The Dan Bongino Show - Ep 485 If the Dems Win Today the Impeachment Talk Will Explode

Episode Date: June 20, 2017

In this episode I cover why Trump cannot be indicted. A sitting POTUS' power is checked by a political, not a criminal process. https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/levin-trump-cannot-be-indicted-say-doj-memoranda   I also address a pending Supreme Court case that could have a profound effect on upcoming elections.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino. I have an obligation to come on the air with data and material and research. I can't just say trade stinks. Thanks for tuning in. The Dan Bongino Show. Let's jump right in because we have no time for nonsense. Get ready to hear the truth about America. When I was a young man, I don't remember it being sexy to want to allow a nanny state to control my life.

On a show that's not immune to the facts, with your host, Dan Bongino. Alright, welcome to the Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino. Producer Joe, how are you today? All systems go, Dan-o. Yeah, big day. Georgia 6th special election for the House of Representatives. Ossoff, Handel.el folks big ramifications for this thing let's not play it down in an effort to be uh partisan hacks like the left this is a really big deal so i'm going to get into that today why that race matters why it matters for donald trump's future and impeachment or potential impeachment by the looney tunes kooky left

well believe me they're thinking about it right now what happens to this race. I also want to get it to Supreme Court. Agreed to hear a case yesterday that's going to knock your socks off. Could change the way we do electoral dynamics in the country. Excited about today's show. You probably tell in my voice a lot going on. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Birch Gold. Listen, you know I love Birch Gold. I was just talking to my wife

about this, trying to figure out some way to get some more money over there. Listen, these guys specialize in securing your savings. You got to diversify your portfolio. Everybody gets that. But with inflation potentially right around the corner, I read a devastating story about that this morning, about how inflation is just sitting out there waiting with all this money the Federal Reserve has on the books from quantitative easing. Folks, you got to be concerned about your future, the stability of your income in the future. Birch Gold can protect you against inflation with an IRA backed by precious metals. They actually sell precious metals.

You can actually buy the stuff if you want. They have silver, they have gold, but they will back your stuff with actual money, real money that's been used for centuries since humankind found gold and silver. Go check them out at birchgold.com. This is an A-plus rated company by the Better Business Bureau. They have countless five-star reviews. You can look them up yourselves. Just email. That's all I'm asking.

Excuse me. Just go to their website at birchgold, B-I-R-C-H gold.com slash Dan, and get your free 16-page guide. There's no commitments necessary. Check it out. Give it a look. See how you can secure your savings against the ravages of inflation with loose federal reserve policy right around the corner. We got some money coming out when they get rid of their massive holdings, folks. Inflation may eat away your savings. So

go give them a look, birchgold.com slash Dan. Get your free 16-page guide today. Okay. So first, the Georgia 6 race, which is going on, the House of Representatives race, which Joe, ordinarily would be, I mean, an afterthought. Does anybody care? I mean, you know, the only reason I would would really care outside of my love of politics is that I ran in Maryland six. And this is Georgia six. And I like numbers or something like that. I mean, there's really no reason to care outside of the fact that the left is trying to make this race a referendum on Trump. Now, I want to give you the kind of the takeaways from this and scatter away some of the nonsense media theories going on out there about what this race is really about. So I had to take some notes this morning so you understand what's going on.

The district is a Cook PVI plus nine. So here's what that means for Republicans. Charlie Cook invented this thing called the Partisan Value Index. To have a good adult conversation about congressional races, you have to understand what that is. It's a really respected measure of how Republican or how Democratic a district is. The way it works is they average the presidential election over two presidential election cycles, and whatever party wins that congressional district over that margin, that's basically how it works. So a Cook PVI of Republican plus nine means,

let's say over two presidential elections, the Democrats won 51% of the vote and the Republicans won 49. That means that the Republican in the district that won outperformed the national average of Republican votes by nine points. So if the Republicans got 49% average over two elections, Joe, that would mean that they would get what, 57% of the vote.

Excuse me, 58% of the vote. Come on, Dan, get your act together. 49 plus 9 plus 958 you get what i'm saying yeah so say donald trump got 49 of the vote that would mean a generic republican candidate based on the cook pvi would get the 58 copy makes sense right pretty simple stuff it's basically a way to show you how that how the congressional districts differ from the presidential election so this is an r plus, meaning it's a relatively Republican leaning congressional district where a generic Republican would outperform the presidential candidate by nine points. Now, here's the problem.

To give you the downsides. First, this guy, Ossoff, the Democrat running for this race, which is and I'm not talking about this because's, although the race is parochial, believe me, this race does have national implications. And a lot of Republicans are trying to play it down, I think, because they're afraid they may lose. But if we lose this race, it's a big deal. Why? Because in a normal year, a generic Republican candidate would win the race by, you know, nine, 10 points. The fact that Ossoff is polling at 49 and Handel is polling at 48, I'm not a huge believer in polls. I've said that over and over again, but it is a bit of a warning sign and we shouldn't downplay that. I mean, we'll know the results tomorrow regardless, but the polling has not

been terrific. Remember, if a generic Republican candidate is supposed to win the race by eight or nine and you're polling relatively even based on the statistics, right? Say 49, 48 is statistically insignificant of a difference in a poll, right? So if they're polling even, that says that there's something going on. A lot of that is probably an anti-Trump base in the Atlanta suburbs. So let's just get that out of the way. Now, making matters a little bit worse is Tom Price, who had held the seat, the Republican who left to become HHS secretary, is Tom Price, who had held the seat, the Republican who left to become HHS secretary. Tom Price won that by 23 points in 2016.

So that's a pretty hefty margin of victory. Now, let me give you the – so that's the bad, okay? The bad part is they're polling relatively even. They should win by about eight or nine, the Republicans, and they're polling even. Secondly, Price won by 23 points, the prior Republican, and still they're running even. So you get it? It's not the best harbinger for our electoral possibilities tomorrow. A couple of things I want to get out of the way, just based on my experience. I wouldn't put too much into the fact that Price won by 23 points.

Price has been an incumbent. He'd been in office a long time. And having run for office myself, I have a deep body of experience on this. And I wanted to just get two points. I even put them in parentheses to make sure you had a couple of takeaways. Congressional races are not presidential elections, okay? I mean, obviously. But those trying to make a congressional race an exclusive referendum on the national election are just silly. I'm not saying I opened up by saying I think the results of this will have an

effect on what happens with Trump. Don't get me wrong. I'll get to that in a second. But that's not what it's all about, ladies and gentlemen. When you're an incumbent like Price was and you win by 23 percentage points, which is way over the partisan lean of the district, right? Technically should have won by nine. He won by 23. That tells you there's something else going on there, and that something else happens everywhere in every congressional district. And there are two things. One, they're parochial, and two, he's an incumbent.

And here's what I experienced when I ran for office. Being a sitting congressman, you obviously have a lot of power in your district, but you can do things for people that will make people vote for you. Even the most strident partisans may cross the lines and vote for you. Here's a quick example. I'm not going to say his name, but when I ran in the Maryland 6th Congressional District in the western portion of Maryland and northern portions of Montgomery County, northwest, there was a builder over there who owned a lot of, he was a builder and he had a lot of property. This guy was a huge Republican, huge. I mean, like, I don't think he's ever voted Democrat

in his entire life. He had donated to Republicans, hosted Republicans, fundraisers for Republicans. He was a donor of mine in a prior race, right? I could not believe in the congressional race that this guy would not come out and do either an open or a tacit endorsement to his friends. And I only found out later on after the race, the reason why. He had become friendly with the sitting congressman who was a Democrat and the sitting congressman had rented

some office space and it somehow had a business nexus to him. And it was nothing corrupt about it. I'm not alleging he did anything wrong at all. It was just the guy's take on it, Joe, was, hey, I'm tied in with this guy. I'm not going to come out and insult him or endorse his opponent, which is you, even though I'm a diehard Republican. Now, I don't know how this guy voted, but I'm assuming he voted for the other guy, even though the Democrat in my race. Remember, I lost the race by one point. We actually won an election day.

We lost on the absentee count. Was it four or five days later? I mean, it was tough to take. But the point is that when you're a sitting congressman, you have there are business deals going on in that district that people that they don't think politics first. They think their own livelihood. I understand. I'm not saying it's morally the best thing to do. But, you know, you have an airport project and the congressman is getting funding for the airport and you're the construction

guy on the airport. You're really going to vote against the congressman if he's from the opposite party, Joe? I mean, the answer is no. So the point I'm trying to make about this is Price was an incumbent. God only knows how many people he had helped out who are Democrats, who who whether and again, I'm not alleging anything corrupt at all. I'm just saying as a matter of doing his job as a congressman, he may have represented them. He may have gotten their kids a White House tour. He may have gotten one of their kids into the Naval Academy by writing a letter. This engenders an amount of support incumbents have that people who are new for office don't. to support incumbents have that people who are new for office don't. And Karen Handel, who has run for office before and is the Republican nominee in this district,

is not a congressional incumbent. Either is Ossoff. But the point I'm trying to make to tie this up is Price's 23 point margin of victory may have had more to do with him being incumbent rather than being a Republican. So I wouldn't sweat it too much because people are going to say tomorrow, let's say Handel pulls this thing out, the Republican candidate show tomorrow, and we'll know tomorrow. Let's say she pulls this thing out by one point. I'm telling you right now, the liberals are going to be like, oh my gosh, Price won by 23. This is an embarrassment. This is a joke. Yeah, but Trump won by one. trump won the district by one and a half points so relax is what i'm getting at there's yes there's bad stuff i already put the on the good on the good side if she pulls it out even if it's 50.1 to 50 and she wins by a sliver in a on the absentee

votes only whatever it may be relax take it easy incumbents always win by a big margin because they have the power to do things for people that cross the partisan divide. It happened to me. Like I said, that guy who, the builder, I was stunned when he, I was like, that guy's not voting for it? That's insane. I couldn't believe it. Secondly, I mentioned, you know, interests are generally parochial. I mean, these are local interests. So local people have local interests that, again, it kind of ties into incumbency. They're not actually separate points, but you have a project at your local church and the congressman over the years has been very supportive by either keeping the feds off your

back or getting some federal grant. That may be the kind of thing where you're a Democrat, you vote Republican, you're a Republican, you vote Democrat. It happens. You may vote for the governors of your party, you may vote for the governors of your party, you may vote for the president of your party, but your local congressman, you may change it. So there are parochial interests and a power of incumbency. So don't worry too much about this. Now, on a bad note, if Ossoff wins tomorrow, the Democrat in Georgia 6 and pulls this thing out, one, the media is going to go wild. I mean, keep in mind, it's kind of ridiculous in context.

I mean, we had the special election in Kansas. The Republican won. We had the election in Louisiana for the Senate seat. These are all post-Trump, by the way, post-Trump victory, Joe. We had the election in Montana. We won. We're going to win the race in South Carolina today. So what is that, four to one?

I mean, listen, even if we lose the race in Georgia, relax. Again, media. I'm not talking to my audience. I'm talking to the media. Take it easy. Republicans, our batting average is pretty good here, okay? We've won four. We've lost one. If we lose tomorrow, I'm not sure we will. I think Handel's going to pull it out for a number of different reasons. But take it easy regardless. But if Ossoff does win, here's what has me worried and should have you terrified. Impeachment. The Democrats have already shown themselves to be absolutely off their rockers. They've lost their minds. Trump derangement syndrome is a thousand times worse than Bush derangement syndrome. They want Trump impeached. Their base wants Trump impeached. It doesn't matter that they don't have a crime or misdemeanor, treason or bribery,

which is what the Constitution dictates for an impeachment course. Treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors. Now, they have none of that, Joe. They have zero. There is no – forget about high crimes. There's no crimes. There's no – for what? Yeah, exactly.

For what is exactly right? They have nothing. They have zero. There's nothing. There's no crimes. For what? Yeah, exactly. For what is exactly right. They have nothing. They have zero. There's no there, there. But that's not stopping the Democrats because their base is fanatical and they're losing their minds. Now, the reason I bring this up is the Democrats would impeach today if they had this one thing. And that one thing is a House majority. And they don't have that. We have a pretty healthy majority in the House. Was it close to 238 or something? So we're way above what we need for a congressional majority. Republicans, that is.

We have a nice buffer in the House. So the Democrats, in order to impeach, so you're just familiar quickly with the impeachment process, impeachment requires a majority in the House of Representatives to vote for impeachment on a charge. Now, they don't have that. They don't have enough Democrats to do it. It's a numbers game. This was simply, this was my same argument when people used to ask me about impeaching Obama, and I'll get to that in a second. But if Ossoff wins in a not so swingy district, Joe, an R plus nine district, it's not a swing district. It's a Republican leaning district. The Democrats are going to say to themselves, oh boy, we can get

this done today. You know what I'm saying? In 2018, because look at the district we want it. We run it in an R plus nine. Imagine what we could do in an R plus one, like where I live in Florida's 18th congressional district with Brian Mass, which is only in, this is an R plus one district. The Democrats are going to fire down, double down, dedicate all this money because they're going to say to themselves, look what we can do. We can take back the House. If they take back the House, folks, it's almost a guarantee they will vote for impeachment because they've lost their minds. As Joe said, for what? It doesn't matter for what. They'll make it up. It'll be felonious mopery,

or as they said last week, it'll be piracy on the open seas, jaywalking, nose picking. It doesn't matter. They'll make it up. They will vote on it. So to impeach, you need a majority. If they get that majority, I can almost guarantee you they will vote for articles of impeachment. Now, just to follow that process a little bit, in order to remove, impeachment is not removal from office. Everybody gets that, right? I mean, presidents have been impeached before, Johnson, Clinton, that have not been removed from office. Nixon was not impeached. Nixon resigned before the vote on impeachment. He would have been, but Nixon was not impeached. Hillary Clinton thinks otherwise, as she said in her speech, but that's not factually correct. But Clinton was impeached.

An impeachment, though, Joe, is like an indictment. It's like a federal indictment. It doesn't mean you've been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean that. There has to be a trial. So an impeachment, just so everybody's clear, is like a set of charges. The actual trial, so for Joe Blow or Joe Armacost, if you were federally tried, you would get either indicted or be there. There'd be a complaint in a PC hearing. And then there would be a trial where you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The president doesn't go through that process. The president gets impeached. That's the charges. The trial happens in the Senate and the presiding officers, the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And you need two thirds to vote for, let's say, a conviction on those charges

for removal from office. So you need 67 senators. So even if the House does vote for impeachment, they would need 67 senators to vote to remove Trump from office. And they're not going to get that. But, and Joe, stop me if you're the audience on Budsman. I think not having the 67 votes to remove him from office is a benefit for the Democrats. And now you justifiably so, you may say, what the heck are you talking about? Folks, the Democrats don't want, I'm not talking about the base. I'm talking about elected Democrats in Congress and the Senate. They don't want Trump out of office.

You may say, Dan, you just said they want to impeach him. They want to impeach him. They don't want him out of office. Because what are they going to be left with? They're going to be left with Mike Pence. The base, the Looney Tunes Democrat base and the donors want Trump out of office the democrats in congress they're not dumb folks make no mistake do not underestimate your ideological

opponents here liberal the liberals in congress and the senate are not stupid that was a couple but the most of them are very they're very bright and they're very smart tacticians do not underestimate them out of emotion. They want to impeach him. I can almost guarantee you if they had 67 senators, then they wouldn't impeach him because they don't want him out of office. What they want to do is they want to impeach him in the House of the majority, knowing it'll fry in the Senate. That way they can go back to their donors and say, hey, we did our best.

Look, we impeached them. We didn't have enough votes in the Senate. Sorry. By the way, keep donating to us. You see my point, Joe? And if I can give you a comparable piece of logic, it's the same logic the Republicans, you may say, oh, that kind of stuff doesn't happen. Really?

What about Obamacare? What does that have to do with Obamacare? Think. Think it through. How many times did the Republicans vote to repeal Obamacare outright when Obama was in office? 50, I don't know, 40 times? And then they get Trump in office and nobody does it. Well, why? Because it was never about to them repealing Obamacare. A lot of these rhinos like Obamacare, Joe. To them, it was about appeasing the Tea Party, which, you know, I consider myself part of. Let's vote. Let's vote. But nothing's

going to happen. That's OK. Let's vote. OK, let's vote. Now we can actually repeal. No, no, no. We don't want it repealed. Don't do it now. The Democrats do the same thing. The Republicans, they think they're being too cute by half. We can't vote for repeal now. It'll actually happen. Let's just vote and, Joe, send a message. That's what the Democrats want on impeachment. They don't want Trump out of office.

The base does. They're loony. They've lost their minds. Trump derangement syndrome. They do not want. So to sum this up, if they get this House majority and if this Ossoff pulls off tomorrow's race, which would indicate that a House majority for the Democrats is likely in the 2018 midterms, because this was a tough race to win for a Democrat. If he pulls it off in an R plus nine, we're in a little bit of trouble.

I'm telling you, Trump will be impeached precisely because they won't have the votes in the Senate to remove him from office because they can make a statement. Folks, they're politicians. They're slimy by nature. Both parties. That's what they do. I've been around this my whole life. I'm telling you, not my whole life, but the majority of, to quote Michelle Obama, my adult life. I've been around politics for my thinking years, my 30s and my early 40s. They're slimy by nature. Slimy by nature. That's a good name for a band.

You like that? You're a musician. Maybe that's the title of our new band, you know, except I don't sing or play any instruments. But Joe does everything, so it doesn't matter. I can just sit in the background with a synthesizer and hit a computer button once in a while. Yeah. All right. One more thing I wanted to bring up.

I'm not name dropping here at all, please. But my good friend, Mark Levin, who I love and adore. Good man. He sent me an email this morning, which is a great piece. You know, Mark's a lawyer. Mark's been fighting this fight. He worked in the Reagan administration for a long time. Mark's about as savvy a legal mind as we have out there right now. Levin sent me a piece. It's up a conservative review, which I'll put in the show notes. Folks, all this talk. It's amazing how the talking heads on TV have no concept of what they're talking about when they discuss things like this.

like this. Everybody talking about Trump being indicted. Folks, that can't happen. Trump can't be indicted while he's the sitting president. I bring this up because I just mentioned impeachment. The founding fathers clearly laid out a path to prosecute and hurt the president for wrongdoing and get him out of office. It's not the criminal justice system. You may say, oh my gosh, is he above the law? No, he's not above the law. What the founding fathers were afraid of by opening up the president to an indictment is, Joe, you could get a rogue federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York in a liberal district who seriously, like say jaywalking was a federal crime, could indict Trump for jaywalking and put Trump in jail and effectively stop him from conducting international diplomacy just because

he has a grudge against Trump. So the founding fathers foreseeing that problem said, well, we need to have a check on the presidency, Joe. But that check cannot be through the standard criminal justice system while he's in office. Barack Obama can be prosecuted right now. Bill Clinton, like any other citizen. But while he's in office, the president has to feel free to be the president without fear of of revenge like prosecution. You get what I'm saying, Joe? In other words, they don't want a local prosecutor to prosecute the president for ripping a mattress tag off. Make sense? Yeah, I had some water in my mouth.

Sorry. Yeah, I was going to say, did you just drop off? We lost you on the connection. They did not want that. They didn't want that. But they did want to check. So they're checked, ladies and gentlemen. And this is, again, Meek, I'm tying it up for you. The reason when I brought up impeachment

before and I compared it to this is like an indictment is for this very reason. Any of your dopey liberal friends who tell you, oh, the president Mueller, Robert Mueller, the special counsel, they're going to indict him. They can't indict him. They cannot indict the president. The process for removing the president is the one I just told you. It's political. It is not in the criminal justice system as we know it. Make sense, Joe? Now, if you impeach him and the Senate votes in a trial,

67 Senate votes to remove the president from office, then you can indict him like any, you can indict him for mattress tag ripping, jaywalking, felonious mopery and piracy on the open seas. Have at it. But you cannot indict a sitting president. Now, Levin discusses it in depth. I'll put it in the show notes. Levin is far more eloquent on legal matters than I am, but I strongly suggest you listen to it because there's still people on TV talking about, can Trump be indicted? Trump cannot be indicted. Either could Obama when he was the president, either could Bush or Clinton. He can be impeached and removed from office, then indicted. He cannot be indicted now. Stop talking out of your,

your caboose. You sound like an idiot when you say that liberals they just you know what it is they just say that most of them know this joe to them it's about advancing a narrative they want in the public's head what do they want trump criminal so just keep saying the word indictment now just quickly on this because in my prior line of work and so you're familiar with the indictment process so the impeachment process again a house majority votes for impeachment charges the trial goes to the. It's overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 67 senators, two thirds have to vote to convict, let's say, and then the president can be removed from office. Ronald Rump, or whatever his name is, not Donald Trump, another guy who's not the President of the United States. The way it works now is the federal indictment process, they have 16 to 23 grand jury members. You have to go before a grand jury. So when I was a federal agent,

if I had to say a counterfeit case, what you would do is if you chose to indict, and it's a complicated process, but indictment doesn't happen often in the federal system, in my experience, especially with cases like that. But when you choose to indict, you'll go meet up with a prosecuting attorney, you'll go into a grand jury room, and there'll be 16 to 23 grand jurors in there. Now, the great part about going into the grand jury, at least for the prosecution, is the defense is not allowed in there and they're conducted in secret. So you basically lay out your case. You ever hear that line, Joe, you can indict a ham sandwich?

Yeah. Well, the reason that line comes up is because you really couldn't indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to, because all you have to do is go in there and talk about the ham sandwich and the ham sandwich can't defend themselves. It's a secret hearing. Get what I'm saying, Joe? Only the prosecution makes its case. defend themselves. It's a secret hearing. Get what I'm saying, Joe? Only the prosecution makes its case. So you obviously, you don't lie in there, of course, you run the road, but you make your best case against the person and the person's not allowed to give a counterpunch. So of course, you're going to get in. I mean, I don't remember a case. I never worked the case, certainly where

I went into a grand jury room and failed to get what's called a true bill, which is an indictment, a probable cause statement, and they vote. Now, out of those 16 to 23 people, you need a minimum of 16. 12 of them have to vote to indict, and they only have to vote to indict once you make your case that the probable cause, in other words, probable cause that a crime was committed and that the person you're talking about in the room committed it. So just to be clear, that's the difference. 16 to 23 people on an indictment in the House majority for the impeachment and then the trial in the Senate. And then, obviously, in a federal court, the ruling would have to be unanimous once you go to trial. There's not a 67-vote threshold for the Senate for a normal person going to a federal trial. It has to be unanimous in a federal jury. unanimous in a federal jury. Just, you know what, I shouldn't say it, but just quickly, one of the reasons, and a lot of the federal agents who understand this, and God forbid you're ever arrested for a federal crime, one of the reasons a lot of federal prosecutors don't want

to indict people up front, and I may have mentioned this before, is once you indict someone in a federal crime, counterfeiting, credit card fraud, whatever it is. It's like an act of God to pull the indictment. Now, you may say, well, why would you want to pull the indictment? Or you could do a superseding indictment later. Because a lot of times, Joe, if I arrest Joe Armacost for, say, credit card fraud, whatever it may be, I may want to use you later on as a cooperator against the guy, let's say you bought the counterfeit credit cards from. Does that make sense? Now, if I want to use you later on, the motivation to use you and for you to become an informant is for your lawyer to be able to say to the prosecutor, hey, we got to get those charges dropped down to let's say, whatever, third degree charge instead

of first degree. So Joe gets some time off and reward for his cooperation. Makes sense? But I just told you, if I indict you, it's not impossible, but it's very difficult to get rid of those charges. So what'll happen in the federal system, typically, for those of you looking for a little inside baseball, I did this all the time with credit card fraud cases. You go arrest the guy on a complaint. In other words, you'll just lay out in a PC document. You don't go in front of a grand jury. You'll literally write like a Word document. It says, I, Dan Bongino, know this about whatever, Joe Blow. And Joe Blow bought credit cards, and Joe Blow bought them from this guy. And I have

Joe Blow on tape on this date spending $200 on account of a credit card in the Home Depot, whatever it may be, and I go in front of a magistrate judge, Joe, I raise my right hand, I swear that the facts in there are true, and the judge gives me an arrest warrant and I go arrest the guy. Now, the benefit of that in contrast to an indictment going in front of a grand jury is federal complaints can be dismissed like that. So I arrest you and let's say I'm talking to you and you're like, hey dude, I got a drug problem, but I'm not the big fish here. I bought these credit cards from Sammy Bag of Donuts in upstate New York and this guy's the big kingpin. We can then talk to the

prosecutor and say, hey, and get the guy's lawyer in the room and say, listen, here's the deal. Is this guy willing to cooperate, make a few phone calls, we're willing to record? And the prosecutor may say to him, later on we could dump the charges or whatever it may be. You get what I'm saying? So not as many people as you think

are indicted in the federal system. I'm sorry, that was a little wonky, but these are the kind of things on this show I think it's important to learn because you may say to yourself sometimes, why aren't more people indicted? The truth is indictments really only come down for the big fishes like the John Gottis in the New York mob trial. I mean, those are indictments because they want to do everything by the numbers. And also indictments also start a pretty heavy timeline for you.

Once you indict someone, I think that you have 70 days by speedy trial act to get to trial or something like that or make file the next procedure. And when you do a complaint, you have 30 days, but you can dump the complaint and just file another complaint later. Remember, with an indictment, you can't dump the indictment. It's a pain in the arse. So you don't want to put yourself on an artificial timeline unless your case is ready to rock and roll, and it's a really big case. Okay. A couple more stories I want to get to here. Hey, have you picked up Brickhouse Nutrition yet today? I got a really nice email this morning from a guy named

Greg. I won't say his last name, but thanks, Greg. Greg's a laborer, works in the steel industry, and a big thank you to all the laborers out there. I know we have some disagreements maybe on union politics and crap like that, but we have no disagreements on your value to our country. Thank God for you people out there, men and women, busting your cabooses every day, getting dirt under your fingernails, making this country work. You built this place and you should take some pride in that. But he said, you know, I tried Brickhouse Nutrition's Dawn to Dusk. And he said, the stuff's amazing. Again, I'm not making this up. I forward all these emails over to Miles because he loves it. He owns the company at Brickhouse. He said, it gets me through my day

in the steel mill. So it's really, really a terrific, fantastic product. The product's called Dawn to Dusk. It's made by Brickhouse Nutrition, one of my favorite sponsors. I really enjoy these guys. They're really at the tip of the spear. I spoke with them and Dr. Kim the other day working on some new products. These guys are so good with the DACA, putting out cutting-edge nutrition supplements. This stuff will give you a nice elevated 10 hour boost of energy. It's time release. You're not going to have the ups and downs of energy drinks and coffee get you through the day with a nice mood elevation. You're going to feel terrific. This stuff is really tremendous. My wife loves it. It gets her through those hot yoga classes

she takes. We have really long days here. We work really hard just like you guys. My wife is a web designer, keeps you in that zone all day. Give it a shot, folks. Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Pick up a bottle of Dawn to Dust. Just give it a shot. I promise you'll be impressed.

Send me your email feedback, Daniel at Bongino.com. I enjoy reading it and sending it on to Miles. He really appreciates your business, too. Okay. The Supreme Court redistricting case, this is really important. You know, not to keep bringing up the fact that I ran for office, but this had a lot to do with my race, too. The race I ran in Maryland 6, when we nearly pulled it off, was initially an R plus 22 district. Meaning, it was like, it was a beast for Republicans. Roscoe Bartlett held that seat

forever. They redistricted that race into a D plus six. So it was an R plus 22, and it was a D plus six. The way they did it is they cut out large swaths of Carroll and Frederick County, and they injected the DC suburbs into the district. So they made it a D plus six. So that's why I was always proud for all the, you know, a lot of people tend to take shots at you when you lose for political office. But frankly, folks, I was very proud of what we did. We ran in a race we should have lost by, gosh, six, seven points plus the Republican Democrat margin of victory. So eight, nine points. And that the sitting congressman lost by 19. You know, we won that thing on election day. So I was always proud of

that. But the redistricting thing obviously hurt us. Again, we ran in a district that should have been hugely Republican, the Maryland Mountains, and turned into a Democrat district. But the Supreme Court has agreed yesterday now to hear a couple of redistricting cases. And this is going to be big. The Republicans, it's not necessarily a great thing for Republicans. Now, I just want to clear up a couple points. It's not as horrendous a thing for Republicans, though, as people are making it out. Now, let me just sum up the arguments here, right? The Democrats wanted this. The Democrats want a redistricting case because Republicans have a huge House majority right now. They have a big enough majority to really move legislation, even with literally a dozen or more defectors, Joe. The Democrats, Barack Obama and Eric Holder, specifically, who are working on redistricting projects, think this is because of how the districts are cut nationwide. They're saying, Joe, in other words, that they're packing the Republican districts with, excuse me, Democrat districts with Democrats and therefore leaving the rest of the states to vote largely Republican.

So they're pointing to states like Wisconsin that has maybe a 50-50 tilt, Republican, Democrat, but I think it's 67% or something of the House of Representatives seats are Republican. They're saying the same thing about Pennsylvania, which tilts Democrat, but the majority of federal House of Representatives members are Republican. And this happens at the state level too. Here's how the Dems are making their argument show. The Dems are saying, I'll give you the argument, I'll give you the counter argument in a minute here. The Dems are saying they're losing House of Representatives congressional seats because of two things, surplus votes and wasted votes. So they're saying, in other words, that the Republicans are packing Democrats into Democrat districts.

And you may say, well, how the hell does that benefit Republicans? Well, folks, think about it. A surplus vote, according to the Democrats' theory of why they're being screwed is, vote in according to the Democrats theory of why they're being screwed is. If a Republican, if there are, say, 10 congressional districts in a district and the Republicans can pack all of the Democrats into two, and let's say the Democrats, Joe, win those two districts out of 10, say their cities, say they win them 95 to five, which honestly is not that far from what they win in New York, Los Angeles. You get what I'm saying? Yeah.

And the Republicans win the other eight districts in the state, let's say 52 to 48. What the Democrats are saying is by the Republicans drawing the lines in those states, and just to be clear, the reason the Republicans get to draw the lines is because they have the majority of governorships. And when Republicans are in charge, they get to draw the lines. Democrats do the same thing. They did it in Maryland to me. They screwed me out of a congressional district, right?

Or Roscoe Bartlett. Probably a better way to say it. I ran after him. They're saying that if the Republicans would spread the Democrats out more evenly amongst the districts, you would not have effectively what's a 45% wasted vote or surplus vote.

You see the math I'm doing here, Joe? If a Democrat wins a district in a city 95 to 5 and a Republican gets 5%, 45% of those votes are surplus. They weren't needed, Joe. You just need 50% of the vote plus one. So the Democrats are saying, you're packing all of us in this district and you're giving us surplus votes. When you combine that with wasted votes. Now with wasted votes, he's saying the wasted votes are in the other districts throughout the state where the Democrats are the 40 and say they get 48%. Those

are all wasted because they'd be more effective if they were spread amongst, say, 50-50 districts rather than 52-48. So when you combine that, they're saying we can't possibly win. Now, they are right to some degree, ladies and gentlemen. There's obviously redistricting on both sides. Maryland, they screwed over Republicans. In places like Pennsylvania, the Democrats get banged up a little bit because of it. It happens on both sides of the partisan aisle. Democrats are only whining because they lost the governorships.

But here's the problem, folks. I looked at a study not that long ago, and it said that even if redistricting were done by, say, a split commission, Republicans and Democrats, there was no partisan slant to it at all, and it was broken up strictly by neighborhood boundaries, Joe. I saw a report that said the Democrats may pick up, you know, five to ten more seats. Now, that's significant, but it's not the national calamity Democrats are making it out to be.

In other words, Joe, the Democrats are making it out that they lost the House majority because of redistricting. No, they lost the House majority because your party sucks, because you have a bunch of terrible ideas. Now, secondly, that's not, you know but I don't want you to take away the Democrat, but that's not how you argue with liberals. Your party sucks. That's right.

The reason this study concluded that even a solid redistricting effort on the part of the Democrats would not help the Democrats to the degree they think is because the Democrats are congested into cities. Folks, you can't cut up Manhattan Island into 42 congressional districts. What are you going to do? You're on an island. I'm not making this up. Let's say you have a building in the middle of Manhattan that has 700 residents and 500 of them are voting Democrats and there's 50 Republicans.

What are you going to do? Stick that building in Staten Island? How would you make that part of a Staten Island, which is largely Republican, by the way? How would you make that part of a Staten Island congressional district? The point I'm trying to make, Joe, is Republicans are dispersed across the landmass in the United States. They're everywhere. Democrats are not. They're only in the big cities in large numbers. There's no way to put them in different districts. How? What are you going to order them to move?

Republicans are everywhere. They're in the suburbs. They're in the exurbs. They're on the farms. They're in the plains. They're in the Midwest. They're in Texas. They're all over the country. You see what I'm saying, Joe? We have the advantage of not being packed in because we don't live in big cities like Democrats do. Dems, you did this to yourself. We didn't do this to you. You did this to yourselves. The only solution to handle redistricting is to go move to Staten Island. There's no other way. Stop blaming it on us. You guys choose to live in big cities where you rely on government, police departments, fire departments, the subways, and therefore you love big government and Democrats. That's fine.

Vote that way. But you voted that way, and that's why you got 90 to 10 victories, and we have 52, 48 victories all over the country. It's not our fault you have surplus votes and wasted votes. It's your fault. All right. I covered a lot today. I wanted to get to a couple other stories. There's a killer story out there about illegal voting. Just the facts. It's kind of a partisan leaning alphabet. Conducted a study. It's in the Washington Times. 5.7 illegal votes, non-citizen votes they're figuring in the 2008 election.

I mean, that's enough to elect Barack Obama. That was a crazy story. Maybe I'll talk about that a little more tomorrow. It was an interesting story about the Texas Gulf Coast and the wind industry. I found fascinating. I mean, really crazy stuff about the power of free markets and how the loony left is just crazy. They just don't understand free markets at all.

This was a good story. So tune in tomorrow. Hopefully I'll get to it tomorrow or some point during the week. Thanks again, folks. And I appreciate everyone who bought my book. It means a lot. Talk to you tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.

Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud. And follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.