By John Springer
Court TV

U.S. Rep. Gary Condit didn't win any votes of confidence among Washington D.C. police when he reportedly failed to admit until a third interview with investigators that he had had a long romantic affair with missing intern Chandra Levy.

The career politician from California lost even more support and tarnished his good-guy image when he asked his flight attendant-girlfriend to lie and say, according to her, that she and Condit were just acquaintances.

But the question remains whether Condit, a 53-year-old married conservative Democratic lawmaker from California, broke any laws with his alleged misstatements, half-truths and outright lies. Did the congressman cross a line in his endeavors to hide a secret relationship with the 24-year-old woman, who disappeared without a trace in early May?

Were Laws Broken?

Federal investigators are reportedly looking into whether the congressman's actions amount to legal missteps. For his part, Condit, has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing through his lawyer and spokesperson, and has said he is cooperating fully with the police investigation into Levy's disappearance.

If you listen to the pundits filling hour after hour of prime time talk on most of the cable networks, however, Condit may have exposed himself to prosecution under federal statutes concerned with lying to federal agents or committing acts of perjury, subornation of perjury or obstruction of justice.

Criminal defense lawyers and former federal prosecutors familiar with the federal statutes that would apply in such a case, say it is unlikely that the charges would stick unless it could be proven that Levy met with foul play, that Condit was involved somehow or that he was trying to cover up something more than extramarital affairs.

Absent any eyewitnesses, physical or circumstantial evidence linking Condit to whatever fate Levy may have met, the statutes might never come into play — but the laws are there, the legal experts say, if prosecutors want to play hardball.

"[The law] is there for a reason. It is to give a prosecutor a hook in investigating when all else fails," said Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. "If the congressman lied to federal investigators about a material fact in the course of the investigation, that is prosecutable … Whether they are interested in doing that, who knows? One could get the impression that they are being ginger with this guy."

A Flight Attendant's Allegations

Federal prosecutors in Washington will not discuss the Condit-Levy case, but the attorney for San Francisco-based United Airlines flight attendant Anne Marie Smith said he has no doubt that Condit was trying to get her to lie to investigators and to the media.

Seattle lawyer Jim Robinson told Court TV that Condit and Smith talked on the telephone about Condit's legal team's request that she sign an affidavit prepared by lawyers to deny "under penalty of perjury" that she and Condit were more than just acquaintances.

Smith, 39, refused to sign the affidavit and went public about her 10-month affair with Condit. She described the relationship and Condit's alleged efforts to conceal it during interviews with local and federal investigators in Washington over two days last week.

"I can confirm that this is true," Robinson said of the federal probe. "He may have suborned perjury with my client. Suborning perjury is attempting to get someone to commit perjury. If she had signed that, she would have committed perjury, so by trying to get her to sign it, he was suborning perjury."

Condit's lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, and spokesperson Marina Ein, did not return calls to their offices this week. In the past, however, Condit's defenders have noted that the Smith affidavit was an e-mail draft from a lawyer with a note asking Robinson to "edit, cut, suggest etc."

"If he tries to say he didn't know what it said, I don't think jurors would buy that — unless they get a really dumb jury," Robinson said.

Regular followers of the Condit-Levy saga within Washington's legal community say that an obstruction or perjury case might never make it to a grand jury, let alone a trial jury. Working in Condit's favor is wording in federal law requiring that the target of such prosecutions mislead federal investigators about "material facts," or details relevant to a criminal probe.

Legal experts point out that police have so far deemed the investigation into Levy's disappearance a missing persons case — not a criminal inquiry.

California native Chandra Levy disappeared from her Washington, D.C., neighborhood

"It is very unlikely, having been a prosecutor most of my adult life and having worked as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, that they would prosecute the obstruction [allegation] in the stewardess's case," said Cynthia Alksne, a frequent commentator on the Condit-Levy case for Fox News and CNN. "A. It's not that important. B. It didn't even happen in Washington."

Pushing for Prosecution

Condit, who, according to his lawyer, passed a lie detector test, is not considered a suspect in the intern's disappearance. Some, however, think police and prosecutors should take it up a notch.

"The revelation that Condit instructed Chandra Levy to leave her identification in her apartment every time that he would be with her, and the fact that she didn't take her ID with her the last time she left her apartment is enough for a grand jury investigation," said Larry Klayman, chairman and founder of Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative Washington-based public interest group.

Earlier this month, the group filed a congressional ethics complaint asking for an investigation of Condit's conduct in response to the inquiries about his alleged womanizing.

"As a U.S. Congressman, and as a human being, Congressman Condit owed a duty and a responsibility to do whatever he could to help the Levy family find Chandra," Klayman said. "Rather than doing this he put his own interests first and foremost and covered-up his relationship — thereby depriving the police of vital information necessary to find the still missing young lady."