Rex Tillerson: I wouldn't necessarily put sanctions on a country conducting cyberattacks

So Mr. Tillerson, I understand your testimony. You're saying if it was mandatory, you would not be able to advise the president to sign it because you want to have the president have the flexibility to decide which countries to sanction and which ones to not sanction, under which circumstances, in essence because you want to be able, for example, to take other things into account like the desire to perhaps improve relations with that country, and therefore the president maybe doesn't want to sanction them even though they're attacking us.

Well again, what's troubling about your answer is the implication that somehow, if there is some country that we're trying to improve relations with or have significant economic ties with, you may advise the president not to impose sanctions on that country or individuals in that country out of concern that could damage the rest of our relationship with them, on a cyber attack which is a direct attack on our national security and our electoral process. So let me ask you: would you advise the president-elect to repeal the Obama administration's recent executive orders regarding cyber security and Russian interference in the 2016 elections?

But Mr. Tillerson, I understand the cyber security plan we have to have to protect ourselves and handle cyber attacks against our country. That is separate from the question of whether people that have already conducted attacks should be sanctioned and singled out. There's an executive order that is now active that has sanctioned those individuals, and my question is: do you believe that executive order should be repealed by the incoming president?

Well again, Mr. Tillerson, the executive order says that certain individuals responsible for cyber attacks against the United States will be sanctioned, and you still need to examine whether that's a good idea or not. Is that correct?

Okay. Let me ask you this question: is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?

Well, let me describe the situation in Aleppo, and perhaps that will help you reach that conclusion. In Aleppo, Mr. Putin has directed his military to conduct a devastating campaign. He's targeted schools, markets — not just assisted the Syrians in doing it; his military has targeted schools and markets and other civilian infrastructure. It's resulted in the death of thousands of civilians. This is not the first time Mr. Putin is involved in campaigns of this kind. Back when he was just appointed prime minister before he was elected — and I'm sure you're aware of that period of time — there was a series of bombings, and they blamed it on the Chechens. Mr. Putin personally said that he would punish them, so he ordered the Air Force to bomb the Chechen capital of Grozny. They used Scud missiles to hit hospitals, the city's main outdoor market packed with shoppers; 137 people died instantly. They used thermobaric and fuel-air explosive bombs — these are the bombs that ignite and burn the air breathed in by people hiding in basements. They used cluster munitions. He used battlefield weapons against civilians. And when it was all said and done, an estimated 300,000 civilians were killed and the city was completely destroyed. By the way, there's a credible body of reporting, open source and other, that this was all part of a black flag operation on the part of the FSB. And if you want to know the motivation, here's what it is: Putin's approval ratings before the attacks against the Chechens was at 31%; by mid-August of that year it was at 78% in just three months. So based on all this information and what's publicly in the record about what's happened in Aleppo by the Russian military, you are still not prepared to say that Vladimir Putin and his military have violated the rules of war and have conducted war crimes in Aleppo?

Mr. Tillerson, the public videos and the pictures are there. I encourage you — there is so much information out there about what's happened in Aleppo. Leaving the Chechen issue aside, what happened there is clearly documented as well. So much information out there, it should not be hard to say that Vladimir Putin's military has conducted war crimes in Aleppo. Because it is never acceptable — you would agree — for a military to specifically target civilians, which is what's happened there through the Russian military. And you know, I find it discouraging your inability to cite that which I think is globally accepted. I want to, in my last minute and a half here, move quickly to an additional question. In fact, I want to enter two things into the record, Mr. Chairman. Without objection? Without objection. The first is a partial list of political dissidents, journalists, and critics of Vladimir Putin who were suspiciously murdered or died under highly suspicious circumstances. The second thing I want to enter into the record is a letter addressed to this committee by Vladimir Kara-Murza, who himself was mysteriously poisoned and is an opponent of the Putin regime. I'd like to enter that into the record. Mr. Tillerson, do you believe that Vladimir Putin and his cronies are responsible for ordering the murder of countless dissidents, journalists, and political opponents?

Are you aware that people who oppose Vladimir Putin wind up dead all over the world — poisoned, shot in the back of the head? And do you think that was coincidental, or do you think that it is quite possible or likely, as I believe, that they were part of an effort to murder his political opponents?

None of this is classified, Mr. Tillerson. These people are dead. Political opponents are dead.

Thank you, Mr. Tillman.

Thank you, Mr. Tillerson, congratulations on your nomination. Thank you for coming by to meet with me, and I'd like to take this opportunity to expand upon the conversation we had last week. Since you've worked in one sector for one company throughout your entire career, getting a sense of your worldview is incredibly important since you will be the chief advocate and advisor to the president-elect on those issues. So I'd like to go through a series of questions. I think many of them can be answered by a simple yes or no; others will probably take a greater, more extensive answer. And you've alluded to some of this in your opening statement, so let me go through several of them. Do you believe it is in the national interest of the United States to continue to support international laws and norms that were established after World War II?

Do you believe that the international order includes respecting the territorial integrity of sovereign countries and the inviolability of their borders?

Did Russia violate this international order when it forcefully annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine?

Does Russia's continuing occupation of foreign countries violate international laws and norms?

Well, the annexation of Crimea, eastern Ukraine, Georgia, just to mention a few.

Does Russia and Syria's targeted bombing campaign in Aleppo on hospitals, for example, violate this international order?

Do you believe these actions constitute war crimes?

Do you understand what specific fact standard is for a war crime?

Senator, if I could, let me ask... If you had sufficient evidence, though, in looking at classified information that that had taken place, would that not be a war crime?

Thank you for all of these answers that you've given me. Does the president-elect agree with you?

Well, in your statement on page three, you say: 'In his campaign, President-elect Trump proposed a bold new commitment to advancing American interests in our foreign policy. I hope to explain what this approach means and how to implement that policy if I am confirmed as Secretary of State.' So I assume to some degree that you've had some discussion about what that worldview is going to be, in order to understand whether you're willing to execute that on behalf of the person you're going to work for.

And I would have thought that Russia would be at the very top of that, considering all the actions that have taken place. Is that not happening?

It's pretty amazing. You built a career at ExxonMobil that you said afforded you the opportunity to engage regularly with world leaders, including Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2013. He awarded you with the Order of Friendship award. And in our conversations, you told me you had direct and personal access to the Russian president over the course of your tenure there. Then in 2014, ExxonMobil lobbied aggressively against sanctions on Russia after their invasion of Ukraine. Exxon lobbied against the Stability and Democracy for Ukraine Act, which I introduced in the Senate last year. You employed well-known Washington-based lobbyists to support these efforts. You personally visited the White House and reported that you were engaged at the highest levels of government. In essence, Exxon became the in-house lobbyist for Russia against these sanctions. Sanctions are one of the most effective diplomatic tools in our arsenal, one we rely on to avoid putting American lives at risk by engaging in traditional kinetic warfare. Now today, in response to a previous question by Senator Carden, you said sanctions are a powerful tool.