www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

letter to the President re: remarks about Condit.....

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
peripeteia



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 1173
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 10:04 am    Post subject: letter to the President re: remarks about Condit..... Reply with quote

quoted below is the letter I sent to the US Government regarding the comments of Government officals, that Garys' involvement in Chandras' disappearance were a rumor.

This also shows that my personal Journey in seeking justice for Chandra began on Aug.25, and that this letter was sent on Jan.7th and maybe not until the 8th. Therefore the comments of Bush had to have been made near to this time in his address to the Union.

Quote


Joined: 25 Aug 2001Posts: 1020Location: Canada Posted: 07 Jan 2002 00:11 Post subject:

Mr. George Bush Mr. President: A view from North of the 49th. I beg your pardon to be so bold and ask, with all due respect. What information do you have regarding the involvement of Gary Condit with the disappearance of Chandra Levy to announce to the press that this was all just a "rumor"? If you pardon my saying, the information that has been announced in the press and the interviews of the parties involved hardly put Gary Condit in a position of innocence. On the contrary, Chandra left her apt. presumably after 1:00 PM on May the 1st and disappears. Mr. Condit has lunch with yourself and later goes to see Mr. Cheney, the Vice-President for a meeting which ended around 1:00pm. Mr. Condit has given the authorities NO (real) alibi for the afternoon of this day until his Doctor's appointment at 5:00pm. The people wish to know what information that you have that you could take the quantum leap of justice and announce that this matter is a rumor. Especially when this matter is under an investigation before the Federal Grand Jury? Mr. President, is this not considered leading the witness? This matter is very serious as it appears that there is a cover-up? The press are mysteriously silent regarding this matter, and it is rumored that Condit is being shielded by yourself, Mr. Colin Powell and Mr. Gephart. This has cast a bad light on the Judicial Process of which America is so proud of, and rightly so. The facts in this case have pointed to that Gary Condit has not been forthcoming. That his personal behavior is not befitting a congressman, that his behavior is a security risk. These matters have been ignored. The peoples are demanding that these matters be investigated with the full use of the powers of the law. Thanking you in advance for being receptive to my opinion. There are thousands of like minds on the forums on the internet. Thanks, to free speach we have been able to voice our opinions and post articles and gather information that no one seems too interested or concerned about, especially after the tragic events of Sept.11th. With every good wish to you, and yours and God Speed you in your position, Take care, and God Bless,



cc.

secretary@state.gov
Vice-President@whitehouse.gov
Members of Congress U.S.
Members of the Senate U.S

I signed this letter with my name and email address
/quote
_________________
A vision sent me on the path of seeking justice for Chandra, nothing I've seen in print to date has diminished the vividness but only served to reaffirm the validity of this vision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
propria



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Location: northern illinois

PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2004 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

my recollection is that the 'rumor' comment was made in the course of a press conference in which the president was asked about the condit connection in the levy matter. his response was that his administration does not comment on rumors, which is altogether different from a direct claim that he said the speculation as to condit's involvement is nothing but a rumor. the point is well worthy of being addressed, but only in terms of the actual comment, not an embellished or otherwise distorted version of his remark.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2004 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One big problem, nanci, is that the government did not do its job right in the first place. Of course it was not President Bush who did not ask Linda Zambsky to testify before the grand jury. If it had not been for Linda probably the Condit story would never have been in the newspapers.

That was not the President's fault, but the Federal grand jury is still part of the government.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peripeteia



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 1173
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2004 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nanci I have not embellished what the Predisent said, he did not make the reference to the stance of "his administration". Yes you are quite correct Bush commented only after have been asked by the Press. There were two other persons in the room while watching the broadcast, and this was their take on it as well. I believe Powell made a similar statement to the press at another time.

Even to comment that his administration did not make comments on rumors, this situation was hardly a rumor, by the time of the address, it was public knowledge that Zamsky and Susan and Bob Levy had clarified that Chandra and Gary were having an affair, Mrs. Levy made her comments that she knew about the affair to CNN. The matter was before the Grand Jury and Gary had been requested to answer the questions of the Grand Jury regarding Chandras' disappearance.

The whole matter that Gary spoke to the District Attorney and did in fact not present himself before the grand jury speaks loudly of having someone in high places pulling rank for Gary. I do not think it a common occurance that someone does not present themselves before a grand jury when they are central in the investigation especially where there is a loss of life. Although it has been stated by the Police Gary was not a suspect in Chandras' disappearance, the police also said that Gary had not been ruled out, "we have not ruled out anyone", was Ramseys' comment.

This is extrondinary at all that the Press asked the President this question at that particular time, in that considering this was the 1st address to the State of the Union post 911! People in the press thought it pretty important and obviously felt the president should be addressing this issue, or why else was the Press asking.

There were and are only two word that Bush should have uttered, NO COMMENT. The present administration and others have indeed made comments regarding personal matters, for example, Clinton! Robert Kennedy, Jack Kennedy.

In Canada there would be a public enquiry into Chandras' death and then there would have been a hearing of the ethics committee in Parliament. For a government offical to comment on such a thing, or for a statesman not to appear before the enquiry (which has powers similar to a grand jury, which many do not seem to exercise) could not happen.

There were other members of the Internet Bulletin Board on Chandra who were Americans, who had heard the broadcast and sent letters as well, many of the same people petitioned, the President, Vice-President, the Senate, congress, District Attorney Ashcroft, calling for a grand jury to investigate Chandras' disappearance. Some of the members belong on this board.

These people felt as I did, Bush nor Powell should have commented at all.
In fact Bush and Cheney, should have requested the house speaker, to take this matter before the Ethics Committee of Congress. Or this matter should have been raised on the floor of Congress for debate as to what to do, as this was flashing all over the entire world. Gephart I think and a few other politicans did comment, in fact the Governor of California, Davis suggested that Condit be more forthcoming.

From my vantage point and having a different operational system of Government re: Republic verses Parliament, this matter should have been address, this is not a rumor. Gary Condit may not have caused Chandras' death, however, he does have to express to the grand jury the questions that they have regarding Chandra. There is no debate here Nanci. The other you can see it any way you like, there are others who share your opinion, in fact I believe you have already told me your opinion on this matter, at other times, as well as other posters.

This is fine, I stood by my opinion and sent this to every member of the House of Rep. and Senate, and to Bush etc. There are plenty of other people who feel that this matter has been covered up, and that Gary has been given the kid glove treatment.

But I will debate this no further, as those tend to go south on bulletin Boards and elsewhere if they involve politics.
_________________
A vision sent me on the path of seeking justice for Chandra, nothing I've seen in print to date has diminished the vividness but only served to reaffirm the validity of this vision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blondie



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2004 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw him on Fox news being asked about it by a reporter and he said
'Oh, that's just a rumor"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2004 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder who started the rumors theory. Was it the DC Police, or was it someone else, or was it the White House?

Maybe Abbe Lowell. ....:)

Congressman Barr might be someone to contact, if he is still in Congress. I forget the exact details, but he wanted Condit investigated by the Congress. Think I will check into that.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blondie



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2004 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barr, from Georgia was defeated in 2002. BUT, I agree, he might be somone to talk to. He is very high on ethics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2004 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, kate and blondie, I agree entirely. Washington circled the wagons and covered up this murder. It requires uncovering.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
propria



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Location: northern illinois

PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2004 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>> considering this was the 1st address to the State of the Union post 911 <<<


my reference to embellishing refers to the claim that president bush labeled the story about condit 'just a rumor' in the course of his state of the union address. i have not missed a state of the union address for at least a couple decades now, and i don't recall any president addressing any matter so unrelated to the general well being of the country in his annual address to the nation.

i would also be very surprised if the president devoted his heavily burdened post-911 attention to personally covering up for a congressman from the opposing political party whose girlfriend was missing ... this was not yet a murder investigation at that time, and rumors of affairs by members of congress are always knee deep in washington, so i'd also be surprised if any politician referred to them as anything other than rumor.

there is more than enough political power in washington to stop this investigation and/or to cover up this crime without the president being directly involved or even having any knowledge of the cover up. among other things, dc law enforcement is paid at the discretion of the congress, and a paycheck is major leverage. rd is exactly right that the wagons were circled in washington but, short of solid proof, i see no reason to believe that the president from an opposing party was in that circle.

it is, of course, entirely possible that george bush did directly comment on condit in the 2002 state of the union address and i somehow missed the remark ... posting a quotation of his comment in that address would be more than adequate to prove me mistaken. it is also entirely possible that others here and elsewhere heard a comment made in a press conference i did not see ... i do not for a moment question their recollection, i've only commented on what i personally heard him say.

i can't imagine that you would suggest that i dispute the fact of a cover up in this case, as i have screamed bloody murder on three different discussion boards that such a cover up did occur and was well underway from the very beginnings of this case. what i do dispute is any claim, insinuation, embellishment, whatever, that the president was directly and personally involved in such a cover up, and i would have to see convincing proof of that before i would stop disputing it.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2004 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, his comment was not made in any connection with the State of the Union, actually made months earlier. Not sure what that's about.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
peripeteia



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 1173
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2004 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The remarks were made as a result of questioning from a reporter not in the address to the Union. The point is that no comment should have been made, especially any reference to the fact that Condits' involvement with Chandra was a rumour. I did not state that any President or government officals have/has made comments regarding personal matters in the address to the state of the Union. rd, I'm not so sure that Bush at other times made remarks about this matter being a rumour, I'm certain that Powell did, again this was done in the context from questions from reporters. However, I do not listen to the news in Canada much less the United States, so I usually only hear things after the fact.

I'm certain that Condit was treated with kid gloves. I say this as the handling of Colin Thatcher a Canadian politican who was a suspect in his wifes' murder was treated much differently. He was convicted of the murder of his wife, with no weapon ever being found and no shooter (hit man) ever named. He is doing 25 to life in a Federal Penitentiary, and likely after 25 he won't be walking around the streets. If anything the government brought pressure on the RCMP to investigate this matter, it took nearly a year before this dude was convicted.

Like I say, I have no knowledge as to the innocence or guilty of Condit, only that somehow he was able to skirt the grand jury. As there is no law of limitations on murder, hopefully Condit will yet have to answer the questions of the Grand Jury, first starting with his alibi for the 1st of May
and secondly why he did not tell the Levys' that Chandra would be arriving by train. (not that I believe that was ever the intention of Chandra but it is very interesting that Condit insisted that was Chandras' intention.

I hope rd, that your book renews the interest in the search for justice for Chandra...
_________________
A vision sent me on the path of seeking justice for Chandra, nothing I've seen in print to date has diminished the vividness but only served to reaffirm the validity of this vision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2004 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes, what he didn't tell the Levys and the police about the train is very telling, and critical to understanding how Condit was involved in a coverup of her disappearance. I think, kate, that readers of the book will definitely agree with you.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group