BLOG

If Colluding With Russia Isn't a Crime, What Is It?

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.

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.

TV

The Globalist Elites' Dystopian Plan for YOUR Future | Glenn Beck Chalkboard Breakdown

There are competing visions for the future of America which are currently in totally different directions. If the globalist elites have their way, the United States will slide into a mass surveillance technocracy where freedoms are eroded and control is fully centralized. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to break down exactly what their goal is and why we need to hold the line against these ominous forces.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s TERRIFYING Next Phase

RADIO

Barack & Michelle tried to END divorce rumors. It DIDN'T go well

Former president Barack Obama recently joined his wife Michelle Obama and her brother on their podcast to finally put the divorce rumors to rest … but it didn’t exactly work. Glenn Beck and Pat Gray review the awkward footage, including a kiss that could compete for “most awkward TV kiss in history.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me -- let me take you to some place. I think kind of entertaining.

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

She does it with her brother. Who knew? It's -- you know, I mean, it's so -- it's a podcast with two brothers. Right?

And -- and it -- they wanted to address the rumors, that they're getting a divorce. And this thing seems so staged.

I want you to -- listen to this awkward exchange on the podcast.

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

MICHELLE: Oh, yeah. The rumor mill. It's my husband, y'all! Now, don't start.

OBAMA: It's good to be back. It was touch-and-go for a while.

VOICE: It's so nice to have you both in the same room today.

OBAMA: I know. I know.

MICHELLE: I know, because when we aren't, folks things we're divorced. There hasn't been one moment in our marriage, where I thought about quitting my man.

And we've had some really hard times. We've had a lot of fun times. A lot of adventures. And I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

GLENN: I believed her. Now, this is just so hokey.

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

MICHELLE: Get you all teared up. See, but this is why I can't -- see, you can take the hard stuff, but when I start talking about the sweet stuff, you're like, stop. No, I can't do it.

VOICE: I love it. I'm enjoying it.

MICHELLE: But thank you, honey, for being on our show. Thank you for making the time. We had a great --

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

GLENN: They're not doing good. They're not doing good.

Okay. And then there was this at the beginning. And some people say, this was very awkward. Some people say, no. It was very nice.

When he walks in the room, he gives her a hug and a kiss. Watch.

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

PAT: Does that look like they're totally into each other?

GLENN: Well, I give my wife a peck on the cheek, if she walks into a room.

PAT: Do you? If you haven't seen her in months and it seems like they haven't, would you kiss her on the cheek? Probably not.

GLENN: No, that's a little different. That would be a little different. But I wouldn't make our first seeing of each other on television.

PAT: Yeah, right, that's true. That's true.

GLENN: But, you know, in listening to the staff talk about this. And they were like, it was a really uncomfortable -- okay.

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

But I don't think that rivals -- and I can't decide which is the worst, most uncomfortable kiss.

Let me roll you back into the time machine, to Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Do you remember this kiss?
(applauding)

GLENN: He turns away, immediately away from the camera. Because he's like.

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

GLENN: It was so awkward. When that happened, all of us went, oh, my gosh. He has only kissed little boys. What are we doing? What is happening?

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

And then there's the other one that sticks out in my mind of -- and I'm not sure which is worse. The Lisa Marie or the Tipper in Al Gore.

VOICE: The kiss. The famous exchange during the 2000 democratic convention was to some lovely, to others icky.
(laughter)

GLENN: That's an ABC reporter. To some lovely, others icky.

And it really was. And it was -- I believe his global warming stuff more than that kiss.
(laughter)
And you know where I stand on global warming.

That was the most awkward kiss I think ever on television!

PAT: Yeah. It was pretty bad. Pretty bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So when people who are, you know -- these youngsters.

These days. They look at Barack and Michelle. They're like, that was an awkward kiss.

Don't even start with me.

We knew when we were kids, what awkward kisses were like.

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

She claims, there was not been one moment in their marriage.

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: She just said a while ago. A month or a year ago, she hated his guts for ten years. She hated it.

GLENN: Yeah. But that doesn't mean you'll give up.

PAT: I guess not. I guess not. Maybe you enjoy being miserable.

I don't know.

GLENN: No. I have to tell you the truth.

My grandmother when I got a divorce, just busted me up forever. I call her up, and I said, on my first marriage.

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

And my sweet little 80-year-old grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life said, excuse me?

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

I said, what's happening. And she said, I really thought you would be the one that would understand. Out of everybody in this family, I thought you would understand.

And I said, what?

And she said, this just -- this just crushed me when she said it.

Do you think your grandfather and I liked each other all these years? I was like, well, yeah.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Kind of. And she said, we loved each other. But we didn't always like each other. And there were times that we were so mad at each other.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: But we knew one thing: Marriage lasts until death!

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

GLENN: Okay. All right. That's just not necessary.

RADIO

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

The media is insisting that President Trump's tariffs caused a rise in inflation for June. But Our Republic president Justin Haskins joins Glenn to debunk this theory and present another for where inflation is really coming from.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is here. He is the president of Our Republic. And the editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

He is also the coauthor with me at the Great Reset, Dark Future, and Propaganda War.

So, in other words, I'm saying, he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But he is here to report -- I don't even think you're -- you're -- you were wrong on this, too, with the tariffs. Right?

JUSTIN: Well, at some point, I was wrong about everything.

GLENN: Yeah, right. We are all on the road to being right.

But this is coming as a shock. You called yesterday, and you said, Glenn, I think the tariff thing -- I think the president might be right.

And this is something I told him, if I'm wrong. I will admit that I'm wrong.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Because this goes against everything the economists have said, forever.

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

All of these things. You have been study this now for a while, to come up with the right answer, no matter where it fell.

Tell me what's going on.

JUSTIN: Okay. So the most recent inflation data that came out from the government, shows that in June, prices went up 2.7 percent. In May, they went up 2.4 percent. That's compared to a year prior. And most people are saying, well, this is proof that the tariffs are causing inflation.

GLENN: Wait. That inflation is -- the target is -- the target is two -- I'm sorry.

We're not. I mean, when I was saying, it was going to cause inflation. I thought we could be up to 5 percent.

But, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTIN: So the really incredible thing though. The more you look at the numbers. The more obvious it is, that this does not prove inflation at all.

For starters, these numbers are lower, than what the numbers were in December and January.

Before Trump was president. And before we had any talk of tariffs at all.

So that is a big red flag right at the very beginning. When you dive even deeper into the numbers, what you see is there's all kinds of parts of the Consumer Price Index that tracks specific industries, or kinds of goods and services. That should be showing inflation, if inflation is being caused by tariffs, but isn't.

So, for example, clothing and apparel. Ninety-seven percent, basically.

About 97 percent according to one report, of clothing and apparel comes overseas, imported into the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: So prices for apparel and clothing should be going up. And they're not going up, according to the data, they're actually going down, compared to what they were a year ago. Same thing is true with new vehicles.

Obviously, there were huge tariffs put on foreign vehicles, not on domestic vehicles. So it's a little bit more mixed.

But new vehicle price are his staying basically flat. They haven't gone up at all. Even though, there's a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and car parts. And then we just look at the overall import prices. You just -- sort of the index. Which the government tracks.

What we're seeing is that prices are basically staying the same, from what they were a year ago.

There's very, very little movement overall.

GLENN: Okay. So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

Let me just -- let me just make something career.

Somebody is eating the tariffs. And it appears to be the companies that are making these things. Which is what Donald Trump said. And then, the -- you know, the economist always saying, well, they're just going to pass this on in the price.

Well, they have to. They have to get this money some place.

So where are they?

Is it possible they're just doing this right now, to get past. Because they know if they jack up their price, you know, they won't be able to sell anything. What is happening?

How is this money, being coughed up by the companies, and not passed on to the consumer.

JUSTIN: Yeah, it could be happening. I think the most likely scenario, is that they are passing it along to consumers. They're just not passing it along to American consumers.

In other words, they're raising prices elsewhere. To try to protect the competitiveness with the American market. Because the American market is the most important consumer market in the world.

And they probably don't want to piss off Donald Trump either, in jacking up prices. And then potentially having tariffs go up even more, as a punishment for doing that.

Because that's a real option.

And so I think that's what's happening right now.

Now, it's possible, that we are going to see a huge increase in inflation. In six months!

That's entirely possible.

We don't know what's going to happen. But as of right now, all the data is suggesting that recent inflation is not coming from consumer goods being imported, or anything like that.

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. It's not housing, is it?

Because the things to make houses is not going through the roof. Pardon the pun. Right?

It's not building.

JUSTIN: No. No. The way the CPI calculates housing is really stupid. They look basically primarily at rent. That's the primary way, they determine housing prices.

GLENN: Okay.

JUSTIN: That so on they're not talking about housing costs to build a new house.

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

And then they try to use rent data, as a way of calculating how much you would have to pay if you owned a house, but you had to rent the same kind of house.

And that's how they come up with this category.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question: Is everybody in Washington, are they all retarded?
(laughter)
Because I don't. What the hell. Who is coming up with that formula?

JUSTIN: Look. I mean, sort of underlying this whole conversation, as you -- as you and I know, Glenn.

And Pat too. The CPI is a joke to begin with.

GLENN: Right.

JUSTIN: So there's all kinds of problems with this system, to begin with.

I mean, come on!

GLENN: Okay. So because I promised the president, if I was wrong, and I had the data that I was wrong, I would tell him.

Do I have to -- out of all the days to do this.

Do I have to call him today, to do that?

Are we still -- are we still looking at this, going, well, maybe?

JUSTIN: I think there's -- I think there is a really solid argument that you don't need to make the phone call.

GLENN: Oh, thank God. Today is not the day to call Donald Trump. Today is not the day.

Yeah. All right.

JUSTIN: And the reason why is, we need -- we probably do need more data over a longer period of time, to see if corporations are doing something.

In order to try to push these cuts off into the future, for some reason. Maybe in the hopes that the tariffs go down. Or maybe -- you know, it's all sorts of ways, they could play with it, to try to avoid paying those costs today.

It's possible, that's what's going on.

But as of right now, that's not at all, what is happening. As far as I can tell from the data.

GLENN: But isn't the other side of this, because everybody else said, oh. It's not going to pay for anything.

Didn't we last month have the first surplus since, I don't know. Abraham Lincoln.

JUSTIN: Yes. Yes. We did. I don't know how long that surplus will last us.

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

I don't think I've ever heard that before in my lifetime. Hey, United States had a surplus.

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

I think it was like 20 something years ago, was the last time that happened. If I remembered right.

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

I actually think there is an argument to be made. That this whole strategy could work, if American manufacturers can dramatically bring down their costs. To produce goods and services.

So that they can be competitive.

And I think that advancements in artificial intelligence. In automation. Is going to open up the door to that being a reality.

And if you listen to the Trump administration talk. People like Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. They have said, this is the plan.

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

Automation. That's going to make us competitive with manufacturers overseas. China is already doing that.

They're already automating their factories. They lead the world in automation.

GLENN: Yeah, but they can take half their population, put them up in a plane, and then crash it into the side of the mountain.

They don't care.

What happens to the people that now don't have a job here? How do they afford the clothes that are now much, much cheaper?

JUSTIN: Well, I think the answer to that is, there's going to be significantly more wealth. Trillions of dollars that we send overseas, every year, now in the American economy. And that's going to go into other things. It's not as though -- when this technology comes along, it is not as though people lose their jobs, and that's it. People sit on their couch forever.

The real danger here is not that new markets will not arrive in that situation. And jobs with it. The problem is: I think there's a real opportunity here. And I think this is going to be the fight of the next election, potentially. Presidential election. And going forward.

Next, ten, 20 years. This is going to be a huge issue. Democrats are going to have the opportunity, when the AI revolution goes into full force. They will have the opportunity like they've never had before.

To say, you know what, we'll take care of you. Don't worry about it.

We're just going to take all of the corporate money and all of the rich people's money.

And we will print trillions of dollars more. And you can sit on your couch forever. And we will just pay you. Because this whole system is rigged, and it's unfair, and you don't have a job anymore because of AI. And there's nothing you can do. You can't compete with AI. AI is smarter than you.

You have no hope.

I think that's coming, and it is going to be really hard for free market people to fight back against that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

Because the -- you know, I thought about this.

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

If -- if the tech is going to grow and grow and grow. And they will start being -- they will be responsible for taking the jobs.

They won't be real on popular.

So they will need some people that will allow them to stay in business, and to protect them.

So they're going to need to be in with the politicians.

And if the politicians are overseeing the -- the decrease of jobs, they're going to need the -- the PR arm of things like social media. And what it can be done.

What can be done now.

I was thinking, at the time. Google can do.

But they need each other.

They must have one another. And unless we have a stronger foundation, and a very clear direction, and I will tell you. The president disagrees with me on this.

I said, he's going to be remembered as the transformational AI president.

And he said, I think you're wrong on that.

And I don't think I am.

This -- this -- this time period is going to be remembered for transformation.

And he is transforming the world. But the one that will make the lasting difference will be power and AI.

Agree with that or disagree?

JUSTIN: 1,000 percent. 1,000 percent. This is by far the most important thing that is happening in his administration in the long run. You're projecting out ten, 20, 30 years ago years.

They will be talking about this moment in history, a thousand years from now. Like, that will -- and they will -- and if America becomes the epicenter of this new technology, they will be talking about it, a thousand years from now, about how Americans were the ones that really developed this.

That they're the ones that promoted it, that they're the ones that does took advantage of it.
That's why this AI race with China is so important that we win it.

It's one of the reasons why. And I do think it's a defining moment for his presidency. Of course, the problem with all of this is AI could kill us all. You have to weigh that in.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

Well, we hope you're wrong on that one.

And I'm wrong on it as well. Justin, thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me the out, where I don't have to call him today. But I might have to call him soon. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it.

TV

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.