GOP may seek Bill Clinton's testimony (in Sen. Clinton's confirmation hearing)

[babylonsister]

GOP may seek Bill Clinton's testimony
By AMIE PARNES & GLENN THRUSH | 12/10/08 7:58 PM EST


Senate Republicans are considering asking Bill Clinton to testify at his wife’s confirmation hearing about potential conflicts of interest involving his worldwide charitable enterprises.

“There are concerns about his international work across the board,” a Republican aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Politico. “Seeking donations from foreign governments is definitely concerning. ... It has been discussed, and it will be discussed.”

While spouses frequently attend nominees’ confirmation hearings, they are usually there for moral support and window dressing — a sympathetic face in the row of seats behind the witness table.

Indeed, it’s unusual to have anyone aside from the nominee testify at a confirmation hearing.

But there’s nothing usual about Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and some Senate Republicans may relish the thought of putting Washington’s ultimate power couple though the wringer before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next month.

more...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16470.html

[Hokie]

1. I thought they lost subpoena power?

Is it just me or do the Repubes still act like they control everything?

[leftynyc]

4. It's not a subpoena

These are confirmation hearings for cabinet officials. Pubs get to ask questions also.

[Hokie]

9. You missed the point

The OP said they wanted Bill Clinton to TESTIFY. Of course, they can and will ask Hillary Clinton whatever they want.

[leftynyc]

20. No I didn't miss the point

You said he was being supoened - he is not. Hearings require testimony. What they think they're going to find out - I have no idea.

[Hokie]

21. Bill Clinton is not up for confirmation

Hillary Clinton will be required to testify. Bill Clinton may testify. If he chooses not to the majority (i.e.) the Democratic members of the committee could issue a subpoena. He could also ignore the subpoena because as Karl Rove and other members of the Bush administration have shown, Congressional subpoenas are worthless, laughable, and not enforceable. The Republicans may request that he testify but they have no power in the matter.

[karynnj]

5. This is a standard thing in confirmation hearings

In Rice's 2005 hearing, she was asked extremely tough questions, particularly by Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry - both of whom were in the minority. Senator Kerry, alone grilled her for over a half an hour after others had asked everything they wanted. SFRC is a great committee and even the Republicans questioned Bush officials. Republican Senator Lugar, when he was chair, held some great hearings on the role of oil on foreign policy.

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2006/hrg060330a.html

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2006/hrg060607a.html

[Captain Hilts]

2. They feel nostalgia for the Clinton years just like everybody else after the last 8.

[Cha]

19. I don't..I'm looking forward

to the next 8 years.

[City Lights]

3. "One of the Republicans most concerned about Bill Clinton’s role is Sen. David Vitter."

:rofl:

Hey David, your diaper just dropped a turd onto the sidewalk.

[Tarc]

6. THESE ass-clowns are going to put Bubba "through the wringer" ?

:rofl:

Please. Clinton deftly handled the worst 90's partisans with ease, and most of them are long gone. I'd love to see today's minority has-beens try to grill the former President, he'll deal with them with ease.

[karynnj]

8. If he is a witness, I assume he will answer any question asked well

Doing so will be in keeping with respecting both the Congress and the rights of the minority.

[Tarc]

12. They do not deserve any respect

What they want this for is to try to grab a piece of the spotlight for themselves, and try to get conservatism's old favorite bogeyman Bill Clinton into a show trial of their favorite talking points about his pardons, his library funding, etc...

[karynnj]

13. You sound like the right wing did over the Democrats who

dared to question Rice - including Senator Kerry, who they thought had lost the right to question anything because he (barely) lost the Presidency. If it was right for Rice to spend several hours being questions - including some rough questions from Senator Boxer it is surely right for it to happen now. I expect Senator Kerry to run the hearing with as much grace as Senator Lugar did.

[moriah]

27. I do have to say there is a slight difference....

... that being that Bill isn't the one up for nomination and Condi was in that case -- your analogy would fit better about them grilling Hillary herself, which we all know they will do.

There really isn't precedent from what I can see for questioning a spouse in a confirmation hearing, but then again there is not precedent for an ex-President to be the spouse of an appointee either, so I expect he will be questioned. If he is asked to testify longer than Hillary is, I might feel that is excessive.

[beachmom]

14. In written form, maybe. But I do not think Bill Clinton should have to

testify in person. Since nobody else's spouse has had to.

[karynnj]

17. That likely will be a good way to handle it

[Hokie]

22. Congratulations on being one of few that realize it would be unusual for a spouse to be questioned

I think any questions about Bill's input or involvement should be directed at Hillary. Bill is not up for nomination, she is.

[karynnj]

23. Do you think that Hillary has a "usual" spouse?

I agree that questions should be put primarily to Hillary. I also hope the sgreement with Bill Clinton is detailed and clear enough that there is no need to question him.

Tell me how many former President's wives have been given the job of S o S? The very fact that Clinton supporters spoke of how this gives Obama BOTH of the Clintons and the international goodwill says that it is different.

[bigdarryl]

7. I'm confident BIG DOG will handle these rethugs with ease during a hearing

they will come out looking stupid when big dog finishes with them

[Catherine Vincent]

10. Will they ever leave Bill Clinton alone?

What happened to that so called "Clinton fatigue"?

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Clearly this is just a conspiracy to boost C-Span's ratings

There is no other possible reason they could really want Bill Clinton to testify other than it will make excellent television.

[beachmom]

15. I think you are onto something. The forever conniving and plotting C-SPAN

has made a play for the ratings, indeed.

:)

[karynnj]

16. I hope this is sarcasm

1) There are possibly valid questions to ask Clinton, depending what details of his agreement is

2) CSPAN2 is my favorite station - but I know that is unusual. (Fun though when I got a marketing research call on TV viewership - where the woman was mystified by the high estimate of hours of tv and the very low estimate for every channel asked. She asked me to repeat the name on other - when I had said CSPAN 2, 1 and 3.)

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Forgive me if I can't take seriously the notion...

That the same people who pushed to have Clinton impeached for a blowjob could possibly have any "valid" questions to ask him. If Kerry and the Democrats had called for Clinton to come testify that would be a different story.

[11 Bravo]

24. I hope he tells them to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.

He is a private citizen.

[Hokie]

25. Look's as if this idea is DOA

"A spokesperson for Senator Richard Lugar, the head Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will hold the hearing, tells us that he isn't proposing to call Bill as a witness -- making it all but certain not to happen.

"He is not proposing it," Lugar spokesperson Andy Fisher emails us. "The agenda for the hearing will be determined by Senator Kerry.""

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/lugars_office_says_hes_not_pro.php

[Hokie]

26. There are two great comments in the TPM story

"Why won't Luger call Bill? How long has he known he wouldn't call Bill? Has anyone on his staff had contacts with people who might want to call Bill? What is Luger hiding and how long has he been hiding it? Will Luger be able to escape the taint of not calling Bill?"

and

"Reported in The Politico" should have been the first sign there was nothing to this.

Amen on Politico. They must have a "Let's make up a bunch of shit" department.