Erick Erickson Speaks With Glenn: I Know One of the Sources, and It's Far Worse Than What's Being Reported

May 16, 2017

WRITER

Erick Erickson, founder and editor-in-chief of TheResurgent.com, recently posted an article, I Know One of the Sources, which describes disturbing details on what's really happening inside the White House in light of the news Trump may have exposed sensitive information during his meetings with Russian officials. Erickson joined Glenn on radio Tuesday to discuss.

"This is worse in the sense that the president's conversations, I'm led to believe, with the Russians, provided them enough information through his bragging that they could identify the location of the source, how the source obtained the information regarding explosives and laptops, and could therefore identify specifically who the source was," Erickson said.

If true, what does that mean for President Trump? Is his job at stake?

"I don't think it's impeachable, and that's the problem. Gross incompetence is not one of the areas for impeachment in the Constitution. And I think we have to take that literally. If the president wants to release information to the Russians, he legally has the right to do it," Erickson said.

But there is a deeply troubling aspect to the president sharing high-level intelligence.

"The problem is that it undermines our relationships with our allies and our ability to collect intelligence from other sources and could potentially put the life of a source in jeopardy," Erickson said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Let's go right to Erick Erickson, a friend of the program, a friend of the Constitution, and a guy who has just written a pretty intense and explosive article about, "I know one of the sources on the Washington Post story."

And, by the way, Stations, we're still waiting for McMaster to come out and to begin his press conference. We'll join that, if it begins.

Erick.

ERICK: Hi, there.

GLENN: How are you?

ERICK: I'm good. How are you?

GLENN: Well, I've been better. Trying to make sense of this. And I believe McMaster, however, he has been very, very careful with his words. And he was denying things that the Washington Post never even -- never even claimed last night.

ERICK: Right.

GLENN: So it was an odd response, I thought last night. But I believe him. I'm waiting for him to come out. And now I get this story from you, that says, "This is very credible. And it's worse than what is reported."

ERICK: Yes. So I -- I am friends with someone who works for the president, is -- was enough of a pro-Trump supporter last year, that he and I moderated our interactions because we so vehemently disagreed with each other in the election. And he is concerned enough, at this point, as are others within the national security apparatus, that they are under the impression they have to leak these things to the media for the president to pay attention to them because he is extremely defensive when anyone approaches him in person and tries to explain to him why he should not do the things he's done.

Now, someone this morning interacted with me and said, "Well, maybe the president's reaction was, he was upset because they should have told him ahead of time." And that was my reaction as well.

But according to the source, he said, "That's not the president's reaction. The president's reaction is, I'm the president. I can do whatever I want. And that it's not helpful."

This is worse in the sense that the president's conversations, I'm led to believe, with the Russians, provided them enough information through his bragging that they could identify the location of the source, how the source obtained the information regarding explosives and laptops, and could therefore identify specifically who the source was.

GLENN: So how do -- let's say McMaster comes out and says all of that stuff is not true. McMaster is a guy who has written a book on honor and integrity. How do you square that?

ERICK: I don't know that you can. There's clearly something going on inside the White House, leading to this disparity.

The information last night from McMaster, I thought, was most interesting in that he denied a lot of the rumors and speculation surrounding the Washington Post report, but did not actually deny what the Post, the New York Times now, and other outlets have actually reported. So I'm going to be very interesting to see how he parses his words in this press conference.

GLENN: So if he says -- you know, if he verifies -- I can't imagine he's going to, but if he would verify what you just said or based on what you know -- I mean, I don't know who your source was, that was in the room? They were in the room?

ERICK: No. Was not in the room. There were very few people in the room. Was out of the room and in the post-meeting briefings about what took place in the room.

GLENN: Okay. So if -- McMaster was in the room. If he says -- let's just say he verifies what your source says, should President Trump step down or be impeached?

ERICK: I don't think it's impeachable. And that's the problem. Gross incompetence is not one of the areas for impeachment in the Constitution. And I think we have to take that literally. If the president wants to release information to the Russians, he legally has the right to do it.

The problem is that it undermines our relationships with our allies and our ability to collect intelligence from other sources and could potentially put the life of a source in jeopardy. But it's perfectly legal for him to do it. That's the problem here. And that, I suspect, would be General McMaster's answer here, is that everything the president did was legal. And he's absolutely right.

STU: I mean, Erick, you have to think, if he's getting this venue and making this statement, there's no way he's going to say anything other than completely back the president.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Now, I believe McMaster is a really honorable guy, but, I mean, he would not have this venue to come out and theoretically clarify all the things that he kind of left hanging in his previous statement, if he wasn't going to say something supportive of the president. Am I wrong on that?

ERICK: That would be my reaction as well, which is why I'm very interested to hear what he has to say.

GLENN: So, Erick, you didn't really answer the question. You did answer -- here comes McMaster.

Real quick. You didn't answer the question. Should he be -- should he be asked to resign?

ERICK: You know, if everything about this story that I'm being told is true, I think the president needs to consider the good of the country and not necessarily the good of him liking the phone system in the White House.

GLENN: Okay. Erick, thank you very much. Erick Erickson from theresurgent.com.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep