HERE’S THE QUESTION THAT NEEDS AN ANSWER

We don’t know the details of Congressman Gary Condit’s interviews with police, so no-one can say with any certainty whether he was evasive or untrue or uncooperative. The entire case against him seems to me based on the notion that it took three interviews for him to confess to a sexual relationship with Chandra Levy. The implication is that this sexual nature of the relationship dramatically helps the police to find the missing woman and that withholding this fact (which the cops must surely have suspected anyway) was damaging to the case. Sorry, I don’t get it. All that matters, it seems to me, is that Condit knew the woman, was a ‘good friend,’ and that he could give the cops any information about her on that basis to help with the investigation. If having sex with Chandra is such a critical piece of information, then why haven’t the media targeted every other lover Levy had, some of whom haven’t even cooperated with the cops? I’m not saying Condit shouldn’t have told the police of his sex life in this case (except, in a sane world, the cops wouldn’t divulge that information to the public, but in this nutball media circus, it’s obvious they would). I am saying I don’t see the specific relevance of this to finding Chandra. Of course, I can see the relevance of sex to boost cable show ratings and sell papers. But are we really doing all this to help Fox News or Chandra Levy?