Is it a crime to meet with people on the promise of foreign interference with an election?

Glenn opened up the floor to callers on radio Wednesday to see what TheBlaze audience thinks of Donald Trump, Jr.’s emails planning a meeting to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton from the Russian state.

A story in the New York Times on Monday claimed that the younger Trump had emails about meeting with the “crown prosecutor of Russia” to learn “highly sensitive” information about Clinton because the Russian government wanted to support his campaign. On Tuesday, Trump, Jr. himself tweeted screenshots of the emails verifying that the story was accurate.

Glenn reminded people that it’s important not to wear a “term jersey” if you want to share a nuanced perspective; the country doesn’t necessarily need to hear more from people who are deeply loyal only based on partisan lines.


In today’s political discourse, people are often reactionary and subjective. Can principled people remain consistent and identify right and wrong in political scandals?

“We have to get to a place to where we ask ourselves in advance of a scandal, ‘Does it matter?’” Glenn said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

Jeff Vinnick/Getty Images

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors.

GLENN:  Hello, America.  And welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.  Glad that you are here.  Donald Trump said yesterday that his son was open, transparent, and innocent.  He also said he was — what was it?  A very classy boy.  What was the first thing that he said?  Something like that.
STU:  He’s a high-quality guy or something.
GLENN:  High-quality.  Big, beautiful doors at his house.  High-quality.
Which was — I thought was a funny — very Trump statement.  He did come out later and say that he was open, transparent, and innocent.
Okay.  Open and transparent, no.  But he did release the document yesterday, about halfway through this program, that showed the emails.  But that is because — it’s important to remember — the New York Times — whoever is leaking these, which is a conversation we have to have.  Who leaked this email?
Who had a copy of this email?  Who leaked this email to the New York Times?  How did they get that?
Hmm.  Donald Trump Jr. had told us that Kushner and Manafort had no idea what the meeting was about.  But if you look at the email chain, in the CC was Kushner and Manafort.  So is it possible that one of them leaked this email, knowing that it was coming out, and, you know, a couple of weeks ago, knowing that they had already told the FBI about this email and so, at some point the investigation is going to lead to this, I want to make sure I look like I’m clean.
Manafort if you know — Manafort, in the New York Times and from the — the KGB woman or the woman who is definitely not KGB, she said Manafort was just — he was just looking at his Blackberry or his i Pad the whole time.  He wasn’t even paying attention.  And Kushner, he left within two minutes.  So both of those were — were kind of cleared in some sort of way by the Russian woman.
I know that Donald Jr. tried to clear them, but unfortunately his email had the CC to both of them.  So they both knew what this meeting was all about.
That’s not exactly — what was it?  Open and transparent.  And, you know, when you release something because the feds are going to release it or the press is going to release it within a few minutes, it doesn’t really count, “Oh, I wanted to get it out there.”  You did a good job because now people are able to say, “Hey, he released this.  It didn’t come from the news.”  But it also works against you if you’ve been on the front lines saying, “Fake news.  Fake news.  Fake news.”  Because we can easily say, “It’s not fake news.  He released this.”
So the questions we have to ask are, if this isn’t a crime, if this isn’t something that you’re going to go to jail for, this is really just a sin.  And is this a sin of, what?  Is it a sin of commission or omission?
Is this a sin of — of impeachable status?  Or is this just a sin that we all forgive and move on.  Or is this something that we all defend?
And that’s where we have to look.  And I want to talk to you, not as a guy who — I want to hear from you.  I don’t want to tell you what to think.  I really want to have a conversation with you.  Because I want to know how you are thinking.  I want to know how you are viewing this.  I want to give you a chance to vent.  I want to give you a chance to reason and think.  So the conversation that I’d like to have with you is one where I am pushing and prodding and asking questions, but I’m going to do that on both sides.
I don’t want to hear from people who are wearing a team jersey.  If you are strongly Never Trump, strongly Always Trump, strongly, you know, one side or another.  I really want to hear from people who are struggling with this or have made up their mind one way or another, that can help others.  But you’re not just a robot on, I got to get Donald Trump out, I got to keep Donald Trump in.  I want to talk to real people.
Here’s what I — here’s what I want to preface this with:  Before this election, I said, we have to know — we have to — we have to get to a place to where we ask ourself in advance of a scandal.  Does it matter?
And this comes from the Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton debacle of the ’90.
Does this matter?  Here’s what happened in the ’90s.  As you remember, the left said, “He didn’t.”  We said, yes, he did.
No, he didn’t.
Yes, he did.
No, he didn’t.
Yes, he did.
No, he didn’t.  For about eight months.  And then all of a sudden it was revealed that, “Oh, my gosh.  Yes, he did.”
Then what did they do?
It doesn’t matter.
Yes, it does.
No, it doesn’t.
Yes, it does.
Then why were we arguing about this for so long?
Well, it matters to him personally.  This is a personal sin.  This doesn’t have anything to do with him being president.
Yes, it does.  The president can’t lie to the American people.
It was a personal lie.  It doesn’t matter.  Yes, it does.  No, it doesn’t.  Yes, it does.  Oh, my gosh.
Now, I want to talk to you about the aftereffects.  You most likely argued that a sin about sex in a marriage doesn’t matter.  And so what happened was, we went through about eight months or a year, maybe two, of arguing about is oral sex, sex?  Depends on what the definition of “is” is.  The damage that this did to the credibility — the reason why Hillary Clinton lost is because we didn’t teach the Clintons a lesson then.
If Hillary Clinton would have said, “You know, the truth does matter,” if she would have come out — I said this when it was happening, if Hillary Clinton would have taken her luggage and put it in front of the White House and said, “He’s still my president, but he’s not my husband right now.  We may get back together.  No man should ever treat a woman like that.  The truth does matter.”  Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s life would be a lot different.  And Hillary Clinton may have been president in 2000.  Because she would have had credibility.  And perhaps she would have learned — perhaps, because we are talking about the Clintons — perhaps she would have learned that doing — standing up for the truth pays off.
But instead, her supporters said, “Oh, it doesn’t matter.  We love you anyway.  You guys can get things done.”  And so the truth didn’t matter.
Now, how has this affected our kids?  Pat, do you have that stat of —
PAT:  I don’t have it in front of me, but it seems to me that it was about 80 percent of 12-year-olds in 2009 or 2010 that didn’t believe oral sex was sex.
GLENN:  Right.  It is meaningless to them.  And they really don’t believe that oral sex is sex, and they are embracing it.  What one generation tolerates, the next embraces.
Now, remember, I know how you feel about your kids.  I know how you feel about your life.  I know how you’re feeling now about, I haven’t had a raise.  I haven’t had a job.  I can’t afford my insurance.  I’m under attack with my children.  I can’t even send them to school.
Right.  Right.  So I can’t tell you — I can’t tell you what you need to do.  You need to do what you need to do.
But for me, if we lose the younger generation — it’s not even Generation X.  I have something that we probably won’t get around to, today.  A new study on generation Z.  Have you seen generation Z?  They are a direct result of the Tea Party.  I’m convinced of it.
They are a direct result of how bad the government has gotten and how we have infused things into them, because of the Tea Party, standing up for what is right and standing up for smaller government and the truth and transparency.
Generation Z is not like Generation X.  And there’s a new study out that says, Democrats, be warned, generation Z is not in your roundhouse.  They’re not with you.
So what we do with our children right now makes all the difference in the world.  Now, we know how it worked out on oral sex.  An unattended — an unintended consequence.  We thought we would teach our children about lies, and perhaps we did.  But what we actually taught them was sex is meaningless.  Oral sex is meaningless.  It means nothing.
And they learned that just from us arguing back and forth.  I don’t know what they’re going to learn from this.  But I know they’re going to watch us and they’re going to learn something.  And so I want to be really, really careful before we engage in arguments.  It’s why I’d like to — I’d like to turn down the volume of this and have a reasonable conversation.  And that’s why I’ve asked for people with no teams.  If you’re on a team, that’s fine, as long as you can turn the passion down.  Because I don’t want to add to the name-calling and the passion, because I don’t want to set — begin to set the example for our children, before we really know what we’re doing.  Because we don’t have all the facts right yet.
And I’m more concerned about the children, our children, and what we’re teaching them.  Because we all know, if we lose our children, we’re toast.  We already know what the left is teaching their children.  We already know what the institutions are teaching our children.  We’re the last hope with our children.