Why Did Trump Fire Tillerson Now? The specific timing of the move—following the secretary of state’s split from the president to condemn a Russian attack in the U.K.—raises questions about its motive. Spoiler The White House’s account of the Tillerson firing collapsed within minutes. Senior administration officials told outlets including The Washington Post and CNN that Tillerson had been told he would be dismissed on Friday, March 9. Within the hour, the State Department issued a statement insisting that Tillerson “had every intention of remaining” and “did not speak to the President this morning and is unaware of the reason.” CNN reported that Tillerson had received a call from White House Chief of Staff John Kelly on Friday night indicating that he would be replaced that did not specify timing; a senior White House official told the network that it was Trump himself who had suddenly decided to pull the trigger on Tuesday morning. Tillerson learned of his actual firing the same way everybody else did: By reading about it on Twitter shortly after 8:44 a.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 13. Exit, Rex Tillerson Read the State Department's Account of Tillerson's Ousting Their Final Disagreement: How Trump Fired Tillerson A lot turns on that timing. On March 12, Tillerson had backed the British government’s accusation that Russia was culpable for a nerve-agent attack on United Kingdom soil. If Tillerson had been fired March 9, then his words of support for Britain could not explain his firing three days before. But if the White House was lying about the timing, it could be lying about the motive. And since it now seems all but certain that the White House was lying about the timing, it looks more probable that it was lying about the motive too. That suspicion was accelerated by the president’s words to the White House press corps before stepping aboard Marine One: “As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be.” That is not support for Britain. It is the direct opposite. Britain and the United States share intelligence information fully, freely, and seamlessly. It’s inconceivable that the U.S. government has not already seen all the information that Theresa May saw before she rose in the House of Commons to accuse Russia. If the U.S. government had a serious concern about the reliability of that information, it would have expressed that concern directly and privately to the U.K. government before May spoke. But the U.S. had no such concern—that’s why the now-fired secretary of state and the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom both endorsed May’s words. When Trump raises doubts about the facts, about American agreement with its British ally, about the accuracy of the British accusation against Russia, Trump is not expressing good-faith uncertainty about imperfect information. Trump is rejecting the consensus view of the U.K. and U.S. intelligence communities about an act of Russian aggression—and, if his past behavior is any indication, preparing the way for his own determination to do nothing. It echoes the approach he took toward Russian intervention in the U.S. election to help elect him in 2016: Feign uncertainty about what is not uncertain in order to justify inaction. The U.S.-U.K. response to the Russian nerve gas attack should have been coordinated in advance. It was not. The U.S. statement of support for Britain should have arrived on the day that the prime minister delivered her accusation. It did not. The retaliation—if any—should also already be agreed upon. It plainly has not been. The United Kingdom does not find itself deprived of U.S. support because of some British mistake or rush to judgment. Most of the U.S. government shares the British assessment of what happened—as attested by Tillerson’s statement in support of Britain, which would have relied on U.S. intelligence agency reports. Only Trump stands apart, vetoing any condemnation of Russia and perhaps punishing his secretary of state for breaking ranks on the president’s no-criticizing-Putin policy. On June 4, 2017, Trump took to Twitter to chide British officials for taking too long to blame a terror attack on Muslim extremists. This time, Britain did not hesitate. It has named the assassins. And now it is Trump who is squeamish. On March 10, 2018, the president’s son tweeted: But apparently some enemies’ feelings command more sensitivity than others. Yesterday, the Republicans on the House intelligence committee announced that they had concluded the investigation of the Russian interference—and would soon publish a report acquitting Trump of collusion. Bad luck for them to release the report on the very day that Trump again demonstrated that something is very, very wrong in the Trump-Russia relationship. It’s possible to imagine innocent explanations. And it’s easy to list the plausible explanations. Ominously for the western alliance and the security of the United States, those two sets no longer overlap at all.
Steve Goldstein, undersecretary to Rex Tillerson, was just fired for stating that Tillerson found out about the firing via twitter - since it counters the WH version of the story. Spoiler: AP Story WASHINGTON — Two U.S. officials say the White House has fired one of Rex Tillerson's top aides after he contradicted the official account of the secretary of state's dismissal by President Donald Trump. The officials said Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, was informed of the move shortly after he released a statement in his name saying that Tillerson was "unaware of the reason" for his termination. Goldstein had also told reporters that Tillerson learned of his firing Tuesday morning from Trump's tweet announcing he was nominating CIA chief Mike Pompeo to lead the State Department. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about personnel moves. Goldstein could not immediately be reached for comment. — Contributed by AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee Spoiler The "two US officials" who leaked this story will be fired later today and the people who leak that story will be fired tomorrow...
Just explain to them that their country has been stealing from us and implementing unfair trade practices for years. Its not that hard.
Funny enough, the first time I dealt with it, they asked more about the person (human qualities) we have leading us. I just figure directly lashing out at their country will make things worse, but what do I know.
I believe the rationale behind the wall with small gaps is so the border agents can see activity right on the other side of the wall
Where Conor Lamb, Rick Saccone stand on the issues CNN By Eric Bradner, CNN 8 hrs ago © Getty Images/AP Republican state Rep. Rick Saccone and Democratic former prosecutor Conor Lamb square off Tuesday in a special election in Pennsylvania's 18th District. Here's a look at where the candidates stand on several key issues in the race: Conor Lamb Health care: Lamb criticized the GOP attempt to repeal Obamacare and called for bipartisan efforts to stabilize its markets. "I'll work with anyone from either party who wants to help people with pre-existing conditions, improve the quality of care, and reduce premiums, out-of-pocket costs, and prescription drug prices," he says on his campaign website. Taxes: He called the GOP tax bill a "giveaway" to wealthy Americans and said he supports cuts for the middle class. "We didn't need to add a penny to our debt to have the tax cut for our working and middle-class people," Lamb said in a debate. Gun control: He's called for a stronger system of background checks but no new gun restrictions. "I believe we have a pretty good law on the books and it says on paper that there are a lot of people who should never get guns in their hands," Lamb said. Tariffs: He supports President Donald Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, saying at a debate that "we have to take some action to level the playing field." Abortion: Lamb personally opposes abortion but backs the Supreme Court's decision legalizing it. "Once you make something a right, it's a right. And it's like that for a reason," he told HuffPost. Lamb told the Weekly Standard he doesn't support a ban on abortion at 20 weeks. Rick Saccone Health care: He says he wants to repeal Obamacare and his campaign website calls for utilizing "free-market principles to fix our health care crisis." Taxes: Backed the GOP tax bill. "It's not the 'crumbs' that Nancy Pelosi and her crew on the left say," Saccone said in a debate. "These people are very happy to have the bonuses that they received." Gun control: Saccone has an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association and has opposed new gun restrictions. Tariffs: In a statement, his campaign said if tariffs are necessary "to protect steel and aluminum jobs in Southwestern Pennsylvania, Rick would support those measures." Abortion: Saccone opposes abortion rights and touts the endorsement of National Right to Life and other anti-abortion groups.
Why not just tell them the truth? They have been stealing from our corporations and our governement for a long time. Literally stealing. Additionally, they have many unfair trade practices that they have gotten away with for a long time. Trump says no more. Not sure why you think you need to sugar coat it.
The crisis is the cost of the healthcare. The "free market" cannot fix that. Source: healthcare costs in America over the past 100 years.
meet Brennan Gilmore, the gentleman who is suing infowars, alex jones and Shu for defamation following the Charlottesville nazi rally.
Stick to what you're best at. I just enjoyed things a lot better when it wasn't difficult to be a proud American and not have to explain our national embarrassment at every turn (for which, there's really not a great explanation).
Okay, cool. At least everyone building prototypes is aware of this design criteria......wait shit. Time to start over after a wasted "$4 million". Party of fiscal responsibility!
The hull of our boat is full of holes and we're arguing over the merits of bailing water with a teaspoon versus a thimble.
I have a lot of uninformed and mostly shitty policy outlooks! And I’m digging my heels, pal! Trump is the only conduit for my rage, even if what he says and does is the opposite of what I feel! - All Trump supporters?