Rex Tillerson Suggests Trump Would Ask Him to Make Unlawful Things Happen

Rex Tillerson Suggests Trump Would Ask Him to Make Unlawful Things Happen December 7, 2018

When this insane age of Trumpism ends, by whatever means, you have to believe that there are a ton of stories to expect – not all of them good.

This will certainly be one for the history books.  Sociologists and politicos alike will study this period for ages, wondering what was the impetus for a nation to fall so far off the edge of sanity.

I suppose in a world that can no longer tell the difference between girls and boys (and is afraid to try), or where chivalry didn’t die, but was forced into exile, we should expect the worst.

In the meantime, there are castoffs and escapees from MAGA Island that are willing to talk now.

I’m assuming it’s therapeutic for them.

One such exile is the former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Tillerson, a former Exxon Mobile CEO, was President Trump’s first secretary of the State Department, but was dismissed in March 2018, after what was rumored to be a long, contentious relationship.

The stone-faced Tillerson did not take Donald Trump’s reality TV shtick and utter ignorance of the post he is now filling kindly.

He’s been gone for 9 months, so now is as good a time to start telling of his experiences on the Trump Cabinet as any.

According to what he’s now saying, President Trump had no idea what it was he was supposed to be doing and he often had to be put back in his place.

“So often, the president would say here’s what I want to do and here’s how I want to do it and I would have to say to him, ‘Mr. President, I understand what you want to do but you can’t do it that way. It violates the law,’ ” Tillerson said in rare public remarks in Thursday night in Houston at a fundraiser for the MD Anderson Cancer Center.

“I’d say here’s what we can do. We can go back to Congress and get this law changed. And if that’s what you want to do, there’s nothing wrong with that. I told him I’m ready to go up there and fight the fight, if that’s what you want to do,” he added.

For months, the rumors of tensions between Trump and Tillerson swirled in the media.

Those tensions seemed to heighten to the point that some were saying Tillerson was quitting, after Trump appeared at the annual Boy Scout Jamboree, in 2017.

Tillerson, an Eagle Scout, himself, was apparently appalled when Trump used his time on stage to boast about himself, treating the event like any of his other insane campaign rallies, full of frothing, unthinking sycophants.

He also used foul language in front of a sea of young men.

Tillerson was rumored to have retreated back to Texas, and reportedly referred to Trump as a “f***ing moron.”

I’ll say this: Tillerson was right to be outraged.

I was disgusted and disappointed to see my former favorite pick, Rick Perry, standing on that stage behind Trump and smiling and clapping along, as Trump destroyed the purpose of the Jamboree.

Perry rose to the ranks of Eagle Scout, and even wrote a book about the importance of the Boy Scouts, yet,  he acquiesced to the low behavior of the man he once firmly called a “barking carnival act” and a “cancer” on conservatism.

Tillerson also expressed his dismay at a society that would allow such a man to be president.

“I will be honest with you, it troubles me that the American people seem to want to know so little about issues that they are satisfied with a 128 characters,” Tillerson said, referring to Trump’s use of Twitter.

“I don’t want that to come across as a criticism of him,” he added. “It’s really a concern that I have about us as Americans and us as a society and us as citizens.”

He’s right.

No  matter what Kamala Harris or Adam Schiff, Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon scream at you. Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom.

The problem is the kind of people that would think a “President Trump” was a good idea.

In complete fairness, anybody cheering for the  corruption of the Clintons to sit in the White House again, simply for party politics, shoulder an equal portion of blame.

Further, Tillerson also sees a problem with Russia, and supports our nation’s intelligence community, unlike the Commander-in-Chief.

Yes, according to Tillerson, Russia did interfere in the 2016 election.

“What Russia wants to do is undermine our confidence and undermine the world’s confidence in us,” Tillerson said according to the Houston Chronicle.

“Many people talk about playing chess. He plays three-dimensional chess,” Tillerson added about Russian President Vladimir Putin.

So is this sour grapes on the part of Tillerson?

I’m going to go ahead and say it is not. He never struck me as the kind of guy to have his feelings easily hurt. I don’t think he has spent hours mourning the State Department job. I’m also positive he’s fine with never having to speak to Donald Trump or try to teach him what he can and cannot do, again.

Now, when Jeff Sessions starts talking…


"It's worth noting that even back in the day you could call someone when you ..."

Donald Trump: Predator President or Just ..."
"Heck, my oldest niece is hitting 25 and she can actually remember a time when ..."

Donald Trump: Predator President or Just ..."
"Yep, my parents are in 70s and they've had to adapt to plenty of stuff ..."

Donald Trump: Predator President or Just ..."
"I just had the horrifying realization I'm going to have to explain the web 1.0 ..."

Donald Trump: Predator President or Just ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • chemical

    From Susan:

    No matter what Kamala Harris or Adam Schiff, Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon scream at you. Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom.

    Exactly. Well said, Susan. Trump isn’t the person who broke politics. Matter of fact, I don’t think Trump has even thought about politics his entire life, even when he’s been the president.

    I’d blame two people for the breakdown of politics in the US: Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich.

  • captcrisis

    As well as the
    mainstream media, which keeps talking about broken politics but never mentions that it’s only one party that broke it.

  • I have no admiration for McConnell and Gingrich, but it’s partisanly absurd to lay the blame solely at their feet, or at the feet of one political party as captcrisis thinks.

    Politicians make good scapegoats, but in truth they are all symptoms of a much larger problem.

    “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…

    If the NEXT CENTENNIAL does not find us a great nation… it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.” ~James Garfield, Speech on the 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

  • Ellen Elmore

    Working for Trump must be like being in prison. The warden (Trump) tells the inmates (everyone else) what they can and can’t do. Misbehaving will cost you your job or your reputation. I would imagine that once they are out of prison they can’t wait to tell their side of the story.

  • chemical

    I mean, there were a lot of people involved in breaking American politics, but those 2 are the bona fide kings of broken politics. McConnell essentially flipped out and refused to give Obama a single inch on anything. He didn’t even let him appoint a SCOTUS justice when Scalia died, because he’s an anti-American worthless sack of garbage who thinks he can score political points by refusing to do his job. Sadly for this country, he’s right.

    Same story with Gingrich, except he was doing the same thing earlier in the 90’s with Bill Clinton. His head-butting with Clinton over the budget led to a government shutdown in the 90’s — this ended up backfiring on the GOP because it ended up closing a bunch of national parks during a holiday season.

    Basically, the GOP learned their lessons with Gingrich, and McConnell did the same thing, except competently this time. If those 2 were removed from American politics, I think you would see a lot of this division go along with it.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Gingrich & McConnell are bad, but then we also have Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi (with her over-sized gavel), Ted Kennedy, and Chuck Schumer, Barney Franks, Barak Obama, Bill Clinton and so many others from the Democrat party that also played extremely partisan and destructive politics as well (from identity partisanship to class warfare to even threats against Republican reputations and even Republican lives) – every bit as destructive as McConnell / Boehner / Ryan / Gingrich.

    The fault lies on both sides, likely a bit more on the Democrats because the Democrats became obstructionist, divisive, and uncivil in their actions and activism before the GOP did – even when there was no apparent reason to become uncivil or obstructionist (though the GOP made up for lost time with a vengeance when they decided to back and defend Trump as President).

  • chemical

    No, not Boehner and Ryan. Those 2 haven’t done anywhere close the damage Gingrich and McConnell have done to this country. (I will give you Pelosi, though — I swear that woman does a better job getting conservative voters to polls than liberal voters)

    And where are you getting the idea about said left-wing politicians being obstructionist? Who blocked a Supreme Court nomination? Which party shut down the government? Which liberal was being uncivil? The only case you could remotely make is with Bush-41 here, and he ended up being super popular and somewhat respected by both liberal and conservatives. He lost in 1992, which means, by your logic, conservatives held a grudge for 24 years to vote for Trump. I don’t buy that at all.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Which party shut down the government ? both parties – it takes 2 to tango. The Democrats kept threatening shutdown unless they got everything they wanted. They ultimately got the shutdown they were after.

    It was Harry Reid that was calling Republican traitor and other names from the floor of the Senate and also not allowing Republican votes because they were not of his party. It was Barak Obama that called the Republicans in Congress “hostage takers” and “terrorists”. It was Barrack Obama that weaponized the IRS against conservatives and the AG office to protect him from any legal action taken by Republicans. It was Barrack Obama that told his cult to “get in their faces”, and “if they bring a knife, you bring a gun” and it was Barrack Obama that called Christians and conservatives “bitter clingers” “…holding onto their guns and their Bibles”.

    YOU may not call the above divisive or a “breakdown” of political decorum or of proper rule of law by Democrats, but I sure do – almost as much as Trump’s infractions so far because the Democrats were the ones to escalate political partisanship by being the first to implement the lawfare that many Republicans (by no means all) are still trying to resist when Trump is trying the same thing. So far, Trump has NOT been able to weaponize the DOJ, the FBI, nor the iRS nor any other federal law-enforcement agency. Some would say that Obama wepaonized the CIA to spy on Republicans and on private citizens. I will not go that far, but I cannot rule it out either after Obama DID weaponize both the IRS and AG. Trump has not been able to weaponize any government agency yet – possibly because Republicans are on their guard against his attempts (and he HAS been trying).

  • John225

    I cannot help but feel that in economics and politics there is a demographic shift that explains all the trends we are seeing. There is a need to connect the dots. To find the relationship between the seemingly disconnected happenings so that the direction that society needs to move in can be seen. The degeneration of politics and the glaring disparity of wealth should not be seen as a grand conspiracy or the fault of this party or that but a natural evolution of the current system as it moves slowly towards its inevitable breakdown. The key to understanding this is I think what advancing technology is doing to people’s ability to value add in the generation of wealth. It has been said that technology is a lever. It increases productivity (how much wealth the efforts of an individual can generate) and the lever is getting longer at an increasing rate. The person who works the lever and the owner of the lever are separate. If we extrapolate that to its logical conclusion it is that most work will become obsolete at some point. When that happens, capitalism will no longer work. You cannot work hard to get ahead when there is always a machine that will do it better, faster, and for much less than any person. This trend is not near its conclusion yet. This technological trend is what is behind the wealth disparity trend. The wealth disparity trend is what is behind the political discontentment (I would call it desperation) that elects people like Trump to power. It promotes Nationalism in wealthy developed nations as they seek to protect their positions of privilege with misplaced blame for the errosion of society. The wealth disparity trend means those at the top of the economic pyramid are increasingly disenfranchised and unrepresented in a proportional representation democratic political system, apart from their ability to buy political influence and corrupt political process with money. When you are the 1% of the 1%’ers your vote barely registers and your allies in the middle class are fast disappearing and the great unwashed, who can out vote you 10,000 to 1, think you must have achieved your position of privilege by somehow cheating them what do you do. It would be a situation ripe for revolution. This is where a dose of Socialism could be the unlikely candidate to save Capitalism if Capitalists realized they need saving. Both ends of the political spectrum would have to stop hacking each other to pieces at every available opportunity though.