To be fair to Theresa Kerry, she did release her 2003 1040 for John’s campaign.
He should be required to liquidate his Exxon holdings. Other than that, I don’t see the problem. Exxon has major operations in 24 different countries. There aren’t many areas of the world where Exxon doesn’t have some exposure. On Russia, the fact is, Exxon would make billions if Russian sanctions increased as well. Impair Russia’s oil and gas production and Exxon would profit on their other interests. Alternatively, remove the sanctions and Exxon profits on their Russian interests. They’re going to make money either way.
I think the Trump administration is operating on the principle that self-enrichment would only be a conflict of interest if you had any other interests.
On the other hand, Trump just announced Rick Perry as Energy Secretary. That one is a horrible choice. Besides being an absolute moron, I don’t see what relevant experience he brings to the position. Also, Department of Energy is one of the three departments Perry famously said he wanted to eliminate back in 2012. Just a terrible selection.
Another factor is that there’s no indication Tillerson is going to initiate a pro-Russian policy. Trump already seems committed to that. So any SoS chosen by Trump would follow that line.
So, is Bolton like the “giant-douche” plan-B that’s intended to make confirming the “turd-sandwich” an easy choice?
He’s the CEO. You think he’s just going to step down? Even if he does and liquidates all stocks and such, you think he won’t do things to favor the company?
The company that has been the only job he’s ever had.
Isn’t this the power plant guy from The Simpsons …
tbh, aren’t we living in an episode of the Simpsons.
Like John Kerry or Hilary Clinton? James Baker? I don’t think there would be any concern if he picked Romney. There are plenty of SoS that didn’t come up as diplomats. He probably has as much experience dealing with other governments while heading a multinational corporation as a random Senator or a political hack. I guess it would be better if someone like Ryan Crocker was up for the position. Someone who has worked as ambassador under multiple presidents of both parties and has spent his entire career as a diplomat. But that’s not what presidents have done much of the time. His lack of diplomatic experience is not concerning to me. I would have been happy if it had been Romney who has less experience. His conflicts of interest are concerning to me.
Perhaps I should have said foreign policy experience. I think a term in the Senate qualifies one for foreign policy, particularly if serving on the Foreign Relations Committee.
The US govt has supported NATO expansion up to Russia’s borders. To suggest that the US has not been provocative towards Russia is inaccurate. Even if you fall short of calling the events in Ukraine a coup, you must still admit that the US was heavily involved in the extraconstitutional removal of Poreshenko.
Also, the Crimeans prefer to be aligned with Russia. That’s just a fact. That issue was settled in perhaps the most peaceful way possible. If Crimea remained under Ukrainian control, it would have been a disaster for many years. Instead a swift decision was made by the region’s only relevant power.
I feel that the dealings you have with foreign governments as a private citizen and businessman are probably significantly different than the dealings you have with a foreign government as a government official.
Being as Trump himself is coming to the job with a background in private business, I feel he shouldn’t be choosing a Secretary of State with a similar background. One of them should have some government experience.
Ukraine is not a part of Russia, no matter how much the Russians and their apologists claim otherwise. So even if the United States had been interfering in Ukraine (which is disputable at best) it wouldn’t be a provocation against Russia.
The reason countries which neighbor Russia sought to join NATO is because they feared a Russian invasion. That fear has been shown to be well founded.
I would dispute the idea that the Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia. The vote on this was taken after Russians troops occupied the Crimea.
And the matter was not handled in “the most peaceful way possible”. The most peaceful way would not have involved a military invasion. Russia could have simply allowed the Crimea to remain a part of Ukraine; that would have been more peaceful. Or if your contention that the Crimeans wanted to leave Ukraine is correct, there could have been a plebiscite on the issue.
Well, it seems that John Mace’s statements were in error. I wonder if he will acknowledge that?
Within the universe of possible Trump picks Tillerson isn’t that bad.
Unlike Romney he has a lot of experience dealing with foreign leaders albeit as a CEO. Unlike Bolton he isn’t batshit crazy. He is widely respected by people like James Baker, Robert Gates and Condi Rice who apparently recommended him to Trump. He is moderate on issues like Common Core and gay rights. He even supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
The Putin connection as well as potential conflicts of interest from his Exxon tenure are worrying and Senators should question him closely about those but really you could do a lot worse than Tillerson.
Do you actually know what the Secretary of State or the State Department in general does? It’s not just serving as a proxy for the president in foreign countries or joining the funeral circuit. The portfolio of the SoS is pretty much anything related to international affairs and diplomacy: trade agreement, the National Security Council, etc. With the exception of the Chief of Staff, the SoS is probably second only to the president in terms of (hard or soft) power.
Let’s face it. The Trump apologists (voters and Congress) will simply rubber stamp anything Trump does. “Thank you sir, may I have another”.
The fact that Tillerson has deep ties to Russia, has been personally awarded Russia’s highest honor by Putin himself, and that his company stands to make billions of dollars once sanctions are removed will have no bearing whatsoever on them voting to confirm Tillerson. There are no such things as conflicts of interest or potential for corruption anymore.
Russian hacking and interfering with elections is OK, as long as a Republican wins. It has been “Party before Country” for a long, long time with these folks, so this is no surprise.
There will not even be a problem if (when) Trump is given several million dollars by Exxon. Normally this would be done in a subtle fashion, maybe a lucrative directorship after he finished his term, but in this case, I would not be surprised if Exxon simply cut him a cheque for $50 million directly. Trump will just deny it had anything to do with selling out to Russia. And the Republican Senators and Congress will back him up completely.
Exxon stock price is way up this week. Wonder why that is…
The US was an observer to Ukrainians running a corrupt leader out of town. That’s all. And why is it that so many of Russia’s neighbors seek a defensive alliance with countries that are not Russia? So the Baltics can invade Russia some day, in your view? Hardly. It’s because they think Russia will invade them some day, and I’m not going to call that fear wholly unjustified.
Let’s revise that somewhat.
“Also, the Iraqis prefer to be rid of Saddam Hussein. That’s just a fact. That issue was settled in perhaps the most peaceful way possible. If Iraqis remained under Saddam’s control, it would have been a disaster for many years. Instead a swift decisions was made by the region’s only relevant power.”
Hmmm… Yep, the shoe fits.