MSNBC "Hardball" - Transcript

Interview

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

MR. MATTHEWS: We're joined by two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee itself: New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson.

I want to talk first to Johnny Isakson, the senator. You spoke first this morning. Here's an editorial from The Wall Street Journal today. It's the lead editorial. And part of it reads, "Here is the spectacle of a former president circling the globe to raise at least $492 million over 10 years for his foundation, much of it from assorted rogues, dictators and favor-seekers. We're supposed to believe that none of this and none of his future fund-raising will have any influence on Mrs. Clinton's conduct as secretary of State. The silence over this is itself remarkable."

Do you share with the ranking Republican on the committee, Dick Lugar, the desire, if not the demand, that the Clintons come further in disclosing immediately any substantial contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative as she serves as secretary of State?

SEN. ISAKSON: Well, that was my initial statement to her when it was my time to question. And the point I made was, Dick Lugar is right that transparency is absolutely essential. In the world of politics, perception can become reality. And it would be a tragedy for her efforts as the chief diplomat for the United States to become compromised because of controversy over a contribution. If there's clear transparency, there won't be a controversy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Senator Shaheen, should the Clintons have to disclose, on a monthly or regular -- in fact, an immediate basis -- any contribution of more than $50,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative?

SEN. SHAHEEN: Well, they've already made a commitment to disclose any contributions after they've been made and to not take -- under the memorandum of understanding, to not take any contributions from foreign governments. The fact is -- and Senator Clinton outlined this very well in her testimony today -- the Clinton Global Initiative serves as a pass-through for millions of dollars that are benefiting millions of people around the world in so many ways, from AIDS to malaria to other diseases to other economic development initiatives. And they are doing good work, and we don't want to have that good work disrupted. And as she said today, they are disclosing those contributions.

MR. MATTHEWS: Here's Senator Lugar, the ranking Republican on the committee, on that very issue of the Clinton Foundation.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN): (From videotape.) The core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of State. It also sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the secretary of State in relation to foreign givers or their countries. The only certain way to eliminate this risk going forward is for the Clinton Foundation to forswear new foreign contributions when Senator Clinton becomes secretary of State.

MR. MATTHEWS: Senator Isakson, let's just imagine two weeks from now somebody wants to make a substantial contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative. What should happen?

SEN. ISAKSON: Well, they should be disclosed. I mean, what Dick Lugar said is exactly right. If you have transparency, you'll have discipline. And something that might appear to be tainted won't, in fact, be even made because they'll know the sunshine is going to be shining on the contribution. So absolute and complete disclosure is the best insurance policy against a controversy and a compromising of our international diplomacy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Senator Shaheen, if, a couple of weeks from now, somebody makes a substantial contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative, what should happen?

SEN. SHAHEEN: Well, they said they're going to disclose it. And I think the point here is that Senator Clinton got a very positive reception from the committee. Her knowledge of the issues facing the Department of State, her experience in over 80 countries around the world, was very apparent, and her depth of understanding of the issues that we're going to be facing in this country. And I think that's very important. I think she's going to be confirmed on a very strong bipartisan vote.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I think that's obvious. She did an amazing performance today. We were talking about it all day today, Senator. It was a masterful tour (de raison ?) and a tour de force. I mean, I've never seen anybody know so much about so much. But I guess the question comes back to, if somebody makes a substantial contribution to her husband's Global Initiative next month, you say it's good enough that that information go public by the end of the year. You think that's still a good enough transparency, by the end of the year.

SEN. SHAHEEN: Look, they have negotiated a memorandum of understanding with President-elect Obama and this new administration that has been commented on and made public, and they are providing disclosure that is beyond what is currently required. And I think that's going to be good as we go forward.

MR. MATTHEWS: You don't have any independent standard of the Clintons. In other words, their standard and the standard of the president-elect is good enough for you. Whatever they agree to is, by its nature, good enough for you, Senator. Or do you have your own independence here to say what you think is good enough?

SEN. SHAHEEN: Well, I'm satisfied with the agreement that has been reached. That's what I was saying.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, let's take a look at this exchange between Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, a Republican, on this same point; then we'll move on. Here he is, asking again about the willingness of the Clintons to commit to full disclosure by the standard set by the Republican members.

(Begin videotaped segment.)

SEN. CLINTON: I want to speak for a minute, if I can, about the work that is done, because I think it's important --

SEN. DAVID VITTER (R-LA): Mr. Chairman, I have no objection listening to this, but I'd like it not to come out of my time, because I'd like to pursue these questions.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Well, I guess, I mean, it's fair to say that if you ask a question, you deserve an answer. And the answer traditionally comes out of the time of the senator.

SEN. VITTER: Well, I'm still waiting for the answer. I'd love an answer.

But if there's an answer to my question --

SEN. KERRY: Well, I think you need to give the senator an opportunity to give you the answer.

(End videotaped segment.)

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, let's hear -- that was a bad bite. We were trying to get Vitter -- I don't know why we cut that point. Senator Vitter was asking again the question -- I'm not going to drive this any further, but let me go back to Senator Isakson. Senator Vitter there was asking the question, 'Will the Clintons go further and give a full disclosure on a monthly basis?"

Here's the standard put by the ranking Republican, Dick Lugar, who many people thought might have been named as secretary of State in this administration: If it's over $50,000, there has to be an immediate disclosure, wherever the source comes from; it can't be put off to the end of the year.

Do you hold by that standard, and do you wish that the nominee would meet that standard?

SEN. ISAKSON: Yes, in the testimony I endorsed it. And you know what's important here -- it is true the Clintons have gone further than anybody's ever gone before. But it's also true, never in the history of this country have you had a secretary of State whose husband was a former president who ran an initiative like the Clinton Foundation. So this is uncharted water.

Those of us in Congress on a monthly basis and in campaigns, on a 48-hour basis, have to disclose our contributions for absolute sunshine and transparency. I think that test can be met here as well. And I think what Senator Lugar was recommending is really in the best interest of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton as secretary of State, and the integrity of the State Department.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, here's Senator Clinton today on another matter. Let's move on to the matter that showed great passion on the part of the nominee -- Senator Clinton talking about the need for leadership from her and this administration in protecting women from abuse around the world.

It began, however -- just to set this up, Senator Boxer showed a very graphic picture of a woman who had had acid thrown in her face in Pakistan because she had divorced her husband or called for a divorce, and that is the topic that really stirred a lot of passion here today. Here's Senator Clinton.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) We're going to have a very active women's office, a very active office on trafficking. We're going to be speaking out consistently and strongly against discrimination and oppression of women, and slavery in particular, because I think that is in keeping not only with American values, as we all recognize, but American national security interests as well.

MR. MATTHEWS: Senator Shaheen, I was watching a lot of the hearing today, and it was very intellectual until it came to this point. This was powerful stuff.

SEN. SHAHEEN: Well, it was. And I think Senator Clinton spoke very eloquently to the need for the United States to continue to play a leading role in the world in condemning that kind of discrimination and all kinds of threats against women around the world.

And, you know, one of the things that really struck me today in listening to her comments was -- and talking about President-elect Obama's commitment and her commitment to restore diplomacy and the ability of the State Department to engage in active diplomacy around the world to address an issue like this and to address the many other issues that we're facing so that we really, again, have a State Department that is a diplomatic leader in negotiating with governments and organizations around the world.

MR. MATTHEWS: We have that bite ready, Senator Shaheen. Let's take a look at Senator Clinton making that point you just made yourself. We've got a -- we had a bite there on diplomacy. We can't go ahead.

Let me go back to Senator Isakson. Do you have any doubt that Senator Clinton will be confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and ultimately by the Senate this week?

SEN. ISAKSON: None whatsoever. She's a very confident, very qualified individual. I thought the way she responded to the questions today -- I particularly appreciated the response on precondition in negotiating with some of the Middle Eastern countries. She was strong on that in her primary, and she's going to be strong on that as secretary of State. And that's important to see to it that we have preconditions before negotiations.

MR. MATTHEWS: Senator Shaheen, do you believe it's going to be unanimous, perhaps, in this confirmation process for Senator Clinton, even though there's a big concern from the Republicans about this disclosure regarding the Clinton Global Initiative?

SEN. SHAHEEN: Well, again, I think she's going to have a very strong bipartisan vote in her favor. It was very clear today the high regard with which members of the committee, both Democrats and Republicans, hold her and the respect for her experience and her knowledge of the issues we face.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you both for joining us. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, thank you. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, thank you for joining us; of course, the new senator from New Hampshire.

Source