July
10, 2001
BY
HAND DELIVERY & FACSIMILE
Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct
U.S.
House of Representatives
HT-2,
The Capitol
Washington,
DC 20515
Attn: Representative
Joel Hefley, Chairman
Representative
Howard L. Berman, Ranking Member
Representative
Rob Portman, Member
Representative
Martin Olav Sabo, Member
Representative
Doc Hastings, Member
Representative
Ed Pastor, Member
Representative
Asa Hutchinson, Member
Representative
Zoe Lofgren, Member
Representative
Judy Biggert, Member
Representative
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Member
Re: Complaint Against
Congressman Gary A. Condit (D) of California.
Dear Representative Hefley and Members
of the Committee:
I.
INTRODUCTION.
Under the provisions of the Rules of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct[1],
Judicial Watch, Inc. (hereinafter “Judicial Watch”), in the public interest,
files this formal complaint against Congressman Gary A. Condit of the State of
California, for violation of United States law, the U.S. House of Representatives
Code of Official Conduct (House Rule XLIII), the Code of Ethics for Government
Service, and for improper conduct that reflects upon the United States House of
Representatives. Judicial Watch is a
non-profit, public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes
government abuse and corruption.
Specifically, Congressman Gary A. Condit appears to be in violation of:
1.
18 U.S.C.§1001
(Statements)
2.
18 U.S.C.§1510
(Obstruction of Criminal Investigation)
3.
18 U.S.C.§1622
(Subornation of Perjury)
4.
18 U.S.C.§1512 (Tampering
with a Witness, Victim, or an Informant)
5.
House Rule
XLIII (Code of Official Conduct).
II. FACTS.
A. The Disappearance of Chandra Levy.
On
or about April 30, 2001, Chandra Levy, a 24 year old woman from California who
had been working as an intern for the Bureau of Prisons disappeared under
mysterious circumstances. Intense media
coverage has detailed the young woman’s family’s efforts, and those of the
Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department’s and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s, to discover her whereabouts, and whether or not foul play was
involved in her disappearance.
B. Congressman Gary Condit’s Relationship With
Chandra Levy.
Chandra Levy first met Congressman Condit
in early October of 2000.[2] In an interview with DC police in early June
2001, Congressman Condit characterized his relationship with Ms. Levy as being
“simply a good friend.”[3] Congressman Condit conceded that Ms. Levy
had spent the night at his Adams Morgan apartment, but did not say whether the
two had been romantically and/or sexually involved.
A second interview of Congressman Condit,
conducted by DC police later in June 2001, revealed little additional
information concerning the frequency of contact and nature of the relationship
between himself and Ms. Levy. Asked to
comment on the Congressman’s second interview, DC Police Chief Charles Ramsey
stated, “We didn’t get much more than we already had.”[4]
C. Congressman Condit, Subornation of Perjury
And Witness Tampering.
On Monday, July 2, 2001, Anne Marie Smith,
a 39 year old United Airlines flight attendant who said she had a year long
affair with Congressman Condit, revealed that she had been approached on June
15, 2001, by an investigator in the employ of Congressman Condit’s attorney and
asked to sign a one page affidavit. In
an interview with FoxNews, Ms. Smith said:
“Mr. Condit knew it was false, and he was
asking me to sign it.
I personally could never have signed it. .
.He was urging me to sign it.
He said. . .this could be potentially
embarrassing for both of us.”[5]
Congressman Condit, through his
Congressional office staffers and aides, continued to adamantly deny the
existence of a romantic relationship between himself and Ms. Levy. These denials continued despite an extensive
and detailed account of Congressman Condit’s intimate relationship with Ms.
Levy by Linda Zamsky, Ms. Levy’s aunt, in whom she confided the details of her
liaisons with the Congressman. Ms.
Zamsky stated that Congressman Condit had emphatically and explicitly warned
Ms. Levy to keep their relationship a secret.[6] Ms. Zamsky last heard from Ms. Levy on April
29, 2001, on a voice-mail message wherein she stated, “. . .I really have some
big news or something important to tell.”[7]
D. Congressman Condit Confirms Affair With Ms.
Levy.
On the evening of Friday, July 6, 2001,
Congressman Condit consented to a third interview with DC police concerning his
relationship with Ms. Levy. During the
hour and a half long interview, Congressman Condit reversed his position in the
previous two (2) police interviews and confessed to having a sexual
relationship with Ms. Levy that had not ended before her disappearance.[8]
E. Levy Family, Media and Public Reaction To
Congressman Condit’s Conduct.
Congressman Condit’s stunning admission of
a sexual relationship with Ms. Levy, after months of denials and half-hearted
offers of assistance and promises of full cooperation in the missing persons
investigation, diminishes his credibility and shows he lied. The Levy family has called for Congressman
Condit to take a “lie detector” test.
Media outlets are dedicating “wall-to-wall” coverage of all facets of
the young lady’s mysterious disappearance and Congressman Condit’s lack of
candor and outright deceptions. The
American public is faced with another high ranking government official whose
decisions, personal behavior, professional conduct and truthfulness are, at
best, questionable, and at worst, criminal.
Federal and local law enforcement officials in the District of Columbia
have pledged to pursue unanswered questions in the case of Ms. Levy’s
disappearance. A federal grand jury has
been empaneled. The House of Representatives
also has a solemn duty and lawful obligation to the Levy family and the
American public. Those obligations are
set forth in the U.S. House of
Representatives Code of Official Conduct and the
Code of Ethics for Government Service.
Pending federal and local law enforcement investigations do not remove,
delay or mitigate the obligation of the House of Representatives to police
their own Members.
III. THE HOUSE’S ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
Publically
available information and press stories now document and detail the decisions
and actions of Congressman Gary Condit with regard to DC police investigations
into the disappearance of Ms. Levy. It
is clear that Congressman Condit deliberately deceived police investigators
concerning the nature of his relationship with Ms. Levy. (See 18
U.S.C.§1001 – Statements) Congressman Condit’s deceptions and false statements
factor materially in Ms. Levy’s case as they were relied upon by law
enforcement authorities in determining and characterizing her state of mind and
emotional condition at the time of her disappearance. (See 18
U.S.C.§1510 – Obstruction of Criminal Investigation).
There are credible reports that Congressman Condit and
his agents suborned perjury and attempted to intimidate a witness. (See
18 U.S.C.§1622 – Subornation of Perjury and 18 U.S.C.§1512 – Tampering
with a Witness, Victim, or an Informant). The US Attorney for the District of Columbia
has launched it’s own inquiry into the subornation and intimidation issues,
calling Ms. Anne Marie Smith to Washington, DC today.
This Committee has a solemn Constitutional oversight
obligation to investigate Congressman Condit’s obstructionist activities and
false statements in connection with the disappearance of Ms. Chandra Levy. This obligation is separate and distinct
from, but no less important than, the ongoing missing person inquiry, nor any
subsequent criminal investigation that may follow.
Clauses 1 and 2 of House Rule XLIII address the
requirements of propriety, comportment, conduct and behavior of Members of the
House:
“1. A Member, officer, or employee of the
House of Representatives
shall conduct himself at all times in a
manner which shall reflect
creditably on the House of Representatives.
* *
*
“2. A Member, officer, or employee of the
House of Representatives
shall adhere to the
spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House of Representatives and to the
rules of duly constituted committees thereof.”
These
standards of conduct must be applied equally and uniformly to all Members of
the House, regardless of party, position, seniority or state. The rules were devised to encourage Members
to conduct themselves in accordance with the highest ethical, moral and legal
standards.
As a
U.S. Congressman, and as a human being, Congressman Condit owed a duty and a
responsibility to do whatever he could to help the Levy family find
Chandra. Rather than doing this he put
his own interests first and foremost and covered-up his relationship – thereby
depriving the police of vital information necessary to find the still missing
young lady. This likely put her life in
further jeopardy.
Congressman
Condit’s conduct violates the general principles of public service and reflects
negatively on his office and the United States House of Representatives as a
whole. His improper conduct in the
obstruction of justice in the investigation of Ms. Levy’s disappearance
discredits the institution as a whole, not just the individual, thereby
invoking the House’s inherent and constitutional right to protect its own
integrity and reputation.
Judicial
Watch, in the public interest, respectfully requests your prompt investigation
of these apparent legal and ethical violations by Congressman Condit, and
respectfully requests that he be sanctioned with an appropriate remedy
befitting the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Larry Klayman Thomas
J. Fitton
Chairman and General Counsel President
cc: The
Honorable Gary A. Condit
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Subscribed
and sworn to before me this _____ day of July, 2001 by Larry Klayman and Thomas
J. Fitton
___________________________________
[1]House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, Rules, 102d Congress, 1st Session (hereinafter House
Rules), reprinted in 137 Cong. Rec. H3731-37 (daily ed. May 30, 1991).
[2]Allan Lengel; “Intern Spent Night Condit Told
Police,” The Washington Post, Thursday, June 7, 2001; Page B01, (Exhibit
1).
[3]Ibid
[4]Petula Dvorak and Allan Lengel; “2nd
Condit Interview Sheds Little Light,” The Washington Post, Monday, June
25, 2001; Page B02 (Exhibit 2).
[5]Allan Lengel and Petula Dvorak; “Woman Says
Condit Asked Her To Lie,” The Washington Post, Tuesday July 3, 2001;
Page B01 (Exhibit 3).
[6]Allen Lengel and Petula Dvorak; “Levy Aunt
Details Alleged Condit Affair,” The Washington Post, Friday, July 6,
2001; Page B01 (Exhibit 4).
[7]Ibid
[8]Allan Lengal and Petula Dvorak; “Condit
Confirms Affair To Police, Sources Say,” The Washington Post, Sunday,
July 8, 2001; Page A01 (Exhibit 5).