Law enforcement authorities spent six hours Wednesday talking to flight attendant Anne Marie Smith about, among other things, Condit's role in an attempt last month to persuade her to sign what she maintains is a false affidavit about their relationship. She'll be spending more time with investigators Thursday, but it's still a long way from here to an indictment for obstructing justice or suborning perjury. For one thing, it's extraordinarily difficult to nail someone for a cover-up when there's no evidence he was involved in the underlying crime — assuming, of course, that there was a crime at all.
Difficult — but not impossible. Prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's
office will be trying to nail down a number of specifics, legal experts
say, such as:
Exactly when the affidavit was presented to Smith (if it was
after the FBI talked to her, as her lawyer maintains, that's not good for
Condit).
Whether Condit knew what was in the affidavit (it helps the
Congressman if his lawyer prepared it without revealing the
contents).
Whether Condit repeatedly asked Smith to sign the affidavit, as
her attorney insists he did (if true, that's very bad news for
Condit).
Whether there are any witnesses to their affair (or better yet, tapes of
Condit's calls to her), and whether Smith herself is credible.
Condit's lawyer has said the affidavit was a draft, and contained a paragraph up top telling Smith she could alter or edit any portion of the document. But such assurances may not be enough if the affidavit was false on its face, and Condit did urge her to sign it as is. Beyond that, the case could come down to dueling dictionaries. Remember Bill Clinton's riff on "the meaning of 'is'"? The word "romantic," contained in the Smith-Condit affidavit, might be subject to similar parsing: "I do not and have not had a romantic relationship with Congressman Condit." Romantic and sexual aren't synonymous, as many a jilted lover has learned all too painfully.
Condit's statements to police may also provide authorities with some leverage. If it's true that it took him until his third interview to confess to an affair with Levy, does that mean he lied to them in the first two sessions? Under the D.C. code obstruction of justice charges can be brought against anyone who "corruptly" (as in by lying) "obstructs or impedes or endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice in any official proceeding" (such as an investigation of someone's disappearance). For his part, Condit has officially stated that he never asked anyone to mislead authorities.
Washington lawyer Jim O'Dea says that in order to be classified as obstruction, a lie would have to be about something material to the case, and Condit could argue that lying about an affair wasn't material. Also key would be exactly what questions the police asked; if they weren't precise, and if Condit managed to deflect them, a jury might simply laugh at the cops' ineptitude.
Condit may have little to worry about — other than what he's done to his marriage and his political career, which is certainly bad enough. FBI sources say they don't even have lukewarm leads, let alone anything hot. They've interviewed other women who allegedly had affairs with Condit, including the daughter of a Pentecostal minister who, her father told the Washington Post, was involved with Condit when she was 18, but those stories have taken investigators nowhere vis-a-vis Levy.
More than ten weeks after Levy was last seen or heard from, authorities are sure of one thing: The intern was the victim of foul play. Suicide is almost certainly out at this point. Even if she leapt from a bridge, says one agent, "You can't go jumping into the water this time of year without coming up looking like the Goodyear Blimp."
With additional reporting by Elaine Shannon/Washington