National Review’s David French Analyzes Trump Emails: ‘I Could Not Believe My Eyes’

July 12, 2017

Writer

On Tuesday, Donald Trump, Jr. confirmed a report that he had emailed and met with Russian contacts to try to get information about Hillary Clinton because the Russian government wanted to support the Trump campaign. He tweeted screenshots of the exchange, in which he was promised "high level and sensitive information" from the Kremlin that would help his father beat Clinton in the 2016 election. Is colluding with foreign governments illegal, and what comes after this startling revelation?

National Review’s David French, a veteran, author, and Harvard Law graduate, joined Glenn on radio Wednesday to analyze the story.

Based on what we know, the emails show “attempted collusion,” French explained, saying that he wouldn’t have believed such an email exchange existed just a week ago.

“I would have thought that’s a bad ‘House of Cards’ episode,” French said incredulously. “That’s just too on the nose.”

French listed the three things we can learn from what we know so far. First, the Trump campaign is still culpable even if they didn’t gain information about Clinton from the meeting; second, an independent investigation is still needed because we don’t know what actually happened in that meeting; and third, we should wonder if there’s more information waiting to come out.

“As somebody said, if you’re thinking you’re buying drugs, and they turn out to be fake drugs, that doesn’t make you any better of a person,” French noted.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Rand Paul just announced that the G.O.P. is -- has decided to keep Obamacare. I mean, how are you going to get Obamacare through with any of this? And they weren't going that direction anyway.

We want to talk to David French from the National Review. He's a senior fellow. He's a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Author of several books and a graduate from Harvard Law School.

So, David, I want to start there, with what you know legally.

Were any crimes committed at all?

DAVID: It doesn't -- there doesn't seem to be the crimes that have been committed. I mean, at least I haven't identified any yet.

You know, there's been a word that's been thrown around a lot, and that's "collusion." And collusion isn't really a legal term. It's more of a political term. And it means cooperation, I would say. It means participation. And it's -- it's -- obviously -- obviously, no one would want to see Americans cooperating with, participating with a hostile foreign power, as it tries to influence an American election. So calling something "collusion," regardless if it's illegal is still very damaging. It's still very, very problematic.

But as of right now, if you look at the decision of Donald Trump Jr. to take that meeting with Jared Kushner, with Paul Manafort, that doesn't seem to be illegal. It still seems to be -- but that doesn't mean that it's not highly, highly problematic. And we can't say the definition of right and wrong is defined by what's legal or illegal.

GLENN: Correct. And we don't have collusion, per se,, but we do have just in the email, at least -- we do have the willingness to coordinate. When he wrote, "Hey, this is great. But it would be better if it was released maybe later this summer," that is the beginning of cooperation. Is it not?

DAVID: Well, right. Absolutely. The way I phrased it is it looks like based on the available evidence -- what you had was like attempted collusion. If you had asked me a week ago -- or if you had told me a week ago that there exists an actual email sent to high-level Trump officials that says, "We're offering that -- we're offering to provide the Trump campaign with official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father, and it's high-level and sensitive information, but it's part of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump," like that's actually in an email, and then a high-level Trump official, no less high-level than Trump's son responds with, "If that's what you say, I love it," I would have thought that's a bad House of Cards episode. That's just too on the nose, that people can actually --

GLENN: Yeah. And there's no -- there -- I didn't think that there was collusion. I didn't think any of -- you would have said to me last week, if there was just emails between the Russians and the Trumps, I would have said no. I mean, I just -- I didn't believe any of this by any stretch of the imagination. And so now we get to the repeated lies. I think we counted 38 or 48 lies, where they are saying none of this happened. One of those, which is stunning -- and I'm trying to get the tape of it, is from Jake Tapper, where he had Donald Trump Jr. on, at the time of the convention, and he said, "You know, they're saying that the -- that the Russians are targeting Hillary Clinton in favor of your father."

And the answer from Donald Trump Jr. is astounding now that you know what he knew, where he rolls his eyes and he said, "This is just pathetic. They will say anything to win."

I mean, where do you go with that, David?

DAVID: Well, one of the things you do, where you go with that, is you don't believe a word they say anymore. And that's really, really important. Because one of the major defenses that we heard yesterday was, okay. Well, we took the meeting. But the meeting was nothing. Nothing happened. There was no collusion. They didn't offer us anything. We didn't give them anything.

And, you know, that may well be true. That may well be true. It may well be that they took a meeting under false pretenses. But there's two things that flow from that. Or, really three things. One, it still doesn't mean that their intent wasn't terrible. As somebody said, if you're thinking you're buying drugs and they turn out to be fake drugs, that doesn't make you any better person.

GLENN: Yeah. And you're not calling the police. I've been ripped off!

DAVID: Right. Exactly.

And, number two, it says, we don't need to believe a word that you said what actually happened in the meetings. So that means independent investigation should continue.

And, number three, it should make us very, very, very curious about whether there's anything else here. There's no reason for us to believe that this is the last shoe to drop right now.

GLENN: Well, especially since on Saturday -- you know, two weeks ago, it was nothing. Then Saturday, it was a meeting about adoption. And then it was, oh, there's a little more.

And then by Monday, it was the most amazing Hollywood-written email we've -- any of us have ever seen.

DAVID: When I saw that email -- I could not believe my eyes, when I saw that email.

GLENN: David, you have -- you have been watching the conservative movement for a long time. But you've been watching it now for the last 18 months. And I have to -- I have to ask myself and you, all right. People are really hurting. They're really struggling. They don't believe the press. They don't, really, in anything anymore. They reached out to Donald Trump because he spoke their language and said, look, I'm going to bring your jobs back. I'm going to help you with health care.

Many people will look at this and say, this is a distraction. And we have to stop it because we need to get the things done that he promised he was going to get done.

How do you -- what does this do to the conservative movement, if we play this like the left played Bill Clinton in the 1990s?

DAVID: Well, I think what happens is we become that which we despise. You know, I was -- I was -- you know, I remember the 1990s very, very vividly. I remember being appalled at the Democrats, not just -- not just that the Democrats were willing to excuse Bill Clinton, but the extent to which they would attack other people to cover for Bill Clinton and to distract from Bill Clinton.

And you begin to see a lot of the same things happening in the -- you know, what we would still call the conservative movement, that not only are they excusing, they're attacking other people. Sometimes unjustly. Sometimes these other people do wrong things. But attacking other people to excuse Donald Trump. And then at the end of the day, you're looking at it. And, yes, Donald Trump has done some good things. The Gorsuch nomination was very good. The Mattis nomination was very good. But on a lot of things on his agenda, he's not even moving in any direction on those particular things.

And so you, at the end of the day, you're going, "Well, I'm attacking on his behalf. I'm excusing things I never would have excused" -- I mean, could you imagine two years ago, Glenn, that there would be Republicans talking about a meeting like this, with the intention of meeting with foes of the United States to influence an American election -- two years ago, saying, "Oh, that's not a big problem. Here's the real problem?" I could have never imagined that.

GLENN: I could have imagined Hillary Clinton -- honestly, I think so lowly of Hillary Clinton, that I could imagine that.

DAVID: Well, yes.

GLENN: But I couldn't imagine this with --

DAVID: From our side.

GLENN: From our side. No.

How serious is this, David? Where does this go?

DAVID: That's a great question. I would say, it's very serious. We don't know how serious it will get because we don't know what else is there. If this is -- if there is no other shoe that drops in all of this, if this is the story, this is very, very serious, but it's not going to lead to a change in the administration. It's not going to lead to impeachment. But it should be -- it should be deeply alarming, and it should be deeply damaging. But we just don't know. We're at a point right now where -- as Jonah Goldberg put it well, we know so little that we should trust no one and defend no one because there are a lot -- so many facts that we don't know. We have to wait. We have to be patient. And I know that's really hard in the Twitter news cycle. But we really do have to be patient. There are actual credible investigations ongoing.

And what this has shown us is that these investigations aren't a, quote, unquote, witch hunt. For a while -- and I was beginning to believe it. I was beginning to believe that the collusion narrative was utterly false

GLENN: Me too.

DAVID: And now I'm seeing that maybe that's not right, and we need to really -- we need to really leave no stone unturned.

GLENN: So I'm going to talk to the audience here in a few minutes about some of the things that I'm worried about. I mean, any time in American history, that the United States government has become unstable, that's when our foes move. We are -- we are in a situation where one of our foes is Russia. I mean, we are entangled with Russia in North Korea. We're entangled with them in ISIS in the Middle East. In Europe -- I mean, the president just gave a great speech about not -- having Europe not entangled with Russian oil.

I am concerned about things like Kim Jong-il. Is there something on the horizon that we should watch for and be very careful and watch this administration and how they move? Because we know that there might be some deep connections with Russia.

DAVID: Well, you know, we just have to look at very carefully what's happening both in Europe and the Ukraine. The Baltic States. And also Syria. You know, look, people don't realize what a flash point Syria is and what a flash point Syria could become. Because we're moving towards a de facto partition of that country, where we're the guardian and protector of our allies, Russian is the guardian and protector of their allies, and our allies and their allies are often in direct military conflict with each other.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

DAVID: And that's extremely volatile. And that requires a very steady hand at the wheel. Or a very steady hand at the -- you know, at the helm of the ship of state. And this is something where -- things like this, where you're realizing, could there have been such inappropriate contacts behind the scenes that even today there might be some possibility that there the Russians have leverage that they shouldn't have? That's where it gets very, very troubling.

Because this kind of news cycle -- if there exists other context, this kind of news cycle can erupt again, just at the whim of the Russian state. And that's what a lot of people don't realize when they say, oh, well, what's wrong with taking a meeting about opposition research? Well, what's wrong with it is that the person who meets with you, in this case, if they're agents of the Russian government, has the information that they met with you. They have the knowledge that they met with you. And they have the ability to deploy that knowledge at will to harm you. And that creates leverage. And that's just one of the problematic aspects of it. But it's a very problematic aspect when that leverage is on behalf of our chief geopolitical foe.

GLENN: I have one more minute to answer this question: We're -- we're sitting here and looking at the House and the Senate. They're trying to get health care through. Et cetera, et cetera. They're trying to get a bunch of judges through.

What do our listeners need to do to not -- to have a chance of not losing the House in 2018?

We -- the way we react as the G.O.P., if we bury this, there's a lot of independents that will say, "I want checks and balances on this guy."

DAVID: Right.

GLENN: More so than they already did. What -- how should we be reacting now? What should we be saying?

DAVID: I would say three words: Do your jobs. And your jobs include getting through good legislation. Because there's nothing that says administration chaos can't mean that Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't put good legislation on the president's desk that could help Americans. And, number two, do your job in holding this president accountable. Because if you're seen entirely as carrying his water -- and any positive agenda is stalled while you're carrying his water, to say that that puts the House -- makes the House vulnerable and the House majority vulnerable is an understatement. And I think "do your jobs" is the message.

GLENN: Yeah, I agree.

Great. Thank you very much. David French from the National Review. Good talking to you, David. Stay safe.

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked?

5 videos that reveal the WOKE GARBAGE being taught to our kids

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.