Posted on Jan 10, 2017
Does Tillerson's public defiance of State Dept request not to attend oil conference in Russia due to sanctions make him unfit for SecOfState?
3.22K
23
32
0
0
0
Loyalty
National Security
Patriotism
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
Problem is "request". There's no legal requirement and Tillerson was responsible to the shareholders, not political will. If State didn't like the idea, they could request additional sanctions that would have covered it. Implementation would likely be well after the conference. Then there's the problem of sanctioning to go after one or a few individual practices. Big Constitutional Law issue there. So I'd suggest the topic be handled very clearly to demonstrate the non-issue it really is. I want to see how he'll run the shop.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Jerry Genesio
I think we've already got a pretty good idea of how he'll run the shop. One of his subsidiaries was selling over $50M in oil to Iran, Syria, and Sudan while under US sanctions in 2003-2005. During that same period, the US military lost 2,380 men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq. I call that doing business with the enemy.
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
Wow, that leap Sgt Jerry Genesio reveals your bias, if there had been any doubts from the wording in the question above. Still trying to figure out, even in the most twisted Liberal logic, how subsidiaries doing normal business in Russia, Iran, Syria or Sudan is directly linked to military death in Afghanistan or Iraq? What about all the businesses in relationships with Saudi Arabia? Either you have knowledge not in evidence any where else or you might need to start drink some decaf...not something I suggest lightly?
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Sgt Jerry Genesio
Short answer is 'No'. Request, by its very definition is a request. With that said, where was Mr. Tillerson 'publicly defiance' of Department of State's request? I do not recall any mention of our government asking a business, especially multinational businesses, to not attend any conferences or those companies or their leaders making public statements to those effects?
Short answer is 'No'. Request, by its very definition is a request. With that said, where was Mr. Tillerson 'publicly defiance' of Department of State's request? I do not recall any mention of our government asking a business, especially multinational businesses, to not attend any conferences or those companies or their leaders making public statements to those effects?
(3)
(0)
Sgt Jerry Genesio
During the Ukraine crisis the US State Dept made it clear to corporate citizens they were to stay away from Russia's business forum in St. Petersburg. Tillerson complied for two years, but returned last June, and even publicly joked about the sanctions at US expense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/world/europe/russia-rex-tillerson-donald-trump-secretary-of-state.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/world/europe/russia-rex-tillerson-donald-trump-secretary-of-state.html
How Rex Tillerson Changed His Tune on Russia and Came to Court Its Rulers
Once a vocal critic of Russia’s justice system, the Exxon Mobil chief came to partner with the country’s biggest players. What will that history mean for the slated secretary of state?
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
Sgt Jerry Genesio
Thank you for sharing your insider knowledge of what the US Department of State was saying behind closed doors to corporations, but the article did not share anything to that information or come close to showing anything close to any public defiance?
I can easily see why the head of major corporation when ASKED not to attend a very important meeting by a government that was very critical of their entire industry might say 'No thank you.'
Thank you for sharing your insider knowledge of what the US Department of State was saying behind closed doors to corporations, but the article did not share anything to that information or come close to showing anything close to any public defiance?
I can easily see why the head of major corporation when ASKED not to attend a very important meeting by a government that was very critical of their entire industry might say 'No thank you.'
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Right now, he is a private citizen and can do what he pleases. Besides, don't we want better relations with the Russians? I think that is far better than going through a cold war with them...oh wait that's right we tried that already.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Jerry Genesio
SGT David T. - When did Trump answer the question about whether anyone in his campaign had been in touch with Russia during the campaign? You insist on "proof". Okay, I can't accept "He answered the question" as proof. Give me the quote.
Article III Section 3 of the Constitution says absolutely nothing about who can be charged with treason. Disagreements abound, but they are generally decided by the courts. Have there been many instances where legal scholars have relied upon you to resolve such issues?
Assange most definitely is subject to our laws just as British Major Andre was during the American Revolution. And Andre was hung. At the very least, Assange could be tried for espionage.
Article III Section 3 of the Constitution says absolutely nothing about who can be charged with treason. Disagreements abound, but they are generally decided by the courts. Have there been many instances where legal scholars have relied upon you to resolve such issues?
Assange most definitely is subject to our laws just as British Major Andre was during the American Revolution. And Andre was hung. At the very least, Assange could be tried for espionage.
(0)
(0)
SGT David T.
Sgt Jerry Genesio - I just watched the video again. The reporter asked multiple questions in that. No Trump did not respond to that part. However, that in itself proves nothing. Do you have anything credible other than supposition and logical fallacies? By all means if you do, show me. And you are attempting to deflect.
While you are correct the Constitution does not specifically state who can be charged, we need to use a little common sense. In order to be tried for violating a law you must first be subject to it. You and I are not subject to the laws of North Korea so if we violate their laws and insult their dictator should we be charged? The answer is of course not. The same thing applies to Assange. Like him or hate him, he is not subject to our laws period. In the future I would suggest refraining from argumentum ad hominem as it just makes your position look more untenable.
I am happy you brought up the Major Andre, although that too is a logically flawed analogy based on composition. Andre was caught behind American lines not in uniform with secret documents on him. He was tried, convicted and executed for being a spy not treason. I wouldn't say that Assange committed espionage either. Did he step foot on American soil and spy? No. Did he hack the DNC? No. Did he pay someone to do that? Probably not. So you would be hard pressed to charge him with anything.
I get it you don't like Trump and you don't like Assange and that is of course your right. I am not a fan of either one of them either. Do not take me questioning statements as supporting them. That is not the case. I just don't accept unsubstantiated statements and logically flawed arguments as fact.
While you are correct the Constitution does not specifically state who can be charged, we need to use a little common sense. In order to be tried for violating a law you must first be subject to it. You and I are not subject to the laws of North Korea so if we violate their laws and insult their dictator should we be charged? The answer is of course not. The same thing applies to Assange. Like him or hate him, he is not subject to our laws period. In the future I would suggest refraining from argumentum ad hominem as it just makes your position look more untenable.
I am happy you brought up the Major Andre, although that too is a logically flawed analogy based on composition. Andre was caught behind American lines not in uniform with secret documents on him. He was tried, convicted and executed for being a spy not treason. I wouldn't say that Assange committed espionage either. Did he step foot on American soil and spy? No. Did he hack the DNC? No. Did he pay someone to do that? Probably not. So you would be hard pressed to charge him with anything.
I get it you don't like Trump and you don't like Assange and that is of course your right. I am not a fan of either one of them either. Do not take me questioning statements as supporting them. That is not the case. I just don't accept unsubstantiated statements and logically flawed arguments as fact.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Jerry Genesio
SGT David T. - You are such a waste of time, Dave. I'd as soon take this discussion up with a paper weight.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google