Blitzer presses Condit's attorney on Levy case

Lowell rebuffed questions about whether Condit admitted to police he had an affair with Levy, saying that revealing what was said by police or Condit could inadvertedly hurt the investigation

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A lawyer for Rep. Gary Condit, D. California, defended his client on "CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." Abbe Lowell faced tough questions in the wake of reports quoting police sources that the congressman admitted to police he had an affair with missing former intern Chandra Levy.

WOLF BLITZER: And let's get right to the key issue, of course, in this case, Chandra Levy's whereabouts. As far as you know, do the police have any hard evidence whatsoever about what happened to Chandra Levy?

ABBE LOWELL: I am only following what Chief Gainer said yesterday. I know they have these three or four theories. I know they're pursuing each one vigorously. And just the same reason that congressman Condit isn't sharing with the media what he has been discussion with police, I mean, the police aren't sharing with me and congressman Condit leads that they have. So we don't know any more than you do.

BLITZER: Does your client, congressman Gary Condit, have any suspicions in his mind what happened to Chandra Levy?

LOWELL: The congressman has answered the questions the police have asked him on more than one occasion. He has given them every shred of information to help them try to find her. And what he has said to them and what they have said back is just not something that we are sharing with the public or the media for a couple of reasons. One of which, this is an ongoing case, Wolf. This woman has not been found, and we could inadvertently make things harder to find her by giving public disclosure of bits and pieces of information that only the police have the right to know.

BLITZER: Well, without providing of those bits and pieces, anything that could hinder this investigation, this missing persons investigation, as it's still officially called, does he have any suspicion in his own mind what may or may not have happened to Chandra Levy?

LOWELL: Congressman Condit's conjecture about what happened is certainly a less-educated one than the police, who are on top of all the bits and pieces. He doesn't have a particular idea one way or the other.

But I can tell you, though, and I want to make this clear, that on his own initiative he took steps to see the police a third time. This was not something that was requested of us. This was something that he asked to do, so that he could make sure that he had given them every shred of information that could be helpful.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to get to that in a second. Let's get to latest point that Bob Franken was reporting, other news organizations reporting it as well, that in that meeting, the third meeting that the congressman had with local D.C. police, he acknowledged what he had not previously acknowledged, that he did, in fact, have an affair with Chandra Levy.

LOWELL: You know, it strikes me as amazing but exactly the point that I want to make, that today, this Sunday, people are talking about off-the-record police sources telling you and others what he said in his interview, when Executive Chief Gainer was in front of the microphones for 20 minutes and said he is not a suspect. He has never been a suspect. He's been cooperative. He's answered our questions. He is being helpful. This has been productive. That's the news.

What he told the police about what his relationships were with her or anybody else is not the news. You're making it the news. It's not helping find Chandra Levy.

BLITZER: Well, if there was some connection, perhaps, to the fact -- if it is a fact, and we are reporting it as a fact -- that he did acknowledge to having an affair with her, couldn't that have played a role in her disappearance theoretically?

LOWELL: I think what he told the police is going to help the police figure out whether they have any more leads that they can follow. And that's why from the beginning, while he has not been forthcoming to you, not wanting to be on camera and answer the questions about his private life, he has been totally forthcoming with the police. And what he has told them will hopefully help.

But as to what he said and what they said back, that's not something that we think makes sense to share with the media. You know, the one thing that is different about this case, as I said, is that it's ongoing. She's still missing. And I think being a little bit more cautious as to feeding this media frenzy is something that the congressman has tried to do. People don't quite get it. That's why we are here trying to explain.

BLITZER: But the congressman's chief of staff, as you know, Michael Lynch, for weeks, two months, repeatedly insisted there was no romantic relationship, no affair, no sexual relationship, completely denied any of this. Can you do that as the attorney representing congressman Condit today, repeat what his chief of staff told us told news media for weeks?

LOWELL: I can do one better than that. I can tell you that congressman Condit, in the course of three times with the police, and Mrs. Condit, in a multihour interview, did what they could do to help find Chandra Levy; that he has never, ever told the police anything but what he knows to be the facts. I can tell you that if the 99 other people that Chief Gainer said are being interviewed all across this area were as cooperative and helpful as the Condits, we might be farther along in finding out what had happened to Chandra Levy.

BLITZER: But on the simple question of whether or not he had an affair with her, if he did have an affair with her, why not simply acknowledge it right now and get it over with?

LOWELL: Well, that's an interesting question. To whom? To you? To his family? To the police? I mean, the congressman has been totally cooperative with the police. They know all the facts. I hope it helps them find Chandra Levy.

Everything else about this is matter of privacy among the Condit family. You know, for 30 years, he's been a public servant. For 30 years he's held on to his privacy. He's a public figure who still believes that a public figure can have a private life.

Now, I know you want to know the unbelievable details of everything that went on in the police interview, and maybe in his relationships not just with Chandra Levy, but I've read stories about people looking about other relationships, other friendships. I guess that's interesting to you. It's not helpful to finding Chandra, and it's not going to be the congressman or his family's preference to invade their private lives.

BLITZER: Just to nail down this one point, then we'll move on. On the specific denials from the chief of staff from congressman Condit's office, Michael Lynch, that there was a romantic relationship, an affair, or whatever, are those denials no longer operative?

LOWELL: Again, I'm talking on behalf of congressman Condit. Congressman Condit has done two things. He has told the police everything, and he has not shared anything with members of the media. He is keeping his privacy. He is helping the police. That should be the story.

BLITZER: You know, in 1998 when Bill Clinton found himself in a similar problem -- although obviously, no one disappeared in that particular case. When he found himself in a relationship, allegations of a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern, congressman Condit, a Democrat from California, was among the first to offer Bill Clinton some advice. Listen to what he said then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

U.S. Representative Gary Condit, D-California: The fact is, the information is going to get out eventually, and let's get on to making a decision of what we are going to do about what we think happened.

All we are saying is, get all information out there, let the American people make their decision. Let us make our decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He basically said to the president, get it out, get it out right away, let the American public make up their minds. Why isn't he accepting the advice for himself that he gave to Bill Clinton?

LOWELL: I know that little snippet, which you take out of the context of what it was about, seems to indicate that Gary Condit was telling the president to go to the public and tell them everything. That is not what he was saying. That was a different circumstance.

In the impeachment matter of President Clinton, the issue was whether the president had by his words two judicial proceedings deposition, grand jury, the American public committed a crime, committed impeachable offense, misled people.

The American public, according to congressman Condit and others, had the right to know from the president whether his words had been misleading to them. This is apples and oranges.

Congressman Condit has told the police from the beginning everything, has never misled anybody. The issue isn't whether his words are impeachable or his words have committed a crime, the issue is whether or not he's been cooperative with the police.

Congressman Condit wasn't advocating that Bill Clinton go before the American people and tell about private life for its own sake. It was because the president chose to go out and say statements which, either in depositions or otherwise, were being challenged as being true. That's not the case here.

BLITZER: So the advice he was giving Bill Clinton to get it out, let the American people make up their mind, in effect, the advice that Lanny Davis, who was a White House lawyer at the time, was giving. If you have bad news, get it out early, get it out yourself, get it out right away.

LOWELL: It depends on whether or not what you're asking me is, did congressman Condit have whatever news he had and he got it out early, he got it out truthfully, he got it out completely. He did this already, but he did it to the police. And I am amazed that the media still, as we are having this exchange, does not get the difference.

BLITZER: In the current issue of Newsweek that's just coming out today and tomorrow, the cover story, they make the point -- it's not the cover story but it's a long article on Chandra Levy -- that it wasn't necessarily the case that the congressman was forthcoming in the first and second meetings. They write this: "The police were also ready with more formidable tools of intimidation. The office also assigned a veteran homicide prosecutor ... to oversee the investigation. All this activity sent a signal to Condit. If he didn't play ball, he might find himself called to testify before a grand jury under oath."

So the point that Newsweek is making is that in the first two meetings, he wasn't necessarily all that forthcoming about his relationship with Chandra Levy. It took a third meeting, as they say, under intimidation for him to come out and reveal everything else. That resulted in that statement from Chief Gainer yesterday.

LOWELL: That's what Newsweek is reporting, I guess, based on some sources that they have, and that is really the issue. How many times this last week alone have the media been wrong about what has occurred in this case?

BLITZER: Well, on this point, though...

LOWELL: There's nothing that you said is remotely -- nothing that you said is remotely the case.

BLITZER: Were they threatening...

LOWELL: There was never a threat of a grand jury to make him come and talk. There has never been a request for that. And, therefore, when Newsweek prints something, just like the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday said some grand jury was in effect, just like Fox News two weeks ago or a week ago said that in a interview he said that there was a tumultuous breakup of the relationship when he talked to the police, none of that's true. And I think that really is the point, that you guys are being misled by somebody, which makes it even more important that congressman Condit talk to the police and let the police do their job. And he's not worrying so much about you guys.

BLITZER: Has he been subpoenaed for any of his personal records, telephone calls, documents, anything of that nature?

LOWELL: Chief Gainer said yesterday that everything that they have ever asked of us we have provided, and I think that speaks louder than my own words on your show. There is nothing the police could ask us to do, nothing that they could ask us that we would not try to find the appropriate way to get them the relevant information, and that has included his interviews, his wife's interviews. If they needed something, they have been able to ask us and we would provide it.

Now, there has never been a subpoena issued that we know about for anything for congressman Condit. What I think, again, the media doesn't understand is, Chandra Levy's not here. I suspect the police wanted her telephone records, her credit card records, her financial records. I suspect they might need the means to get that since she's not around to give them permission to get it.

BLITZER: But you can understand all the interest. Here a 24- year-old intern having an affair with a man, 53 years old, a powerful congressman in Washington. If that could come to her state of mind and have any impact in learning about her whereabouts -- she has disappeared over these past two months -- you could understand why the interest in his personal records, why that maybe relevant to this case.

LOWELL: Well, two things. You just said here's a 52-year-old man and a 24-year-old woman having an affair. You know, I'm not sitting here telling you anything about what congressman Condit told the police. And if you have sources that are leaking bits and pieces of what you said, that's something that I have no control over.

As to whether or not whatever their interaction is helpful, I think it could be, and I think he thinks it is, and that's why he's told the police. But you are not drawing the difference between congressman Condit and his family being extraordinarily helpful to the police and not being extraordinarily helpful to the thousand media people that are dogging him and his kids and his wife and are asking for details of their private lives that they're not going to accommodate.

BLITZER: You probably saw the news conference that the Assistant D.C. Police Chief Terrance Gainer had. In addition to saying that congressman Condit was not a suspect, is not a suspect and is not going to be a suspect, as far as he can tell, he did say something, I thought, very interesting.

He said, "We challenged Congressman Condit in this third meeting to clarify the relationship," which, in effect, suggests to me, at least, that it wasn't clarified, he didn't voluntarily clarify it in the first two meetings.

LOWELL: Well, I'm glad you raised that. I'd like to get something really clear, and I think the chief said this. I don't think, though, it was appreciated. I think the chief used the phrase "simultaneously."

On Friday, before the congressman knew anything about Chief Gainer making any statements to the press, he asked me to reach out to the MPD on his behalf to set up another interview. We had no idea that the chief was saying anything to the press. I didn't know until after the interview had been set up, in fact. So it wasn't that he was challenged to come forward. That was his act, his act alone, and his act voluntarily.

Having said that, the chief also yesterday said -- and he looked right at all people in the media -- and he said, look, you know how it is, sometimes you ask a question one day, and you get some information the next day, you've got to follow up. That's part of what's going on here. I am telling you that the police asked the congressman questions on the third time that they didn't know to ask him the first time that had nothing to do with him. So that's part of the process as well.

BLITZER: As far as you know, was there anything in the relationship -- and you don't have to tell us if there was an affair or there wasn't an affair, because clearly you don't want to spell that out. But was there anything in the relationship that changed just before her disappearance that could have played a role in her disappearance?

LOWELL: Congressman Condit has told the police everything he possibly can about the nature of their interactions. And they understand what that means, in terms of whatever the four scenarios they're operating on. They are the people trying to find her. If it has any significance, they understand.

For me to sit here and tell you what he said and what they said back, what Mrs. Condit said, what they said back, is not helpful to their effort to find her. So we're not going into that.

BLITZER: So you're not going to say -- you said that the Fox News report, that he had broken off the relationship, that was inaccurate. But did he change the -- he has acknowledged that they had a good relationship, they were good friends. But has there...

LOWELL: I didn't have to say that. BLITZER: Has there been anything that has changed, was there anything that changed at the end of that period just before her disappearance that may have been a factor?

LOWELL: I think the first thing to say is that I am repeating what the chief of police said. I mean, I think, after the Fox News report, the chief had to come out and correct that, saying nothing like that ever happened. After the San Francisco Chronicle, the chief had to come out and say, that's not the case.

I think they are the ones who are correcting the record when the media gets it wrong. And this a case, by the way -- and I don't know, this is for one of your colleagues, Mr. Kurtz, on another show -- this is one where somebody should examine how badly you guys are getting it from time to time.

BLITZER: I'm sure there will be articles written about this in the Columbia Journalism Review and all sorts of other publications.

LOWELL: But having said that, look, again, let me emphasize, the congressman has told the police who have the job of finding Chandra Levy every speck of information that can be helpful. And I think the police chief said they are comfortable about that. They have said he's not a suspect. They have also said he's been cooperative and it's been productive. I mean, they couldn't say words that are better, and I think that should be the focus.

Now, I say to the world that anybody else who is in the same position -- you know, the chief has said, there is 99 other people that are out there that we've talked to -- if everybody was as cooperative as the Condits, we might be a little bit further along in finding Ms. Levy.

BLITZER: The aunt of Chandra Levy, Linda Zamsky, issued a long written statement, as you saw this week. Among other things, she disclosed that Chandra had confided with her the nature of the relationship.

Linda Zamsky went on to say this, and we'll put it up on the screen: "We believe that Representative Condit's lack of candor is hindering efforts to find Chandra. We call on him to do what he would want others to do, if one of his children were missing -- give a complete account of his relationship with Chandra."

LOWELL: And I guess you're asking for my response. My response is, the aunt should look at what Chief Gainer said yesterday. I mean, Chief Gainer's in the best position to know whether or not the congressman has been everything that the aunt has wanted him to be. Chief Gainer, representing the MPD, has said that's exactly what he's been, and I think the Levy family, you know, will see that that's the case.

I also understand that they're doing what they need to do to try to make sure that we don't forget Chandra and that we are out looking for her. That's totally appropriate.

But in terms of the exact quote, that the congressman should be as forthcoming, that he should tell everything, how much better could it be, if the congressman can be said by the police to have done what he has done, answered every single question without reservation?

BLITZER: The other legal issue that came out in recent days was the whole issue of Anne Marie Smith, the flight attendant who says that she had a yearlong affair that was ongoing with the congressman.

I want you to listen to what she said about an affidavit she insists that a representative, a lawyer representing -- an earlier lawyer representing congressman Condit asked her to sign. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNE MARIE SMITH: I personally could never have signed it, or would never have signed it. And he was urging me to sign it, and he said, you don't want anything -- this could be potentially embarrassing for both of us if this story gets out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: This raises all sorts of questions, at least in the minds of some people who heard her say it, of suborning perjury, obstructing justice, raising this whole issue to a whole other category.

LOWELL: I don't know what Anne Marie Smith has to do with what happened to Chandra Levy. I don't understand whether or not congressman Condit ever met this woman or talked to this woman is remotely helpful to finding this missing person. I don't know what this woman thinks she's doing when she goes on the air and talks about whatever their relationship is. What I know it's not doing is getting us closer to figuring out what happened to Chandra Levy.

LOWELL: As to her statement that the congressman told her to do something about whatever their interactions were, I think the congressman had issued a statement saying that he has never told anybody to be anything but forthcoming to any authorities on anything that could help find Chandra Levy, and I think that speaks for itself.

BLITZER: We are almost out of time. But I just want to look ahead a little bit and get through a few points. Any more meetings scheduled between the D.C. police or the FBI and the congressman and/or his wife?

LOWELL: There is no meeting scheduled. But I suspect in time, a day, a week, a month, if there's another piece of information that they think the Condits could tell them about or be helpful about, they wouldn't be shy about asking it.

BLITZER: What about the issue of a search of his apartment? Where does that stand, if there...

LOWELL: I don't know what that issue is. I mean, it has never come up except with media asking me or others about it. I suspect that the answer is, if the D.C. police thought it was helpful to them to find out anything from the Condits, including to look at congressman Condit's apartment, we would make that arrangement. But that has not been asked. I think the chief was asked about that.

I know that that is something that has been asked, but I don't know where that is from. And I can only tell you again, the congressman and his wife and his family are being as cooperative as they can be. They have yesterday, they will today, and they will be tomorrow.

BLITZER: Has he received any subpoenas whatsoever for anything?

LOWELL: He has not.

BLITZER: And you don't anticipate that will be necessary?

LOWELL: I don't see why it would be because if there's anything that we could do to help, we'll try do it. We'll find the means to get the information into the hands of the police. We will find the means to do it in the way that helps them but also protects the Condits' privacy. I know it's a strange notion in 2001 America that a public figure could say, I'm still holding on to my private life, but that's the kind of man Gary Condit is. BLITZER: Does he owe it at all to his constituents in California to do an interview, to hold a news conference, and say publicly what the story is from his perspective?

LOWELL: At some point, the congressman will want to chat, I suspect, with his constituents about a lot of things -- about what happened to him, what he did, what he didn't do, how he has been treated. But this is an ongoing investigation. It is July. This isn't necessarily the only time that that can happen.

He has been a member of Congress for a decade or more, a public servant for 30 years. He is planning to serve his constituents well. They are not going to judge him by whether or not he went on your show today to answer all of your questions. The election's a year and three months from now. Let's find Chandra Levy, and then figure out what we do from there.

BLITZER: As far as you know right now, is he planning on seeking re-election?

LOWELL: He has been a great congressman. His constituents will tell you that. And I think they would like him to serve, and he wants to continue.

BLITZER: On that note, Abbe Lowell, I know it's been a busy few days for you. I want to thank you for joining us.

LOWELL: My pleasure.