that he was trying to save himself and his wife and his family the embarrassment, and he did the wrong thing. If he had said that, if you take responsibility...

OLSON: He could have saved his wife the embarrassment early on. There's a better way of saving your wife's embarrassment.

KING: Let him make the point.

EPSTEIN: I agree with you, but I think what the American public basically wants -- the American public understands people aren't perfect, people have foibles. But they want to hear, particularly when there's a dire situation, a dire context, them take responsibility for it and try to make right. And that's when people begin forgiveness, if they'll give forgiveness.

KING: Have to get a break. We'll be right back with more. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MULLEN: There may be some things in his life I don't know, but, um -- no, I don't think that there's a Gary Condit we don't know. You know, I think the people that know -- no, I think the people that know Gary Condit know Gary Condit, and the people that are making the judgments don't know him, have never met him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: There of course, the picture of the still-missing Chandra Levy. The phone number for any information you may have is (800) 860- 6552. That's (800) 860-6552.

Cambridge, Ontario, hello.

CALLER: Yes, I have a statement and a question for Julian.

KING: Sure. Julian, go ahead.

CALLER: I feel that the only one that can save Gary Condit is Gary Condit. He keeps sending out all of these sympathizers, and it's not doing him any good. Julian, do you think it is too late for him to promote and be contrite publicly? Do you think he has lost all of his credibility?

EPSTEIN: I think he's lost much of his credibility, and I think he lost it during the Connie Chung interview. Whether or not he can save his career, I think it is important for him to acknowledge that he did have the affair, that when the police asked him about it, he was -- he did not do the right thing.

And I think even more importantly, that if the family now says to him, you have to jump, he should say, how high. If they want him to meet with the investigators, he should go and do that. I think if he begins to do these things, people might say, well, he had a lot of extramarital affairs, and that was bad, but at the same time he is not a murderer. I think that would help him a great deal if he were...

KING: So he can -- he can improve his reputation?

EPSTEIN: I think he can. I think he still has an...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Do you think he can, Mark?

GERAGOS: I agree with Julian. He has got not only do that, but he has got to come out. He has to come out at least one more time and talk, I mean, because I think -- and Julian and I have talked about this off the air -- I think that there is going to be a rather rude reception when goes back to Washington, D.C.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Julian said off the air -- what did you say -- it's a hornets nest back there?

EPSTEIN: It's a hornets nest back here. I can't imagine he wants to come back.

KING: Would he help himself, Nancy, would he help himself if he came on a program somewhere and was completely different than he was with Ms. Chung and he was contrite and he was open, and.

GERAGOS: You're asking that with a straight face of Nancy?

KING: No...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: ... let's see if it was the man that the aides described last night, if he put that projection forward, would that reconstruct him?

GRACE: You know, Larry, I'm no politico, and I guess I'm just looking at this from a different point view, from a legal point of view, from a victim's rights point of view. He can come out, he can be contrite. He can say, "I'm sorry, please elect me, I didn't mean to do it." But you know what? Chandra is gone. And you know what else? He let the trail go dead when he was trying to save his own political career...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: So he can do nothing in your mind? He can do nothing in your mind?

GRACE: He might get reelected.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Hold it, hold it. Barbara, could he do anything in your mind that could resurrect him a little?

OLSON: Well, you know, I think what we are all talking about is the person who says "I made a mistake, I now realize I shouldn't have done that." And yes, most people forgive that. And I would.

But you know what? Gary Condit hasn't made a mistake. Gary Condit has a series of activities that has been going on obviously for many years, and I agree, his actions on this investigation with a missing girl is that he put his own personal fear of being uncovered above a missing girl. And we learned facts on Connie Chung that hadn't heard before.

And you know, another -- and I've got say this, because it's sticking out there, and I still have not figured it out. Gary Condit brings up a train, we didn't know about that. Where is the watch that Gary Condit threw the watch box away from? You know, this watch that we don't see. I mean, there are so many things out there that he can't come forward. It's as I said before, there is this closet, and if the door opens I think Gary Condit realizes he has to lie about everything.

EPSTEIN: But there's one thing we all agree on, Larry. The one very quick thing we all agree on is that he should meet with the family investigators as the family has requested. And I think that is a substantive thing, Nancy, that he can do that would maybe be constructive.

GRACE: I agree.

KING: We'll be back. We just had a miracle occur on this program, a four-side agreement. We will be right -- but we still got another segment to go. Don't count your hatches! Don't count your hatches? Don't count -- never mind, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: OK, guys, what do you think is going to happen next week? Julian, you think that key Democrats might go to him as key Republicans went to Richard Nixon years ago and say, "you've got to get out?"

EPSTEIN: Yes. I think, as I said, I think he is in -- is perhaps his final stage right now, unless, you know -- remember the final days with Nixon and all of that -- I think he's in kind of the same place.

Unless he does something dramatic along the lines that I was just speaking about -- and it can be any one of these three things, it can be redistricting, it can be a resignation, I'm not going to run again. But barring some dramatic effect, I think -- event -- I think that is the handwriting that's on the wall.

KING: Nancy, any thoughts on what's going to happen?

GRACE: Well, sure. I think they will close on him like wolves. After all, they are politicians, they are trying to save their own skins just like he is. But what my concern is, is will we ever get anymore clues about Chandra.

KING: And from way you sound, you doubt it?

GRACE: I doubt it.

KING: Mark?

GERAGOS: I don't think this story has been anything but linear. I don't know that I believe that there won't by be anymore clues about Chandra, I still hold out some hope.

KING: It is a puzzlement, though.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: I mean clues from Condit.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Condit has nothing to do with this, Nancy. I don't know that you are ever going to get anymore clues out of there.

GRACE: Yeah, right.

GERAGOS: So I mean, you can keep holding out that hope that he has got -- in your mind, that he was the one who was involved. But if he isn't, then you are not going to be able to get anything more out of him.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: ... if I were the police, I would turn the heat up on every suspect I had and until the kettle boiled over, until I found Chandra or...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: And Nancy, I don't know that that's not exactly what they are doing, and it just so happens that he is not one of the prime suspects.

KING: But you think the pressure will be put on him by Democrats?

GERAGOS: I think the Democrats, as Julian says, are going to -- and it will be a hornets nest, and then once he goes back there, I think he is going to realize that something has to be done.

KING: Barbara, you have the last word, what do you think is going to happen?

OLSON: Well, I think it has already started with Gephardt making his statement against Condit, Gray Dais, who with the redistricting -- I think his own party has walked away. Terry McAuliffe the other day was asked about Condit and acts like "Gary, who?" Didn't even recognize the name. I think they are trying to get away from him and he is going to realize it next week. Like I said, their caucus meets on Wednesday. I don't think he is going to have a lot of people willing to sit at his table.

KING: Thank you all very much, I'm sure that we will be seeing you sooner than we think. Barbara Olson, Nancy Grace, Mark Geragos, Julian Epstein. Labor Day weekend, please drive carefully. We will repeat our interview with Chad, the son of Gary Condit, tomorrow night, Chad Condit. And on Sunday night, we will repeat the last long interview done by the Levys, and we will be back Monday night. And don't forget Tuesday, Oprah will be the guest.

Stay tuned for "CNN TONIGHT." Again, have a great weekend. Thanks for joining us. For all of our panel, good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/28/lkl.00.html

Who is Mary Grace? Is Barbara coming unglued in light of upcoming events?

OLSON: As Mary Grace said, he is a political animal, but I think he's going to see the writing on the wall. And I think his son's statement last night wasn't necessarily -- I mean, I think it's the first time it's been said, but as he said to you, the family discusses that, they're all together. They know where they are going, and so I'm not so sure they're not discussing that as well. And he came forward a little more than he expected to with you.

KING: Nancy Grace -- you always call her Mary Grace.

OLSON: I'm sorry. I apologize. I know a Mary Grace.

 

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Condit Controversy Continues

Aired August 28, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, did Chad Condit's defense of his dad do the congressman any good? Will Anne Marie Smith score a legal hit with her grand jury pitch? And can Gary Condit salvage anything from the Chandra Levy controversy?

Squaring off in Washington, former federal prosecutor and best- selling author Barbara Olson. In New York, former prosecutor, now Court TV anchor Nancy Grace. In Los Angeles, defense attorney Mark Geragos. And back in D.C., former chief minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, Julian Epstein. All next on LARRY KING LIVE!

First, we start with breaking news. Both Condits, Chad Condit and his sister Cadee -- Chad was on the show last night, Cadee was in the studio -- have resigned today.

Here's the letter they sent to Governor Davis: "Dear Governor, the Condits are a very proud and loyal family, not only in the good times but also during the darkest hours. You may remember our father's strong public support endorsement and organizational efforts for you during the bleakest moments of your 1998 primary campaign. It is that kind of loyalty to friends that has been hallmark of his career and is a standard we strive to live up to.

Continued employment with the governor's office after your public statement regarding our father would undercut that standard. Your statement did not nor will not help find Chandra Levy, and contrary to your statement, Congressman Condit was fully forthcoming to law enforcement. Friendship should not be based on poll numbers, therefore we respectfully submit our resignation, effective immediately."

The governor has now issued a statement from Sacramento. Governor Gray Davis today issued the following statement on the resignations of Chad and Cadee Condit from the office of the governor -- quote -- "These are two extraordinary young adults who did an outstanding job for the office of the governor." Governor Davis said, "I regret their decision to leave, but I am convinced that they will be successful in whatever they choose to do. I wish them all the best in their future endeavors."

Let's turn back to yesterday. Here is what Governor Gray Davis said yesterday during the day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: I have known Gary and worked with him for many, many years, and so what I'm about to say doesn't bring me any joy whatsoever. I didn't see the interview, so my information comes from news accounts and the transcripts of the interview. But I am disheartened that Congressman Condit did not speak out more quickly, or more fully.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And last night, when Chad Condit, the congressman's older child, a son, appeared on this program, I asked Chad about the governor's statement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHAD CONDIT, GARY CONDIT'S SON: He says he got his information from the news media. And so anybody that's going to rely on the news media on this story to give them information, rely strictly on that, probably is going to get it wrong. The fact of the matter is, Gary Condit has been forthcoming with law enforcement folks from the very beginning. And there is no honor in kicking somebody when they are down. I -- I just -- I just disagree with the governor's comments, and they kind of missed the mark.

KING: But you don't hold the governor in less regard?

C. CONDIT: I probably do.

KING: But you are still working for him?

C. CONDIT: Right, this second.

KING: As of this minute.

C. CONDIT: Yeah.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And he and his sister resigned today.

Let's go right around with the panel. Barbara, what do you make of all this? His appearance last night and the resignation now?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, his appearance last night, you couldn't help but understand how a son wants to help his father, how a son wants to put his father in the best light.

But one statement that Chad made caught me, because this has been made by Condit, Marina Ein and Abbe Lowell, is Chad Condit, in answer to one of your first questions was, "he told the law enforcement all they needed to know." You know, we talked about when Marina Ein made that statement early on for Gary Condit, "he had given them all the information they needed to know." It seems like they don't realize that you have to answer every question from the police, beyond what you think they need to know. And that is really where the problem is. Chad just reinforced that he couldn't answer the questions completely and truthfully, he gave the same answers as his dad, and unfortunately I think he just magnified where his father had made mistakes, and how they are not being allowed to answer the question truthfully and fully about the relationship.

KING: Mark, what do you make of the resignation, standing up for dad?

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think it's a pretty impressive thing for both of them. I mean, these are two people who have got, by all accounts, extraordinary futures and careers, and they've got a father who is under siege. Chad -- I thought his interview yesterday -- I mean, Barbara wants to pick out one sentence and parse that and then spin that out into some kind of a theory. I mean, I saw that interview, and I was truly impressed.

I thought Chad Condit was one of the most impressive individuals in the line of fire and for taking fire, and some of the stuff he said I think for the first time gave voice to exactly what it is is going on in the Condit camp.

I mean, you have been saying for a long time, a lot of us, Julian included, had been saying that somebody needs to get out there and talk, and Chad did it, and I think very eloquently.

KING: Nancy Grace, your thoughts on last night and the resignation?

NANCY GRACE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, as to the resignation, unfortunately I see that as just the two resignations as more casualties because of the decisions of Gary Condit. These are two great young people with great futures ahead of them, but by believing in their father, relying on their father, now their careers have been lost, at least with the governor.

As to Chad Condit's interview last night, I watched it, and my heart went out to him, but I felt that the strategy was safe for Gary Condit to send his son out to do his dirty work. The son could not be questioned on the tough questions about Chandra Levy. And...

KING: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but he said his father didn't want him to come.

GRACE: I know that, but you know he had to agree with his appearance, Larry. This is a big PR campaign orchestrated by the Condit camp, and I'm sure Gary Condit agreed with it.

But lastly, regarding last night, unfortunately Chad Condit is in the position of taking the same technique as his father. I counted up, 13 times he evaded the question that you presented him regarding relationships with other women -- 13 times in one hour.

KING: And Julian Epstein, your read on all of this, and we'll get a break and we'll swing right into the whole controversy -- Julian.

JULIAN EPSTEIN, FORMER HOUSE JUDICIARY COUNSEL: Well, I think Chad showed himself above all to be a very human person last night. I thought his interview was really extraordinary with you. I thought he was very straightforward. He made it very clear that he was going draw the line and not go over it in terms of what questions he was going to answer.

And look, that's basically the position that I think the Condits have taken. I think they are wrong for doing it, but they are basically taking the position that we have -- whether or not we got it right at first, we have cooperated with the police, we are not going to do these public confessionals now about the extramarital affairs. I think everybody concedes, even though they don't say it, they even see concede with the body language and the implications and their remarks that there were these extramarital affairs.

I generally agree that you don't have to go on television and do these kind of bear-all confessionals, but here is the problem, here is the only place where I really disagree with Chad, which is this: In the context of a missing person, if there is a perception that a person being questioned, a person involved with that mission person, is not being candid, is not being straightforward, then the public is not going to believe that person on the big question, if they don't feel like they are being square on and direct on the small questions.

And that is essentially the problem for Gary Condit right now. Unless I think he can answer those questions, he is going to be at the point of no return politically and in terms of reputation, even if he had absolutely nothing do with the disappearance.

KING: And what do you make of the resignation from the governor's office by the kids?

EPSTEIN: I think it's a very principled position, I think we can all relate to that. If somebody were to -- if somebody were to attack my father, I think my first instinct would be to show that type of loyalty. I think above all it was loyalty, he is showing he is principled, he doesn't want to put himself in a conflicted position, working for a guy who is attacking his father. I don't think you can say -- that it's anything other than a very principled position.

KING: We'll get a break, we'll be back, we will be including your phone calls. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

C. CONDIT: I'm here to tell the American public, Gary Condit had nothing to do -- or Carolyn Condit -- had nothing to do with the disappearance. He doesn't know where she is, what happened to her, anything of that nature. He has told the police everything he knows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHAD CONDIT: When folks start calling my dad a murderer, or suggesting my mom and dad had something to do with the disappearance, that is too much, too far, unfair, and it is wrong. And somebody has got to say enough is enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Barbara, on that point that young Mr. Condit said, despite all this, and he may have handled it terribly, all the affairs -- if we believe it all, there isn't one iota of proof that he had anything to do with the disappearance of Chandra. Is that true?

OLSON: There isn't one iota of hard evidence, you are absolutely right. I disagree with Chad about the people that have been calling his father a murderer. No one has. What people have been saying is, "Here is a witness. Here is a person who the police would naturally want to question." They naturally would want to know what his relationship was, and indeed, want to know what Chandra Levy's state of mind. When that witness lies or evades the simple facts, such as about a relationship, nothing -- having nothing to do with Chandra, that throws suspicion on them.

And indeed, that is why we are suspicious of Gary Condit, because we say, "Why would he lie about things?" We are in -- I'm talking about lying publicly, with his staff, or lying about, what I believe he was, lying on Connie Chung. I think I can say that as my opinion. I think most people hold that opinion, is that he lied about relationship. You then say, what else is there, that you would lie about something so important?"

GERAGOS: What's just amazing about that statement that Barbara just made is Barbara concedes -- as I think she must, and rightfully so -- that what these perceived lies are about have nothing to do with Chandra. And then we make this leap that therefore he must be lying about Chandra.

KING: Let's resume. If he had a relationship -- if he had a relationship with Chandra, are you saying he lied about that because of embarrassment, but he wasn't lying about anything else?

GERAGOS: I've said it before. Except the worst thing that he has been accused of, that there is any evidence of, that there was a relationship with Chandra, the fact that there is relationship with Chandra, to then make the leap that therefore if he is covering up an adulterous affair, that therefore he is a murderer -- I'm sorry, there isn't. I mean, there's a reason that...

OLSON: That is not the leap, Mark, that is not the leap. The leap is that this is a person who the police and the prosecutors went to to get information based on what Linda Zamsky had told them.

GERAGOS: On four separate occasions.

OLSON: He wasn't forthcoming with them, so therefore it puts the suspicion on the person. They say if he is not forthcoming about noncriminal activities, why? What's a person -- natural result.

GERAGOS: Except that isn't what they said. They said they went to him four times, they talked to him four times, he talked to them, and then guess what happened? They said he is no longer a central figure in the investigation. Yet nobody wants to listen to that.

KING: Nancy, if he is no longer a central figure, why do we continue to attack him?

GRACE: Well, for one thing...

KING: If the police have said he's no longer central figure, is he no longer a central figure?

GRACE: Well, very rarely do police come out preindictment and name someone as a target. That simply triggers their Fifth Amendment rights, makes them even more protective of what they do give in cooperation. But in response to Geragos's comment, you know, the fact that he would lie about the simplest things, his relationship, a sex relationship -- how are we supposed to believe what he says about more important things, such as the last time he saw her? Did they argue? Was she pregnant? Was there a five-year plan? I can't believe anything the man says.

GERAGOS: Except the police have already said that they have talked to him. They only -- the worst thing they have ever said is that he hasn't been forthcoming, That is the worst thing that they have ever said. They haven't said that he lied. Because you know as well is a do, if he had lied, that is a criminal offense. And you know as well as I do, also, that under any -- under any legal jurisdiction, you cannot make the leap that you are making that because somebody lies about something that is immaterial, that therefore you can then say they are lying about something else.

GRACE: I'm making a common sense argument that if he would like -- if I could just finish, Mark. If he would lie about the simplest things and show such apathy towards Chandra Levy, I can't believe him on anything, much less why he was throwing away evidence or cleaning out apartment.

EPSTEIN: There is a bridge in that conversation.

KING: We'll let you get a word in, Julian.

EPSTEIN: There is a bridge in the conversation, here, and I think that nobody can say anything about him at this point with any degree of certainty, other than that he is trying to cover up these affairs, and that he doesn't want to speak about the affairs. And it doesn't flow that the fact that he wants to cover up the affairs, that he is in any way involved in her disappearance. It doesn't flow intellectually, it doesn't flow from an evidentiary point of view. It just doesn't flow.

So I think that we have to avoid this becoming like a Salem Witch Trial on television where, you know, we've got some evidence that he has done something wrong and therefore we are going to convict him of something -- of murder.

GRACE: Julian...

EPSTEIN: Now, you may not be doing that, Nancy, but Dominick Dunne was on this show last week, talking about motorcycle theories, all these other things, which I think is just irresponsible. Now, your point -- your point, if I can say, Nancy, I actually agree with you. And Mark, maybe you and I just differ just a little bit on this, but I think what Nancy and Barbara are saying is that even from a legal point of view, this may not be true. But from an intuitive point of view, from public relations point view, if people are not believing you on the small things, they are not likely to believe you on the big things. And that is the central point.

If Mr. Condit doesn't get out and, I think, straighten the record, clarify the record, on the smaller things, this continual suspicion is going to go on about the bigger thing and I think he is going to just damn himself politically in the case.

GRACE: There is another issue. There is one other issue and that is this. I don't know how many murder cases you have handled, defense or prosecution, but when you've got a chief character in a missing person's life, their lover, practically their live-in, lying through teeth about the relationship, you've got a suspect. I don't care what police are saying.

EPSTEIN: No.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: It is just such a misnomer -- such an absolutely disingenuous thing, Nancy, to keep saying that he was lying. He did not lie to police. You can't -- you can't make that statement. The police have not said that he has done it. You know, it is -- to just keep repeating it a like mantra...

OLSON: Mark, you know what did come out...

GERAGOS: And to say that therefore he lied to the police, and therefore, it must mean he is guilty of the crime, you know that that isn't what happened. Why...

OLSON: Mark, what did come out during the...

KING: I've got to get a break. Barbara, go ahead quickly.

OLSON: I was going to say what did come out in last week's interviews was that not necessarily that he lied, but even his team admits that he questioned the police about the relevance of their questions about Chandra. When they started asking him about a relationship, he refused to answer saying, "You prove it is relevant." And obviously the police couldn't force him to answer, so we did have him evasive, we did have him not being forth coming and admitting it.

KING: We will break. We'll come right back. We'll be including your phone calls tonight. Don't go away. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHAD CONDIT: He didn't have anything to do with it.

KING: You...

CONDIT: I know that. I know that.

KING: You know in your heart?

CONDIT: I know in any heart ,but my mom was in town. The police know where he was at. He was meeting with the vice president at 12:30 or 1:00 that afternoon. We know he didn't. So not only in my heart, sure, I feel that in my heart. But we know that he didn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNE MARIE SMITH, CLAIMS AFFAIR WITH CONDIT: He has taken steps to put himself in this position. He asked me to lie, and if I hadn't had an attorney, I would have perjured myself. I mean, I wasn't aware of the law and I wanted to keep my name out of the media, and I would have marched right over there and signed that affidavit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Do you agree, Mark Geragos, that most people think Anne Marie Smith is telling the truth?

GERAGOS: I don't know. I mean, there is -- when you see somebody like whatever his name is, her lawyer, out there with Judicial Watch in Modesto, filing a complaint to get the grand jury to investigate obstruction of justice, I mean, it is so...

KING: But now you're doing what you're saying Barbara did. That doesn't mean she's telling all lies.

GERAGOS: Right, but at the same time, it does. It just creates -- it's such a theatrical and such a ridiculous atmosphere. There isn't anything the grand jury can do in Modesto that has to do with this.

KING: The question was do you think Anne Marie is lying?

GERAGOS: I don't think Anne Marie is telling the whole truth. That is my opinion.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Who's laughing? Barbara or Nancy or both?

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Barbara's always laughing when Mark's talking.

OLSON: Well, I had to laugh because he doesn't think she's telling the whole truth. The Levys have made that statement about Gary Condit, so it seemed like a borrowed line.

But let's go back to what made Anne Marie Smith come forward. She was frightened. You know, the night she was on your show, Larry, when we talked to the attorney the next night she was very frightened. She wanted to come out because she realized that there was...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Oh, come on. She was frightened? Barbara, that is the most absurd thing. She wasn't frightened. She was out there, she was going with the "National Enquirer" or the "Star" or whoever it was. Her roommate was out selling these stories...

OLSON: She was not.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Mark, you've got to get your facts straight. She wasn't going to the "National Enquirer" or the "Star." No, that was her roommate, and she did not...

EPSTEIN: Larry, can I give you a third theory on this?

KING: Yes, go ahead, Julian.

EPSTEIN: A third theory on this -- I don't disbelieve Anne Marie Smith. I assume that she's probably telling the truth at this point. But that's not the important point. The important point is that I don't see how this filing of this case does anything to deal with the most important aspect, the most important issue, which is finding Chandra Levy.

Here on this case, what they're doing is they're attempting to take this out of the prosecutor's hands by going directly through this kind of obscure statute. The case is already being investigated by the federal authorities. Why do they want to put it in the state authorities? They're using a creature of law that really comes out of the 1800s. I don't see how it really advances that case.

OLSON: Julian, this has a lot to do with whether Gary Condit called up a witness and asked her to sign a false affidavit. This has a lot to do about Gary Condit's actions to obstruct an investigation. I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: But why take it out of the hands, Barbara? Why take it out of -- why try -- this is being done now by the federal authorities in the U.S. attorney's office in the District of Columbia. Why try to now remove that to a state proceeding, which is going to, in a clumsy way...

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Because Anne Marie Smith...

EPSTEIN: And why take that decision away? If there should be a prosecution, if there should be indictment, why take the decision away from a prosecutor?

OLSON: I'll tell you why. Because Gary Condit, on television, basically said Anne Marie Smith had lied. She lied when she told us, the public, about the relationship. We know she sat down with the FBI for two days, over nine hours worth of interviews. We assume she told them the same thing. Gary Condit basically said Anne Marie Smith has perjured herself. That's a very serious thing to say, and Anne Marie Smith is now forced into a position...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Therefore somehow she's going to be indicted...

OLSON: No, she's not going to be indicted, because I don't think she perjured herself.

GERAGOS: Then why is he in front of a grand jury? Then why are they going to a grand jury in Modesto, California?

OLSON: Because I think Anne Marie Smith...

GERAGOS: Because that's where he did the interview? And because he did an interview in Modesto, California, therefore the grand jury is going to come and indict?

OLSON: Where would you like her to go, Mark?

GERAGOS: Where? Where? Anne Marie Smith? Back under whatever rock she crawled out from under!

OLSON: See, that's uncalled for.

KING: Let me a break and we'll actually have Nancy get a word in. This is one of those rare times Nancy didn't get a word in. And we're going to go to your calls shortly. We'll also ask about what they think he's going to do politically. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

C. CONDIT: We thought dealing with the police and not making a spectacle out of whatever was the right thing to do. And anybody in journalism or anywhere else that writes about or talks about the sexual relationships that Chandra Levy may or may not have, is a scumbag. There's been people that have done that, and it's wrong. People should not be profiting off of rumored sexual relationships that a disappearing person has had. It's not right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: In retrospect, should he have called the Levys more?

C. CONDIT: He talked to Levys May 6th.

KING: I mean May 7th, May 8th, maybe May 9th, 10th, 15th, 23rd...

C. CONDIT: It's pretty hard when there is an accusatorial tone coming from their family. It's hard. And sure, if we could figure out how -- well, Gary has said -- to sit down with the Levys, him and Levys tomorrow. But we're not going to make a media circus or a lawyer deal up. If they want to sit down, he'll do that. He said that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Nancy, Chad also said that his vote with the family would be for the congressman not to seek reelection. What do you think he is going to do?

GRACE: I think that he will seek reelection. I think that Condit, from what we can tell, is a creature of habit. He repeats his own practices over and over and over. I think he will seek reelection.

Regarding the case Anne Marie Smith is bringing, I don't see a problem with their attempts. Modesto is the correct jurisdiction to do that. The Condit camp is doing anything they can to attack the reputation of any woman involved with Gary Condit. And just trial strategy, this is just speculation as to why they are trying to use that outmoded statute -- possibly, they don't trust local prosecutors for political reasons and want to go about it themselves.

KING: Barbara, you think they have any chance of success with that?

OLSON: Well, I mean, I disagree a little bit...

KING: Most of the legal experts say no.

OLSON: Right, and I don't think so and I'll tell you why. Gray Davis -- we're in the midst of redistricting the state. He controls a great deal of that. Gephardt is not going to be helpful as well. We now know he's no longer saying Gary Condit is an honorable man. And so you've got Gary Condit looking at a future district run that's not going to be the conservative Democrat district that elected him. The Democrats are going to put more moderates in, and I think he's going to see the writing on the wall when his party, Terry McAuliffe, Gephardt, and now Gray Davis, turn against him. It's going to become impossible, just as a political matter, even if he does want to run.

As Mary Grace said, he is a political animal, but I think he's going to see the writing on the wall. And I think his son's statement last night wasn't necessarily -- I mean, I think it's the first time it's been said, but as he said to you, the family discusses that, they're all together. They know where they are going, and so I'm not so sure they're not discussing that as well. And he came forward a little more than he expected to with you.

KING: Nancy Grace -- you always call her Mary Grace.

OLSON: I'm sorry. I apologize. I know a Mary Grace.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: I hate to, as a matter of principle, agree with Barbara, but I have to agree with her on what she said. And if you study the major scandals dating back the last quarter century, from Watergate on through about two dozen Congressional scandals up through the impeachment process of President Clinton, you will see that the acid test of when a member of Congress, a public official, gets to that breaking point where they can't turn back, it's when members of their own party begin to turn on them. And you've seen that happen this week.

If things stay as they are, status quo, if Gary Condit leaves the record as it is, I think he is past the breaking point. If, however, he were to, say, come on this program, another program, and basically try to clarify what I call the smaller questions, the questions about the affairs, even though he thinks in principle he doesn't have to. I think he does because of the widespread perception that there was dishonesty in the early days of this thing. If he does that, then maybe it could change. But until he does that, he's in a rut.

KING: I'm going to take a break. We'll reintroduce our panel and go to your phone calls on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We are back. Let's meet our panel again then go to phone calls. In Washington, Barbara Olson former federal prosecutor, best- selling author. In New York, Nancy Grace, former prosecutor herself, and anchor of "Trail Heat" on Court TV. Here in Los Angeles, Mark Geragos, the famed defense attorney. And in Washington, Julian Epstein, the former chief minority counsel for House Judiciary.

Let's go to some phone calls. Natick, Massachusetts, hello.

CALLER: Hi there. I just want to say, to preface my question with a remark that I thought his son Chad conducted himself admirably. I would like to know, I know there were so many important issues, but I just cannot understand why the panel, including Connie Chung, sorry, yes, Connie Chung, was so hung up on Condit admitting his sexual -- the word "sexual" relationship.

What relevance, how much can someone pummel someone to admit that? And what relevance does that word have in the scheme of everything else?

KING: All right, who wants to take -- Nancy? GRACE: Well, I think -- I understand where she is coming from. But the fact is that Condit is evasive on even the simplest issues, including the nature of his relationship with a woman that is now, by many, presumed dead. So, with that foundation, everything else he says is tainted, including things regarding the disappearance, like the last time he saw her, did he see her that day? Did they argue? Was she pregnant? The police can no longer believe anything he says.

GERAGOS: Except apparently they do, so...

GRACE: I don't know that.

GERAGOS: I guess the police apparently -- apparently, they don't agree with you, so other than that, Nancy, it is a wonderful (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

GRACE: That is not true, Mark.

GERAGOS: Well, they do. They have said repeatedly, they are not interested him anymore.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Niagara Falls, New York, hello.

CALLER: Larry, thanks for taking my call. This is being directed to the women on the panel.

KING: Go.

CALLER: When they find out what happened to Chandra, how are you going to make this up to the Condit family? Especially the kids. I watched Chad last night. My heart was broken. I admire the kids' decision to resign their jobs, but it is sad they had to do that.

KING: All right, Barbara, she is assuming that we will find the conclusion to this, and that the congressman will not be culprit. If that is true, do you owe him an apology?

OLSON: Do I owe Gary Condit an apology?

KING: Yeah.

OLSON: I don't think I do. I want to agree with her about Gary Condit's son, Chad. I think all of us watched it. All of us have fathers and we realize, I would go out there and do that I could to help my dad.

He really was speaking from the heart. He believes his dad didn't have anything to do with it. And I have to say, we are on television talking about evidence. We are talking about what clues are out there. We are trying to put things together based on experience. Mine's being a prosecutor, Nancy Grace's being an prosecutor and that is where we are going with what we know, trying to put it together as a prosecutor would. If he is not involved, I still believe he did everything he could to make himself look suspicious. If he was not involved, then he shouldn't have acted the way he was, because he called this on him. I don't believe the media are to blame, as Chad said last night and Gary said last Friday night. It is not the media. There is not a victim here except for Chandra. And Gary Condit has caused the grief that he he's having because of his own actions.

KING: He certainly added to his own problems, didn't he, Mark? And I gave that example last night, if he had come forward?

GERAGOS: If he had come forward. But what seems to get lost in all of this, with all of this suspicion, with all of the pointing of fingers, he has given up his constitutional rights. He has waived, basically, virtually the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment in order to cooperate here.

And this idea that because, and people have repeated this, and what Chad was saying last night and I thought so articulately, is, he cooperated with those that he thought he should cooperate with. And he made a choice not to cooperate with the media.

KING: And that was a public relations mistake and that is important, isn't it?

GERAGOS: And you and I have agreed on this before. In the last five or six years, the whole nature of the criminal law has changed. You can no longer, I don't think, go out there and let your client just be mum. You to do something and you need to have a strategy.

GRACE: Larry.

KING: Nancy.

GRACE: I had one comment I would like to make to the lady caller that just called in, your second caller. I'm coming from the point of view not just as a former prosecutor, but as a victim of violent crime. If and when Chandra or her remains turn up, I would still hold Condit responsible for impeding this investigation. For that, I find it very difficult to forgive him.

KING: We will take a break and go to more phone calls and Nancy has an interesting observation about the lie detector as well. And we will get Julian to comment on that and then more calls. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, LARRY KING LIVE")

C. CONDIT: I don't think she handled the interview right at all. When you asked somebody, did you murder somebody, like the second or third question, what kind of interview are you going to get? Not a very good one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: What do you call a relationship?

SMITH: It's, you know, when somebody calls you every day and you see them periodically, or, you know, frequently. I have friends that can corroborate the story. It's like, I don't understand what he defines as a relationship.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That, of course, Anne Marie Smith. Before we go back to calls, Nancy Grace told me something off the air, that Ron Carey, the former president of Teamsters was indicted today. And apparently he had -- he had given a lie detector to the person who did -- what happened, quickly?

GRACE: That's right. Larry, what I was telling you is that Barry Colvert, the polygraph guru that everyone has latched on that apparently gave Condit these flying colors, A-plus on his polygraph, also gave a polygraph and gave an A-plus to Ron Carey, the former Teamster president back in '98.

Well, this morning, following a grand jury indictment, Carey is going on trial before a jury for funneling thousands and thousands of dollars out of the Teamster pension fund. So I'm not so sure that that polygraph meant anything.

EPSTEIN: To which the response, Larry, to which the response is, if you seem to have such a bee in your bonnet about him taking another polygraph test, you have just basically said that you think they are unreliable. Why would you want him to take one, if seem to be unreliable this way?

GRACE: No, I'm saying that a non-police polygraph -- I'd like to see Condit take a polygraph administered by the police.

EPSTEIN: No, but the polygraph -- the polygraph that was given to Ron Carey, unless I'm mistaken, was done by Colvert, and it was done as a part of an FBI-administered inquiry into that.

GRACE: No.

EPSTEIN: So, that was part of an FBI process, so you're now saying that they are unreliable. Why do you want Gary Condit to go take something that you yourself are saying...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: The fact of the matter is, Nancy, if I understood you correctly...

KING: She said it's after...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Well, the fact of the matter is, he went on trial, right? He hasn't been convicted yet? Do I understand you correctly?

GRACE: That's correct. That's correct.

GERAGOS: So therefore, because a grand jury indicted him, and he passed a polygraph, therefore polygraphs are unreliable, is that what we're hearing here?

GRACE: I'm suggesting to you, Mark Geragos, that Barry Colvert's polygraphs are not the be-all and end-all of truth-telling.

GERAGOS: Why don't we see what the jury does with Carey first. I'm suggesting to you that a grand jury will indict lots of innocent people, and have.

GRACE: I'm sure you are, Mark.

KING: Rochester, New York, hello.

CALLER: Hi. During the Connie Chung interview, if Condit had simply said, "I had an inappropriate relationship," would that have satisfied the media? Would he have to go into a -- quote -- "bear- all" confession?

KING: Barbara, what if he had said "inappropriate relationship"?

OLSON: I mean, it depends on how he couched it. I mean, we all know what Bill Clinton did. He made it very clear that it was intimate, that it was inappropriate. He didn't go into the details.

But the problem is -- and I don't know, I don't think Gary Condit needed to go into details. I think he needed to go beyond "we had a friendship." I think he needed to go beyond "a close friendship." I think it was the basis for a lot of Connie Chung's questions, as to sort of set that baseline.

If he had said -- and I fully expected Gary Condit to give a statement-like answer to the first question -- was "we had an inappropriate relationship, we were very close for such and such months," and do the timeline, and then say, "but I'm not going to go into the details about that inappropriate relationship," I think that would have been certainly closer to the truth than he gave.

EPSTEIN: That's exactly right, Larry. If he had said that I had an inappropriate relationship, as Barbara just said, and that I wasn't as cooperative and forthcoming with the police as I should have been, because I panicked, I got into a bad situation, I didn't know how to handle it, I think then people could have moved on.

And I don't believe, as I said, in these public confessionals normally. The only reason why it is relevant here, the only reason is because there is some theoretical relevance between a relationship and the fact that she is missing, and there was a lack of honesty early about it, that is why it is relevant.

KING: And he could still do that. EPSTEIN: He can still do it. He can come on your show tomorrow and talk about it. I think if he would do it, it would serve him a lot of good, because as I say, people got to believe him on the little things before they will believe him on the big things.

KING: Valiant, Oklahoma, hello.

CALLER: Hello. How does the panel know that Gary Condit was part of a five-year plan and not just part of Chandra's wishful thinking? And how do these women know that Gary Condit lied to the police? Have they said what they asked him and what his answers were?

KING: No, that they haven't done, Barbara, right? All this is on leaks, right?

OLSON: Well, not all of it. I mean, Linda Zamsky has come and publicly said what Chandra Levy, her niece, told her, and Linda said that Chandra told me...

KING: The caller's question was, how do you know Chandra was telling her the right thing? We will never know, right?

OLSON: Chandra could be delusional and then telling her aunt that, but there is also -- it's interesting, as a prosecutor and just a listener, you start putting facts together. Is everyone delusional because now Gary Condit has said he didn't have a relationship with Anne Marie Smith? The police lied about his cooperation? Joleen McKay wasn't a relationship? Chandra Levy and him never talked about their future?

Well, we know now quite a bit about who Chandra Levy is, we know about prior relationships. From Lisa DePaulo, we know Chandra Levy wanted to get married. It's in rational line with what she told the aunt.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: So she may be delusional, but it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like Gary Condit is the one who hasn't been, and we are doing this by the process of deduction.

GERAGOS: Well, I don't know, this deduction is an interesting thing, because with all due respect to Lisa DePaulo...

OLSON: Facts.

GERAGOS: Apparently, Lisa DePaulo knows things about Chandra that her own parents don't know about her, so, you know, with all due respect to anybody's speculations...

OLSON: Lisa talked to close friends of hers.

GERAGOS: Well...

OLSON: Seth Jones, new Chandra. GERAGOS: ... what Lisa came up with -- apparently -- apparently, the close friends know things and the parents don't know things, and I don't know...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: ... about what Chandra was doing is just irresponsible.

EPSTEIN: Back to the question, Larry. I mean, I think that we are all relatively certain at this point, and I think that Gary Condit and Gary Condit's attorneys have pretty much made it clear. I think it is -- I think it is overstating the case to say that he outright lied to the police and obstructed the investigation, I think what happened in the first interview the police asked him whether the relationship was romantic, and he basically said to them, "mind your own business," and he declined to answer it.

It is not, as Mark points out, a crime for him to do that, to decline to answer a question, but when you have a missing person, that failure to go the next step to provide the police all of the information at the earliest stages is at minimum a moral failure, and I don't think anybody can defend that.

KING: We'll have Nancy comment right after this break, and we'll include more phone calls. Nancy goes next, don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Has he made a decision about his political life?

C. CONDIT: He has been in the public life for 30 years, never an allegation, never a charge. I don't know if he will run again. My family vote would be that he doesn't, I don't think he deserves this. I don't think my mom deserves this. But that will be decided in the next few weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Nancy wanted to say something, and then we'll take another call. Nancy, the trial involving the former teamster official began today, he was previously indicted.

GRACE: Correct. Correct.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: All right, what did you want to say, and then we'll get another call?

GRACE: Well, to your lady caller from Oklahoma recording this so-called five-year plan, you know, I have had to look at the credibility of a lot of witnesses, and I always say when you don't know a horse, look at his track record. We have no evidence that Chandra had ever been a liar or deceptive in the past, we do have evidence that Mr. Condit has been deceptive, so that's how you make your credibility call.

KING: Sacramento, California, hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: My question is: Do any of the people on the panel know if the Condits have hired bodyguards, or if they have had death threats?

GERAGOS: I know -- I know that they have had numerous death threats and death calls and just all kinds of crazy things directed at them. It has been almost an onslaught. They kind of live under siege at the house, is my understanding. And Chad and Cadee, the kids, have been followed, and the parents have been threatened as well.

KING: If you joined us late, those kids quit Governor Davis' office today, both holding top key jobs.

GERAGOS: Cadee was chief assistant in charge of special projects, and Chad, as he told you last night, was his Central Valley guy.

KING: Julian, what's it going to be like for the congressman in Washington next week?

EPSTEIN: Very tough, for the reasons that I said. When your party begins to turn against you, there are not many places for you to go. I think he has painted himself in a corner. But again I come back to this point. I think he can come out of this thing if he comes and he does a mea culpa and he comes on this program or somewhere else, again, and he basically answers these questions.

But you know, also, remember what President Bush, interestingly enough, said the other day, which is -- he said, essentially, that he believes a lot of this chatter is a sideshow. He seemed to indicate that he didn't believe any of it was necessarily relevant to where Chandra Levy is.

And you wonder about John Walsh from "America's Most Wanted" and his theory about a serial murder that's out there. And you worry that if there is this criminal that has nothing to do with Gary Condit, watching LARRY KING LIVE on television and snickering, saying, "Wow, they keep focusing on this decoy. This has been great for me because it's keeping them off my trail."

KING: Don't serial killers do it again, and don't they usually want to read about themselves?

EPSTEIN: Well, you know, there's all kinds of serial killers. And there is another theory that there is a random situation going out there. We have talked about Joyce Chang and the others before. And I've commented that I live in the community and I think that's the general sentiment of the people that live in community, was that this is a situation that the police have not gotten on top of and there is somebody out there who is a very dangerous person.

KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments and more comments. Panel back again tomorrow, by the way, Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Barbara, you have been part of investigations, does this -- where is this going? Is there any leads? I mean, what -- where -- what is the last page -- what is the last picture in the cartoon strip?

OLSON: Boy, the last picture. I mean the idea that they have not found Chandra Levy is perplexing. I mean, people usually turn up. If they are in the woods or somewhere, someone comes across them, something happens. And so that is odd. The last page is the police keep this as open case, a lot of people have seen her picture worldwide, they know what she looks like. Someone needs to make a connection somewhere and send the police on a trail, because right now they are waiting to get more information from someone who has talked to anybody that has been mentioned that maybe could add to the story.

KING: Mark, what do you make of it? This is -- I have talked to police here and elsewhere. Usually missing people turn up.

GERAGOS: Absolutely. We're reaching exactly the same period of time, that it took to find Joyce Chang, and usually you find these people much quicker. That is -- I think, though, that this case has taken so many bizarre twists and turns that there is still yet some other bizarre twist or turn that's going to come out.

KING: But did -- have no lead at all, to have no one call in, with a lead...

GERAGOS: Apparently there are all kinds of leads, and they've gotten all kinds of calls. Whether or not those are rational is a completely different story.

KING: Nancy, you are a veteran of these kind of things. Perplexing?

GRACE: Well, to the sense that she has not been located yet. But it does signify to me a major clue. Random rapists and killers -- the body normally turns up fairly quickly. That means to me that this is very well thought out, and not random.

KING: A planned killing.

GRACE: Yes, very much so. And a planned disposal of Chandra Levy.

KING: Julian.

EPSTEIN: Well, I think the likelihood is -- given that we don't have any clues over four months -- is that it is the work of a professional. And, you know, while your heart goes out to the Levys ,I think your heart also has to go out to the tens of thousands of other parents whose children go missing and who weren't having an affair with a member of Congress or an elected official, and didn't have therefore the cachet so it didn't get coverage every night on LARRY KING LIVE and everywhere else.

You know, everyone who is familiar with the way the police investigates this, at least in the nation's capitol, will tell you that the system is a very primitive system for many reasons. And I hope if nothing else, this can at least develop some type of consensus so that we can take these tens of other thousands of cases, and the equal pain that their families feel, with greater seriousness.

KING: When you say "professional", you mean hired person?

EPSTEIN: I tend to think that if you don't have any clue after four months, it is somebody who really knows what they are doing. I don't know if it is hired or not hired. But it is somebody who -- who is quite skilled at making a person disappear.

KING: And not helped, Nancy, by a $250,000 reward?

GRACE: Well, you know...

KING: Only one person knows what happened.

GRACE: That's right. And the other issue is, not only is it someone who had planned this out very carefully, it is someone who has motive stronger than $250,000 reward to keep it quiet.

OLSON: And the person hasn't talked, because you're right, Larry, 250,000 if someone did this -- usually they talk to someone who talks to someone and at some point the money makes a person come forward and give them clues.

GERAGOS: If we are going to use that logic, then -- and this is a hired killing -- then whoever it was must have been paid more than 250,000.

OLSON: Not necessarily.

GERAGOS: Then I can pretty much say that it's not Gary Condit, because he hasn't earned that much money in the last two years.

OLSON: That's not true. As you know, people can be killed for nothing.

GERAGOS: You explain to me. Did he go -- well, then why wouldn't this person who killed for nothing come forward and take the $250,000?

KING: Because he is the killer. He would be confessing.

OLSON: I was going say because murder one is life.

GERAGOS: I've got who it is. I will go and I'll surrender and cut a deal.

OLSON: Oh!

GERAGOS: They'll give him whatever he wants.

KING: Guys, we'll see you. Thanks again. We'll see you tomorrow. Barbara Olson, Nancy Grace, Mark Geragos and Julian Epstein.

"CNN TONIGHT" will be right on top of this, of course. And we remind you that it occurred earlier, just as we were going on air, that the two young -- the son and daughter of the congressman have resigned from Governor Gray Davis's office in California.

By the way, Oprah Winfrey exclusive interview next Tuesday night, one week from tonight. Oprah for the full hour. Thanks for joining us. Stay tuned for" CNN TONIGHT," and good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

Condit a psycho/sociopath or fears for his life so bad he wants the case to look like a sexual affair gone bad when really it was a spy murder?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/23/lkl.00.html

NANCY GRACE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I also found her revelations fascinating, and I'm looking at this from a different angle. I really don't care about Condit's political future. I'm still looking at everything he says and does from an evidentiary point of view.

Larry, the law has taught me that you may observe someone's behavior before, during and after an incident. And what strikes me as incredibly odd is that at no time has he exhibited any sorrow about his lover, his sweetheart probably dead. And I find that very interesting, from an evidentiary point of view.

Barb on remorse: is this just her reciting what it is or from her heart?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think that Michael Zeldin has just read facts not in evidence. I mean, Gary Condit -- it's interesting, what Judy said was that Gary Condit told the police what they needed to know. And you'll recall, that was one of his press statements that Maria Ein put out, and we said how does he know what the police need to know? You're supposed to tell the police everything. You don't know what facts they have.

So I think what I got out of this is arrogance. I think everyone was right, there is no grief. There is no remorse. There is no sense of responsibility that he did anything wrong. And then to attack Anne Marie Smith, to accuse her of doing this for money? We watched her on your show. This wasn't a woman who had taken money, and in fact, this was a woman who was terrified of coming forward, but she thought it was important. So I think...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/24/lkl.00.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Abbe Lowell, Panel Discuss Condit's Interviews

Aired August 24, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight: Gary Condit finally talking. What's he said? How has he said it? Has he helped or hurt his cause? Joining us in Los Angeles, Gary Condit's attorney Abbe Lowell.

Then later, ready to debate, former federal prosecutor and best- selling author Barbara Olson. She's in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin. In New York, former prosecutor, now Court TV anchor Nancy Grace. In Los Angeles, defense attorney Mark Geragos. And in Washington, former Chief Minority Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, Julian Epstein. Plus the very special perspective of best-selling author Dominick Dunne. It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

We begin the program with Abbe Lowell, the attorney for Gary Condit. Reaction to all that's gone today, all that you've heard.

ABBE LOWELL, GARY CONDIT'S ATTORNEY: I'm amazed about a couple of things. I'm amazed that still in America we have this instant analysis. Everybody does the overnight: "What do you think? What was it supposed to be, good or bad?" You know what? Congressman Condit did not do this for the instantaneous polls. He did it as part of process to start talking to constituents, and it is wrong for people to sort of do this like it was a movie, thumbs-up, thumbs-down.

KING: This just the beginning.

LOWELL: I think it's the beginning of the communication effort and I think, you know, it's a process. And I think it -- you can't, overnight, change perceptions that people got built up over three months. I think it takes more than a day.

KING: But also in life, Abbe, as you well know, there are first impressions. Did he make a poor first impression?

LOWELL: Well, I mean, to whom? I mean...

KING: First of all, to the public at large.

LOWELL: The public at large -- I mean, I guess that's where we get these instantaneous polls, Larry. Let me say if I can do it this way. People in his district know who Gary Condit is. People over America have not. He has been cast in a certain way by his silence because he thought the right thing to do was to work with the police and not come on your show. So it is a process, of sort of filling in the margins that people did. But if you know Congressman Condit, this is what you know about him. He is not a sappy guy, he doesn't wear his emotions on his sleeve. People interpret that sometimes in America as somebody doesn't feel or doesn't care and doesn't hurt. That is wrong.

I mean, I've known him for a long time and I know those things are wrong. I also think it's wrong that people have to sort of judge him based on his performance when you are in a milieu of an anchor asking you questions. People ought to give him a chance to express himself, and it won't be just one time. When they read the interview in "People," or in "Newsweek" or the local newspaper, or see what he said to his local anchor in addition to what he said to Connie Chung, then they can start getting an idea of who this man really is.

KING: How and why was Connie Chung chosen and the format picked?

LOWELL: Well, I mean look, you and Connie Chung and many others are certainly of a group that Congressman Condit and the advisers were thinking would be somebody who could do it. The criteria was not very difficult. The criteria was who is deemed to be credible, who is serious, who will -- some people say didn't go too soft on him, don't go too hard on him, and who has some experience in doing that and who reaches an audience that should be spoken to. And so you narrow it down; but then it is not a science, it's an art. And that is how it was done.

KING: What did you think of the job she did?

LOWELL: Well, I think she did a good job. But I'm disappointed in a couple of things. I'm disappointed that she decided in a 30- minute interview to spend I guess about 10 minutes, over and over again, asking, "Why won't you tell us the s-word? Why won't you just say it on my show? I want to be the first person to get you out loud to say it the way I want you to say it." I don't think she asked that question once. I think she asked it 10 times.

And what I don't like about that is not that she sort of badgered him, he is a big boy, he's a Congressman, he can do that. But it wasted so much time where he could have talked about Levys and he could have talked how he felt about Chandra, what kind of person she was. And that never came out because all she wanted to do was sort of talk about what's the relationship.

The second thing is -- and this was what was surprising to me -- I thought she might do the first. I never thought that she would cut him off so often in his attempts to give answers. And that's what was frustrating to him. He -- she said, "The police chief says... what is your response? And he wanted to give his response. "OK, let me tell you how I have cooperated. I've done four interviews, a three-hour search, I had to be hiding in a parking lot to give up a DNA sample. I flew my wife across the country so that she could give an interview the day after, I want to tell you that." And she didn't give him enough time to answer.

KING: Was he unhappy with it?

LOWELL: No, I guess he is unhappy with all of this in the sense that it's very...

KING: He doesn't like this.

LOWELL: No, this is not who he is.

KING: I mean, he doesn't like media anyway, right?

LOWELL: Not exactly right. That is unfair.

KING: We haven't seen him much.

LOWELL: Congressman Condit is almost the essential definition of a member of the House of Representatives. He was what I think the Founders had in mind. He was a man without national aspirations, he doesn't like the limelight. He's the workhorse, not the show horse. He represents the interests of his constituents very well. He never wanted to be across from you in the spotlights. He wants to be on the floor doing his work.

KING: Since it is generally assumed that it was romantic -- she said it was romantic, the police have leaked it was romantic. What would have been wrong if he had said, "It was romantic. I made mistake." And then gone on to the things he wanted to cover like what she was like, where she liked, what food she liked to eat, was she the kind of person who would run out of her house quickly. You know, things that could help us understand her better. So why not admit it at this point?

LOWELL: First of all, I mean, when Congressman Condit looks you in the eye and you ask him what was the nature of your relationship and he says, "You know, I'm not a perfect man, I have made my share of mistakes." And he's told you that they became very close. You know what? I think Americans get it. I do.

KING: Why not just say it?

LOWELL: Why is it that you all -- and I'm not meaning to lump all of you -- but why is it that media thinks if you don't do it my way, with my words, the way I would do it, my name being Connie Chung, my name being Larry King, then it doesn't work? I think people in his district are smarter. Over time they will get it.

And the fact is, I think he tried to tell you that there is a difference between him telling all the details to the police, and all the details to Larry King or Connie Chung. And what is a misnomer, misinformation, just a wrong impression, is that he didn't tell the police.

Now, I know that there is this word of -- this word of war -- war of words. I mean, the police chief says it one way and then the assistant chief says it another way. But the reality is, Larry, and I'm telling you the reality is, because I was there, Congressman Condit provided the information the police needed from three days after the Chandra Levy case first became known, throughout all of those subsequent weeks. And the fact that he had four interviews, as the deputy chief said, doesn't mean that any of the interviews were unsuccessful.

KING: But Abbe, if perception is reality -- OK, he wants to say it his way. Couldn't he have just made that extra step and get beyond it, because what the public is saying today in polls is he looked like, "Hey, who you kidding? We had a relationship, I don't want to discuss it because the parents would be bothered."

LOWELL: I can say it the following way, and maybe this will help people understand it. I don't think Congressman Condit, nor I, nor a bunch of people, believe that LARRY KING LIVE or "PrimeTime" is a church, and Larry King or Connie Chung or any other anchor is the priest, and this is the place for a confessional.

What he has to say and the intimate details of his relationship with anybody is really a matter for him and his family, and him and people that console him. And I think his job is to say look, let me tell you what she was, or anybody was. Let me hold on, please, to a drop of my personal privacy. I've got a family, I've got a wife and kids, and let me explain to you that the police got it. They got it from interview number one and we moved on from there.

KING: In other words we could have learned a lot about Chandra last night we didn't learn.

LOWELL: I think you could have, a little bit. I think you know -- one of the things that is unfortunate, Larry, that it is the media in part and the way this turned out, has turned it into the Condits versus the Levys. That is one of the most painful things to the Condits, because -- think about it.

Think about it practically. After the Levys, who has the best interest to want to see Chandra Levy OK? It would be Congressman Condit. First of all, if there is anybody out there after all he has done with the police who still have any remote idea he could have been involved in any way, that would obviously dispel that. Second of all, she could tell the truth. She could defend herself. She could say what she said to him and what she didn't say to him, as opposed to the hearsay of her aunt or other people. And I think he would like that, too. You could have learned some of that last night.

KING: We'll be right back with Abbe Lowell. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. GARY CONDIT (D), CALIFORNIA: I have been married 34 years. I have not been a perfect man. I have made mistakes in my life. But out of respect for my family, out of re-- specific request by Levy family, it's best that I not get into details of the relationship.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONNIE CHUNG, ABC NEWS: Do you have any idea if there was anyone who wanted to harm her?

CONDIT: No.

CHUNG: Did you cause anyone to harm her?

CONDIT: No.

CHUNG: Did you kill Chandra Levy?

CONDIT: I did not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Did -- do you -- do you think that he should have been more compassionate? You mentioned that he is a to-himself guy, but do you think it would have helped him to be a little more loose?

LOWELL: Well, I think that if he had the opportunity, he could have shown that that is what he was. I mean, part of it was really the way that Connie Chung decided to do it. I mean, they started -- bang questioning, did you murder her. I mean, I think it was sort of the way it started, and I don't think she gave him the opportunity to be himself.

And today, all we are hearing about is sort how he did, and I think the format ended up less than it should have been. And you know what, Larry? Maybe he should have been here doing it with you, and you would have given him that chance.

KING: Is he a compassionate man?

LOWELL: He is. In a way, he is compassionate. He is not sappy, he doesn't emote the way somebody...

KING: But he cares?

LOWELL: Talk to his children about whether he cares, talk to his wife about it, talk about his constituents. I mean, they will tell you, he walks down the street -- you know, other than what's happening now with 3,000 reporters following him and yelling at him -- people come up to him, put his arm around him, say, "Gary, how are you?" Not "congressman," but "Gary." He is a very caring guy.

I mean, but he is caring in his way, and I think one of the things that today people are not giving him enough credit for is they are judging the way he is by the way they think he -- they would be, or the way they would like him to be, and they are not letting Gary be Gary.

(CROSSTALK)

LOWELL: Well, you have to know Gary a bit, you need to know Congressman Condit a bit. But should he have been? Yes -- should have, could have, would have? I mean, maybe if he -- maybe he should have started by saying, look, I'm not -- I'm going to tell you I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry 100 times, and now can we really talk about what's important.

KING: Was he wrong, and you may have been guilty of this too, in attacking the Levys?

LOWELL: Well, let's talk about whether anybody attacked the Levys, OK?

KING: The perception is, you have.

LOWELL: Well, I hope that that's not the case, but let's clear it up. I think this is a good opportunity to do this, let's first talk about the congressman and then secondly talk about me.

Congressman understands well that the Levys have pain and suffering the way nobody who has a kid would ever want to try to dream. He gets that, he has got kids. And he gives them wide berth to do and say whatever they want, because he said -- he said in the interview, "I would do and say anything."

What he says is it becomes unfair when they imply that he had something do with the disappearance or that he has not been as helpful as he can. It is unfair because the record is, he cared about their daughter, he knew and befriended and became very close to their daughter. He had no motive to hurt their daughter. And that is when it becomes unfair.

And in terms of him or me attacking, I don't think so. What I think is happening is if when I say I understand why it's a good tactic of the Levys to keep Congressman Condit on the front page because it keeps Chandra on the front page, that's not an attack. I understand that. It makes sense. If I were doing it, I would do the exact same thing.

KING: And Gary Condit would do it if his child were missing. He would be keeping whoever he was -- on the front page.

LOWELL: He would do the exact same thing. But that doesn't mean that if somebody says something that's wrong, you don't try to correct it. And if it -- and it means that if somebody goes out and makes an unfair charge, you don't say, hey, that's unfair.

You know, here's what I don't understand. You just say, Congressman Condit is such an uncaring guy, so when he says you have hurt my feelings, Mr. and -- Dr. and Mrs. Levy, when you have made the charge that I had something do with your daughter, why then he gets criticized for attacking the Levys? That's not an attack, that's just saying, hey, look, lighten up on me. The police chief has said I'm not the central figure, I'm not a suspect, I didn't do this. I'm working with you to try to find out who did.

KING: Perception and reality. When Mrs. Levy says, "I asked him if he was having an affair with my daughter, and he said no," and he says last night she didn't ask that. The public believes her.

LOWELL: And that is -- that's right. And you know what? No matter what happens, the Levys will always be believed and Congressman Condit will always be disbelieved, because the sympathies in this situation are going to go in that direction.

KING: Do you believe she has it wrong?

LOWELL: I think -- I wasn't there. And I have heard from Congressman Condit about that conversation, so let me try to fill in some of the blanks -- and if Mrs. Levy is listening, this may also refresh her memory.

She did call the night after her husband first called Congressman Condit. She did say to the congressman, "I'm looking for my daughter, what can you tell me?" She did do all that. She didn't single out Congressman Condit, and that is something that Congressman Condit has been trying to protect the Levys' conversation from. He hasn't told...

KING: What did she say?

LOWELL: Mrs. Levy asked Congressman Condit whether or not he knew whether her daughter was involved with a variety of different people. I don't mean by variety dozens, I mean a couple. She mentioned three or four different names, according to the congressman.

KING: She gave him the names of people she thought her daughter was involved with?

LOWELL: Yes, yes, oh yes.

KING: And did not ask him if he was involved?

LOWELL: No, no. I mean, again, we are playing a little game here, I...

KING: But she did mention...

(CROSSTALK)

LOWELL: Look, Congressman Condit has said two things: She never said to me, as she is now saying, are you, Gary Condit, having an affair with my daughter.

KING: He swears she never said that.

LOWELL: He doesn't remember saying it that way. I mean, swear...

KING: And secondly?

LOWELL: You know, people in the emotions of a missing kid could get it wrong, he could have got it as wrong as she. And second of all, you know, she was asking more about this than just him. And third of all, when he says I would never lie to Mrs. Levy under a situation like that, I believe him.

I mean, you wouldn't do that to a mother under those circumstances, no matter how embarrassed you were, no matter how -- I mean, on the other hand, imagine if he were involved with a daughter of a missing woman and she called you on the phone and you never met her before, and she stark asks something -- I think you might try to say it a different way.

KING: If that had come out last night the way you just explained it, the logical follow-up would have been, who else did she ask about and did you know if she was having a relationship with any of people she asked about?

LOWELL: Congressman Condit did say last night that she talked about a number of different things and a number of different people and...

KING: He didn't say -- he didn't say that she asked him...

(CROSSTALK)

LOWELL: ... of others, and here is what he said: "The Levys and Chandra especially is not here to talk for herself." She -- he is going to protect their privacy. I think it's not important what the other names, and I think more importantly Congressman Condit has gotten this much, he is not going to have it happen to anybody else that he knows what's happened to him in terms of privacy being invaded.

KING: Did the police get those other names?

LOWELL: Yes.

KING: We'll be right back with Abbe Lowell on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDIT: I never lied to Mrs. Levy. I'm sorry if she misunderstood the conversations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Why would you want her to say that she didn't have a relationship with you?

CONDIT: Because she didn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: All right. That concerned Anne Marie Smith who appeared on this program for an hour, who everybody seems to think had a relationship with your client, and that was a flat denial of having a relationship. What do you make of that?

LOWELL: Well, I know it came out like a flat denial, and I think one of the things I can do is clear it up. Look, the exchange was going hot and heavy at that point and she was asking about the affidavit and she was asking about lawyers, and then, did you have a relationship? And I think the "no" came out and the "no" may not have applied to what it looks like it applied to. So let me clear up tonight.

KING: OK.

LOWELL: All right. I have two things to say that I think are accurate. The first is that Congressman Condit and all the people around him are befuddled about why folks like Anne Marie Smith and others are using the tragedy of Chandra Levy to get publicity in some cases, some people out there are doing...

KING: But he came out at her, that roommate got money from a tabloid, she had no -- didn't make money.

LOWELL: I didn't say money, I said to get publicity. And I know that she was outed by somebody, OK? I didn't see her roommates grabbing her and putting her on this chair to talk to you for an hour. Did she do that on her own, was she forced to do it, was somebody twisting her arm? That's somebody who has obviously decided to get some publicity out of this for whatever reason, and the Condits are befuddled why somebody would use that.

KING: Well, because she was wrapped in the paper, she thought she had to come forward. She is having an affair with a married man that appears in a tabloid. I'd guess she would wants to respond.

LOWELL: Well, I read the things that she and her lawyer have said about her life and her private life and the details, gee, I thought she wanted to keep some of that stuff to herself. But having said that, I understand -- so let me clarify, that is the second thing.

Now, I don't want to play so many word games with anybody but look, words do count when you are trying to communicate. Now, Anne Marie Smith may have considered whatever her dealings with Congressman Condit to be quote "a relationship," and what Congressman Condit was trying to say was, whatever their dealings were, whatever they shared, whatever they were to each other, it wasn't a relationship.

Now, what if it was? Is that what you want to ask me? What was it?

KING: That depends on what "is" is.

LOWELL: Well, I don't think that is so fair. I don't think what "is" is means the same -- what is a relationship to you? Does a relationship have 360 degrees? Do you talk to the person all the time? Do you send them gifts? Do you go out to dinner together? Do you sort of exchange pleasantries?

KING: If a man and a woman have a relationship it certainly implies romantic, absolutely.

LOWELL: Let me ask you this, and I'm talking now just, you know, theoretically. If you are involved with somebody in one particular way is it a relationship? I guess what I'm saying to you is, I don't know how Anne Marie Smith...

KING: You can have a relationship with a co-worker, that is if the relationship is at work.

LOWELL: No, that's not what I mean. I think, as I understand Anne Marie Smith's definition of a relationship, and this is sort of a silly exercise, but I do want to try to clear it up, it probably means something to her, so when she uses the word "relationship" it means something.

When Congressman Condit says I have relationship, it probably doesn't mean what Anne Marie Smith thinks.

KING: It is just a sexual dalliance to him?

LOWELL: I'm not going to tell you what it was because...

KING: How does he define "relationship."

LOWELL: I think he defines it much differently than Anne Marie Smith does...

KING: Why didn't he clarify it instead of just saying no, here is what it was?

LOWELL: I think Connie Chung didn't give him that chance either. Look, it was 30 minutes, and if I had to say that there was a mistake, it was a mistake confining that to a 30-minute interview.

KING: That was your request, right?

LOWELL: It was our request and I think in retrospect, I made a mistake.

KING: We will be back with some more moments with Abbe Lowell and we will get the comments of others including Dominick Dunne. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Do you think you are a moral man?

CONDIT: I think I am a moral man, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: I can tell you now, on public TV, that the Levy family has no objection to Gary Condit answering any questions about the relationship. Those are not questions that they would ask. But it is perfectly clear, I asked the Levys tonight, do you mind hearing the information, and they have no objection.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Critics were saying, Abbe, that what the congressman did last night was take that one little remark by Billy Martin and blow it into a complete explanation of why he wouldn't talk about sex.

LOWELL: I heard that. In fact, I think Ted Koppel on "Nightline" sort of suggested that to me when he also suggested to Billy Martin that, what do the words mean. I have the words, Larry, and it was spoken on CNN. And you know, look, first of all Congressman Condit was not going to go into the details of his relationship with Chandra...

KING: No matter what Billy Martin said?

LOWELL: No matter what Billy Martin said. And he said for two reasons. One was because he was being respectful to his own family. People seem to have forgotten that in this mix. The second reason is because Billy Martin, three nights before said, they the Levys don't really want to hear anything about the relationship. Notice the word "anything."

They don't want to know how he felt about Chandra, notice the word "felt." They don't want to know how Chandra felt about him. We heard that. And when the congressman was thinking about what does do, he honestly read that the way the words say. It says please don't talk about that.

KING: But he wouldn't have anyway?

LOWELL: He would have not gotten involved with his family because of his family. But I want to you know, that when people say that, that is how are they read. Now Billy Martin changed the rules last night and the Levys have changed to say please go out and tell us what the nature of your relationship was.

The congressman said he would talk to the Levys about this, but I don't think he really thinks that he should come here and say it on your show.

KING: Why hasn't he hasn't he talked to Levys every day?

LOWELL: First of all, they don't want to talk to him every day.

KING: Why didn't he start with every day. He was her friend.

LOWELL: He talked to them the night of their disappearance call, the day after. He called them the week he got back to Washington about his calling the FBI, his, sort of, trying to get the police involved. He was involved in the reward. A week went by, and I think he also tried to contact Mrs. Levy again.

At some point she said when, later on, this was a couple weeks later, that she was no longer comfortable talking to him without her lawyer. So hired a lawyer. The day she hired a lawyer, Congressman Condit asked me to reach out and arrange a meeting with Mrs. Levy. That did occur.

KING: That took place, the Jefferson Hotel.

LOWELL: Yes, it took place. And he has said -- I don't think there is any reason he wouldn't -- I don't know how helpful it is, but look, if the Levys want to meet with Congressman Condit, I have said that, he has said that. He would do so. And he would do it in a minute.

KING: How about with her investigators?

LOWELL: Here is what he said last night, I can't say it better. Weeks ago, almost a month and a half ago, I wrote Billy Martin and I said if you want the information that Congressman Condit gave the police, call me, I will tell you.

Billy says, I don't want it from a lawyer. Well, that is not right. He should get the information from me, some of it are easy stuff. He could then narrow down what he needs to get from Congressman Condit. And Congressman Condit last night said, and after he gets the information if there is anything else to follow up, we are open to that.

But when somebody says, we need our investigators look in his eyes, let me remind you, that right now, seven, eight, nine, 10 police officers, three prosecutors, and two of the best FBI profilers looked in Congressman Condit's eyes for three hours. They have asked hundreds of questions. If they say he is not suspect, and if they have moved on, and if they say he is not the central figure, he can look in anybody's eyes and answer those questions.

KING: Couple of quick things. Abbe, is he going to run again?

LOWELL: I think that is something he wants to discuss with his family.

KING: Has he decided yet?

LOWELL: He has not decided. He has not decided. It is 14 months. I think everybody is counting him out. Everybody is saying don't run, you have given it up. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. I don't think we need instantaneous polling here. He has been a public servant for 30 years, a congressman for 12. His constituents should give him a little bit more than a couple of weeks to decide.

KING: What's a lawyer's duty, this is not meant specifically with Condit, if he gives his client a lie detector test and he fails?

LOWELL: Oh, what is it? I think it is to take the results and keep it to yourself.

KING: You don't reveal it. LOWELL: The lie detector is one of the other pieces of misinformation. If I have to say something that I fess up to, I think the only thing that I could have done better was to give the police a longer period of heads up about it. But the demands to do it, do it, do it, were so great, I felt like we had to get it out there.

But here is what is wrong. There is no such thing as two different kinds of polygraphs. A guy like Gary Culvert, who teaches the FBI, involved in all the espionage cases, takes Gary Condit in a room and puts it on him and gets it done and he says he passed with flying colors, he passed with flying colors.

KING: But we don't know what questions were asked.

LOWELL: You do you know what questions he's asked. You don't put somebody on a polygraph for an hour and say, what did you eat for breakfast, and what favorite movie do you have. You get down to the four questions that matter and you get there first.

KING: Just yes or no answers, right?

LOWELL: Absolutely yes or no questions. Do you know where she is? Did you have anything to do with the disappearance? Anything like that. Those are the key questions that were asked. Barry Culvert who really is one of the best in the business and everybody will tell you that, said that not only did Congressman Condit pass, he passed with a score that was one of the least possible deceptions that you could you possibly have.

And now we are playing games with the police -- well, it wasn't our test, we didn't ask the questions. OK, but I'll tell you this, Larry, the two FBI agents who are assigned to this case know Barry Culvert. They met with him an hour and a half. They met with our polygraph expert for an hour and half. They know how to read that exam. They know the congressman passed.

People know where the congressman was on April 30 and May 1. They know he cared about Chandra. There shouldn't be a suspicion left in anybody's mind that he had anything to do with this.

KING: Thanks, Abbe.

LOWELL: Thank you, Larry.

KING: Abbe Lowell, the attorney for Gary Condit. When we come back, our panel and Dominick Dunne, the author of "Justice" a major best-seller. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Was Chandra Levy in love with you? Were you in love with her?

CONDIT: Well, I don't know that she was in love with me, she never said so and I was not in love with her.

CHUNG: Did she want to marry you and have your child?

CONDIT: I only knew Chandra Levy for five months. And in that five months period we never had a discussion about a future, about children, about marriage. Any of those items never came up in that five month period.

CHUNG: Did you ever make promises to her?

CONDIT: Never.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: After watching last night, I must tell you I was disappointed by his statement. I think not being candid and straightforward was disturbing and wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: We're back. Let's meet our panel. In Ellison Bay, Wisconsin, is Barbara Olson, the former federal prosecutor. In New York there's Nancy Grace, herself a former prosecutor, currently with "Court TV." Here in Los Angeles, Mark Geragos, a defense attorney, quite renowned. And in Washington, as well, another fine member of the bar, Julian Epstein, former chief minority counsel for House Judiciary.

In Hadlyme, Connecticut is Dominick Dunne, the best-selling author. His newest is "Justice: Crimes, Trials and Punishment," a major bestseller. He guested with us for an hour to discuss that book. We'll talk with Dominick in just a moment, but I want to get the thoughts on what Abbe just had to say and of last night, in concise fashion.

Barbara Olson, what do you make of it?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Abbe Lowell, once again like last night, took my breath away when he started talking about Anne Marie Smith, and trying to take back that Gary Condit didn't deny a relationship. I think in the middle of talking to you, he realized that that wasn't going to fly, so then we started defining "relationship" -- that maybe Anne Marie Smith thought it was a relationship, but Gary Condit didn't. It's just beyond believability. It sort of encapsulated what all of last night was.

Abbe Lowell, God bless him, is trying to make sense out of someone who lied many times to us. And Abbe Lowell couldn't do it. He tried his best, and with Anne Marie Smith's statement, he showed that there is just no way to justify what happened last night.

KING: But in fairness, Mark, it does not make him a killer.

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No. That's precisely the point, and that's precisely, I think, what Abbe just conveyed so articulately. The fact of the matter is -- and Abbe was very candid, I thought he was outstanding here in this format -- that he conceded maybe there was a mistake made in what they did last night. He conceded it was not the best result that they were hoping for. But at the same time, none of that would lead anybody to believe or should lead anybody to believe that this guy had anything to do with Chandra Levy's disappearance. Ultimately, that's what the question is here.

KING: Nancy Grace, your read.

NANCY GRACE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Larry, all along I've had such respect for Abbe Lowell as an attorney. He's done a great job for clients in the past, but tonight, I have to tell you, I'm disgusted by his attempt and his client's attempt to smear the reputations of Chandra Levy and Anne Marie Smith at this point, suggesting they each had lines of lovers outside their door. You know, when you live in a glass house with walls this thin, you shouldn't be throwing stones, and Condit's in no position to attack their mode of life.

You know, this brings to point last night, no wonder the police had to interview the man four times to get anything out of him. Even Connie Chung couldn't get anything out of him.

KING: Julian Epstein, what's your read on last night and Abbe Lowell here just a while ago?

JULIAN EPSTEIN, FORMER HOUSE JUDICIARY COUNSEL: Well, I think that was an unfair attack on Abbe by Nancy, I don't think Abbe was implying that. I think Abbe was simply repeating a conversation that Chandra Levy's mother had with Gary Condit.

GRACE: And Anne Marie Smith.

EPSTEIN: I think the difference that you saw between the interview that Abbe Lowell just gave you on the show -- I think that was an extraordinary performance on his part -- and the interview last night tells us a very important thing, which is, and I think Barbara pointed this out the other night: Gary Condit is marching to the beat of his own drummer. I don't think he is sufficiently listening to the counsel of Abbe Lowell,

Last night's performance -- last night's performance by Gary Condit, I think, was singularly the worst performance I have ever seen in American politics. Worst in a moral level, and the worst performance on a tactical level. He failed...

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: If I could finish the point without being interrupted. He failed on three different levels. Remember what we said, the acid test, the sina qua non of what he had to do was he had to accept responsibility and acknowledge the mistakes, he had to express sympathy for family and he had to, most importantly, give a detailed explanation of things like watch boxes and all these other matters. I think he failed on all those things. He's painted himself into a corner. I think his political viability is hanging by a string right now, and he has to come back out on TV. I think he should come on this program for an hour, and we've got to have a no-holds barred discussion, because right now he's in a bad spot.

GRACE: I've got a question, Larry.

KING: Answer quickly, and I've got to get a break and talk with Dominick. Go ahead, Nancy.

GRACE: Why does it have to be, Larry, why does it have to be a performance? What's wrong with just telling the truth? He didn't fail performance-wise. He lied. That's a very important distinction.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Hold it, guys. I'm going to get a break, we're going to come back. We'll talk with Dominick Dunne for a while, who's been around these wars a long time, and then the last Dominick to stay and be a part of it as well. Right back with Dominick Dunne, then our panel. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDIT: What's a little bit unfair, I think, is when Dr. and Mrs. Levy make allegations that I might have had something do with the disappearance. But when they say I'm withholding information that might be helpful, I think that's unfair. It's not correct. And when they say they're suspicious, I don't know why they'd be suspicious of me. I like Chandra. She was my friend. I was very fond of her. Next to them and the family members, I'm the next guy in line that would like to see her back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDIT: My heart goes out to the Levys. I don't think I could describe what they're feeling or what they're going through. I mean, the pain and anguish that they're going through. I don't think anyone would know that, unless you had a missing child. So it's real difficult for me to know exactly what they're feeling. But I have kids, and if one of them was missing, I would say and do everything I could do to try to get them back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Joining us now from Hadlyme, Connecticut is Dominick Dunne. His newest book is "Justice: Crimes, Trials and Punishment." He, of course, is a regular contributor to "Vanity Fair" and has authored many hit books, and he knows his way around courtrooms and crime and the like.

All right, what's your overall reaction, Dominick, to all of this? Last night, tonight, whatever. DOMINICK DUNNE, AUTHOR, "JUSTICE": Well, you know, Larry, I look on this as a writer. I don't look on it as a lawyer would, or certainly not as Abbe did. I thought, as a performance last night -- and it was a performance -- I thought it was one of the great flop performances I have ever seen in my life. The guy looked -- he just looks dishonest to me. He looks like he lies to me.

And he brought up three times that he was married 34 years. He brought up three times on Connie's show, and two or three times today on the local girl who did it, I mean, like, you know, as if they're Harry and Bess Truman. I mean, this is a joke, a mockery of a marriage, and it is -- he has betrayed his wife over and over again. She lives in humiliation. I mean, no wonder she's sick all the time.

KING: What about his attitude toward the Levys? Abbe explained tonight that he didn't really get a chance to express that. Now, you're a parent who has known pain. Your daughter was murdered.

DUNNE: Yeah, yeah. I mean, listen, Abbe did a wonderful job tonight for his client, and congratulations, Abbe, but I still don't buy it. I still don't buy it. I hated the way he spoke about the Levys, and I didn't believe the thing that the Levys didn't want him to talk about that. That is something that he picked up from Wolf Blitzer's interview with Abbe.

KING: With -- with -- no, with Billy Martin.

DUNNE: With Bill -- I beg your pardon, I'm sorry, with Billy Martin, yeah.

KING: Dominick, though, you are not going this a step further and saying he was involved in her disappearance? I mean, you can't presume that.

DUNNE: Well, I mean, I don't think it is, you know, out of the question. I mean, I don't think it is. I mean, we are all just saying this, but I mean, you know, if I heard that he was, I would not be shocked.

There is just something -- there is something missing in this guy every time, you know, just from the beginning, I couldn't stand all the smiling going into the -- into the Congress every day, I couldn't -- you know, I just think -- when he was caught throwing away the watch box, you know, he just didn't toss it, he drove to Virginia, the guy eyeballs him in the car, and he buries the thing down when he's in up to his shoulder.

I mean, there is just something sneaky about this guy! And you know, I still think -- I still think that we cannot overlook the thing about motorcycles in this story. He is a big motorcyclist, and he rides with the Hell's Angels, and I think that that is how she disappeared, on the back of a motorcycle.

KING: As a writer, though, and before Mark gets a chance to faint.

DUNNE: I know he is going to faint. Sorry, Mark.

KING: As a writer, Dominick, do you approach this fairly, do you say I'm open, or do you...

DUNNE: Yeah, yeah, I do. Yes, I do.

KING: You approached last night totally open. You were ready to be convinced?

DUNNE: Absolutely. And I wasn't convinced for a minute! I wasn't convinced. He was so rehearsed.

KING: Mark, do you object to the motorcycle -- one of the theories is that the only time you run down and leave stuff like that is if you are going to ride on a motorcycle where you can't hold a handbag

GERAGOS: And I have also heard a competing theory that apparently the only reason she would leave is because it was somebody she knows. So, are we suggesting that she knew some Hell's Angel and he called up from the motorcycle and said, "come on down, I have got the Harley-Davidson running and get on the back and let's leave without ID?" I mean, you know...

DUNNE: Not out of the question.

GERAGOS: Well, Dominick...

DUNNE: Not out of the question. Sorry.

GERAGOS: There is no evidence of it, Dominick.

DUNNE: OK.

GERAGOS: There is nothing whatsoever that suggests it. I understand that as a writer you've got a very fertile mind and you are entitled to that, and that's what makes you such a great writer. But at the same time, it is, I think, unfair to make the leap from that the guy is -- is apparently committing adultery, and go from that to the fact that he is also a killer.

DUNNE: I didn't say he was a killer, I said it was not out of the question.

GERAGOS: You said maybe he hired a hitman.

KING: Are Dominick's views -- are Dominick's views, Barbara, aided by the performance last night of the congressman?

OLSON: Well, I think clearly so. I mean, I watched that, and I go back and forth, as Dominick did, with -- is this guy just a liar or is he lying because he is covering up something having to do with Chandra or covering up something having to do with other relationships?

And I have got to say, last night's performance -- you watched that, and you said, now what is the likelihood that Mrs. Levy would remember if she asked him that? Probably pretty likely. Gary Condit says it didn't happen, but yet he wouldn't admit last night to the relationship that we all know occurred. He lied about Joleen McKay and Anna Marie Smith, unless they are all lying.

He said everyone else was lying but him, and our common sense says, well, when someone says the world is lying, usually they are the ones lying. And like the police, I have to say, when they looked at Gary Condit in those first few days and Gary Condit refused to answer the question about the relationship, I think we now know because last night Abbe Lowell said that what happened in that first interview was Gary Condit said, "how is it relevant?"

Well, it was relevant because Linda Zamsky, Chandra's aunt, had told the police there is a relationship. So, the police are looking at Gary Condit in those first few days to say, is going to tell us the truth or lie? And he lied, so that keeps him under the microscope. It's his own fault.

EPSTEIN: Larry?

KING: Yes, Julian.

EPSTEIN: I mean, I -- I don't object to putting theories out there that have some bases in fact, and we can have some speculation about it and some discussion about it. I do really object to what Dominick just said about this notion about the motorcycle, because I do think it's irresponsible to speculate about theories that you just pull out of the air, and you have no basis to say. And I think it's irresponsible to do that on TV.

And that's the point. The point here is that like the sharks off the coast in the waters in Florida that are indiscriminately attacking people, a lot of people have been indiscriminately attacking Gary Condit, and he had a chance to put the tourniquet on his wound yesterday, and rather than doing that he put more blood into the water.

And so, you are going to see more of these irresponsible attacks I think coming at him, even if it turns out ultimately that this is a big sideshow when it comes down to, as President Bush said today, he seemed to be saying this is all a big sideshow. The real question is, where is Chandra?

KING: Nancy, how about Abbe's, though, explanation, which did not come out last night, that Mrs. Levy asked him about a number of people -- not a great number, but a number of people she was involved with, and that he was trying to spare her that?

GRACE: Larry, you know, I built my whole career on being a victims rights advocate, and I'm deeply concerned. I'm actually hurt, although I'm not related to the Levys in any way, that he would choose to put out there on national TV tonight, in order to defend Condit, he would put Chandra and Anne Marie Smith's reputation on the chopping block, in a way to defuse the fact, the fingers pointing toward Condit. EPSTEIN: Wait a second, Nancy, wait a second. He didn't do that.

GRACE: I would agree with Dominick Dunne -- I agree with Dominick in the sense that nothing is out of the question.

EPSTEIN: Come on, Nancy.

GRACE: And last night, when he had an opportunity to tell the truth, to give us information about Chandra, to aide the police, he didn't. He said, Connie Chung asked the wrong questions, the format was wrong, 30 minutes wasn't long enough.

EPSTEIN: Nancy, you're taking a cheap shot at Abbe. Abbe didn't say that. Abbe didn't say that.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Abbe merely said that the mother called to ask Gary Condit about other people that Chandra knew.

GRACE: About other lovers.

EPSTEIN: He didn't say that, he said about other people...

KING: He implied that.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: You can parse words all you want to, I heard what he said.

EPSTEIN: I'm not parsing words, I'm telling you what Abbe said.

KING: Let me get a break, guys. Hold it. Let me get a break, come back. We'll be right back with Dominick Dunne and our cast. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Geragos will begin the next portion, he has not interrupted once. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHIEF RAMSEY, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: One could say that he answered every question that Connie Chung asked him. He answered every question that we asked him. Now, it's up to the others to decide whether or not that's forthcoming, and that you have got any more out of that conversation after the interview that you did before.

If the congressman wants to join the force, the number has been well published, he can join anytime he would like to and become a detective and make those kinds of things, but until then leave the investigation up to investigators.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JODI HERNANDEZ, KOVR CORRESPONDENT: Did you tell them that you were having the affair?

CONDIT: I'm not going to tell you what was said in every -- in every interview in the investigation, I'm just telling you that you are working under some false information by unnamed sources. The first interview, told them everything they asked, all the details, the same in the second.

HERNANDEZ: You have to understand, congressman, that is one of the big points that is so disturbing to your constituents here.

CONDIT: Well, it should be disturbing to them, but it also should be disturbing to you, because it's misinformation that has been spread through the press.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Mark Geragos. If Julian Epstein is right and if Dominick Dunne is right, the panel is right. Did he -- did he in last night's quote "performance," unquote, severely hurt his case to cause more people to think he is involved?

GERAGOS: I don't think that there is any question that he did. I mean, the fact that Dick Gephardt came out and made the statements that he did today is certainly not helpful. I mean, obviously the polls and the instantaneous polls that Abbe is talking about are something of grave concern, and he's -- I think Julian is absolutely correct. He is hanging by a thread. He has got to get back out there. I know doesn't want to. I know this is obviously, a distasteful process for him. But something has got to happen, because he is hanging by a thread.

KING: And Dominick, he could just chuck it in, right? Not run for reelection and just go away?

DUNNE: Yeah. I think that is -- that is a possibility. And that is what I think is going to happen.

KING: Yeah. Do you think so, Barbara? That he might just in all -- in view of all of this not run? And then if he's not involved it just -- eventually just goes away.

OLSON: Well, you know, we are being rational, saying that is a problem but we heard Gary Condit last night. We heard him saying, "I'm not changing anything. I'm going forward." Last night was all about reelection. Now, obviously, Dick Gephardt is going to be a problem.

KING: But Abbe said tonight that he hasn't decided.

OLSON: Well, Abbe Lowell knows what a disaster it was. Abbe Lowell has a sense of reality. And Abbe Lowell is trying to stop the bleeding. But Gary Condit, you know, can he do another interview? Larry, if he were to come on and sit down and be honest with you, is he too far down the road? Has he denied everything?

Abbe Lowell tried to bring back the Ann Marie Smith, but he's still got the denial of Joleen McKay. He's still got a lot of the other denials. Can he come back now, or is he...

KING: Are you saying nothing can help him?

OLSON: I just think he's so far -- I think he is so far down the road of denial and lying, that unless his constituents say, "Well, you know, Bill Clinton had the meaning of sex, and Condit has a meaning of relationship. We are going to accept it." Which I don't think is likely. He is done.

GERAGOS: But you know what's interesting -- what's interesting, Barbara, is Bill Clinton did come out the first time and he did not exactly get rave reviews. And then came back again, and he was able to repair the damage.

EPSTEIN: Right. But Mark, there wasn't a missing person. There wasn't a missing person there.

GERAGOS: That was the second point I wanted to make, Julian, there's a lot of this that is completely out of his control. And a lot of this depends on what happens with finding Chandra.

EPSTEIN: Look -- if he doesn't -- you want to take a break, go ahead.

OLSON: And indeed a lot of Gary Condit's speech tracked what Bill Clinton did.

KING: Julian. Let Julian finish his sentence. Julian?

EPSTEIN: If he lets everything stay where it is, in other words, he doesn't do another interview, I think he is done in politics. I don't think he can get reelected, I don't think he'll be welcome in the Democratic party.

If he can come on a show like yours, Larry, and give an interview and admit -- I think the things, as Barbara said, that he said about Ann Marie Smith and the other women, that he was wrong to say that. I shuddered when I saw it. I was watching it in the green room with Barbara. I shuddered when I heard him say that. If he can go and begin to backtrack and admit some responsibility, then he may have a chance. But he has got to come on again. If he leaves it as it is, he is dead.

KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments, get the final thoughts of each of our panelists, and Dominick Dunne predicting that he will not run again. Let's see their final thoughts right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not paying attention to the Congressman. I am paying attention to whether or not this poor girl is -- is found. And that is what I'm interested in. I understand how Washington works. I mean, there is all kinds of stuff that goes on in Washington. People are saying this about somebody, or saying that about somebody. It is a town of gossip. I'm not worried about the gossip, I'm worried about the facts. And there is a girl missing. And our prayers are with her parents. I -- I have seen them on TV. I agonize for the mom and the dad. And that is where my heart is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Dominick Dunne, this boggles everyone. How can there be absolutely no clue?

DUNNE: No clue. I don't know. I don't know. I just want to say one thing, Larry, about the stewardess who has been dumped on tonight. I think she did a very, very brave thing in coming forward. I saw her on your show and I believed her story. She has not come forward for fame or money. She has come forward because a girl is missing. And I think it was wonderful.

OLSON: And the other thing about...

KING: Nancy Grace.

KING: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

OLSON: I was going to say, I think -- very quickly about her is she sat down with the FBI for over nine hours under oath and talked to the FBI. And with what Gary Condit said last night, I think he's laid down the gauntlet for these women who have gone and talked to FBI to prove that they didn't perjure themselves.

KING: Mark, it's a puzzle. No clues at all. Usually there are some clues.

GERAGOS: It's probably, I think, why there is just such wild and rampant speculation is because there just is no clue or no evidence here.

KING: Nancy, you've prosecuted cases. You ever seen a case with no clues?

GRACE: Well, I disagree with everybody. I think there are very strong clues. Maybe we are not reading them correctly, but there are clues. And regarding last night and what Abbe Lowell said tonight. Unfortunately, we saw a look at who Gary Condit really is. And Larry, I just want to say, Lowell described this whole thing as a process, but the truth is not a process! It is easy to tell the truth.

KING: Julian, you will get the last word. We have no clues. What do you make of that?

EPSTEIN: Terrible performance on Condit's part last night, but if he can't dispose of a watch box inside a French fry container in a Virginia trash can in a competent way, I don't think he can dispose of a body for four months with no clues. I think actually it is exculpatory for him.

KING: Thank you all very much. And Dominick Dunne's best- selling book is "Justice: Crimes, Trials, and Punishment." A terrific read. "LARRY KING WEEKEND" featuring past highlights of previous shows over the weekend. We'll be back here Monday on this topic with more guests and more discussion.

Stay tuned for "CNN TONIGHT." I'm Larry King; for all our guests, have a great weekend; good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/23/lkl.00.html
 

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Panelists Discuss Gary Condit's Interview With 'Vanity Fair'

Aired August 23, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, four months Gary Condit gave reporters the silent treatment. Now he's running a high-stakes media campaign. Can the embattled congressman (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

Joining us with an exclusive preview of an interview Gary Condit gave her just yesterday, Judy Bachrach, contributing editor for "Vanity Fair. " And then more outspoken debate on this compelling story in Washington. Former prosecutor, best-selling author Barbara Olson, in New York, former prosecutor turned Court TV anchor Nancy Grace. In Los Angeles, former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alksne. Back in D.C. former chief minority counsel for house judiciary, Julian Epstein. And with him, former independent counsel, former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin. Plus later in Portland, Tonya Harding. She endured a trial by media fire including interview with Connie Chung. And they are all next on LARRY KING LIVE!

We begin with Judy Bachrach. She's with us from Denver. She's one of this country's best reporters. She has a new book out that is very controversial and already heading for the best-seller list called "Tina and Harry come to America: Tina Brown, Harry Evans and the Uses of Power." But that's not the reason she is with us tonight. She recently -- or just conducted an interview with Gary Condit for the December issue of "Vanity Fair." Why so far away, Judy? I mean, December?

JUDY BACHRACH, "VANITY FAIR": I think you know that "Vanity Fair" is planned months in advance. So when I interviewed Gary Condit, I realized that it would not be out the next day. That was a given.

KING: So that puts you and the magazine in kind of a tough spot because a lot of information is going to come out before yours comes out.

BACHRACH: We know that. This is going to be an analysis of what happened. It is not going to be a step by step, you know, what happened today. It just so happens I saw Mr. Condit yesterday. But we realized that all along, that this was going to be an overview, a final analysis of how this was conducted.

KING: Where did do you the interview?

BACHRACH: I did it in L.A. Gary Condit was in L.A. with his attorney, Abbe Lowell in L.A., in the attorney's offices. And I spoke to him for about 35 minutes. This was just a week, oddly enough, after I had spoken to the Levys in Modesto.

KING: How is this? Did Abbe Lowell set it up with you?

BACHRACH: Abbe Lowell did. He suggested that it was likely I was going get an interview, and indeed that did come to pass. I wasn't sure it would happen. But it did happen.

KING: Overall impression, Judy?

BACHRACH: He -- the Congressman was very, very tense. I was just telling my family he looked sort of like a comma, his head was sort of hunched over his body, and his body looked fairly frail at this point. He looked very nervous. He had lost a lot of weight. He was in running shoes, slacks, and a windbreaker. And he looked very thin, very gaunt and pretty worn out. He could barely talk. His voice had given out. So he was clearly prepping for the interviews ahead. He had clearly been well prepped by his lawyer. And he was very nervous.

KING: Connie Chung reported earlier tonight -- and we don't have transcript yet -- but she said that Condit acknowledged a 5-month relationship with Chandra, described it as close, but say whether it was sexual. What did he say to you in that regard?

BACHRACH: He described it with me, too, as close. However, I referred to it as sexual, I referred to it as liaison, a romantic liaison, and I talked about affair. And in no instance did he correct me. In no instance did he say no, that wasn't how I would characterize it. So he pretty much gave me leeway to talk about it as such and to write about it as such.

KING: So therefore, you gather even though he didn't say it as such, by acknowledging it or not dissuading you of what you were saying, he did acknowledge it.

BACHRACH: Correct, any time he felt I was wrong he immediately jumped in and corrected me. In this instance, he did not. Moreover, I said to him very specifically that the Levy family felt that their daughter was very much in love with the congressman, that she had talked about it as being a long term relationship. She described their relationship together as one of incredible romance. She would dance with the congressman in his kitchen to Frank Sinatra music. And when her mother said, well, what is his name, this congressman? She said I can't tell you, until about -- for another five years. So that is...

KING: You interviewed the Levys for this article, too.

BACHRACH: Yes, last week I interviewed them. And so...

KING: When you brought that up, what did he say.

BACHRACH: When I told him I thought Chandra Levy was very much in love with him and probably wanted a marital future with him, with children, he said I have never discussed a long-term relationship with Chandra, I have never discussed love with Chandra, I have never discussed marriage or children with Chandra. I am married to one woman, Carolyn Condit, and I will be for as long as she will have me. That was a very telling phrase, I thought.

KING: Did you ask about the other charges? The stewardess for example, who appeared on this show for an hour.

BACHRACH: Indeed I did.

KING: What did he say?

BACHRACH: I talked to him about Ann Marie Smith, and he seemed to be very angry at Ann Marie Smith, the stewardess who claimed that she had been asked by his lawyer to sign an affidavit which was untrue, in her eyes, namely, that she had never had an affair with Mr. Condit. And he said he had never asked her to lie, and that he felt that the stewardess Ann Marie Smith was motivated by profit, and was motivated by a desire for publicity.

I have to say, I have never seen an article that suggested Ann Marie Smith was particularly motivated by profit. But he is quite insistent on that point and he is very angry at her.

KING: Didn't deny it, though.

BACHRACH: He did deny that he had ever asked her to lie about the relationship.

KING: I mean the sexual relationship.

BACHRACH: He did not deny the sexual relationship, no.

KING: What about mystery of dumping the watch in Alexandria, Virginia -- nowhere near where he lives?

BACHRACH: Well, he dumped...

KING: The watch box.

BACHRACH: ...the watch box, I was told by a very good friend of his, in a package of McDonald's french fries. He had gone out to buy a hamburger and french fries for his wife Carolyn and he then drove with an aide to Virginia, and dumped that watchbox inside a package of McDonald's french fries and then threw it in trash.

KING: And what did he say to you?

BACHRACH: And when he -- I asked him why he dumped it, he started laughing. He said that watch box was just trash, it was just trash. And I was surprised at that. Because of course people were interested in it. And it might have been material in some sense. But he said it had nothing to do with Chandra Levy, which of course it didn't.

That watch box was given to him by another woman. And that it was, moreover, not from his apartment, which everybody was saying. The police were searching the congressman's apartment. He said he had taken it from his office, his Congressional office. And so, therefore, presumably, it wasn't as germane, and not as important. And he thought...

KING: Why did he drive so far away to do it?

BACHRACH: Well, you must ask him that, but he obviously not only drove far away, but according to his aide, he put it within another box, a box of french fries. So when I said to him I bet you know that the police department of D.C. leaking like a sieve and that any present that you got from any woman would be the next day's headline and I'm sure why you dumped it as well, he didn't deny that. He said, part of it was really that it had nothing to do with the Chandra Levy case. And it wasn't in my apartment.

KING: We will spend more moments with Judy Bachrach. This is her first interview. She just interviewed the Congressman. She's also interviewed the Levys. They were here last week. The article will appear in December. We will be right back with Judy Bachrach and later our panel. And we will also be talking with Tonya Harding, who was interviewed during her crisis by Connie Chung. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: What you are looking at is a rally tonight. The venue is the Veterans Memorial Building in Merced, California. The rally is a grassroots coalition in support of Gary Condit. And similar to the last rally -- I wouldn't say -- I guess sparsely attended at this point.

And as you know, Judy Bachrach, a letter went out today received by his constituents. I just want to read a portion to you and get your comments. It said, "Dear friends and neighbors, Chandra Levy has been missing for nearly four months. I am sorry that the pain the Levy family and Chandra's friends has grown worse with each passing day. When Chandra's dad called me to tell me she was missing, he asked for my help. I contacted the police to see if a reward fund would help find her. They said it would so I helped start one and since that day and every day since, I have cooperated an worked with law enforcement to help find Chandra. I invited the police to my apartment, I asked the FBI to help."

What did he say to you, Judy, about his feelings about the Levys, and also why he hasn't contacted them on a regular basis?

BACHRACH: He seemed to be, if I if I interpreted it correctly, quite angry at the Levys.

KING: Angry at the Levys.

BACHRACH: Yes. He didn't say that, OK. I'm just interpreting that. He said that they had overstepped the line, that was a quote. They had stepped over the line when they accused me, meaning the Levys accused Condit of being suspicious, of acting in a suspicious manner, or he said, least of all, of having anything to do with the disappearance of Chandra Levy. So he seems to be quite annoyed. He is more over annoyed that a story that he, Condit, might have had an affair with the daughter of a minister in California, in his hometown came out. And he denied it absolutely. He said. and indeed the FBI denied it, too.

KING: Why -- sorry, go ahead

BACHRACH: He was angry about this in part because he felt the news media particularly "The Washington Post" should have figured out that this was not going to be a true story. And he said the fact that this minister worked as a gardener also for the Levys, should have tipped people off. It should have made the news media very suspicious about the story.

KING: Did you he is not cooperating with the Levy's investigators, why he didn't take a lie detector test given by the police or the FBI, and why he isn't compassionate, in calling Levy, no matter what his feelings, it is their daughter?

BACHRACH: He claims he did speak to the Levys, particularly at the beginning. And as you know, Mrs. Levy says, she said to him right away, are you having an affair with my daughter? And his reply was, no, I'm not.

He says he cooperated with the Levys. He doesn't remember Mrs. Levy ever asking him such a question. He implied that Mrs. Levy was under intense pressure, and perhaps she was remembering wrong. He is a guy who, let's face it, did not have to take a lie detector test at all. You might well ask yourself why he did take the private one.

It was, perhaps, not a very good idea if you are not going take a police lie detector test, which is his right, not to take a very private lie detector test because that is automatically suspect and found suspicious by the media. The fact that he did take that, that he then let the news out to the media, put him -- rather than improved his position -- put him under even greater suspicion.

People are now saying, why didn't he talk to the cops? But, of course, as his lawyer said to me, I don't know that Jesus Christ could have passed a lie detector test given by the cops. And that is possible. A lot of people get very nervous.

KING: I know, when cops do it, it makes you nervous. Connie Chung said that Condit said Levy did not seem upset in their last phone conversation, this is Chandra, they talked about her travel plans. He said the same to you?

BACHRACH: He did, and I said, well were you about to break up with her, or did you break up with her? And his reply was interesting. He said, Chandra and I have never had a cross word with each other. I said but congressman, that is not what I asked. I said, did you break up with her or you were about to?

And he said, not at all. That as everyone knew he goes out to California regularly, every weekend. Chandra was about to go off to California by train, he said, and he said he would have continued their friendship. That was his word. He would have continued their friendship had she not disappeared.

KING: So if he is not denying, when you mentioned it, sexual and he is saying he would continue their friendship, in a sense he was saying the relationship would have continued.

BACHRACH: That is correct. That is the impression I got.

KING: The cover line on "People" magazine, that will be out tomorrow, says, blunt one moment, ducking tough questions the next. Did he do the same with you?

BACHRACH: That is true. I was very specific with him on one specific issue which was very important, which was why didn't he, Congressman Condit, tell the police right away he was having an affair with Chandra Levy? That was very important, the cops felt.

And I asked this two or three times. And most of the times he said something along the lines of "I answered every question that was put to me." "I gave the police all they needed to know." In other words, what he was saying is, hey, they didn't ask me that vital question. And I might add, they probably should have asked that vital question so why should I offer it.

So he does duck, but at other times, he is very up-front. He is not denying he had a love affair. He is not denying that it was a five month duration. And he is not denying obviously that he is a married man. And when I asked him about his political future, he was not the upbeat guy I thought he would be. He said essentially, whatever happens, happens.

KING: How is his wife handling it?

BACHRACH: Well, he says fine.

KING: All right. You didn't see her?

BACHRACH: No. She was not there.

KING: Children were not there?

BACHRACH: And the children were not there. I did ask about Chad Condit, his son, who hoped to run for assembly in California -- assemblyman -- and I said how do you feel about that? The guy has huge political ambitions, and now his career, at least this year, is shot. And he didn't deny it. He said unfortunately my situation has impacted on members of my family, but, he said, hey, Chad is getting more money working for Governor Gray Davis now than he would have as assemblyman so maybe it is all for the best.

KING: You made a statement earlier that his wife -- the marriage will last as long as she stays with him. Did he comment at all about what the wife thought of Chandra?

BACHRACH: No. He didn't he did not discuss that. No.

KING: All right, then finally, Judy, do you think he is going to be able to put this away tonight?

BACHRACH: Tonight, no. And I don't know that he even thinks so. I think he was fairly blunt with me when he said I have no idea how this is going to shake out. I think the phrasing of that letter was probably a difficulty. He did not apologize. He probably should have done so.

Perhaps for legal reasons he didn't apologize, but in any event he did not. So I think his constituents are going to be continuing to worry about him. And I think he knows that.

KING: Thank you, Judy.

BACHRACH: My pleasure.

KING: Thanks for being with us, Judy Bachrach, an old friend. She is the contributing editor for "Vanity Fair." She did an interview with Gary Condit yesterday. It will appear -- and the Levys as well, last week -- it will appear in the December issue of "Vanity Fair."

When we come back our panel assembles. This is LARRY KING LIVE, don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Our panel is now assembled. What you are seeing on your screen is the Levy home in Modesto, California as the Levys prepare to watch this interview tonight. Joining us in Washington, Barbara Olson. In New York: Nancy Grace. Here in Los Angeles: Cynthia Alksne. And in Washington: Julian Epstein, and Michael Zeldin as well.

Let's go around the horn. We will start with Cynthia right here. What did you make of what we just heard from Judy Bachrach?

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I thought she was fascinating. And the most interesting thing to me is I don't get any sense that he has any regrets about the manner in which he handled this. He doesn't appear to -- you know, he just dismisses immediately that he lied to Mrs. Levy, that's her fault. "The Washington Post" story is "The Washington Post's" fault, this is the media's fault. Everybody's fault, everybody's fault. But there are no: "Gee, I wish I had done it differently." There's no self -- there's revelation at all that he's been wrong.

KING: Julian?

JULIAN EPSTEIN, FMR. HOUSE JUDICIARY COUNSEL: I guess I have to agree with Cynthia. One of the things that I found that was particularly interesting in the interview with the reporter from "Vanity Fair" is this notion that the watch box was thrown away inside the McDonald's french fries box. I mean, if there's anything that's more exculpatory, that is it. The notion that this guy could somehow be responsible for disposing a body, when there's something as schlocky as the disposing of a watch box in that way. I mean, I've never heard anything more exculpatory in this case than that.

But I agree with Cynthia, and I think to the extent that there is a template of what he is going say tonight with Connie Chung, we see it in the letter. And I think, with all due respect, the letter was a disaster, a public relations disaster on his part, for the reason that Cynthia pointed out. He seems to be saying, his central theme is that he's been treated unfairly.

It may be true that he's been treated unfairly, but if that's the theme, if that's the theme, then he and his team have fundamentally misperceived the public relations dimension of this, which is that he's got to accept responsibility, he's got to have some greater connection with Chandra. He's got to show that he's distraught by the fact that she disappeared, and he's got to be much more specific about some of these questions. If he's perceived as ducking questions, it's the kiss of death for him.

KING: Nancy Grace? What was your read on what Miss Bachrach had to say?

NANCY GRACE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I also found her revelations fascinating, and I'm looking at this from a different angle. I really don't care about Condit's political future. I'm still looking at everything he says and does from an evidentiary point of view.

Larry, the law has taught me that you may observe someone's behavior before, during and after an incident. And what strikes me as incredibly odd is that at no time has he exhibited any sorrow about his lover, his sweetheart probably dead. And I find that very interesting, from an evidentiary point of view.

KING: Michael Zeldin, what do you make of it?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FMR. INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, I think that Gary Condit is going to have a difficult road ahead of him, and that these interviews are not going to satisfy his critics. It's curious to me that he's chosen this point in time to start speaking, because Nancy Grace is never going to be satisfied, no matter what he says. Nor will Barbara when you ask her. So I'm not sure what the end that he's trying to achieve here is.

I think people would like, on his team, for him to be perceived as a human being who is suffering from this investigation, and who is cooperating as best he is able to with this investigation. I just don't know that he's going to be able to accomplish it.

The interesting thing to me from the "Vanity Fair" interview, is that he did play a little bit fast and loose with the police about the nature of his relationship with Chandra Levy. But this notion that he lied to the police, that is, that he was asked an affirmative question and lied, seems to have been discredited by her -- that there was no such question and there was no lie. And so there was no misleading of the police, and there was no obstruction based on what she told us.

KING: Barbara Olson, your read on what Ms. Bachrach had to tell us?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think that Michael Zeldin has just read facts not in evidence. I mean, Gary Condit -- it's interesting, what Judy said was that Gary Condit told the police what they needed to know. And you'll recall, that was one of his press statements that Maria Ein put out, and we said how does he know what the police need to know? You're supposed to tell the police everything. You don't know what facts they have.

So I think what I got out of this is arrogance. I think everyone was right, there is no grief. There is no remorse. There is no sense of responsibility that he did anything wrong. And then to attack Anne Marie Smith, to accuse her of doing this for money? We watched her on your show. This wasn't a woman who had taken money, and in fact, this was a woman who was terrified of coming forward, but she thought it was important. So I think...

KING: Her friends, in fact, took money.

ALKSNE: Yes, her friends took money. Her roommates took money and sold her out and still haven't told the truth about it, so -- I mean, that's that is outrageous attack by him.

OLSON: But she did not. I mean, the fact is, Anne Marie Smith did not take money, and Gary Condit seems to want to blame everyone else for what has happened. It's the media, it's Anne Marie, it's not him.

KING: Let me get a break. We'll be back with more of our panel. In a little while we'll get some thoughts from Tonya Harding who, you remember, when she had her calamitous time with the press seven years ago, her first interview was with Connie Chung. We'll be including your calls later as well. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Once more, the pro-Condit rally tonight -- doesn't appear to be a lot of people. They just seem to be -- somebody is speaking, I guess, But anyway, that's the rally, the grassroots coalition in support of Gary Condit.

Julian Epstein, what do you make of the rally tonight?

EPSTEIN: Well, again, I think it just shows bad judgment from a public relations point of view. I know Nancy doesn't want to talk about public relations, but it's bad judgment. This is a very somber moment. this is an opportunity for him to accept responsibility, to say that he cares about Chandra Levy, you know, explain all the questions that need to be answered. It's not a time for public rallies, that's why I don't particularly like the fact that there's a "Vanity Fair" or a "People" magazine article. I think that it -- it denigrates the seriousness of the moment, and that's what I don't like about it.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Nancy, do you think that he is not treating this -- I mean, he -- what do you make of how he appears to be handling it?

GRACE: Well, as usual, Larry, it's all about Gary Condit, and I know the man is trying to save his political career. But you know what, of course, obviously, he should have thought about that during the string of affairs. But back to Chandra Levy -- the girl, I hate to say it, the girl is dead. And all this is about is his political...

KING: We don't know that.

GRACE: Statistically speaking, she's more likely than not no longer with us. I'm just basing that on the evidence that we've got. And it seems to me that this is all about political spin. And on this one issue, I do agree with Julian. I think that a rally, an upbeat rally, is not appropriate at this time.

KING: Wouldn't it have been smart, Cynthia, just to be more -- apparently, we haven't seen the Chung interview yet -- more contrite. More...

ALKSNE: Of course. You would think that's basic, that that would be PR 101. In fact, there are some indications coming out of the Condit camp that they are now distancing themselves from this pathetic excuse for a letter, which is more of a pity party than any form of apology. And it includes outright lies, you know, things like, "since that day I have cooperated." He has not cooperated with the police since that day. In fact, he's putting little things in french fry containers and running to the McDonald's. And he's not telling the police about the story. He's not...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: "I invited police into my apartment" -- paren -- after I cleaned it out. "I cooperated with the FBI, but not with the polygraph. I mean, the whole letter is false.

ALKSNE: And he's calling it his best attempt, and he can't -- first of all, he's attacking now the family, "Vanity Fair," saying they never asked me about it. He didn't remember -- that's just outrageous. And we know from the Levys that he actually lied to them and now refuses to meet their investigator. So that is not...

KING: Are you surprised, Michael, that he's angry at the Levys?

ZELDIN: Yeah -- no, I'm not surprised that he's angry at the Levys, because I think that he feels that he has been forthright with the Levys, and that he is upset, I think, that they would consider him a murder suspect.

KING: But they have a missing daughter

ZELDIN: Well, they have a missing daughter, I understand that. And I think that he feels the pain of having a missing daughter. I don't think that he has anything but anger to feel about someone who is calling him a murderer.

KING: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: I have to get a break. Hold it, Michael. I've got to interrupt you there. We've got to take a break. When we come back, we will spend some moments with Tonya Harding, who has had a -- remembers her days with Connie Chung as well. We'll get her thoughts on all of this, and then back to our panel. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Before we get back to our panel, we wanted to spend a few moments with Tonya Harding, who joins us from Portland, Oregon. During the midst of the media frenzy surrounding Nancy Kerrigan's attack back in 1994 connected with the Olympics and everything, she gave her first big media interview to Connie Chung. Everyone wanted to talk to Tonya Harding. How did Connie get that interview, Tonya?

HARDING: Well, it was all put together with my agent at the time. And she was very, very considerate and very nice at the time. And once we started the whole process of getting into the interviews and everything, it became a little bit more pushy, but that is because everyone wanted to know what was going on. And it was very hard at that time. It was very difficult to deal with, seeing as how it kind of took away the friendship and the motherness between my mother and I. And now I am very fortunate to say that I have got a relationship back again with my mom.

KING: Was she fair.

HARDING: My mother was in Portland...

KING: No. Was Connie Chung fair to you?

HARDING: Fair?

KING: Yes.

HARDING: I would say in the beginning she was. But then in the end she was not. And I ended up stopping the interview that I had started with her.

KING: Why?

HARDING: Because she started asking too many questions that I had already told her time and time again I would not be able to answer. Not just because of myself, but because of my lawyers telling me I should not answer those things.

KING: But she was -- that is just doing your job isn't it? I mean, that is her job...

HARDING: Doing her job to a point. But when you go ten times asking the same question in different ways, it becomes a little bit annoying. And it gets to the point where you have to put your foot down and just say I'm sorry, but this interview is over. KING: You never went back to her? You ended it?

HARDING: I ended it at that point. And I told her -- I said, "Connie thank you very much for this interview, but I'm sorry. It is over now." And I got up and I left.

KING: The interview aired though, didn't it? I mean, edited and aired.

HARDING: Yes, it did. It did.

KING: Was the final airing fair?

HARDING: I really -- I really am not sure. I didn't watch lot of it because I needed to concentrate on what I was there to do. I was there to be able to compete in the Olympic Games do the best that I could do.

KING: What did you -- how did you deal with all that media attention you were getting? The whole world was after you, and -- what was that like? You were going through what Condit is going through...

HARDING: It was absolutely horrible. It was horrible. Not having any privacy whatsoever, having the media try and have my vehicle towed, not being able to go and skate at my own time at my own rink without having someone shoving a camera in my face, or tripping me or something. There was always something going on. And it was very difficult, and I really do not like to see anyone have to go through the same things that I went through with the media. They can be pretty ruthless sometimes.

KING: Do you think we -- the collective "we " -- have gotten better or worse since you?

HARDING: Well, there is a certain -- there is a certain amount of you who are absolutely wonderful. And then there's a certain amount of you who I would never give interview to again.

KING: Because of this herd mentality and because of the way you were treated.

HARDING: Absolutely. I mean you treat people the way you want to be treated. And if someone wants an interview with me they will treat me with respect and they will give me a little bit of leeway on the way I want to be, also.

KING: Is it hard when you are in middle of this to get the public to have sympathy for you?

HARDING: I'm not looking for anyone to give me any sympathy. I'm just there to state the facts and the truth, and then to go on and do what I want to do -- which was to skate and be at the Olympic Games and do the best that I could and hopefully win a gold.

KING: Do you feel some empathy for Mr. Condit and his family? HARDING: I am not going to comment on anything when it has to that because I do not know all the facts. I have not been listening to it, because the media does not portray the absolute truth. And so I am just concentrating on myself and my career and things that I am doing in my life.

KING: Thanks, Tonya. It's always good seeing you.

HARDING: Well, thank you, Larry. And I wished I could be there and give you a big hug.

KING: Tonya Harding in Portland, Oregon. When we come back, the panel resumes. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We are back with our panel. One part of the letter that we found interesting as well: "I will be interviewed on television and hopefully I will be able to answer questions that help people understand. It is not something I look forward to. But things have gone on long enough." Barbara, what do you make overall of this whole letter?

OLSON: Well, I mean, the letter, I think, is an indication of what we just heard from Judy with "Vanity Fair." And I'm assuming what we are going to hear tonight is things have gone on long enough. Not that I have caused them. It seems as though Gary Condit feels that things around him have gone on long enough, and -- you know, it's interesting before you were talking about the political PR side.

If you look back at people like Gary Hart, who refused to admit and refused to apologize, and look what happened to his career.

And then you see people, I mean the famous, as obviously the checker speech with Nixon, or even Senator Kennedy, after what happened at Chappaquiddick, he went on television and he apologized and said that would live with him the rest of his life. Those kinds of things allow us to forgive.

And if his talk tonight with Connie Chung, he says -- we had a close friendship, and doesn't admit the relationship, doesn't answer whether he loved her, whether -- if he denies that indeed he told her he would marry her, or that they would have children, then we've got this picture of Chandra must have been delusional. Anne Marie Smith is a liar and someone after money, and I guess Joeleen McKay whom he paid on his staff when he was having an affair must also be delusional. It's not a pretty picture.

EPSTEIN: You know, Larry, this notion that if you just admit wrong doing, if you are sorry, if you ask for forgiveness, that it works, reciting the Checkers speech and so on, that is not always the case. Remember James Swaggert, of course "I have sinned."

Remember Phil Crane, an Illinois congressman in 1981 who had a sexual affair with a congressional page, had a teary eyed mea culpa on the House floor. His voters kicked him out the next year. I think if Gary Condit, what he is going to say tonight is this and I don't associate myself with the strategy, I think it is a mistaken strategy, but he is going to say, look, I had a secret affair. It was wrong. I made one mistake which is when the police asked me if I was having a sexual relationship, I said well, I have a personal relationship...

KING: Do you think he is going to say that tonight?

EPSTEIN: I think he is going to say that he had a personal relationship with her, read into that what you will. I think he will also say that the police, at that point, people keep talking about obstruction, and we were just talking about this off camera, the police at that point even in the first interview, I'm certain, knew that there was a sexual affair going on.

They had already spoken to other family members, so you really have to ask the question, even though you can't justify the fact that he wasn't forthcoming to the police, nobody has really demonstrated how that has really deleteriously impacted the investigation other than just simply asserting.

And I think that he is essentially saying that I'm being convicted in a kind of a mob like media mentality with no evidence of any wrongdoing, but this has become kind of a like a mob mentality and it is really just a sideshow.

KING: A lot of it, Cynthia, is how it is said, right?

ALKSNE: Sure.

KING: How does he look.

ALKSNE: There are two big questions there: Is he involved in her disappearance and/or murder? And is he a weasel and has he not been fair honest and somebody who we can all respect? This was his chance to deal with the weasel aspect.

KING: We don't know yet how well he did.

ALKSNE: So far, big flunk on the weasel aspect.

KING: Michael Zeldin, would you agree or agree with that?

ZELDIN: Well, I don't know, I haven't seen the interview.

KING: From what we know, from reading Judy Bachrach, assuming that nothing huge breaks beyond that, what do you make of it?

ZELDIN: First and foremost is I think we have come to the conclusion that Gary Condit has had nothing to do with Chandra Levy's disappearance. He is not a criminal suspect. He has done nothing wrong, as Julian just said. His conduct has done nothing to obstruct the police investigation and Cynthia and others on the show have been calling him a murderer for quite a long time. So to extent at least we have put behind us his involvement in her disappearance is important.

ALKSNE: I'm not calling him a murderer and.

ZELDIN: You did, Cynthia.

ALKSNE: I have never called him a murderer. I have never -- I have said that -- this is sufficiently important that I am going to interrupt you even though as a general rule I think interrupting is rude -- I'm going to do it because you just said something very wrong.

I have never called him a murderer. I think he makes my little prosecutors nose twitch because of all the suspicions! But any fair- minded person knows that we don't know exactly what happened to her, and it is too soon to say that. And as a general rule this is a guy who is too stupid, this is a guy who can't even throw away a watch case. He probably can't pick up his own shirts, and he may very well have absolutely nothing do with this murder. My point as always, that he has hindered this investigation. He has let the trail...

ZELDIN: How -- how?

ALKSNE: Because he lied to the family, because he got Anne Marie Smith to lie.

ZELDIN: How do you know that he lied to the to police at all?

ALKSNE: He tried to get Ann Marie Smith to lie because he threw away evidence, and those types of -- that hurts the case. Wait, Michael -- and then, it makes it impossible to prosecute somebody who actually did do this case, and that is what I'm mad about. Not that he is a murderer because I don't know that yet.

ZELDIN: Please, you are telling me that you couldn't prosecute the murderer of somebody, if there is one in this case? Because he didn't, in the first interview, talk about whether his relationship was --

(CROSSTALK)

ALKSNE: Yes, I think it is dramatically more difficult because of his behavior...

ZELDIN: I don't know how many trial you have had, Cynthia, but that is not the case.

ALKSNE: ... because -- I have had a lot of trials, and defense attorneys like -- Geragos, one of my buddies, and lots of other people, will use the fact that Condit has done in this investigation, and use them like bombs in the courtroom.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time, please. Hold it. One at a time.

EPSTEIN: Pick up on Michael's point if you can because I think it is an important point. I don't like the throwing way of the watch box. I don't like the Anne Marie Smith. I don't like if he did, in fact, misrepresent to the family. But the central fact that Michael, I think, is pointing out here is nobody has really indicated, even while that is reprehensible conduct, nobody has indicated what everyone keeps repeating, which is that it impeded the investigation.

Lay out for us, if you could, Cynthia, how, specifically, when he wouldn't give the specific facts about the intimate nature of the relationship, how did that impede the investigation by the police when the police already knew at that point, because they had spoken to family members that there was a sexual affair. How did that impede the investigation?

ALKSNE: Here is what happens in a criminal investigation. The most logical suspects are looked at first. And when the most logical suspect who is having a secret 007 affair can't even get his haircut and use his own name, when the most logical suspect comes into the police, and will not answer the simplest question about a relationship.

EPSTEIN: One question -- which police knew the answer to, Cynthia. ALKSNE: Let me finish, Julian. What happens is everybody focuses their attention and all their resources on that person. That means whoever murdered her, because you don't think it is him, whoever murdered her is off running away. And all of the focus and the resources...

EPSTEIN: You are not answering the question.

ALKSNE: I'm trying to explain it to you. The D.C. police department has limited resources and because of his behavior they have focused what few resources they have on him and it has wasted everything.

EPSTEIN: It is a much simpler matter. The police knew the answer to the question about the nature of the relationship. And if they did they should have known. What was the damage that was done to the investigation?

KING: I have got to get a break and we will come back and get comments from out other panelists. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, PRO-CONDIT RALLY, MERCED, CALIFORNIA)

(CHANTING): Go home, go home, go home, go home!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's include a caller for a refreshing change of pace. Turlock, California, hello.

CALLER: Hi!

KING: Hi. CALLER: My question is, why are we surprised with Gary Condit's arrogance? Because I feel if he felt bad at all or had any, you know, compassion for the family or Chandra, he would have come out from the beginning and spoke to the parents. That is what I see. I see this as a human being that he should have just came out with some compassion.

KING: Nancy, that is the thing, and that lady lives in his district, that is the thing that bothers a lot of people, right? That he doesn't appear to have had a great deal of compassion.

GRACE: That is right, Larry and that is what I was mentioning at the beginning of the show. I have often watched criminal defendants for their reactions throughout the proceedings. And even from the get-go, even up through this letter and I predict through the Chung interview tonight we'll see no compassion for the death or disappearance of Chandra Levy. This letter is full of lies and finger pointing and I imagine that is what the spin will be tonight with Connie.

KING: Barbara.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But she has called him a criminal defendant.

OLSON: I do agree with Nancy and I think what Cynthia was saying was absolutely right. No one wants to look at what Condit has done to this investigation. But anyone who has prosecuted cases knows that if the police are spending time deciding whether Gary Condit was involved in the disappearance of Chandra Levy. They are not looking elsewhere.

The police had to figure out was -- did they break up? Was she pregnant? They have had to follow all these leads, where Gary Condit, if he is cooperating from the beginning, they could wipe that away, they can go elsewhere. And the problem with where we are today is his staff did come out and made statements that were untrue. They lied.

I hope Connie Chung clears up whether he asked them to lie. I hope Connie Chung does clear up the relationship. Because I think if, as I believe will happen, Gary Condit refuses to admit to a sexual relationship, then what we are going to get is not somebody who is going to tell us the truth. He is going to give us a Bill Clinton.

KING: Judy Bachrach -- Judy Bachrach said that when she referred to is as sexual he didn't deny it.

OLSON: Oh. He said nothing. And Bill Clinton can tell us what a sexual relation is. Come on. If Gary Condit is going to go on television, and is going to talk to people and send the letter that he sent, where he said he wants to explain things, then he can't say, "we have a close personal friendship."

KING: I've got to get a break. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) told me last night -- the thought of her running out of the house and leaving her wallet and everything, just running down. A friend of mine who lives in Manhattan said that women in apartments do that all the time, run down for ice cream. Just grab the money, run down and get ice cream and come back. That's not uncommon.

OLSON: Her friends evidently have told the police that she was not like that, she was much more cautious about that. I believe that is correct.

KING: Oh, they have said that. All right. We'll be right back with our remaining moments. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: By the way, among -- as we see the, Levy house as they await watching the interview coming up on ABC. As we go to our final moments here, a reminder. Dominic Dunne, who has written about a lot of crimes in his time, will be one of our guests tomorrow night. And so too will be the writer who conducted the interview for "People" magazine on the stands in many locations tomorrow.

Let's run down. What could he have -- what should he have done today that would have satisfied you, Barbara? What should -- is he between a rock and -- did he have to come on and say "I miss her. I loved her. I'm so..." What he could have done that would have made you happy?

OLSON: I would have liked him apologize to the family, to Dr. and Mrs. Levy. I think that was appropriate. I would have liked him to have said "I had a relationship with her that wasn't proper." I wouldn't minded him to apologize to his family and his wife, but to admit what he did, say it was wrong, that he was changing. When people admit what they have done is wrong and they apologize, you feel as though there is going to be a change. When they justify what they have done you feel as though it is just going to keep on going.

KING: Julian, what do you think he could or should have would have done?

EPSTEIN: Well, his objective is to say that his role in this is still a sideshow, he's being convicted by a moblike media mentality. That's what he wants to say. He doesn't get there, though, unless, I think he listens to some of the advice, even from Barbara.

He, one, has to have an admission that some of his conduct was wrong. Secondly, he has got to express compassion first and foremost for Chandra, secondly for the family. Third is, if -- he has got to answer the questions with detail, with specificity. If he wants to -- this if he wants to survive in the court of public opinion, where he is being damned. He certainly feels like he is being unfairly damned. And if he wants to do it he has got to do these three things.

KING: Nancy, what does he have to do -- what could he, what should he do to make you feel kinder toward him?

GRACE: Well...

KING: Beyond confessing to a crime.

GRACE: True. The only thing that concerns me, Larry, is a red flag of him still continuing to evade the truth, still saying, "I cooperated with police, I cooperated with the FBI." And blaming...

KING: So he should have said the opposite tonight. He should say the opposite.

GRACE: He should come out with the truth and say, "You know what? I didn't cooperate. I lied. And this is why." And now he's blaming the Levys, Ann Marie Smith, in the end, everybody else is wrong but him. And it only leaves the lingering question, Larry -- what is left to lie about? What are you hiding?

KING: Michael Zeldin, what can he do tonight?

ZELDIN: Well, I don't know. There is nothing that he could do to satisfy me because his conduct was immoral. And the immorality of it is what is the overarching aspect of this. With respect to the criminal investigation, I think he has answered the question about whether or not he is, as Nancy calls him, a criminal defendant. And he is not. He has done nothing...

GRACE: I did not call him a criminal defendant.

ZELDIN: He has done nothing to impede the police and has had nothing to do with her disappearance. I think that that is the most important thing for anyone to hear from him. The immorality is such that -- if I were he, I think I would not run again. But that is a choice that he has to make.

KING: Cynthia, what could he do.

ALKSNE: I wanted him to say, "I'm going to meet with family's investigators as an act of good faith. And I haven't done that sooner." I really don't care if he takes another polygraph, because first of all, I would like this polygrapher that he used -- he is somebody I tried to use before, and I don't really blame him on a legal matter for not taking the police polygraph. But I do think he should meet with the investigators and I wanted, in addition to the contrition, I wanted to hear that he was going to do that. And he did not.

KING: You wanted complete contrition tonight.

ALKSNE: I wanted contrition, the way everybody said, but I wanted it with the family.

KING: Thank you, panel. More tomorrow night as we follow up the interviews and the various discussions that will go on today in print and on the media. We thank you very much for joining us. We wish Cynthia a lot of luck. She is going to sit in for Greta van Susteren Monday and Tuesday on "BURDEN OF PROOF." Good luck with that as she hosts that. We invite you to stay tuned now for CNN tonight. See you tomorrow night. Dominic Dunne and others will be with us. Thanks for joining us, and good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/22/lkl.00.html

Weird Barbara Olson statements on the August 22, 2001 Larry King Live! Show:

1. Ramseys are guilty when they at that point may have been innocent

2. Richard Jewell was a bystander when actually he was a hero who found bombs

QUOTE:

"Either they were guilty, such as the Ramseys or completely innocent, of course, with Richard Jewell we know he was an innocent bystander."

3. Her assertion that Levy was leaving with only keys to meet Condit implying SEX at the mansion building at the park----why didn't anyone pick up on this?

QUOTE:

"And what other people said, this is a congressman, this congressman has no history. The only thing that we can go on is that we know she left without her ID. We know she left with only her keys. We know she had a relationship, that she was very close with the congressman, and he asked her to leave without an ID, without any keys. So we want to know answers.

That is exactly why it is so important that Gary Condit answer the real questions, and not dodge the real questions."

What if using voice morphing techniques her MOSSAD handlers and/or 9/11 traitors lured her to a sexcapade only to be murdered and then placed in refrigeration until after the 9/11 attacks?

WHY is Barbara Olson fingering Condit as the guy Levy was going to meet at the park as if it were a TALKING POINT she was ordered to plant?

 

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Panelists Discuss Gary Condit and Chandra Levy Investigation

Aired August 22, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Gary Condit, mum for nearly four months and now he's launching the media blitz, including a "People" cover shot along with his wife.

Can the congressman save his political career? Or is this too little too late? Ready to face off in Washington, former prosecutor, best selling author, Barbara Olson. In New York, former prosecutor and now Court TV anchor Nancy Grace. Here in Los Angeles, defense attorney Mark Geragos and in Las Vegas, former chief minority counsel for House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein.

Plus making a case in the court of public opinion: after representing John and Patsy Ramsey as well Richard Jewel, attorney Lin Wood is an expert at it. He will join us, too, from Atlanta. All next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Lin Wood in a little while by the way, and we know some of you tuned in tonight expecting to see Joanie Laurer, the amazing woman who formerly played the character "Chyna" for the World Wrestling Federation. We had to change our guest plan because of the Condit story, but she has been rescheduled. Chyna will be with us next Wednesday night, one week from tonight.

All right Mark Geragos, what's going on here? "People" suddenly he was hard get, now he is everywhere.

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He is everywhere. "People," "Newsweek" magazine, local TV. I don't know what Barbara is going to do. She can't complain that you can't find the guy anymore, so now she is going to complain that he's probably all over the place to much.

KING: What do you make of this? Is this onslaught time?

GERAGOS: I think clearly at this point they feel that he is out of danger, that there isn't any legal danger, that obviously the political people are telling him at this point you've got to do something, and that is obviously they decided they are going to go out there full force.

KING: Barbara, what do you make of it?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think they also realize that they don't want all their eggs in the Connie Chung basket. Why not spread it out a little bit? If Connie Chung doesn't live up to everybody's expectations that night they've got people. They've got the local interviews, they've got some newspapers. It is smart. But it is, let's not forget, this is a PR front. What we are getting is, they have committed. They have decided for him to speak, so let us all average out the speaking engagements, and I think it is wonderful.

Spoken like a great defense attorney, Mark Geragos decides the reason why is because he is no longer under the microscope. I disagree. I think Gary Condit has given numerous interviews to the police. And tomorrow night we are going to be hearing a public interview. And the prosecutors are going to be hearing a public interview, and it is going to be very important because they will know whether he is consistent, they will know how often he has told the story, and if he was forthcoming.


KING: Julian Epstein, what do you make of this -- for want of a better term, blitz?

JULIAN EPSTEIN, FMR. HOUSE JUDICIARY COUNSEL: Well, Mark is totally right and Barbara is partially right. Mark is right when he says that I don't think that there is a snowball's chance in hell that they would be putting Gary Condit out with this much media exposure if they really believed that he had some type of legal liability. legal jeopardy.

Barbara is correct when she says they don't want to put all their eggs in one basket. Because the key thing for Gary Condit, the key concept to keep in mind, Larry, is that Gary Condit has to ask for forgiveness has to ask for a second chance. In order to do that, he has got to be able to answer all of the questions that directly relate to Chandra Levy's disappearance and all the collateral questions that people were going to ask about: flight attendants and things like that.

He has got to be able to answer those. I think they worry that if they just do Connie Chung there may be a lot of stones that are unturned. He wants to cover all the bases because he has got to get to the point where he says, I made a mistake, I did what I shouldn't have done. I panicked when I found out that this missing person that I was having a relationship with disappeared. But I had nothing to do with the disappearance, and I want to move on.

And I think most importantly, you will also see his wife, maybe not in the Connie Chung interview, but elsewhere, basically saying that the attacks that are being made on Gary Condit now, are doing far more injury to her and far more discomfort to her than any of the misdeeds, admitted as they were on Mr. Condit's part.

KING: Nancy Grace, welcome back, by the way, your thoughts.

NANCY GRACE, COURT TV: Well I think this will be very different than anything he has done before those alleged interviews with police, because he is not going to have Abbe Lowell holding his hand during all of these interviews, but remember, this is lights camera action for him, This is not a police interview. I disagree with Julian to the sense that he doesn't want to uncover all the stones, turn them all over. If that is really what he had wanted he would have done that day on day one and maybe we would have that video, that security video from Chandra's apartment if he had confessed up at the get-go.

EPSTEIN: That is not what I said. I said what I think he wants to do, Nancy, is he wants to move on to the next phase. He has got to be able to answer all the questions that you and Barbara and others are going to keep attacking him about. He has got to be able to answer those questions and to give sufficient answers so that he can move on. He wants to be able to say he has made a mistake, he wants forgiveness, he wants a second chance. He had nothing to do with the disappearance.

GRACE: But this is not just about him saying, I'm sorry, I made a mistake. There is still a lot of unanswered questions regarding the death or disappearance of Chandra Levy. And hopefully, Miss Chung will stay focused on that, as opposed to collateral issues like, why did you throw out a gift box?

EPSTEIN: Come on, Nancy, all we do is talk about collateral issues on this case.

GRACE: That is not all I do, Sir.

EPSTEIN: I think the central questions that relate to Chandra Levy's disappearance, I think in all likelihood, I think that you know, if the police, if you could somehow discern like Carnac what the police were thinking, I would think that they think the major questions relating to Chandra Levy's disappearance is not so much connected to Gary Condit but connected to a lot of other matters that we don't spend a lot of time talking about.

KING: Mark, is this an admission that he should have done it sooner? GERAGOS: I think it is. I mean, I think, and I have said it to you before, that the fact that he was talking to the police, unless the police told him and maybe we will find this out tomorrow night, the police told him we don't want you to talk, we don't want you to talk about the investigation. That is going to compromise the investigation. That is one thing.

But if they did not, then there probably is a tacit admission.

KING: Now, Lin Wood is an attorney and we are going to take a break and come back talk to him. He has been on this program a number of times. He represented John and Patsy Ramsey and Richard Jewell, two people faced with a lot of public scrutiny. How did he handle that? What does he think of what Condit is doing? And we will come back with our panel after that.

Lin Wood is next, don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: Joining us now from Atlanta is Lin Wood, the attorney for John and Patsy Ramsey and Richard Jewel, involved in civil litigation. We know that John and Patsy Ramsey still have that cloud. Richard Jewell of course we know was not the bomber in Atlanta. What do you make of going on Connie Chung, Condit going on Connie Chung for 30 minutes?

LIN WOOD, RAMSEY FAMILY ATTORNEY: Well, it is a first step. It is a first step in what is going to be a long, difficult process for Gary Condit. You know, Larry, Gary Condit has been on trial for the last three months, not in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion.

All of the talking heads, and all of the talk shows, the 24-hour, 7 day a week media frenzy over this case has basically put this man on trial, and for three months, Gary Condit has not really sought to put his case before the jury, the jury being the public.

He is going to start tomorrow night. It is late in the game. I think a lot of opinion has polarized against him. But it is time that he and his advisers recognize as apparently they have, that he has got to go out, and in effect, litigate, at this point time, and start establishing some credibility with the public.

KING: You did the same with the Ramseys and with Jewell, Right?

WOOD: We did with Richard Jewell. I undertook to represent Richard a few days after the bombing, and we were involved, literally, from almost day one in the decisions that were made about trying to take on the media frenzy and the public trial in the media of Richard.

I was actually about three years after the fact in terms of my representation of John and Patsy Ramsey.

KING: OK.

WOOD: And John and Patsy with some good advice and for legitimate reasons had remained pretty much silent for the first three years based on advice of their very skilled criminal lawyers. And they were successful. They are innocent. They weren't charged with a crime. They won in the court of law. But unfortunately, because they never engaged in those first three years to get their side of the story out, to let the people in this country know who they really were, they lost in the court of public opinion because there were too many people that believed they were in fact guilty of the horrible crime of murdering their daughter.

KING: What do you make of this Connie Chung for a half hour, "People" magazine, "Newsweek," local interview, local newspaper?

WOOD: Well, look, Abbe Lowell came in, I believe June 22. Things had already gone, I think, in the wrong direction the first month or so, in terms of the approach that Condit took where he made himself look above the fray, maybe aloof, maybe uncaring.

Now, the decision has been made to engage and you know, the danger here is to avoid what it seems to be, and that is a media campaign PR blitz. The trial in the court of public opinion is no different than a trial in front of a jury in a court of law. The key element to success is to build credibility. The lawyer has to be credible, believable. The client has to be credible and believable. You can't spin it, you can't manufacture it.

Now, I can't sit here and tell you that I agree with the approach that is being taken. I don't represent the Congressman. Abbe Lowell is a great lawyer. I would be more inclined, though, Larry, to put my client out in a no holds barred interview that does not have any conditions, that is not going to be viewed as much as entertainment as it is news.

I would be inclined in a situation that the congressman faces to put him out there, let him give a statement in a press conference, perhaps even in his district in a town meeting format and let the members of the press have at him. Let them ask the tough questions, and he has got to answer those questions.

I noticed the cover of "People" magazine seems to imply that he dodges the tough questions. You can't do that and be credible. And that is the goal that his advisers have to have in mind for him at this point is to build credibility.

KING: So when you told Richard Jewell before a media appearance, answer every question honestly, that is what he did?

WOOD: Let me tell what you we did with Richard. We put him on "60 Minutes" with Mike Wallace. Mike Wallace interviewed Richard for several hours. We knew that was going to be condensed into some few minutes, but Richard Jewell answered every question. He didn't dodge the questions.

And when John and Patsy published their book, that is when they actually went public in terms of giving interviews. Now, I won't say I agree with the way that was done necessarily, but that was really a decision made by the publisher of their book. They had no real control over that format. But you interviewed them, Katie Couric interviewed them, Barbara Walters interviewed them. They answered hours, hours of questions. They didn't dodge a question. And you know it, Larry, they answered every one. That is the way they've got to approach it if you are going to win this case in the court of public opinion.

KING: And Richard Jewell was an excellent guest as well.

WOOD: He was on your show two times. I thought that was his best appearance actually. You saw almost every side of Richard that day.

KING: That was some night. Should Mrs. Condit do something in the media vein other than participating in the "People" interview?

WOOD: Well, I don't know that she participated in that interview. I assume she was present she obviously agreed to be photographed. You know that is a personal question. I know that John and Patsy Ramsey have not ever allowed their son Burke to be involved in any of their media interviews or media appearances because they have sought to protect him.

The congressman has to make a decision with his advisers as to whether it is good and in the interests of his wife of whether she should be protected from this. If she is willing to participate, obviously there is an element that tracks back to the Clinton days where perhaps that could be of help to him.

But she is not going to carry the day for him in my view. He is going to have to do that himself in terms of his credibility and answering all of the questions including the most difficult questions.

KING: His advisers, certainly Abbe Lowell, has been critical of the media. Should he be critical of the media in the interview?

WOOD: I'm sure he will be, and look, let's just face it. The media in my opinion goes too far. They went too far in the Jewell case, they went too far in the Ramsey case. I have watched because it is obviously of interest to me. I clearly believed early on they were going too far in the Condit case.

We just can't have a media that substitutes itself for our criminal justice system, and makes decisions about guilt or innocence with respect to citizens who have never been charged with a crime. He is going to criticize the media. Abbe Lowell should criticize the media. You know that I have criticized the media.

But you have also got to embrace the media to a certain extent, because you've got to recognize the reality of the present media era we live in. These cases are not going to go away. High profile cases are going to continually be tried in the court of public opinion so you've got to use the media just as it, in effect, uses you.

KING: And no one can forget that it is now 114 days and this is about a missing girl.

WOOD: Absolutely. This is about a human tragedy, a tragedy for the Levy family, and a tragedy for the Condit family. It may be news to members of the media, and it may be entertainment to the viewers, but for the people involved it is about life and death and it is about their futures. It is about reality.

KING: Thank you, Lin. We will be calling on you again. Always good seeing you.

WOOD: Thank you, Larry.

KING: Lin Wood in Atlanta. We'll get the panel's comment on what he just said. We will be taking your phone calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Barbara Olson, according to the subtitle on the cover of "People" we haven't seen the article, "He talks, Gary Condit talks, blunt one moment, ducking tough questions the next."

Your comment on that and what our lawyer friend had to say.

OLSON: Well, you know, the more I have talked with people close to Gary Condit, the more I have come to believe that Gary Condit is a man who knows his own mind, who has directed this a great deal. You know last night we talked a great deal about whether or not this was his lawyer's fault, if they had advised him for legal reasons not to dome forward.

I really do believe that Gary Condit knows his own mind, direct his own mind. He certainly has a staff that doesn't run him. It is the other way around. And I think what we just heard about the PR is a little bit different when you are talking about Richard Jewell and the Ramseys.

These are people that truly if innocent are complete victims. That they didn't participate one way or the other.
Either they were guilty, such as the Ramseys or completely innocent, of course, with Richard Jewell we know he was an innocent bystander.

Gary Condit's actions, that we know with Chandra Levy make him a participant in a way with her life, and certainly in her thought processes. So it is a little bit different in that you have to realize that Gary Condit knew her intimately, and at the very least could have told the police some very important things about other individuals she knew, and what she was thinking in those last hours.

You know he last talked to her on the 29th on the telephone. And it is very different if I'm questioning someone who has talked to a friend, or someone who has talked to an intimate and I think that is where the distinction is.


KING: Mark, what do you make of what Lin Wood had to say?

GERAGOS: Well, Lin hit on a point that is, if you've represented people in this kind of a situation, is the most compelling thing. These are human beings that are caught in a, as I've said before, an eye of a hurricane, really. And you've got a completely different situation now than you did even five years ago or even 10 years ago. The media so is much more intense.

The coverage is so wall-to-wall at this point, that at a certain point you need to address that. And as Lin says, you've got to deal with this idea that the media, while at the same time is your enemy, you can't ignore them. You can't just say, "I'm going deal with them later, on my own timetable." You've got to embrace the media. You've got to use the media as well.

KING: "No comment" doesn't work anymore.

GERAGOS: "No comment" is something that just doesn't work in the last five years.

KING: Nancy, what do you make of what Lin Wood had to say? GRACE: Well, I respect Lin a lot, Larry, as you know. Having practiced in Atlanta for many, many years, I met up with Lin many times in the courtroom, and I believe what he's saying, especially when it comes to issue of credibility.

Now, Larry, if we are to believe the front page, the cover page of "People," that he is still dodging questions, that signifies to me unfortunately that this is nothing other than a PR stunt to save his own skin. When it really mattered for him to come forward and speak, he didn't. He remained silent. He dodged the bullet. So I consider this just another fluff PR stunt where he can avoid questions if he so chooses.

KING: And, Julian Epstein, what do you think of what Mr. Wood had to say?

EPSTEIN: Surprisingly, I kind of agree with what Nancy just said. I think the key issue is credibility. And to get credibility, he has got to answer all those questions, no doubt about that.

We talked about this a little bit last night, Larry. The template for credibility, surprisingly enough, was -- and you had to remind me of the year, I think it was 1952 with the Checkers speech that Vice President Nixon gave when he was involved in the Slush Fund scandal. He came out, he looked the camera in the eye, he dealt with all the questions. He had credibility, he got past the scandal.

The second little issue that I thought that Lin mentioned that was important was this issue about attacking the press. You know, as President Kennedy once said, you don't get in a spitting match with somebody that buys oil by the barrel. I think that you can point out that there have been a lot of mistaken stories that have been -- and allegations about Mr. Condit, but I think this notion of trying to displace the blame, if you will, on the media, would be a public relations disaster.

The third point, very quickly, is this analogy to Richard Jewell. A lot of people think that Gary Condit will be the Richard Jewell of American politics. The major difference of course is the way it was handled from a public relations point of view. Jewell got out there early. Condit has made a major mistake by getting out four months after the fact. But it is a dance that the lawyers go through with the public relations people, about what to do. The lawyers have a lot of instincts that tell them, even if the guy is innocent, you don't want to have him out there because innocent people get convicted, as we know, from what the governor of Illinois has done with the moratorium on the death penalty. And you have all these other collateral issues. So it's not as simple as people say.

KING: Let me get a break. And the FBI did goof on Richard Jewell.

EPSTEIN: That's absolutely correct. That's an important point.

KING: We'll be right back with our panel. We'll go to your phone calls in a little while as well. They're with us the rest of the way. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Nancy Grace, can we make the case that if he had no involvement with anything, and all the other information is superfluous to the case at hand and all he's interested in is reelection, all he owes it to is his constituents, right?

GRACE: Well, yes, that's right. But remember, in a global village, so to speak, his constituents are watching television as well, and from what I understand about that letter that he is sending out, the letter to...

KING: It's out now. I mean, we don't tell the contents, but it's out. It's mailed.

GRACE: Right. I understand, it's at the post office now on its way out. But, long story short. I understand that he really doesn't specifically mention Chandra Levy. I think that as much as he tries to allude that, she's in the room with him everywhere he goes. And the fact that he's dodging questions still, Larry, is very disturbing.

KING: Yet his people are saying, Mark, that this is about -- I spoke to Abbe Lowell today, I spoke to others -- this is about Chandra. Their concern is Chandra. That Gary Condit's concerns are the same as the Levys.

GERAGOS: I think that's what it has to be.

KING: So then how could he not mention -- does he not mention her in the letter?

GERAGOS: I would be surprised if that letter to the constituents does not mention Chandra by name or the Levys by name. I think that would be a monumental mistake. This about her, it's got to be about her. She is one of the constituents, her family and they lived there as well, and you just can't ignore them. And you can't just go out and blast -- you can't blast the media here and expect people to come to your defense.

KING: Barbara, are you scoffing?

OLSON: Well...

GERAGOS: I thought she was choking.

EPSTEIN: Always scoffing!

GERAGOS: Barbara, are you OK, there?

OLSON: I'm fine. I completely agree, you know, what Lin said earlier, about come out, say it all. Answer all the questions. We've listed lots of questions. I think everybody in America has their own list of questions. He has to at least answer the top 10. He can't skate over this. If he's innocent or not, he was involved with her. She is missing. He has to answer those questions. He has to tell us why we should believe he's got the character to serve as a member of Congress when he wasn't cooperative, when he didn't admit to a relationship. We have to understand why he put his political career above a missing girl.

GERAGOS: Wouldn't you just be shocked if he didn't answer that question? I just -- if he goes on TV tomorrow night...

OLSON: I would.

GERAGOS: ... and if he doesn't answer that question, Barbara, I may just fall over and have to agree with you, because...

OLSON: Mark, I agree, because the problem is the letter is his perfect opportunity for an opening statement. The letter is being timed to go out before the interview. It's going to arrive tomorrow, it's going to make all of the press -- what a great opportunity to give an opening statement without any questions, to be able to lay out your story...

GERAGOS: I agree. It's a perfect way to lay out the story and tell people exactly how it is you feel, and then to set it up for the interview.

GRACE: But what is very disturbing that Barbara is mentioning: timing. Because timing in my mind was critical almost four months ago, and this is so obviously a PR stunt, as Barbara is pointing out. It's all about saving Condit. It's not about saving Chandra.

KING: I have to get a break. Julian, quickly, though, are you concerned about the headline in "People" which says, "Blunt One Moment, Ducking Tough Questions the Next"?

EPSTEIN: If that is in fact true, it's a disaster for Mr. Condit, because he can't move on until he answers the questions.

KING: All right. We'll take a break, we'll come back. We'll be including your phone calls. Don't forget, it's time to log on to my "King's Quiz" at cnn.com/larryking. And we'll be right back, reintroduce the panel and go to your calls as well. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We are back. Let's meet our panel, go to your phone calls. They are: In Washington, Barbara Olson, former federal prosecutor and best-selling author. In New York: Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor and anchor of "Trial Heat" on Court TV. Here in Los Angeles, Mark Geragos, defense attorney. He has represented people like Roger Clinton, and Susan McDougal. And in Las Vegas, Julian Epstein, the former chief minority counsel of the House Judiciary Committee.

We are going to start to include your phone calls. By the way, Marina Ein, one of the key members of the Condit team, said that his primary concern is to express his personal pain with what has occurred and secondarily to correct the record. Let's go to Montreal, hello.

CALLER: Hello?

KING: Hi, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi, I would like to ask Barbara, how can anyone believe anything he says tomorrow night when he has been in rehearsal for three months?

OLSON: Well, I mean, rehearsal, we all know that everyone who does something this important is going to have rehearsal. And I think this is something that I truly believe that comes across on television. I think there will be a point where we'll get to see in his eyes, and I hope Connie Chung asks a question that we get to see a reaction that is maybe not a rehearsed reaction, because although he is preparing for the obvious factual questions, I hope she asks him something that goes a little deeper, that maybe goes into who he is, so we get to see a bit of a reaction.

And I will give you a quick example. One of the things that I think would get a reaction would be a question such as "do you ever think that Chandra Levy will be found?" If you think about that, if he answers yes, or no, there is going to be a gut reaction, and so I think one of those kinds of questions will hopefully give us an insight.

KING: Mark Geragos, Don Hewitt today criticized the format saying that the half hour benefits the benefits the interviewee.

GERAGOS: That is surprising coming from a guy who has made his living having three 20 minute segments.

KING: Edited from six hours. I don't know how to respond to that. It sounds to me like sour grapes.

KING: Palm Springs, California, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Hi. I was just wanting to know if there was not a possibility that Chandra had told Mr. Condit that she did not want her parents to know that she was having an affair with a married man, and so that when Levys called him first time, he did not know she was missing, and he denied the relationship?

KING: Nancy, would that have been a normal reaction that a man would have if the daughter told him please don't -- if his girlfriend said don't tell my parents anything if they call?

GRACE: Well, the only problem I see with that theory, which is a good theory, is that by the time the Levys had called him, she was missing. They were on a 911 alert trying to find their daughter, so at that point, it was a matter of life and death.

And this letter -- back to his letter about him being in so much pain, I wonder how much pain Condit was in when he was out 25 miles from his apartment throwing out evidence into a dumpster. I don't think the man is consumed with pain. OK.

GERAGOS: You know, the caller, I think is asking a different question Nancy. In all fairness, the caller is asking don't you think it is possible that when they are asking this question...

GRACE: Right.

GERAGOS: ... and you know when Larry interviewed the Levys the other night, they contradicted the "Talk" magazine article about these four other affairs with married women, so it is apparent...

KING: Married men.

GERAGOS: ... or married women, so it is apparent that she was not talking with her mother and telling her mother everything. So I don't know that he didn't feel at least initially, and maybe we will hear tomorrow night, that it wasn't appropriate for him to talk to the mother about that.

GERAGOS: ... contradicted the "Talk" magazine article about these four other affairs with married women. So it's...

KING: Married men.

GERAGOS: Or married men. So it's apparent...

GRACE: But they called him because she was missing.

GERAGOS: ... that she was not talking with her mother and telling her mother everything, so I don't know that he didn't feel, at least initially, and maybe we'll hear tomorrow night, that it wasn't appropriate for him to talk to the mother about that. We don't know about that.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: All right, Julian. Go ahead.

EPSTEIN: Well, the caller makes a very good point. It's a comment that hasn't been made very often. It's an insightful point on his part, and there's a happy medium between what Mark and Nancy are saying. It's conceivable that when that phone call was made to Gary that she really did believe that she was going to turn up, and he really did believe that she didn't want her parents knowing about the affair.

On the other hand, Nancy makes a somewhat valid point, which is that once you begin to think somebody really in fact may be missing, that has to give way to getting all information out right away.

OLSON: And of course that call was on May 5th, so even if he felt that way on May 5th, how about May 10th? How about May 15th? How about today, 115 days later? The Levys still have the same questions, obviously, eating away at them. So at some point, he knows it doesn't matter if Chandra didn't want her parents to know she is having an affair with a married man. It doesn't matter, his career, it's time to give them some peace of mind as well as the police.

EPSTEIN: His parents are the key point, Larry. I mean, you asked Nancy in the last segment if he had nothing to do with her disappearing, doesn't he just simply have to explain to his constituents. I think his first obligation really has to be to the family, in the letter and in the interview. I think he has not done sufficiently in that respect, and I think he has to.

Secondly, I think in the letter he's got to do more -- and in the interviews -- more than just mention Chandra Levy's name. He really has to show some empathy. He has to show some deeper concern over the fact that she's missing. And you know, with respect to letters, Dan Rostenkowski wrote a letter to his constituents in the early '90s when he was having his scandal involving the stamp matter, you know all about that. It didn't work because the letter didn't sufficiently explain the situation, accept responsibility. But Al D'Amato, a year before that in 1991, I think it was, was also involved in some trouble. He wrote a very good letter to his constituents in New York and he was able to survive the crisis. So the test of the letter makes a big difference --

KING: Let me get a break. We'll be back with more. More phone calls as well. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: When your wife makes a statement like if he didn't meet her, she'd have graduated, she'd be here.

BOB LEVY, CHANDRA'S FATHER: I asked.

KING: Quid pro, two plus two equals?

LEVY: Yes, none of this would have gone on.

KING: So you think he was somehow involved?

LEVY: Well, because he was involved with her and she was there and waiting around. And you know...

KING: So somehow involved with her disappearance. Is that your feeling?

LEVY: Well, I do have deep suspicions about that.

KING: You do.

LEVY: Yes.

KING: And you do, too.

SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA'S MOTHER: I do.

B. LEVY: I know about him personally, but you know, everyone needs.

KING: You think he knows more than he said?

B. LEVY: We believe so.

S. LEVY: I believe so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Mark said the truth. The thing we had no understanding of is, how did this girl, on a busy street disappear so quickly, no trace, no one coming forward no information, reward out, no one has an inkling.

GERAGOS: It is amazing. I have never seen anything like this idea more you have more than $200,000, wall to wall coverage in the media, and you don't have a single clue as to what's going on. It is amazing.

KING: It is a puzzlement.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time. Who is -- what lady is going first?

GRACE: I will go. To me, it signifies it is very obvious that this was not an amateur. No amateur could pull this off. We would have found the body by now. There would be a trace. This is someone who knows exactly what they are doing and this was very well planned. Whoever took Chandra, it is very obvious to me.

EPSTEIN: Exactly, exactly, Nancy...

KING: You agree, Julian?

EPSTEIN: Yes, I do. I couldn't agree any more. I think John Walsh is saying the same thing. And let me tell you, I think of the four panelists on the program tonight. I'm the only one that actually lives in that community. I live blocks away from that, and I got to tell you, it is in the same community that Joyce Chiang, another young congressional ex-staffer that I new very well also disappeared and was found dead several months later.

GRACE: Impossible.

EPSTEIN: What's impossible.

GRACE: Because serial murderers always dispose of the body in the same ammo. It is part of their ritual and that is not the case in the Levy disappearance.

EPSTEIN: Nancy, you said impossible before I made a statement. I assume you are not Carnac.

GRACE: Because we have talked about it before.

EPSTEIN: I don't know that you know what I was going say. If I could have the courtesy of just...

KING: You want to finish?

EPSTEIN: Yes, I do. I do want to finish that but I think the essential point is that after three or four months, of a body disappearing, Nancy is actually right about that. I don't think that anyone in this community thinks that lives there, thinks that a six term congressman, who has no criminal background, who has no criminal history whatsoever, has any capacity to actually pull something like that off.

I don't think anybody remotely thinks that. I think that is clearly work of somebody who is very professional, somebody who knows what are they doing, and this, the point is not to say that it is a serial case, Nancy, the point is that this happened before in that same community, just a couple years ago.

GERAGOS: And Joyce Chiang was missing for longer than Chandra has been missing.

KING: Barbara could also say it could have been a hired person, right, who would do it very professionally?

OLSON: Well, I mean this is why we keep talking about this, Larry. I mean, what Mary (sic) Grace says is absolutely right. A serial killer, not only will they dispose of the body in the same way, but usually serial killers leave evidence. There is something about a serial killer that you find after the fact that they actually want to be sought. They want to be known about. They have a sickness that wants notoriety.

And what other people said, this is a congressman, this congressman has no history.
The only thing that we can go on is that we know she left without her ID. We know she left with only her keys. We know she had a relationship, that she was very close with the congressman, and he asked her to leave without an ID, without any keys. So we want to know answers.

That is exactly why it is so important that Gary Condit answer the real questions, and not dodge the real questions.


(CROSSTALK)

KING: Hold it, Alexandria, Virginia, hello.

CALLER: Hello, is there any credible evidence that people really care about Gary Condit? Is it possible that this is a media generated event to sell papers, magazines, and air time?

KING: Possible?

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Caller, so you mean, care about Gary Condit, or care about the missing girl? CALLER: We are not hearing much about the missing girl. This is Gary Condit, "People" magazine, Gary Condit's wife, the people in Modesto, California.

GERAGOS: The caller makes an excellent point. Obviously, the reason you keep seeing our four ugly mugs up here night after night is that the ratings are at such a level...

GRACE: Speak for yourself!

GERAGOS: I'm letting you jump in there, Nancy -- is that the ratings are such that...

KING: Well there is also public interest.

GERAGOS: Of course there is public interest.

KING: What do you do. not cover it?

GERAGOS: There is an obsession with this that, as we have discussed, is, probably not since some, previous ones but I haven't seen anything like this, in terms of people's obsession with it, this idea that it is a mystery, that people are concerned. They obviously have some empathy for the players involved. So, yes, I think there is immense public interest.

EPSTEIN: Let's not kid ourselves about this. I think these questions, as Barbara and Nancy will keep reminding us are legitimate to ask about Mr. Condit because he failed to disclose relationship.

But the lack of a proportionate focus on the other theories I think that the police are pursuing, can only be explained -- and this is the caller's point -- I think, by one thing which is that this story has cache. It has the interface of politics, sex, a missing intern. It is an irresistible story from the media's point of view. I am not attacking the media but that is what is driving this.

In some sense, it is a reflection of the kind of tabloid soap opera culture that increasingly we are living in today.

KING: Hold it! We'll take a break then get a comment from Barbara and Nancy and more phone calls. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Green Bay, Wisconsin, for our panel, Hello.

CALLER: Hi, I would like to ask your guests what you think is the single most important question that needs to be answered -- asked and answered -- by Gary Condit, keeping in mind that the focus from the start has been a missing woman, not an affair that she had with Gary Condit.

KING: OK, well each may have a different answer, so let's go around. Barbara, number one important question? OLSON: Well, I get the first question to open up with is the first thing that happened, is Gary, you last were with Chandra on April 24. You don't remember what happened. You last spoke to her on April 28, and then get a call on May 5 that she is missing and you lie to her parents.

When did you realize she was missing? This is a woman you talked to regularly. You spoke to two or three times a day leading up to her disappearance. What did you do when you realized she was missing? And when did you realize she was missing?

KING: Mark?

GERAGOS: I was going to object that that was a compound question by Barbara.

OLSON: Oh, it is definitely a compound question.

GERAGOS: The one question, if the caller is asking, that I would ask and that I think people want to know is what did you tell the police in that first interview when you first talked to them? I think that is going to be the question he's got to answer. What did you tell them, what didn't you tell him?

KING: Well, he would then answer by asking specifically what?

GERAGOS: He is going to have go through and answer exactly what they asked him and did he, in fact, as Barbara and Nancy have suggested, did he lie or did he not?

KING: Nancy, what would be your key question?

GRACE: Since we already know what time he is stating was the last time he was with her and spoke to her, I would go past that and ask, did you break up with her, if so, why? What was the content of your last conversation? Was she pregnant and did she give you any suggestion as to where she was going and why her bags were packed a week before she was supposed to leave?

KING: Julian Epstein.

EPSTEIN: Well, I would ask -- I would follow up with Mark -- I would say why is it that he wasn't candid when asked by the police, and secondly I would want to know exactly what his theory is as to why she is missing, and what information he may have that maybe relevant about that.

KING: All good questions. Providence, Rhode Island, hello.

CALLER: Hi. My question to the a panel is: Why is Condit doing these interviews now as opposed to two months ago, or even six months from now?

KING: Do we know why, Mark, why now? Why August? Why now? Reelection?

GERAGOS: I think it is obvious that he is not going to resign. I think it is obvious that he plans on running for reelection, and I think it is equally obvious that the lawyers feel and that there is no exposure. Otherwise, I don't think that the lawyers, given what they have advised him all along, would let him go and do this kind of media blitz.

I don't think that that would happen if the lawyers honestly believed he was still the target.

KING: Barbara, why do you think now?

OLSON: I don't think Gary Condit ever wanted to come out. I think he has done exactly what he wanted to do, which is avoid answering the tough questions. But I think, politically, he was finally convinced that he had to. If he was going to run for reelection, if he was going to start campaigning -- which he has this huge fund-raiser that he's had every year -- he had to come out, he had to do it. It's political, and for no other reason.

KING: Implying, Julian, that if he wasn't going to run again he wouldn't do any interview.

EPSTEIN: Probably not. I think Lin said it best, that if he has any hope of staying in public life, or even saving his reputation, he's being convicted right now in the court of public opinion. Mark is also right. I don't think he'd go out there if his lawyers really believed he had any type of legal jeopardy. It should have been done earlier, there is no question about this. This has not been handled particularly well, from a public relations point of view.

KING: And, Nancy, why do you think now?

GRACE: I think it has nothing to do, really, with what his lawyers are telling him. I don't think tail is wagging the dog. I think he's making the decisions, I agree with Barbara. And I think the reason for now is because it's time to raise money, everybody! If he's going to run, he's got to get some money in the treasure chest. It's time to hit the campaign trail, and he's got to take care of this little matter of Chandra Levy before he can get dollar one.

KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments, get another call in or two, on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: You can now log on to our Web site at cnn.com/larry king for the answer to "King's Quiz."

Now, this is directed to Mr. Geragos and Mr. Epstein. Last night Mark spoke, and I think Julian agreed, but I know Mark spoke about investigators focusing on a suspect, a member of Chandra's health club who allegedly stalked her. For the record, CNN's Bob Franken talked to D.C. Assistant Police Chief Terrence Gainer, who said it's totally false. GERAGOS: You know, it's interesting because we -- I heard that earlier today, I made a call again to the same person who said it. They're just adamant that there is somebody that they've got, that's a suspect that they've got that's a suspect that they're looking at.

KING: Why would Gainer deny it?

GERAGOS: Well, I'm going to take the Barbara approach. The Barbara approach is you can't believe the police when he says he's not a suspect, so when Gary is not...

OLSON: Mark, that's not fair.

GERAGOS: So you can't believe the police at this point.

OLSON: Once again, you have to realize that your source was too convenient in his timing. Suddenly, we're going to have a Gary Condit interview, and my goodness, the week of the interview we hear about a third party stalker. It was too convenient. We have been following this case. After 115 days, it doesn't wash.

EPSTEIN: If we could get a little bit of light in the middle of some of that heat -- I mean, I think that whatever the case is, I think that almost every single reporter that's covering this case closely will tell you that the police are looking at at least three to four different theories that are not connected to Mr. Condit.

OLSON: Of course they're looking at theories!

KING: Why would he vehemently deny it then, Julian?

EPSTEIN: Well, Mark was the one, I believe, that got the source -- that spoke about the one. I had heard that from reporters as well. I don't know whether it's credible or not credible, but I know that there are other avenues that they're looking at that don't lead to Mr. Condit, and the point that Mark and I were making last night...

OLSON: And we know what they are.

EPSTEIN: ... is that we don't focus on that very much.

OLSON: Julian, we know what those theories are because we've gone through them: she was murdered, she is missing, she is the victim of a serial killer. We know what those are. But the idea that this week a theory comes out, of a stalker -- I was curious last night where that was coming from, and why it so conveniently would come out to take off the heat on Gary Condit when he wants to do a political statement. It just doesn't wash after 115 days.

GERAGOS: What Julian is talking about, and I've heard the same thing repeatedly, is that everybody who's covering this case closely says that there are a minimum of three different people that they're looking at, and that they're looking at closely.

KING: Nancy, do you want to get a word in? As I said already, Bob Franken did question the police chief, who denies it -- Nancy? GRACE: Right. Well, I can see the police chief, Terrence Gainer, maybe ducking the question or refusing to comment on the question. But I don't think he would come out and vehemently deny that theory if he was lying, because that would come back to haunt him at trial, I promise you. So I don't believe that.

KING: All right. Well, we're going to do another show tomorrow night in advance of his appearance. The "People" magazine article will be out in L.A. tomorrow. The letter will be out tomorrow.

GERAGOS: The letter will be out -- it may be in somebody's mailbox right now as we speak.

KING: So there will be news throughout the day tomorrow, won't there?

GERAGOS: Absolutely. I mean that "People" magazine article I think, as Julian mentioned before, that's a big deal, because you've got a -- especially because of what's suggested on the cover.

KING: And Connie Chung, will she not, Nancy, have to follow up on that "People" article?

GRACE: Absolutely.

KING: Because they got the first one.

GRACE: Yes. She may be forced to waste some of her very precious 30 minutes on asking questions about that interview. But you know what's bugging me about this interview tomorrow night, is that he has tricked his wife for 20-plus years. I'm not getting sucked in by Condit. He's not going to trick me tomorrow night. This whole thing is rehearsed, it's timed. He's blow-dried, he's sprayed. He's even picked out what color tailor-made shirt he's going to wear. I'm not buying it. It's a PR job.

GERAGOS: Nothing like going in with an open mind.

KING: Barbara, quickly.

OLSON: I was just going to say that the "People" magazine article, if what the cover says is true, it may boomerang. If he is actually ducking the real questions and trying to give a PR spin to this whole thing, it may be the start of a boomerang on a very bad PR decision.

KING: Thanks all very much. Thank Lin Wood for being with us. We thank Barbara Olson, Nancy Grace, Mark Geragos and Julian Epstein. We'll be back with more tomorrow night, and follow us at CNN around the clock tomorrow, because that letter is going to come out and the "People" magazine article is going to come out before the Connie Chung interview on ABC.

Stay tuned now for "CNN TONIGHT," that's next. I'm Larry King. For all guests, good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 

 

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/02/lkl.00.html

 

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

A Look at the Secrets and Lies in the Lives of Chandra Levy and Gary Condit

Aired August 2, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROGER COSSACK, GUEST HOST: Tonight, an exclusive sneak peak at the secrets and lies in the lives of Chandra Levy and Gary Condit. What was the beautiful intern determined to get from her married lover in the weeks before she vanished? "Talk" magazine's Lisa DePaulo reveals the results of more than two months of digging, including details of Chandra's intimate confidantes to her closest male friend in Washington.

Then, outspoken discussion with former federal prosecutor and best-selling author Barbara Olson. She is in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin. And in Los Angeles, defense attorney Mark Geragos. In San Diego, former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alksne. And back here in D.C., former chief minority council for the House Judiciary Committee, Julian Epstein, and it's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Hello and welcome to "LARRY KING LIVE." I'm Roger Cossack, sitting in for Larry King, who is off on a well-deserved vacation, but will of course return tomorrow night.

Joining us and joining me tonight is Lisa DePaulo from "Talk" magazine, whose new article, "Secrets and Lies," will be on the news stands August 8. You spent two months researching this, and this is, as far as I am concerned, the final and ultimate word on Chandra Levy.

Let's talk a little bit about what you called your article. You described her as vulnerable. Your headline says she was independent, discreet and romantic, with a taste for older men. She seemed like the perfect girlfriend for a married congressman, one with plenty of secrets of his own. Why? That's the headline to your piece.

LISA DEPAULO, "TALK" MAGAZINE: Chandra was incredibly vulnerable to someone like Gary Condit. She had been hurt before in relationships similar to this. She was both a sensuous woman and discreet woman. When things were going fine, I am sure it was the perfect girlfriend for him.

COSSACK: But you -- you mentioned the fact and you bring up in your article that you had an opportunity to speak with perhaps her closest friend here in Washington, a man by the name of Sven Jones, and you spent a lot of time discussing Chandra with him, and you talk about the fact that in her past, she had had relationships with other married older men. Talk about that. DEPAULO: Correct. And it was something that friends who knew about it were always very worried about her for that reason, because Chandra was so -- I hope, is -- so smart and sensible about so many things -- her career, her education. She just finished a really tough master's program. She was smart. She was cautious. She carried mace on her key chain. There was one area that she was not as smart, and it was her choice of men.

COSSACK: Well, but her choice of men seemed to be a choice that she made over and over again. You point out the fact that she had reportedly had a relationship with an older man in Modesto, a police officer.

DEPAULO: Correct.

COSSACK: That went on for how many years?

DEPAULO: Over two.

COSSACK: And that broke up in a negative way. Tell us about that.

DEPAULO: It did. She was terribly hurt. She told friends, I can never be hurt like this again. I think what's so important about all of this -- I always felt that the -- the dynamic of the relationship with Gary Condit was key to understanding what has happened to her.

And I think the -- you know, an emotional road map that she brought to that is part of the reason she was so determined to get this commitment from him. She believed his -- you know, he definitely let her to believe that they would have a future together. I think where as another girlfriend might have said, OK, it's no big deal, if it's over, it's over, she was not going to be that way. I think she was particularly vulnerable to Gary Condit, and...

COSSACK: But, Lisa, let me just say this, in the article, again, you document, or you talk about the fact that not only did she have an affair with this married police officer, but she had an affair with a doctor, elderly -- older, married doctor.

DEPAULO: Chandra loved older men. In fact, Chandra loved older people.

COSSACK: Older married men?

DEPAULO: There were, yes.

COSSACK: And so the notion...

DEPAULO: It's not a pretty thing, but you know what? There is so much about it that, you know, it's just -- it was kind of heartbreaking to find some of this out, because if this ends as badly as I think it's going to end, the really sad thing is that this woman, which she wanted most was a monogamous marriage, she wanted to get married, she wanted to have kids. She was monogamous, but she was attracted to men who would never, ever, ever, give her that. And it's -- it's really tragic that -- that that was what was happening.

COSSACK: In your article, you quote her friend Sven Jones as saying -- as telling her and saying, "I always wonder why you get involved in relationships that would inevitably, inevitably come to a..."

DEPAULO: That's another friend who said that.

COSSACK: ... "come to a bad ending?"

DEPAULO: Correct.

COSSACK: Why?

DEPAULO: Correct. You know, she doesn't fit the psychological profile at all of a woman who is attracted to married men. She has an incredibly loving family, affectionate, there is no distance -- which is usually the typical thing. You know, obviously the other theory is you try to replicate what you know or what works, but what's so sad about it is that what she wanted so much was in such direct conflict with the men she loved and trusted.

COSSACK: Chandra was -- unlike many young people who come to Washington, Chandra apparently, from what you have been able to find out, did not have a lot of close girlfriends here in the district.

DEPAULO: No. She confided in older people. Her aunt Linda, 16 years older than her; Sven Jones, you know, 13, 14 older than her. She liked older people, she felt more comfortable, she felt more intellectually stimulated by older men and older women, and you know, the other part of the married thing, which is so important to remember, is that Gary Condit was not your typical married guy.

He was not, you know, showering at midnight and going home to the wife. She was 3,000 miles away. So, to a 24-year-old, you know, who had been down this road before, you know, being told...

COSSACK: Who had been burned at least a couple of time, you say.

DEPAULO: Definitely, and terribly, terribly hurt. For this man to be this, you know, charming, fabulous congressman, to be saying to her, yes, we can be together was believable.

COSSACK: Now, Sven Jones, who you, as I say, you spent a lot of time interviewing, her closest friend, said that he described the relationship between her and Congressman Condit as very intense and very passionate. What did he say?

DEPAULO: He said that whenever they were together, the passion, the sexual -- there was a sexual power. And there was no question. Now, Chandra was not a kiss-and-tell kind of woman. As I said, she was discreet, she was private. But there was definitely that element of it, and that was a very strong element of it.

COSSACK: Now, you -- as I indicate, you spoke with Sven Jones a lot. DEPAULO: A lot.

COSSACK: Did you have a chance to get another source besides Sven Jones?

DEPAULO: Yes.

COSSACK: ... to try to corroborate what we heard?

DEPAULO: It was interesting. What was so striking to me about Sven was, I thought the only person she had confided in the end was her aunt Linda, and in fact in these crucial months, she was also talking to him almost every day. These crucial weeks, these crucial months, and what struck me was what he remembered, what he divulged was so consistent with what Linda Zamsky had said.

And then, also consistent with -- the emotional part was consistent with what her friends from college said, and from, you know, from California, from Sacramento, from L.A. It all fit together. What didn't fit was this -- this part of the puzzle that didn't fit with the smart, cautious, wise, together young woman.

COSSACK: All right. Let's take a break. When we come back, we are going to have more with Lisa DePaulo. Her article comes out August 8 in "Talk" magazine. More on Chandra Levy, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSSACK: Hi. We're back on LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Roger Cossack, sitting in for Larry King, and we're talking to Lisa Depaulo, whose article comes out August 8th on Chandra Levy in "Talk" magazine.

Lisa, there was an interesting almost tension, if you will, between the congressman and Chandra Levy in the way each played against the other. She wanted him desperately to commit. He would placate her and then take away from her. Tell us how that works.

DEPAULO: It's a little creepy, the way it was described. Sven, the way he described it to me was that she would get angry, try to force a confrontation, usually, about this desire she had to get this commitment from him. And he would placate her, and she would go from being angry to being placated, to being angry to being placated. And I believe she was placated at the end.

COSSACK: Now, when you say "placate," give us a little more description. What do you mean?

DEPAULO: She would come in -- you know, the next day -- "I'm going to bring it up with him tonight, I'm going to tell him these are my needs, these are my requirements." And then the next day, "everything's fine. He said it's going to be fine."

Whatever happened the night before, she felt placated.

COSSACK: Now, she also had some thoughts and hopes of her own, according to Sven and your sources, and she wanted something more that, obviously what was going on.

DEPAULO: That's right.

COSSACK: And she thought about ways to get it.

DEPAULO: And there's no question that he nurtured those feelings.

COSSACK: Now, tell us what you mean by that. What is that?

DEPAULO: She had reason to believe that this was not another one that was going to end badly.

COSSACK: Well, look, he's married.

DEPAULO: Right. But doesn't live with his wife.

COSSACK: Obviously, his wife doesn't seem to be around, since she's back in California.

DEPAULO: Right.

COSSACK: But he is married.

DEPAULO: Right.

COSSACK: He's making her go through all of these -- the hoops. You know, don't show up. If anybody comes in here, get off the elevator at a different floor, don't carry ID. Obviously, that's not the signs that indicate a -- you know, a...

DEPAULO: A nice, stable relationship.

COSSACK: Yeah.

DEPAULO: But Sven Jones said something really interesting about that, which was, on level, she kind of liked the cloak-and-dagger stuff, and on another level she knew it precluded her from ever really having a really relationship.

COSSACK: But still, she...

DEPAULO: Keep in mind, 24.

COSSACK: But 24, at least according to Sven Jones and your sources, a life that had been burned over a couple of times, not traditional young woman's life.

DEPAULO: Correct.

COSSACK: But she wanted, and she had talked with Sven, about how she was going to get him to commit, and how she apparently thought he was going to leave his wife.

DEPAULO: There was one difference in what Sven told me and in what Linda Zamsky has said. And that was, Linda has said there was this five-year plan where she was willing to be patient and wait until he achieved whatever political goals, or finally found a way out of his marriage, or whatever, whatever. Sven had the feeling that it was more urgent to her.

But keep something in mind. Something huge happened between her last conversation with Linda Zamsky -- I mean, really long, intimate conversation with her lovely aunt -- and her disappearance, which was she lost her job. She suddenly had no plans. That might be the point where you say, hey, buddy, you know all of those promises? Now!

COSSACK: What about that, in terms of the time line here did she lose her job, and when was this coming to a head?

DEPAULO: Well, she lost her job on the 23rd, and it was sudden.

COSSACK: Twenty-third of April.

DEPAULO: Correct. And it was sudden. And she was cleaning out her desk and suddenly she no plans for the summer. She had to give up her apartment. She had no -- and this was a woman who planned. She was a planner. She planned her whole education, she planned her career. She was not used to having this cut-off like this. And keep in mind, the same time, a couple of things are happening. She's losing her job.

COSSACK: Right.

DEPAULO: She's telling people -- big cardinal sin that she is now committing. She's breaking the big rule.

COSSACK: The secrecy rule?

DEPAULO: Correct. And his wife comes to town. I mean, you know, there had -- and there were other aspects, too, that we don't know the answers to. But as you know, you know, Sven Jones mentioned that she told him right before she, you know, right at end, that she had a female problem.

COSSACK: Let me ask you about that. She told Sven Jones she had a female problem.

DEPAULO: Correct.

COSSACK: It's not for me to say what that might have been, but what do you think it was?

DEPAULO: Well, you know, women don't usually refer to pregnancy as a female problem. Especially women who want to be pregnant, which she did. She would have been very happy if she was pregnant with Gary Condit's child. So I don't think it was pregnancy. That doesn't mean that she -- I've discounted totally the possibility that she could have been. But I think it was something else.

I think it might have been some kind of sexually transmitted thing which, by the way, would have been extremely upsetting to this woman if it were true, because she really believed he wasn't having sex with anyone else. And if it weren't for Anne Marie Smith being brave enough to come forward, we might not know that. But she believed that she was the only sexual partner Gary Condit had.

COSSACK: But yet on April 28th, which was the last time that Sven Jones heard from Chandra Levy, she -- while sounding melancholy, she did not seem depressed or that -- or in that sense that she was unhappy.

DEPAULO: Saturday, she left this plaintive, melancholy message for Sven. It was not her normal, upbeat tone of voice. Then she also sent an e-mail to her landlord saying, all of a sudden I have no job, I have to leave. And this all happens within a couple of hours -- the same couple of hours that Caroline Condit is landing in Washington. So I don't think Saturday night was a real happy night for her. But by Sunday she is very happy again. We know Gary Condit is -- told the police that he did speak to her on the phone on Sunday. And if it followed the pattern -- and we don't know, but if it followed the pattern that Sven so eloquently described, she was placated again. Correct.

COSSACK: All right. Let's take a break. When we come back, more with Lisa Depaulo on Chandra Levy. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSSACK: Hello. Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Roger Cossack, sitting in for Larry King. We're talking with Lisa Depaulo, whose article "Secrets and Lies," a whole story on Gary Condit and Chandra Levy, will be in the newsstand in "Talk" magazine on August 8th.

Let's pick it up where we had just left off. We had talked about now that Chandra Levy had spoken, had a bad Saturday night, but on May 5th. She calls -- excuse me, not May 5th -- she calls her aunt right after that. I think that that's on Sunday, the following day.

DEPAULO: The 29th of April.

COSSACK: She calls her aunt on Sunday, the 29th of April, upbeat, happy...

DEPAULO: "And I have big news."

COSSACK: And I have big news. What about that?

DEPAULO: You know, I think the news may have been everything's fine. We may be going away together. It's very interesting, Chandra told the landlord she was leaving on the 5th. She told her aunt Linda that she was taking the next 10 days to pack. She wasn't due back for the graduation until the 11th. It's very likely that she maybe thought she was going somewhere with her boyfriend between the 5th and the 10th. That could be what she was packing for.

COSSACK: And she had told her aunt -- she had told her aunt about this relationship that she was having with the congressman, and her aunt knew about it. DEPAULO: Oh, yes. Her aunt knew about it. Her aunt was -- you know, we all have that one, like, great...

COSSACK: That one special relative.

DEPAULO: That one special auntie, and that's what Linda Zamsky is to her. And you know, Linda was 40, but married to Chandra's uncle, who is much older. And I think, you know, Linda was a great friend to her. But one of the things that has been a little bit distorted, at least from my conversations with Linda, is that, you know, she wasn't all approving. She was really worried about her. Did not want her hurt again. And -- but she wasn't saying oh, yippie, yay, you are dating a married guy.

COSSACK: Right, she was being a friend.

DEPAULO: She was being a friend.

COSSACK: All right, so this happens on Sunday the 29th, this is a message that her aunt gets on the answering machine, unfortunately, her aunt never gets the chance to call her back, so we don't know what that big news is.

And then Chandra is missing. Now her father and mother are obviously worried and terrified and one of the things they do is they call Congressman Condit on May 5th.

DEPAULO: First they called the D.C. Police.

COSSACK: Right.

DEPAULO: After not getting the answers back -- but keep in mind, they knew about -- just recently learned who the mystery boyfriend was.

COSSACK: How did that happen?

DEPAULO: She had been dropping hints for many months and then finally Mrs. Levy learned, partly through Aunt Linda. But they knew -- they knew there was this mystery boyfriend, they did not know it was Gary Condit until about two weeks before she disappeared. So the parents are obviously, you know, leaving her messages -- but I don't think they panicked for a day or two, because they knew that she was having this romance.

The sad part is, the job was over so nobody missed her at work.

COSSACK: Right.

DEPAULO: And after a few days, they were really panicking and they called the D.C. Police, could you please go check our daughter's apartment. Yes, yes, yes, and they didn't do it.

So they called back the next day. Please, can you check? And at the same time, they decided to call their congressman for help. They find out that he is in fact in Sirius that weekend with his wife. COSSACK: Sirius in part of California.

DEPAULO: Right, across the river from Modesto. And they call, Carolyn Condit answers the phone on the first phone call, so that eliminated the first question the Levys might have had, which is: is she with you?

COSSACK: Right. And so they have this kind of bizarre conversation where the father says, what do you want with my daughter?

DEPAULO: Dr. Levy called one night, Mrs. Levy called the next night, and it was a very traumatic weekend. What they relayed to me, when I met them, was they felt that he didn't sound shocked. They also felt it was odd that in the first conversation, he offered to give them reward money. They also said that, you know, when Mrs. Levy said are you having a relationship with my daughter?

Now, keep in mind his wife is standing next to him, so they're cutting him a break on that. But that one of the things that he said was no. And I'm -- in fact I was mentoring her, and one of the things that I suggested was, if she really wants to work for the FBI, she should learn a second language. All of it together seemed just odd.

They were calling because their daughter was missing. It just seemed odd to them.

COSSACK: Now, when the police finally go to Chandra's apartment. They find -- they find things that you would not normally find that a woman would not normally -- am I right? That a woman would not normally leave behind.

DEPAULO: Dr. Levy was so upset by Sunday night, that he called and begged and begged. Please go. And finally the cops go, and guess what they do? According to Dr. Levy, they call him back and say OK, we got in the apartment, she's not there. What they didn't mention was what was there. Her purse, her wallet, her half-packed suitcases, her jewelry. I mean, just were not there.

And so the Levys did not actually understand or find out the circumstances of their daughter's not being in the apartment for several more days.

COSSACK: All right. Let's take another break. When we come back we will be speaking to Anne Marie Smith, the stewardess who allegedly Gary Condit was having another affair with at the same time.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSSACK: We're back with LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Roger Cossack, sitting in for Larry King tonight.

Joining us now is flight attendant Anne Marie Smith. Anne Marie, you also knew in advance that Gary Condit's wife was coming to Washington, didn't you? ANNE MARIE SMITH, FLIGHT ATTENDANT: I did, and I told him that I had a few days off and I was able to come see him, if it would work out, and he said that it wasn't a good time, because his wife was coming in to town for a few days, probably for some doctor's appointment.

COSSACK: Did he seem upset about that, Anne Marie?

SMITH: No, not at all. It was like something that he had planned and he knew she was coming into town, and I guess she came in periodically to an to an institute in New Hampshire.

COSSACK: And Anne Marie, when you were in town during that time, just before and right during when Chandra became missing, when Chandra was missing, you spoke to the congressman several times on the telephone, didn't you? I am talking about that time between April 25th and May 3rd?

SMITH: Yes, I did. Actually he called me when his wife was in town that weekend. He called me, I believe it was Friday night, he called me Saturday, he called me Sunday morning, and then he called me the following week.

COSSACK: What was -- what would he discuss with you, when he called you?

SMITH: Just general. What he was doing. You know, how work was going. What my schedule was like and what I was doing. It was, you know, just our basic, every day conversation. He seemed fine, normal.

COSSACK: Anne Marie, you are also a baseball fan, isn't that true, just like Chandra?

SMITH: I am.

COSSACK: And did the congressman ever talk to you about a second language?

SMITH: Yes, he did. I told him, it's my goal to study French and become fluent in it, and he told me that I should study Spanish and he was trying to encourage me to, because he said, you know, that would give me further ahead.

COSSACK: And did you?

SMITH: No.

COSSACK: And Anne Marie, did he ever give you a gold bracelet?

SMITH: Yes, he did. He gave me -- it was actually a Christmas present, and I understand that it was the same one that he had given to Chandra.

COSSACK: An identical bracelet?

SMITH: Identical. COSSACK: Anne Marie, have you been in any contact with anyone regarding the obstruction of justice charges?

SMITH: I did meet with the U.S. Attorneys and several FBI agents and detectives around the middle of July. However, I have -- I have not heard back from them recently.

COSSACK: And you've had no further contact with them since then?

SMITH: No, there've been a few phone calls regarding, you know, a few questions that they have had. But that's about it.

COSSACK: Anne Marie, with all of this coming out about Congressman Condit and the Chandra Levy, how has this impacted your feelings and, you know, how do you feel about all of this?

SMITH: Well, it makes me really sad. He was somebody that I really trusted and, you know, I, like Chandra, thought I was the only one. And it was, it's -- it's been very shocking to me.

COSSACK: And in the sense of shock, why has it been so shocking? What's the most shocking part about it?

SMITH: When I first learned about it, he denied everything to me and then subsequently, things started to come out about it, and all along, he was telling me that I was the only one, and not to ask him, you know, any questions, you know, as far as -- he told me if I kept asking him questions it was going to ruin our relationship. I told him basically, if he was seeing somebody else, that I was out of the picture.

And so he would placate me just like -- like he would placate Chandra. I would get upset and he would make me feel better about the relationship. So things would go on for a little while and then I would get upset again and he would placate me. So the whole time he was lying to me, and then when things started to come out, then he tried to get me to lie for him and to perjure myself.

COSSACK: All right. Anne Marie Smith, we have to take a break right now. We will have more of Anne Marie Smith and our guest when we return.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSSACK: We're back on LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Roger Cossack, sitting in for Larry King tonight.

Anne Marie, did there come a time when Congressman Condit invited you to go on a Palm Springs trip?

SMITH: Well, he mentioned it back in November that perhaps we could go to visit a friend of his that he knew in Palm Springs, and he said: Well, you wouldn't mind if I brought you along?

COSSACK: And Anne Marie, did it turn out that he had apparently invited both you and Chandra to go on that trip?

SMITH: It appears to be that way.

COSSACK: All right, I think -- Anne Marie, Lisa is here and she has a couple of questions for you. Please go ahead, Lisa.

DEPAULO: Anne Marie, when you would get angry and he would placate you, how did he do it? What did he say? What would happen? Was it something he said? Was it sexual? What was it?

SMITH: A little bit of both. He would always make me feel like everything was OK, I was making a bigger deal out of it than it was -- that was necessary. You know, he would -- he would just kind of turn it around to -- I mean, I don't know how to put it into words, but he would manipulate it so that I would feel like everything was OK.

COSSACK: Anne Marie, when he called you -- I guess it was May 5th or May 6th, and told you that he was going to have to discontinue the relationship for a while, and then he said he might have to disappear, is that -- tell us exactly what he did say.

SMITH: Well, actually, he called me -- it wasn't May 5th. It was May 10th or 11th.

COSSACK: OK.

SMITH: And it was a Friday, I remember, Friday afternoon. And he said that he would -- he said, call me. He said that he was in trouble and that he would have to disappear for a while. He said, don't call me for a few days, I'll explain it all to you, you know, as soon as I get the first opportunity. However, I just can't talk to you for a few days. If you do call me, please just leave a very short message. Don't leave your name. Don't tell anyone about this phone conversation. Don't bring up my name to anybody.

And I was -- I just kind of sat there in shock. I mean, I was really -- I was very concerned about him. I didn't know what was going on.

DEPAULO: Anne Marie, I'm curious. Did he tell you, one of my constituents is missing?

SMITH: No, he never mentioned a word of it, and it wasn't until I went to D.C. on the 17th of May and I turned on the television and I heard the news that I realized what was going on. And at that point in time, I called him and left him a message. And I was like, you know, you need to explain this to me.

DEPAULO: And what...

(CROSSTALK)

DEPAULO: And what was that first explanation?

SMITH: Well, he called me back, and that was the phone call from Luray, Virginia. DEPAULO: Right.

SMITH: And he called me, and he once again, you know, made me feel good about everything. He's like: Everything's OK with you and me. You know, I just want to assure you that there's nothing wrong with our relationship, but he said, I'm just dealing with this situation. And basically, he wanted to sit down and explain it to me, but he also said that you wouldn't believe what they're trying to do to me. And I don't know who these people were that he was referring to.

DEPAULO: Did he tell you right away that he was involved with Chandra?

SMITH: No, I asked him, and you know, I was pretty straightforward with him. And he said no. And he said, I can't believe you're asking me these types of questions. And if -- if, you know, if you feel like I had anything to do with any of this, then you've been dealing with the wrong man.

COSSACK: Lisa Marie, did he ever explain to you anything about his wife, whether she was ill or why -- you know, anything about her?

SMITH: Yes. When I first met him, I asked him if he was married, and he said yes. But he said, my wife's very ill. She supposedly has encephalitis of the brain. And he said that their relationship was more of a friendship. He really, you know, cared about her, but he stayed with her more or less to take care of her.

COSSACK: OK. Lisa, what about Congressman Condit's wife? You had a chance to investigate it. Does she have encephalitis?

DEPAULO: What I was told by a close friend of the family that she has a condition. She's not an invalid, as people have been led to believe. She has a condition that results in painful migraines and painful nerve-ending problems, and it's exacerbated by stress. And as one person who's known her for 22 years said to me in Modesto, Carolyn is normally a very strong woman. Her illness is that she's in love with him. And he believed that all of these bouts were always triggered by her finding out something about him philandering.

COSSACK: What about the Levys? How are they handling this, Lisa?

DEPAULO: I think amazing, with just stoicness, and they will not stop until they get to the bottom of what happened to their daughter.

COSSACK: I just want to say that our viewers are seeing right now a live shot of the Levys apparently leaving their home in Modesto, California, getting into their car. That's Mrs. Levy perhaps even speaking to the press right now.

Lisa, what was Congressman Condit's reputation before this all happened?

DEPAULO: Well, that was the funniest thing. When I was in Modesto first in early June, there were two kinds of groups of people: these hardworking farm people who voted him in office by landslides. Then there were the kind of insiders, you know, the politically savvy guys who socialized with him. And they all knew the drill. It was like everybody knew, yeah, you know, Gary, has this woman thing, and you know, Gary, you know, has been cheating on his wife for all of these years. And they knew it, and it was almost like, you know, he's a cad, but he's our cad, because he also was a terrific congressman for the area.

COSSACK: I know. He was well-liked and well-elected. Let's take a break. We're going to have more when we come back on Chandra Levy. We're going to have our panel join us, so stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSSACK: We're back on LARRY KING LIVE. And now joining us is our regular panel of irregulars, if you will: Barbara Olson. Mark Geragos from Los Angeles; Cynthia Alksne, from San Diego, former federal prosecutor and Julian Epstein, the former chief minority council for the House Judiciary Committee. Mark, I understand that you have a question for Anne Marie.

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yeah, I was going to say that the last time that you were on LARRY KING, you swore you were never going to appear in the media again. What happened?

SMITH: You know what, Mark, I am not appearing in the media, am I? Yes I do, right now, I was looking at it on screen. Did have you some change of mind?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look who is talking, Mark Geragos.

SMITH: Actually, Mark, what does it matter?

GERAGOS: What is the relevance of any of this stuff that you've just heard? To your mind, Anne Marie.

SMITH: The relevance of what stuff?

GERAGOS: Of the things that you have been saying, and that we have just heard. How is that relevant to Chandra?

SMITH: You know what?

COSSACK: Go ahead Anne Marie -- Ann Marie, I was going to jump in here and say, you know, Mark Geragos, I am not going to let you ask that question because I get to ask the questions on this show and Ann Marie was gracious enough to come on. Ann Marie, do you have a question for Lisa?

SMITH: Yes, I do. One of the things I noticed in your article that I read is that Chandra called Congressman Condit several times during the days before her disappearance and nobody's really sure what day she actually disappeared but wouldn't he find it strange not to hear from her at all? Wouldn't he be a little bit concerned that he didn't get a message from her? I had phone calls phone calls from her when his wife was in town.

DEPAULO: I think that it's a really terrific question. I wish I knew the answer. I think it's been a question that I have had all along, why didn't he get alarmed on May 1, May 2, May 3, 4, and 5? Why didn't he report her missing? I think what you are adding to that makes it even more curious that he called you all of the time.

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Roger, could I ask a question?

COSSACK: Yes, go ahead.

ALKSNE: Anne Marie, did you ever travel in with him in the areas surrounding Washington, or did you ever have any -- you mention this one phone call from Luray, Virginia, did you ever go to Luray, Virginia with him or do you know what he was doing in Luray, Virginia?

SMITH: I have no idea what he was doing. It was about midnight when he called me from Luray.

ALKSNE: And this was on May...

SMITH: May 16, May 17.

ALKSNE: So this was after you learned that Chandra had disappeared, he was in Luray, Virginia.

SMITH: Right.

ALKSNE: Did he tell you what he was doing there?

SMITH: No, he didn't. He said that he was not in the area and he was not able to see me.

COSSACK: Julian.

JULIAN EPSTEIN (D), FORMER COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, I just wonder if we can broaden the discussion out a little bit. First I would like to complement Lisa on the article. I think it is a very well written narrative. It tells us a lot of interesting things, as much about Chandra as it does about Gary Condit. But I think that what Mark was trying to get at is that is important to keep our eyes prize. And while I think it is a well-written article, I don't see a great deal of information -- and maybe this wasn't Lisa's charge to do this -- but I don't see a great deal of information that advances, either factually or theoretically, the effort to attempt to find Chandra Levy.

I don't see how this advances the discussion anyway, and I think that in the face of the police saying, now, that Gary Condit's is not only not suspect, he's also not a central figure in this case, that I think the conversation verges dangerously on the edge of prurience, unless we can say that all of this all Condit all of the time, unless it is somehow advancing the cause of finding Chandra Levy. I don't see it. (CROSSTALK)

COSSACK: I want to Lisa respond to this, please.

DEPAULO: I hear what you are saying. I also think that part of the reason we have an FBI profiler now is to get some of these questions answered. What was her state of mind? What was the dynamic of this relationship? That is certainly one of the things that the FBI profiler is going after.

EPSTEIN: Another thing that you said when you were in the interview, it was an interesting interview with Roger was, that, during the last few weeks there were lots and lots of phone calls. Well, Michael Isikoff, who you know who has been covering this story very well...

DEPAULO: Well, I didn't say that -- actually I did not say that.

EPSTEIN: I thought that you said that during the last few weeks that there was lots of contact going on between the two of them because it was interesting...

DEPAULO: Oh, yes. There was lots of contact, and it's...

EPSTEIN: Well, explain that to us because Isikoff says that the contact really begins to trail off by about April.

DEPAULO: OK, and Salon just reported that there is a great deal of confusion over just what phone calls were made and what weren't made. We don't know that for sure as of today.

However, Linda Zamsky says that she was spending a great deal of time those last few weeks until the wife came to town at his apartment, so there was no need to phone call.

COSSACK: Let me interrupt you two for just a second. I have to get Anne Marie before she leaves. Anne Marie, do you have any recollection about that phone call that I asked you about from the congressman? Was it May 5, or 6, or was it May 10 or 11. Do you know?

SMITH: It was May 10. It was a Friday in the afternoon. I believe that it was May 10.

COSSACK: Thank you, Anne Marie Smith. I know you have to go. Thank you for joining us tonight. We are going to take another break. When we come back, more with out panel, and we will talk to Lisa Depaulo, too. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSSACK: We're back with LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Roger Cossack sitting in for Larry King tonight. Barbara Olson, you've been sitting there quietly, unlike of what I normally get from you. Come on, Barbara, talk to me about a little bit about Congressman Condit's future after this article and everything that has been said. BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think Senator Dianne Feinstein came out today and said that she thought that his career was over. And I think I have to agree with her, although, I am a little confused as to why lying to her is somehow worse than lying to the police or the FBI or what Bill Clinton did.

But what I've been listening to and I think that it's very interesting, what Lisa's article did -- and I want to respond a little bit to what Mark said and Julian -- how does this advance the ball?

We have a real good picture of what was going on this weekend before Chandra's missing. We have Gary Condit with his wife in town. He's calling Anne Marie Smith saying that everything's OK.

He's calling, you know, Chandra is calling his pager. And he's got all of these thing going on. This is a man who, evidently, the relationship, I think, with Chandra was coming to a head, at least in her mind it was. She had lost her internship at the Bureau of Prisons. She didn't want the relationship to end in the way other relationship had.

She was going to have to go back to California. I think that obviously from what she was telling her friends then and everyone else, it was to the boiling point. It was boiling over. She had been at his apartment the week before. The day she talked to him for the last time, on the 29th, she suddenly calls her aunt and everything's fine. It seems that it's very clear if that whether Gary Condit is involved in her disappearance or not, certainly there was a lot going on with this relationship.

It's not, I don't think, just a coincidence that Chandra Levy is deciding that something must happen to this relationship.

EPSTEIN: And you know, Barbara...

OLSON: And obviously this is the last week for it.

EPSTEIN: Barbara, the issue about that is yes, all of this that is true, but the police have considered all of that information and more that you and I don't know about at this point.

And the police now have come out and said that whatever was going on with this affair, we all stipulate that Gary Condit was trying to keep this a secret. There is no argument about that, there's no defending that, but what the police have said -- and they know more than any of us -- is that not only is he no longer a suspect, but he is not a central figure.

So, you have to ask the question, are we teetering...

OLSON: Julian...

EPSTEIN: Barbara, if I just could -- are we teetering on the edge of irresponsibility by making this all Condit all of the time, when the police are telling us that we should be doing exactly the opposite. OLSON: Well, Julian, you may be teetering, and but I think...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Barbara is way over the wall, she's not teetering anymore. She's gone completely over the wall.

OLSON: I'm not over the wall, Mark. I think what you have to do is look...

GERAGOS: Barbara, give me a break.

OLSON: ... at the profile that Lisa has given us.

GERAGOS: What difference does it any of this make? What difference does it make?

DEPAULO: Mark, I never expected you to get this, OK? There is no way you were going to get this.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Are you all defending maleness or something? How come all of the women on the show get it and all of the men don't?

DEPAULO: Yeah, isn't that amazing?

(CROSSTALK)

COSSACK: Cynthia Alksne -- Cynthia Alksne, come on, I want to hear from you.

ALKSNE: Well, my favorite moment was -- we had all these blonds on the show, but it's really taken a redhead to put Geragos in his place, I just loved it. It was so sweet, it was worth sitting here for six days.

My favorite, and what I felt was most interesting about the article, was how clear it made it that she was going to force the issue, and that she was determined to have a confrontation, and that's the way Sven Jones described it.

COSSACK: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

COSSACK: Cynthia, let me told you off for just one second, because I have to take one more break. This is -- stay with us here on LARRY KING LIVE. We're going to have more on this when we come back. Boy, they've already got me upset. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSSACK: This is LARRY KING LIVE, I'm Roger Cossack, sitting in for Larry King. I just -- a little of housekeeping before we go any further. Let me just -- before we go any further, there are a couple of things I want to bring up. One is that we, of course, from LARRY KING LIVE did invite the Levys to join us tonight and they declined our invitation at this time.

And I do want to ask you a question, Lisa. Look, it is going to come up, it is going to come up that you have written an article and in your article you told about Chandra Levy's past. And there are going to be people who will criticize and say, you know, why did you do this to someone who perhaps is a victim -- we don't know -- but why did you do this about this young girl, why did you tell about her past?

DEPAULO: I'm glad you -- because I think it's absolutely crucial to understand what this relationship was about and the emotions she brought to it. And I wish the answers were different, but I don't really think that what she was did was anything wrong. She was 24, and you know, fell in love with men who treated her badly.

And you know, it's -- it's terrible -- I mean, not quite this badly, but you know, it is -- there's definitely a gender gap going on with this story. A terrific reporter said to me the other day that, you know, the men involved in this case treat it like a crime story, and the women understand that it's a love story gone awry. And I think understanding...

GERAGOS: Oh, God.

DEPAULO: Oh, shut up, Mark!

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: ... it's amazing what they have created out of this! A love story gone awry -- I mean, it's nonsense.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: What's very interesting I think is when we find out that the same bracelet was given to Ann Marie Smith as Chandra, it reminded me of Bill Clinton giving leaves of grass to Hillary and to Monica. It's like, there is a pattern here, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: There is. There is. It's a pattern of psychosis, is what it is. It's a psychological pattern here.

EPSTEIN: I think you have to keep coming back and asking the question, Roger. When we talk about the bracelets and all of that, and of course, this may make good copy -- the question is: is it relevant to where Chandra Levy is today?

DEPAULO: It might be...

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: ... what I continue to hear -- if I may, Lisa -- is a lot of people putting a lot of dots out there and saying there may be some way of theoretically connecting it, notwithstanding the fact that police have said the dots don't connect up. And I think -- I am not here to defend him or attack him, I am here to say I think there should be some responsibility, and I think we have to be responsible.

Lisa, you know, in your piece, there are some stories that have come out about Gary Condit that turned out not to be true. And I think it's important...

DEPAULO: Not in my story.

EPSTEIN: Not in your story, but in other reporting...

(CROSSTALK)

COSSACK: Mark, should this article have been written, Mark?

GERAGOS: Should it have been written?

COSSACK: Yeah.

GERAGOS: I am a big protector of the First Amendment.

DEPAULO: I'm sure you didn't get through it yet.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: ... Lisa's out there, she can write that article. I don't understand the point of it in terms of how it advances the case, but I am sure there is an audience for it. Barbara is interested and Cynthia is interested in it, so you have got three readers right there.

(CROSSTALK)

ALKSNE: Let me tell you how it advances and why Barbara and I agree on this -- because we have done a lot of criminal investigations in our day, and one of the things that we know when you have actually conducted criminal grand jury investigations is, there is rarely such a thing as a coincidence, and when you add up things like this double- secret probation relationship, a demand for secrecy, a young lady who is bound and determined to have a confrontation with the man over his marriage, and his wife comes to town, and he lies to her family at a bare minimum, and possibly the police, and then he throws evidence away...

(CROSSTALK)

ALKSNE: The conclusion is, you don't throw away that person as a victim -- as the potential perpetrator.

GERAGOS: Cynthia, the police have all of this, the police have all of this, the police have said...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: ... and the police probably haven't read Lisa's article, so I'm sure they after they read Lisa's article, that they will re-evaluate everything.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: They have already decided that he has nothing to do with it!

(CROSSTALK)

COSSACK: Excuse me, and with this high-brow conversation, I am going to call an end to tonight's LARRY KING LIVE, and let me remind all of our viewers that probably hopefully so -- and gladly so -- Larry will be back tomorrow night with 12 of the 13 women from the United States Senate.

I am afraid that's all the time we have tonight. Thank you, I am Roger Cossack, sitting in for Larry King. Be sure and watch the king tomorrow night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/30/lkl.00.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Will Chandra Levy Ever Be Found?

Aired July 30, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, will Chandra Levy ever be found? D.C. police now say chances are just 50/50. Her family ignores the odds and vows to keep on hoping. Day 91 of this headline-grabbing mystery.

And with us is former prosecutor and best-selling author Barbara Olson, the defense attorney Mike Geragos, and former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alksne and former chief minority counsel Julian Epstein, and a journalist who has been tracking the story from day one is Lisa DePaulo.

They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Before we start with our guests in studios in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, we have with us on the phone Paul Katz, and also with Paul is his wife, Linda Zamsky.

Paul will be speaking, but if Linda wants to say something, she can jump in too. Linda is the aunt who first came forward to reveal that Chandra had revealed to her of the affair with Congressman Condit.

And we happen to have -- Paul, are you there?

PAUL KATZ, CHANDRA LEVY'S UNCLE: Yes, I am here, Larry.

KING: First, Paul, we understand that there are a couple of things on your mind that's bothering you, and then we will get into some questions. Go.

KATZ: Well, Larry, I guess that the thing that has been nudging and bothering me is that the police department had the knowledge of the affair with Mr. Condit and my niece Chandra from the 15th of May, until the actual time that he stepped forward with the release that Linda made available.

And they had this information, and yet, you know, one gets the filling that it was suppressed, for whatever reason, for such a long period of time and that's been very frustrating.

KING: You mean after your wife gave them the information, you don't think they did anything with it.

KATZ: That's correct. That's correct. And the second issue of that has bothered us immensely is the retraction of the statement regarding the affair with -- the supposed affair between the Congressman and his daughter.

KING: That's the minister?

KATZ: The minister, right. And what's really bothersome about this whole thing is that it was only a week between the time that Chandra came back to Susan and said, don't worry, mom, I talked to him about it and there's nothing to worry about. Until Chandra disappeared. And the whole sequence of things are very bothersome.

KING: Do you know Reverend Thomas?

KATZ: Yes, I met him.

KING: And do you believe him?

KATZ: Yes, I believe him.

KING: And why, then, is the daughter -- or was the daughter denying it?

KATZ: I think that clearly the daughter was frightened and, therefore, was not willing to come forward. He sat there in Susan's den and poured his heart out to the Susan, Bob, and I. And the sequence, so far as I see it, in the way that it happened is that he revealed to Susan and the situation between his daughter and the congressman, Susan immediately called Chandra on the phone.

Chandra's response was: I'm big enough to take care of myself. Don't worry about it. And a week later, she called Susan back. Tells Susan, I talked to him about it. It's nothing to worry about. A week after that. Chandra disappears.

KING: So, your suspicions grow, as does your wife's?

KATZ: Oh, definitely. Absolutely.

KING: Were you discouraged by the police statements that now it looks 50/50?

KATZ: Yeah, it took them so long to get the thing going and now they want to back off from the search. This is disheartening.

The other part about this whole thing is that you know, when -- when the reverend called and spoke to Linda and myself, he told us about how he was physically -- well he was threatened, verbally over the phone.

KING: By whom? Did he tell you who?

KATZ: Just some male voice. Didn't mention any names, just a male voice. And he was clearly frightened. And, you know, just these events. There's clearly something submerged still to be discovered about all of this.

KING: Well, at its worst, Paul, are you -- do you feel that Congress was involved in some way of harming your niece?

KATZ: Well, I would certainly think that there is some suspicion here. That might have been the case.

KING: And Linda shares that suspicion with you?

KATZ: You will have to ask Linda, but I think that she's on the line. She can speak up.

KING: Linda didn't want to say -- Linda, do you still share that suspicion?

LINDA ZAMSKY, CHANDRA LEVY'S AUNT: I think that he has information that he's still withholding. And the people that surround him in his office, as well, are withholding information. At least from our family, and our lawyer, and our investigators. Whether they have talked to the police and the FBI, we don't know because the police and the FBI don't tell our family or our lawyer or our investigators anything.

KING: Do both of you, Paul and Linda, fear the worst?

KATZ: To tell you the truth, yes, I'm concerned that the outcome is not going to be a positive one.

KING: Linda?

ZAMSKY: I have to remain optimistic for Bob and Susie. I am their strength and I'm their hope and I just have to think positive thoughts.

KING: Are you discouraged, Linda, that the police are apparently just winding down the search here, only got to put two people on it after this week?

ZAMSKY: Absolutely. But maybe the FBI is working on it, and again, we don't know that.

KING: It could also...

ZAMSKY: What we need as a family, Larry, is answers.

KING: I will tell you what, do you two want to stay on the phone awhile?

KATZ: Sure.

KING: All right, stay there, Linda and Paul and we will bring in our panel and I'll come back to you and get your thoughts as our panel discusses it.

Barbara, what do you make of what Paul and Linda have to say about all of this?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, you know, there have been reports that Gary Condit has been accounted for those two days, and there have been reports that they are winding down. Looking elsewhere. However, something that they just said, struck accord, when they said, that they're not -- that the police is, is not telling the family the information.

Which gives me thought that they've got some information. They are following leads, they want to make sure whomever those leads are on, whether it's Gary Condit, someone close to him, someone else that knew Chandra that they are following. I think that they closed down talking to the family, I am going to be optimistic and hope that they actually have some leads and some information, that they are following.

KING: Cynthia, can you buy that theory? If the people are not on the family -- maybe they -- don't have to tell us?

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No, and in this media culture, it makes sense especially in the minister was threatened, I would be interested to know from Mr. Katz, whether he told the police about that threat. And whether he knows if the police are following up.

KING: Paul, did he report it?

KATZ: Yes, it was reported.

KING: Does he know if they're following up on it or not?

KATZ: It was reported to the FBI.

KING: It was.

ALKSNE: Good.

KATZ: It was.

ALKSNE: That means that is one more aspect of the investigation, which has evidently been out there for a long time, and we haven't known in the media. That's a good sign for the investigation.

KING: Isn't that a good hope for them, Julian, that maybe if not saying anything, the police know more than we know?

JULIAN EPSTEIN (D), FORMER COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, I think so. I think that actually the police have come under a lot of criticism here. I share a lot of the criticism for the police, I think they were very slow in getting off the dime. I think the fact they didn't get the videotape out of Chandra's building, I think they have been very slow in a lot of other accounts.

But the problem I think has been frankly, Larry, and this careens into the other discussions in other areas is that, the fact that the police keep leaking the material publicly about these interviews, I think is destructive to the investigation. Because I think one thing, you know, I think that one of the unfortunate things about the media coverage so far is that you are either in the Condit -- you are a either a Condit defender or a Condit attacker. The media promotes this dichotomous view of the world.

I am neither. I think that he has made some real bad mistakes here, but I think as Barbara said, the evidence really seems to be pointing away from him right now. The police I think have come out I think today and said the timeline between May 1st and May 2nd is that he was fully accounted for during the whole period of time. He's done the lie detector test, he's done all the other things that we've spoken about.

I think to the extent that the investigation is attempting to derive information from other alleged relationships to the extent that that's made public, I think that that's part of the reason why Mr. Condit has been reluctant to -- to engage in discussions that actually reveal things. I think that what he has been doing is trying to keep private or keep undisclosed these extramarital affairs.

I think that -- where I agree with your callers, and what I've said before on the program, is that the family through Billy Martin has made a request through Mr. Condit that he account to them. And I think that the police and Mr. Condit have to find ways so that they can be satisfied, and again, when you look at things in -- whatever week this is -- whether this is week 12 or week 13, all of the signs now seem to be pointing away from Mr. Condit, notwithstanding the fact that I think he did misbehave in the first few weeks....

KING: We will hold Paul Katz and Linda on the phone and get their thoughts on what's been said, we'll bring in Mark Geragos and Lisa Depaulo as well. We'll be right back after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA'S MOTHER: I am not giving up. But my heart aches and our heart aches and this is very hard. It's very hard. Every day is very hard and we just want -- if anyone's out there and has our daughter -- please reconsider, let her go. Let her come home to us. Take care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASSISTANT CHIEF TERRANCE GAINER, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: You have to understand, that we've gathered a lot of information in this. A lot of electronic information, telephone records, banking records and nothing has led us to Chandra Levy. And I really think that it's important to point out that the congressman, although interesting to a lot of people, is not the central figure in this, nor is his wife.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: So, Lisa Depaulo -- and we'll go back to Paul and Linda in just a moment. Who is, if it's not the congressman, Lisa?

LISA DEPAULO, "TALK" MAGAZINE: I hope that this is a strategy, this sense of hopelessness and -- we have covered all of the basis that's coming out of the Washington -- and not a reality.

And I just think that, you know, Paul and Linda, this family has been so stoic in their grief, and might I add, instrumental to the investigation. If -- it was after Aunt Linda that came forward of what she knew that she told the police from day one, that Condit finally fessed up. The gig was up. Yeah, we had an affair. Crucial pieces of information.

KING: By the way, Linda, I don't think we've ever heard your voice. We appreciate you coming on with Paul. Both of you are very on top of things. Were you are shocked, Linda, at all of the attention that your statements got?

ZAMSKY: I -- I guess so, yeah.

KING: Were you surprised...

ZAMSKY: Shocked by the attention from whom? From the media or...

KING: From everybody. You came forward -- where you shocked at first that no-one had mentioned this before to the police?

ZAMSKY: Yeah.

KING: I mean, you couldn't have been the only one who knew this.

ZAMSKY: Yes, but supposedly I was the only one who mentioned it to the police. At least that's what I was told.

KING: And when you spoke to them, were they receptive to you?

ZAMSKY: Yes. Oh, yes. I mean I was asked from -- I spoke to them on the phone on a Monday. And on Tuesday they asked me to come to Washington to give a statement. So, they were quite anxious to hear what I had to say.

KING: Mark Geragos, do you feel -- obviously, Paul and Linda have done the right things.

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Anybody who is involved in something like this have got to cooperate and tell the police, tell them what they know and go from there, especially if it's the family members.

KING: Could the police be thinking this out?

GERAGOS: No, I don't think so, and I will tell you why. The last thing in the world you want, if you are a prosecutor is to have your lead investigators out there, making public pronouncements saying, no, this is not the guy. He's not a suspect. We're moving away from him. Blah, blah, blah. There's no way in the world that the U.S. Attorneys who are active on this case are allowing the prosecutors out there to basically tell the potential jury pool, this guy has nothing to do with it. It's just not -- there's no way in the world that they are that sophisticated that they are doing some kind of a bait and switch here, in order to let him get his guard down or anything else. So I have to tell you that you have to take the police at this point at their word that the investigation has moved away from Gary Condit.

KING: Paul, are you disheartened by that, or are you just looking for the solutions?

(CROSSTALK)

KATZ: ...after all, listen, if the man didn't come forward on the first three interviews and clearly they must have asked the questions to Mr. Condit to describe his relationship with Chandra, and he was -- based on what Linda had told the police, I am certainly sure they were quite forward and saying and asking, had they had a relationship, and he clearly must have not been honest and forthcoming to them.

You know, and to me, in my mind's eye, I mean, how much more do you need? It isn't just a matter of being embarrassed that you are caught in an affair. There must be something more that the man is trying to hide. This man has been in a number of affairs, so what's being -- what's the big deal about this one?

KING: Paul -- hold on a second, Julian. Paul, something about the keys bothers you, too.

KATZ: Oh, yes. We know and the police know that Chandra had keys to the congressman's apartment, and isn't it interesting is that the only thing that is missing from Chandra's apartment besides Chandra is her keys.

KING: What do we read into that, Cynthia? -- hold on, Julian.

ALKSNE: What we read into it is that when she left her apartment, she was going somewhere with somebody she was comfortable with, and she took her keys with her. I don't think you can make the next leap, but it is interesting, if you think about it in terms of the timeline.

Here she has this relationship with the congressman. They speak all of the time and they are at the point that she has the keys to his apartment. She disappears on April 30th, and it's her family who reports her missing to the police. I don't know if the congressman tried to reach her during that time. It's sort of a question that's kind of out there. Did the congressman try to reach her? And if he didn't, why didn't he try to reach her?

EPSTEIN: Well, just to pick up on what Cynthia said. There was a lot of speculation last week that during the last three weeks before she disappeared that there was a tumultuous series of phone calls going back between Gary Condit and Chandra Levy and that their relationship was in some type of crisis state.

Well, what we learned I think over the weekend is that the police looked at the police logs and did the checks on it and found that actually between April 12th and April 30th, there was very, very little contact going on, which dispels the theory that the relationship kind of hit a really a tumultuous period of time.

And secondly, the other point if I just could Larry, just to say both to Paul and his wife, is that, you know, we're now into about week 13 of this thing, and there isn't a single bit of evidence that suggests of what Gary Condit was trying to do was to simply not make public, this extramarital affair, and perhaps others. All of the evidence seems to be pointing the other way.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Hold on! Julian, let Linda respond.

ZAMSKY: Julian.

EPSTEIN: Yeah?

ZAMSKY: Then why didn't he tell the family? We weren't asking him to come out and tell the whole world, we were asking him to tell our family.

EPSTEIN: I agree and he should have. I agree with you, Linda. I agreed that he should have done that. But I think what he has been fearful of is making this affair public and making perhaps the other alleged affairs public.

I don't think that you should confuse his desire to do that, and I think that was improper and I agree with you, with necessarily saying there's a lot of running room between that and saying that the man is guilty or is involved with the disappearance, particularly when all of the evidence at this time.

He has the alibi for all of his schedule on May 1st and May 2nd and the lie detector test. The so-called blood test and the blood in the apartment turned out to be not blood at all, nothing that was incriminating. None of the theories that people thought were going to lend to incriminating evidence about them have worn themselves out at this point.

KING: Hold on, I want to have Linda respond, and then we'll have the whole panel in. We'll be right back. I have to get a break. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ROBERT LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S FATHER: I would like them to look at everything. I don't know that they have. Certainly, you know, doing things 12 weeks later. I'm not sure we could have gotten the same facts you would have gotten early on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: We're back. There you see a picture, by the way, of Paul Katz and there is the lovely Linda Zamsky. It's nice to see her face. She's on the phone with us.

Now, Linda, you wanted to respond to something Julian said.

ZAMSKY: Yeah, we are -- we aren't blaming Gary Condit. We don't -- I mean, no one's guilty until -- I mean, no one -- everyone is innocent until proven guilty. OK? It just seems like there are things that have been going on that he hasn't been honest with. I mean, things -- he has an alibi, it seems, for everything. OK? He goes out, he gets his own lie detector test. They go in, they do a forensic in his apartment in three or four hours. And as people have said on your show, the average investigation in someone's home takes between six and 11 hours.

It seems like everything has been done within his parameters and his way, not the legal way, not the way the police would come in and do it in any of our homes. And that's the problem. That's what makes us all scared, and -- you're shaking your head no.

GERAGOS: Well, it's only -- Linda, I've just got to tell you, in terms of when you say the legal way, I appreciate your frustration. If I were in your position, I'd be the most frustrated man on Earth.

KING: It's her niece, Mark.

GERAGOS: The problem is -- the problem is that from a legal standpoint he hasn't had to do anything, and he has.

KING: And we know all that, but she's talking from a moral...

GERAGOS: From a moral standpoint and from talking to the family, and you just -- and part of this idea that the police haven't talked to her has got to be incredibly frustrating. But the police have to do what they think is appropriate in this investigation, and if they think that too much attention has been paid to the Gary Condit track and not enough to where they think there is some legitimate leads, you have to be supportive in their roll.

ZAMSKY: OK.

ALKSNE: And also -- and hear you tell us that this minister was threatened because it all came out in the press who he was, maybe it's in the best interest of the case that nobody knows what's going on so that nobody is bothered and the police can go about doing their work. And the police officers that are assigned out are really top-flight police officers and so is the FBI agent, and they've had big successes in tough cases in D.C. It's just going to take some time. It's going to take grunt and a little luck.

KING: But you can understand Paul and Linda's frustration.

ALKSNE: Oh, sure. Absolutely.

OLSON: You know, Larry, we also... KING: Linda, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

OLSON: Oh, it's Barbara. I was talking.

KING: Oh, I'm sorry, Barbara and then Linda. Go ahead, Barbara.

OLSON: I was just saying we also have too many people frightened. I mean, you know, the minister was frightened, and I think he truly was, because, of course, he talked to Chandra's parents back before she was missing. There wasn't really a reason, and you don't think a Pentecostal minister is going to exactly come out about that kind of information about their daughter -- it's rather embarrassing -- unless it's something he felt he could help them. And then Anne Marie Smith -- you remember on your show how frightened she was, the guard she had around her.

Too many people have been frightened, and just tonight, Paul and Linda have told us that Chandra confronted Gary and calls her mother back just two weeks before she disappears. And remember, this is a man who was, by all the other women -- which is this is an instance where the other women have given us information -- all the other women talked about how much he guarded secrecy, how much he told them. It's over if you tell anyone.

And Chandra supposedly had been told that, and now we know two weeks before she disappears she had confronted him about another woman and told her mother it's OK. I wonder if it really was.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Linda, honestly, Linda, Linda -- hold it. Linda, did Chandra ever sound frightened to you?

ZAMSKY: No.

KING: Was she very much in love with him?

ZAMSKY: Yes.

KING: Was she expectant of a future?

ZAMSKY: Yes.

KING: Those are key questions. Let me get -- I've to get another quick break and then take us down to the bottom of the hour. We'll be right back. Paul and Linda on the phone, Paul Katz and Linda Zamsky. They are married, and they are the uncle and aunt of Chandra. And with us are Barbara Olson, Mark Geragos, Cynthia Alksne, Julian Epstein and Lisa DePaulo. We'll get Lisa's thoughts and the rest of the panel's as we go on. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Linda Zamsky on the phone with us. And this can certainly help in this. Anything, any information helps. Was she expecting him like to leave his wife? What -- what was the conversation about when she talked about him to you?

ZAMSKY: She was expecting -- she was going to wait a few years, five years for him -- the inner relationship that was going to be kept quiet, and then eventually, you know, go out and be with him after five years. There was always something about five years.

KING: Really?

ZAMSKY: Yeah.

KING: What advice did you give her?

ZAMSKY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) tell me what.

KING: What did you say to her?

ZAMSKY: In response to that?

KING: Yeah.

ZAMSKY: Be careful. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. You know, listen, he's a married man. And you know -- you know, on one hand, I gave her advice to get away, to leave, not to stay in this relationship. And then I couldn't push her too far, because then she would stop talking to me and sharing with me, and obviously, she needed to share with someone that she could trust. And obviously, she knew she could trust me.

So, that is how, you know -- I've heard a lot of about, well, Linda has been -- you know, why didn't Linda do this and give her advice like an adult would give? And I gave her advice. But you know, you can't -- if you want somebody to be able to share secrets with them, they have to be able to trust that you're just going to listen and not respond, and that's what I did.

KING: And her parents didn't know?

ZAMSKY: Her -- I can't answer that.

KING: So you...

ZAMSKY: They know. Susie knew.

KATZ: Susan knew.

ZAMSKY: She knew and so did Bob.

DEPAULO: At the end.

ZAMSKY: But they didn't know who the person was. They knew it was a congressman, they knew he was married and they knew he was older. That's all they knew.

KING: Is this -- was this a shock to you when you heard it, Linda, from Chandra the first time?

ZAMSKY: That she was dating someone older?

KING: Yeah, and married.

ZAMSKY: Married, yeah. Married is -- that's tough. I mean, you know, but older, no, because Chandra was a very, very mature, independent individual. She is a very independent individual. So I -- it didn't surprise me that she was in love or having a relationship with someone that was much older than her.

KING: And this sort of frustration you have is with the police as well, right? I mean, you feel like nothing's happened?

ZAMSKY: Oh, I think things have happened. I'm not saying that the police or the FBI or anyone isn't doing something or anything. I think that they're just not telling the family.

I talked to my sister-in-law, I talked to my brother-in-law, they are devastated. I see them on TV. These -- this is my family. I see what's happening to them. I'm not feeling their pain. I'm sharing it.

And I just, I think they need answers. I don't need answers. But Bob and Sue need answers as to what's going on. And whether it be good or bad, this not knowing -- every day they, every night they go to sleep with hope that their daughter's going to be found, and then they wake up the next morning and realize she's still missing, and it's one more day that she's missing. And that's tough.

KING: We'll be...

ZAMSKY: For anybody.

KING: We'll be right back. I'm going to reintroduce everyone. We certainly thank Paul and Linda for giving us this time. We'll bring them back, too.

Don't forget it's time to log on to my King's quiz, cnn.com/larryking. We'll be right back, reintroduce the whole panel. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back, and let's reintroduce our panel. Barbara Olson, the former prosecutor and best-selling author. She's in Washington. In Los Angeles, Mark Geragos, defense attorney. In Los Angeles, Cynthia Alksne, the former federal prosecutor. In Washington, Julian Epstein, the former chief minority counsel at House Judiciary. By the way, worked with Gary Condit on that staff of that committee. And in New York...

EPSTEIN: On government operations, Larry. It was on a different committee. It was on the government operations committee some years ago.

KING: OK, not that committee. And Lisa DePaulo, the contributing writer for "Talk" magazine. She's been investigating this story since it broke. Her article will hit the newsstands this Friday. And with us on the phone is Paul Katz, and his wife, Linda Zamsky. And Linda was, of course, the woman who released that information to "The Washington Post" and to the police about her daughter -- her niece's involvement with the congressman.

A couple of more questions, Linda, just for you, and then I'm swinging the whole panel back in, and you and Paul can jump in.

When -- when she said, I have some big news, what do you think that that meant?

ZAMSKY: I don't know. I have no idea. It could have meant she was going back to California and going to meet up with him. She was getting a new job. I can -- I can speculate just like everybody else. Maybe she was pregnant. I don't think that was the case, though. But -- because she was very conscientious about, you know, her health. And...

KING: Do you think she would have told you that, too?

ZAMSKY: Oh, yeah, absolutely.

KING: Did she sound happy?

ZAMSKY: Yes. She sounded very happy, not sad, not depressed. It was very -- I mean, not very happy. She just sounded like Chandra.

KING: Did you report...

ZAMSKY: You know, and Chandra always sounded relatively happy, you know.

KING: Was she ever worried about people stalking her or...

ZAMSKY: Not to my knowledge.

KING: Not -- what about -- did she have a lot of friends at work? We talked -- someone called in from the building, who said that she didn't make a lot of friends in the building, she kept to herself.

ZAMSKY: I don't know what kind of friends Chandra had in Washington. I know that in January -- December or January, a lot of the interns had gone back home. One was Jennifer Baker. Another one or two gals that she mentioned -- that they had gone back to wherever they came from. So I know a lot of her friends had gone.

But you know, she works -- she worked full-time. She exercised. She kept herself busy. So you know, how do you -- how do you have time for a lot of friends when you just move into Washington in October or September, whenever it was she got there, and make that many friends that quickly, you know?

KING: And she liked it there, right? ZAMSKY: Yes, to my knowledge.

KING: Did she talk to you a lot, Paul?

KATZ: Chandra didn't talk much with me. I've been busy at work and would confide those kinds of things with Linda. We were, you know, platonic and friendly and all that. And of course, we were very close from the perspective that, you know, she is my only niece, and you know, I feel -- I feel as close as Chandra as I have to my own children.

KING: Are you a physician?

KATZ: Yes, I am.

KING: What -- specializing in what?

KATZ: I'm a family practice doc.

KING: And Dr. Levy is oncology, right?

KATZ: He's an oncologist, right.

KING: OK. Lisa DePaulo, from what you've heard so far, does this read a little further into it? Linda is obviously, and Paul, are two very sincere people here.

DEPAULO: And you know, it just strikes me just how fortunate it is that Chandra did confide in her Aunt Linda, because without this knowledge, you know, we would only have his version of the "friendship." And I also think, you know, when you look back on what advice did they give, Mrs. Levy, Linda, you know, you have to, we have to remember that the people who loved Chandra, their biggest fear was that she'd have her heart broken, not that she'd disappear.

KING: Good point.

ALKSNE: You know, I'm wondering from them where -- did she ever talk about going places with him? Did they ever go to West Virginia? Did they ever to Shenandoah? Did they ever go to the Eastern Shore?

KING: That's a good question. Did they travel together to your knowledge, Linda?

ZAMSKY: No, but she talked about going to in California, Palm Springs. She talked about that they were going to take a vacation to Palm Springs.

DEPAULO: You know, that's a great point, too.

ALKSNE: Any place local? Any place local there in the Washington area? Did they ever go anywhere?

ZAMSKY: No, not that she ever mentioned to me.

KING: All right. Who wanted to say something? Was that Lisa or Barbara?

DEPAULO: Yeah, I think think the travel thing is interesting, because one of the questions I always had was, was Chandra packing to go directly to Modesto or to have some kind of rendezvous with him first, because she did tell Linda it will be another 10 days before I get home. And she was looking at travel sites. You know, he may have said, you know, we're going to spend a few days together.

OLSON: And one of the travel sites was Gofrance. I mean, I just wonder...

DEPAULO: That's right.

OLSON: ... if there were other areas. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) looking at lots of travel sites, and she was excited.

DEPAULO: Yeah, and she loved Paris. She loved Paris. She had been to Paris before. She knew Paris.

EPSTEIN: You know, Larry, listen to what we're talking about. I mean, were they going at some point talking about maybe making a trip, and according to what Linda is saying on the phone, they never did travel together.

I mean, I think Linda is saying something that's very important here, and I think that she and Paul have acted really very commendably through the entirety of this investigation, which is that Mr. Condit failed to give the proper accounting to the family, failed to assuage their concerns and their grief by persuading them, convincing them that he was telling them everything that he knew. I don't hear Linda saying or contradicting what the police are saying, which is not only has Mr. Condit cooperated with the police now, not withstanding his initial missteps, which I don't defend. And I don't hear Linda contradicting that at all. I don't hear Linda contradicting what the police are clearly saying, which is the dogs now are kind of aimed at all other -- at many other leads, certainly not the Condit lead.

And there is I think what is becoming now a litany of things which appear to be exculpatory. I know people don't like the lie detector test. I have my problems with the lie detector test as well. But there's no physical evidence. Nobody has really even speculated on any type of motive. Nobody has really speculated -- remember, he doesn't have a car. Nobody's speculated on any means that he could have used. I hardly doubt...

DEPAULO: You have so many facts wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.

EPSTEIN: Well, which ones? Which ones?

DEPAULO: You have a lot of facts wrong.

EPSTEIN: Which ones, Lisa?

KATZ: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I'd like... KING: All right, Paul, go ahead. Paul, go ahead.

KATZ: If I could say something here. Throughout this whole thing, there has been a humor, if you will, of intimidation. It started first with, you know, with actually some of the prior women that Mr. Condit had an affair with, an intimidation, even of Chandra, that she should conduct herself in a certain manner or she would lose this relationship she had. An intimidation of both the Thomas -- apparently from some source, we don't know who, we can't necessarily link it to Mr. Condit -- and an intimidation of Jennifer Baker also. That hasn't been mentioned.

Jennifer Baker sat in the home of my sister and with Bob, and told us clearly in no uncertain terms that had there not been a public view to her, that her response in public would have been different. She was his intern, confided in how she was intimidated. By Mr. Condit's, one of Mr. Condit's aides, was intimidated personally and felt that her future, her job would be at risk if she was to really reveal how she personally felt about what was going on there. And you know, she can say whatever she'll say in public, but we know what she said to us in private.

KING: I'll go right to Mark Geragos, and time's flying. We'll be right back. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Mark Geragos...

GERAGOS: I was going to just ask Dr. Katz and Linda, if I could. When you've talked to the -- I assume you've talked to the police on at least one occasion, or more than one?

ZAMSKY: Yes.

GERAGOS: And when you've talked to them, have they asked you about other people or other friends or other kinds of things other than the congressman as well?

ZAMSKY: Absolutely.

GERAGOS: And did they spend a lot of time on that and seem to be interested in that?

ZAMSKY: They didn't -- I can't -- I mean, to balance it like equal to what time they spent with Gary versus other people...

GERAGOS: That's what I mean. If you were to estimate the amount of time they spent talking about the congressman with you, and the amount of time they spent talking about everybody else, was it a fairly even 50/50, or did it slant more towards other people?

ZAMSKY: No, it wasn't -- I mean, they didn't do a lot of questioning, to be perfectly honest with you. When I gave my statement, they crossed one -- I gave my statement to one detective, then the other guy came in and he kind of asked the same questions, but in a different format. And then that was it. They didn't...

GERAGOS: They didn't follow up at all with it and ask you about other things, or did you talk to her -- your statement was the one that you released -- I guess, what, to "The Washington Post"?

ZAMSKY: Yes.

GERAGOS: OK. Did they ask you about what other conversations did you have with her, or what other friends did you know about and things of that nature?

ZAMSKY: Yes.

GERAGOS: OK, and you told them all of that. And did they seem interested in that?

ZAMSKY: I don't know. I can't tell you whether they seemed interested. They were -- I don't know whether -- I mean, they were just gathering information.

KING: In other words, they were...

ZAMSKY: They weren't expressing an interest in more Gary than more John or Mary or Sue. You know, it was just -- taking in the information is what they were doing.

KING: Barbara Olson, we've asked this before. Does this it get curiouser? In other words, does it keep mounting on poor Gary?

OLSON: Well, it gets more unanswered questions. I mean, tonight we've now opened even more unanswered questions. It stays that way, and it seems like week by week you would think that you could exclude them. And I disagree with Julian. I don't thin all the evidence is conclusive about Mr. Condit. I think we have a lot of unanswered questions. We wish we had them.

And one thing that stuck in my mind, if I may, is that, you know, Chandra -- we all talk about she left the apartment with just her keys. Is she someone who normally carried a purse? I know there are people who do, who don't, who maybe put things in their pocket. When she came over, did she normally have a purse?

EPSTEIN: Well, you know, Barbara and I -- maybe we don't necessarily disagree. I didn't say that every question had been answered. What I had was that now, 13 weeks into this investigation, a lot of buildup about polygraphs and searches of apartments, and time lines -- everyone said that he couldn't account for all of his time. Now he can.

Every single one of these things has apparently turned out in Mr. Condit's favor. I'm not saying that every question is answered, but what I am saying is this, now three months into this, almost, we still don't have any physical or circumstantial evidence, which, in any way implicates Mr. Condit. So I think that we're veering on the side of this becoming a little bit like, you know, the Richard Jewel. OLSON: Julian, we're counting for his time with people that we have questions about. We have questions about the staff now, because of what happened with their telephone calls. We have questions about his wife, because of a lot of unanswered things and the way she reacted.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: The police have specifically said that they do not have questions for his wife. They don't have anything further for Mrs. Condit. For you to just put that out there as if that's fact, it's so disingenuous.

OLSON: They're not seeking a reinterview...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time.

EPSTEIN: To Lisa and to Barbara, who say that what we're saying is not absolutely correct. I think that, look, there is -- due process applies in the courts, not in the media. First Amendment certainly applies here, but I think that we could borrow some of the due process concepts that apply in the legal system to our public debate about this on television. I think that at some point you have to say...

KING: Remember, Julian...

EPSTEIN: I think a at some point you have to say, Larry, that if people want to continue by innuendo implicating of Mr. Condit, then people should say that there's more evidence, other than the fact that he was simply trying to keep private his...

KING: I've got to get a break.

EPSTEIN: And I don't believe anybody's done that yet.

KING: But as long as he stays quiet, he feeds the frenzy.

OLSON: Correct.

KING: All right, let me get a break and we'll come right back. We'll get more from Linda and Paul. We only have a few minutes left. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Linda, there's no -- we can just empathize of what it's like to have someone missing. The not knowing is the worst, isn't it?

ZAMSKY: Yes.

KING: Paul, for you too?

KATZ: Yes, absolutely. KING: The lack of knowledge is the worst thing?

KATZ: Yes. It would be better to know for a fact one way or the another, so one can reconstruct their life and get on with living, and the process of being contributory to what we do on a daily basis. Bob has been totally incapacitated, as far as his professional life is concerned because of this. And frankly, our lives are just totally consumed with this tragedy right now.

KING: Linda, frankly, what are your thoughts about Gary Condit?

KATZ: What are my thoughts?

KING: No, Linda first, and then you, Paul. What do you think? What do you feel?

ZAMSKY: What do I feel? Oh, I don't want to tell you what I feel. I will tell you what I think -- it's probably a little wiser. I think Gary Condit has not been honest with our family. And I am angry at him for that. I am angry at him for pursuing a 24-year-old young girl, and he should know better.

And if this was his daughter, how would he feel? If this was happening to him, what would he be doing? And I -- and addressing the media as well. He hasn't said one word to the media. And does that make him guilty? Does that make him not guilty? I'm not a judge, I can't tell you that, and I don't have an opinion on that.

But I just ask him the question, call me and tell me, how you would feel if this was your daughter, who's about the same age as Chandra. What would you be doing? What would you expect Congressman whoever, Congressman Linda Katz or Linda Zamsky, what would you expect me to do. Would you want the same behavior he's giving to our family. Would he like that given to his?

KING: Paul, what are your thoughts?

KATZ: My thoughts are from what they were from the beginning. I asked from the time they met the sheriff out there in Modesto County, to the police department in Metro Washington to the FBI agent, I said, how can we, the family, be sure that an investigation would be done in arm's length, that this would be handled as if it were any other ordinary citizen involved?

And, you know, I -- I get comments back about how people would refuse themselves if they thought that their personal relationships with this man would interfere with their job or their process of what they're supposed to do in the positions that they hold.

KING: What do you think about him?

KATZ: What do I think about the congressman?

KING: Gary, yeah?

KATZ: Well, he's obviously a good congressman for his constituents. He's probably done a pretty good job for that district. But as a person, as a human being, he sure falls short of what I would hope, you know, another human being would be, in terms of just expecting -- in respect to other person.

KING: Paul and Linda, thank you very much.

KATZ: OK.

KING: Thank you, Linda.

ZAMSKY: You are welcome.

KING: Stay close. Linda Zamsky and her husband Paul Katz. I believe that that's the first time that Linda has been on the media. I don't think I've heard her voice before.

We'll get comments from each of our panelists in our remaining moments after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: You can now log on to my Web site at cnn.com/larry king for the answer to King's Quiz.

OK, a few minutes left. Barbara Olson, this was quite a night. Any closing comment?

OLSON: As we said earlier, we have more questions than answers. I think that the same thing holds, it would be nice if Gary Condit would come forward and tell us, why, the last time he saw Chandra Levy was questioned about it, supposedly, he didn't remember if they were intimate. Why he talked to Anne Marie Smith and said on May 6th, a week after Chandra disappeared, that he might have to disappear for a while.

All of these things are still unanswered. I would like to know the answers to that. I'd like to know if the police are really trying to have their investigation quiet, and what leads they have? Because this woman didn't disappear in thin air. Someone saw her and there's a reward of over $200,000 now and I hope that someone comes forward.

KING: Mark?

GERAGOS: Well, I think that the only conclusion that you can draw at this point, the police have interviewed him, they brought in the FBI who have done the profile. At this point, all roads lead away from Gary Condit.

KING: All roads lead away.

GERAGOS: All roads lead away from Gary Condit.

ALKSNE: There he goes, smoking those cigarettes with no labels.

GERAGOS: I am telling you, there is no way...they don't have any -- at this point, the police have absolutely no interest in pursuing that. It's just not something that they are interested in.

ALKSNE: I don't think that that's right. I believe strongly what they are doing is taking the investigation to a new phase...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: A phase that they are not telling us about.

ALKSNE: Of course, that's what they should do. And they have completed their search of Rock Creek Park.

KING: Lisa, what do you think?

DEPAULO: Yes, I would like to just correct one of the misstated facts tonight from Julian on the phone records: on Friday afternoon, Dr. and Mrs. Levy made a public statement that they know that the last several calls Chandra received were from Congressman Condit.

EPSTEIN: That's not what I said, Lisa.

(CROSSTALK)

DEPAULO: Let me finish the sentence, Julian, and that is quite different from what Congressman Condit told police that the last he spoke to her was Sunday the 29. That is just one of the many discrepancies that are still out there.

EPSTEIN: Lisa, if you are going to correct me, make it accurate. That's not what I said. What I said was, there had been speculation for many weeks that during the last three weeks that there were flurries of phone calls coming on during that time.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Yes, during the last -- during the last couple of days...

KING: Julian, we are running out of time.

EPSTEIN: Not on the scale...

(CROSSTALK)

DEPAULO: Great.

KING: I promise we haven't heard the last. Lisa's article comes out this week and certainly want to think the couple, Paul and Linda for contributing, staying with us throughout the entire program. We thank our panel.

Tomorrow night, Julie Andrews will be here. I am Larry King in Los Angeles. From all of our guests, good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 

 

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/26/lkl.00.html

 

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

What's the Cost of Standing by Gary Condit?

Aired July 26, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, what's the cost of standing by Gary Condit? Two of his top aides have hired lawyers amid new obstruction allegations.

And after 87 days, still no sign of Chandra Levy. Joining us to debate the day's developments, in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin, former federal prosecutor and best-selling author Barbara Olson. In Los Angeles, Defense attorney Mark Geragos. In New York, former prosecutor Nancy Grace, now with Court TV, and with her, former independent counsel and federal prosecutor as well Michael Zeldin, plus the investigative reporter Lisa DePaulo, who's been digging into the Condit/Levy story for an upcoming issue of "Talk" magazine.

Then, later a heartfelt plea from Pat Boone. He wants you to pray for his desperately injured grandson, Ryan. With him, Ryan's mom, Lindy Boone Michaelis, and another believer in the power of healing, Kenneth Copeland, co-founder and president of The Kenneth Copeland Ministries. All next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Good evening. Later, an extraordinary story where you might be able to help, involving the noted Pat Boone. But right now, we'll get up to date on the Condit matter.

Barbara, what do you make of the two -- the two staff members hiring lawyers today?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, they definitely need lawyers. I mean, from what we have had reported is Joleen McKay, who had an affair with Gary Condit before she became a staffer, came to Washington as a staffer. The affair continued. And then, it's very interesting that Ms. McKay did call the FBI on May 16th. She said what she knew, but she didn't tell Condit or his staffers that she had done that. The staffers call her afterwards, and the statement by the AA, the one we talked about last night, who is always going behind Condit with the glasses, that he tells her not to tell anyone about this or her life will be ruined.

You know, although that's not an implicit -- explicit threat, it's an implicit threat, and I cannot imagine that Gary Condit would allow his staffer to do that. But any of us, which includes me, who's worked on Capitol Hill, knows that staffers don't go out, make phone calls, or get involved without the principal -- that is the member -- knowing.

KING: Mark, was it understandable why they had to hire lawyers?

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: If I were them, I'd hire lawyers. I mean, this is a lawyer's full employment act. I mean, this -- between the pundits and everybody else...

KING: But I mean, does this border on tampering?

GERAGOS: No. I mean, in this -- from this standpoint, from what I understand, this woman actually knows...

KING: Yeah, went to high school with...

GERAGOS: ... Mike Dayton, went to high school with him. And I mean, it's a longstanding relationship with Mike Dayton. So when he says, this could ruin your life, that could be, as Barbara says, that's not an explicit threat. At best...

KING: It's hard to prove in other words.

GERAGOS: There's no way it's a criminal action, but at the same time, you don't want to be in the sights of federal prosecutors.

KING: Lisa, do you know -- did you know about this woman for your upcoming story or is this new?

LISA DEPAULO, "TALK" MAGAZINE: No, I did not. No, I did not. And I think it's so similar to -- this is the verbal equivalent of the affidavit with Anne Marie Smith. And what you're seeing is these patterns that are so consistent with all of these women who are coming forward: patterns in the relationship, in the rules of secrecy, and now patterns in how they're told to be quiet.

KING: Will you update the story to include her?

DEPAULO: Yes, absolutely.

KING: OK. Michael, is this another like nail in a coffin here?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: No, it's not a nail in the coffin for Condit with respect to the disappearance of Chandra Levy. But we've been talking over the past couple of days about why would Gary Condit not speak out, and what I've been saying all along was that there is this possibility of an obstruction of justice investigation. These two staffers now getting counsel and being scrutinized by the U.S. attorney with respect to what they may have said to another person or what they may have done with evidence is an indication that the U.S. attorney is taking seriously this obstruction, which answers the question that we've been asking, which is why are we not hearing from Gary Condit, because there is a live investigation that may threaten him and we have to see how the facts come out.

With respect to one thing that Barbara said, though, I believe that Dayton categorically denied the statement that this other woman said...

KING: Right.

ZELDIN: ... and I thought also as a fact it was she who called Dayton, not Dayton who called her.

KING: All right, Nancy Grace -- this is hypothetical -- if -- if Condit were to say to the aide, call this woman and tell her not to do anything, is he involved in obstruction?

NANCY GRACE, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Absolutely. And I think this could signal the beginning of a movement in the case, because so far all attention has been on Condit. But once you bring in other parties, believe you me, Condit will hang him out to dry if he comes under scrutiny here. You could see a division amongst the ranks. They could use the staffers in some way now. They've got a leverage chit against them. There's a possible obstruction of justice, a possible tampering with a witness there.

So now it would be easier to divide the troops and get the real truth about what's been going on in the Condit camp.

ZELDIN: Well, the only thing about that, of course, is that all of this only relates to a possible allegation of obstruction. It is immaterial in many respects to...

KING: To Chandra.

ZELDIN: ... to missing person Chandra Levy and any sort of murder/invest...

GRACE: We don't know that.

KING: But it...

ZELDIN: Well...

GRACE: We don't know what these people know about...

KING: One at a time. Please, please. Last night, we had a little riot here.

ZELDIN: It just seems...

KING: Hold it, hold it, hold it. One at a time.

OK, Michael, finish and then somebody come in.

ZELDIN: The point is only that Nancy's correct that in a normal investigation, when you can get witnesses talking against each other, it's helpful to the prosecutor. What I'm saying here is that what this is germane to is obstruction. It is immaterial, as far as we know, to Chandra Levy and her disappearance.

KING: All right, but doesn't it, Mark Geragos, doesn't it add to the portrait that has already hurt himself? In other words, the pretty mixture is getting uglier. GERAGOS: It certainly -- I was going to say it certainly doesn't help the media frenzy here. It doesn't help the image that they're trying to create or anything else. But as a practical matter, just legally speaking, this isn't obstruction even if what she said is true, because she's the one who called, and even under the exact words that she uses, that still is not obstruction. The affidavit still is not obstruction. From a pure legal sense there isn't obstruction.

KING: What is -- give me an example of obstruction.

DEPAULO: Yeah, what's obstruction?

GERAGOS: Obstruction would be if they...

KING: What would he have said that would have made it obstruction?

GERAGOS: If he had said, look, if the FBI contacts you and asks you about this, then you don't say anything or you don't...

KING: That's obstruction?

GERAGOS: Classic obstruction, because you have to have a governmental investigation.

KING: Now, Barbara, were you laughing at that, Barbara Olson?

OLSON: Well, as Mark knows, yes, that's the classic, but most prosecutors never get that. People don't call others up and say, I want you to lie. What they call up and say, don't say anything or it'll ruin your life...

GERAGOS: Yeah, but it has to be...

OLSON: ... be careful what you say. It's always the sense of obstruction. And you know what happens...

GERAGOS: Right, but Barbara in this sense it was always in regards to both the affidavit with the other woman, the Smith, and in this case...

OLSON: But...

GERAGOS: ... it was always in terms of the media finding out. You can't obstruct a media publishing. Why is that obstruction of justice?

DEPAULO: It's OK to lie to the media then, right?

OLSON: Mark, what you're overlooking...

GERAGOS: Well, it's not a crime to lie to the media. I mean, that's -- that's...

DEPAULO: But which...

GERAGOS: I know it offends you as a journalist, but it's not a crime.

DEPAULO: But which of Gary Condit's lies are acceptable to you, Mark?

GERAGOS: I -- well -- I'm not saying they're acceptable or unacceptable. What I'm telling you is that it is not a crime to lie to the media.

KING: In other words -- in other words, Lisa, he can lie to you.

GERAGOS: Yes. Lisa, you can be lied to.

OLSON: But Mark, what you're...

DEPAULO: Amazing.

OLSON: ... overlooking is that the lie was not just to the media. If indeed Gary Condit did call Anne Marie Smith, as we were reported, and if indeed he did ask her to sign a false affidavit and tell her in that conversation, this won't come to trial, he's connecting it to this investigation.

GERAGOS: No, he was investigating it to "The Star"...

OLSON: And now...

GERAGOS: ... "The Star" or "The Globe," one of the tabloids...

OLSON: Oh...

KING: OK, we've -- we've passed over that before. Let me get a break, we'll come right back...

OLSON: All the women don't lie.

KING: ... with -- we'll be right back with more. I'm Larry King. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. Now with the statements by Joleen McCay, we learned about another woman -- does it mean, Michael Zeldin, that if there is smoke, there is fire, and there is going to be more fire, and usually if you had relationships with two, there will be three, and then four, and then five, and it's all going to come out in the wash?

ZELDIN: Maybe. It may be in this case that what we are discovering is that Gary Condit was a person who had multiple affairs, and that what he was trying to do in the waning hours of the Chandra Levy investigation was to get rid of all evidence of these affairs. I mean, you can picture the conversations he has had to have with his wife about Chandra Levy -- if there are dozens of others, God knows what that would be like.

And so, I think that there is a possibility of more there, but what you need to distinguish in this case is the possibility that he is a person who was a serial adulterer from a person who is a murderer, and that is the leap that I can't make. And in this case...

KING: But since we haven't heard from him, Michael, all we know is so far the adultery.

ZELDIN: Right. We know about the adultery, we know now perhaps why he can't speak, because of this ongoing investigation for obstruction, but we do know one thing, which is I think that we had to set straight -- which is that this woman called his aide and she -- and he said to her in response to her call to him: "Why not let the past be the past?" That is what she said, and he is denying it.

So, I don't think we really want to go too far out on a limb about the he said/she said part of this conversation.

KING: Nancy, has Abbe Lowell served his client well? I know that Mark Geragos has served him great on these programs, couldn't have a better someone -- spokesman than Mark Geragos. But has Abbe Lowell in your opinion as a lawyer served him well?

GRACE: Well, I think the whole strategy has fallen through, but I don't really blame that on Lowell. We have seen Lowell in the past, and he is an excellent lawyer. But remember, the lawyer is basing his or her opinion on what their client tells them. And very often, you will see the client steering the ship.

So, Lowell is out there as a front man, making the best of it, and then you've got Condit. That wasn't Lowell driving the car that night, I can guarantee you that, out of the dump, miles away from his home, throwing out evidence that may or may not be linked to this case. So, long story short, you've got Abbe Lowell doing his best, being a good soldier, and you've got Condit basically sabotaging from within his own camp.

KING: I know lawyers don't like to criticize other lawyers. Mark, how do you rate Abbe Lowell?

GERAGOS: Abbe Lowell, by all accounts, is an extremely sharp lawyer. I was very impressed with him during the impeachment times when he was there, he was -- he did excellent work and everything else. I mean, I just don't second-guess anybody.

KING: But he went public with the lie detector, and some -- many in the criminal law defense said they would not have done that.

GERAGOS: Well, there is two schools of thought on that, I suppose. One is that if he did pass the lie detector and you already knew it, my practice is at that point is to either tell the prosecutor that you've got it, or to just offer the person up to the prosecutor and say, let him take it.

GRACE: Well, I disagree with you on that. I disagree with you on the lie detector portion, because I do find fault with Abbe Lowell there because he led the police on, he held the carrot before them and said, yes we will agree to a police or an FBI polygraph, the whole time planning a private polygraph to release in time for the 5:00 news. That backfired. That was a bad strategy.

GERAGOS: I had said at the time, as you remember, Nancy, that the problem with that was is that the police felt like they had been betrayed, and that is not something that you want to do. I don't know what the reasons for that were, and I'm not going second-guess it, but yes, I agree with you, that is...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Lisa DePaulo...

GERAGOS: You know, the idea -- the polygraph is worth something. I'm telling you, Barry Colvert a very well-respected guy. If you can pass a Barry Colvert polygraph, I'm telling you it's very...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: ... this a guy who is very, very effective.

KING: Lisa DePaulo, is it a stretch now with these reports, that there are suspicions around Condit's wife? That people are referring to the Scott Turow's famous book "Presumed Innocent," a very similar kind of story if you stretch it that far. Turow wrote an op-ed piece saying it was strange to do that. What do you make of this?

DEPAULO: Given the state of mind Chandra was in at the end, where she had just lost her job, she was really, really wanted him to make a commitment to her, the fact that the wife suddenly comes to town, who never comes to town, I think is real relevant, and I think that is something to really, really look at.

Did she come to town -- what was the reason she came to town? And, you know, the friends of Chandra's that I spoke to believe, you know, she really felt that he was going to make that commitment to her, and they don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that she could have called her.

KING: Barbara, is it a stretch to involve the wife?

OLSON: Well, let's not forget that the wife is his alibi for that evening. You know, a staffer took him home at 7:00, and she is his alibi. And she came back in the town, she was in town to visit with Condit just today. So, this is someone who is with her husband, standing next to her husband, and -- because she is his alibi, sure, they are going to look at her.

They are going to see if she had any problems. Did she know any people that might have gone out and done harm to Chandra? That is all relevant, because the police have to follow everything, absolutely.

KING: Michael, what do you want to say? Michael -- and then Mark who just said "wow," so first, Michael.

GERAGOS: I promised that I wouldn't interrupt.

ZELDIN: We know the reason that she came to town -- at least, the purported reason that she came to town was the congressional wives' luncheon, which was previously scheduled, that Laura Bush was to make an appearance at.

That was the reason that she was in town. We know that she came to town a couple times a year, and that this was not inconsistent with that. Whether she had anything to do with this, no one knows. Is she a relevant witness? Absolutely, because she might know stuff about her husband that we don't know. But I don't think it's responsible to go the Scott Turow route with her.

KING: Is she a relevant witness, Mark?

GERAGOS: You know, they interviewed her. This idea that we have now fashioned a whole kind of theory about her being it and doing the presumed innocent thing, it is so to my mind irresponsible, borderline unconscionable to drag this woman into it.

I mean, talk about -- how would you like to be Carolyn Condit? You've been humiliated now nationally and internationally, and now it's not good enough that you have had that, but now you are accused of being a murder suspect on top of it. At a certain point, what are we going to do, bring the kids into it and start accusing the kids?

KING: But what's causing this is, no one on their side comes forward.

GERAGOS: I mean, I've said before, the media strategy I have problems with, but even mafia, you know, saves the women and children, and I would hope that the media would save the women and children here.

KING: All right, we'll be right back with more. We'll start to include your phone calls. This is LARRY KING LIVE, don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S FATHER: It's pretty tough, but we have a lot of good friends and supporters and good -- good Christians, and Jews, and Muslims, and people of other faiths, and Buddhists, and Sikhs, and Hindus, and some people who believe in other things are really very supportive, and it helps us try to keep faith. We appreciate their support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS")

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Should he resign?

REP. SCOTT MCINNIS (R), COLORADO: Well, in my opinion, he should, yes.

BLITZER: Why? MCINNIS: Well, let me tell you, not so much the situation he may or may not have had with that stewardess, but I think it is unethical, frankly, for a congressman to have a relationship, a sexual relationship with an intern. And I intend tomorrow to go to the Ethics Committee and ask the Ethics Committee to immediately draft a rule to be adopted by the House of Representatives, that makes it very clear that it is unethical for a United States Congressman to have a sexual relationship with an intern.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That was Congressman Scott McInnis of Colorado, who later said he liked Gary Condit a great deal in that same interview.

(LAUGHTER)

Barbara Olson, this is not ideologically politically, is it, because Gary Condit, from all I have learned here in California, was very conservative, there was strong rumors he was going to switch to the Republican Party in 1994. Willie Brown and him have been at odds almost since the time he went into the assembly, so you don't -- from your standpoint, this isn't a political thing, is it?

OLSON: Well, I mean, first of all, let me correct that: Gary Condit was a Blue Dog Democrat, and he was considered one of the more powerful Democrats. He is clearly one that the Republicans would go to when we needed Democrat votes.

That said, though, he was actually, you know, he was under the tutelage of Willie Brown until he tried to take Willie Brown out, and then Willie Brown did what he does best, he put him on the back bench.

But I had to laugh at that comment, because, what happens is we have something in Washington, a scandal, and the first thing that Congress wants to do is pass some rule and regulation, the idea that our Congress needs to pass a rule that you can't have sex with your interns is pathetic! I think, when do we how many rules do we need?

KING: Would you agree with that, Mark? You and Barbara will agree, this is history.

GERAGOS: I know! This is monumental. Barbara and I are both laughing at the same time that this bozo is out there saying, we are going to pass a law that you can't have sex with interns! I mean -- people have lost their minds!

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Hold it! Nancy Grace may -- or Nancy, what do you make of that law?

GRACE: Well, I expect there will be a lot of congressmen out of jobs the next morning, if that is unethical. And notice he didn't want to make it illegal, just unethical, so of course, when they all did it, they get a slap on the wrist.

KING: Lisa, what do you make of that?

DEPAULO: I think they should just pass a law that you can't kill the interns. It is ridiculous, if you go back to these two Mikes and all the stuff coming out today. You have to keep in mind that these -- Mike Dayton and Mike Lynch -- were also the ones in the first few weeks and months out there every day telling reporters that this was absurd, that there was no way there was a relationship with this intern, you know, so, one of the questions I would ask now is, you know, were they being lied to by Gary Condit? Or were they -- you know.

OLSON: Michael Dayton -- at least what Lisa says is very important because, Michael Dayton has been with Gary Condit for a very long time.

DEPAULO: Michael Lynch has. Michael Lynch has been for 30 years and Dayton for 12.

OLSON: But Dayton, certainly, he goes back.

DEPAULO: Right.

OLSON: With Joleen McKay, when she picks Gary Condit up in '92 for a fund-raiser, thought she was going to have dinner with Dayton and Condit and some others after the fund-raiser, who walks out but Condit, they have dinner alone, and Miss McKay says, the affair started shortly afterwards. The procuring of women was another sort of very sad deja vu we had of Bill Clinton with the state troopers. Maybe there needs to be a law that your staff can't procure women for you.

DEPAULO: Yes, they can't pimp for you, that's a great idea.

OLSON: I remember Dayton to say, she was my girlfriend.

KING: We'll come right back and start to include your phone calls, as Geragos shakes his head again. I pray, Barbara, you had him for two minutes and lost him again. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Rochester, New York, hello.

CALLER: Hello. Regarding Condit's interviews with police and possible obstruction of justice charges, our lies of omission are as bad as lies of commission? Thank you.

KING: All right, did you agree with -- you don't agree, Mark.

GERAGOS: No, lie for obstruction or a false statement, you have to make the statement. If you don't make the statement or if you even if you parse it, as we learned through the impeachment process, that is not perjury, that is not false statements.

DEPAULO: Hold on, don't...

KING: You want to respond? Go ahead, Lisa.

DEPAULO: Mark, don't you think congressmen should be held to a higher standard than criminal defense attorneys?

GERAGOS: Wait a second. Criminal defense attorneys, Lisa, are out there -- the last vanguard there before the Constitution gets trampled on. You know, when there are people on death row innocent, who are getting released, that is the defense attorneys. When people get arrested falsely here in Los Angeles by a rampart and get freed, those are defense lawyers, so, let's not talk about the morality of defense lawyers as if there's some kind of a lower threshold.

Prosecutors commit just as much injustice, as anybody in this system.

KING: Lisa?

DEPAULO: What I'm saying, you -- I just think you're going on and on about, you know, these lies are OK and lies of omission is all right. And it's OK to lie to the press...

GERAGOS: You are missing the point, Lisa.

DEPAULO: There's...

GRACE: No, I don't think she's missing the point.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: I'm giving you a legal judgment. The caller asks, is that as bad? If you want to make moral judgment, you can make moral judgments. But we are here to talk about the legal judgments.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Hold on a moment, great.

DEPAULO: Is it --

KING: One at a time.

GRACE: Morally, maybe it is as bad, and Lisa is right, but you are also right legally: you've got to make an affirmative lie before you are held to obstruction of justice. Morally is just as bad.

DEPAULO: Mark, that may be the legal answer, but I think in the throes of a missing woman investigation that is going on for two and a half months that there has to be some moral standards of telling the truth, as well as legal ones.

GERAGOS: Well...

KING: Except the problem would be, Barbara, what do you do with a moral standard if someone breaks it?

OLSON: Well, I mean if someone breaks a moral standard. KING: Yes. If it's not illegal, you can't do anything; right?

OLSON: That is -- as prosecutor.

KING: You can say, it's wrong to lie, ever to lie, but if you lie to the press, that may be wrong, but it ain't illegal.

OLSON: That is right, it is not illegal. However, you don't necessarily -- I'm going to go a little bit way from what Mark was saying -- that you have to actually explicitly have this obstruction. If I say something to you that prevents you from cooperating with an investigation, it is really my intent -- if I know what I'm doing, is to try to get, if I'm the staffer and I'm trying to get Joleen McKay not to come forward, not to cooperate, to impede the investigation of the prosecutors, whatever words I use that affect that, and I know that is what I'm doing, then I am guilty of obstruction. I don't have to say magic words.

GERAGOS: If it has to do with the investigation, if it has to do with it coming out in a tabloid, that is not a crime.

KING: Let Michael Zeldin say something, he hasn't spoken in awhile, Michael.

ZELDIN: Thank you, I -- a couple quick things. First is, there is a difference, as Barbara raises, between obstructing an investigation, and making an affirmative false statement. As a legal matter, they are different, they both can be acted upon legally, and so, the caller's point about lies of omission and lies of commission -- they both can be addressed legally; they're just addressed differently.

And so, if there is, in this case, an affirmative act of interference by Gary Condit or any of his staff, they can be deal with legally. And there is no problem with that; we just have to find the facts before we reach that legal conclusion, and we don't have those facts yet.

KING: We'll be right back with more and more phone calls.

And then Pat Boone, and a tragic story that maybe we can help. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's reintroduce our panel. In Ellison Bay, Wisconsin, the former federal prosecutor, Barbara Olson, founder of the Women's Independent Forum. In Los Angeles, defense attorney Mark Geragos. In New York, Nancy Grace, the host of "Trial Heat" on Court TV, Also in New York, Michael Zeldin, six years a defense attorney, former federal prosecutor, former independent counsel. Also in New York, Lisa Depaulo contributing write for "Talk" magazine. Her article will be out August 3.

Back to the calls, West Palm Beach, Florida, hello. CALLER: Hi, Larry. I find it very peculiar Gary Condit's confidence in denying the affair to both the mother and the police just days into Chandra's disappearance when he could not be sure that that person who could prove him wrong, Chandra could remerge at any time off of an Amtrak train or what have you and prove him wrong.

KING: So, in other words why did he deny it? Do you know, Mark?

GERAGOS: My understanding is, is that there was only one question that he didn't answer in the first interview, and that was having to do with the relationship. And he just declined to answer. That he answered every other question, and that...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The most important question.

GERAGOS: Well I don't know why that is the most important question. It is beyond me because...

DEPAULO: It is because it is the missing woman and that's who he was closest to, that is who she was closest to.

GERAGOS: Except he gave every other piece of information. He had them in the house and he cooperated completely. I understand that you want to make the connection.

GRACE: It is very important statistically because we all know that most murder victims know their killer, and of course, police always start with the husband or boyfriend or lover and there is a reason for that because more often than not they are involved.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: He talked about her, talked about his relationship, he declined to talk about his just didn't he.

KING: New York City, hello.

CALLER: Good evening, my question is if Chandra had sought out advice from a Rabbi, or a medical professional, are they bound by confidentiality reasons and would not able to help let's say the FBI for example in a profiling situation?

KING: Mark? They can't help, right?

GERAGOS: They are normally are not allowed to breech that confidentiality, and there are exceptions to that.

KING: How about the priest that recently kept secret.

GERAGOS: Exactly. There are certain jurisdictions and it depends on the jurisdiction. I can't tell you in D.C. what the law is there. But there are certain jurisdictions where there are exceptions to that.

KING: Where if a crime might be committed you have to come out. Do you know the distinction, Barbara?

OLSON: Well there is a privilege, certainly for a minister, and the person who is doing the confession and if it is going to be used it would have to be waived by the individual, so if there was some confession by somebody they would have to waive it.

KING: The only time I think what Mark was talking about, there is an imminent danger if someone's about to kill someone, there's something imminently that is going to happen, then there is an exception but it does hold in the District of Columbia.

KING: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, hello.

CALLER: Hi, first, if I may, if Dr. and Mrs. Levy are watching I would like to let them know that they are in my prayers. My question is this is an unresolved case, they can't find her, they don't know what happened to her, can the Levy's actually sue Condit and now maybe even his aides for not telling the truth at the very beginning, you know, maybe hurting the investigation?

KING: Michael Zeldin, they could sue for anything, right?

ZELDIN: Right. I'm trying to think quickly whether there is a civil cause of action. Normally you need, like in the O.J. Simpson case, some sort of wrongful death or injury. And in this case, because there is no evidence linking Congressman Condit to her disappearance, and we have no evidence of damage done because of...

GERAGOS: Trust me, Michael, some lawyer here in California would come up intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

KING: Are you knocking that?

GERAGOS: No, I'm telling you, I believe some lawyer could get creative and would come up with a cause of action.

KING: Let Michael finish.

ZELDIN: Mark, that is fine. But we are trying to deal with the reality or the likelihood of success of such a case and I think that in answer to the question of the caller the likelihood is no, not at this juncture in the investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And a jury would disagree with him on that.

KING: OK, we will spend some more moments with our panel and then Pat Boone, and his daughter Lindy and Kenneth Copeland will join us to talk about a major occurrence in Pat's life, and a tragedy that maybe can unfold. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Ellijay, Georgia, one more call, hello.

CALLER: Do you think more members of Congress will come forward and pressure Representative Condit to resign and does the panel think that he should now resign.

KING: Lisa?

DEPAULO: Yes, there is going to be a lot more, because you know what, he was kind of the pet. He was both the Democrat but he was the pet of the Republicans, and now he kind of has no strong allies on both sides.

KING: Should he resign, Barbara?

OLSON: Well, I think the members are going to come forward. I agree with Lisa. I think if he were my congressman, I would want him to resign as a constituent. But I think that is up to his constituents. I can't imagine that they are not feeling uneasy now that the second woman has come forward, basically making Anna Marie Smith much more credible, much less of "star" interview as Mark would like to say.

We now have two women saying the same thing. This guy is an odd person to want to represent your interests in the United States Capitol.

GERAGOS: The idea of making Anna Marie Smith more credible I find incredible so I don't agree with you there.

(CROSSTALK)

DEPAULO: The stories fit.

GERAGOS: I don't think that story fits. I don't think that it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but going back to the caller's question, are more people going to come out? Yes, because, as I've said before, redistricting is taking place in California, it's going to become a political issue, and the one thing they need to do is they need to get that -- they need get that district redistricted, and the Republicans are going to come out in force.

KING: Yeah, but they might get a moderate conservative who is better for the liberals than Condit was.

GERAGOS: Well, you never know.

KING: You never know.

GERAGOS: You never know. It all depends on how it gets redistricted.

KING: You think more people are going to come out, Michael, more congressmen?

ZELDIN: Well, I think it's becoming easier for them to come out. I always think of these guys as doing things which are easy, and it's sort of easy now. He is down, he can be kicked. As to the question of whether he should resign, I'm not sure what he should resign for. If it's interference with the investigation, my point would be: let's wait a little bit and see. If it's for having an affair, I'm all for all congressmen who have ever had an affair to resign, and I think that would give us a lot of open seats.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Nancy, is there difference when it's discovered, you bring disgrace on the office? Should you resign just for that?

GRACE: Well, I think that it's up to his constituents. I imagine they will vote him out, based on the polls we have been seeing and just common sense, but as far as more Congress people coming out against them, the pack mentality will ensue, they will jump on the ship like drowned rats, they will all be screaming for him to resign, when they need to be in Congress working and let his constituents deal with this.

KING: When does the profile take place? Do we know, Mark?

GERAGOS: This week. This week.

KING: Well, we got only -- there is only one day left.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: They have been saying, they have been saying Friday. That is the day that they have been aiming for.

KING: So, that would mean the FBI would meet with him? Does he go to their offices?

GERAGOS: They can do it wherever they want. They can negotiate that he come to their office, they can go wherever they want him to. They could go to a neutral location if they wanted to.

KING: And does that usually take a long time?

GERAGOS: It can take hours. It can take days. It can be a process that can go for weeks, depending on what information is and what they want to use it...

KING: So, we can guarantee we'll see you all Monday! This goes on and on. Thank you all very much. Barbara Olson in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin -- when do you come home, Barbara?

OLSON: Tomorrow morning at 6:30 a.m.

KING: Mark Geragos back here in Los Angeles, our traveling man; Nancy Grace in New York, the former prosecutor; Michael Zeldin in New York, the former independent counsel; and Lisa DePaulo of "Talk" magazine. Her article -- we are all waiting for that! August 3. She has been on the get-go on this story from the start.

When we come back, Pat Boone, his daughter, a minister and a dilemma. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Welcome to LARRY KING LIVE. Famed entertainer Pat Boone, his daughter Lindy Boone Michaelis, and the famed longtime friend of Pat Boone and founder of the Kenneth Copeland ministries, Kenneth Copeland, one of the more familiar figures on American television. We are here tonight to discuss what might be hopefully the power of prayer involving Pat's grandson and Lindy's son Ryan Corbin. What happened, Pat?

PAT BOONE, ENTERTAINER: It was I think the 19th -- let me see -- of June, over five weeks ago now, Ryan and a buddy of his in an apartment complex, they -- three guys from Pepperdine share an apartment, and they went up to get some sun on the flat roof of this apartment complex, there is a skylight. They know it's there, they have walked around it a number of times -- nothing to protect them, but they know it's over the lobby of a three-story atrium, and his buddy Steve was preceding him off the roof after they had gotten some sun, and he heard a crash.

He doesn't know exactly what happened, but Ryan fell through the skylight and hit a couple of rails on the way down to the floor, almost four stories below. The paramedics picked him up. They were there in just a few minutes. My wife Shirley -- one of the buddies called my wife, and she came in right behind the paramedics. They just had taken him into the ER.

They didn't think he had a chance. Shirley said: "I'm his grandmother, how is he?" And one of them looked at her and said: "Don't get your hopes up." And it has been a fight, a nip and tuck struggle ever since.

KING: Where is he now, what hospital?

BOONE: UCLA. But he has confounded the doctors. They call him their miracle boy right now. He is still in a coma after five weeks. There he is now.

KING: Still in a coma?

BOONE: Yeah.

KING: That's him. Now, that is your son, Lindy, right?

LINDY BOONE MICHAELIS, PAT BOONE'S DAUGHTER: Yes.

KING: Yeah. Is he married?

MICHAELIS: He is engaged.

KING: Engaged.

BOONE: November 17 is wedding date. And his fiancee Stephanie has been right at his side the whole time for five weeks.

KING: And the coma is caused by? Fractured skull?

BOONE: And a broken jaw.

MICHAELIS: Just trauma to his whole body. KING: And what's the prognosis? What do they say?

BOONE: They don't know what to say now. He has exceeded -- and this is why we are here to talk about prayer, because he has been bathed in prayer from the first moments, and tens of thousands have been praying for him.

KING: In Israel, everywhere around the world?

BOONE: In Israel at the Wailing Wall, and Nicky Shapiro (ph), our friend, told me that they are going to be praying for him at the synagogue this weekend.

KING: This weekend in Israel.

BOONE: And the prognosis? He is recovering physically. Against all odds, he is recovering physically.

MICHAELIS: His CAT scan shows severe brain damage.

KING: So, if he were to wake up, he will not...

MICHAELIS: No dead -- no dead brain cells...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: So, if he were to wake up, he would be in what kind -- he would have brain damage?

MICHAELIS: Nobody really knows what to expect until he wakes up.

BOONE: Yeah. Yeah.

KING: Now Kenneth, I know you are very involved in prayer. Pat has written books on prayer, you pray every day of your life, right?

REV. KENNETH COPELAND, KENNETH COPELAND MINISTRIES: Yes, I do.

KING: How do you think prayer can work with regard to someone -- I mean, what's the connection?

COPELAND: Well, when -- prayer is a connection with God, but not only with God personally, but the power of God that is present in the earth, which at the same time is present inside a person like Ron, and Pat, and Lindy, and me -- people of prayer.

What I like to call the technology of prayer is from the viewpoint -- you know, it is not God not answering prayer, that is not where people get in trouble. God wants to answer prayer, and has always gone to his people to answer their prayers. The problem has been in a lack of knowledge of how he works, how to pray.

For instance, a 747 or a computer or that television would have worked 200 years ago just as well as it does today, but nobody knew the technology. God had put it here.

KING: How to get in touch.

COPELAND: How to get in touch. That is an excellent way to say it.

KING: Did you -- did you doubt your faith, Pat when this happened?

BOONE: Never.

KING: Did you doubt your faith?

MICHAELIS: Unbelievably, no.

KING: No?

MICHAELIS: I believe faith for me has been a gift from God.

KING: You don't get angry at the skylight, at the fall, at the...

MICHAELIS: I don't see any point. I just opened up my mind and said: "Lord, talk to me, I need you." And I think he has been this whole entire time.

KING: Do you think prayer has kept him alive, Pat?

BOONE: Oh, no question.

KING: No question in your mind?

BOONE: They are calling him the miracle boy because he has exceeded anything they thought was possible. And, Larry, I told you that when Shirley -- it's tough. When she was at the door of the ER, and the paramedic looked at her and said, "don't get your hopes up, lady," the first thing welled up in her is what Ken is talking about. We know God's will, we know God's word.

She said: "He will not die, he will live, and testify to the glory of God."

She said that over and -- that's a scripture. That's from the 118th Psalm. "He will live and not die." That's the 118th Psalm. And of course, Exodus 15 says, "God says, 'I am Jehovah, who heals your diseases." Jehovah Rafah. And we've all said all our lives, the 23rd Psalm: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil. Thou art with me."

KING: You're asking for more than life, though. You're asking him to come out of the coma.

BOONE: Yes, sure.

MICHAELIS: And recovery. I want...

KING: We'll be right back with Pat Boone and Lindy Boone Michaelis and Kenneth Copeland, and they may have some requests of you. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

P. BOONE (singing): Yes, Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That little Ryan, Corbin...

BOONE: About 20 years ago.

KING: Who now lies in UCLA Hospital.

What, Kenneth, are you asking viewers to do? You're not asking to send in money.

COPELAND: No.

KING: What are you asking?

COPELAND: Give blood, maybe. Not just for Ryan, but for the whole blood bank.

KING: But what are you asking people to do? Pray?

COPELAND: When Jesus was on the earth, he said any two of you on earth that shall agree as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my father, which is in heaven. So we're just asking people to pray and believe with us, and stand with us, even those that don't know a whole lot about prayer. If they'll just agree with us, this young man will live and not die, and declare the works of God.

KING: You're asking about prayer chains across the country?

BOONE: Yes, it's a phenomenon, it's a wonderful phenomenon, where various ministers, people, churches -- you call one person, or you call two or three people, and they call two or three people, and they call -- and in a matter of moments, in many cases, there are hundreds, eventually thousands of people praying. We know of several ministries that don't know Ryan, and I hardly know, but they've taken Ryan on as their prayer focus. They're fasting for days. Imagine going without food for somebody you never met. Praying earnestly, sometimes through the night.

KING: These things going on around the world, like in Israel. That's amazing.

BOONE: People praying at the Wailing Wall.

MICHAELIS: We tell Ryan. We go into his room and we tell him, honey, people are praying...

KING: Do you talk to him? MICHAELIS: Absolutely. I sing to him, the scripture is being read.

KING: Have you been there, Kenneth?

COPELAND: No, I haven't been there.

BOONE: He flew in just to be here with us today, and is having to fly right back. That's how important it was. But, yes, we -- last night, Debby and I and Lindy were singing "It is Well with My Soul" at Ryan's bedside.

KING: Very sad, though, Pat. I mean, obviously...

BOONE: Well, I moved -- we're so moved because it hurts to see somebody you love go through this, even though we know, as I say, we're not camped in that valley of the shadow of death. We're going through it. And we might as well tell people right now, he's going to be fine. He's going to recover.

MICHAELIS: We have the best doctors and nurses working with him, and we're so grateful to all the people...

KING: And at UCLA, they are amazed that he's...

MICHAELIS: I just have to mention that they -- yes, they've done everything they can do. And they are amazed.

KING: It's hard for you to deal with things like this.

COPELAND: All the time.

KING: Minister to people.

COPELAND: Well, it would be, if there wasn't why I was born. I mean, that's my life, and this is the reason that I believe God...

KING: But you're around sadness a lot.

COPELAND: Well, I'm around a lot of victory, too, because I see people like this come out of it, and walk and talk, and see God give them back to their families.

BOONE: You've seen some very dramatic things, haven't you?

COPELAND: You asked me if I had seen him. I haven't seen him, but I am talking to him, because there's no time nor distance in the realm of the spirit. And my wife and family and I and our prayer team, we talk to him every day.

KING: I -- when I did the book "Powerful Prayers," and we talked to doctors, who were amazed at some people who lived through prayer. They would have given up on them.

BOONE: Oh, yes.

KING: And it's impossible, of course, for medical science to explain that.

BOONE: Yes. I sat on a bedside over in Henderson, Nevada, where -- I'm just a guy, Larry. I've learned a lot from Ken Copeland and what he's learned. We've known each other a long time. But a woman, a nurse asked me to come pray for her mother who had bone cancer so bad that they couldn't turn her over in bed. And when I sat gingerly on the edge of her bed at their request to pray for her, and I did. I sat gingerly. I was afraid that it was going to make things worse. But I prayed for her and even, I dared pray for her recovery.

A year went by and Lindy and her sisters and Shirley and I were appearing in another hotel in Las Vegas. After the show, they called and said there's a couple nuns here from the hospital, and there's a lady with them. They call her their miracle lady, and she wants to meet you. And they gave her name, and I said, "She's here to see my show?" And they said yes, she's recovered completely.

KING: We're asking you, Lindy, to pray for Ryan Corbin, right?

MICHAELIS: Oh, yes. I want as many prayers going out for him.

KING: Thank you for coming, Kenneth. Good to meet you. Watched you for years.

COPELAND: God bless you.

KING: Lindy, we wish you all the best.

MICHAELIS: Thank you.

KING: And Pat...

BOONE: Thanks, Larry.

KING: What can we say?

BOONE: Well...

KING: His name is Ryan Corbin, he's at UCLA Hospital in California. Thanks for joining us. Bill Maher tomorrow night. "CNN TONIGHT" is next. Good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/25/lkl.00.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

What Does Gary Condit Have to Do With Chandra Levy's Disappearance?

Aired July 25, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, when will Gary Condit talk again and under what conditions? How could an FBI profile of Chandra Levy help in an 86-day-old mystery with no solid clues?

Back for another round of blunt discussion, former federal prosecutor and best-selling author, Barbara Olson. She's in Ellison Bay, Wisconsin.

In New York, former criminal defense attorney, Laura Ingraham, now host of her own syndicated radio show.

In Washington, defense attorney Mark Geragos.

In Seattle, former Clinton impeachment attorney-turned-law- professor, Lis Wiehl.

And back in New York, an investigative reporter who's been on the Levy story from day one, Lisa DePaulo, contributing writer for "Talk" magazine.

Plus later in Miami, the defense attorney for Gary Condit's brother Darrell, Jon Sale. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE!

Good evening. I'm back in L.A. and everybody is everywhere, and we're going to introduce the newest member of our group, and that is Lis Wiehl. She joins us from Seattle. She was deputy chief counsel for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment hearings against Bill Clinton, former federal prosecutor, now professor at University of Washington School of Law. Her expertise is ethics, evidence and criminal law.

So let's start with you, Lis, and introduce you into the rest of the group. What do you make of all of this? Where do you stand? Should Gary Condit come forward? Will the profile help? What's your read?

LIS WIEHL, FORMER CLINTON IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: He should have come forward a long time ago. I think we would have resolved a lot of this mess if he had just come forward, held a two-sentence press conference where he said, yes, I had an affair with her. I'm very sorry for the family. Let's resolve this.

As far as the profile goes, it's hard to say what it can really do at this point, unless he's got new information for the D.C. cops or the FBI. We don't know that.

KING: Barbara Olson, does this get more curiouser or less curiouser, or is it stagnant?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I don't think it's stagnant yet. I mean, the fact that they are negotiating, doing a fourth interview with Gary Condit. What -- and I want to follow up on what Lis said, is by talking to Gary Condit, getting a profile of Chandra, they maybe will get new leads. Obviously, they have hit some dead walls. They've been going through the parks for days now, not finding anything. They have searched everything they can think of.

Maybe, by getting Gary Condit to be really forthcoming, talk about things that only a boyfriend might know, things her mother would know or sister or her aunt, maybe Gary Condit can tell them some things about her that can give them leads and take them off in a direction where they can start finding something. Because it's really hard to believe that no one saw her on May 1st, that she disappeared without a trace. And Gary Condit knows her better than anyone else, at this point, certainly up until the date she disappeared.

KING: Laura Ingraham, should or would the D.C. police be involved in this FBI talks?

LAURA INGRAHAM, FORMER CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think with Gary Condit, it's always half a loaf. I mean, he always comes forward through his spokesman, says that he is going to cooperate, that he wants to help find Chandra Levy, that's his sole goal in all of this. And yet when push comes to shove, he won't just meet with the FBI profiler with D.C. police present. There has to be a condition precedent put on that fact.

And so, you know, again, I think we're back at square one with Gary Condit. He says he'll help, but he'll only go halfway. When it comes to sticking his neck out, legally, for this young woman's disappearance, he won't do it.

KING: Lisa DePaulo, why can't the FBI just say to someone we want to interview you? Why do you negotiate this?

LISA DEPAULO, "TALK" MAGAZINE: Yes, that's what -- I mean, this is amazing to me. Since when do witnesses get to dictate which law enforcement agency interviews them? Especially, you know, when you think of it, the D.C. metro police are under the auspices of Congress. It's really a strange negotiation.

KING: Mark Geragos, one thing strange here, and then we'll all get into the round robin -- and just try, since we're all in different places, not to talk over each other.

Mark, it is...

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I won't take that personally, Larry.

KING: If this were not Gary Condit, if this were John Jones... GERAGOS: If this were John Jones...

KING: Would he be...

GERAGOS: No, he wouldn't be talking. He would not be talking.

KING: He wouldn't be a suspect, he wouldn't be questioned?

GERAGOS: He'd be a suspect. His lawyer would tell him, shut up, you're not going to go see the FBI. The profiler is about the equivalent of somebody who divines jackal tracks with a broken twig. I mean, none of this would be going on, it'd be utter nonsense. The idea that some guy has already turned over his records, that he's talked to them three times, that he's talking about talking to them a fourth time, that he's going to go talk to a profiler, that he is going to let them search the house and he's going to do all of these other things -- none of this happens in the real world! It only happens in this kind of upside-down situation that we've got with Gary Condit. And...

DEPAULO: Who turned it upside-down?

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Now, one at a time.

DEPAULO: Who turned it upside-down?

GERAGOS: Normally there is never a defense lawyer who is ever going to allow his client to go in, to be talked to, when the focus is on him. I mean, it's just not going to happen.

DEPAULO: I agree. You don't...

GERAGOS: When all of America has already judged this guy guilty. I mean, he's presumed guilty in this case.

DEPAULO: But this guy, if he had said everything he had to say in the very beginning, I think we may all have moved on at this point. He's the one that has dragged this out.

GERAGOS: He obviously said to the police, at least the way that it's been leaked, that he has already admitted to having an affair.

DEPAULO: Yes, but that took 67 days.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: And they've said he's been cooperative.

KING: Lis Wiehl, what I meant by the John Jones as opposed to Gary Condit, supposing this happened and it was a John Jones, and John Jones -- I'm asking this of Lis Wiehl in Seattle -- supposing he gets to -- would a John Jones be able to say to the FBI or to the police, lie first and then not lie again and then negotiate with lawyers? Could that all occur with a suspect not well-known? WIEHL: Absolutely. It happens every day. A John Jones, a you or me going in, to talk to the FBI or the police, first of all, we wouldn't have to, and second of all, if our lawyer told us, look, I'm going to negotiate on what you're going to be talked to about, whether you're going to get immunity, whether they are going to be certain things off the table -- Larry, that happens every day with prosecutors, FBI agents, et cetera. It's this case. It's this case, because Condit is stuck between the legal and the moral hard rock. I mean, he's got to...

INGRAHAM: Well, he's also stuck between the political world.

WIEHL: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: He is. He is very different from the everyday, average potential suspect in a case, because as Charlie Stenholm, a blue dog Democrat colleague of his, said today: "His conduct is disgraceful to himself, his family and his constituents." That's the difference here. There's a political reality which overlays this whole legal case.

GERAGOS: Yes, but at the same time, Laura, at the same time, he still has rights. He's still a citizen of the United States of America.

INGRAHAM: Of course he does.

GERAGOS: He is presumed innocent.

INGRAHAM: We're talking, Mark, about how he is different from the average person.

GERAGOS: I understand. But in a criminal investigation, which obviously, this is, this guy still has rights. He shouldn't be presumed guilty.

KING: And, Barbara, doesn't he harm himself? We keep harping on this -- harm himself by not coming forward publicly?

OLSON: Well, of course he does. Politically he harms himself. But understand, what Mark is saying is what every good defense attorney would tell their client. But Gary Condit is a politician. Politically, he's already harmed himself. Most of his constituents are now saying that they wouldn't re-elect him if he were running again, which he is going to be up.

GERAGOS: Which is exactly -- then he pays the price! He pays the price, Barbara, politically. But legally, this idea of pushing this guy to give up every single right, when every -- I have never seen anything like the absolute unabashed assuredness that everybody has that this guy is guilty.

OLSON: He's not giving up every right, and you know that.

GERAGOS: He is. He's given up his Fourth Amendment rights by search, he's giving up his Fifth Amendment rights to speak and he's basically giving up his Sixth Amendment rights to counsel in order to have a profiler talk to him.

OLSON: If Gary Condit wants to take the Fifth. He is now doing all of his...

GERAGOS: Right, and he could pay a political price for that.

OLSON: ... interviews voluntarily. And that is exactly why he's not under subpoena.

KING: I've got to get a break. We'll be right back right after these words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: And what it is he feels he has a need to hide, we don't know. But beyond that, I cannot say that he is either a suspect, or has more information. We simply don't know. The police have not been able to move forward to interview other potential witnesses, because Congressman Condit was slow in being candid with the authorities.

The police will not move on from a witness or somebody who may have information until they are convinced that that person has provided all the information that he or she may have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Laura Ingraham of Westwood One Radio, what's the value of a Chandra profile?

INGRAHAM: I think the authorities at this point, Larry, are trying to you know, grasp on to anything that they can. They are trying to figure out, is this a woman who typically would exercise alone? Is this a woman who would answer the door to someone she didn't know? Is this a woman who, if Congressman Condit's associate would call her, and say, come downstairs, the congressman wants to meet you, would she do that? Was she that open to those kinds of encounters?

I think all of these little tidbits are things that the police and the authorities need to know. I'm kind of surprised that these things weren't thought of 10 weeks ago, 11 weeks ago, why are we just getting around to this right now?

GERAGOS: Because they are desperate. They obviously have hit a wall. When they bring in a profiler you are only one step removed from a psychic, and that is what's going to happen next.

KING: Are you comparing a profiler to a psychic?

GERAGOS: The profiler is -- is not a science. This isn't something you are able to get in admissible. It is a first cousin of a psychic.

KING: Really?

GERAGOS: This is not something that, this is something that is borne out of desperation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm sure the FBI is glad to hear that.

GERAGOS: It's not the first time the FBI has been desperate or...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm sure it's not the first time they have heard it from a defense attorney, either.

GERAGOS: That's true.

KING: We are going to change the name of this show to making friends with Mark Geragos, the Dale Carnegie of our program.

Lisa DePaulo, last night we had an extraordinary call from a young lady who lives in Chandra's building and she said that Chandra was extraordinarily to herself, not around with people, or didn't see her much, never talked to her while living in the same building, et cetera.

Does that back up with what you are going to have in your article on August 3?

DEPAULO: Yes and no. Chandra is a very private person. But the friends she had she was very, very close to. She had a couple very good male friends, platonic male friends, but you have to realize, interns come to Washington, they really don't know a lot of people. And she was dating a married man who had these crazy rules of secrecy.

So she probably wasn't, you know, flaunting him in the lobby.

KING: Lisa, Lis Wiehl, rather, in Seattle. People are asking, they ask me this all the time, I'm sure everyone hears it, and it's the old axiom, if Gary Condit had nothing do with this disappearance, forget everything else he may have had with other women and all that, why didn't he come forward?

What does he have to lose if he didn't have anything to do with this? WIEHL: And maybe if he had come forward sooner that would have been an easy answer but now with all of this other stuff coming out, and him sort of imploding, you know, running out and throwing out watch cases, for example, in the middle of the night, it is really hard for him to do that.

I do think, though, the police are showing signs of moving on. I mean now they are finally going to go and you know, look up those registered sexual offenders that are in those very neighborhoods. And maybe look into those other cases of missing women in those neighborhoods. My question -- why haven't they done that before? Why haven't they been, you know, stalking the neighbors, basically, to get information? KING: Barbara Olson, does this give cause -- the reason people are thinking that Condit is involved is because he isn't helping their thinking any, right?

OLSON: Absolutely. I mean we sit there and watched Gary Condit's staff come out immediately and say that he and Chandra were good friends, there was no relationship. We sort of have been able to watch him disassemble his relationship with her.

And you know, your previous question about Gary Condit, there is two reasons he is acting the way he is. One, he is guilty. And which he has handled this fairly well, because he hasn't been charged. Or, two, he thought more of himself and hiding his relationship than he did of this girl. Both are very revealing about the man, and tell us sort of the inside of who Gary Condit is that is not very pretty.

KING: The first reason is the big story, the second reason is a quasi-story.

DEPAULO: It's the political story. It's the politics, a man who thinks of his career and his politics, and not letting his wife know, although at this point one would think she probably does.

KING: Is he, therefore, Mark, between a rock and hard place?

GERAGOS: Of course he's between a rock and hard place. No guy is going to get into a position where he is going to volunteer that kind of information initially. And you know, the idea that Barbara says either he is guilty or it is something else and we can discern his character from this and everything else, I mean that is an awful reach, I think, and an awful way to condemn somebody, based upon somebody who basically, froze when he shouldn't have froze. And unfortunately, he did.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Froze?

GERAGOS: Yes, he froze, and that's what happened.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good grief.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time, one at a time.

GERAGOS: This is a guy who did, whether anybody wants to accept it or not, he did go to the police, he was the one who initiated at the Levy's request, the police getting involved. He was adamant that they get involved. He has cooperated, you know, because he hasn't gone on to the press he's taken a big hit because of that.

INGRAHAM: Mark, you spend too much time in L.A. Mark, how do you come to these conclusions?

GERAGOS: I am in Washington, D.C. and I have seen what's happened out here in Washington, D.C., and it's unbelievable.

INGRAHAM: Exactly.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time. One at a time, please.

GERAGOS: Laura, you have suspended the Constitution here and that's just a horrible thing to happen.

KING: All right, Laura, go ahead -- Laura.

INGRAHAM: Can I speak now, Larry?

KING: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Is that possible? Great, let's look at this just objectively for a second, and again, assume he is innocent. We are going to assume he is innocent. Why did he wait four or five days before he decided that this was important enough, this young woman's whereabouts was important enough to actually have a conversation with her parents, and actually go to the police? They talked several times a day, they talked several times a day.

GERAGOS: Can I answer that.

INGRAHAM: The talked several times a day. If someone talks several times...

GERAGOS: Can I answer that? The talked several times a day and he left to go to Modesto...

INGRAHAM: I can't finish a sentence. I can't, I can't...

GERAGOS: I was going to answer it for her.

KING: Mark, you got to let her finish. She is making a point.

GERAGOS: Well, when she puts out that misinformation it is a little disturbing.

KING: All right.

INGRAHAM: OK. this idea that he has been the model of cooperation in this case is so preposterous, and it is the kind of obfuscation that the American public is tired of hearing from the defense bar, frankly. And the idea that a man could step forward...

GERAGOS: Well, I'll tell you, as a former defense lawyer...

KING: Mark, let her finish.

GERAGOS: But she should be ashamed of herself. This guy, if he is the focus of the investigation, has an absolute right not to say anything, and he hasn't. INGRAHAM: I didn't say that he didn't, Mark. What I'm saying is that he doesn't have the right to try to come off as a man who is the model of cooperation, and someone who cares deeply about this young woman's whereabouts. He cared about himself!

KING: Let me get a break. We will come back, we will continue with our panel, and please try not to talk over each other and we will bring in John Sale who is the attorney for Darrell Condit. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S MOTHER: There is nothing new but we just want to keep the search intense, and we want to bring my daughter home. This has gone on for 11 weeks, but we feel that there are people out there who might know something, maybe sitting on information that could be helpful, and that they would have the character and the courage enough to come forward and help us bring our daughter back safely to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Our panel remains with us. We are joined now from a Miami by John Sale, he is the attorney for Darrell Condit, and long a veteran criminal attorney in South Florida.

We understand that Gary's brother Darrell has been transferred now from Broward County to Monroe County. Is that where he is?

JON SALE, DARRELL CONDIT ATTORNEY: Yes, Larry.

He was transferred in record time, the Broward County Jail apparently wanted him out of there as soon as possible, three days and he was gone.

KING: And he will be arraigned where? Early August in Monroe to face probation violation. Is that the charge?

SALE: Yeah. He was brought to Monroe County and they took him to the first available judge, that judge said that, well, I understand you have a bond application to lower the bond, but I didn't set the bond, so I'm going to defer to another judge. Now it's been put over on August 7, for his arraignment.

KING: This is all about him doing what?

SALE: The allegation is based upon a 1996 DUI that he was then put on probation, it is alleged he failed to provide a urinalysis, and pay some nominal court costs, and to file a report. It is 3 or 4 years old, and that is -- as of last Saturday that was the only outstanding charge against him.

KING: Will you represent him in Monroe?

SALE: Well, I'm getting some assistance because he doesn't have the kind of resources to transport us to Monroe County. But what I'm hoping and what I'm urging everybody is, treat him in Monroe County like you would anyone else, who is charged with that type of an offense, if that is the case, he will be out of jail and he will be forgotten very quickly.

KING: Has his brother contacted him?

SALE: No. He has not. And that has...

KING: A lot of people wonder about that. Do you, Jon, just as an observer?

SALE: No, that is a good question. Let me explain something. I think the members of the panel would. So that I'm candid with you that, in ordinary practice once there is some kind of investigation in their scrutiny, all lawyers are going to say, folks involved should avoid contact.

But that would be legal advice, but in this case, the significance is not that. It is that their particular relationship is such that they haven't spoken to each other in more than a year, and so that happens to be their relationship. So that is what's key. They didn't speak around the time of Chandra Levy's disappearance and they haven't spoken for over a year since then.

KING: Has he had any contract with the other brother, Burl, the police officer in Modesto?

SALE: Frankly, that I don't know, Larry.

KING: What about -- what about the police of Washington or the FBI? Is anyone interested in talking with Darrell about this current mess involving Gary?

SALE: I don't know if they're interested. But as of Monday, I was sure they were going to contact me, and I was going to arrange for them to talk to him to their heart's content. They have not. And I'm starting -- at first I was puzzled, now I'm beginning to have a theory.

KING: Which is?

SALE: My theory -- and that is all it is -- is that maybe they have done their homework, and they have learned that he has absolutely no involvement, no knowledge, and it is an embarrassment that this situation has been caused and he is now paying the price for it.

KING: Jon, you remain with us, we will come right back. Jon will stay with the panel. The panel may have questions of Jon, he will remain, and we will be back with more, we'll also be including your phone calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We'll be going to calls in a while and reintroduce the entire panel in a little while and Jon Sale will remain with us. Before we invite you into the panel, Jon, what is Darrell's state of mind regarding this whole situation? His brother being on the front page of the newspapers?

SALE: He is puzzled. He is traumatized. Let me tell you, that on this minor charge he has been held in solitary confinement and with lights glaring 24 hours day.

KING: Why?

SALE: For his own safety. There has been some concern and I don't blame them, that possibly some crazy person -- inmate, might have seen this terrible picture in the tabloids and think incorrectly by innuendo he did something wrong, and they want to protect him. They don't want the liability, and this is what he is going through.

KING: Barbara Olson, is he in a weird spot?

OLSON: Well, he is. He is the brother of -- Darrell Condit is the brother of Congressman Condit. He was on the lam when this all broke. Now we find out supposedly that he had spoken to his brother for a year. And so it makes it look a little more intriguing when you have someone who is on the other side of the law that is very close to Congressman Condit, and who possibly could have something to add for a missing person.

According to what his lawyer says, what Jon says, he doesn't know anything, but I think there are questions -- very interesting to ask of him. And similarly to ask of his attorney.

KING: Lisa, are you surprised that the police and the FBI have not questioned Darrell?

DEPAULO: Well, I'm surprised about a couple things. First of all, you keep focusing on the DUI, but you know, this guy has a rap sheet dating back to 1968, all kings of things: burglary, auto theft, there is a lot of drug charges. So you really can't overlook that.

I heard Mr. Sales say earlier today that, you know, he would have talked to the police before and it's kind of curious that he had an alias, if he was so willing to be cooperative. I think there are a lot of questions about Darrell. It doesn't make sense to me that you could see your brother on the front page for two and a half months and not call him.

KING: Lis Wiehl, what do you make of the Darrell involvement? And then we will have Jon respond when we get to comments.

WIEHL: What I'm really curious about, Jon's theory, says the police may have done their homework, so what I'm wondering is, does he think that they have looked up his client's phone records and bank records? To show there was no conduct with his brother in Washington, D.C., and if so, if that is what he thinks and that is why he thinks he is not getting the phone call from them, is he willing to divulge that information to the media?

KING: Jon?

SALE: Well, that is a fair question and the answer is, I'm not going to grandstand to the media. I have -- I will right now invite any legitimate law enforcement agency to contact me, and I will make my client available, and we will provide, the truthful information which will satisfy them at that point I will be happy to releasing everything. .

WIEHL: Do you know whether or not they have -- do you know whether or not they have done -- they have subpoenaed his bank records and phone records, to be able to tell whether or not is saying there is a communication, so you don't know whether they have done that or not?

SALE: No, no, I have no idea what they have done, and I'm not now in this case, I'm not going to vouch for what's in the press, but yesterday's "Miami Herald" -- I have it right here, I'm not going to hold it up. But there is a headline in a story that says, FBI Says Condit's Brother Not a Priority.

And it quotes an FBI spokesman, names the spokesman in saying, we are not particularly interested in speaking to him.

WIEHL: I understand that you think they have done their homework, what is the homework they would have done? To me, as a prosecutor, I would have gone and I would have gotten the bank records, the phone records, any kind of records I could show that to either prove or disprove what your client is saying.

SALE: I agree with you. I agree with you, I was a federal prosecutor for 10 years, I would have done the same thing, I don't know what they have done, I'm saying that if they want to contact us, we will -- I'm not saying he would have been cooperating. I will make him available, answer all their questions, no obfuscation, as one member of the panel said, and we will satisfy them, and then you all.

KING: I'm going to take a break, and when we come back we'll have Laura's comments and Mark's comments, about Jon Sale. Jon will remain with us, we'll get Jon's thoughts away from Darrell about this whole story, and we will be taking your phone calls.

Don't forget, it's time to log on to my King's Quiz, cnn.com/larryking.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's reintroduce our panel. In Ellison Bay, Wisconsin is Barbara Olson, former federal prosecutor and founder of the Women's Independent Forum.

In New York is Laura Ingraham, former criminal defense attorney and Westwood One syndicated radio talk show host.

In Washington is Mark Geragos, defense attorney. His clients include Roger Clinton and Susan McDougal.

In Seattle is Lis Wiehl, deputy chief counsel for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and professor at University of Washington School of Law.

In New York, Lisa DePaulo, contributing writer for "Talk" Magazine. She's been on this case from the get-go, has a big article coming out August 3.

And in Miami is Jon Sale. Jon is the attorney for Darrell Condit, the brother of Gary Condit.

And now I want to get Laura Ingraham's thoughts on what Jon had to say -- Laura.

INGRAHAM: First of all, what is it with problematic brothers? I think Mark Geragos knows a lot about that. We have Roger Clinton, Billy Carter, even the Bushes had some problematic times with their brothers.

But the interesting thing might be with Darrell, does he have any knowledge of a pattern or practice of, you know, deviant conduct of his brother, whether it is extramarital or otherwise? Is there information, that he has just about the congressman's personality, his likes, dislikes, his conduct with women?

Those kinds of things, all are pieces of the puzzle, not only a profile of Chandra Levy is needed here, but a profile of the conduct of Gary Condit.

KING: So, Jon, we will then ask it this way: if you were still a prosecutor, would you want to ask questions of Darrell, for more information?

SALE: If I were a prosecutor, I would want to question anybody who might have any relevant information.

KING: OK, now we will -- Mark, your comments on what Jon had to say and then we will go with...

GERAGOS: I have actually got a question for Jon, if I could.

KING: Sure, absolutely.

GERAGOS: Jon, do I understand this correctly that this guy is being held in solitary confinement in jail, without bail for a misdemeanor probation violation that is five years old?

SALE: He was in Broward County. The solitary was for his own protection.

GERAGOS: OK.

SALE: The misdemeanor probation violation, not without bail, but was on $50,000 bail which, to somebody who is of limited means, that is the same thing as without bail.

GERAGOS: That's tantamount to no bail, so they've got him -- when is his bail review? SALE: Well, as of -- as of now -- this can change, but as of now, August 7. What I can tell you is that there are dozens and dozens of other cases like that in the system every day, and routinely disposed of, time served, something like that.

GERAGOS: Right. I was going to ask, Jon: don't you find that just to be a little bit unusual, from what normally goes on in the criminal justice system?

SALE: It's appalling. And that's why we are representing him. It's a gross injustice.

GERAGOS: Yeah. And you believe he is being singled out because of who he is, right?

SALE: The Broward Sheriffs office said it is the media hype that caused us to go out searching for him.

KING: Jon, I want to get -- someone want to ask something -- or who wanted -- I hear a voice...

GERAGOS: It sounds like Laura yelping.

OLSON: I was going to ask a question. It's Barbara. I want to ask Jon a question. You know, we keep hearing Darrell hasn't spoken to his brother, and are you telling us that he hasn't had any communication even through third persons, with Gary Condit over the past year?

SALE: Yes, I'm not playing games. I'm telling you that their relationship is such that they have had no contact. The last time they had any contact happened to have been when my client was in California, close to two years ago.

OLSON: And does your client know any people that might do criminal acts for hire?

SALE: Oh, my God. I take that...

GERAGOS: Jon!

(LAUGHTER)

SALE: I will take that -- I will take that in the spirit that that is not serious. You know, let me say it is fair game to point out that he had a troubled past. But it was when he was younger, he has not had any problem with the law until last Saturday, prior to -- since the early '90s.

KING: Jon, before you leave us, what's your thought on this whole thing? Regardless of Darrell?

SALE: Very quickly, my thought is, first, I'm hesitant to give it, because I'm not part of Congressman Condit's PR effort...

KING: Just as an onlooker. SALE: As an onlooker, I'm very concerned about all of the innuendo, and I'm more interested in hard evidence, and I can't separate that from the innuendo because I'm biased from what I have seen happen to Darrell.

KING: Yes, I got you. Thanks very much, Jon, for being with us. Jon Sale in Miami, we will call on you again.

Let's get a call for the panel. Atlanta, hello.

CALLER: Hi, my question goes to the point of the profiling they want to do now with Gary Condit. And previously the media divulged how close Chandra was to her aunt, even letting her know her aunt, letting her know her aunt about the relationship that she had, and the seriousness of it. I believe it was even discussed that she told her aunt that she thought that they might get married. Why are they not looking to the aunt or other relationships, that Chandra might have had in her life, for a profile or for more information? The focus keeps being talked about towards Gary Condit. And I'm thinking that somebody else in her life had to have known her better or just as much as Gary.

KING: Lisa, where has the aunt gone?

DEPAULO: I think the answer is that all these other people have already talked at length about all this with the police. I have talked to lots of people who have been interviewed over and over and over, some of them are bullied. They are, you know -- but it is extensive, it is complete and thorough. And I think the reason it is time for him is because he hasn't answered everything.

KING: But the aunt -- everything she had to say has been said, there is no further questioning of her?

DEPAULO: Yeah, she has been talking to numerous investigators from day one.

KING: She has.

DEPAULO: Yes.

KING: Is she prominent in your article?

DEPAULO: Yes. She had a very important point.

KING: We'll be right back with more, and more phone calls.

Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: Why is he acting so suspiciously? I don't know why he may have, if the reports are true, that he may have tried to deposit this watch just prior to the search being conducted by the FBI, occurring. But it is suspicious activity, in his conduct creates this cloud of suspicion, not anything that we accused him of doing or anything that others may feel that he -- information he may know. It is his activities that are just suspicious.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's include some other calls. Hartford, Connecticut, hello.

CALLER: Hello. I'm wondering, having listened to all the panelists, obviously everyone thinks that Gary Condit is the main suspect, but why is it that no one has considered that maybe there is a conspiracy against Gary Condit -- political or otherwise? And there may be someone who has such a grudge against him that they or a group of people could have abducted this woman.

It could be political or otherwise, but this question has never come up. It just seems that apart from Mark, everyone is ready to -- I am going to use the word "hang" -- Gary. And it could be that this is a conspiracy, it could be a political one or otherwise, but you get my drift.

KING: I do, but Lis, wouldn't the answer be then for him to come forward?

WIEHL: Well.

KING: I mean let's take that -- anything goes today. You read it in any fiction. The wife did it, the uncle did it, the husband did, the brother did it. Could it be a conspiracy against Gary?

WIEHL: We don't know, I mean it is possible. Anything is possible. And I think the caller is right, we shouldn't be ready to "hang" Condit. I mean, yes, it is true, he has not been a model of cooperation as Barbara said. I don't think anybody is saying that he was. His lawyer didn't even get involved until after he had already kind of stepped in it, and is trying to educate his client as he goes along.

But just because he wasn't a model of cooperation at the beginning and now is trying to be, doesn't mean we should hang the guy.

KING: But Lisa, we are, in a sense, hanging him, aren't we, Lisa? By we I mean a collective "we."

DEPAULO: From the very beginning I thought it was one two of things, either he was complicit in his disappearance or he had absolutely nothing to do with it. He is the most unlucky philanderer on Capitol Hill. Now I think there might be a third possibility, which is, this guy really is acting like he has major secrets to hide. Now they may or may not have anything to do with the investigation, but wow, you know, he has gone to real lengths here that are above and beyond what most married men do.

You know, he may have some dark side, darker, darker, than we know already. And that will not fly in Modesto.

KING: Laura Ingraham, is there something -- ring wrong?

INGRAHAM: Well, you know, it seems like there are probably more people that know very, very intimate details about what the real relationship was between Gary Condit and Chandra Levy, the kinds of things they did together, you know, whether or not they really did ever talk about getting married, whether it was a total fantasy in her mind, or whether he give her reason to believe that. Was there ever anger between the two? Did Gary Condit tell no one at all, no one about this? I -- that is, that is kind of -- inhuman to think he actually would have that kind of fortitude.

DEPAULO: She didn't mean enough to him to tell people (OFF-MIKE) .

INGRAHAM: And did she not talk to anyone other than her aunt? I just, it seems impossible that nobody on Gary Condit's staff, nobody on his staff, you see that guy trailing him every day, that kid with the glasses, I can't remember his name, and you see him every day, right behind the congressman.

And I know staffers on Capitol Hill. They know a lot more about their bosses than their bosses think. They think they are untouchable, but their staffers know.

(CROSSTALK)

WIEHL: Why is that necessarily relevant?

GERAGOS: It isn't to all of this.

WIEHL: Go after Condit, get everything you can from him but look at other leads.

GERAGOS: It isn't relevant and they, you know, the caller...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Of course they are looking at other leads.

WIEHL: No, but they haven't.

KING: One at a time. Mark hasn't been in a while -- Mark.

GERAGOS: Larry, the caller makes an excellent point. This thing has been used by the Republicans, by the Blue Dog Democrats, they have taken full advantage of this thing.

INGRAHAM: Oh, give me a break, Mark!

GERAGOS: Well, Laura, you are chief amongst them.

INGRAHAM: How surprising, a defender of the Clintons using the politics of personal destruction, That's really a shocker.

GERAGOS: Excuse me, excuse me.

INGRAHAM: How many times have I referred to him as a Democrat, Mark? How many times have I referred to him as Democrat? How many times have I referred to him as a Democrat? You can't answer the question.

GERAGOS: On at least five or six occasions that I have been with you.

INGRAHAM: Zero, zero, zero.

GERAGOS: On at least five or six occasions, maybe 10.

INGRAHAM: OK, all right.

KING: Youngstown, Ohio, hello.

CALLER: My question is, since Gary Condit has been kind of deceptive from the beginning, especially with the affair, how accurate is this FBI profiling going to be? I'm sure he is being coached by Abbe Lowell on how to answer questions and how to give comments, so how do we know if what he is going to say to the FBI will not possibly lead them in the wrong way?

KING: Wouldn't in a profile situation, Barbara, where you are presumably trying to help, that you would tell them everything you know about her?

OLSON: Absolutely. I mean, Abbe Lowell is not telling him the answers. As Mark will say, a defense attorney is not allowed to do that. Obviously, Abbe Lowell is going through those questions with him, but I think what are they going to find out, you know, people talked about there could be other boyfriends and things, well Gary Condit might know was there someone who was causing her problems? Did she have any enemies?

Those are kinds of intimate things that she may have discussed with Gary that she wouldn't have even talked with her mother or her aunt about. There is a lot of information about Chandra that you speak to someone, that you are in love with, that you wouldn't anyone else.

KING: Well, said. Mark, isn't that a good point? He could have information that could help them find the culprit.

GERAGOS: And presumably, during those three interviews he answered those questions. Presumably the reason that...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, obviously not.

GERAGOS: Why do you say obviously not?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. 4 is coming up!

GERAGOS: They are now bringing in a profiler which is something totally different than what interviews are. So they have reached a dead end. So why do you just keep saying, he obviously didn't?

OLSON: They don't keep reinterviewing someone of they get information -- well as a good defense attorney you have to say that.

GERAGOS: They have reinterviewed people in this case repeatedly, not just Gary Condit. They reinterviewed as Lisa mentioned, a number of these witnesses on numerous occasions whenever they collect evidence.

KING: Let me get a break. We'll be right back with more -- hold it -- we'll be right back with more, Ingraham and Geragos go ten rounds on the Roy Jones bill on Saturday night at Staples -- undercard. We will be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: The focus ought to be on finding this young woman. Gary is cooperating with the police in every possible way. That is what he should be doing. As to his future, like all of us, that is between him and his constituents. They make the decision on who serves here. They make the decision on whether or not we continue to serve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Jackson, Mississippi, hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Mr. King.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: My question is for ladies on the panel.

KING: OK.

CALLER: It seems that the representative is trying to hide something. Has a time line been done on his wife?

KING: Do we know, Laura, do we have an idea if a time line has been done on the whereabouts and actions of Mrs. Condit?

INGRAHAM: I don't know for fact, but I do know the authorities have interviewed her after a little difficulty getting in touch with her, a little difficulty in actually being able to sit down with her. But we do know she had planned to be in D.C. during that weekend, and according to reports, she spent that night alone with her husband on May 1, the night after he spent his afternoon in office, after his meeting with Dick Cheney, and they spent a quiet evening at home alone together. So that seems to be what the official line is on the evening of May 1. DEPAULO: I think what Carolyn Condit was doing in town is a really key question. Apparently she did attend this one lunch with Laura Bush as some people believed. It was with 2,000 women at the Washington Hilton. It was not the kind of thing you fly across the country for. I think that is -- that is certainly the first question I would want to know.

KING: Birmingham -- sorry.

WIEHL: Why wouldn't she fly across the country for that and to see her husband. She sat down with the police, I'm sure -- I don't know for sure, but I would think that they have come up with their own timeline. They have asked her all the questions that they wanted to ask.

KING: Birmingham, Alabama, hello.

CALLER: Can law enforcement authorities request that all of Condit's bank records be subpoenaed for the fact that (a) possibly he paid -- God willing -- Chandra Levy to disappear, because she threatened to go public with affair or (b) he could have paid someone who is actually involved in her disappearance?

KING: Mark, can they take bank records?

GERAGOS: They can take the bank records but in this case he has already offered them up, and has said that he will turn over whatever records he wants. They can get the bank records either by issuing a grand jury subpoena for the records, or they can go in and take them by consent which is what they did in this case.

KING: And they can get all phone records the same way?

GERAGOS: they can get phone records the exact same way. In fact, they can get phone records pretty fast, usually, if you've got consent from the subscriber.

INGRAHAM: One thing that might be interesting to find out, Larry, is whether or not Congressman Condit was phoning Chandra in the days following her disappearance, before he had actually gone to police. Was he making phone calls to check in, that is odd, I haven't heard from her in a day. Haven't heard from her in two days, haven't heard from her in three days. Did he call to check up on her, and if not, why?

DEPAULO: Right. That is a great point.

KING: All right, we will go to break and as we go to break before we come back for our final minutes, here is some recent sound just captured, statements by Mrs. Levy. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

S. LEVY: We are perplexed, but we don't give up and quit. We are hunted down, but God never abandons us. We get knocked down but we get up again and keep going. ROBERT LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S FATHER: It's from Corinthians 4, 8 to 9.

S. LEVY: And we are not giving up our hope and faith in our prayers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: You can log on to my Web site at CNN.com/larryking for the answer to "King's Quiz." One more call. Grand Rapids, Michigan, hello.

CALLER: Hi, thanks, Larry. I understand that Gary Condit qualifies for his pension in 2003. So guilty or not, how does this work? Could this be what he stands to lose? Maybe this is why he is stonewalling. If he resigns, does he still get it, et cetera?

KING: What's the pension story? Do you know, Barbara?

OLSON: No. I don't. But I do know once it kicks in, that it stays with them and if your caller is right, that he qualifies in 2003, that would certainly weigh against.

And of course, there is also the problem of, you know, does the party really want him to resign? I mean clearly there is as Mark was saying, there are some Blue Dog Democrats not happy, but does a party really want a special election happening in a conservative area -- Especially one with a House so close? I don't think so.

GERAGOS: You have to, Larry, you have to understand also that redistricting takes place this year, in California, and that is a crucial area there, because it has ramifications for the congressional seats surrounding it as well.

KING: Laura Ingraham, do you see a dip in this story?

INGRAHAM: I think we are seeing it. Notwithstanding this show which is phenomenal, tonight, by the way, just a phenomenal show. No, I think, I think -- I think things are beginning to wear themselves out here.

I'm not sure what else I have to say about this case, frankly, but when the details begin to slowly, slowly, slowly winnow down to one or two a day, I think this case, as I said a week ago, is going to be like a big wildfire and will eventually blow itself out. It will have nothing else to burn.

KING: Laura may I assure you, you are never dull.

OLSON: But Laura, you know what's new? There's a $205,000 reward now. And that tends to bring out people, none of us like to talk about it, but money will cause people to tell on other people, so that may change things.

KING: Lis, do you think... INGRAHAM: I want to know where the staffers are, where the Condit staffers are. Why aren't they coming out and saying anything, and why are there no resignations?

DEPAULO: Because they are being investigated. Now they are being investigated. They are looking at two staffers.

INGRAHAM: Why not resign? Why is nobody resigning?

KING: Lis, do you see any dip?

WIEHL: You know, it depends on what happens the next couple days, what happens with Condit and the profiling. But in the last couple of days, it certainly has seemed to kind of slow down. And the tension is -- you know, let's focus the attention on finding her, and getting the cops out there and following through some of these other leads that they really have not pursued.

KING: And certainly everybody is involved in the attempt do that. We thank you all very much. Barbara Olson, Laura Ingraham, Mark Geragos, Lis Wiehl, and Lisa DePaulo, something tells me they will be back!

Thank you very much for joining us. And we also thank John Sale, Darrell Condit's attorney, for appearing with us from our studios in Miami. Stay tuned now for "CNN TONIGHT" I'm Larry King. By the way, one week from tonight the women of the Senate. Don't miss it. We'll be right back -- tomorrow night with more on this. Stay tuned for "CNN TONIGHT," and good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/23/lkl.00.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Does Gary Condit's Character Count?

Aired July 23, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight: day 84 passes, no sign of Chandra Levy. Does Gary Condit have an airtight alibi? Joining us to debate it, former federal prosecutor Barbara Olson In Ellison Bay, Wisconsin.

In Washington, former independent counsel Michael Zeldin.

And "Talk" Magazine contributing writer Lisa DePaulo.

Also we will meet Condit's -- discuss Condit's brother Darrell; he is arrested. What if anything does he know that can help find Chandra? Darrell Condit's attorney Jon Sale will join us from Miami.

And with the congressman taking a political beating over the character issue, here to face off whether character counts, in Washington, Dr. Bob Jones, conservative and president of Bob Jones University; Kim Gandy, president-elect of NOW, The National Organization for Women.

And evangelist and top Christian author Tony Campolo all on LARRY KING LIVE.

Lisa DePaulo is contributing writer to "Talk" Magazine; her big article on this breaks in "Talk" Magazine issue when it comes out August 3, your reaction to Condit spokesperson Marina Ein said, if the police or the FBI have anything new to discuss, we will be happy to cooperate.

LISA DEPAULO, "TALK" MAGAZINE: Then why didn't they do it today?

KING: Did you know that they asked for today?

DEPAULO: Well, apparently, they have to work out a time that is convenient for him, yeah.

KING: Do you think he will cooperate?

DEPAULO: Depends on how you define cooperate.

KING: Go down and answer all the questions.

DEPAULO: It took a long time to answer some really important questions. I think there are a lot more left, I think the alibi timeline has some real questionable...

KING: Michael, will he go and cooperate?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Sure, absolutely, as the public will be concerned, he will cooperate, I think as the police will concerned he will cooperate. The police have always said he has been cooperative, and I think he will try to be cooperative. What he cooperates with respect to, will be another matter. That is, there seems to be some extraneous affairs in his life that are just coming to light now, that may bear on his character but may not be relevant to the Chandra Levy case, whether he wants to go there, whether police want to take him there, we will have to see.

KING: Barbara, do you think he is ready to cooperate further?

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, you know, this is interview No. 4, and, every time we hear he is cooperating, he is cooperating, and then we get something like we did on July 10 where he goes and hides a box of a watch, and you say what is the man thinking of? He is still in the mind-set where he is hiding things, rather than deciding he is got to be honest, they don't know what he is hiding, and so I hope he does, but, this is a man who's hidden things all his life evidently, so I don't believe he is going to cooperate any more than what we know or what the press has brought out.

ZELDIN: You see, the watch is exactly the point. The watch box which he hid or threw out in a trash can, in Arlington, Virginia a few hours before search of his apartment -- which is crazy, frankly.

KING: Weird.

ZELDIN: It -- it doesn't really it seems, as far as we know the facts, relate to Chandra Levy. It relates to his relationship with a 29-year-old other intern, from 1994. So, there is a pattern of deceit for sure, but whether it goes to the particular...

KING: Does deceit mean murder? Does...

ZELDIN: Or does deceit mean with respect to Levy, we don't know.

KING: Lisa, it seemed logical, he could come on this show or any show and say, look, I don't want to discuss relationships with others, but I'm very concerned about Chandra; I will answer any questions about her. My wife knows about it already. What are you going to do? Turn him down?

DEPAULO: Despicable things, but I had nothing do with her disappearance.

KING: And I'd be happy to help in anyway. How I can help you?

DEPAULO: You know, that is not only consistent with an innocent person, it is consistent with a friend -- someone who is the congressman and Chandra is the constituent, it is consistent for what I would think you would do with a lover.

KING: Obviously, this is a riding out strategy; right? That is... DEPAULO: Yeah.

KING: If there is a strategy.

DEPAULO: Why? If...

KING: What are you riding out?

DEPAULO: Right.

ZELDIN: It has taken him a long time to get to the point where he should have been 84 days ago, and we don't know why that is, there is nothing that really explains it, especially if he is innocent. Mark Geragos said on a previous show, that it is consistent with, a guilty mind; what he is guilty with respect to, we don't know. But hopefully he is moving incrementally in the direction of being fully cooperative with respect to the facts of Levy.

KING: You have concluded that he is involved, in whatever this is?

DEPAULO: I think that, you know...

KING: Haven't you?

DEPAULO: It is sure seems that way, I mean this is just -- it is very odd behavior and even if he -- I mean, why wait all this time to tell these important facts? I mean, not only -- we might have moved own at this point if he could have been exonerated. But he waited 67 days to admit that he was involved with her.

KING: That hurt him.

DEPAULO: Yeah, I think it hurt the investigation, which is worse than hurting him.

KING: Barbara, if you were prosecuting in this area, how do you read these kind of actions?

OLSON: Well, you know, prosecutors look at the case much as everybody watching this looks at it. They look for, as Michael Zeldin said, what's his character? What's he doing? He's still hiding things, and so you are going about it, at -- as a case you are building, I don't think they have enough to force Gary Condit to speak, if he does decides not to, if he decides to take the 5th, or if he refuses to voluntarily cooperate, so the prosecutors are working against that. They want him to keep agreeing to these interviews, they want to get more information.

I think in the next interview, they are going to have an FBI profiler because clearly, Gary Condit knows things about Chandra that can help them do the profile. Where might she go? How might she react? So they want him to cooperate. They can't push him too hard so it is a little bit of a cat and mouse going on, trying to keep him coming forward and cooperating, without him deciding that he is in some sort of criminal danger and then he clams up, and then they have to go with the grand jury route.

KING: Michael, is he a suspect in every way but the term?

ZELDIN: He may be in the way of the term, too, we don't know. From the police statement to the public, he is not a suspect. In -- in a legal sense. But in every other sense, he is at least a material witness.

KING: They label him a suspect then he would refuse to take lie detectors, right?

DEPAULO: It could be a very smart strategy.

ZELDIN: It could be. The police could be playing some sort of trap with him, but I think he knows better than that. And, this raises the point that, where we are up to besides the fourth interview, is the ongoing negotiation for a second lie detector.

KING: We will take a break. And when we come back, Jon Sale will join us. As we go to break, we've received some newly acquired video from the Levy family of Chandra, watch this and then we will talk with Darrell Condit's attorney. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHANDRA LEVY: I mean, I do stuff with my graduate student committee.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

LEVY: Yeah, I mean, I would have been, you know, going out this weekend, going out tonight, but...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

LEVY: Last night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You went out last night?

LEVY: There's stuff always going on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We'll spend some moments now with Jon Sale in Miami, Florida; Jon is the attorney for Darrell Condit, the brother of Congressman Condit.

What were the circumstances of his arrest this weekend?

JON SALE, DARRELL CONDIT'S ATTORNEY: Good evening, Larry.

KING: Hi, Jon. SALE: Darrell Condit was living a private life, not hiding, he was arrested, pursuant to an old warrant for a 1996 misdemeanor. Actually, the Fort Lauderdale Sheriffs Office sent out fliers throughout the neighborhood, there was a search for him. And he pulled up in his truck and they arrested him, and he didn't...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: I'm sorry -- so when they labeled him, fugitive, that was wrong?

SALE: Well, technically it was correct, but it wasn't too dissimilar from somebody who has an outstanding traffic warrant. There was an old warrant on a misdemeanor, and you certainly don't send out the troops searching for somebody and send pictures around the neighborhood unless there's some reason. And the spokeswoman for the Broward County sheriffs office candidly stated that we did that because of the media hype.

KING: What was the misdemeanor for?

SALE: The misdemeanor was an old DUI case, and the alleged violation of his probation was he did not pay a nominal court cost and he did not submit to a urinalysis. From there there's this innuendo that he has some knowledge or some involvement in some awful things which he has no knowledge of. If he did, he would be the first to come forward. He has no knowledge whatsoever about Chandra or her whereabouts.

KING: Is he out on bail now?

SALE: No, he's not. And my hope is that he's going to be treated like every other person who has been held on an old technical misdemeanor. Rather than -- I mean, I've had my share of experience with high visibility cases. This shouldn't be one. The focus here should be on law enforcement, trying to find this missing young woman. Why are they looking at Darrell Condit? It puzzles me and puzzles him.

KING: To your knowledge, has the FBI or the Washington police tried to contact him or you?

SALE: No, they have not. And, I can tell you...

KING: If they did, he would cooperate?

SALE: Well, I think he would. I would have to discuss that with him, he's been through a very traumatic episode. But I can tell I you he has not spoken to his brother in over a year and he's not been out of the state of Florida in over a year.

KING: Is there a rift between the brothers, to your knowledge?

SALE: No, to my knowledge -- Darrell told me he loves his brother. But Darrell is a different kind of a person. He's a grown man, they've lived separate kind of lives, and they just don't have that type of a close relationship. But there is not a rift. And Darrell told me that he sympathizes with what his brother must be going through, because Darrell has seen his own picture now plastered all over the media, and he doesn't understand why, because he does not have any idea whatsoever what this is all about.

KING: Is Darrell married, children, everything?

SALE: He's not married and doesn't have children, and he's been very private. And as a matter of fact, one of his friends who has an elderly mother, reporters have been staking out her house. And he just doesn't understand it, because if he had any information to contribute, we would be doing it, because we want to find this young woman. He just has no such information. He's never heard of Chandra.

KING: Jon, you're a very well-known Miami attorney. I know this from having lived there. How did you get him as a client?

SALE: Just in the routine way, but I can tell you that there was no connection with the congressman -- that it was typical kind of a referral from attorneys who I've dealt with before.

KING: That recommended him to you because criminal is your specialty, right?

SALE: Yes. You know, we don't handle this type of minor cases, usually, but...

KING: That's what I mean. How did you get involved in what is a minor case, as you say?

SALE: Well, I don't to be presumptuous, but I assume it was anticipated there would be this type of focus. And my efforts really are not to get him any special treatment, but to do what I can to see he's just treated like everyone else similarly situated would be -- that they don't bend over backwards to treat him unfairly.

KING: What does he say to you about his brother's dilemma?

SALE: He says he relates to it, he knows nothing about his brother's personal life. But the concern we have is because this inaccurate information is floating around about Darrell, how much of the information about the congressman is inaccurate? How much of it is just out there for the sake of it being out there? We urge everyone to do constructive things, everything possible to find this young woman, but my client just has no information that can contribute in that endeavor.

KING: And, Jon, has his brother Gary tried to contact him?

SALE: No, he has not. Although now, lawyers...

KING: He, should, shouldn't he?

SALE: No, because now it would be unadvisable from a lawyer's point of view, because it would be misconstrued. But their natural relationship has been one where they just haven't had any contact in a long period of time. We're not going to do anything now to do anything unnatural to have anybody accuse anybody of trying to influence somebody's honest recollections.

KING: Does he have a bail hearing scheduled?

SALE: What we're trying to do is have him transferred as quickly as possible back to Key West and have him address this five-year old misdemeanor.

KING: I see. So he would go -- under best of circumstances, he would go down there and there would be some sort of hearing or trial or something and be disposed of?

SALE: Yes. There should be some kind of a routine hearing in which he'll address whether or not he violated the conditions of his probation four or five years ago on this misdemeanor. And he should be treated, as I said, like anyone else who is in the same situation, and not prejudge.

KING: Thank you, Jon. Good seeing you.

SALE: Thank you. It was a pleasure. Thanks, Larry, nice to see you.

KING: Good seeing you. Jon Sale, the attorney for Darrell Condit. We'll come back with Barbara Olson, Michael Zeldin and Lisa Depaulo, and then our panel will assemble to discuss character issues. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Barbara Olson, is the Darrell matter much ado about nothing?

OLSON: Well, you know, I think the reason we're having this is we have a Gary Condit who the prosecutors and police don't really trust. He's cooperating, but, as we said earlier, it depends on how you define "cooperation."

We have a brother who was missing, and you know, if Gary Condit had been forthcoming, if they had trusted his answers, I'm sure they would have asked him about his brother. They would have found out that he hadn't spoken to his brother in over a year and that would have been answered. But unfortunately, this is what happens. The police now have to go find the brother. They have to investigate it themselves to just cross out every possibility.

KING: Lisa, there's another brother, right?

DEPAULO: Yeah.

KING: He's a cop.

DEPAULO: He's a cop in Modesto. He had a few problems.

KING: Did he? DEPAULO: Yes, there was a big scandal in the department over handguns. They were selling the police handguns back to the officers.

KING: What happened to him?

DEPAULO: Couldn't account for eight of them at one point. And...

KING: But he was cleared?

DEPAULO: Yes.

KING: All right. And what about -- what do you make of Darrell?

DEPAULO: You know, I'm fascinated by the fact that he hasn't spoken to his brother in over a year, and I totally agree with Barbara that, you know, this didn't have to get to this point, if Gary Condit had been a lot more forthcoming from the beginning.

KING: Michael, assuming everything Jon Sales said is correct, Darrell is not involved, right?

ZELDIN: You've got your Billy Carter, you've got your Roger Clinton, you've got your Darrell Condit. I mean, everyone's got somebody in the family, it seems.

DEPAULO: But again, this is what his client is telling him.

ZELDIN: Right, but if he hasn't left Florida in two years, according to his attorney, then the likelihood of his involvement becomes many circles removed. When you do an investigation like this, you start with your suspect, and your first ring is her closest acquaintances, and then you move out, and then you move out. And he's pretty many circles removed from here. And if he's been in Florida, I don't think he's got anything to do with this.

DEPAULO: If he's been in Florida.

KING: I'm really anxious for your story because you so doubt this whole thing. I mean, you are skeptical of everyone, right?

DEPAULO: Yes, I am.

KING: You're skeptical of Jon Sale, or at least what his client may have said to him, right?

DEPAULO: Well, it's what -- I believe that what Congressman Condit said about the relationship at the end is very, very different from what her friends say.

KING: And Barbara, shouldn't a brother be calling a brother to see how he's doing?

OLSON: Well, they say they haven't spoken in a year. One would think the natural reaction. However, I'm assuming that Abbe Lowell has told Gary do not call your brother. Let it be. He's in... KING: Why?

OLSON: You know, you've already done enough. Don't call your brother, don't visit any more trash piles. Just do your job, so I'm thinking that he is under advice of counsel, which would be very good advice, not to call his brother at this point.

KING: Really? Even though it's a brother, Michael?

ZELDIN: I don't think. I expect that...

KING: You would say don't call

ZELDIN: Well, I don't think I would have any -- if the brother has had no contact with Gary Condit in a year...

KING: No, I mean wouldn't Gary be concerned about his brother being in jail tonight?

ZELDIN: Yes, and if I were representing Gary Condit, I don't think I'd have any hesitation in allowing him to call him. I would think that what you don't want to do is what is abnormal or not natural.

KING: Not calling is weird.

OLSON: But that's abnormal.

KING: But Barbara is laughing you.

ZELDIN: No, no, it's not abnormal, Barbara, because they haven't spoken in a year.

OLSON: That's right.

ZELDIN: And if he wanted to speak to him now, I don't see any harm coming of it. It only is the fallout conspiratorialist who would see something there.

KING: Barbara, are you saying the call would be suspicious?

OLSON: Of course at this point it would be. I mean, the brother -- this is not the first time the brother has been arrested. It's not a brother who gets in trouble for the first time and you want to reach out and talk to him. This is someone who has had brushes with the law and he knows people, presumably, in that world. So I would advise Gary not to talk to him. He hasn't talked to him for a year, he can see him on TV, and that people will want to know what they talked about. And as a prosecutor, I would want to know what they talked about.

KING: Lisa, is your story printed already?

DEPAULO: Pretty much.

KING: I mean, what if something happened tomorrow? Could you change it?

DEPAULO: I think so.

KING: Yes, because it comes out August 3, right?

DEPAULO: Yes.

KING: All right. We'll be seeing you again tomorrow night.

Michael, thank you, be seeing you again, probably the night after, as this goes on.

And, Barbara, you stay with us. You're going to be part of this upcoming panel. We thank Barbara Olson and Barbara remains with us. Michael Zeldin and Lisa DePaulo, I'm Larry King, and when we come back we'll be joined by Dr. Bob Jones, Kim Gandy of NOW, and Tony Campolo, evangelist and professor of sociology at Eastern College. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S FATHER: Everything is -- we want Chandra. We'd trade anything for Chandra, and that's all we care about. You know, I know there is a lot of other people out there who are missing, and they deserve to be paid attention to and found, and looked for. There's a lot of people out there. We just hope, you know, and they need a lot of support, too. So we just hope everyone can get what they need. And we still pray that our daughter could be found.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHANDRA LEVY, MISSING WOMAN: Next semester I'll take a state government course and a federal government course, and do the internships. And actually, we have our -- probably the biggest paper is a 15 to 20-page paper in this city government course. And -- oh, I should show you guys this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That's a newly acquired tape of Chandra Levy. We now welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, they'll be with us the rest of the way to discuss this, it's an overall issue of character as well. Here in Washington, Dr. Bob Jones, the president of Bob Jones University. Staying with us from Ellison Bay, Wisconsin is Barbara Olson, founder of the Women's Independent Forum, and a former federal prosecutor.

In Washington, Kim Gandy, president-elect of NOW, the National Organization for Women. She assumes the role of president next week.

And Tony Campolo, evangelist, professor of sociology at Eastern College and author of "Survival Kit for College Freshmen." Dr. Jones, Bob, we'll start with you. What do you make of all of this?

BOB JONES III, PRESIDENT, BOB JONES UNIVERSITY: Well, Larry, I guess character really does count. I know character really counts, and I think what we should be surprised about in all of this is that any of us do anything good. When anybody does something bad, it's really no surprise, but when man does something good it's a big surprise.

KING: So this is just another continuing story of the ages?

JONES: Yes, my grandfather used to say there's no sin that's ever been committed that any of us could not commit under the proper provocation. And my heart aches for all of the family involved in the Condit circles. But you know, God says that all have sinned and that all are under sin, and that we're all guilty before God and there's none that does good. not one. But it also says -- and this is the good news, this is the good news -- it says that we are justified by his grace through the redemption in Jesus Christ.

KING: Kim Gandy, from the point of view of NOW, is this a woman tampered with?

KIM GANDY, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NOW: Well, I think we don't know the answer to that yet. But, as the mother of two little girls, I think about her often. Every time I see her picture on television, I think about her mom and dad and what they must be going through now, and I'm glad that we are putting all of the resources at our disposal into finding her, and I hope that in the same way, that Nicole Brown Simpson's death shined a public spotlight on domestic violence, that perhaps all of this -- and I do hope that we find Chandra Levy -- but I hope, too, that it will shine a public spotlight on the 55,000 women who are missing, most of them young women in their 20s.

KING: From what we do know now would now, would NOW, or would you regard this as a woman played upon? I don't necessarily mean harm, just the story as we know it to now. Has she been used?

GANDY: Certainly we know that she was involved with a very powerful man, and that is...

KING: But she's an adult.

GANDY: Yes, she's 24 years old, and some of our staff and former interns who are in their low 20s say: "I sleep with who I want to and I know what I'm doing." At the same time, someone in power does have a powerful pull, and I think has an additional level of responsibility.

KING: Tony, how do you view it?

TONY CAMPOLO, EVANGELIST: I, first of all, agree with Dr. Jones, that it's is very hard to be judgmental. because all of us have a dark side. The line separating good from evil does not separate one group of people from another, but runs right down the middle of each of us. And, you know, we have a tendency cast somebody as totally evil, totally good. It's not that way. And I also agree with you, that -- the power thing. I mean, this man...

KING: Abused his power?

CAMPOLO: I think so. I think that power is a very corrupting influence, more corrupting than money. And I see power, I see somebody who is a risk taker and I see somebody who may have over the years been led into leading a double life. I mean, this isn't something new. He's a minister's son. I wonder how many ministers' kids have to play a role for the congregation.

KING: He attends Bible class.

CAMPOLO: Yes, well, you know, you play a role out here because you're expected to be one kind of person. But there's another self lurking behind that image, and one of those days, it catches up.

KING: And Barbara, before we get into a full discussion of character as an issue and how it plays out in all this, what are your thoughts in the character area?

OLSON: I helped to found the Independent Woman's Forum and back after the Clarence Thomas days, because I saw the power of the women's organization, and one was NOW, that was coming after Clarence Thomas on statements by Anita Hill. And there was another side. I knew Clarence Thomas, and I knew the other women that helped found this group, felt as though that the National Organization for Women and other groups that were attacking him so vocally and so loudly were attacking him more for politics.

And of course, then we come through and we saw what happened with Bob Packwood. He was being attacked and he left Congress. Now, that, I think, was legitimate. But the problem is, we see the hypocrisy that has now happened on the other side, when it's a Democrat. When we had President Clinton, the National Organization for Women refused to stand by the woman who was charging him with sexual harassment that we now know he did lie in that case.

And now we have Gary Condit, and it's interesting that there is not a consistent position that these feminist groups have taken. I think character is important. I think people that lie are likely to continue to lie. But let's have consistency.

KING: I've got to get a break and we'll come right back and we'll let Kim respond, and then Dr. Jones and Tony come in on it. Don't forget, it's time to log on to my "Kings Quiz," cnn.com/larryking. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Kim Gandy, before we get back to the rest of the panel, Barbara Olson is saying that NOW has different standards, depending on who's saying, whose ox is gored?

GANDY: I would love to talk to Barbara on that subject. Barbara, as you well know, the National Organization for Women came out against Clarence Thomas based on his record, long before anybody heard of Anita Hill. And Bob Packwood was a good friend of women's rights; he was a staunch vote on abortion's rights.

But after 26 women came forward to say that he done everything from groping to assault, we said he ought to have a hearing, there ought to be a Senate Ethics Committee hearing. Where was your organization on Bob Packwood? Silent. Where was your organization on Henry Hyde? On Dan Burton?

OLSON: Excuse me.

GANDY: On Newt Gingrich? On Bob Livingston?

KING: Where were you on Bill Clinton?

GANDY: We said on Bill Clinton that his behavior was despicable. That it was deplorable. And that it was up to the American people, whether or not he stayed in office and up to the United States Congress.

KING: So it's been consistent. I don't want to make this just a debate on NOW, Barbara, so...

(CROSSTALK)

GANDY: By the way, we did not come out and say anything about Newt Gingrich's affairs, about Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton.

KING: Is your organization consistent, Barbara?

OLSON: Well, our organization is an organization that looks at economic rights for women, and tax issues and a lot of other issues. We have been consistent; and we do believe character matters.

KING: So you have criticized Gingrich and Livingston and them.

OLSON: Insofar as we've done that as an issue, we certainly have. We have been very careful to make sure we are consistent. And I don't want to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it as NOW versus another group. What I think is important, when people have power, when they have positions, whether it's money or it's power such as in Congress or corporate power, that's important that it is not used wrongly.

But it is equally important that these groups don't go after individuals for their politics and then not go after others because of political reasons.

KING: And your opinion against those using power is both Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative whoever uses power incorrectly.

GANDY: But they always come out against Democrats.

KING: She comes out against Democrats; you come out against Republicans. GANDY: I just gave you a list of Republicans we didn't say a thing about.

KING: Dr. Jones, what is the issue, as you look at it, for usages of power? If I have power and I use that power incorrectly, am I the greater sinner than the person -- I mean, Chandra Levy knew he was married. Is one sin greater than the other?

JONES: They are both accountable before God. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) But I do think it's despicable when a man uses power illicitly. Uses it as a tool for self-gratification or self-advancement. I think that's as low as a man can get. But, you know, the truth is, that we have come a long way in our journey in this country, on what the public is willing to accept as tolerable behavior.

KING: Sure have.

JONES: And this is what grieves me, because Clinton's behavior was despicable. The man should have been impeached. His example was...

KING: He was. You mean, convicted.

JONES: His example was deplorable for young people. There has been a whole downward bounce as a result of what was accepted and how we got away with this.

KING: On both sides of the aisle, though.

JONES: Yes. It's not a matter -- but the more visible a man is the more I guess accentuated when he does something like Clinton has done or like Condit has done. The truth is, when the American public is willing to accept this sort of thing, the boundaries are extended. They will accept something worse next time, and it goes on and on, until nothing is bad.

KING: Do you think it's bad, Tony, when they say, well, if he wants to have an affair, that's his business?

CAMPOLO: I want to correct an illusion that I think is widespread in this country, that America is going down the tubes. In my own estimation and with sociological evidence, there is every reason to believe that we are actually on a moral revival.

The truth is that the latest study (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 75 percent of men are faithful after marriage, 85 percent of women. That's way up from the Kinsey study in 1950, where only 50 percent of the men were faithful. I think a lot of things are going on. There's this movement among Southern Baptists -- and I'm not a Southern Baptist -- I go to Disneyland and all of that, but let me say: that thing of true love waits, in which they are encouraging young people to take a vow, to not get involved sexually prior to marriage, it's having an impact.

I'm not into the hierarchy scheme of promise keepers, but we have to admit, that they have had an incredible impact of the men in this country, calling them to spiritual and moral responsibility at a high level. I think America is on an upswing and I think our upset over these people is our outrage. And our outrage is evidence of that.

KING: Do you agree with, Dr. Jones.

JONES: I don't agree with that at all.

KING: The statistics were released today.

JONES: Yes, you look at 40 years ago in America, 60 years ago in America, the family unit was still intact. Marriage was respected, divorce was looked upon (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We have accepted moral (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on today that would never have been accepted 60, 70 years ago in America. The church's influence is nil, the church has embraced the world and culture as a result of that. The culture has infiltrated the church and neutralized its power.

America's stream is becoming filthy with moral pollution and there are no streams to refresh it.

KING: So do you think his statistic is wrong, that there was more adultery when you're referring to it, years ago than there is now?

JONES: I think statistics can prove just about whatever you want to prove. I think you just look at the scene in America.

CAMPOLO: We have opinions.

KING: Let me get a break and we will get Kim and Barbara's thoughts on all of this: character and the United States and politics and men and women, what is new? Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Barbara Olson, as Kim just pointed out, maybe you will agree, that Gary Condit is not new. Ben Franklin had women all over the world. I'm sure it goes back before him. Men and women have always have had this.

OLSON: Well, you know, we started going through this. They all do it, it's nothing new. And it's too bad -- I mentioned previous show Thomas Jefferson used to be ranked as one of our top presidents and after the rumors came out that he had had an illegitimate child and affairs, they all do it, his ranking went down. Larry, they don't all do it...

KING: But some have always done it, right?

OLSON: Some have always done it, but I'm going to disagree with Dr. Jones. Our world is sort of spiraling downward. I think as long as we feel an outrage when these things happen, as long as it's not the norm, the danger we had during impeachment was people liked Bill Clinton, so they tend to accept things that I don't think otherwise they would except. They tended to accept actions that they probably otherwise wouldn't have, and that's the danger.

Because if we start accepting these things, such as, everyone does it, everyone lies about sex, if they're going to be embarrassed, or in the case of Chandra Levy, if somebody finds out it will hurt their career, as long as that doesn't become accepted in our society, I don't think we are going down. I think we are having, as you just said, this has happened all along, but it's not the usual.

KING: Before we get a call, Kim, do you want to jump in on this?

GANDY: When people in this country, Barbara, talk about character, they are talking about more than just sex. Sex, infidelity, sure, that is part of character, but they are also talking about a person's behavior in the world. Is it -- politician of good character, if they oppose family planning for poor woman? Is a politician of good character if they oppose Head Start slots for kids that need it? If they oppose funding that helps older people not have to the eat dog food for dinner?

All of these are character issues, and people look at that in that they look at extramarital affairs and they look at all of the character issues in a context. And Gary Condit flunks that test.

KING: Dr. Jones, in the Gary Condit matter, if there is outrage -- for example, 60 percent in his district in a poll today, said they wouldn't vote for him. Isn't that an example that we do show outrage?

JONES: Yes. But I have to ask, what is the outrage all about? Because he has a lifestyle of being unfaithful to his wife or...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Do you agree with that, Tony? It's not his lifestyle they are mad at, they may have done something to his girl.

CAMPOLO: I think it's his lifestyle.

KING: You do.

CAMPOLO: I do. When I talk to people, the first thing that comes up, what must his wife be going through? What must his children be going through? They are disgusted that this wife and these children are going through hell, because of what this man has done. I think they're more outraged over that, because the truth is, most Americans still aren't sure what happened to this woman.

KING: Let me get a break; we'll come back and include your phone calls with Dr. Bob Jones, Barbara Olson, Tony Campolo, and Kim Gandy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let me take a call: New York City, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Hi, I would like to know, why are we placing ourselves in a position where we are judging Condit morally, when we have all done things we are ashamed of and we are hanging Condit politically for something he may not have done?

CAMPOLO: I think you are hitting us where we should be hit.

KING: Because Condit is not talking to us.

CAMPOLO: That's right. I think that President Clinton for instance made a leap forward when he held that second confession -- the first one, he said, I did inappropriate behavior and the second one he said, I committed sin, and I'm repenting, and I'm asking for forgiveness. To come out and say that directly really cuts down the criticism...

KING: Condit should say that.

CAMPOLO: He should say that. No. 1, he should say I sinned and I need to repent and I need to set things right with my family. I also have to say that -- she is absolutely right -- I'm very afraid of being in a judgmental position because they are -- everybody has a secret side, including myself.

KING: Dr. Jones? Is he right because you are judgmental? Aren't you?

JONES: We are all judgmental. We all are judgmental. It's part of being human to be judgmental. How can we not be judgmental? We all have opinions. We are sitting around this table and we're sizing each other up. We are making judgments about each other.

CAMPOLO: But don't we make judgments about what people do. I'm not about to judge what a person is because a person is far different.

KING: That's a thin line though.

CAMPOLO: No, it's not. I do find, that a lot of people do good things for the wrong reasons and lots of people do wrong things for the right reasons.

KING: Modesto, California, hello.

CALLER: Does your panel think it's fair to compare President Clinton's conduct with potentially with -- the conduct of Gary Condit?

KING: Kim?

GANDY: Well, I think, so far, we really don't know what Gary Condit has done. And what he hasn't done, except that we know he didn't come forward and speak with the police when he should have and that's been cause of great -- very justified criticism.

KING: Barbara, do you compare them?

OLSON: I was going to add what Kim says, I agree, I think what happened, we got to see Gary Condit in a situation where he had to decide, am I going to help the police and give them information which could harm me politically? Embarrass my wife and my family? But it might be the right thing to do for this woman, and we got to see in that. And it's true, we all have sides, the old adage, don't do anything you don't want to do on the front page of the newspaper; we all probably have.

But we got to watch Gary Condit do it very publicly, and it wasn't very pretty that he put his own career and well-being ahead of a girl's life, whether he's involved otherwise, we don't know. But we do know he put himself ahead of her life by not cooperating instantly.

KING: Do you think, Dr. Jones, maybe all of this has always gone on, and we just know more now?

JONES: I think that is certainly true. Man's character has not changed. I said at the outset, it's a flaw of central character, capable of doing anything. And we should not...

KING: We're considerably on the decline, our attitude toward it was on the decline.

JONES: It is. I think we are excusing things that we never would have excused in generations gone by, because we have gone away from a Bible-based judgment about what is good and bad.

KING: South Carolina, hello.

CALLER: Yes, my question is why is it that politicians are above the law? I mean, if I lied on my job, I'd be fired. I went to Bob Jones, and if I had cheated on an exam there, I would have been kicked out. So why are politicians above the law, because they're lying publicly and they're admitting it the third and fourth time, after they can't say anything else?

KING: Maybe it's because there's no law about what he did.

GANDY: Well, certainly he will be called to answer for it. There is no question that, just as your boss makes a judgment about something you do on the job and your teacher makes a decision about a paper if you cheat on it, his constituents will make a decision about whether to keep him in office, and the police will make a decision about whether to arrest him, depending on what they find.

CAMPOLO: I don't think politicians should be above the law. However, I'm wondering whether politicians get a fair break with the law. For instance, nobody spends $50 million to investigate your background.

KING: But I didn't ask for your vote.

CAMPOLO: No, that's true.

KING: And I'm not an employee of the government.

CAMPOLO: I got it. But the truth is that I think that politicians are held up to a higher level of scrutiny.

KING: They should be?

CAMPOLO: I think they should be.

KING: All right. Let me get a break and we'll come back. Time flies. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Log on to our Web site at cnn.com/larryking for the answer to "King's Quiz." And we're in our remaining moments with our panel.

Dr. Jones, it sounds like you're pessimistic about all of this.

JONES: Well, I think we, looking at this present situation, have to conclude that corruptive character corrupts -- corrupts people that it touches. And when character has been trusted, as Mr. Condit was trusted, and it fails, it's magnified. It looks worse than if he were just a ditch digger somewhere. But it is worse, because he was trusted by people who elected him to office and put confidence in him. He betrayed confidence.

And when these examples are so public, it cuts at the very heart of America, and our children. I'm worried about our children, who have to have this whole thing paraded in front of their eyes.

KING: Do you agree with that, Kim?

GANDY: Yes, I agree.

KING: Politician has higher trust.

GANDY: Politician absolutely has a higher level of trust. Anyone in a position of power, I think, has a higher obligation to the people who elected him. He absolutely does, and when you put protecting his own hide ahead of protecting an innocent person, then I think he deserves the attention that he got, and he deserves to be chastised for it.

CAMPOLO: I worry about the hypocrisy. I love Jesus, I love the church. But the church has supported racism over the years, the church has supported the oppression of women. It's done a lot of terrible things. And I think we're getting better. I think we're dealing with the problems of the past and I think we're moving forward. This country has been hypocritical. The Declaration of Independence promises everybody is equal, and then we do Native Americans, to blacks, to Hawaiians, to Hispanics -- the times come for us to do judgment, but I think the judgment has to begin with us. We have to examine our own souls.

KING: Barbara?

OLSON: Well, I was just going to add on what Kim said. I agree, but the thing that's made this such a national issue is the intern. I mean, you know, young girls come, and boys, come from all over the country to learn about our country. And to come to Washington, D.C. to experience the government. And when they're used, then it's something we all see, because every state has congressman. They all send interns. There's probably parents all over this country whose sons and daughters have been interns in Washington.

So it makes it something very personal, something local in every district. And it becomes an abuse of power that maybe we don't see if it's hidden in corporate America, but we do if it's in the House of Representatives.

KING: Are you optimistic, Dr. Jones, that we will learn everything? Or is that not -- predicting is not in the purview of the ministry or the school?

JONES: Well, I'm certainly not a prophet, but I'm not sure we learned anything from Clinton. It looks to me like Condit pretty much took a page out of Clinton's playbook and has gone forward with it. I don't -- there is nothing redeemable about man's character from within man. The redemption comes from Jesus Christ, and as long as man is outside of Jesus Christ, man, the sinner, is able to do anything...

KING: And you believe that, too, right?

CAMPOLO: I believe that God is a transforming power in our lives, and without God we can do nothing.

KING: Do you believe that, Kim?

GANDY: I believe that we're going to find out everything.

KING: You do.

GANDY: As a former prosecutor, I believe that the police and the investigators, the district attorneys will stay after this until they find out what has happened to Chandra Levy.

KING: Barbara, thanks again as always. Come back from Wisconsin already. It's nice, it's only 90 degrees and humid in Washington. You'll love it.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Dr. Bob Jones, Barbara Olson, Kim Gandy and Tony Campolo. Tomorrow, guess what?

Stay tuned now for "CNN TONIGHT." We'll get you up to date on all the late stories and then my man, Jeff Greenfield, will be with us a half-hour from now with his gang and group.

Thanks for joining us on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. From Washington, D.C., good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


Barbara's Fixation with Condit's Sexual Relationship with Levy Harms The Search for the Actual Murderers?

EPSTEIN: It's absolutely a relevant question. The question is that Mark and I have talked about for months at this point is should that exclude everything else? And I think the answer to that has to be no.

KING: Do you know who the suspect is?

EPSTEIN: Well, there is actually been rumors now for several weeks that they are actually talking about another person who she had had regular contact with.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: A relationship, a romantic...

GERAGOS:
It was a relationship in the fact that they knew them. What bothers me about what Barbara keeps doing here...

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Where is that coming from?

GERAGOS: ...
don't bother me -- don't bother me with the facts, I have got an agenda here -- the agenda is to keep pounding on Condit.

KING: So, you know for a fact that -- hold it, hold it...

OLSON: No, Mark. Mark, where does that come from?

GERAGOS:
Where it comes from is from the police. The police know it, Barbara. The police know for a fact that there is somebody else that's there, that that somebody else who was there who they are investigating was somebody who was affiliated with the gym where she worked out, that that person was stalking her, that they had, that she...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Wait a minute...

GERAGOS
: There is someone who she perceived to be stalking her. And they know it, and they've invested quite a bit of investigative time into following this up. And the idea that the reason the police are so frustrated by this is that people won't let go of the Condit thing.

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/21/lkl.00.html

 

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Condit Breaking Silence

Aired August 21, 2001 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, what should Gary Condit say? How should he say it? After nearly four months of public silence on the disappearance of his intern/lover Chandra Levy, can a 30 minute interview with Connie Chung save the married congressman's career?

Squaring off for another no-holds barred debate in Washington, former prosecutor, best-selling author Barbara Olson. In San Diego, another former federal prosecutor, Cynthia Alksne. Here in Los Angeles, defense attorney Mark Geragos, and with him the former chief minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein.

Plus, expert perspective from two PR pros. In Las Vegas, the man who has given image advice to Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Mike Tyson -- Sig Rogich. And in New York, the man who practically wrote the book on PR, the author of "The Practice of Public Relations," Frazier Seitel. All that and your calls, next on LARRY KING LIVE!

Good evening. We will call on our PR experts in our second segment and parts of the third segment for their thoughts on this. Our panel will be with us all the way.

We start the panel with some breaking news. It has been announced that that letter that the congressman is sending to his constituents will go out tomorrow. Apparently, over 300,000 letters, timed to be received by the citizens the day of the interview with Connie Chung. The also further announcement that he will be doing other interviews, including a local media interview in Modesto right after the interview with Connie Chung.

What do you make of that, Barbara? Apparently, the splash is on.

BARBARA OLSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: The splash is on, and Gary Condit is in full reelection campaign mode. It is interesting, though, I mean, we have now learned that this interview is going to be limited to 30 minutes. And so, that is a real question -- and of course, we know the local interview Gary Condit is going to want to talk more about local issues.

But with Connie Chung, how many questions can you ask in 30 minutes? You are the expert at that. But you know if a guest wants to talk very slowly, it is tough to keep interrupting and rush them up if they want to sort of weave their way through. So I think there may be a little less than we hoped to get, but 30 minutes -- and now we know it's live to tape, in other words, although they are going to tape it, it's going to be put on in total, no editing, which means that although the network can't edit it, it also means that Gary Condit is much more in control of the time, much more in control of the pacing of the interview.

KING: In a 30-minute interview -- it depends how expansive the guest is. Julian, if he is terse and gives short answers, you can ask 100 questions. If he gives long-winded answers, you could ask three questions.

JULIAN EPSTEIN, FORMER HOUSE JUDICIARY COUNSEL: Yeah.

KING: And he doesn't have to answer. He could always say on advice of counsel, I don't want to. But anyway, what do you make of the news that there will be other media appearances and that it's 30 minutes?

EPSTEIN: Well, Tip O'Neill of course said that all politics is local, and I think Gary Condit and his media advisers understand that he has got to touch base locally, he's got to communicate with the people that elected him.

KING: As long as he wants to run again.

EPSTEIN: If he wants to run again. And I think, you know, if you go back and you study, say, 15 or 20 of the scandals that we have seen in the last 30 years, either involving presidents or members of Congress, many of them involving sex scandals, you constantly hear people say, what you have to do in these scandals is you have to tell everything, you have to tell it early.

It's really much, much more complex than that. And if you break down each of these scandals that have occurred, from Wilbur Mills and Hayes and Congressman Gerry Studds and on down the line, you see it's a question of what the context is, how bad is the alleged misdeed, how likable is the candidate, ultimately. Remember, Teddy Kennedy, we had a missing -- we had a dead person, Teddy Kennedy actually survived in his Senate seat.

And you certainly have the factor of how well the person communicates, how effectively they communicate, whether they assume...

KING: That we don't know yet.

EPSTEIN: And that we don't know. All of these factors come into play in each of these scandals. We don't know how he is going to deal on the communication side of this thing, so we will have to see.

KING: Cynthia, what do you make of the announcement of other media appearances and a 30 minute limit?

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, 30 minutes doesn't seem like very much to me. The -- as I'm thinking about how I would structure this interview, I realize that the -- the prosecutor in me has a very different set of questions than the human interest, sort of Connie Chung, you know, side of selling -- selling entertainment. And you know, one is, how did you meet her, what presents did you give her, what does your wife think, how is your family reaction? And the prosecutor in me wants to know, you know, everything he did every second, from the moment she disappeared. The prosecutor wants to know everything about the obstruction. The prosecutor in me wants to know everything about who he knows in the tristate area who has farms, who has boats, who has ranches.

So, the prosecutor in me is very different, and it will be interesting to see how she makes that balance. My guess is in 30 minutes you can't get a lot of relevant information that will help the investigation. And of course for me, every time you look at this case, I want to know whether or not we are helping the investigation or not, and this seems more like politics and less like helping find Chandra.

KING: Mark, why did the congressman insist on 30 minutes? What do you think?

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think he didn't have to talk, he is going to talk, 30 minutes -- whether it's 30 minutes or an hour, I mean, Barbara would come up with the same -- Barbara would come up with the same objections if it were an hour, if it was 90 minutes. Barbara would have him under third-degree lights for two and a half hours if she could.

OLSON: TV lights are good enough.

GERAGOS: The fact of the matter is that the investigation has steered away from Gary Condit. The investigation has actually targeted somebody else. They know that, the police...

KING: Do you know that?

GERAGOS: Yeah, the -- Billy Martin's investigators have targeted somebody else. There is, as Julian and I were discussing off the air, there is three or four people, but from what I hear there is specifically one person that they have focused in on. So Gary Condit at this point is keeping it alive, or this story alive in the news media, but as far as the professional investigators go, Gary Condit is yesterday's news.

KING: But he has to respond. He has to do it.

GERAGOS: Well, because of the political -- his political career and the political ramifications, obviously. He has to get out. I think the letters are a good idea, I think that in the letter he is going to talk about things that people want to understand -- what did he do, when did he hear about this, whether or not, you know -- I mean, I think he -- as Julian has said before -- he has got to express his feelings about Chandra and whether or not he is upset, and I think clearly he is going to do that. And all of those things.

EPSTEIN: You know, one of the things, Larry, about this tabloidization of this whole issue -- and that's really what it has become. It has the cache of politics, of sex, of power -- one of the things that Mark and I have pointed out for some time, it does divert attention from where the real -- kind of keeping your eyes on the prize here, which is where is Chandra.

For several weeks now we have known that the police are actually proceeding three or four other leads that have nothing to do with Gary Condit, and as Mark says tonight, it seems now that the police are really beginning to focus on one person in particular that has, again, no connection to Gary Condit.

KING: You know all this.

GERAGOS: Which is amazing. It's an amazing thing, if you think about it...

OLSON: Yeah, but why does this continue?

GERAGOS: ... that Billy Martin is out there, still continuing this, because he has got Barbara, as you know, he has got dual motivations. He's doing a good job. He's keeping the story alive. The way to keep it alive is to hang Condit out there and keep using him.

KING: I want to get back on this -- hold on a second, Barbara. I'm going to come back, we are going to talk with our two PR people. If any of the panel has any questions for these two experts who deal with this all the time every day and have their whole careers we'll entertain that, and then we'll come back to this topic and the question of other police investigations.

As we go to break, here is what Billy Martin had to say just about an hour ago with Wolf Blitzer. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: The biggest one here information that could lead to information on Chandra's whereabouts or what happened to her. They don't really want to hear anything about the relationship. They don't want to know how he felt about Chandra. They don't want to know how Chandra felt about him. Those are issues that they would like to put behind them, all they really want is their daughter back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBE LOWELL, CONDIT ATTORNEY: All through this process of the last three months, when everything was going on in Washington, he was in session, he was working. He was in committee votes, and he was working. He had a polygraph during that time, a search of his apartment, four interviews, and then Congress recessed. And the first thing he wanted to do was to go home and to get together with his family, and he has done that. And now that he has done that, he has said he wants to come out and talk to his constituents in a forum that makes sense. He can't talk to them individually by knocking on the door, so he will submit, he will sit down, he will organize an interview.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Welcome back. That was Abbe Lowell speaking last week, on the program that follows this one, CNN TONIGHT. Joining us now in Las Vegas, and we'll get back to this other suspect concept in a little while, is Sig Rogich, president of Rogich Communications Group, a longtime political adviser. And in New York, the famed Fraser Seitel, the man who wrote book on PR, "the Practice of Public Relations" now in its 8th edition.

Sig, is this make or break for the congressman Thursday?

SIG ROGICH, ROGICH COMMUNICATIONS GROUP: I'm not sure about that. I question some of the motives behind it. And I am not sure if I wouldn't have started at the local level instead of doing it nationally. I think that they have looked at the numbers, the staff has, they determined that he is either going to get out of this mess by doing something dramatic and then make the determination whether he is even going to run again.

But I wondered about it when they announced it, and I'm not so sure that same type of interview locally and let the national press pick up on it.

KING: Fraser, what would your advice have been? What's your read on this?

FRASER SEITEL, "THE PRACTICE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS": My read is that I think they are doing the right thing. I think that this man's credibility, his reputation, his viability as a candidate is what is at stake here. And if you assume he is not guilty, you make that assumption, then, with all due respect to the distinguished attorneys on the panel, part of the problem he has had is he has listened to his lawyer for public relations advice. And Abbe Lowell could be a great attorney but he is a lousy PR man.

KING: So you would have handled this differently from the get- go, Fraser?

SEITEL: From get-go what I would have done is I would have said if what he is guilty of is having an affair, reprehensible though it may be, he should have come out with it. Everybody suspected it. It came out with the police in Washington. Get it out -- if you are not guilty.

He can't help but look suspicious, and the challenge to this guy -- Julian said its complex -- in this case, it is very simple. His challenge on Thursday is to convince all those people who are watching him, who think he is guilty, to disabuse them of that notion.

KING: Sig, do you agree with that? ROGICH: Well, it's pretty hard to disagree with that. I would have come out clean, too. He did it in bits and pieces. He compounded his own problem. And then all of a sudden there was the potential charge that he was impeding the investigation, and I think that is still out there.

But I think ultimately he is doing this because he wants to run for reelection. And assuming that he is not guilty -- but he is guilty of the things that we just heard about, that is, the impropriety of the relationship -- then I still think it might have been smarter to make this the local answer. That is to start at home, and let national press pick up on that as opposed to the other way around.

KING: Fraser, do you prep him a lot? If you are his adviser are you with him all day Thursday? Do you make this is the event day of his life?

SEITEL: Absolutely, Larry. What you do is you treat this as a CEO before the annual meeting. You treat it as two presidential combatants in a debate. You give him every question. You say, Congressman, why did you go out and dump the watch? Why did you delay in speaking for so long? Why do you threaten to sue "The Washington Post"? Why didn't you talk? Why do you have the grin? All of this stuff you go over with him.

KING: Sig do you like the idea of 30 minutes?

ROGICH: Well, 30 minutes is never quite enough. And actually, I would have -- I'm surprised the network went for 30 minutes, but if that is all they can get, that is all they can get.

From the standpoint of him controlling his own destiny, I think 30 minutes works positively for him. You are only going to get short interview time, really depending on how he couches his questions, and answers. And I think then the problem is that Connie is going to work overtime to make sure that she is not defined as someone who gave a lot of softball questions there, and so he is going to take a deliberate amount of time, I think to answer those kinds of questions.

KING: Fraser, how does he have look? Does he have to look compelling? Does he have to look worried? Does he to look -- in other words, what's the general psyche have to be?

SEITEL: I think, first of all, I would tell him, get rid of the goofy grin! There is nothing funny about this. That is No. 1. No. 2, I would tell him lose the California seersucker suit. This is a somber event. This is a serious event. You wear a dark suit. And I think, No. 3, I would tell him to get some pomade on his hair. Slick it down a little bit.

KING: Sig, what would you tell him?

ROGICH: Well I probably might add to some of that. There is nothing wrong with a good seersucker suit, by the way. I want you to know. SEITEL: No, no, Sig, you look terrific.

ROGICH: They cut across channels.

But I think he has to look honest, and I think has to look into the camera when he gives the answer, if he can, if he has the opportunity, and not look at the interviewer.

I think he has to have that moment of sincerity when people believe that he is telling the truth. And I think he needs to be prepared to answer the very toughest questions just as we talked about earlier.

KING: Yes I'll take a break -- Fraser, go ahead.

SEITEL: You know what I would say, Larry, just to add to what Sig just said, if I were counseling this guy, I would say, Congressman, every question you answer, you have in your mind a picture of those two poor Doctor and Mrs. Levy watching you on television. That will keep you serious.

KING: All right. We will hold Sig and Fraser and we'll see if the panel has any questions as well for two of the top PR guys in the business. They have been advising people and advising them well for many, many years. And we will come back with more. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Cynthia, is there anything you would like to ask of Sig Rogich or Fraser Seitel?

ALKSNE: Sure. I would like to know how he answers this fundamental problem that he has as he goes into this investigation. And that is, if you have the picture of the Levys in your head -- this is a man who refuses to meet with the Levy investigators at this time. And it seems to me that he sort of has, he has a problem, which is he should have met with them first, before he had his...

KING: What's the question?

ALKSNE: ...political -- my question is, how does he deal with that problem, because he has been unwilling to meet with Levys?

KING: All right, what does he do, Fraser?

SEITEL: I think that is a significant question. I agree that that is -- the battle that this guy has is totally uphill. However, I think what I would say, the question that Cynthia is asking it seems to me, is the big one, why has it taken you 111 days to come clean?

I think what I would say, if I were him, it's not a perfect answer, but I would say, I was waiting for the police to exonerate me completely, my lawyers advised me of this. They have now done that, I am now not a suspect, and this is the first opportunity I have gotten to come forward. KING: Barbara, what would you ask of Sig or Fraser?

OLSON: Well, I guess I want to follow up with what Sig said about that he would have gone to a local person, because I thought the same thing. You know, I would have done some local television. That is really where he said he wanted to go back to. But the prosecutor in me doesn't like coincidences and I have been trying to think, why Connie Chung?

How did he get 30 minutes, how did he get to Connie Chung? And there are some questions there, too. You know, Rebecca Cooper, who, as we all know, was at the Tryst restaurant meeting with Gary Condit. They have a long "friendship," for lack of a better word, and she used to work for Connie Chung, so I just wonder if there aren't more ground rules, rather than the "no ground rules have been established."

Maybe that's why they are going with Connie Chung, Sig. Don't you think there could be a deal that we don't know about?

KING: Sig?

ROGICH: Well, I'd like to say one thing just before I answer that. I don't think there's a deal, per se, but I do think they make a mistake in not really focusing more on the local venue here.

But what Fraser said, in answer to that question about how do you talk to the parents now, I think it would be more appropriate to say that he made a mistake. That he, in hindsight he looks back and thinks that he should have talked to the parents earlier. I think that is a better way to get at these kinds of sensitive questions. People understand people who make mistakes and admit it.

KING: So you would tell him do that. And what do you make of her questioning of how Chung got this, Sig?

ROGICH: Well, I mean, it is a very competitive industry. I know that there's -- having dealt with him in the past on the network levels, I think she dogged it and was fortunate to get it. I don't think there's any cut deal here, per se. I don't think that Connie Chung is going to put her reputation on the line as a journalist, and cut a deal and come out of this with a lot of softball questions.

KING: All right. We'll take a break and then we'll have questions of Sig and Fraser from Julian and Mark, and then we'll have our panel continue. We'll be right back with all of them on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOWELL: I want to point out that before anybody makes a decision about him, whether it's "The Modesto Bee" or his constituents or your viewers, they should wait to hear from him. And this is the right time, because before this, there was such a media frenzy, that he could have been shouting at top of his lungs and nobody would have been paying much attention.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Mark Geragos, do you have a question for Sig or Fraser?

GERAGOS: I actually do. I'm not going to get into a conspiracy theory like Barbara did. I'm going to try and ask a question, which is, if you were advising him and he said I'm going to do this with Connie Chung, would you then advise him to do a follow-up interview? And what would you advise his wife and kids to do?

KING: Good question. Fraser, you want to go first?

SEITEL: What I would say is that -- no, I would do the half- hour. A half-hour is enough time, and I agree with Sig when he says that Connie Chung is going to be tough. She understands there are innuendoes and rumors about how she got this and so on, so she's going to be tough.

I would do the interview with her, then I would fan out locally. And in terms of the wife and the kids and so on, I wouldn't schmaltz this up. I think what people want to see is this guy mano-a-mano with an interviewing who is going to ask him every tough question that everybody who has been watching this thing all summer understands, and see how he handles it.

KING: Sig?

ROGICH: Well, I can't disagree with a lot of that, but that begs to the question again, why not do it locally? When they create a story with Connie Chung, who is a star in her own right, then that becomes a big story and people are talking about all of that, just like we are tonight. I think you get away with a lot more in terms of having the ability to govern this thing in a fashion that's to your best advantage when you start at the local level.

But I think, from the beginning, I think that he needs to set the stage by saying, "Look, there have been mistakes made here. I had a relationship that I'm not proud of. It was jeopardizing my relationship with my family. I'm through that. I reacted, probably, in ways that I shouldn't have and wouldn't have again if I had the opportunity."

Because I think the big question here is the obstruction question. That hasn't been answered yet, in calling the stewardess and asking, theoretically, to cover up something. And I think that still is out there.

KING: Julian?

EPSTEIN: To both of them, I think the best communicator, perhaps, of the modern political age is Bill Clinton, the August 17th, 1998 speech where he had to admit the affair with Monica Lewinsky, I think, was a mistake on his part because he failed to show enough contrition. Let's go through a checklist with the two of you, if we can, about what are the things -- not the questions that he needs to get asked, but the answers he needs to give. What does he need to show on Thursday night?

I think he's got to indicate one, that he made a mistake. Two, that he cares about Chandra Levy, that he is distraught by the fact that she's gone. Three, that he's innocent of any wrongdoing relating to her disappearance. And four, he has to somehow cut off, as I know he wants to, the questions, the collateral questions, about his private life.

Is that the checklist, or are there other things you would add?

KING: We'll start with Sig this time. Sig?

ROGICH: Well, that's the checklist, but I would also probably be prepared to ask whether he's really going to run for reelection again. There's a lot of reasons no one has really asked that question. I know that a lot of this quick, rapid time interview setup probably comes because he's cratering at the polls and those numbers reflect that.

This is not a good time to have this interview, in August in the middle of month. If you're going to set up a nationwide audience, you do it right when school gets back and people are focused, because you're not going to have quite the numbers you would ordinarily, in my opinion, anyway. So I would have not have picked this particular time.

KING: And, Fraser?

SEITEL: I think the checklist is right. I just wouldn't agree with your role model, Bill Clinton, as the world's greatest communicator. It seems to me, as I recollect, what he did was first of all, he lied. Second of all, he never -- I think the Lewinskys are still waiting for an apology from that character.

So, what I would do if I was this guy, I'd apologize right off the bat. I'd explain what my relationship with her was, even though Billy Martin says they don't want to hear it. I think he's obligated to say: "Here is what I did." And I think Sig's right, "I made a mistake." Be remorseful, "it was terrible," and so on.

I would say, No. 3, "I did not have anything to do with her disappearance." He's got to get that out there. And then I'd go back to what Cynthia asked before, No. 4, "Here is why I was obligated to wait for 111 days before making this admission."

KING: Let me say that we'll be calling on both of you again, I guarantee it. Sig Rogich and Fraser Seitel, we thank you very much for appearing with us. They may be back tomorrow. Thank you both very much.

As we approach this Thursday night interview, that we also understand there will be a newspaper interview, supposedly, on Saturday or Friday morning as well, and a local interview and other interviews to follow.

When we come back, we'll pick up on this subject of the other suspect that was spoken about, and more from our panel and more of your phone calls. We'll reintroduce the panel as well. I'm Larry King. We thank our two other guests. We'll be right back with the panel. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Let's reintroduce our panel. In Washington, Barbara Olson, the former federal prosecutor and best-selling author. San Diego, where we have Cynthia Alksne, the former federal prosecutor as well. In Los Angeles, both here tonight, Mark Geragos, defense attorney -- his clients included, by the way, Roger Clinton and Susan McDougal -- and Julian Epstein, the former chief minority council, House Judiciary Committee.

We are going to go to your phone calls momentarily, but Barbara, what do you make of the fact that both Mark and Julian have revealed tonight that there is a major suspect out there that police are looking at? So that makes all of this moot.

OLSON: Well, it really doesn't. I mean, there are people they are looking at, there are leads that they are following up. But the fact still remains that when you've got a missing person the first thing you look at is, say, does she have a relationship, is there is someone she is close with? She was close with Gary Condit. Was it a secret relationship? Is it a married man? Did anyone know? Those are facts that still keep this a central part of her missing and a central part of finding out where she is.

KING: Julian?

EPSTEIN: It's absolutely a relevant question. The question is that Mark and I have talked about for months at this point is should that exclude everything else? And I think the answer to that has to be no.

KING: Do you know who the suspect is?

EPSTEIN: Well, there is actually been rumors now for several weeks that they are actually talking about another person who she had had regular contact with.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: A relationship, a romantic...

GERAGOS:
It was a relationship in the fact that they knew them. What bothers me about what Barbara keeps doing here...

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: Where is that coming from?

GERAGOS: ...
don't bother me -- don't bother me with the facts, I have got an agenda here -- the agenda is to keep pounding on Condit.

KING: So, you know for a fact that -- hold it, hold it...

OLSON: No, Mark. Mark, where does that come from?

GERAGOS:
Where it comes from is from the police. The police know it, Barbara. The police know for a fact that there is somebody else that's there, that that somebody else who was there who they are investigating was somebody who was affiliated with the gym where she worked out, that that person was stalking her, that they had, that she...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Wait a minute...

GERAGOS
: There is someone who she perceived to be stalking her. And they know it, and they've invested quite a bit of investigative time into following this up. And the idea that the reason the police are so frustrated by this is that people won't let go of the Condit thing.

KING: Now, hold it. Cynthia, if you know that for a fact, that the police are doing this, this guy stalked her, was in the gym with her, they had a relationship -- that's the story, if Chandra is the one that's our prime interest here and not the congressman, right, Cynthia?

ALKSNE: Sure, that would be critical, and we need to know that -- the police need to know that information and follow that up. And I think Barbara's frustration is not that she is interested in Condit, but that his behavior has so stalled this investigation and wasted resources that the police may not have had the ability to do what they needed to do in the first place, which if there is this mystery stalker that Mark Geragos knows and nobody else...

(CROSSTALK)

ALKSNE: Let me say one thing else. As a prosecutor, let me say something else, and that is that when you have a case like this, where the lover of the victim has lied, has covered up evidence, has tried to get somebody else to do other things, here is what happens -- here is what happens...

(CROSSTALK)

ALKSNE: ... here is why it's important, here is why it's important, Mark. Because come trial of let's say the mystery stalker, let's say he is the guy that did it. Come that trial, a defense attorney like you has all of the bombs that you...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: ...
people like you and Barbara out there keep beating...

KING: One at a time.

(CROSSTALK)

ALKSNE: ... and you won't get a conviction because of Condit's constant behavior...

GERAGOS: You won't get a conviction because you didn't give Gary Condit a presumption of innocence...

ALKSNE: ... and inability to just come clean.

KING: One at a time. Julian, you know there is another suspect. Do you agree with Mark?

EPSTEIN: Well, I don't know that for a fact, I know that a number of reporters are covering this case very closely believe that, I know that there are...

KING: And his name hasn't leaked...

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: ... I don't know the particular details of that. What I do know is that the police are pursuing at least four or five other leads that they think may have something...

KING: And Condit is not one...

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: And Condit is not one of them. And you know, the one question -- you go back to that lady in the Gary Hart campaign in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- where is beef? I mean, people -- I think that Cynthia and Barbara's point is legitimate, which is we should ask these questions because he wasn't candid.

But the point that they never respond to, the two of them respectfully, is the fact that after months and months and months of essentially convicting this guy in the court of public opinion without the slightest bit of evidence -- everyone agrees he made a mistake -- but then to confuse the fact that he made a mistake with his actual guilt in this matter I think verges on the edge of irresponsibility, particularly when the police are pursuing other leads.

OLSON: The problem with that is...

KING: Barbara.

OLSON: Well, the problem with that is, who would know better of other people that Chandra Levy was around other people that she knew at work and at the gym than the man she is very close to? This goes right back to Gary Condit cooperating, giving lots of information to the police, saying, you know, Chandra did mention a person at the gym that was always hanging around.

KING: How do you know he hasn't? GERAGOS: How do you know that he hasn't? That he wasn't the one who gave them the information in the first place, Barbara?

OLSON: Well, because we know...

GERAGOS: How do you know that the four or five people that they are talking to weren't the people that Gary Condit...

OLSON: I would just love to answer you, Mark. The reason...

KING: Let her answer.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: The reason that we know that, Mark, is because we know it took three interviews for him to admit to a relationship. The reason that we know that is because Gary Condit's staff was going out saying they were just friends, he did not know her all that well. Of course he knew her well. This is information -- this is the one man that if you want to presume he is innocent, which we are -- all are giving him the presumption of innocence -- he would certainly know these other friends.

Yes, they are interviewing friends. Yes, they are talking to other gentlemen who knew her. Lisa DePaulo's person who was very close to her at the gym that she relied on -- of course that person is central. But who would know more than Gary Condit, and Gary Condit refused to tell what he knew.

GERAGOS: But Barbara, the fact remains that the one question that he declined to answer in the first two interviews, the one question was whether or not he had an intimate relationship. The police have already said that he answered every other question.

OLSON: I don't think that was the one question.

GERAGOS: And I bet you that -- I bet you that if you asked the police, that's what they'd tell you, and that's what they have said. Nobody wants to listen about it.

KING: Let me get a break and we'll go to some phone calls. This is LARRY KING LIVE. More on this -- you might be surprised to learn -- tomorrow night. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: If there is no suspect and there are people who were around the victim at times of a disappearance or a homicide, anybody around that person, especially people who were last with that person, are considered possible suspects. Until Gary Condit comes forward and tells our investigators or the authorities sufficient information to clear him, he's a possible suspect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That was Billy Martin, the attorney for the family. Let's go to some phone calls for our panel. Marco Island, Florida, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is after Gary Condit gives all of his interviews, will -- and especially if they are looking at another suspect -- will the information that he did give the police and the things they found on his apartment, will that ever -- that information ever be revealed to the public?

KING: Julian, what's