DRomm's stupid comment on Chandra Levy case

In this thread, DRomm makes the assinine comment:

You moron! When a married man is having an affair with another woman, and that woman turns up dead, he is automatically a suspect. Experience with these types of cases bears out that often he is responsible. When that suspect lies, refuses to cooperate, and generally obstructs the investigation, that is a giant neon sign for the police to look harder at him. This is not politics, this is murder investigation 101.

As for him being a Congressman somehow making him immune to being a human, hah! We all know the adage about power currupts. Congressmen have power. It is not a big leap to think a Congressman could let his power go to his head and think he could get away with something.

When you and that mystic nutbag make assinine comments like this (and his remarks about Texas), you don’t do yourself any favors. It makes it ten times harder to take anything you say seriously.

Grow a fucking brain.

where in that statement does he say that Condit shouldn’t have been investigated or didn’t act in a manner that made him look suspicious to some folks??

as far as I could read in the statement quoted he asked if you thought that Condit killed Levy.

I can see that one could take the (extraneous) comment two ways. I personally didn’t know HOW to interpret it at first.

I agree that making bizarre, politically charged comments in a thread which was trying to be factual tends to destroy the credibility of the poster, even when it may not be deserved.


Ah, name calling. You must be wrong…

And, if you recall, Chandra hadn’t turned up dead while the name calling and lies were being slung by the rabid right. She was missing, and Dick Cheney was Condit’s alibi for that time period. (The goppies were trying to get the extremely conservative Condit to switch parties.)

Hope that clears things up. Unless you reall are that gullible…

DRomm: So you thought at the time that merely because Condit was “under pressure to switch sides” that he could be ruled out as a suspect?

My guess is you’ve predicted 24 of the last 3 recessions.

wring said:

How the fuck was I supposed to know if Condit killed Levy? I’m not psychic. I wasn’t there to witness it. But you certainly can’t discount him simply because he’s a Congressman. If he’s got an alibi, sure. If that alibi is not shakey but solid, okay. But just because he’s a Congressman?

It’s not gullibility to think the guy is suspicious, and that his lack of cooperation is even more suspicious.

Did I think he killed her? I didn’t know. But I certainly didn’t discount the possibility.

It was pretty obvious from very early on that Condit had nothing to do with it. He had an alibi and there was no evidence whatever linking him to her death. The GOP desperately wanted him to be guilty and they smeared him like crazy in the press. Their “evidence” consisted solely of the fact that, in his first interview, he didn’t want to tell the cops he was fucking her. He subsequently gave several more interviews to the cops which the police said were completely satifactory and complete and that they did not consider him a suspect. We also had to endure daily press conferences by the parents who kept begging Condit to “tell what he knew” even though he already had, several times. After he as eliminated as a suspect, nobody on the right apologized for ruining his career and calling him a murderer. What part of “he is not a suspect” do those people not fucking understand?

There was no “lack of cooperation.” The cops said he cooperated fully once they got him to admit that he had, indeed, fucked her.

well, you see he **did ** have an alibi. he was in meetings all day, his day was well accounted for (and since her body’s been found, with the implication that she was killed shortly after leaving her apt., he was, as I believe it has been noted, with VP CHeney at the time).

be all of that as it may. the fact is, he was completely investigated. He was hounded, interviewed, searched, his staff interviewed, his family interviewed.

Since he was investigated what’s with the BS of “so, since he’s a congressman he shouldn’t be investigated?”

a. no, his standing as a member of COngress wouldn’t (and didn’t) effect his ability to be investigated.

b. he was, of course, investigated to the max. and they found (gasp) that he’d had an affair w/her, but wasnt’ with her when she disappeared

so, forgive me when I fail to see what the fuck is your issue now, ok?

Diogenes, apparently the media is as culpable as the political wangling for not making this information more clear. To someone not searching out the details, the appearance was given that he was not cooperating.

wring, I never said he wasn’t investigated, nor am I the one asserting that since he’s a Congressman he shouldn’t be investigated.

My issue is that DRomm seems to be saying that a person would have to be gullible to think a Congressman could kill someone. The implication of his statement is that because Condit was a Congressman, he couldn’t have been involved. And that thinking he might be involved makes one gullible.

Look, I may have been poorly informed and mislead by the media, but I don’t think he could be dismissed as a suspect because he’s a Congressman.

Once the investigation cleared him, that’s another matter. The media should have done a better job of making that clear.

DRomm, in the other thread, you said:

Here you go jumping to conclusions again. Apparently anyone who disagrees with you is a right wing “dittohead”. You did the same thing to others in those other threads on the Bush article. The fact is you’re wrong about me, and throwing labels at me in order to dismiss me demonstrates why people don’t listen to you.

FTR, I’m a liberal, and think Limbaugh is a big windbag. I didn’t pay any attention to Condit’s party or political affiliation.

Ok, I can see where you might think he was claiming that anyone ever suspecting a congressional member of murder had to be guillible, and I would disagree with that statement. I didn’t interpret his words that way, and certainly at this point, it’s clear that he was innocent in her death, that the media attention (coupled w/the police solemnly announcing ‘he is not a suspect at this time’) kept the fires burning. and IMHO, did a great disservice to the man and his family. He was guilty of having an affair w/a young woman; and trying for a minute to not have that fact become public. It was clear (to me) afterward that his fear of disclosing the info to the police had some merit since info “leaked” out of that investigation like a faucet.

it did seem to me in this thread that you weren’t willing to cede that Levy wasn’t killed by Condit.

What is really interesting is that no evidence was found to link Condit to the death of Chandra Levy. But the media destroyed his career anyway.

On the other hand, Republican congressman Joe Scarborough had his intern turn up dead in HIS OFFICE with a nasty head wound, and the media did not ever report it. I am not saying he did it, but don’t you think the media would have had even more to say about this one?


Kinda destroys that myth about the liberal media, doesn’t it?

BTW, Irishman, it’s kinda cowardly of you to hide out in this thread and call me a nutbag, doncha think? Afraid to tell me to my face? BTW, everything I said about texas is true.

I agree, the media was every bit as culpable if not more so. They thought they had a juicy story and they didn’t want the facts to get in their way. I should have been more clear about that. To someone who followed the story only superficially it would be easy to get the impression that Condit was a more viable suspect than what the evidence warranted.

mystic2311, I don’t need to start a new thread to call you a nutbag. It’s obvious to anyone who can read.

Diog, my good friend:

when you say:

you show your ignorance of California politics.

I have to ask: Do you have a cite?

Oh, please, this is ridiculous. Condit killed Vince Foster, and Bill Clinton killed Chandra Levy. Sheesh!

Well, then who killed Nicole Brown Simpson?

I dunno, but O.J.'s gonna search every golf course in American until he finds the culprit.

I didn’t (and still don’t) think Condit had anything to do with Levy’s death. My biased opinion is that some politicians, just like some doctors, some sanitary removal people, etc., cheat on their spouses. DC happens to have a concentration of politicians. DC also has crime, like many other cities. I guess my point is that I don’t think it’s that jarring or odd that a politician was having an affair with a victim of random crime. I think it’s odd and jarring that she was missing and then found dead, but not the condit connection.

Having said that, I continue to believe that Condit was way whooshed on what many were actually concerned about. My disgust with him revolved around his weasley actions when someone he slept with was missing. For God’s sake, it may have been a really, really bad coincidence that would harm his career but his lack of stepping up and putting her life before his political aspirations was reprehensible. I think that had a lot to do with his loss of support versus people thinking he actually killed her. YMMV.

I did.