Latest Articles Videos Hands-On History

Live Podcast Serials Stations

About Charity Real Estate Sponsors Shop Contact

RADIOJune 02, 2022

Will ANYONE go to prison for Clinton’s WITCH-HUNT against Trump?

Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted of lying to the FBI on Tuesday, thanks to a federal jury in D.C. The decision was a ‘gut punch,’ Glenn says, but perhaps not an outright surprise. So is there a way forward for Durham’s investigation into Hillary’s 2016 witch-hunt against President Trump? Co-founder of The Federalist, Sean Davis, joins Glenn to discuss the lessons we’ve learned so far. Plus, Davis argues that if NO ONE goes to prison for this entire scandal, it means the rule of law against political actors in D.C. is OVER.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sean Davis from the Federalist. The CEO and cofounder is joining us now. Sean, I saw this. And I wasn't surprised by the acquittal just because of the jury.

But I don't really know exactly, what does that mean? I mean, it implicated Clinton, and the media. But are we done now?

SEAN: Well, I think we're probably done with running cases in the district of Columbia, where the jury clearly did nullification, which is basically, they don't even listen to the facts. They decided coming in, they didn't like the case. And that was going to be it.

So I think if you actually want conviction, that -- that case has to be the end of bringing it into DC. Because it's similar to what you see in elections in North Korea or Iraq. Where they get 99 percent of the vote.

GLENN: Yeah. And it was weird. You had one juror come out and say, so what, if they lied to the FBI. Everybody does it. There are bigger crimes.

Than lying to the FBI? Really? When you're talking about the future of our country? And corruption and trying to take out a seated president? Really?

I mean --

SEAN: Well, compare that to the Michael Flynn trial. Recall that Michael Flynn was completely set up. His name was leaked in order to destroy him the Trump administration early on in the administration. And when evidence came out, that he was completely set up, that he didn't lie. And that the DOJ and the prosecutors themselves, said there's no case here. A corrupt judge in the DC district court said, no. Actually I'm not going to let you pull these charges. So compare that to what just happened with this DNC lawyer. And it tells you everything you need to know about the so-called justice system, when it comes to political people in DC. It doesn't exist.

GLENN: I mean, I really didn't even think it would make it to court. I didn't even think of the court, being so screwed up.

I didn't think about the DC court. I mean, that was just a blow.

I knew it was coming. Because, you know, once I saw the jury selection.

There's no way, this is going to go anywhere. Now, tell me what it means, going forward.

Anything?

SEAN: I think going forward -- oh, absolutely.

I think we learned so much on how Durham prosecuted this.

We learned, for example, that Hillary greenlits that entire completely bogus alpha bank hoax against Trump during the 2016 election. We learned a lot of additional information in there.

And I think just reading the tea leaves. And, of course, I could be wrong. Durham is building a much, much bigger case. And I think the whole alpha based thing with Sussmann lying about it, showed just how completely corrupt the FBI and the media are. They were working together. They were sharing information. They were ceding things with each other to do this sort of circular confirmation thing. I think we're going to get a lot more about how the entire Russiagate investigation, launched by the FBI against Trump in 2016 was itself a hoax from the beginning.

GLENN: From the beginning.

SEAN: So I expect that Durham will unravel that. But we'll see.

GLENN: Okay. So my speculation was that he was hoping that Sussmann would turn. And he could get the things that he needed from him, as he would turn on, you know, the Clinton campaign. He didn't turn. But he did -- I mean, he gave all that information, in the end anyway. It all came out in the end.

So was this originally just a foundation laying case, and a search for the truth that Sussmann couldn't get out of people in his investigation?

JONATHAN: Well, it could be. Because we actually -- or not we. Durham was able to get access to a whole bunch of emails he didn't have previously. That the DNC and Hillary campaign and Fusion GPS were all pretending were privileged communications with their attorneys.

Durham was able to significantly pierce that during the trial. And to me, kind of the foundation goes back to when that inspector general report came out, from the Department of Justice IG. And in that report, the IG said, oh, there's no evidence that the Russia thing was political. And it was legally predicated. And on that day, Durham himself came out and issued a statement, that he, based on his review of the evidence, didn't think that was true. We haven't even heard anything about that since that day. I think at the end of 2019. And I believe that that's where we'll end up. We will find out what exactly started this bogus investigation.

GLENN: So -- so do you know yet, as Durham telegraphed at all, what comes next?

SEAN: Well, we have -- he hasn't telegraphed it. We have another indictment sitting out, of Igor Danchenko, who is the so-called primary subsource for all of the nonsensical lives peddled by Christopher Steele and his dossier against Trump.

This guy is a Russian national living in the US, used to work at Brookings, shocker, who had peddled all sorts of nonsense. Including that intimates videotape that didn't exist of Trump in a hotel in Moscow. So that trial is still upcoming. And that trial is in Virginia. So that will play out differently than the DC case against Sussmann.

GLENN: Yeah. Have you been watching what's happening in the northern Virginia school district? I'm not sure it's that different. Maybe this time it will be different.

Thank you so much, I appreciate you watching this. If you had to pull one thing that everybody should get out of this, it is...

JONATHAN: It's that people at the FBI, don't go to prison for this. Then the rule of law in this country is dead.

GLENN: I hate to say, I agree with you.

Thank you so much, Sean, I appreciate it. You bet, of the Federalist. I mean, that was -- that was the gut punch yesterday.

I expected it to happen. But that was the real gut punch.

And then it was followed by the juror who said, you know, what's the big deal, lying to the FBI? What's the big deal?

I mean, first in the '90s, it was, you know, so he lied about sex. He's married. It's no big deal.

Okay. Well, you don't lie to the FBI. And you don't lie under oath. But it was just about sex. It was nothing important.

This is about taking down the president of the United States. This is about using the full force and image of the Justice Department and everything else. To stand against and mount a campaign against a sitting president. That's not just about having sex. But now, the same group of people, with the Clintons involved again, eh. Lying doesn't really matter.

STU: It doesn't. It doesn't seem to matter. Other than that, what's gone on here?

It doesn't seem that big of a deal when you explain it that way. It's just about taking down a president. And, look, we all know there's all sorts of awful things that happened in the background of campaigns. Right?

We all know that people leak information. They do opposition research. This is reality.

GLENN: Nixon left office because someone tried to hack in at the time it was physical. Because you couldn't hack in. Tried to get information. From the Democratic, you know, office in Washington, DC.

There was nothing of value there.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And then they didn't continue to spy and, you know, any of that stuff. He left office.

Because he was going to be impeached for doing that. You can't even get a low-level attorney.

STU: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: In trouble for lying to the FBI, about a bogus thing. That just didn't happen. Just before the election. It ran during his -- his -- his presidency.

They didn't stop.

STU: The Nixon thing was another time. And one -- I think you told the story many times of your dad, right? Around the Nixon time. Saying, it changed everything. And maybe it was part of the thing that got the ball rolling on this. In the wrong direction.

GLENN: Well, in the wrong direction, it did. Because that's why everyone went to journalism school. All the people ahead now. They all went to journalism school. Because they saw that two reporters, could topple a president. And they learned the wrong lesson. They now think that they can topple any president. Because they don't like it.

STU: As I was saying, we all know, terrible people were involved in this campaign, all the time. There are people that are -- that some of them are fine. A lot of them are terrible. It's just -- it's a terrible industry. It's created with people who -- who want to just destroy others. Like literally, their job is to destroy the lives of other people. As you go through these campaigns. And many of the strategists are on this. That's part of the reason, why, I'm less -- I don't know. Activated, interested, riveted, by what happens to the Clintons themselves. As I am, to what the media did with all this information. And how they handled it. I mean, they took this information with them. They told us, it was true. They -- they also tried to destroy a president and many, many people lives. Including low-level underlings of Trump. We've talked to several of them. And there has never been a moment where they said, holy crap, we got that one wrong. Hey, wow. We thought Donald Trump was really bad. Therefore, we jumped the gun on this. We believed all the bad stuff and that's our fault. And here's what we'll do in our future to correct it.

GLENN: No. They don't think they made a mistake.

STU: It's not one family, or one group of shady campaign operatives --

GLENN: And I never thought -- the Clintons will die rich and unhappy, and that's -- that's enough for me.

They are -- they're never going to go to jail. Anybody who thinks they are. They're sadly mistaken. They'll never going to jail. I didn't expect that.

But the fact that the FBI gets away with it. And the media gets away with it. In collusion with the Clintons. Is insane. What have you taught, attorneys, what have you taught campaigns?

As long as you're on the right side of the FBI, they'll help you. That's not good. Not good.

‘STUNNING’ statistics PROVE the church may be in DANGER

A recent report found that only 37 PERCENT of Christian pastors bring a ‘Biblical worldview’ with them to the pulpits. And, for Catholic priests, the numbers are even worse. Glenn breaks down these ‘STUNNING’ statistics which prove that the Christian church in America may be in BIG danger…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, there's a couple of things hear. Only half of evangelical pastors hold a Biblical worldview.

Now, this might be a little shocking for people who go to church. A study released Tuesday builds on an other report from American World View inventory 2022, which shows that 37 percent of Christian pastors bring a Biblical worldview with them, to the pulpits.

Now, a Biblical worldview is -- do you -- does every person have a purpose and a calling is this

Do you have a purpose for being here? And can God call you to something? I'm asking you, Stu.

STU: Why are you asking me, without the echo in your voice?

GLENN: Because I don't want you to feel damned, immediately.

STU: Oh, okay.

GLENN: So do you feel the purpose in calling?

STU: Sure.

GLENN: Family and value of life. Those come from God.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Do you believe in God?

STU: This is a tough one. After the previous two, but yes.

GLENN: Do you believe in creation? I know this is weird. Creation and history?

STU: I believe in history. I just believe in --

GLENN: I believe in creation. Do you? I mean, intelligent design. I don't know how he creates.

STU: Yeah. I don't find that question to be as riveting as some do. I don't really care how he did it, honestly. But it's on him.

GLENN: It's like, oh, we got you there. So you're saying, dinosaurs aren't real?

STU: Yeah. I don't really -- I don't know all the details to it. It wasn't there. I will say, I don't know how an i Phone works exactly. But I'm glad the texts go through.

GLENN: But I don't believe in Steve Jobs. He never existed. That just, all of a sudden appeared on a beach somewhere.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Let's see. Do you believe in sin? Salvation and relationship with God?

Do you believe in behavior and relationships, the Bible, and its truth and morals?

STU: I think.

GLENN: Yeah. I think those are all pretty easy. Only 37 percent of pastors. Believe in that.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: I mean, you might want to put that on the front sign. You know what I mean?

Like, hey, come in. Try our doughnuts. And we don't really believe what you think we believe.

STU: Well, this happened to you. Right? When you were doing your church tour. Back in the day.

GLENN: Oh, back in the day. We went to every church. Every religion. Because my wife wouldn't marry me without a common religion.

And I'm like. I love God and everything. But religion, I --

STU: This is a long time ago. This was not you, at the time though.

You were not. This church tour happened, in what? I don't remember what year it was.

GLENN: '99.

STU: Wow, it was a long time ago.

GLENN: A long time ago.

STU: You were finding your way. Mainly because your wife wouldn't marry you if -- you're forced into it.

GLENN: Right. I was forced into it. And she didn't believe in premarital sex either. And I'm like, okay. Chickaboo. I said, what is it going to take? And she said, God. Here I am. I'm practically a god, look at me. No.

STU: A Greek god.

GLENN: A Greek god. She vomited. And then I went to church. So we tried everything. I mean, we -- I really liked a Jewish synagogue we went to. Except you couldn't eat a lot of good things that I liked. And I don't speak a word of Hebrew. But it was in and out on Saturday, and it was pretty good. I since learned there was more than that.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But I went to this church. And it was. What do they call those churches? Congregational, right? The white churches on the greens.

Yeah. I think it's congregational churches. And they're non-denominational. And so I'm sitting there in the pew. And Tania and I were listening.

It's okay. It's church. And during it the sermon. The pastor said, now, you all know that I don't believe in God. But if there is a God, we should serve him.

And I'm like, hey, that doesn't make any sense at all. Okay?
(laughter)

GLENN: And that should be on the front door, someplace. Before you go and sit down, you should just know, our pastor does not believe in God. But if there is a God, maybe we should serve him.
(laughter)
You know, good safety tip there. So back in just a minute. I'm going to give you a reason on why I'm telling you this latest survey. It's crazy. Finnegan is a 12-year-old Husky Lab. And Daniel not his owner. That would be wrong.

His adult friend. He said Finnegan used to sleep all the time. We had to spike his food every day with cheese and ham, et cetera. And even then, he wouldn't eat most of his food. Sometimes for days. I was skeptical about ordering Ruff Greens. But I gave it a try. In a month or so, Finnegan was incredibly active, and he runs and plays with other dogs. He even chases rabbits and squirrels again. I wish I would have discovered this for him, long ago.

Well, get it when you can, you know. Doing the best you can, to raise a health dog. Ruff Greens can help you. It's not a dog food. It's vitamins and minerals. And all the other things that your dog needs to live a healthy life. And they love it. And you put it on there. Now, not all dogs love it, I'm sure. So they want to give you a free bag, to make sure that your dog loves it, as much as my dog Uno. And Daniel's dog Finnegan. They'll eat it, man. You just watch over them. They change. It is really great to see. It's Ruff Greens. RuffGreens.com/Beck. RuffGreens.com/Beck.

Get your free bag now. 833-G-L-E-N-N-33. Or RuffGreens.com/Beck. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: On only 30 percent of Christian pastors believe and have a Biblical worldview. I mean, if you're not talking about sin and, you know, how to be a better Christ-like person. And how do you -- 37. What are they teaching?

STU: Those are the questions. The specific questions asked. Certainly, there are differences among denominations. And various questions.

But these are pretty basic points.

GLENN: Are these eight categories. Eight categories. Purpose and calling. Family and value of life.

God, creation and history. Faith practices. Sin, salvation, and relationship with God. Human character. And nature. Lifestyle. Behavior and relationships.

Oh, and the Bible. Truth and morals.

STU: Yeah. I know there are obviously disagreements on some of the intricate matters of faith between denominations and pastors.

GLENN: Sure. But 37 percent.

STU: The only thing I would ask, who is the defining Biblical worldview there? And I would assume --

GLENN: The bible.

STU: If you're assuming broad categories like that, that's a stunning number.

GLENN: Stunning. Stunning number.

STU: To the point of, how is it possible?

GLENN: So 57 percent of pastors leading non-denominational and independent churches, held a Biblical worldview, a nationwide study in February. Conducted in February. Nondenominational and independent churches were more likely to subscribe to a Biblical worldview than evangelical churches. Perhaps most surprisingly 48 -- 48 percent of pastors of Baptist churches, widely viewed as the most enthusiastic about embracing the Bible. Held a Biblical worldview, 48 percent.

Pastors of Southern Baptist churches by contrast were far more likely. 78 percent, to have Biblical beliefs. The traditional black Protestant churches and Catholic priests, I'm sorry. Just -- wow. I just had to read this again.

Traditional black Protestant churches and Catholic priests, were found least likely to hold a Biblical view. With the incidence of Biblical worldview, measured in the single dingles. Black churches. 9 percent of pastors and Catholic priests. 6 percent.

STU: I feel like you ask atheists, if you have a Biblical worldview. You would have higher than 9 percent.

GLENN: I think I could give it to Penn Jillette. And he would be like, you know.

STU: At 14 percent. I'm at 14 percent.

GLENN: Yeah. That's crazy. In churches with an average of 100 or fewer within attending weekly services. 41 percent of the pastors had a Biblical worldview. Larger fellowships with 100 to 250 adults fared better, with 45 percent.

However, 14 percent of pastors leading mid-sized churches, between 250 and 600 people. 14 percent.

And 15 percent of pastors with congregations of more than 600 adults. That's crazy.

STU: Yeah. That's hard to understand how that's possible. Why would you be involved in this business, right?

I hate to call it a business. It's your life's work. It's your career. Right?

GLENN: It's like. You know what it means? It's my uncle who is the head of safety at Boeing for years, and he would never fly. He would never get on an airplane. And he would be like, uncle Dave, what is that? And he's like, if you fly, you have to fly a Boeing.

STU: If they can care about it a little.

GLENN: It is my uncle, who is the head of safety at bowing for years. Okay.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: And he would never fly. He would never get on an airplane.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And you would be like, uncle Dave. I don't. What is that? And he's like, if you fly, you have to fly a Boeing. But there's no reason, logically that that thing should be able to take off and fly. I don't know if you're the best for safety, you know.

I think that's -- my uncle Dave should have been a priest maybe.

Glenn reads leftists’ CLUELESS reactions to SCOTUS decision

The far-left proved once again it’s members care very little about ‘peace.’ In fact, some reactions from leftist, blue checkmarks on Twitter show just how ANGRY they can be…especially when it comes to the Supreme Court preserving the Constitution and returning rights to the STATES. Glenn reads several of their reactions to SCOTUS' recent decision that further protects the Second Amendment...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Boy, I just wanted to go through some of the blue checkmark responses from yesterday. Because, gee. I just -- I just don't -- I just don't know what else to say. They were so right on target. Now, that's -- that's a joke. I didn't mean it. I didn't mean it actually target. You know, like Sarah Palin actually meant it. Alicia Sultan. Or Ashia, or whatever her name is. She says, God forbid. Listen, you're listening right now to a guy who is in the Radio Hall of Fame. I am so good at what I do. I don't even need to know how to pronounce names. I don't have to. They were like, this guy is like a radio god.

Yeah, but have you heard him?
Yeah, put him in the Hall of Fame.
Anyway, she said, God forbid, someone you love gets killed by gun violence. I second that. Second Amendment fetishizing will never bring that back, or a make that loss easier to bear. Yeah. I agree with that. I mean, hang on. Let me just take the ball out of my mouth here. I have this fetish thing with the Second Amendment. It is hot. Too many people believe that unfettered access to guns will never hurt someone they love, until it happens. Okay. I don't know what your point is really here. Marion Williams says. People will die because of this. And to be very clear, now, listen to this argument.
To be very clear. They're not doing this to protect the Second Amendment. They're doing it to protect the primacy of property rights.
Well, gosh, that's a good reason to do it too, I guess. Huh. I didn't even think of the property right part. But thanks for pointing that out, Marion. Neil Cattial says, it's going to be very weird if the Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week. Saying it should be left to the states to decide, right after it imposed a constitutional right to conceal and carry firearms. Saying, it cannot be left to the states to decide.
Neil, here's what you're missing, dude.One is actually in the Constitution. It's called the Second Amendment. That tells the federal government, and the states exactly what they can and cannot do. What government cannot do. There is no right to abortion. I -- show it to me. Show it to me. When you can show it to me, I will change my argument. That, when it's not in -- I'll talk slowly for you, Neil.
When it's not in the Constitution, then, there's this part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's -- it's -- just look for the number ten. Okay? And that says anything that's not specifically in the Constitution. That goes then to the states. Yeah. Look at you. You're going to read something.
Jill Flipuffock says -- says the kind of people who desperately want to carry concealed weapons in public, is based on a generalized interest in self-defense are precisely the kind of paranoid, insecure, violence, fetishizing people, who should not be able to carry a concealed weapon in public. Okay. So let me get this right.
If you want to carry one, you're the kind that shouldn't carry one. So, in other words, when -- this is right. Jill, my gosh, my whole world is changing. Thank you for this. Now I understand when Martin Luther King went in and said to the state officials, hey. I need to have a concealed carry permit. He's exactly the kind of guy, you Democrats didn't want to carry a gun.
Yes! Jill, thank you for that enlightenment. David Hogged says, you're entitled to your opinion. But not your own facts. And like your own facts, you're not entitled to your own history. That's exactly what the Supreme Court decision is. It's a reversal of 200 years of jurisprudence that will get Americans killed. David, David
Have you read a book? Come on. Do you know anything at all -- name three founders. Can you do it? Right now, think. Go. Can't do it, David. 200 years.
Our -- the only times -- the only times in our history, and you wouldn't know this. Because you bury all the left. Buries the Democratic history.
The only time that we have any kind of history, where we're taking guns away from people, is when the government is afraid of those people. When the government gets really, really racist. Okay? That's why the Indians, yeah. That's why they're living on reservations now. Because we took away their guns. Yeah. Yeah.
That's why after the Civil War. And before the Civil War, slaves could not have guns. Why?
Because they might defend themselves. And then, after they were freed, oh, my gosh, the Democrats freaked out. Those freed slaves, will have a way to protect themselves. And they got it done through all kinds of laws, kind of like what you're doing now.
Thank you, David for writing in. You're special. March for Our Lives. Blue checkmark said yesterday.
The court's decision is dangerous. And deadly. The unfairly nominated blatantly partisan justices put the Second Amendment over our lives. No. I -- I -- may I quote the Princess Bride? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Okay?
Second Amendment is there, to protect our lives. To protect our property. And to protect our freedom.
I just want to throw that one out. The blood of American people who die from needless gun violence will be on their corrupt hands.
Okay. Wahajit Ali (phonetic) said, let's have a bunch of black, brown, and Muslim folks carry large guns in predominantly white neighborhoods.
I know the Second Amendment advocates will say that's great and encourage it. Because American history proves otherwise. We might get gun control. But we would also get a lot of chalk outlines.(laughter)Mr. Ali, you are so funny.
See, what you fail to recognize is that all of the people that you say are racist, aren't racist.
There are racists in this country, a lot of them seem to come from the left. You know, like the socialist Klan members. Or the socialist Nazi members. You see what they have both in common?
Yeah. Democratic Party. Anyway, Mr. Alley, if someone wants to carry a gun. And they're a Muslim. I have absolutely no problem. You're brown, you're pink, you're polka dot. You have covid and you're not wearing a mask. Or you don't have covid, and you're wearing 20 masks. And you want to carry a gun. I'm totally fine with that. Now, if you get a bunch of people. And, again, I don't care what color they are. Marching down my neighborhood, with large guns. Yeah. I am going to call the police because that's unusual.
What are you doing? We're just marching with our guns. Why in my neighborhood at night?
None of your business. Does Kavanaugh live around here? See, there's a difference. There's a difference. Right-wingers can freak out about nullification or packing or whatever.
No one cares. You broke all the norms of decency, democracy, and fairness. Oh, my gosh. Oh, wait. Wait.
This is from David Atkins. He has a great solution. At the end of the day, California and New York are not going to let Wyoming and Idaho tell us how we have to live in a Mad Max gun climate hell.
Oh, my gosh. David, let's break some bread, baby. Let's come together. Yeah. All right. Let me do my best Marianne Williamson.
Yeah. Yeah. Because we can come together. What you just said is the point of the Tenth Amendment. California and New York, I don't want to live like them.
You don't want to live like us. So let's not. Let's not. However, there are ten big things. And I've heard they've added to these. But there are ten big things, that no government in the United States of America, can do. Now, you want to change that, let's change it. Because what's so crazy, is there's this thing called the amendment process. You want to change the Constitution, you don't -- what -- all norms of decency. Democracy and fairness. You don't break those.
You want to change those amendments. You can do it. All you have to do is go through the amendment process. And then if you say, everybody has to have a pig on their lap. You get the states to vote for that. Put it on the amendment. You have it. Now, probably there would be another amendment that comes later. That says, hey, the big in the lap thing is really, really, stupid, and I think America lost its mind temporarily. So we're going to scratch that one out. From here on out, no. Absolute must have a pig on your lap kind of loss. Okay?
But both of those would be done through the amendment process. That would be doing it the decent way, the fair way, and the Democratic way. But David, you are cute. When you think, you're cute. Tristan Schnell writes in, when American service members die oversees, their caskets are brought to Dover Air Force base to be displayed and mourned. No, they're not displayed. I don't know if you've noticed this. But we try not to display the dead. But when Americans die because of gun violence, their caskets should be brought to the steps of the Supreme Court. So the justices can see what they've done. Yeah.
Tristan, I like that. Why don't we take every baby that's been aborted, and put them in a bucket. I mean, we're going to need a big bucket. Because there's millions of those.
And let's dump them, on the front steps of the Supreme Court. So they can see what they've done. Wow!
I got to thank all the blue checkmarks. Because you've really turned me around.

Why the Fed’s ‘MATH PROBLEM’ may result in MORE inflation

Yes, it’s possible for our economy to suffer from extremely high inflation while certain goods, products, and services experience DEFLATION as well, Carol Roth — a financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business’ — tells Glenn. The Fed actually is TRYING to deflate the economy, Roth explains. But while they’re saying one thing, the Fed’s current policy shows the exact opposite. And that ‘math problem,’ Roth says, is what could cause our economy to experience even more, ‘prolonged’ inflation. It’s a ‘dire situation,’ and there seems to be ZERO leadership willing to fix it…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Is it not possible to have super high inflation, on some products. And super low deflation. Prices that are -- that are crazy.

Because they -- nobody is buying them, in other categories. Is that possible to have both of those?

CAROL: Yeah. I think that the best analogy for that would be kind of the '70s. And something that looks for stagflation. Where the economy stagnates. And it stagnates, like you said, because all the money has been sucked up in a couple of categories. And there really is a lot to go around in other places. There's not a lot of investments being made, and what not. But we still end up having high inflation. And we are certainly, a lot of people feel like we're in that sort of stagflation, you know, arena, right now. And it can continue on the trajectory. But you have to remember in terms of deflation. I mean, that's what the Federal Reserve is trying to do. They are actively trying to deflate, you know, not just the bubbles and assets, but they're trying to deflate spending, to cool off the economy. That's why they're shutting off their balance sheets. That's why they're raising their interest rates. It's meant to cool off demand. And that's the math problem that I keep talking about. They keep saying, oh, the consumer. And businesses are going to save us from a recession. But at the same time, the policy is meant to do the exact opposite. The policy is meant to make it, so that people aren't able to spend in the same way. So those two objectives are at odds with each other. And so I do think, that we could end up in this prolonged period, like you said, where the inflation hasn't quite gotten under control. Especially since we have so many supply demand imbalances in our economy. We have a labor imbalance. We have a food imbalance. We have an energy imbalance. And we have a commodity imbalance. And that's not going to it be solved by any monetary policy. That requires real action. And we don't have leadership, that's willing to lead or frankly do anything.

GLENN: So we have -- as I see it, we're looking at a situation. Again, I'm going back. And please, correct me where my thinking is off. But I'm going back to the Great Depression. So people were afraid. They held on to their money. They spent what they had to, and what they could afford. But nothing else.

That caused the labor market to shoot out of control. To -- to about 25 percent unemployment. Because the factories were closing down. Because no one was buying anything, from the factories. Which then, in turn, made FDR say, we're going to build the Hoover damn, to give people jobs. But it was all the government money, which would have just caused more inflation, if I'm not mistaken. Had it not been for the -- and I hate to say it this way. But the saving grace of the Second World War. Right? Were we in a death spiral? I mean, the war was definitely a different kind of reset. And I think a lot of the logic that you're talking about makes sense. If consumer sentiment is really important. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, if people don't feel confident, they don't go out and spend. They're worried about their inflation. And being able to feed their family. And get to work. They aren't going to spend -- I think there are a couple of things that we have that are different. And it's not necessarily better for the average American. So I just want to be clear. That I'm on your side, and I'm not saying that it's better.

But because of this huge supply and demand imbalance. We have two jobs available for every person looking. The likelihood is that that probably contracts to be, you know, a better match, than having massive unemployment just because of that scenario is going on. And we also have a whole slew of Americans, who are doing -- you know, have done very well. They have been the beneficiaries of this giant wealth transfer from Main Street to Wall Street. So I think we're going to have a lot of, you know, different outcomes. You know, that inadequately, that's been driven by government policy. And that's never a good thing. Because, you know, the social unrest that comes with it. And rightfully so. Because, you know, these policies have really put the middle class. The working class. And in some cases, the lower class, at risk, to the benefit of the people on the inside. And so the numbers on average, may not show how dire the situation is. And so they'll be able to spend. And say, oh, everything is great. And the consumer is doing well, when people are really struggling. And, you know, that's going to be when we continue to just be furious. And, you know, demand something be done about that.

GLENN: Carol, thank you so much for everything that you do.

She's just issued a new paper. A new piece for TheBlaze. What the heck is going on in bitcoin. And you can find that at TheBlaze.com. TheBlaze.com. What is going on with bitcoin, by Carol Roth. Thanks, Carol. God bless.