that's less than what he would have gotten. i think that's the point of the article.

BBC is a respected international source of news...

Ok Dannnnnnniel here's the same story also reported on Breitbart News, the most rabidly right-wing libertarian "news" website imaginable:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/tillerson-and-exxon-part-ways-180m-retirement-package/

Note that even Breitbart report that this appointment comes with "a host of thorny conflict-of-interest issues".

@Nyghthype: If you work for me for 40 years, and when you retire, I give you $180m, do you think everyone would automatically have complete faith that you would not be biased in my favour in future?

all i see is a man giving up more than 2 million shares and 7 million dollars compared to what he would have had he retired

not making a statement just clarifying the money amounts

I mean to be fair he is basically selling his shares

The exact amount of money transferred into the trust will be $3m less than the market value to meet federal ethics guidelines.
In total, Mr Tillerson will give up about $7m, compared with what he would have been paid had he retired in March as he had planned to do before the nomination, Exxon said.
Yikes but then again according to you Jamie that still implements Biased opinions rights?
Keep in mind that every presidential member ever cabinet member has always had biased opinions. Amazing how Trump and his cabinet are under heavy scrutiny before he takes office but for some reason Obama's cabinet contains incredibly shady characters but went (for the most part) largely unquestioned.

What I see is a man who is so closely connected to Exxon, who has become vastly wealthy through that connection, that he cannot at this stage in his life hope to ensure anyone that he wouldn't have a conflict of interest.

in what scenario would a secretary of state have a conflict of interest with exxon? serious question not trying to be sarcastic or anything.

Oh, come on, Exxon, or more corrently ExxonMobil, has business interests all over the world, many of them controversial - for example their attempts to exploit oil reserves in Nigeria.

The Secretary of State is the President's main Foreign Policy adviser and a hugely influential shaper of US foreign policy.

You do the mathematics.

You may as well ask "in what scenario would the President's main advisor on gun control have a conflict of interest with Smith & Wesson?"

oil and foreign policy are not the same but i get it

Sure, America's foreign policy has never had anything to do with oil.

First he loses a lot since he could have held the shares until their value went up to a few years ago. Retiring he could have had better timing in selling most of his shares.

Secretary of state sets relations with dozens of countries where Exxon has or might have business dealings to get oil. Especially significant when the country nationalize businesses to take control from a private company.

Just look back at VP Cheney when he ran Haliburton. He set up a shell company to let them make deals with Iran to get around federal law blocking US companies from doing that. The shell had a near empty office in the Caribbean that collected mail and sent it the US headquarters.

Cheney is an example of disgusting corruption, that's true Randomizer.

A "[payment] to cut financial ties" - good to know the latest slang for a bribe these days. I think it would be a good idea if all of you would pay me to cut any financial ties we have so that I can be assured of not playing in your favor in the next game. Surely I will have a conflict of interest in helping those that fail to pay me.

DD is completely missing the point - it's not that he's taking a little less than he might get. It's that he is getting such a sizeable payment at all from a single major corporate interest, period. That's just not good. If you want to be qualified for public office, you need to have more diversified financial interests than that - sorry.

C'mon where are the Tumblrfags and Libtards to back me up here?

i just think it's important to remember the fact that he's getting less than he would have when considering this. i agree it would be way different if he hadn't spent 40 years with one company.

If he wanted to be in politics in this position, he should have retired a few years ago and diversified his financial interests by now. Or he could take a position more distant from his old company - he can be Secretary of Education and I see no problem.

There are plenty of good candidates out there who don't have this type of conflict of interest. So why as a country should the United States settle for someone who has these conflicts? It's like we're standing around saying, "Well, we could get a moose to guard the hen house, or a rhinoceros, or an elephant. But no, let's employ the fox for the job." Sure the fox can do it, and might not even eat the hens. But you don't even have that concern with other choices who can do the job equally well.

Only a fox knows all the tricks though.
There's something to be said for knowing how 'the other side' operates.

Sure, like trusting an ally with a long stab history not to stab you because you need him to fight other stabbers and he knows how they think. How's that worked for you in WebDip? Please give me the non-fox. I'll trust the fox with something less consequential than Secretary of State. Maybe Secretary of Blimps - if corruption happens there, I think we can all survive it when it comes out in a tell-all 10 years later.

@DammmmDaniel Lol if you think the UK is liberal, especially after Brexit.

180 million minus 7 million is still a lot of millions. Also the hundreds of millions in salary he has gotten over the years. The longest place I ever worked was 9 years and I am still ideologically biased towards that companie's philosophy and goals. 40 years of work for a company that paid you millions and elevated you to a titanic human status...of course he is biased. After that length of time pursuing one set of goals, how does one switch and become a generalized public servant?
Dark days ahead.

@BigBlarg compared to the US? Come on you have to admit a solid chunk of Europe is way more Liberal than the USA (England Included)
The way I view this deal is as such a candidate for Secretary of State can't have investments in Exon because it would produce bias judgement right? So according to you guys how exactly should he go about getting rid of these shares then?

I fail to understand the problem here he got rid of his shares (not exactly making as much as he possibly could) and because of that he is invested in Exon how? Nostalgia?

The argument that he is bias isn't necessarily false but to the extent that it would mess with his judgment skills? Most of y'all are ignoring the fact that when he received this payout he also lost all his shares.....

In what other way could we eliminate any bias?

Almost every member of office of any government is going to have a set bias wether we want them to or not. Hell the supreme court supposedly non bias can be divided based on their set ideals to where they are left or right.....

Lastly no one seems to be mentioning the fact once again that Obama didn't necessarily have the best people in his office either..

We could eliminate bias by not having filthy rich corporate monarchs making decisions for the plebs.

At a certain point the pursuit of wealth and power is masturbation. I'm sick of the world having to put up with these self satisfying plutocrats moving on to their next autoerotic role destroying the planet and lesser humans.

Is that library enough for ya, Jamie?

Even *libtard

Liberal Swine Bow down before your betters.

Tillerson's ample compensation or his familiarity with Putin shouldn't disqualify him from serving as Secretary of State because neither thing is illegal or treason. If Tillerson sells out America, then Trump or Congress should remove him. If they refuse to do so, then the problem was really Trump and/or Congress...and our fault for electing them.

@Hauta I totally agree, that he should not be disqualified on those terms. However, given that the Russian sanctions are specifically hurting Exxon because of the deal between Exxon and Putin over the Russian Artic drilling, the conflict of interest is real.

But the cashout from Exxon is meant to REMOVE the conflict of interest. Obviously, he might have residual loyalties to Exxon but they are not disqualifying (the way a tangible conflict of interest would). Theoretically, he should be able to put the past behind him. That's why we have a "thriving" media and "checks and balances" -- to monitor his FUTURE conduct.

Sometimes you can't get a job because of conflicts - there is no way to fix it. Plenty of other service jobs out there for him where he doesn't have this problem, and plenty of other excellent candidates that don't have conflicts. We should be asking - why are we settling for this guy with the conflicts? It's like settling for the rehabilitated child molester to baby sit the kids when there are other potential babysitters without a record on the street. Do people really think there is no one else that can do this job just as well (or better) that doesn't have all the baggage Tillerson brings? America must have a self-esteem problem to be settling for this guy.

In related news, Chief Justice Roberts withdrew from hearing a case because he held about $175,000 in shares in the parent company to a corporation in the case. So that amount is a conflict even though it would be unlikely to be significantly affected by the decision and even though he could sell the shares first, but we have no problem with someone having ties 1000 times that size to a company in a position of even greater direct influence? Oh, ok. I guess this is why congress just slashed the budget for the independent ethics office - wouldn't want ethics to interfere with political corruption.

Slypups that is the exact reason why the stocks were sold (for a less then optimal price) fact is that the only ties he has left are acquaintances from EXON. These ties exist for almost any government official no matter whom steps into office. Every official will have an opinion on something. Justice Roberts stepped out because he was currently invested in the company.... please find me an example of someone stepping out the case because they know someone involved with the company? GL with that search. As far slashing the budget for the Independent Ethics Office goes.... 4 republicans serve on that committee as well. It isn't some sort of backlash against Democrats....

We have specifically asked that words such as "libtard" not be used on this forum. In general, please do not use words and phrases with a slur or anything that you would have reservations about saying otherwise.

- webDiplomacy Moderator

like Legitimate questions can I say Liberal Swine?

I would prefer that you find another way to express your displeasure with left-leaning politics, and personally speaking, it's also quite annoying when someone acts like they're better than other people on the basis of predisposed beliefs. Take that as you will.

Of Course wise and mighty Moderator forgive me for my outburst lest I end up banned.... (shameful bow out)

Slurs are only allowed as quotes on Bo's profile page. ;)

I actually got rid of those, thanks for watching out for me though VI.

Asshole casserole is still there though.

I always think resorting to insulting words such as "libtard" means the person is incapable of making a legitimate argument. It's a sign of weakness that speaks poorly of the person.
I'll bet you are excellent at stabbing DD, because apparently you think people should have no loyalty to those they spend significant time working with or to those who have helped them. I'm a bit more skeptical myself, believing the reciprocity is a major factor in world politics. I don't see how Tillerson can ignore those decade long ties, money or not - but the money payout on top of those friendships makes it even worse - he's going to feel some serious loyalty and need to reciprocate to his colleagues from that.