CHANDRA LEVY - Was pregnant, more

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News : One Thread

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THURS JULY 12, 2001 15:49:00 ET XXXXX

NATIONAL ENQUIRER: CHANDRA LEVY WAS PREGNANT; HER COMPUTER, CELL PHONE WERE USED DAY AFTER SHE WENT MISSING

The NATIONAL ENQUIRER is reporting in its July 24 edition set to hit newstands on Friday that missing intern Chandra Levy was pregnant with Congressman Gary Condit's baby!

"Authorities have information that Chandra told at least one friend that she was pregnant -- and she said the baby was Condit's," a source close to the investigation disclosed to the ENQUIRER.

The ENQUIRER cites a Justice Department source:

"A friend told investigators Chandra said she was pregnant. The FBI and Washington D.C. police have subpoenaed her medical records. One investigator told me: 'We believe Levy was pregnant!'

The source also added, "The FBI does believe her disappearance is a 'love crime.'"

The ENQUIRER quotes a source who says that at least 5 women who were romantically involved with Condit are now afraid of him, and are keeping a low profile.

The ENQUIRER quotes a cousin of Chandra's, Michael Maistelman, who says that stewardess and former Condit lover Anne Marie Smiths's accounts of being followed "closely parallel" those told by Jennifer Baker, a former Condit intern and the person who introduced Levy to the congressman.

"Jennifer is getting the same kind of phone calls and is convinced she's being followed," said Maistelman, who helped the Levys get the FBI involved in the case.

According to a source at Justice, investigators "have records indicating someone used Chandra's computer the day after she was last seen on April 30, and that her cell phone had also been used on May 1."

"Her computer was definitely logged on with her password."

DEVELOPING HOT...

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2001

Answers

I know someone who lives on Condit's street (in the Adams Morgan section of DC) and she says that there are more TV cameras and newspeople in front of his house than at a summit conference.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2001

Look what the newspapers are digging up now.

NYPost

‘AFFAIR' TEEN HAD BABY

By NILES LATHEM, STEVE DUNLEAVY, EDMUND NEWTON, and ANDY GELLER

July 13, 2001 -- A minister's daughter gave birth to a son during the two years she allegedly had an affair with Rep. Gary Condit - whom she dumped him because of his sexual demands, The Post has learned.

Jennifer Lynn Thomas, 26, had an affair with the California Democrat that began in 1993 or 1994 - when she was 18 or 19 - and ended two years later, says her father, Pentecostal minister Otis Thomas.

A distraught Jennifer broke off the relationship because of the married Condit's sexual requests, sources said.

On Sept. 15, 1994 - while the affair was supposedly going on - Jennifer bore a son, now 6 years old, at Doctors Medical Center in Modesto, according to a birth certificate filed in the Stanislaus County Recorder's Office in Modesto.

The word "withheld" is written in the box for the father's name.

Jennifer - a quiet, attractive black-haired woman who has a twin sister, Janet - met Condit, who represents the Modesto district, at a rally at California State University.

Otis Thomas told the FBI about his daughter's affair following the April 30 disappearance of Chandra Levy, with whom Condit admits having an affair.

Two newspapers published interviews with Otis Thomas yesterday. He could not be reached by The Post.

In a note left on the door of the apartment she shares with her father, son and twin sister, Jennifer denied a relationship.

"I never met that congressman who's involved in this. I don't even know how both me and my father got mixed up in this. We don't know anything," the note read.

Marina Ein, a spokeswoman for Condit, did not return calls for comment.

Chandra vanished after completing a six-month internship with the Bureau of Prisons in Washington.

Police searched vacant buildings near her apartment yesterday but found no sign of the attractive 24-year-old brunette. The search will continue.

Police plan to release computer-enhanced photos of Chandra - as a blonde, with short hair and with a ponytail - to cover the possibility that she intentionally vanished.

In other developments:

* Federal prosecutors have begun a preliminary investigation into whether Condit obstructed justice when he allegedly asked flight attendant Anne Marie Smith to sign an affidavit denying they had an affair. Condit denies asking Smith to lie.

Smith was interviewed by federal prosecutors again yesterday.

* Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) became the first congressman to demand Condit's resignation, saying his colleague "obstructed an ongoing police investigation."

* Chandra's parents, Robert and Susan Levy, told the Fox network's "America's Most Wanted: America Fights Back" that although some reports say their daughter may have been pregnant when she vanished, they have no evidence that's true.

If she was expecting, her parents say, they would have welcomed the news.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001


[OG Note: I do not like Salon.com but feel compelled to cut and paste the following Not only is is interesting news but if Salon.com has turned on Condit, he must be in trouble now.]

ABC's messy role in Condit affair

The network now says one of its reporters -- the subject of tabloid rumors -- claims she never met with Condit the day he claims they did; the day Chandra Levy most likely disappeared.

- - - - - - - - - - - - By Joshua Micah Marshall

July 13, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- As the Gary Condit-Chandra Levy affair burst into the full flower of scandal at the end of June, Condit's office provided Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police with a timeline of Condit's activities on the crucial days surrounding Levy's disappearance. Learning of the existence of the timeline, ABC News subsequently requested a copy, and received one from a source in Rep. Condit's office.

What soon became apparent to reporters and producers at ABC News, though, was that there were two critical portions of the timeline that simply did not seem true. And the network struggled with this information for nearly three weeks before fully detailing the nature of the discrepancies during the Wednesday edition of "Nightline."

One of ABC's own off-air reporters had met with Condit about an unrelated matter (the California energy crisis) on the day after Levy's disappearance, May 2. But the timeline provided to ABC News appeared to say that this meeting had occurred on May 1 -- the very day Levy went missing.

Further complicating the matter for ABC were ambiguities surrounding Condit's relationship with the ABC reporter in question. The New York Post has reported (and Fox News trumpeted) that Condit had an affair with an ABC producer and, based on information in the Post, and according to sources within the network, it's clear that this is the same woman who had met with Condit on May 2. The romantic link, however, is firmly and unequivocally denied by the network. "This reporter," an ABC News executive told Salon on Thursday, "has had a professional relationship with Congressman Condit for years, nothing more than that, period."

So the story plays out like this: According to ABC sources, the ABC News off-air reporter met with Rep. Condit at the Tryst restaurant (that's no joke) on May 2, between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., to discuss the California energy crisis. The reporter eventually circulated an e-mail to this effect within ABC's Washington Bureau long before the significance of the meeting became known. Yet the timeline provided by the Condit camp made no mention of this meeting, even though it did cover the day in question.

The Condit timeline did, however, mention another meeting at the same location with an unnamed reporter -- but with one critical difference. Rather than taking place on the afternoon of May 2, the timeline had this meeting taking place between 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. on May 1. Police place Chandra's last known whereabouts in her apartment early on May 1, in part because of an e-mail she apparently sent from her computer that morning.

Producers and reporters at ABC News could not at first be certain that the purported May 1 meeting was not with some other reporter from another news organization (no names were supplied in the timeline). But they were quite certain that they knew where the congressman was the following afternoon, and that his timeline did not reflect his whereabouts. "We had no way of knowing," the same ABC News executive told Salon on Thursday, "whether this was a sin of omission or commission, or whether there were two different meetings."

Based on the apparent discrepancy, however, ABC immediately contacted both the congressman's office and his legal team. "We went back to his attorney Abbe Lowell's office," said the same ABC News executive. "We said, 'We know there was a meeting with an ABC news reporter but we don't see it on [the timeline].' They told us 'this was just a draft, just a draft of a timeline which is neither complete nor completely accurate.' We asked, 'Who was the meeting with on Tuesday and why isn't there [any mention of a meeting] on Wednesday?' They said they'd get back to us. But we have never gotten an official response." According to another print reporter covering the case, Condit's chief of staff Mike Lynch, later refused to distribute copies of the timeline to other news organizations, telling the reporter that the timeline contained "mistakes" and that he had been chastised by members of Condit's legal team for releasing the timeline to ABC News.

This back-and-forth with the Condit camp placed ABC News producers in an awkward position. In a strictly factual sense, a source in the congressman's office had provided them with an alibi for his whereabouts on the day of Chandra Levy's disappearance, which they first suspected and then later knew to be false. However, according to the same ABC News executive, they had no way of knowing whether this was an intentional deception or simply an innocent error. Nor could they could be certain that the timeline they were given was the same one that had been given to the police -- something that they rightly believed would have amounted to a more serious offense.

Absent some clear evidence of deception rather than error, ABC News executives decided simply to correct the error in the timeline it subsequently published, placing the meeting at the correct May 2 rather than focusing on why the original document had contained such a pivotal misstatement.

On "Good Morning America" on June 29, for instance, ABC reporter Pierre Thomas described the timeline in its original form and then added that "hours after this account was provided by sources close to Condit and first reported by ABC News, the congressman's office called to say the information released was in draft form and contained inaccuracies. They were not specific."

Over the subsequent two weeks, ABC News has slowly revealed more details of this exchange. On Wednesday, Thomas gave a still more precise account of the events in question on "Nightline." The timeline, he noted, said Condit met "with a reporter the evening of May 1st at a local coffee shop, from 6:30 until 7:30. That reporter, who works for ABC News, remembers the meeting taking place the next day. Condit's office immediately [put] out a statement saying the timeline was only a draft. [But] they still have not provided a corrected version."

ABC has, however, still pointedly refrained from questioning whether this was an attempt to create a false alibi on what can only be called the critical day in question. And police continue to refuse comment on the details of the timeline they were originally given.

No doubt the people at ABC News were placed in a very difficult position. It is not inconceivable that in the rush to get out a timeline of the congressman's activities a simple mistake could have been made. After all, a backbench congressman's office doesn't keep the sort of copious and precise records that a president or even a senator does. And given what the ABC News executive called the "very immediate pull-back" of the story, perhaps it was the better part of wisdom to give Condit's office the benefit of the doubt.

Yet while Condit's lawyers distanced themselves from the timeline shortly after it was given to ABC, they did not do so unprompted. They did so only after ABC called them on an error. And while ABC has altered its timeline, replacing the 6:30 p.m. meeting on May 1 with the one on May 2, they say they have done so without any explicit confirmation from the Condit camp.

Which leaves two big questions: Was Condit trying to juggle his itinerary to create an alibi? And just what was Gary Condit doing between 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. on May 1?

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001


"After all, a backbench congressman's office doesn't keep the sort of copious and precise records that a president or even a senator does."

Well, sh!t, all sorts of peons in the private sector are expected to keep very careful track, cuz we have to account for our time so it can be billed. And somewhere it has been posted that this "backbench congressman" might have been in line for a cabinet position under Gore.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001


Anyone know what Condit's position was concerning the election mess in November? And what if anything did he say or do in connection with it?

I was just wondering if he was being ruined for something...

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001



All I have heard is that he came out strongly against Clinton during Monicagate.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001

He did??? What an effing hypocrite!!!

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001

As reported at Timebomb, Condit is on the House Intelligence Committee, and therefore is probably more sensitive than most to the potential for blackmail.

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=CONDIT-SECRETS-07-13- 01&cat=AN

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001


"[Condit]...therefore is probably more sensitive than most to the potential for blackmail."

Such a sensitivity is hard to reconcile with his reckless history of serious encounters with younger women.

Lest we forget, this mode of recklessness is fairly evenly distributed among officeholders of both parties. Examples abound.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ