Condit's Office Receives Grand Jury Subpoena

By Jeff Johnson | July 7, 2008 | 8:28 PM EDT

Capitol Hill ( - The office of Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.) has received a grand jury subpoena for documents from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in connection with the disappearance of intern Chandra Levy.

Condit's attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a prepared statement Thursday that the congressman will comply with the subpoena. Although Lowell provided no indication of what information is being sought by the grand jury, he did mention the missing person's case of the 24-year old intern with whom Condit has admitted having an affair.

"Since last spring, Congressman Gary Condit has cooperated fully with the law enforcement officials investigating the disappearance of Chandra Levy," Lowell said.

"Issuing a subpoena was not necessary," he added. "However, whatever the reasons were for its issuance, Congressman Condit and his office will, as they have in the past, provide the information law enforcement seeks."

Condit's office notified the House at 10:06 a.m. (EDT) Thursday, between two member's one-minute speeches. The text of the written notification is published on the House website as follows:

"The House received a communication from the Honorable Gary A. Condit. Pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, Mr. Condit notified the House that his office had been served with a grand jury subpoena for documents issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and that after consultation with the Office of General Counsel, he would make the determination required by the Rule."

House Rule VIII, "Response to Subpoenas," says, "Upon receipt of a properly served judicial or administrative subpoena or judicial order... a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall promptly notify the Speaker of its receipt in writing. Such notification shall promptly be laid before the House by the Speaker."

The determination mentioned in Condit's message refers to a determination as to "whether the issuance of the judicial or administrative subpoena or judicial order described (above) is a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court, is material and relevant, and is consistent with the privileges and rights of the House."

The rules specifically protect only transcripts of executive sessions, and witnesses' testimony or other evidence presented in those sessions, from the courts.