Deny Condit the Chance to Be Reelected

I applaud “Victim of His Delusions” (editorial, Aug. 16) deploring Rep. Gary Condit’s (D-Ceres) apparent decision to run for reelection. This is no Bill Clinton “personal choice” issue; this is a man who interfered with a police investigation of a missing woman who is probably dead. Would any private citizen be allowed to act in this fashion, or are there different levels of the law in this country?

The California Democratic Party should withhold support from Condit in the coming congressional races and instead find a Democrat who might have personal lapses but does not lie repeatedly to police investigators in a possible murder case. Otherwise, the party politics machine--anyone who calls himself a Democrat is great, regardless of his actions--wins over democracy.

Mark Martin

Eagle Rock

I am so tired of all the ranting and raving about Condit’s behavior in the case of the disappearance of Chandra Levy. Her parents blame Condit for not disclosing “everything”--as if knowing the intimate details of an already illicit relationship will bring this woman back.

Levy is not a saint. It is sad that she is among the missing, but she is an adult who knowingly involved herself in the affair. I wish the Levy family well and hope that their daughter comes home safe and sound. But I think we’ve had enough Condit-bashing to last a lifetime.

Sandra George

Beverly Hills

After rubbing my eyes and rereading The Times’ editorial, I wondered if you had any shame. I concur completely with your comments about Condit and am shocked that you did not find them to be true during the Clinton fiasco--well, true enough to be as clear in print about his actions.

Sandra Lee Koch

Pacific Palisades

The Times has decided to join the media frenzy that has unfairly targeted one individual. The paper has chosen expediency over journalistic integrity, entertainment over responsibility. Contrary to your assertion, the D.C. police have stated that Condit has cooperated fully with them. On July 7, Assistant Chief Terrance Gainer told CNN that Condit “has been cooperating with us.”

Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey told CNN on July 29 that the police “were able to go in and ask the questions that we felt we needed to ask.” In response to continued implications about the congressman, the chief stated that “frankly, we spent an awful lot of time trying to disprove rumors and innuendos. . . . We’ve tried to remain steadfast and focused on the facts, even when others have not.” The Times joined the ranks of those “others.” The D.C. police have also stated that Condit is not a suspect and that there is no evidence to suggest he should be.

It is without question that Condit voluntarily met with police for over four hours, opened his home to an intrusive search for more than three hours and voluntarily surrendered his privacy by providing a DNA sample. The congressman was also the individual who contacted the police immediately after hearing the Levys’ complaint that authorities were not taking their reports seriously. It was Condit who urged the FBI and D.C. police to become involved; it was Condit who contributed to a reward fund; and it was Condit who invited the police to talk to him in his apartment in May as soon as he returned to Washington.

Condit has consistently stated that he would not join in the media stampede and that he would focus on the important matter at hand--cooperating with the police who are searching for Ms. Levy. The congressman has stated, from the beginning, that his cooperation with law enforcement, not the press, was paramount to the actual issue--finding Ms. Levy. Any editorial outrage over Condit’s cooperation with the police is simply not supported by the facts and takes any single sentence of the D.C. police out of context.

Abbe David Lowell

Counsel to Rep. Gary Condit

Washington