Sunday Talks: Rex Tillerson -vs- Chuck Toad

Good grief.  NBC’s Chuck Toad spent two-thirds of his interview opportunity with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asking repeated questions about the preferred Democrat narrative known as the ‘Muh Russian conspiracy’.

However, Tillerson did have the opportunity to push back against Senator John McCain’s ridiculous attacks against Secretary T-Rex.   Anyone who watched the T-Rex talk to the State Department on May 3rd can fully understand the context of Tillerson’s outline of distinction between “U.S. policies” and “U.S. Values”.   If you haven’t watched or read the speech you should, SEE HERE.

Senator John McCain was furious that Secretary Tillerson would not accept the McCain/Powers “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine which mandates U.S. foreign policy as interventionist around the globe.  Senator McCain wrote an op-ed opposing Tillerson and demanding that U.S. policy must include creating more wars around the world.


Here is Secretary Tillerson’s actual words in context, that Senator McCain finds so fundamentally abhorrent:


T-Rex talks about the ongoing State Dept. mission and how values and policies intersect with the larger ‘America-First’ strategy.

Specifically T-Rex explains how the distinction between U.S. ‘values’ relates to U.S. ‘policy’ but determinations of influence and our best interests cannot necessarily be contingent upon foreign governments accepting values that are inherently different to their culture.

These remarks delivered to State Dept personnel are exceptionally well presented and intensely interesting.


[Transcript] SECRETARY TILLERSON: Good morning. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you.  Are we on? Can you all hear me back there in the back? Can you hear me now? (Laughter.) Can you hear me now?


SECRETARY TILLERSON: All right. I told them I have to walk around. My wife has always said if you tied my hands down to my side, I would be a complete mute. (Laughter.) So I’m not great at podiums. I do know how to read a speech, but I thought today we’d just have a chat.

So I’ve been here about three months now, we’ve been working alongside one another, and so I thought it’d be worthwhile to just share a few of my perspectives with you on where I think we are and some things that are coming that I know are of interest to you.

But before I do that, I would be remiss if I did not thank all of those who have stepped into acting roles during these past three months to help me, and starting with acting Deputy Secretary Tom Shannon, who’s just been stellar. (Applause.) But I also want to acknowledge the large number of people who are – stepped into under secretary, assistant secretary roles, director roles, and a number of chief of missions around the world as well.

Your willingness to step up and not just fill that role, but to take responsibility for the role and to lead the organization through some pretty challenging first 90 days – it’s not like we haven’t had some things to work on. And so I want to express my appreciation to all of you for helping me and helping my team as we came on board. And I’ve just been really gratified at the work that everyone’s undertaken in that regard.

So I thought we’d talk about a couple of things. I want to share my perspective as to how does this administration’s policies of “America first” fit into our foreign policy and foreign affairs. And so I want to touch on that. And then I’ll take a quick walk around the world.

Most of you have some familiarity of what’s going on around the world, but I thought just regionally I’d hit each one of them very quickly, to share with you my perspective on kind of where I feel we are, and then in some areas where we’ve not yet had time to devote the attention to we would like, and I don’t want that to be in any way considered that we don’t think those are important. It’s kind of a – what’s the hottest fire that we’ve got to deal with?

So I want to talk about that a little bit, and then spend some time at the end talking about where we’re going in the future of the department, USAID, and, as you know, we just kicked off this listening exercise.

So let’s talk first about my view of how you translate “America first” into our foreign policy. And I think I approach it really that it’s America first for national security and economic prosperity, and that doesn’t mean it comes at the expense of others.

Our partnerships and our alliances are critical to our success in both of those areas. But as we have progressed over the last 20 years – and some of you could tie it back to the post-Cold War era as the world has changed, some of you can tie it back to the evolution of China since the post-Nixon era and China’s rise as an economic power, and now as a growing military power – that as we participated in those changes, we were promoting relations, we were promoting economic activity, we were promoting trade with a lot of these emerging economies, and we just kind of lost track of how we were doing. And as a result, things got a little bit out of balance.

And I think that’s – as you hear the President talk about it, that’s what he really speaks about, is: Look, things have gotten out of balance, and these are really important relationships to us and they’re really important alliances, but we’ve got to bring them back into balance.

So whether it’s our asking of NATO members to really meet their obligations, even though those were notional obligations, we understand – and aspirational obligation, we think it’s important that those become concrete. And when we deal with our trading partners – that things have gotten a little out of bounds here, they’ve gotten a little off balance – we’ve got to bring that back into balance because it’s not serving the interests of the American people well.

So it doesn’t have to come at the expense of others, but it does have to come at an engagement with others. And so as we’re building our policies around those notions, that’s what we want to support. But at the end of it, it is strengthening our national security and promoting economic prosperity for the American people, and we do that, again, with a lot of partners.

Now, I think it’s important to also remember that guiding all of our foreign policy actions are our fundamental values: our values around freedom, human dignity, the way people are treated. Those are our values. Those are not our policies; they’re values. And the reason it’s important, I think, to keep that well understood is policies can change. They do change. They should change. Policies change to adapt to the – our values never change. They’re constant throughout all of this.

And so I think the real challenge many of us have as we think about constructing our policies and carrying out our policies is: How do we represent our values? And in some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values, we probably can’t achieve our national security goals or our national security interests.

If we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests. It doesn’t mean that we leave those values on the sidelines. It doesn’t mean that we don’t advocate for and aspire to freedom, human dignity, and the treatment of people the world over. We do. And we will always have that on our shoulder everywhere we go.

But I think it is – I think it’s really important that all of us understand the difference between policy and values, and in some circumstances, we should and do condition our policy engagements on people adopting certain actions as to how they treat people. They should. We should demand that. But that doesn’t mean that’s the case in every situation. And so we really have to understand, in each country or each region of the world that we’re dealing with, what are our national security interests, what are our economic prosperity interests, and then as we can advocate and advance our values, we should – but the policies can do this; the values never change.

And so I would ask you to just – to the extent you could think about that a little bit, I think it’s useful, because I know this is probably, for me, it’s one of the most difficult areas as I’ve thought about how to formulate policy to advance all of these things simultaneously. It’s a real challenge. And I hear from government leaders all over the world: You just can’t demand that of us, we can’t move that quickly, we can’t adapt that quickly, okay?

So it’s how do we advance our national security and economic interests on this hand, our values are constant over here.

So I give you that as kind of an overarching view of how I think about the President’s approach of “America first.” We must secure the nation. We must protect our people. We must protect our borders. We must protect our ability to be that voice of our values now and forevermore. And we can only do that with economic prosperity.

So it’s foreign policy projected with a strong ability to enforce the protection of our freedoms with a strong military. And all of you that have been at this a long time understand the value of speaking with a posture of strength – not a threatening posture, but a posture of strength. People know we can back it up.

So with that in mind, let me just quickly walk around the world and give you my assessment of where we are in some of the early stages of policy that’s underway and some that’s yet to be developed.

So as all of you clearly understand, when we came in to the State Department, the administration came in, was sworn in, immediately confronted with a serious situation in North Korea. Now, the prior administration, as all of you know, President Obama told President Trump this was going to be your greatest threat that you’re going to have to manage, and he was right.

♦  So it was – it’s right on the doorstep. And so it got immediate attention. It was the first policy area that we began to develop in terms of what is our overarching strategic approach and how do we want to execute against that. In evaluating that, what was important to us and to me to understand was, first, where are our allies? And so engaging with our allies and ensuring that our allies and we see the situation the same – our allies in South Korea, our allies in Japan.

And then, secondly, it was to engage with the other regional powers as to how do they see it. And so it was useful and helpful to have the Chinese and now the Russians articulate clearly that their policy is unchanged; they – their policy is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. And of course we did our part many years ago. We took all the nuclear weapons out of South Korea. So now we have a shared objective, and that’s very useful, from which you then build out your policy approaches and your strategies.

So many people are saying, well, gee, this is just the same thing we’ve tried over and over – we’re going to put pressure on the regime in Pyongyang, they’re not going to do anything, and then in the end we’ll all cave. Well, the difference, I think, in our approach this time is we’re going to test this assumption, and when the – when folks came in to review the situation with me, the assumption was that China has limited influence on the regime in Pyongyang, or they have a limited willingness to assert their influence. And so I told the President we’ve got to test that, and we’re going to test it by leaning hard into them, and this is a good place to start our engagement with China.

And so that’s what we’ve been doing, is leaning hard into China to test their willingness to use their influence, their engagement with the regime in North Korea. All of it backed up by very strong resolve on our part to have a denuclearized peninsula with a commitment to our security alliances on the peninsula and in the region to our important allies Japan and South Korea.

So it’s a pressure campaign that has a knob on it. I’d say we’re at about dial setting 5 or 6 right now, with a strong call of countries all over the world to fully implement the UN Security Council resolutions regarding sanctions, because no one has ever fully implemented those. So we’re going to lean into people to fully implement them. We’ve told them we’re watching what you’re doing. When we see you not implementing, we see companies or we see individuals that are violating these sanctions, we’re going to contact you and we’re going to ask you to take care of it. If you can’t take care of it or you simply don’t want to take care of it for your own internal political reasons, we will. We’ll sanction them through third-country sanctions.

So we are being very open and transparent about our intentions, and we’re asking our partners around the world to please take actions on your own. We want you to control how that happens. We’re not trying to control it for you, but we have an expectation of what you will do. So we’re putting that pressure on. We are preparing additional sanctions, if it turns out North Korea’s actions warrant additional sanctions. We’re hopeful that the regime in North Korea will think about this and come to a conclusion that there’s another way to the future. We know they have – they’re – they aspire to nuclear weapons because it’s the regime’s belief it’s the only way they can secure their future.

We are clear – we’ve been clear to them this is not about regime change, this is not about regime collapse, this is not about an accelerated reunification of the peninsula, this is not about us looking for an excuse to come north of the 38th Parallel. So we’re trying to be very, very clear and resolute in our message to them that your future security and economic prosperity can only be achieved through your following your commitments to denuclearize.

So this is where we are. We’re at – I would say we’re at about the 20 to 25 percent stage of this strategy. Thus far, our assessment is it is going like we had hoped for in terms of the response we’re getting from others, but we’ve got a lot of work left to do to keep that pressure on. And so that’s what the folks that are in the bureaus and out in the missions are doing to help us right now, is to continue this steady, resolute message and continue to talk out here to the North Koreans, but not here, yet, about what our intentions are and what we want. We are ready and prepared to engage in talks when conditions are right.

But as you’ve heard me say, we are not going to negotiate our way to the negotiating table. That is what Pyongyang has done for the last 20 years, is cause us to have to negotiate to get them to sit down. We’ll sit down when they’re ready to sit down under the right terms. So that’s North Korea.

♦  And then if I pivoted over to China, because it really took us directly to our China foreign policy, we really had to assess China’s situation, as I said, from the Nixon era up to where we find things today, and we saw a bit of an inflection point with the Sochi – with the Beijing Olympics. Those were enormously successful for China. They kind of put China on the map, and China really began to feel its oats about that time, and rightfully.

They have achieved a lot. They moved 500 million Chinese people out of poverty into middle class status. They’ve still got a billion more they need to move.

So China has its own challenges, and we want to work with them and be mindful of what they’re dealing with in the context of our relationship. And our relationship has to be one of understanding that we have security interests throughout northeast Asia and security interests throughout the Pacific, and we need to work with them on how those are addressed. So that gets to the island building in the South China Sea, the militarization of those islands, and obviously, we have huge trading issues to talk with them about.

So we are using the entree of the visit in Mar-a-Lago, which was heavy on some issues with North Korea but also heavy on a broader range of issues. And what we’ve asked the Chinese to do is we’re – we want to take a fresh look at where’s this relationship going to be 50 years from now, because I think we have an opportunity to define that. And so I know there have been a lot of dialogue areas that have been underway for the last several years with China. We have asked China to narrow the dialogue areas and elevate the participants to the decision-making level.

So we outlined four major dialogue areas with China, and we’ve asked them to bring people who report directly to the decision-maker, which is President Xi. So for the first time, we are seeking and we – so far it appears we will get people at the politburo level and at much higher levels of the government within China to participate in these dialogues so we can reframe what we want the relationship to be and begin to deal with some of the problems and issues that have just been sitting out there kind of stuck in neutral for a while. So it is a – it’s a much narrower – as we make progress, those things will result in working groups where we can get after solving these things.

So we’re going to have the first meeting of the Diplomatic and Security Dialogue, which is chaired by myself and Secretary Mattis, with our counterparts here in Washington in June, and we’ve put it up as a kind of top priority. The second one is economic and trade, which is chaired by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Ross, and it’s well underway also.

So that’s kind of the new approach we’re taking with China, is elevate, let’s kind of revisit this relationship, and what is it going to be over the next half century. I think it’s a tremendous opportunity we have to define that, and there seems to be a great interest on the part of the Chinese leadership to do that as well. They feel we’re at a point of inflection also. So that’s China.

Obviously, throughout Asia we’ve got a lot of work do with ASEAN nations and re-solidifying our leadership with ASEAN on a number of security issues but also trade issues and the South China Sea, strengthen relations with Australia and New Zealand – really important partners with us on a number of counterterrorism fronts.

And so throughout the region those engagements are underway. And the President has committed to make the trip to Vietnam and to the Philippines for those meetings this fall, and I think that’s going to be very important that he is going, and we’ll be going in advance, obviously, to prepare for all of that.

♦  So if we walk around to the next hot spot that we worked on, pretty quickly it was the Middle East around the campaign to defeat ISIS and instability that that’s created in, obviously, Syria, Iraq, the issues in Afghanistan.

And as those of you who work that region well know, you can just kind of draw the concentric circles out all the way into North Africa, parts of Africa, all of the Middle East, parts of Central Asia, and this is really a D-ISIS and a counterterrorism effort, is what it really boils down to. And so how do we develop policies and bring regional players together to address these threats of ISIS and counterterrorism?

And we hosted I think what was a very successful coalition to defeat ISIS ministerial here at the State Department. I think there is a real renewed sense of energy and commitment to win this war against ISIS. We will; we are defeating ISIS in their caliphate in Syria and Iraq, but we know that ISIS exists more broadly than that. And so, as we said in that coalition effort, we’ve got to move beyond the battlefield, we’ve got to move into the cyberspace, we’ve got to move into the social communications space, and get inside of the messaging that allows them to recruit people around the world to their terrorism efforts.

So there is a big effort underway with players in the region, most notably the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and working with other partners to get inside of this conversation that’s going on within the Muslim community around what this is doing to the way the Muslim faith is understood by others in the world. And I would say it’s a very open conversation we’re having and a renewed commitment on the part of leaders in the Muslim world that want to take this on. So we’re going to be leveraging on that as well.

So as you’re seeing this play out in the Middle East, still a lot of hard work to do to get coalition partners together around ceasefires and peace processes in Syria. How do we advance our interest in Afghanistan to a legitimate peace process is what we’re pursuing in Afghanistan, and then keeping this terrorism network confined as it wants to spread itself through North Africa and Central Africa. So a lot of work ahead of us, and many of you are directly engaged in it already; many more of you are going to become engaged in it, I think you can expect.

♦  The next kind of area of priority is our re-engagement with Russia. Obviously, they are part of the engagement in Syria, but we have other issues with Russia, as you all well know, in Europe, and the situation in Ukraine.

As I know many of you heard from my trip to Moscow, characterized to President Putin that the relationship between our two nations was the lowest it’s been since the Cold War. He did not disagree. He shrugged his shoulders and nodded in agreement. And I said it’s spiraling down, it’s getting worse. And my comment to him was you – we cannot have, the two greatest nuclear powers in the world cannot have this kind of relationship. We have to change it.

And so we have a number of efforts underway to first stabilize the relationship. And Deputy Secretary – acting Deputy Secretary Shannon is leading a working group effort to see if we can address some of the things that are just irritating the relationship, that make it hard for us to talk to one another even in civil tones.

So we’re working hard on that and we’re hoping to begin to solve some of that, while Foreign Minister Lavrov and I, under the direction of President Putin and now President Trump, coming out of the call yesterday are going to continue to see if we can work together on the first big area of cooperation, which would be Syria, and can we achieve a ceasefire that will hold long enough for us to get a peace process underway.

I don’t want to say we’re off to a great start on this, because it’s very early stages. I don’t know where it will go. So I’ve got a bilateral with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Alaska next week on the margins of the Arctic Council. Both our presidents have charged us to take this further and see where we can go with it.

So obviously, close coordination with the Department of Defense, with our intelligence agencies, and importantly our allies in the region, because we want them to always know what we’re doing, because we’re going to need their support as well.

So a lot of work ahead of us on the Russia engagement – work some small things, can we work one big thing together. If we can find space for something we feel we can begin to rebuild some level of trust, because today there is almost no trust between us. Can we build some level of trust?

We’ve got a long list of things to work on from our arms agreements and issues we have with our nuclear arms agreements, to obviously, getting to Ukraine, Crimea, and other places where Russia is not being particularly helpful today.

So that’s what we’re hoping, is that we can begin to build a way in which we can learn how to work with one another. I don’t know whether we can or not. We’ll – we’re going to find out.

♦  So quickly to other parts of the world that are really important to us as well – the continent of Africa is so important from the standpoint that first, from a national security view, we cannot let Africa become the next breeding ground for a re-emergence of a caliphate for ISIS. We also cannot allow the terrorist networks that weave their way through Africa to continue unabated.

You can connect the dots between countries throughout the central part of Africa and northern part of Africa where the terrorist networks are connected. We’ve got to get into the middle of that and disrupt that to save those countries.

But Africa is also a continent of enormous opportunity, and needs and will get and will continue to receive our attention to support stabilizing governments as they are emerging and continuing to develop their own institutional capacity, but also looking at Africa for potential economic and trading opportunities. It’s a huge, I think, potential sitting out there, waiting for us to capture it, and then, obviously, a big focus of our health initiatives, because Africa still struggles with huge health challenges. And those are important to us and they’re going to continue to get our attention.

So we’re going to – we’re working – today we have some things we’re working in North Africa relative to its relationship to the Middle East challenges and our ISIS challenges. We’ve got to step back and take a more comprehensive look at our approach to the entire continent, and that’s out in front of us as well.

♦ And then lastly, I want to go to the Western Hemisphere. And in the Western Hemisphere, obviously, our neighbors are vitally important to us, Canada and Mexico. It’s not as rocky as it looks sometimes, and I think, in fact, the relationships are quite good. Both of our neighbors understand we have to refresh some of the agreements that have governed our relationship, particularly in the areas of trade, and both countries are ready to engage in a good-faith effort with us as well.

In particular, we’re investing a lot of effort into Mexico because of the transmigration issues and organized crime. And so we have an initiative underway where the senior members of the Mexican Government will be coming up here on May the 18th to participate in an interagency process with us to see if we can get at transnational organized crime and begin to break these organized crime units up.

Not only are they a threat to us and to Mexico’s stability and the scourge of drugs that just flow into this country, they also are part of the integrated terrorist financing networks as well. So this is vital to us for a number of reasons and we look forward to making some progress there.

South of Mexico, we’ve got some initiatives underway to work with the Latin American countries, which are where a lot of the people are trying to leave to come up to the U.S., to continue economic development, security investments in Latin America, and working with the Department of Homeland Security.

We’re actually hosting an event in Miami to bring those leaders up so we can talk with them about how we get better organized to address these issues and how we can bring more private capital into investment opportunities in Central and Latin America.

Southern cone, we have a lot of opportunity and some challenges down there. What we want to do is step back and develop a Western Hemisphere strategy that thinks about South America in its entirety and its relationship to Central America, but Cuba and the Caribbean as well.

There are terrorist financing issues. There are terrorist networks that are beginning to emerge in parts of South America that have our attention. There are governance issues in certain countries – certainly all of you are following the situation in Venezuela; a real tragedy, but we’re hopeful that working with others, including interventions by others in Europe, that we may be able to gain some traction in Venezuela. So we have a number of things in front of us yet to develop clear policies on how we want to go forward.

So my view is that we want to look at these regions almost in their entirety first, because everything is interconnected. We can take a country and develop something, but if we don’t have the perspective regionally, we’re probably not going to be as effective. So we’re trying to start out here, and then we’ll bring it down to a country-by-country level so we can execute. So that’s just to give you a little perspective on how we’re approaching these things in policy planning, and then we try to get a big-picture view and then we bring the bureau people in, the experts in, and help us start developing, now, how do you execute something like this? How do you implement it?

So for those of you that have participated in these early efforts, thank you. I feel quite good about the one – the pieces that have been completed and are in execution, I feel good about those. I can tell you the White House feels good about it.

The National Security Council really values the work that we provide in the interagency process. And I would share with you I hear that from them all the time, that the stuff that comes over from the State Department, we’ve done our homework. It’s a complete piece of work, it’s useful, we can use it, and that’s not always the case from all of the other agencies. So thank you for the efforts you’re putting into that in that regard.

♦ So let me turn now quickly to the last thing I wanted to talk about, which is the future and where we’re going. And I alluded to this a little bit when I was commenting about the post-Cold War era. And during the Cold War – and I’ve had this conversation with some of you in this room before in our interactions – in many respects the Cold War was a lot easier.

Things were pretty clear, the Soviet Union had a lot of things contained, and I had a conversation with Secretary-General Guterres at the UN. He described it as during the Cold War, we froze history. History just stopped in its tracks because so many of the dynamics that existed for centuries were contained. They were contained with heavy authoritarianism. And when the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union broke up, we took all of that off and history regained its march. And the world got a whole lot more complicated. And I think that’s what we see. It has become much more complicated in terms of old conflicts have renewed themselves because they’re not contained now. So that’s the world as it is and that’s the world we have to engage with.

And so I’m going to – I’m saying this as a preface to as we get into thinking about how we should deliver on mission is to be thinking about how the way we have been delivering was in many ways shaped and as a residual of the Cold War era. And in many respects, we’ve not yet transitioned ourselves to this new reality either. And I don’t say that just about the State Department, I say that about institutions globally.

In fact, this is the – this – I had this same conversation with Secretary Guterres about the United Nations, that there are many institutions – and you can see when we have our conversations with NATO, another example, but there are many institutions around the world that were created during a different era.

And so they were set up to deal with certain conditions and their processes and their organizations were set up, and as things have changed, we’ve not really fully adapted those. It’s not that we’ve not recognized, but we’ve not fully adapted how we deliver on mission.

So one of the things, as we get into this opportunity to look at how we get our work done, is to think about the world as it is today and to leave behind – we’ve been – well, we do it this way because we’ve been doing it this way for the last 30 years or 40 years or 50 years, because all of that was created in a different environment.

And so I think – I guess what I’m inviting all of you to do is to approach this effort that we’re going to undertake with no constraints to your thinking – with none.

One of the great honors for me serving in this department, the Department of State, and all of you know, the Department of State, first cabinet created and chartered under the Constitution. Secretary of State, first cabinet position chartered and created under the Constitution. So we are part of a living history and we’re going to get to carve our little piece of it, our increment, in that clock of time. We’re going to carve our piece into that history.

And I think the question is how we will do that; and how effectively we will do that. And history is moving around us as we just spoke. And how do we adapt to that? And so I want to ask all of you to be very free in your thinking.

So the process going forward, as you know we’ve just kicked off this listening exercise and I really encourage all of you to please go online and participate in the survey online. This is vital to how we understand where we want to go and I think we have about 300 individuals that we’ve selected to sit down face-to-face and do some interviews so we have a more fulsome understanding.

We want to collect all of these – all this input and your thoughts and ideas, both here and at USAID, and that is going to guide how we approach both our organizational structure, but more importantly, our work process design: How do we actually deliver on mission? That’s the real key. How do you deliver on mission?

And really, the way I have found these things to be the most successful is I understand how to deliver on mission first, I understand how the work processes work, and then I’ll put the boxes around it to make all that work. Most people like to start with the boxes and then try to design it. I’m – I do it the other way around. How do we get the work done? We’ll then put the organization structure in place to support that.

So we need a lot of creative thinking. We need to hear from you. This is going to inform how this turns out. I want to emphasize to you we have no preconceived notions on the outcome. I didn’t come with a solution in a box when I showed up. I came with a commitment to look at it and see if we can’t improve it.

And I know change like this is really stressful for a lot of people. There’s nothing easy about it, and I don’t want to diminish in any way the challenges I know this presents for individuals, it presents to families, it presents to organizations. I’m very well aware of all of that.

All I can offer you on the other side of that equation is an opportunity to shape the future way in which we will deliver on mission, and I can almost promise you – because I have never been through one of these exercises where it wasn’t true – that I can promise you that when this is all done, you’re going to have a much more satisfying, fulfilling career, because you’re going to feel better about what you’re doing because of the impact of what you are doing.

You will know exactly how what you do every day contributes to our delivery on mission, and that is when I find people are most satisfied with their professional careers. And you’re going to have clear line of sight about what do you want for yourself in the future.

So this is a – it’s a big undertaking. This is a big department, between this and USAID, and we are including all of our missions, all of our embassies, all of our consular offices, because we all are part of how we deliver on mission. So we want to look at it in its entirety as to how we do that.

So I appreciate your participating openly in this listening exercise, but importantly, I want to condition you to be ready to participate in the next phase, because that’s when it’ll become more challenging.

But we’re all on this boat, on this voyage – I’m not going to call it a cruise; it’s not – may not be that much fun. (Laughter.) But we’re on all this ship, on this voyage together. And so we’re going to get on the ship and we’re going to take this voyage, and when we get there, we’re all going to get off the ship at wherever we arrive. But we’re all going to get on and we’re going to get off together. We don’t intend to leave anybody out.

So I appreciate your participation. I hope you will approach this with a level of excitement as to what it may hold for this State Department first and then for you as an individual and what it means for you. So we’re asking all of you to do that.

Let me lastly say that I do appreciate all of the work that you do. Believe it or not, I do read all these memos that come to me from – all the way from missions to the various bureaus. I appreciate those of you that get them on one page, because I’m not a fast reader. But they’re extraordinarily helpful to me, and so keep sending me insights as to what you’re doing, how you’re doing it, and in particular the perspective on how we got to where we are. It is very valuable to me.

I had the opportunity to address a group of young people yesterday – about 700 middle school, high school people – that were here participating in the model UN conference. We were hosting it here at the State Department. One of the – there’s a few fun things you get to do in this job, and talking to young people is one of them. So I had a Q&A time, and a young lady – I think she was in middle school – asked a question. She said, “What inspires you as Secretary of State when you come to work every day?” And I told her it’s quite easy. I said the men and women of the State Department inspire me, my colleagues – their professionalism, their commitment, their patriotism.

And I said, then our partners over at the Department of Defense, the men and women in uniform, because it’s really the State Department and the Defense Department that deliver our national security. I’m inspired by you, and I thank you for that, and I’m honored to serve alongside of you.

We’ll be talking again.

Thank you. (Applause.)


This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, media bias, NATO, President Trump, Secretary of State, Secretary Tillerson, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to Sunday Talks: Rex Tillerson -vs- Chuck Toad

  1. FL_GUY says:

    I really despise McCain. If Nixon had been the bad ass that the left paints him to be, the only term McCain would be serving is life in Levenworth along with Jane Fonda.

    Liked by 35 people

  2. Titan 28 says:

    This is starting to make me crazy. When C. Toad asked Tillerson if he had seen the evidence supporting Russian meddling in our election, Tillerson said he had. He then agreed with C. Toad’s allegation that Russians had indeed been meddling, in some as yet unspecified way. I’ve by now read hundreds of pages on the Russia hacked our election meme and I have yet to see one scintilla of evidence for the allegation. So now Tillerson is on board with the allegation? Based on what? Right now my belief, based on available evidence, or perhaps I should say evidence available to the public, is that there was no Russian interference. It was all the 1) Crowdstrike baloney & 2) the bogus Steele dossier. Add in Wikileaks & Assange (who claim they were not working with or for Russia)..

    Crowdstrike (whose analysis was paid for by Clinton) has been discredited. The Steele dossier, even though it seems that call him what you want Comey actually put him on the payroll and used said bogus report to get a FISA warrant on a Trump subaltern, is a complete fabrication.

    So what, exactly, is Tillerson agreeing with? I’m all in on this and I’m going to be very very unhappy if mountains of hitherto concealed or secret evidence turn up on the front page of the paper of record indicating Russia was involved all along. The Trump administration is going to be mighty damaged if that turns out to be the case, even if there was no collusion (a claim I view as preposterous). Yet based on what I know–what am I missing?–I believe Tillerson should have denied the allegation of Russian meddling, and denied it vehemently. His response was what I’d expect from John ‘I’m not really a Democrat’ McCain.

    If evidence exists of Russian hacking, meddling, etc., can someone please direct me to it? Does Tillerson not understand that this Russia claim is undermining everything he wants to accomplish? Heck, it’s all C. Toad talked about. If the Russian hack business is real, and not some Democratic talking point, then I would strongly prefer the Trump people put it all out for us to see. Now.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SoCal Patriot says:

      There is a difference between trying to interfere in our election versus collusion between the campaign and the Russians.

      Liked by 20 people

      • ALEX says:

        Exactly. Maybe one day someone will bring up the firing of top four at DNC after leaks and the fact Podesta emails show collusion of press with Hillary…I just don’t get it when it comes to the supposed Russian interference and not discussing what was in WikiLeaks……Use the accusation by sleep eyed to discuss the leaks…

        Liked by 4 people

      • Titan 28 says:

        But did the Russians really try to interfere? Hillary and Podesta say so, but they (mostly) base that claim on Podesta’s emails. Assange said he was not working for the Russians. I’m not so approving of what Assange and his pals do, but I’ve yet to catch him in a lie.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Tonawanda says:

          Is that what TRex is talking about? Russia “meddled” by trapping Podesta in a phishing scheme which revealed Democrat corruption?

          Liked by 2 people

        • Emblematic says:

          It depends whether the Crowdstrike report is reliable. Who vouched for the reliability of the Crowdstrike report? Comey.

          Liked by 1 person

        • svenwg says:

          Funny how the Left loved Wikkileaks when they were exposing the corruption and other sins of Russia, but as soon as he started unearthing the same crime, corruption and espionage of the citizens of the USA, he was immediately setup with a false rape charge and now is forced to hideout in the Ecuadorian Embassy.


      • Albertus Magnus says:

        Right, SP!

        The problem is the naysayers prefer to be negative so if they PRETEND they don’t understand the difference it gives them the ability to attack our guys as being weak or wrong.

        it is a tiresome trick.


      • shallbe4 says:

        Russia has been interfering in our elections for the last 30 years. But the Dims never complained before. As Tillerson said we have more important issues to deal with when it comes to Russia. Russia and the US are the strongest nuclear nations in the world. While Character is a good thing to have if we stand on a pedestal with a nation we would like to have as an ally we will never get anywhere on issues important to us both.


    • Tonawanda says:

      Wonderful post which expresses my thoughts exactly upon hearing TRex agree with Toad on Russian interference. Senator Kennedy asserted the same thing in the hearing with Yates but I discounted him.

      What the heck are they talking about? What evidence is there?

      I understand collusion between Trump and Russia is one thing – – obviously Fake News and Phony Narrative – – but what else is there that justifies the word “meddling” in our electoral process?

      And I am concerned that the two things (collusion and anything else) are mixed up and confused to people.

      I join Titan 28 in asking for enlightenment.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Albertus Magnus says:

        Pay attention. Pay CAREFUL attention. This has been CAREFULLY laid out for months.

        If I say Hillary is a witch, that is me interfering in the campaign.
        If I hack into a voting machine, that is me interfering in the election.

        A campaign is NOT an election. It is an effort to WIN an election.

        Russia and a MILLION PLAYERS tried to influence our campaign.

        There is no evidence EVER that they tried to HACK into our ELECTIONS.


        Liked by 5 people

        • Tonawanda says:

          Yes, I do see, and thank you.

          But the word used was meddle. Meddle means to interfere. Interfere is stronger than influence.

          If the point is “let’s not quibble, yes Russia was trying to influence our campaigns, just as was Pago Pago and Hans Schmidt from Dusseldorf” then it makes sense. But were Pago Pago and Hans Schmidt meddling in our campaigns?

          TRex said that the Russian role was an issue between us and the Russians which needed to be addressed. This puts no qualitative dimension on the issue, so we don’t know how TRex would formulate the issue to the Russians.

          I thought I have been paying careful attention for a long time, but I missed where the issue has been carefully laid out for months. So I do speak from ignorance and lack of comprehension.

          I thought all along the Russian story was a complete hoax, except to the absurd and irrelevant extent that Russia did what a million other people do.

          But if that is the issue between TRex and Russia, that we are concerned that Russia does what a milli0on other people do, than that is a good thing because they will laugh it off.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Shadrach says:

            You are making an assumption that is not justified AFAIK, and that I see repeated ad nauseum through media reports. I’m not picking on you specifically, I could have stuck this after any of 50 comments on this thread.

            You are assuming that Russian meddling intended to elect President Trump.

            Why is it not equally or more likely that Russian meddling was intended to elect a President Hillary, on whom Russia had a gold mine of blackmail information? Or, from another viewpoint, why is it not likely that Russian meddling was intended to create chaos in general, and not intended to elect one candidate over another?

            Liked by 3 people

            • Tonawanda says:

              All great points. Everyone does it and for motives not always understood. I am just happy (now that it has been pointed out) that TRex handled it is a swift and prudent way.


          • fleporeblog says:

            TREX and others go along with this BS assertion so that these morons can continue down a road that will destroy them and the Democrat party. To say otherwise would seem like we are hiding something. Americans realize this is a wild goose chase and get even more angry hearing it. It truly is helping our cause. Our President is doing so much that the left should be screaming about but they can’t because they are consumed in la la land.

            As soon as VP Pence, Governor Abbott, TREX or Ryan Zinke win the nomination in 2024, Our President will tell Americans he never believed the Russia BS and thank the media, Uniparty and Democrats for allowing him the cover to transform our country.

            Liked by 5 people

            • Tonawanda says:

              I failed to see this and now it makes perfect sense to me.

              TRex (and Senator Kennedy) were not getting trapped in pointless disagreement over something which means nothing, and permits the left to continue down the road to nowhere.

              Liked by 3 people

          • mariner says:

            You’re getting hung up on “interfering” vs. “meddling”, and they’re both up the wrong tree.

            The only thing that would actually hurt President Trump is evidence that there was COLLUSION between his campaign and Russians; this is an entirely different matter than meddling, interfering, or just attempting to influence the election.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Shadrach says:

              This is also a very good point. I am prepared to believe Russia meddled in our election. Why not? We meddle in other country’s elections, usually with disastrous outcome (Mubarak in Egypt, as an example of a disaster, or the Shah in Iran).

              I am not prepared to believe Trump knew about it, participated in it, or colluded with it.

              Liked by 1 person

      • shallbe4 says:

        It was obvious that Obama did everything he could to destroy Netanyahu. How come no one ever made a big deal out of that? I guess it depends whose Ox is being gored.

        Liked by 1 person

    • OP says:

      American people put Trump into office.
      Russians meddle in many countries business, however they didn’t collide with the RNC or Trump.
      Meddling by outside forces, isn’t collusion when the winner is declared to the chagrined of the “losing shoe in” supporters and media.
      Meddling is one thing, partnership and collusion is another.
      Trump did not, has not colluded with the Russians to deny Hillary her media assumed “shoe in” win.

      YES the Russians meddled, to say they didn’t, is fool hardy…to assume a brilliant man like Rex is going to play a game with the media parsing words…to play a game that requires changing goal posts…lol…guess again…

      Liked by 6 people

      • svenwg says:

        Even the USA meddles in other countries elections, just look at what Obozzo did in the Israeli Election, sending hundreds of thousands of US taxpayers money to the opposition party. When is the influence of Saudi Arabia in the US elections going to be investigated as they are the ones that boasted that they had supplied something like 65% of Hillary’s campaign funds. Is that not direct meddling as apposed to posting fake articles on the web?

        Liked by 3 people

        • SharonKinDC says:

          In the Gates interview, he laid the BS ‘color revolutions’ pretty much on our doorstep…and noted from the Russian perspective, ‘meddling’ in the US and other elections is simply tit for tat.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Emblematic says:

      I think it goes like this:

      The Obama administration decided to spy on the Trump campaign. They needed an excuse, so they basically fabricated a concern about connections between the Trump campaign and Russia (perhaps including the Steele dossier) as their justification to get a warrant. They collected material as “incidental collection” but presumably didn’t find much or they would have used it during the campaign.

      After Trump unexpectedly (from their perspective) won the election, those Obama officials had a big problem. They knew the spying would eventually be uncovered. So they had no choice but to hype up the Russia collusion nonsense AS THE EXCUSE FOR THEIR SPYING.

      That’s why the Russia investigation was going to drag on forever as long as Comey remained head of the FBI. Comey was one of those Obama era officials. He had to promote the Russia collusion narrative to cover for his own role in the spying.

      Liked by 9 people

    • Lburg says:

      One of the strongest ways to disarm your enemy is to agree with him/her. They have nothing left to push against. Kinda like dropping your end of the rope in a tug-of-war or
      saying “Yes, Dear” instead of “You’ve lost your mind, Dear.”

      The first statement tends to de-escalate things and the second one ramps them up even higher than they were to begin with because now there is the original beef PLUS the ‘you’ve lost your mind’ that both need to be disproved. Vehemently.

      The Russia claim is not undermining anything. I love the Russian theme. It keeps the pack baying at the wrong tree. Every.Single.Time. They will come to regret it when everything our President and his team has accomplished actually does make all our lives safer, stronger, more prosperous, more honest and Greater than we can imagine.

      Liked by 14 people

      • Tonawanda says:

        This makes a lot of sense to me, and I appreciate your insight. I completely understand your “yes, dear” analogy and consider it enlightening. IOW it is Rex being prudent, wise, focused and effective.

        Consistent with the rest of the interview (such as the McCain reference), TRex was not engaging in any pointless or distracting fights. Jiu jitsu, rendering your opponent ineffective by using his own motion.

        TY so much, you are exactly right.

        Liked by 3 people

      • ok4ayl says:

        You could almost sense Tillerson thinking “Is this DUMMY ever going to ask a decent question?” He’s Marsha Brady over and over again!…..:)

        Liked by 2 people

    • Former lurker says:

      I’m willing to guess that the “Muh Russia” theme is simply the Democrats latching on to a common occurrence and trying to emotionally supercharge it.

      Major powers have tried to influence elections and choices in leadership of other powers since nation states began. The US does it, just ask Bibi. Hell, Ted Kennedy asked for help against Ronald Reagan from the Soviets.

      Tillerson is stepping on a giant media land mine if he denies it. Russia may have been in the “anyone but Hillary” camp along with more than a few US voters. Whatever actions they took in intel gathering may have been more focused on Clinton, or it may simpy be that the DNC cyber security sucked worse than the RNC version, or a combination of these and other factors.

      Whatever the case, I’m sure the effect was less than that of the illegal ballots cast by ineligible voters and outright instances of voter fraud. Even if it turns out that the Russians provided the Podesta emails to Wikileaks, where does it say that is grounds for overturning an election?

      I’d say the Sunday talk venue isn’t the time or place, and Tillerson may not be the right person to end this. I’m sure when President Trump decides the time is right, it will be done in the typical dazzling Trumpian way.

      Liked by 5 people

      • thluckyone says:

        Former lurker, you’ve helped me to see something that I had not even “sort-of” grasped until now. While Mr. Putin and I have VERY little in common ideologically, it may be that he and I agree on at least one thing: Hillary Clinton would have been a disaster – not just for the USA – but also for the whole world. If the USA “goes down” to the shariah/globalists (Clinton, Macron, Merkel, the *SRF, et al), the whole WORLD is in peril – including Russia. No, I’ll never accuse a thug like Putin of being a patriot for Russia – BUT, even as troublesome as the USA is for Russia, having the US serving at the beck and call of the worldwide criminal shariah/globalist cabal is much worse for EVERYONE – even Russia – ESPECIALLY Russia! Thanks to you, Former lurker, I can see why Russia, and any number of OTHER state actors might prefer ANYONE but Hillary.
        * Saudi “Royal” Family

        No, our Lion is not just saving the USA – even though he HAS told us over and over again that he is ‘only’ [lol!] “President of the USA” [rotfl – ONLY!]. Our beloved President just may be giving Russia – and the rest of the human race – a fighting chance against an evil
        that has already destroyed unnumbered whole civilizations for the passed 1400 years. Europe may already be gone and this could very well be our own “last chance” – but at least we have a chance.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Stringy theory says:

      I will also be stunned. Like you, I have neither seen nor heard any evidence Russia tried to interfere in the electio, especially in Trump’s favor. Frankly, why the administration still sends peoplevto these fake news shows is beyond me.

      Liked by 1 person

      • SharonKinDC says:

        B/C ppl like Tillerson end up showing they’re the sane ones and the MSM are snarky snakes. #Winning


        • JC says:

          Yes, Sharon. President Trump’s Cabinet members and reps are so competent and articulate, the contrast with the braying idiots of the Fake News Politboro is blatantly obvious to most, even those whose only news source is the Fake Media. (Of course, I’d still like to wring Chuck Todd’s scrawny neck.)


      • shallbe4 says:

        T Rex and Mad Dog are my favorite people in Trump’s administration. What T-Rex did was agree with Todd which effectively ends the subject. What’s left to investigate? No American voter was cheated out of his or her vote by the Russians. There are 3 million Californians however, which may have been cheated out of their votes according to Trump who feels he would have won the popular vote except for shenanigans by the Dems.

        Liked by 1 person

    • mireilleg says:

      Keyword is “trying”. Of coursed they tried. Oh heck we not only try sometimes we succeede in interfering with other countries’ elections.


    • Donna in Oregon says:

      Yes, the Russians like to hack. It is a government sponsored event. We do it too, and so does every other country. This is what WorldWide Web means. We open ourselves up to it willingly.

      I believe the Russians thought it would be fun and funny to release the pious DNC emails for all the world to see what @$$holes they really are.

      Trump’s campaign was smarter, he made sure he had protections which is why Obama had to use the NSA and unmasking to find out what was going on. They were looking for dirt for months and we would have seen it before now.

      Now we know with some certainty there was nothing going on because even with our own government spying on President Trump there is no evidence. Can they make some up? Possibly. But President Trump is aware and it will be disproved.

      Flynn is nothing. Globalist propagandists will try to do a Scooter Libby manuever again. President Trump won’t put up with BS like Bush did.

      Liked by 1 person

      • mariner says:

        Wikileaks maintained all along that they did not get the DNC emails from Russia.

        Eventually they confirmed that Seth Rich (the DNC staffer murdered in October 2016) was their source for those documents. There was no hacking by anyone; the emails were turned over to Wikileaks by a DNC staffer.


    • boogywstew says:

      Maybe the Russians tried to interfere by donating millions upon millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and paying Hillary’s husband millions of dollars. She was the likely candidate since 2013 for the party in charge? Sounds like election interference to me !

      Liked by 1 person

    • bertdilbert says:

      At 4 minutes and 10 seconds into the video Chuck Toad goes into the false 17 agencies crap. I wish Tillerson had corrected him on this fake news.


    • mopar2016 says:

      How many elections did bongo interfere with?
      Egypt, Israel, France, Honduras, Afghanistan, etc..etc..
      The media must’ve missed that stuff.
      This Russian nonsense isn’t real, just like everything else that the dems promote.
      Global warming-not real.
      War on women-not real. The real war on women is the cult of islam.
      Same sex marriage- not real. Natural law can’t be changed by humans.
      Free college, free everything.- Nothing is free. The word free means that the taxpayers were forced to pay for it before they received it.

      Mr. Tillerson shouldn’t have to school these intellectually inferior losers.
      These media frauds couldn’t carry his briefcase.


    • Sean Supsky says:

      Perhaps T-Rex was being absolutely honest in saying that he had seen reports to the effect of meddling…I think that when we do get to see evidence will be when hillary, etc., are brought to trial and then we shall how much they were paying her for favors and future endowments.

      Liked by 2 people

      • domain496 says:

        I’m leaning this way also. I think what Todd referred to and what T-Rex agreed with was two different things and T-Rex just didn’t accord Todd with that explanation. He knows Todd hasn’t seen what he’s seen (T-Rex.) No harm in agreeing. It stops the chain of topic, delivers nothing new. I think what T-Rex saw was a more detailed, or more factual “nothing burger” and not worthy of his time chasing the rabbit down the hole. No reason to explain. T-Rex is privy to inside info, Todd isn’t. All Todd has is the script “Muh Russia.”. What T-Rex has is facts. Real information. While they may resemble each other, the two reports may contain entirely different perspective or information. I trust Trump and his team, esp. Mr. Tillerson. * I’d hate to play poker against him….


    • jmclever says:

      AND all the tools in the Russian tool box referenced by the brilliant senate judiciary committee are in regular use by Clinton, including assassinations. So where’s the investigation into that? Where are the subpoenas and pearl clutching senators?


  3. FLEEVY says:

    Is it possible to overturn Nixon’s pardon of Hanoi John and persecute him for his treason?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Since McCain was not charged with treason, war crimes etc. there’s no pardon from Nixon to have to address. If there had been a presidential pardon, you would be out of luck. Those are irrevocable.


      • svenwg says:

        Actually McSlime was charged and given a Presidential Pardon with 20 other Traitors!

        Liked by 3 people

        • Sharon says:

          Do you have reputable links reporting that?

          I lived through those days, glued to the TV in the middle of the night, and watched John McCain and all the others getting off the planes when they were released from the POW camps.

          I know he’s not worth a bucket of warm spit today but that is not something that is “known to be so” in the big picture.

          Do you know it to be so?


          Links, please.

          McCain is useless and damaging today and any blog site can become the same if it gets a reputation for name calling and speaking of rumors as though they were so.


          • Lburg says:

            This is just one link:

            I used ‘did nixon pardon mccain’ as search terms.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Sharon says:

              Those were almost exactly the same words I used to search, and with similar results. Nothing I found substantiates the accusations although they are listed, along with claims they can be substantiated.

              I agree with that site’s general take on the Vietnam war and the lies, etc. but if the facts support the accusations it seems it would be more apparent to those of us who HAVE been paying attention since before the Vietnam war.

              My oldest brother was career military (retired as a Commander) pre-Korea to post Vietnam. I have his written details of some of the deceptions, indirect and direct compromise, etc. that he knew of first hand so I’m aware of the possibilities.

              So often these days I’m reminded of the thought (not directed at you in this comment – just telling you I’m often reminded of it): Those who are talking don’t know and those who know aren’t talking.

              John McCain is the least of our problems if in fact there are widely known, documentable, treasonous acts on the part of military officers that have been hidden and enabled by upper echelon and oversight bodies for decades and decades.

              My thoughts.


            • Coldeadhands says:

              Veterans today is a Trump hate blog. They may hate McShame too but their anti Trump hate makes them valueless. Sad.


  4. supertalk says:

    Tuck Choad.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. cav16 says:

    McCain, Burr, Sasse, McConnell, Graham, Rogers are scared to death they are going to be outed for the corrupt criminals they are! The Senate intelligence Committee investigation is a joke! Nothing but hot air being to make sure and protect all their corrupt buddies! How disgusting!

    Liked by 9 people

  6. ALEX says:

    In the end we will see the results and we know things are headed in right direction. I realize Sec. Tillerson and others have very few options to get the word out, but looking at the hosts of the Sunday shows, it’s a lost cause…

    All of the hosts are part of the conspiracy hatched after election to push Russia…They have no intention of having any honest dialogue on the actions and interesting developments going on…

    Fortunately very few people watch any of this and it shows in the pathetic ratings….The way some write you would think 30 million watch Brett Baier instead of actual 3.5 million…

    I’m convinced those interested do read articles like Sundance just posted…I am missing nothing from not watching any of these shows and if I want I watch the clips posted by informative sites like this…

    Happy Mother Day

    Liked by 4 people

  7. What American’s have to understand is that Russia along with all nations are culturally different, even England doesn’t look like America’s culture. You must respect others cultures and when possible explain the reasoning to why America’s culture has been so successful. I personally have found that by getting in someones face and criticizing them usually ends badly, whereas a positive twist is usually begrudgingly accepted. Life is funny that way.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Tonawanda says:

    Once again TRex does a wonderful job – – he did not take the bait whatsoever and he even complimented McCain, which has to make McCain angry!

    Liked by 8 people

  9. M33 says:

    T-Rex 2024!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Howie says:

    The Russia Hoax is omnipresent in all MSM schemes. No reporting now. Just scheming.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Texian says:

    This is a historic speech. Sir Tillerson has identified, delineated, isolated, and contained the crux of the problem of America’s vain and failed avenue of modern foreign policy. I hope the dolts in the audience are smart enough to understand what was just schooled to them and apply this newly discovered knowledge. They need to reset their compasses, follow his lead and take this new road..

    Liked by 5 people

  12. Southpaw says:

    Meddling. You know like making a video for a foreign candidate, sending your campaign operatives to another country with taxpayer dollars to incite against sitting PM, just ask Ted Kennedy how helpful Russians can be.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. gary says:

    The media is NOW making a “story” about the Trump “tapes” on Comey.

    Dems/MSM are making it sound like “water-gate-tapes” and are going to supeana them. Was Trump making secret recordings of meetings with people? If so, this could be interesting.

    So far, Trump has not stated there are or there are NOT tapes of Comey conversations. But Graham and the other “never-trumpers” are asking for those tapes to be turned over to congress.

    It never ends, does it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Steve in Lewes says:

      Funny how fast they forget!
      Remember the “wiretapping” tweet that got all their panties-in-a-wad!
      The same here. They will regret this as well, the President has got this.
      He doesn’t tweet something that he can’t back up!

      Liked by 5 people

    • Stringy theory says:

      Congress has no legal authority to subpoena the tapes if they exist. Miss Lindsey can ho to hell.

      Liked by 5 people

  14. Steve in Lewes says:

    I read McCain’s Op-ed, pure BS!
    He resurrects his POW experience as some banner of knowledge.
    He ends his piece with this: “We saw the world as it was and we made it better.”
    Really McCain! Ask the people in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, etc whether they are better off. Everyplace you have helped has gotten worse, you miserable POS!
    Crawl back under your rock where snakes belong.

    Liked by 9 people

  15. carnan43 says:

    The left like chuckie wants to push the US into a confrontation that they will then use to undermine Trump. They, the left, always focus on the future – 2020.They don’t have one gram of patriotic blood in their veins. Marxism is deeply entrenched in our Left oriented society. They have put half the population into a coma through education in the Leftist Madrasas. Marxism is the religion of the left. In one respect, Thank God, few people watch idiots like chuckie.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Irresponsable ja@ka$$es always create a situation, then run and point fingers when things blow up. The media plan is to cry “Russsia, Russia”, and if things get dangerous, blame Trump for being either incompetent or a war monger.

      TRex said clearly that two huge nuclear powers should not bark at each other without realizing consequences. Chuck Toad did not back off. Think about that.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Daniel says:

    That STUPID fruitin’ lie about “17 intelligence agencies.” There are intelligence agencies which are not in a position to render opinions on this. So it’s a nonsensical claim on its face. It just means that former DNI Clapper said as much. No one has cited the source for the claim and it’s nonsense whether they state it or not. I’d like each and every news person who cites this claim to be shut down with a direct refutation by those presently in charge of such claims.

    And if they continue to state that claim even after being corrected, then it’s time to examine these news agencies further because they are NOT reporting the facts and are actually acting to subvert our “democracy.”

    It’s honestly hard to watch these things as they continue with the false narratives.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. gary says:

    Trump needs to go after the “powers” behind the media. The MEDIA manipulators, and name names, and list agenda of these “slime-buckets”.

    “fake-news” is the tip of the iceberg, the “agenda” of these media outlets needs to be exposed to the public.
    Who owns Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, and what is their position on globalism, immigration, etc.

    Trump may need to have major event in which he pulls back the curtain to expose the “slime-controlling the media”.

    Liked by 6 people

  18. Sammy says:

    The media is sick.. This garbage loser quoted President Trump without using the full quote. And why didn’t Tilkerson push back more, we evaluated China was responsible for a cyber attack to actual data infrastructure of the country pretty sure we still relationship and trade with them and all without declaring war.


  19. Sammy says:

    And bs of a special prosecutor, what will he be investigating..

    1. It’s a counter-intelligence investigation–to see what , if anything happened.
    2. It’s not a criminal investigation
    3. A special prosecutor could subpoena Russian operatives and Putin all he wants, they’re not going to show up for examination.
    4. Special prosecutors are usually brought in if a crime has been established.

    5. The FBI has enough authority as counter-intelligence to subpoena any materials that can be recovered in this country that would possibly point to Russian sabotage.

    Which means:

    6. The media is TOTALLY not just on crack on this ENTIRE story, but sleeping on the moldy, rat’s nest mattress in the crack house. Nobody’s “getting close” to Trump, and Comey is not an case agent on whatever investigation is going on, so that his replacement could hinder the investigation that’s going on.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. JustSomeInputFromAz says:

    Wow, Chucky really wants to hit Russia over this “meddling”. Shake My Head.

    I just re-read the report at and 85% of the report is a discussion of the campaign reporting conducted by the network Russia Today. So if that is the criteria for “meddling” then ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and the BBC are just as guilty.

    The report also discuss’ a bit about “Russian Internet Trolls” amplifying negative information about Ms. Clinton on social media…….hmmm, did not know I was a Russian Troll!

    This whole Russian thing in my opinion is an attempt by the Establishment to find a way to limit our ability to communicate with each other on the net……..

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Mike diamond says:

    T Rex is very smart and a real gentleman,chuck Todd has not a clue,Todd is a liberal democrat who tries to twist the truth! Fact=Obama tried to influence the Israel elections,he ask Russia to help him get re elected in his second term its on hidden mike on YouTube! Obama and Hillary tried their best to sell our country down the river! Yet Chuck the Todd yells but what about Russia! How stupid is this liberal news media!!!!!!!!!!we are sick of fake news!!

    Liked by 3 people

  22. merlintobie says:

    If the agenda of the MSM is for me to immediately turn off any video which mentions the word “Russia” – mission accomplished, you can stop now. For the love of God.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. CharterOakie says:

    Tillerson is SO effective. His address to State Dept. employees regarding values vs. policy was brilliant.

    Schmuck Toad is insufferable. Miserable ass.

    McCain, Grahamnesty et al. I wish they would just STFU and…go away.

    Liked by 4 people

    • shallbe4 says:

      When Tillerson was offered the position of Secretary of State he told his wife he didn’t know if he had what it takes to do the job. After which she said to him — Come on this is the job you have wanted all your life. Glad she prevailed because he is a fabulous Secretary of State.

      Liked by 2 people

  24. MakeAmericaGreat says:

    LOVE T-Rex. He is the best of the best.

    Liked by 4 people

  25. blessdog says:

    chuck todd – GOOD GRIEF!
    what i don’t understand is how these people can LIE so relentlessly and so…..recklessly
    how can they sleep at night?

    so disrespectful


  26. Joe says:

    The Russian knew, as did all the world’s sophisticates, that Mrs. Clinton would win. They also believed that her victory would increase the chances of war. Of course they and all the other intellegence agencies in the world were sweeping up as much information as possible.


  27. Texas Patriot says:

    Give’em heII T-Rex!

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Patriot Lady says:

    “Sunday Talks: Rex Tillerson -vs- Chuck Toad”……
    There you go again, Sundance — insulting toads.
    😎 😎

    Liked by 2 people

  29. SpanglishKC says:

    I LOVE IT!!! So glad T Rex, Sec Wilbur, et al do these talk shows…



    It shows what “lightweights” these “clowns” are

    They are not in the same league…not even close. His Excellency has put together a truly outstanding team. Thanks be to G_d!

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Bendix says:

    “Senator John McCain was furious”.
    That’s his normal state these days. Call us when he isn’t furious.
    Although always a hothead, I believe we can trace the ignition of his current state to when candidate Trump made his remark about preferring heroes who do not get caught. No one but The Donald could make such a remark and get away with it.
    McCain got caught a second time, trying limply to get even with Donald through the use of a ridiculous ‘dossier’. Oh how that must rankle.
    I find it amusing.


  31. Bendix says:

    Notice these Todd types present themselves as the opposition?


  32. dianeax says:

    NBC blocked video on copyright grounds. Here it is on NBC YouTube:


  33. jmclever says:

    Love how T-Rex puts Todd in his place by saying, “We’re not starting with a blank slate. We’re starting with the slate we have.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s