The legal system has an obligation to presume someone is innocent. The rest of us do not.
Second, of course the exact nature of Condit’s relationship with Levy is relevant, by a simple definition. Condit’s relationship with Levy goes to motive - if they were just good friends, Condit wouldn’t have a motive to kill her to keep their good friendship secrety. The opposite is true if they were intimate.
Finally, this isn’t about what Condit “owes” to the public. Condit didn’t sit for the interview to pay his debt to society - he did it to try to rehabilitate his image. He purposely availed himself of the airwaves to try to assert his innocence, and he bore the risk (hell, I’m sure he knew) that Chung would be asking him about the nature of their relationship. (Amazingly, Condit lied about why he wouldn’t talk about the nature of the relationship - Levy’s family announced that they never asked him to keep private the details.)
If Chung were running after Condit on the street with microphone in hand, you’d have a point. But here, he was trying to gain from the interview.
Omni, I don’t blame Connie for being amazed. I think we all figured Condit was smarter than that. Didn’t he learn anything from Clinton? Just 'fess up, and the American public will forgive you. True, Clinton stalled a bit before telling the truth. But when he did do it, he did a good job of biting his lower lip and looking repentant. And then All Is Forgiven. Had Condit taken a page from Clinton’s book (like we all expected) then the same possibly All Would Be Forgiven for him too.
But he didn’t 'fess up. Color me (and Connie) amazed. Does he want to get re-elected or not? If he wants to get re-elected, he’s sure going about it in the wrong way.
First of all, it’s relevant only to the police, not to every Tom, Dick and Harry who happens to be curious. Secondly, a motive for WHAT? He stated he had no involvement in or knowledge of Levy’s disappearance. If that is the case, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then Chung’s questions were intrusive. Because if he is telling the truth and has committed no crime, it’s none of her damn business what his relationship was with Levy.
Or, his relationship with Levy is relevant only in the context of a crime being committed. And he has said he hasn’t committed a crime.
I do agree with you that Condit should not have agreed to do the interview if he wasn’t going to say anything other than canned responses. That is very clear.
Now hold on thar! Hypothetical: Joe Schmoe is accused in public (but not charged) with defrauding a bunch of helpless old senior citizens for $50,000, and decides to sit for an interview with the press to deny his involvement.
Interviewer asks Joe Schmoe: “did you defraud those senior citizens?” Joe Schmoe denies it. Is the interviewer then supposed to not ask him, “Well, isn’t it true that you owed $50,000 to a loanshark, who was threatening to break your legs if you didn’t pay up?” Is the interviewer supposed to simply accept the denial at face value, and not probe about Joe Schmoe’s potential motive for the fraud? Makes for a pretty useless interview.
Big difference. In your scenario Schmoe is actually accused of a crime with concrete evidence to back up said accusation.
The only “evidence” the police have on Condit (I presume) is that he was having an affair with Levy prior to her disappearance. There is no trail of blood, no phone calls from Condit to shady characters, no unexplained withdrawals from his checking account, no scratches down his face, no unknown hairs found in her apartment, and heck, no BODY.
So if and until the police DO come up with something more concrete than a personal involvement, Condit has the right to remain silent.
If the public wants to make judgments based on his silence that’s their prerogative. But to call for his resignation and to strip him of his committee duties, well that’s just ridiculous.
In my hypothetical, I didn’t propose any evidence at all that Joe Schmoe received any money, committed fraud, or even that a fraud had been committed - rather like the Levy situation - there is no evidence that Condit killed Levy, or even that Levy is dead. In both the Schmoe and Condit situations, there is only an apparent crime and a plausible, if unproven, motive (Schmoe - need to pay off an alleged debt to the Mob; Condit - desire to keep quiet an alleged extramarital affair).
In both cases, the accused seeks out the press to tell his side of the story. If the accused simply wanted to deny the allegations, all he had to do is issue a press release to that effect. Instead, both thought they would gain a greater advantage sitting for an interview. They availed themselves of the press, but they also willingly exposed themselves to potential damage.
Well, Schmoe must be doing something right. According to the most recent USA Today poll* if the Congressional election were held today, Joe Schmoe would win in Gary Condit’s district by a landslide.