tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC July 6, 2017 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
>> "the 11th hour" starts now. tonight tear gas and riot police ahead of meeting with hamburg. plus blaming obama. on foreign soil the current u.s. president blames the last one over russia's role in the election, while questioning how much russia is even to blame. and raising the stakes. how north korea has adds one more big layer to the trump putin summit. "the 11th hour" begins now. the fundamental question of our time is whether the west has the will to survive. that line may sound like churchill or fdr, but it was the question the president posed on this, the 168th day of the trump
administration. though the health and perhaps survival of american democracy was on the minds as many as trump prepares for this big showdown meeting tomorrow with vladimir putin. so at this joint press conference in war saw halle jackson again asked if president trump accepted that russia was behind the hacks. the president did not cite the authority of the u.s. intelligence assessment. that would be the easiest way for any president to handle the question. no, instead, he went out of his way to cast more doubt and then loop back to the man who held office before him. >> i think it was russia. but i think it was probably other people and/or countries. and i see nothing wrong with that statement. nobody really knows. nobody really knows for sure. i heard it was 17 agencies.
i said, boy, that's a lot. do we even have that many intelligence agencies? it turned out to be three or four. it wasn't 17. and many of your compatriots had to apologize and correct. >> barack obama when he was president found out about this in terms of if it were russia. found out about it in august. now, the election was in november. that's a lot of time he did nothing about it. why did he do nothing about it? he did nothing about it. he said let's not do anything about it. he did nothing about it. that's the real question is why did he do nothing? why did he do nothing? why did obama do nothing about it? he did nothing about it. >> it is a good question when phrased that way. the question is whether any of that is the whole story. we'll give you some of the facts here before we get to our guest. the u.s. intelligence community as a whole did determine that
russia hacked the u.s. election. now the big intel there was based on three agencies, the cia, the nsa and fbi. critics from both parties have indeed questioned whether president obama did enough to counter the interference as it was going on. but no one who reviewed this would say that the president did nothing throughout the election. as president trump just asserted. ultimately today it ended with the protests ahead the g20 that kicks off in a few hours. riot police using water canons when things did get unreally. they also used tear gas as our ryan simmons experienced first-hand. >> reporter: there's now a clash between protesters and police. hear in hamburg, germany where president trump is meeting with world leaders. and and is now it is now difficult to breathe. there are now running battles
between demonstrators and german riot police moving again in this direction to stop -- to stop the protestors we're even staying in this area. >> a seen that was at times dangerous for protesters, reporter there, as well as the police officers trying to keep some order. are estimates put the totals number of demonstrators as high as 10,000 people. as promised now i want to bring in our panel. phil, starting with you, put the president's extemporaneous comments in context here because he obviously wanted to strike sort of a presidential or stark note as i mentioned wrrd to the
extential question but then he kind of quickly backed into a political mode. >> yeah, that's right. and it's interesting if you look at his actual scripted speech he gave out in warsaw, he was really trying assure our western allies. try to signal to the european countries who have been very wary of his moves, the west can stand together. but in his statements there at the press conference and his statements to hally jackson about the russian interference were just kind of mind-boggling, because he's, again, not affirming what his u.s. intelligence agencies have found definitively. >> on the one hand, you do hear from trump white house officials as well as trump supporters that there's a frustration no matter what he does and where he goes, the russia question looms. the flip side to that would this
would seem to be an appropriate question staring down the putin meeting tomorrow. >> absolutely. on the one hand you had him speaking in very strong terms, essentially criticizing russia, urging russia to stop propping up the syrian regime, for example, to stand with western nations. and then yet again questioning his own intelligence agency. and so it raises the question about whether or not he's going to press russia's president tomorrow when the two meet for the first time on the issue of russia's meddling in the u.s. election. if you take his comments to hally jackson, it would suggest he's not going to. and i have questions about whether we actually know what's going to be said during that meeting. but will he press him on that key issue? you have republicans and democrats urging him to do
exactly that. we know there are going to be six people in the room with him. secretary of state rex tillerson, sergey lavrov, and then three translators. so it's going to be a very small group of people who know what's actually said. and the key question is going oo be how tough he is with putin. >> jonathan, what will be learn from a meeting like this with regard to protocols? >> normally countries will release its statements. this is the event that has been months in the making. this is sort of the main event. we've all waited for the trump/putin sit town and i think there's a possibility we won't know entirely what is said. >> what do you think putin is going to get out of it the. >> i think he's going to flatter
mr. trump. this is president trump who is still rather inexperienced when it comes to foreign policy, inexperienced when it comes to these intense one-on-one meetings. in comparison vladimir putin is a former kgb and also brought his large dog with a meeting with former chancellor andrea merkel and knew she was afraid of them. >> i haven't heard that story. phil, have you? >> i haven't. >> take a look to the president here on foreign soil talking about the free press because many presidents in free parties talk about this in nonbroad partisan terms. but the president today didn't hit that note and instead turned
it more of a time for media criticism saying he should have a fair press. that's not what the founders said. they didn't say anything about being fair but amendment rights. >> they have been very -- do you have that, by the way, also mr. president? what we want to see in the united states is honest, beautiful, free but honest press. we want to see fair press. i think it's a very important thing. we don't want fake news. philip? >> yeah, that was just striking for him to make those comments on foreign soil, to be attacking an american institution of the free press here he should be proud of and promoting special in poland when he's standing
face-to-face of a president who has very restrictive policies when it comes to the press in poland. and he did not really call for a democracy or free press in that country. and was out there really taking a bat to the american free press. >> christian, what did you think of it? >> well, i think that a lot of people were struck by the fact that he didn't use that opportunity to criticize the crack down we have seen to some extent in poland, and he also took aim at the press. i think that was striking, and sends quite a signal as he goes into these other meetings. today he met with the german chancellor. according to the official readout they talk about topics of which they share common ground. but as we've been reporting
there's certainly a whole range of topics of which we disagree. she was furious when we pulled oaof the paris agreement. and that's an area where she aligns with former president obama. so those lines undercut him. >> and kristen, that's sort of the foreign side. at home what are you hearing about the white house aides about thafr confidence in the president to stick the landing with putin tomorrow? >> look, that's a great question. i think there's? division. remember, h.r. mcmaster says there's not an agenda yet. i've been pressing officials inside and outside the white house what do they make of that. i've been told they take h.r. mcmaster at his word, that there's no clear agenda. and that raises alarm bells with
some. >> we could take him at his word, jonathan. if you take him at his word from a u.s. national security perspective, that would be concerning. because when you have the u.s. intelligence agency saying this is a foreign agency that intervened in our elections, that would seem to be number one item on the agenda. >> it is. and it is very striking today the president refused to commit to it. he has time and time again cast doubts on the russian meddling election. it's very clear in his mind suggesting russia had anything to do with the election sort of delegitimizes his vingtary. we already know he lost the popular vote. we already know it's something he's obsessed about. he has the map of the eelectoral college hung up in the white
house. and the suggestion that russia had any part of this would make him less of a president. >> well, the first step is to confront it and find love deep within yourself. thank you all for joining tonight. coming up, just six people expected in that room when trump and putin meet. this is their first time. we're going to look at the politics, the persuasion of the problems that could arise when "the 11th hour" continues. ♪
anyone who calls it a hobby doesn't understand. we know that a person's passion is what drives them. [ clapping ] and that's why every memorial we create is a true reflection of the individual. only a dignity memorial professional can celebrate a life like no other. find out how at sanfranciscodignity.com. the future isn't silver suits anit's right now.s, think about it. we can push buttons
and make cars appear out of thin air. find love anywhere. he's cute. and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? because our phones have evolved. so isn't it time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. she is saying russia, russia, russia. maybe it was. it could be russia. but it could be china.
could also be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds. i notice any time anything wrong happens they like to say the russians. she doesn't know it's the russians. maybe there is no hacking. you can talk all you want about russia which was all fake news if you don't catch a hacker in the hack, it's very hard to say there was hacking. that being said, i'll go along with china, there could be hacking. >> several of the times preand post election donald trump has had trouble saying.
the backdrop with 54% of americans saying they believe trump on these issues. joining me now the author of limits of partnership for npr. starting with you, andrea, when you look at both sides like this, how do they decide what are the deliverables? >> president putin wants to come out and tell his population he was respected by the u.s. president. i think the same would be true by donald trump.
i think you've had this huge buildup where donald trump praised vladimir putin and vice versa. i think we also have to remember this is the fourth president vladimir putin has dealt with. she was trained as a kgb officer. he's been preparing very hard for it. so i don't think he needs any deliverable. i don't know if there's a deal to be made. but he wants to come out of this with the u.s. president saying this is a man i can work with, working together on syria, working together on north korea, possibly working together on other areas, too, maybe ukraine. and i think president trump, again, has to come out of this saying he had a good meeting with putin, they have to work together. as i just said before, this would cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election.
>> without drawing anymore parallels between the two countries, george bush was cia before he was president, public service including intel. what do you get at when you say that? >> well, what i mean is if you even read his auto biography he'll say he was in germany, he learned how to work with -- he's been doing that for a long time. he didn't come up as an operations officer, as a case officer. so this really does give putin a unique perspective how you deal with individuals, what their weaknesses are. how to flatter them. again, i think he's very well-prepared for this.
i also think donald trump is very good at figuring out people's strengths and weaknesses. just think about the debates during the campaign. but it's a different kind of training. >> rick. >> you want me to react, and i'll object to that. while one has praised putin, putin has not praised trump. putin has basically said i think the word was colorful, he used. but he's been dealing with american presidents, he's been dealing with world leaders. trump is new at this, and putin knows how to manipulate people. i spent three hours with putin in 2007. he is master of every fact. he is absolutely positive and certain of what he's saying. and he has a particular issue that he wants to get on with you when he's talking to you. and he will bring up all of these grievances. he'll try to put you on the defensive, and basically trump has never been in a meeting like
this. >> was putin happy about meeting the president of the eu? >> i talked to kissinger beforehand and kissinger said to me you'll be surprised what little effort he'll take to turn you. if even when he pretends to be pleased, he's just acting. hoohe seems utterly indefendant to it. in fact he got perturbed at us for certain mistakes we made. he's actually pretty tem pestuous, but he's keeping it under control. >> it is the one issue, i would argue, the only oegs of which we've seen a measurable vote of alliance against the trump administration on the russia
sanction. so what are the vulnerabilities you see? >> you're right. the republicans at large have decided that the russia's interference in the 2016 election was a real problem. and the sanctions bill, what it does, is it limits the white house ability to unilaterally lift sanctions on russia. but speaking of politics, that pole you spoke about at the top, it find that this russia question is really a partisan question. if you dig down into the numbers. you find that 73% of republicans find that donald trump did nothing wrong as it relates to russia's interference in the 2016 election. whereas 13% of democrats say the very same thing. so what that suggests is that in the short-term the president is not paying a political price for this decidedly naive public response for what was a nefarious russian act. and whether or not he believes russia played a role in the
election or not, it's true that the white house has done little or next to nothing to stop it from happening. again, we know from comey's testimony the president really didn't weigh in on this question how to prevent a future cyber attack. we know that the attorney general jeff sessions. to your point, huge partisan break down, right of whether something illegal took place. but, rick, 27% of independents, that is to say far more republicans are concerned about illegally here. >> yes, i think the news media has done a terrific job trying to expose what's going on. and i think the drum beat of regulations and the fact he can't cop to it -- it's one thing to say yes, they interfered but they had no influence. he seems to think that
interference means that they somehow tipped the election that makes him defensive. he can't put them in separate categories to say, yeah, they interfered but they didn't influence. >> it doesn't mean that your home was invaded, and that's a separate question. and if the underlying event here is the as you know from covering so many of these, the macrofactors that go into any presidential race, i don't know if you could point to any one thing ever to tip a presidential race. >> yeah, and the fact is no one can say if they influenced the vote. up next i'm going to speak live with a democrat on the house foreign affairs committee. he says there's one point of which he does agree with president trump. we'll explain right after this.
will you once and for all yes or no definitively say that russia interfered in the 2016 election? >> well, i think it was russia, and i think it could have been other people and other countries. could have been a lot of people interfered. nobody really knows. nobody really knows for sure. >> nobody really knows for sure, well it depends who you talk to.
our own intelligence agencies have said otherwise. that is what is known. then there's the question of what to do about it. democratic congressman from the state of california, ted lou, joins me now serves on the house foreign affairs committee. and you believe donald trump is right about something. what is that? >> well, hindsight is 20/20, but the statement is accurate, the oobama administration should have done more. the obama administration should have notified the american public that russia was hacking last year. >> what about what they said in october? >> well, the obama administration i thought did not do enough to really let the american public know the gravity of what russia was doing. they didn't just hack the dnc. they hacked multiple american institutions. they also hacked the electoral boards of several states. this was a massive operation,
and the american public should have been warned about it in a much more us aggressive manner. >> at the time did you expect hillary clinton to win the election? >> i did, yes. >> president trump said the obama administration had the same expectation, and that factored into -- >> it's hard to tell. i think many people would agree that having this disclosed after the election is certainly not as important as having it disclosed prior to the election. he needs to confront vladimir putin about the massive cyber attack on america last year. if he doesn't raise this issue, it is a sign of weakness. it's showing trump is scared to confront putin about this issue, ask that is unacceptableable. >> well, congressman isn't that
the most bizarre part of this. he is literally saying on the same day that obama didn't do enough then when less was known, he's not sure he's going to do anything even though so much is known about putin's role. >> you're asking me to defend the rationality of donald trump, so i'm not going to do that at this point, but what i'm going to say is he needs to bring the issue of russian cyber hacking. and if he doesn't do it, it only incentivizes russia to do it again. >> congressman, we appreciate your candor. not afraid to point out when the president stumbled or did something correct. appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you, ari. coming up the man running the federal ethics in washington, in charge of that, all the rules had if you may not have heard today, resigned. we're going to explain why and
what he says about the trump administration making ethics and his job more difficult. straight ahead. he spent decades fighting to give families a second chance. but to help others, they first had to protect themselves. i have afib. even for a nurse, it's complicated... and it puts me at higher risk of stroke. that would be devastating. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. once i got the facts, my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®... to help keep me protected. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner... ...significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. it has similar effectiveness to warfarin. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. for afib patients well-managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily,
or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures... ...and before starting xarelto®-about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. it's important to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from a stroke. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know™. ♪...nausea, heartburn,♪ indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea!♪ nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea!♪ here's pepto bismol! ah.
in washington running the federal ethics officesent typically a high profile job. there's an ethics watchdog and typically he or she abides with the white house on how to handle public issues and also handles other topics. in the trump administration ethics watchdog -- he even tried sarcastic tweets as a rebuttal to trump's refusal to divest
companies. now, this man is leaving six months early and complaining his thinking here. this is a new interview with cbs news. >> do you think the president and his family are using the office to enrich themselves? >> i can't know what their intention is. know that the effect is that there's an appearance that the businesses are profiting from him occupying the presidency. and appearance matters as much as reality. >> but at this point it sounds like you're saying you can't be sure. >> you can't be sure. and so it almost doesn't matter whether they are profiting or not. america should have a right to know what the moat vagdss of its leaders are. and they need to know that financial interests, personal financial interests aren't among them. >> joining me now richard, his
work and his significance of this departure. >> well, he's an excellent ethics lawyer. i worked with him closely when i was the chief ethics lawyer for president bush. and he's very effective, understands the ethics laws. he's not partisan at all. and it's really too bad to lose him. but i'm surprised, though, he lasted as long as he did. it's been a very, very difficult six months. i've been a republican for 30 years. i've served in the bush administration. i've seen a lot of administrations come and go in washington. and there's a whole new attitude this time around towards personal conflicts of interest and also towards the freedom of the press and other fundamental values we hold dear in this
country. and when you have the president threatening to derail the tom warner deal because he doesn't like the press coverage he's getting from cnn, that is exactly the type of thing that needs to be reigned in. and the ethics government office has is a critical role in dealing with conflicts of interest. but if the administration doesn't want to take ethics seriously, it's a very difficult job. >> we'll get to that. but before we do, you talk about their approach toectics. earlier this year i you know because i consulted you about it at the time. his transition team which really could be boring, instead this is what we found a message of him hitting the panic button.
i am not sure whether you are aware that -- at present we have no reliable lines of communication with the transition team. the circumstances also unprecedented. explain that, richard. because it sounds like his view is he was trying to help the incoming administration, and they at any time even want to return his calls about ethics. >> well, absolutely. that was his job to help this administration, and he did. he reached out to them, the procedure we followed in the bush administration is we work with the office of government ethics to go through financial holdings of potential nominees, two cabinet positions and other positions to fill out their finance and disclosure forms, tell them what assets they have to sell in order to comply with theectic laws. this administration chose instead to announce nominees and
then tell theectics office afterwards they wanted papers jammed through and rushed up to the senate. and that's just not the way it's done with several, quite a few people drop out because they identify conflicts of interest later in the game. and we would have caught those a lot earlier in the game in the bush administration because we work with the a office of ethics instead of trying to work around the ethics rules. >> so everyone understands what schaub is saying here. the flip side to this is does it reward the white house's approach to these issues when people respond to their approach stone walling or being iced out by throwing up their hands and leaving because now the president is going to get his type oaf ethics person six months later.
>> i think he was resigning somewhat in protest. i think what he was trying to do is draw attention to this. one of the problems his tenure has shown and what donald trump's candidacy has revealed and now his presidency has revealed are how limited our laws are in being able to police the president's behavior. donald trump, a lot of the rules and norms and precedents that apply to presidents that have governed presidents in the past are just that, they're norms and rules. they're not actually rules orregulations. the president has been exempt from the ethics act, doesn't have to follow the same rules that have applied to previous presidents. i think what schaub is doing by resigning this way is drawing attention to the really flaws in our system that trump has pointed out. and maybe one of the after maths at the end of the trump
presidency is hopefully there's finally a look at the government in ethics. >> you make an important point. yeah, there's nothing legally stopping george w. bush while running an oil business while president. he just chose not to. this is the first time we've seen someone wanting to do so much business outside of the house. white house leaders discuss a potential levererage over their adversary. burr eied in this article, that seems significant, matt? >> it seems significant. and if it's true, it's potentially a criminal act, where you have officials threatening to take official action in exchange for a thing of value. it also has an eerie parallel with what happened in watergate where the deputy attorney general was ordered by president nixon to drop an anti-trust
investigation, which is what this investigation into the time warner merger was. if it's just an aide mouthing off to a reporter it's one thing. it's gross stupidity. if the white house actually has contact with the department of justice and urged them to do something with respect to this review, it's something much, much more serious. >> yeah, i don't know if it's cnn, fox news, headline news, the notion of misuse of government resources to effect chill or bully the free press is serious. thank you both. >> thank you. coming up from deep red to deep blue, the one trump administration act that is uniting states from coast to coast.
the strangty of our elections by putting all this information into the hands of an administration that you as a news media has reported has a little trouble keeping things confidential. >> that is secretary grimes explaining why her state will not hand over their voter data. they want birthdays, the last four dedigits of your social security number and more. in fact 20 states will put conditions on what they will fork over. the other 16 say they will not provide anything under their state laws. joining me now the one who wrote this piece. also with us one who served the clenten and bush administrations, now the professor of university of baltimore law school.
starting with you, there's all this discussion about the data which is super important. but i wondered if we should begin with the original, which is government taxpayers and resources which the president said would be devoted to pursuing what can only be described as a baseless discredited conspiracy theory that 3 million people illegally voted and nobody saw them. >> ari, you're absolutely right. this is delusional. we're chasing after this delusional tweet that he made and using taxpayer dollars to do so. and this is complete farce, a complete sham. and the secretary of states are correct that they don't need to turn over this private administration to this administration who only uses information to arrive at a already decided upon conclusion. if they really want to look at
elections, why they don't look at expanding the voter base instead of restrict it, which what they're trying to do by prove there's widespread voter dismukt, which there's not. >> like him you have some idealism in you, but you were also a pragmatist. you worked in the white house for clinton but you're also doing this voter rights stuff. how do you reconcile it? you mentioned the data, but that's in the weeds if the whole thing is illegitimate. >> and it's tough because there really are problems with our voter system, the ways in which the rolls are a mess and likely to be exploit by this commission by misgotten purposes. this is a version of a play book we've seen where these baseless fears of misconduct are used to
set the stage for laws to make it harder for a lot of people to vote. the driving force behind the commission is that kansas secretary of state chris covack, he's been the johnny apple seed drafting these for other states. iranically 1 the states where you cannot legally give out the social security number is kansas. and secretary had to inform the commission he was barred by law to do that. >> and that moment, i don't know if you ever saw the great ice cube movie higher learning. but there's a time where the officer says let me see your i.d. and he rolls down his window and says let me see your i.d. as michael says, what is going on in this commission? what is going on is this a
completely ilegitimate commission. it has no purpose, no usefulness. its only purpose is to try to create the illusion that what the president tweeted out months ago is correct. and it's completely incorrect. it's a complete waste of our tax money. and it should not go forward. >> michael, let me read to you from "the washington post" on the data piece. commission staff, they say, will download these files onto white house computers. an employee of vice president pence's office will be responsible with it staff for collecting and storing any data. you see any problems there? >> well homeland security secretary said there was a huge security risk here to ask all of our personal files to all be sent ironically enough through unsecure e-mail. and they're going to take this and try to compare all the files
and show that this imaginary conspiracy is really real. there is a silver lining here. the response to this from not only democratic but republican officials is really new and really powerful. they understand there's something wrong here. and you start to see with the extremism of how trump has handled this issue, the election rigged and all that sort of thing, you see people saying you know what, there's not this voter fraud. maybe that creates a new break point so we can actually get some of the positive voting changes we need without suppressing the vote. >> as the old saying goes, facts, it's what for dinner. appreciate both of your time tonight. >> thank you. now coming up there is a new admission from a republican governor, and i will give you a little personal update of my own right after this break. "the 11th hour" continues.
they have been fake news for a long time. they've been covering me in a very, very dishonest way. do you have that also, by the way, mr. president. what we want to see in the united states is honest, beautiful, free but honest press. we want to see fair press. i think it's a very important thing. we don't want fake news. by the way, not everybody is fake news.
but we don't want fake news. bad thing, very bad for our country. >> not everybody is fake news. that was president trump on his topic there. the jointporous conference, was with the polish president. calling the president useless. something lepage's office has said itself was fake news. >> they are so, so vile and inaccurate. and i just -- i tell you, i'd just love to sit in my office and make up ways so they'll write these stupid stories. it's just so stuped, it's awful. i'll tell you the sooner the print press goes away, the better society will be. >> not a view shared by the founders, but that a sitting u.s. governor saying today that all print press, the stuff you
read should go away. not the first time he's taken othen media. he once told a group of middle school students reading the newspaper is paying someone to tell you lies. that is our broadcast tonight. i want to thank you for being with us. i also want to tell you you can find me on facebook on facebook.com/arimelber. tune in for more details tonight and good night from new york. >> tonight on all in, nobody really knows. nobody really knows for sure. the president goes to eastern europe to announce american intelligence, american media. >> why did obama do nothing
about it. >> tonight the president's performance on foreign soil and what it all means for his meeting with vladimir putin. plus -- >> this bill was designed to and investigating the unending cycle of gun violence. >> around here, you ain't nobody until you kill somebody. >> "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from chicago. i'm chris hayes and we are 14 hours away from president trump's high stakes meeting with russian president vladimir putin at the g-20 summit. tonight, nbc news has learned in a will have one official by his side. that will be secretary of state rex tillerson getting the russian order of friendship from putin in 2013 when tillerson was the ceo.