Replies

Here we go again. The Fox News Channel has resumed its campaign of trying to convict Gary Condit in the court of public opinion through the use of innuendo and speculation.

It's called circumstantial evidence which has put many people behing bars.

Condit might be an adulterer and an all-around idiot, but there is NOTHING that connects him to the disappearance of Chandra Levy.

The NOTHING here is the NOTHING Condit is saying about the big holes in his timeline alibi on the day Chandry was last seen, the NOTHING he is saying about his whereabouts on the Thurs he missed the votes in the House, the NOTHING he is saying about him trying to reach Chandra when her parents called him to report her disappearance, the NOTHING he is saying about the phone call from the McDonalds to Ann Marie, the NOTHING he is saying to Chandra's parents, the NOTHING he is saying to the Police, etc.etc.etc.

In fact, if Condit had even half a brain he could have stopped this last year by sending a message directly to the news network, something that could have went like this:

By your admission he doesn't even have half a brain so how can he be fit to serve in Congress much less on the Intelligence Committee?

"I have to say the Fox News Channel has established some real precedent in its near nonstop coverage of the disappearance of Chandra Levy. (Which is what you saw in the first three months following the day she went missing.) I am also amazed on how you (Fox) seem to have this need to deliver me to the wolves, so to speak, regarding this manner. However to date, (and this remains true on this day, Feb. 28 '02) not so much as a single, verifiable fact has surfaced connecting the two.

What do you have against FOX? All the other networks and cable channels were running the same stories, except ABC. Or is it the WE REPORT YOU DECIDE that you don't like?

"Now, I am sure, you firmly believe I, Gary Condit, am responsible for Miss Levy's horrendous misfortune. If this is the case, then please feel free to stop implying it and just say it right out loud. And be prepared to back it up with actual, valid facts.

Condit was the last intimate contact Chandra had before her disappearance and was the only one who could have told the Police about her last known mental state. He chose not to share this with the police when it was most valuable, ie first 24 after her disappearance. There are published reports he waited until the third interview before he told the Police of their affair.

"If you cannot do that, or if you decide to continue with the tactics you are currently using, I may be strongly inclined to seek resolution of this matter via litigation.

Bring it on pal. It's called freedom of the press and free speech.

"Have a nice day, Gary Condit"

Are you sleeping at nights Gary?

I am getting off the soapbox now. Thank you for your time.

This sounds like a paid political announcement. If it is please don't forget to mail your check to FR.

I agree. This dude be from the other side. Chad had another whine on Crossfire and he didn't display as much of the "Yes Sir, Mr. King" that he and Cadee pulled on the old softball king. When asked directly why doesn't his father take some responsibility, he ducked the question by referring to the stacks of tabloids he has collected at his folks house (does anybody else find it odd that two very grown adults nearing thirty have moved back into their parents' house?). "He spoke to the police within 48 hours."

Right, and the criminal who took police on a high-speed chase a few weeks ago spoke to those police only about an hour after they signalled him to pull over.

Well I've heard your Pa, or Gary or Mr. Congressman or whatever you call your Dad speak and he believes a non-responsive answer or an answer that says "I'm not going to go there" is in fact an answer, when closer to the truth was his slip the other night when he said "If they need an answer, I give'em a question"(LKL).

Hey Chad, your Dad's scum. Like father like son.

It's called circumstantial evidence which has put many people behing bars.

That's only if it is indeed "evidence". Off handed comments taken out of context is not.

The NOTHING here is the NOTHING Condit is saying about the big holes in his timeline alibi on the day Chandra was last seen, the NOTHING he is saying about his whereabouts on the Thurs he missed the votes in the House, the NOTHING he is saying about him trying to reach Chandra when her parents called him to report her disappearance, the NOTHING he is saying about the phone call from the McDonalds to Ann Marie, the NOTHING he is saying to Chandra's parents, the NOTHING he is saying to the Police, etc.etc.etc.

So he missed some votes. Other Congressmen do it as well. In fact, I wonder if there may have been anyone else who missed some votes that same day. Maybe they helped Condit? (If you cannot see how silly this sounds, I feel quite sorry for you.)

And has anyone, anyone at all, been able to place Condit at or near Levy's home at the time of her disappearance? Um, uh, NO!

By your admission he doesn't even have half a brain so how can he be fit to serve in Congress much less on the Intelligence Committee?

And who said he is? Not me.

What do you have against FOX? All the other networks and cable channels were running the same stories, except ABC. Or is it the WE REPORT YOU DECIDE that you don't like?

I do not have anything against Fox. But when you devote most of your news time to speculation, including some hilarious innuendo ("Condit threw a garbage bag into a dumpster miles away from his home! Why? What was in it? (Psst! Do you think it may be because he is getting tired of having people constantly go through his garbage at home? We report. You decide.) ")

And by the way, there is a word for the act of printing or broadcasting something about a person or company that you know to be untrue, with the malicious intent: Libel.

It's called freedom of the press and free speech.

See above.

I've always been furious that the police gave Condit a pass because he was a congressman. Who else could have said that it wasn't convenient for them to come over and talk to him at a particular time and have the police agree? This is nuts!

Also, did anybody catch what Carolyn is filing a lawsuit over? The tabloid story regarding her having a blow-up conversation with Chandra on the telephone. I've always believed that when somebody says for example, "It's not about the money", you can bet it is about the money. By this I mean, with ALL of the stories that were out there about Carolyn, (not the least being the rumor that she didn't have thumbs), why zero in on this particular story to sue over. I have always believed that this story was absolutely true. So, file a lawsuit just to show EVERYBODY how wronged you've been by this horrible "lie", and maybe somebody will believe it. And, where are the phone records? I honestly believe Carolyn Condit is up her dreary little brain-washed eyeballs in this. Carolyn could easily be the "she" that would help get rid of a body. Gary's not talking, period, because he knows he could slip and implicate Carolyn. The kids are defensive of "Gary" because he's protecting "Carolyn", and Carolyn's got enough dirt on Gary to put him away for a long time.

This whole freaking brain-washed, brain-dead family gives me the willies!