Type to search

Trump Expected To Name Exxon CEO Tillerson As Secretary Of State

Campaign 2016 Headlines Politics Reuters Top News US White House

Trump Expected To Name Exxon CEO Tillerson As Secretary Of State

Share
Exxon CEO Tillerson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name the chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp as the country’s top diplomat, NBC News reported Saturday.

Exxon chief Rex Tillerson emerged on Friday as Trump’s leading candidate for U.S. secretary of state and met with him Saturday morning, a transition official told Reuters.

The transition official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Tillerson, 64, had moved ahead in Trump’s deliberations over 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has met Trump twice, including at a dinner in New York.

As Exxon’s CEO, Tillerson oversees operations in more than 50 countries, including Russia.

In 2011, Exxon Mobil signed a deal with Rosneft, Russia’s largest state-owned oil company, for joint oil exploration and production. Since then, the companies have formed 10 joint ventures for projects in Russia.

NBC News cited two sources close to the transition team in reporting that Tillerson will be named as secretary of state.

Trump’s campaign was not immediately able to confirm the selection.

(Reporting by Steve Holland, writing by Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Franklin Paul and Steve Orlofsky)

IMAGE: ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson speaks during the IHS CERAWeek 2015 energy conference in Houston, Texas April 21, 2015.  REUTERS/Daniel Kramer/File Photo

Tags:

36 Comments

  1. Jim Samaras December 10, 2016

    Excellent choice! Our values are more in line with the Russian people than with the Saudis where they hate gays and discriminate against women. Align ourselves with them and they can be the watchdog of the middle east after we collectively eliminate ISIS and shut the mouths of the mouse that roared which is Iran and put a definite STOP to their nuclear program

    Reply
    1. leadvillexp December 10, 2016

      While I back Mr. Trump’s choice, you are wrong about a few things. Russia has backed Iran and helped build their nuclear program for many years and the Russian Government also hates gays. While I think we need to align ourselves with Russia and work with them. The Saudis have worked with us in the past but can not be trusted. We need to stay out of the Middle East. They have fought for two thousand years and will fight for two thousand more. If we stay there we will fight for the next two thousand.

      1. dbtheonly December 11, 2016

        Except that Exxon wants to pump oil out of the Middle East.

        Staying out of the Middle East is not an option. It’s merely a question of details.

        After invading the Crimea and Ukraine, I’m leery of aligning ourselves with Russia.

        1. Jim Samaras December 11, 2016

          While it’s true Russia is no fan of gays the only reason he has aligned with Iran I stated above to charleo. The Saudis cannot be trusted and we must continue to use our own oil and natural gas resources to minimize our dependence on them. If not for our only true ally over there, Israel, I would tend to agree with you as far as getting out but they need protection to a certain degree. We can and will end the scourge of radical Islamic terror if we truly go at it in the manner in which we ended WWII. With a purpose and an end goal in mind.

          1. dbtheonly December 11, 2016

            Are you really suggesting that the atom bomb is a weapon to be used against terrorists?

            Just want to make sure I’m getting the right inference to, “end(ing) WWII”.

          2. Jim Samaras December 11, 2016

            No, but we saved one million lives in the pacific with the use of the bomb. I was referring to the end of the war in Europe though actually.

          3. dbtheonly December 11, 2016

            The one million lives is a dubious statistic, but never mind.

            Did sending armored divisions into Baghdad end the war? Have the Israeli ever been able to end their war?

            No, terrorism is a different animal. It does not respond to armies and strategic bombing. Rathe than WWII, look at some of the guerilla wars of history: Viet-Nam, Spain 1809, USA 1780. In each case the Occupier had overwhelming military superiority. In each case the Occupier won most of the battles. In each case the Occupier lost the war.

            Now, a radical idea for you. Terrorism can never be defeated by military means. The terrorists have no city to occupy, they have no sites to bomb. The tighter you grasp, the more the terrorists slip through your fingers. Instead terrorism needs to be viewed as a multinational law enforcement issue. Arrest individuals, don’t level cities.

          4. Jim Samaras December 11, 2016

            ISIS never would have formed had we stayed like we have after other wars. We never tried to win in Viet Nam really. It kept the machine going until the public cried loud enough. I don’t know the answer but arrest and trial I don’t believe is

          5. dbtheonly December 12, 2016

            The Iraqis asked that the US leave. The Bush Administration agreed and the Obama Administration fulfilled Bush’s promises. Are you really suggesting that President Obama should have reneged on President Bush’s promises? Should the US have truly become an Occupier?

            You will remember that there were guerilla/terrorist groups fighting the US in Iraq, pretty much from the get go. Okay, they didn’t use the ISIL name. Big Whoop. Two guys, a computer, and a Facebook page can start a terrorist group. The names don’t matter.

            Winning Viet Nam has been an argument since at least 1965. Demanding to win is one thing, finding a practical plan to do so is another. Again I’ll reference Spain 1809 and USA 1780. In all three cases the Occupier couldn’t kill fast enough. For each person killed three more joined the rebels.

            There has never been a nation or people broken by aerial bombardment, despite what the Air Force boys say in their Strategic Bombing surveys. Not Britain in 1940. Not Germany in 1943. Not even Japan in 1945, as the Navy in me points out that the Navy had sunk almost the entirety of the Japanese Merchant fleet and the islands faced starvation. Outside the wet dreams of the Air Force, there was no way to bomb North Viet Nam back to the stone age, and no guarantee that doing so would have broken their determination to be rid of the US Occupiers.

            So back to you. What do you do? More bombing? Who do you bomb? What’s your fix?

          6. Jim Samaras December 12, 2016

            In regard to the Bush “promise” to withdraw troops from Iraq, if the situation dictates occupation to keep the peace then yes, occupation would be in order. Although listening to “intelligence” in the first place got us to where we were and still are today. As I stated I don’t know the answer db, but treating savages like we treat US citizens I don’t think is because all they have known is violence to keep them in check over the last 1000 years. Talking and negotiating hasn’t worked! How do you defeat an ideology?

            Let me ask you. If you knew that an attack was imminent on American soil where 1000-5000 innocent lives would be lost would it be worth defeating that ideology by eliminating 1-5 million, many of which may be innocent civilians, to end the madness that is radical Islamic terror?

          7. dbtheonly December 12, 2016

            How many people would you kill?

            I called this a sophomoric exercise when we did it in Philosophy Class 30 years ago, when I was a Sophomore. Does killing 5 million mythical people make you feel big? Does killing 5million mythical people make you feel strong? Does killing 5 million mythical people make you feel good?

            No, go to a National Cemetery. Arlington is good, but any sizable one will do. Wander the graves. Born 1898 Died 1918 may not have enough impact; so pick some guys who were born after you were and have since died. Do some math. This guy never saw his 22nd birthday. This guy never got to 21. This other guy dies at 18. Then think.

            If you really want to be depressed visit the National Cemetery at the Balls Bluff Battlefield. There are only 22 guys in it, which is good. 21 of them are Unknown. 21 families who never knew what happened to their Son, Brother, Husband, Father. 21 families praying that their loved one might come down the road tomorrow.

            Then come back here and tell me how big, brave, warrior, that you are, you’d gladly kill millions.

            Do you really hold that if the US, unilaterally, decides that an independent country needs occupying to preserve the peace, the US ought to go ahead and invade them? Or occupy them against the wishes of the populace and the promises made to them. Go back to Spain 1809. Read what happened there. The US History Books kinda ignore it; but Google it.

            You’re inconsistency is appalling.

            “How do you defeat an ideology?”

            Good question, your answer:

            “by eliminating 1-5 million, many of which may be innocent civilians, to end the madness that is radical Islamic terror?”

            Do you think you’ll be able to stop at 5 million? No, those 5 million have relatives who have lost loved ones to your terror. So you’ll need to kill another 5 million. But they have relatives. How many do you need to exterminate?

            And then you have become the very thing you were fighting against.

          8. Jim Samaras December 12, 2016

            I hear ya db and I’m not advocating doing that. I’m not a cold hearted mf! I just asked a question. In my mind saving American lives is important. More important than the mid evil lives of those who wish to harm us. In the scenario depicted above what decision would you make?

          9. dbtheonly December 13, 2016

            Your hypothetical makes too many assumptions.

            1. You assume that all 1.5 billion Muslims in the world hate the USA. Which they would if you start killing them by the millions, but that’s another issue.
            2. You assume that killing millions of them would stop the hate.
            3. You, seem, to assume that occupying various, all?, Muslim countries would stop the hate.

            Given those definitions and assumptions, you force your conclusion.

            “Some games can only be won by not playing.”

            Terrorism is not a national event. There is no such thing as a “terrorist nation”.

            Thus it follows that there is no amount of occupying, overthrowing, or carpet bombing that will impact terrorism.

            Terrorism is an individual or small group event.

            Thus it follows that disruption of money flow, interruption of potential threats, targeted bombing of extremely specific sites and persons, and attempts to attack the root cause of terrorist hate, is warranted.

            And look! That’s exactly the program President Obama has in place. It’s working. No 243 Marines killed in Lebanon. No planes flying into the World Trade Center.

    2. I Am Helpy December 10, 2016

      Hahahahaha wow. You’re supposed to be pretending not to be actual traitors.

    3. charleo1 December 11, 2016

      Poor choice. As job of American’s top diplomat involves much more than simply being well traveled, and having a lot of experience in making oil deals with petroleum states. Just as the people of New Orleans can testify, running FEMA involves more than knowing the ends and outs of the Arabian horse breeding business. Especially with the frighteningly small amount Trump himself knows about World affairs. His judgement should tell him he can ill afford to be handing out the top job at the Department of State as a reward for loyalty, or donations to a novice. But that is the danger of a President Trump. It’s not that he doesn’t know. All Presidents learn on the job. It’s that he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and so believes he knows it all.

    4. charleo1 December 11, 2016

      And yet, once again a Republican Administration seems poised to further empower Iran. By aligning itself, and the Country with a Nation, [Russia] who’s government, strongly aligned with both Iran, and Syria’s Assad regime. Would like nothing better than to see Europe, and the Nato Alliance splintered, and reduced to irrelevancy. Leaving America with fewer friends, and the World with less democracy, and fewer democratic governments than at any time prior to the first World War. Putting America on the wrong side of history perhaps for the first time ever. Trump for his part, has shown he, like Vladimir Putin, is well plugged in to the insurgent, anti- immigrant/anti-EU. Alt-Right. It’s Fascist, and xenophobic tendencies threatening to sweep across a politically divided Europe. Even as a more divided Europe will no doubt be a poorer, less stable Europe. What do we suppose will be the economic consequences here of the coming closing of the borders there? And what will be the response of a President Trump to another Russian gas embargo on our European Allies? Iran has agreed to be their savior. Hezbollah, the terrorist organization on Israel’s doorstep anxiously awaits the new levels of support. Coming thru an Assad run Syria as per usual. Then what of our efforts to maintain our economic leadership in a World quickly being dwarfed by the Communist Colossus China? Can we afford to sacrifice an engaged geo political strategy that’s kept the Totalitarians of the World at bay and democracy safe for the past 70 years? Or do we simply withdraw? We may be about to find out exactly which leader our new, “values,” more closely align with under Trump. Thomas Jefferson, Mao Zedong or Vladimir Lenin.

      1. Jim Samaras December 11, 2016

        Charleo, I believe that Putin was surprised by the election of Trump and was merely aligning himself with Iran in the event of a Hillary victory which would no doubt end up as a further “pussification” of America. It was determined during the Reagan years that Russia was a paper tiger and nothing has changed over the last 30 years other than Obamas attempt to make us a third world country. You call these alliances “friends”? We have no friends, just “interests” charleo! Putin wants Russia to be on the winning side as most people do. The moves Trump makes will make it very clear who the winning side will be! With the evidence in on what middle eastern migration has done to Europe Putin wisely wants no part of it and will align with us to remove the scourge. Iran will soon return to the nonentity they always have been and if needed we will supply oil to Russia. China needs us more than we need them and will also comply to the new rules of the world as America rises up once again as the leader of the free world.

        1. Thomas Martin December 11, 2016

          Leader of the free world? Really, right now we are an embarrassment. Trump’s policies are unknown, except his blowhard tweets to citizens. What a leader! We will be the “soap opera” of the universe while he is in office. The middle class and poor will be trounced in this country and we will continue to pay the tab for military, and his trickle down bs. His tough guy, blowhard image can be seen anywhere on the street and anywhere in the world and it doesn’t work. An idiot can bomb or shoot someone. Russia align with us – are you nuts? This will be fun but sad to watch.

          1. Jim Samaras December 11, 2016

            The middle class and poor have BEEN trounced during this administration and will be given the opportunity to rebound but opportunity is the key word. Those who refuse to work and expect the subsidies to continue will be disappointed. Are you forgetting that we are the biggest dog on the block and that tough guy image is refreshing to many people and will act as a warning to the mice of the world who attempt to take our place. You’re right it will be fun to watch the country winning again. Don’t be scared…..

          2. charleo1 December 12, 2016

            With ignorance like that making a general run thru the population of the United States. A country with the most powerful military, and the largest cache of nuclear weapons. Why shouldn’t the people of the World be scared? When we have people that can’t remember back only 8 years ago, when the economy collapsed on the last guy’s watch. Or refuse to admit that that was what trounced the middle class, and the poor. Or that are too incredibly stupid to know that when that “tough guy talk,” meets reality, t’s not refreshing, it’s shameful, and dangerous! Or when the World gets 4 trillion dollar wars that wind up destabilizing entire regions, causing millions of civilian deaths, and putting millions of others on the run. What part of we did that don’t you get? What part of any of that born of willful ignorance immorality do you see as “fun?”

          3. Thomas Martin December 13, 2016

            Believe me, I am not afraid of anything. If you really believe Trump and his generals and billionaires are going to save the middle class and poor you are seriously misinformed and have been duped. Tough guy image? He is a bully with no diplomatic skills whatsoever. Actually, it would be fun to stand up to him and kick his ass – he deserves it. To most of us, he is not refreshing. Mice of the world? Diplomats are lions of the world…tough guys are corrupt, ruthless and cheat – just like Trump. You can’t negotiate with an idiot. This will be fun to watch.

          4. Jim Samaras December 13, 2016

            How can you be so sure he won’t save them? Don’t let your hatred of DT blind you to the fact that he has been successful in other endeavors therefore selling him short. So you’re the tough guy that think it would be fun to “kick his ass”. LOL…you must like the meek attitude of a president who makes us a laughing stock around the world. The true idiots are people like Obama and Kerry who think they’ve “negotiated” anything with people who have never lived up to an agreement in history. But suddenly they’ve seen the light because Obama is soooo intelligent……you’re a fool if you believe such nonsense. What will be fun to watch is people like you eating your words when Trump accomplishes what he says he will do.

          5. Thomas Martin December 14, 2016

            Peace, love and petunias. Have a nice day and enjoy the reality show.

        2. charleo1 December 12, 2016

          Jim, there is just so much factually wrong with your comment, and so your conclusions. It’s no wonder we don’t agree. Like Putin aligning Russia with Assad, because of a possible election outcome here. (Russia, and the Soviets before that has backed the Assad family regime in Syria for many decades.) That Iran, or Persia, is and has always been a, none entity. The Country has historically been the geo-political linchpin, and cultural center point of the region. That Russia is a paper tiger we’ll have no problem supplying oil to, and so on. Suffice to say, it is little wonder you see things the way you do. Given your near complete deficit of knowledge of the subject.
          What you have is not an opinion based in reality. but a conclusion that kinda fits a narrative, and excuses Trump’s ignorant tweets, or non fact based stump speeches. But only if one leaves their common sense at the door, and never bothers to read a history book, or check any of the facts.

          1. Jim Samaras December 12, 2016

            When Persia was an entity and a geo-political linchpin Christ was a corporal and spears were the weapon of choice. Of course the Soviets have backed that regime since the cold war when we were looked at (and still are) as a potential threat to their existence. Do you find it impossible to believe things are changing drastically in the middle east mainly due to the insane nature of radical Islamic terror? Once Trump calms the nerves of the Russian regime and convinces them we mean no harm to them and employ their help in eradicating the scourge we will see a peace never before experienced. Will there be pain? More than likely due to the barbaric nature of the middle eastern mentality but once they’re “convinced” that the Obama policy of attempting to make a deal with insanity is over and the gloves come off, they will crawl back into their spider holes just as they did after the Crusades. Why were the hostages released on the day Reagan was inaugurated? Fear! It’s the only thing these backward non entities have understood for thousands of years.

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjcqISZ5O7QAhVlz1QKHQsoBR4QFgg7MAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.juancole.com%2F2016%2F08%2Fshort-lived-russia.html&usg=AFQjCNFwtF8f0MTanYrk1Bf9U0dYdSy72Q&sig2=XK1hqebQpxGzoavfzuswyA

          2. charleo1 December 12, 2016

            Not true on Iran. And it would be a mistake of enormous import to let oneself be talked into believing otherwise. To a factor of 10 the mistake millions of Americans made in believing the Bush Adm. Neocons characterizing Iraqi regime change as not only necessary as a matter of National security, but a thing that could be easily, and cheaply doable with minimal force, in a very short time. And they got by with this made up crap, largely as the result of public ignorance, and provably non reality based premise, and thinking. And yes! Why indeed were the hostages released as Reagan took office? They were scared of the guy who was so fierce he wound up trading arms to these same Iranians for more hostages they had taken? So they could use these arms against the Iraqis Reagan was officially claiming to be siding with. I think they got the guy they wanted. A betrayer of their enemy Iraq. But not as big a betrayer of Iraq as the ’54 CIA backed coup that ousted Iran’s democratically elected Pres. and disbanded its Constitutional Government. All because big U.S. oil companies were afraid of Nationalization. And so needed a Kleptocratic Shaw in power they could buy. And I’ll bet you know this, but choose to ignore it. Or pretend the Iranians have forgotten.
            Like the Right has forgotten who tanked the economy. Right?
            Well, the reality is, the Iranians haven’t forgotten. Because the Iranians know a bigger reality. That since Reagan, we’ve allowed our foreign policy to be taken over by the Saudi Faud family monarchy, and its Wahhabi Sunni supporters. While we suffer the terror attacks from anti-Faud factions like Al Qaeda. And by the Israeli lobby. Who for years have backed the idea of using U.S. Troops to take out the Shia Iranians, as well as their Syrian Ally Assad next door. So if we wonder what the Iraq War was really about.. It wasn’t WMDs. But solely about creating a launchpad to invade Iran. And having us the American taxpayers pay for every bit of it. Or, as in the case of Bush, borrow every penny from China. Which in turn got the lion’s share of the oil contracts from the newly installed Shia led government in Iraq. But remember it was Obama that made the mess, not them. They’re chest thumping, tough talking, anti-islamists. No, they’re liars of the worst kind.

          3. Jim Samaras December 12, 2016

            Very compelling argument charleo. You do know your history. I did not not know that about that coup in ’54, my bad. If we were looking at Iraq as a launchpad to invade Iran why was it not done during Desert Storm? Why did we pull out? I’ve never been a fan of either Bush but had no idea as to the magnitude of criminality during their regimes, apart from my belief in their involvement in 9/11. So you’re saying Obama pulled us out hoping the area would quiet down without US intervention to the region? Very interesting and informative post sir! Tell me more of your thoughts on that if you will.

            If this is true do you believe Trump will fall into line with the republican base for this farce to continue? I do not! I believe he thinks more independently and is the reason so many in the party are and were against him. Your thoughts…..

          4. charleo1 December 13, 2016

            To discern the reason we didn’t march to Bagdad in 1990, I think we need to look no further than the man in charge. Mr. G.H.W. or (“Papa,”) Bush. A man with a background in the U.N. And as such, was seeped in the thinking behind that institution’s lofty goals of a new World order. As opposed to the old order of European Aristocracy that had produced two very destructive World Wars in first half of the 20th century. The U.N. in which he had served, is based on the idea of mutual cooperation among Nations. In a community setting where the World collectively addresses the various disputes, and global issues. So naturally, the U.N. with Saddam Hussain’s invasion of Kuwait, became his primary tool for dealing with the situation. But it also limited the scope, and goal of the operation to, one: expelling Saddam, and two: limiting his [Saddam’s] ability to launch such incursions on his neighbors in the future. Not regime change. As his defense secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, very openly called for. A remarkable thing if one thinks about it. But, no said Papa Bush. We don’t have the legal authority under the U.N. mandate. He’s out of Kuwait, we’ve taken his WMDs, destroyed a good deal of his army, and we’ll put him in a box. And that is that. The Neocons were furious, and awaited their chance…. Which they got in the wake of 9/11. With their head cheerleader, now Junior Bush’s Vice. Cheney, working secretly unbeknownst to the President out of the basement of the WH. Making up all manner of supposed reason, most all of it damned lies, why a trip to Bagdad was absolutely necessary. And this time he had another man, a very less experienced President to convince. And so it was done.

            The reasons for its failure, and that the true intent of the invasion was never realized, are too numerous to list here. The main one being that the advocates for the war had convinced themselves of the overwhelming number of Iraqis that would welcome the downfall of Saddam. (they did.) And thus, allow the second phase of the war, the invasion of their Shea Brothers’ Country Iran, to be carried out. This they did not support at all. This was not part of the U.N. mandate, and never spoken of, except in code speak, “to drain the swamp.” Which to the Neocons meant of course, to continue the war into Iran. Which had clearly been a pipe dream for these folks since the revolution that ousted the Shaw, and brought the Ayatollah Khomeneini out of his French exile to power in ’79.
            Further proof of the intended course of action against Iran is most glaring in the hugely overbuild military infrastructures now standing mostly empty. Dotting the length and breadth of the Iraqi landscape. Far beyond what would be necessary to merely defend Iraq, and its prodigious oil fields. What ended their dreams at home, was the drubbing of the Republican Party in two consecutive election cycles. Americans were livid over the course, length, and cost of the war. With no WMDs to be found, no victory that could be pointed to, and no foreseeable end in sight. The sense was growing the Bush Adm. had sold the public a bill of goods on Iraq. And all we had to show for 5 bloody years of war, were a lot of dead, and broken soldiers, along with nearly 4 trillion missing from the treasury, with the war bills continuing to pile up.
            I’m saying this is why Mr. Obama abided by the status of forces agreement the Bush Adm. signed with the newly installed gov. of Iraq. That Iraq had become something in the final tally, the America public no longer cared anything about. That Shia Muslims now ran Iraq, as opposed to minority Sunnis running it before. I think they thought, what the hell is the point? And why in hell are we still there?
            Our economy is collapsing, they’re screaming about the debt. And yet, they [Republicans in Congress] wanted Obama to move heaven and earth to keep thousands of troops half way around the World in the middle of a thousand year old religious war it was seeming to a growing number we should have probably stayed out of to begin with. A war he had called stupid, ran on ending, and then won on that platform.

            Did he think things were going to settle down? I don’t know. But I don’t believe he, nor anyone foresaw the Iraqi Army shucking their uniforms and running for the hills in the face of a smaller number, and less equipped, ISIS insurgency coming across the border from the Syrian Civil War. And having that insurgency roll unopposed across N. Iraq, right up the doorstep of Bagdad. Taking oil field, and all along the way. I do think we would have committed troops to hold Bagdad. But they [ISIS] held short. Demonstrating the office of President is a big job, with lots of very tough decisions, political and otherwise to make. None of them ever gets all of them right,100%. I personally am not a big Trump fan as you know. I believe with Mr. Trump, it’s an unknowable crapshoot,.. But then, we shall see, won’t we?

          5. Jim Samaras December 13, 2016

            Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Do you now think the attitude of the American public has changed with the rise of ISIS? Are they in the mood to take whatever measures necessary to destroy them which could be sold as invading Iran? The “Neocons” still want the same thing, no? As you say, we will see…..

      2. Thomas Martin December 11, 2016

        It sure as hell isn’t Jefferson, as imperfect as he was at times. Let’s hope our new fascist government fails quickly.

    5. johninPCFL December 11, 2016

      Well, it saves a lot of time. Putin tells Tillerson what to do, and Tillerson tells Agent Orange how to praise Putin publicly.

  2. I Am Helpy December 10, 2016

    Typo in the headline – “Putin” is misspelled as “Trump”.

    Reply
  3. butterbean December 11, 2016

    Trump and the rest of the commie lovers are taking over. Corrupt commies will now be ruling our nation.

    Reply
  4. puregoldj December 11, 2016

    Hey, Trump may have finally found someone with even more conflicts of interest than himself!! The president of the world’s largest private oil company as Secretary of State?? Seriously?!? Do we want this guy running US diplomacy any where near the Middle East?!? Many of our best allies don’t have any oil; they’re not likely to get much attention…

    Reply
    1. dpaano December 14, 2016

      Remember, Trump said during his campaign that he wanted to decimate the Middle East and “take” their oil! Maybe he has plans for this idiot to take over the oil fields once we steal them from the Middle East (which, by the way, will definitely make us so much more hated than we already are in the ME)!

  5. Jim Samaras December 12, 2016

    hello

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.