Will Trump Be Impeached and Removed?
By Tom Kagy | 25 Aug, 2025

Our Beltway Brain Rom Basu Borsellino explains why President Trump may get impeached but is unlikely to be convicted and removed from office after the midterm elections.

Tom Kagy (00:01)

Hello, this is Tom Kagy with Unconventional Wisdom. Today we have as our expert, Rom Basu Borsellino. Rom's main qualification for speaking on these issues is that he spent 10 years in Washington, D.C., two of them in the White House itself. And actually maybe an even more important qualification is that Rom is the product of the heartland of America, Iowa.

which is probably about as close as you can get to the heartland of the whole MAGA movement.

We have been dealing with a president who has disrupted everything in the six months or so that he's been in office. He's disrupted global trade. He's disrupted the migrant workforce. He's disrupted our sense of what is proper for a president to do by sending in National Guard and even active duty Marines into Los Angeles. Now he's doing the same thing with Washington, D.C.

He has tried to bully our elite universities into towing his philosophy on education, which is practically unheard of, unspeakable really for an American president. He has alienated all of our main allies. 

Pretty much he's made America a combination of a laughing stock and a bully. So a lot of us would love to see his character go. And our hope is that come midterms, we will have the proper composition in Congress to make this happen.

Rom has his own ideas about what the prospect of something like that happening are. And so I figured this would be a good conversation to get Rom's view on why this may not happen.  Rom, that a pretty accurate statement of your view?

Romen (02:14)

Thank you, Tom. Thank you for having me. I simply don't see it. I don't see  the math there to impeach the president.  I would put the prospect of that happening, Tom, at near zero percent, is my view.

Tom Kagy (02:31)

Okay. And what is that based on Rom? Why are you so pessimistic about this?

Romen (02:33)

I would say, Tom, that the number one reason I don't see this happening is because Republicans had the chance to do it before and they simply didn't. They chose not to on a couple different occasions. you know, now they have even better conditions to not break from the president. They, you know, control both the House and the Senate.  But again, even if that were to change, I think the Republican Party has gotten more conservative and more sycophantic towards Trump.

So I would look to the past and say, why didn't they do it at all during the first term, at least more than a handful of Republicans? And don't see that changing.

Tom Kagy (03:15)

Well, could we maybe hope that the conditions that Trump has introduced in his second term are just much more extreme than what he did or managed to get done in the first term?

Romen (03:27)

I think that's a totally fair point and I think that the number of things that he's done in such a short period of time, so many of them, a lot of people view as pretty heinous, seem like impeachable offenses. But again, let's look at the things that, you know, he was sort of getting in trouble for during the first term. This was not necessarily an impeachable offense, but something like Charlottesville, where, you know, a group of white supremacists with tiki torches were in the streets chanting, Jews will not replace us.

And Trump held a press conference the next day to say that they were fine people on both sides. There was some discontent vocally from members of his party, even his cabinet, but not in a significant way. Nothing that seemed to actually move the needle in terms of people breaking from him. And then you had the first actual impeachment vote was about an extortion attempt. I mean, he told president of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky that

He needed Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden, who was likely going to be Trump's opponent in the next election. I would think, Tom, that that would be enough for everyone to vote for impeachment, but it simply didn't happen. If I'm remembering correctly, there was maybe no breaks from Trump in the House, maybe a handful. The next, of course, impeachment attempt was after January 6th,

So what happened after January 6th, of course, is that the conditions were right to impeach Trump, meaning that in theory at least, the folks voting against him could vote their conscience because Trump is leaving office And actually 10 Republicans in the House voted to impeach Trump.

What's sort of remarkable is what happened next. Of those 10, only two are still remaining. Eight of them, like Liz Cheney and others, got primaried out by the Republican Party or realized that they were going to get primaried and resigned or didn't run for reelection on their own accord. In the Senate, it was something like seven Republicans voted to impeach and remove Trump because you need the two-thirds majority in the Senate, and they needed 10. And so...

There are two lessons from that, think, Tom. One is that it simply didn't happen after January 6th, which I think if it was going to happen, it would have happened then. And the second is that those who did vote to oppose Trump had to pay a political price and are often for most of them are no longer in power. Again, eight out of the 10 House members, they have now been replaced with ostensibly more conservative, more Trump sycophantic members of Congress. So this is to say that the conditions have gotten harder to impeach Trump, not easier, and even when it seemed like it was going to happen before, or it could happen before, it didn't. So I think we've moved away from a place where it's even possible.

Tom Kagy (06:26)

Okay, I mean, that's a very, very strong argument. You know, I agree that if the president is going to get impeached for anything, the January 6th incident is probably about as good an impeachable offense as you can come up with. But what about the fact that the economic conditions, which I think

you know, was an important part of what got Trump elected this time. What about the fact that that has deteriorated since he took office? Do you think that that might cause the politicians, the GOP to look less, feel less dependent on Trump's coattails? Because after all, according to polls anyways, the most important factor that got Trump elected was the working class apparently felt that, you know, or they believed that it was Biden's fault that they were having to pay more for food, you know, and other necessities. But it seems to me that we might be facing even a worse situation coming up with this loss of all the migrant farm workers, the ridiculous tariffs. 

So do you not think that it's possible that the politicians will take heed of the very negative impact that this presidency is having and sort of, you know, kind of put their fingers up to the wind and decide that, maybe, you know, it's time for Trump to go.

Romen (08:13)

 I agree with you, Tom, that I think these economic conditions, between the tariffs and what's happening with the ICE raids, it's one of the more compelling arguments for why people would be upset with Trump and why they could and would potentially break from him. But even months into this, we're not seeing any sort of evidence that that's the case in a meaningful way.

The Republicans basically voted to allow Trump to keep calling the shots on tariffs. So I think that while your rank and file middle American, Iowans, for example, where I come from, may be disappointed with Trump, there seems to be a disconnect from what your average American might want and what your Republican voter in Congress might want.

Tom Kagy (09:05)

If the voter sentiment changes significantly, we could see a larger number of senators than we have now. Right now, I think it's fairly close, right? It's what, 53 to 47? Something like that,  is it possible that the discontent over inflation, discontent over the treatment of migrant workers, the deportation, the very offensive deportation push, the way that we're alienating our allies, you know. Offending  Zelensky, who actually is seen as a war hero and is quite popular with much of the world. So you don't think that that might induce the electorate to maybe go against their typical tendencies and vote Democrat.

Romen (10:08)

again, to be impeached and removed, that requires a two thirds majority in the Senate as well. And given that a lot of the senators, which again, still wasn't enough to remove him in the first term, but a lot of those who did have the courage to speak out against him are no longer in the Senate and have been replaced by folks who are likely even more hardline Republican than them. I simply don't see it happening. 

But I do agree with you, Tom, that it is likely, very likely in fact, that both the Democrats will take back the House of Representatives and that they will impeach him in the House. And it's even possible that a couple Republicans could go along with that, though I don't necessarily see it since the House, every election cycle has gotten more and more polarized and that's going to be the case even more now. So with new maps potentially being redrawn.

Tom Kagy (11:09)

Okay. Well, what about the fact that there's news dribbling out constantly? There has been mostly bad news as far as how the MAGA base perceives what Trump is doing. For example, his Justice Department not releasing the Epstein file and him making that bogus demand that the court release the transcript, is of course a meaningless thing. It's a file that might contain damaging information. So he was basically trying to divert the attention to the transcript. But so what about that? I mean, so we have, you know, that really kind of ticked off a lot of people in his MAGA base who care about things like that a lot. There's also the fact that he's been grossly violating the emoluments clause in the Constitution by setting up this little crypto drop box, World Liberty Financial, where people that want to get a meeting with him can  put in a couple of million dollars worth of token purchases, which of course he is able to see, although it's not publicly available. 

And then he apparently, according to some reports, he is granting access to these people in the form of lunches and dinners at even the White House and at Mar-a-Lago. So as these kinds of things start dribbling out, these evidence that he's really running the country for his own profit, as these things start dribbling out, is it possible that maybe the voters will feel like enough is enough?

And that this guy is just too dishonest to be president. And I understand the senators are elected for six years, so most of the senators that are in office now will be in office after the midterms. But I believe there may be a potential to replace a dozen of them. So maybe combined with that, plus senators who are in the GOP but vote their conscience. Like Susan Collins, mentioned Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, that the combination of senators voting their conscience from the GOP and a turnover in the Senate could make up the 67 votes that's needed to convict.

Romen (13:57)

So you brought up a couple of great points. I think the biggest one, Tom, and I think a lot of people, even casual political observers only would agree. The Epstein files has, you know, they've called Trump Teflon Don since the moment he announced his candidacy for president in 2015 because it seemed like there was no scandal that could really bring him down. This feels like the one that has the most staying power because a lot of the people who are upset about it, his refusal to release the Epstein files, are his own base. So I do think that that's something that is upsetting people and could turn the tide against him. But even still, even in the past few weeks of this Epstein business, polling has shown that there are at least mid-30 percentile  of voters who are standing with him. And again, that is in the face of all of the things that you've mentioned. Now, some might say 30 something percent approval rating is God awful. Others might say, and this is my point of view, Trump has done everything wrong. He has violated what certainly feels like every law, every rule, every norm. He bullies prominent Republican senators. The blatant corruption and things that would, you would think, crater his approval rating and the fact that a third of voters are still okay with that. I think that number is strong enough to prohibit people from speaking out against them. I think that no Republican could achieve real political power if 30 plus percent of their own party is supporting Donald Trump over them.

And we know that Trump is a vindictive person. He just had the home raided of John Bolton, a Republican, who has supported him on some issues, but spoken out against him on another.  You know, I think the Department of Homeland Security, or maybe it was the FBI, just raided his home. So that's a shot across the bow. There's a clear message that there will be consequences if you oppose him.

And I think when 30 something, let's say between 35 and 39%, people that are still supporting him, even after the crypto things you've mentioned, even after the Epstein stuff, the tariff stuff, it's simply not enough for someone like, let's say it's JD Vance or Marco Rubio or whoever wants to be the next president. That type of person could not win the nomination.

And thus the presidency, at least in my opinion, if those folks who are clearly Trump diehards have a vendetta against him, against the presumptive nominee, because of them getting Trump out of office. And then you mentioned the corruption things. I think the average voter wouldn't necessarily look at the crypto stuff in a way that they wouldn't have looked at. Corruption during the first term things like. World leaders feeling the need to host parties at Mar-a-Lago to curry favor with Trump. I mean that was going on and I think your average American doesn't really pay attention or care or know that much about it. So even though I think things are bad. I don't see that moving the needle. Then there's the Supreme Court which has really refused to hold Trump accountable and I think.

The Supreme Court acts, you mentioned a finger in the wind earlier, Tom. I think their actions are in a very unscientific way, an opportunity for us to look at who's willing to oppose Trump, especially, say, conservatives. And the Supreme Court is letting him do whatever he wants. And a lot of them are supported by sort of your normal conservatives who may not be MAGA folks. I think that even

Never Trumpers will look at the Supreme Court justices and say, well, Trump's done a lot of bad things, but putting Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court or Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh was an OK move. And even those folks are not speaking out against him or stopping him. So I think if that's a barometer, then it's not happening, the full scale repudiation of him, at least not yet.

Tom Kagy (18:40)

Okay, now who do you think make up this core, you know, 30, you said 35 to 39%. Who do you think are the voters that make up this core block that is impossible for a GOP candidate to overcome?

Romen (18:58)

Right. So you of course, mentioned my home state of Iowa in my introduction. Iowa is interesting, Tom, because in the 2008 primary in the caucuses, they sent Barack Obama basically to stardom. Then they voted for him in both the 08 and 2012 general elections, but then they flipped to Trump in 2016. They stuck with Trump in 2020 and then Trump won by a massive margin in the state of Iowa.

In 2024, he won by something like 14 points. I think Iowa is a good case in point of the types of folks that have been swayed largely by his personality. Again, they were, they were willing to vote for Obama. But now they are diehard Trump supporters and the more things Trump has done that should theoretically alienate him from voters who are up for grabs, people who would have voted for a Democrat in previous cycles, they are digging their heels in and getting more and more pro-Trump. So those are the types of people, your everyday voters, that I think are just with him. whether or not that's because they actually agree with his policies, whether or not they're saving face and doubling down and saying, I don't want to admit that I was wrong.  Or, you know, a lot of, a lot of people use the word brainwashed. I think that is simplifying it too much, but

There are people who, you know, Tom, I'm sure you've seen this. There are folks who are getting deported. They and their families are getting deported because of Trump. And they're saying, I still support him. And they still think on the whole that he's doing good things. This is almost cult-like behavior. And I think to some large degree, number of those 30-something percent of people are almost in a cult. I'm sorry to say.

Tom Kagy (20:54)

Yes, well, it is very cult-like.I did see an item suggesting that the Hispanics in Texas, at least, were sort moving away from Trump. I I believe he managed to get something like some crazy amount of Hispanics to vote for him, something in the order of 40%. But I believe they're seeing some signs that they're sort of moving away from him. But be that as it may,

For example, a state like Iowa, it's a mostly white, largely rural state, and I figure is probably fairly representative of the staunchest Trump-supporting states. Now, do you think that most of his supporters are whites that are somehow offended by

Romen (21:34)

Yes.

Tom Kagy (21:54)

Their perception of current Democrat policies.

Romen (21:58)

I think whether or not it's the actual policies or simply the messaging, and I do think it's largely the latter, I think it's the idea that Democrats are this woke group who want to value minorities and the trans community and immigrants over at the expense of hardworking white farmers and whatnot, and Trump is the only person looking out for them.

I think the Republican Party, to their credit, has been very good at that messaging. I say to their credit, even though I think it's incredibly racist and plenty of other isms there, but it's swaying people. the reality, Tom, is that, you know, I think the Democratic Party is the party that will give subsidies to farmers and will not slap on these sort of tariffs that are almost crippling their ability to export their products. But the policy has become secondary. And I think this is something, you and I haven't really gotten into yet in this conversation is who is leading the opposition to Trump in terms of messaging and leading a public sentiment. And I think most people would agree that the Democratic Party is largely MIA on this.

I think folks like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have failed at making a compelling message that would help Democrats or that would help the electorate turn against Trump and come towards the Democratic Party. So you need two things. You need Trump to self-destruct and you need someone else to step in and say, here's how we can do a better job. And without both of them, it seems difficult. And, you know, I'm curious if you would agree with me on this about the Democratic Party's messaging that they simply haven't been leading the opposition you know, then one quick thing I'll add is take a look at the New York City mayoral race with Zohran Mamdani. He has done a really good job. know, whatever you think about his policies, he's done a good job of exciting and galvanizing progressives and the electorate. And yet, Democratic leaders across the country are unwilling to endorse him. And it really seems like this sort of stubbornness where.

They are looking at something that's working. Even Trump supporters are coming on board with Zohran Mamdani and Democrats are sort of unwilling to acknowledge that this might be what they need to do and instead are digging their heels in when it comes to supporting him. I think that's a losing message and a losing strategy, you know, something needs to change in order to really turn the tide against Trump. But again, I'm curious how you feel about that.

Tom Kagy (24:51)

Well, what you say makes a lot of sense. I mean, I do know that most people, most Americans, most people have fairly short attention spans and their ability to hold on to facts is very rather limited, you in their busy lives or trying to make a living. They're not going to be spending a lot of effort trying to dig in and figure out what the policies have been and how well they've worked there. They're basically going to be hearing the messaging. So I agree with you. I think you've got a lot of wisdom in that statement. So you've convinced me that you should be the strategist for the Democratic Party. So as the Democratic Party strategist, what would you suggest that the Democrats would do to overcome this terrible messaging deficit?

Romen (25:37)

You know, as I just mentioned, Zohran, obviously New York City is not the, the, the United States. And I think the last, the last thing you could do is go into the farms of Iowa and say, Hey, we've got this great messaging coming out of this young Muslim man in New York City that we're going to use with you.  But I think that what Zohran, and again, I'm using him as emblematic rather than talking about him specifically. He is speaking about populist issues and he is speaking about housing and affordability and it is very good message control and even global issues that others have steered away from.  know, certain feelings about what's happening with Israel, Palestine. Zohran hasn't steered away from talking about those things and whether or not you ultimately agree with him at the end of the day, I think people value authenticity and genuineness. And if I'm suddenly leading the Republican party, I would put a premium, or sorry, so sorry. If I was suddenly leading the Democratic party, I would immediately try and talk to all of our prospective candidates. And when we're recruiting candidates, I would put a premium on authenticity and say, people are sick of the overly manufactured, consulted candidates, the types that whether or not it is say her fault.

People thought that Hillary Clinton didn't necessarily believe in anything that she was your typical politician. And I think, you know, maybe we get into some sexism here because they're both women, but people thought similar things about Kamala Harris, that they were just saying what they might need to get elected. That's something that people valued about Trump is that he said whatever he wanted and agree with him or disagree with him. They liked that quality. I think Zohran is. doing a lot of that. And I think it's important that Democrats find more candidates in every part of the country who's doing that and simply does not come across as some poll tested democratic party hack who's repeating the company line. So those are the types of candidates I would want to recruit where I am in charge right now.

Tom Kagy (27:53)

Okay, authenticity. Yeah, that makes sense. The other thing that you said, you know, the reaction against woke politics. Now, that seems to be the other half of what you're saying is that the Democrats should not make woke policies politics be a part of their messaging, leave that out. They're going to get the minority or the various minority votes anyways. So just leave out the woke politics and talk about the bread and butter issues. Is that would that kind of sum up what you're saying?

Romen (28:29)

Actually, not necessarily.  That's a trickier one because I, in general, Tom, I don't think that Democrats are the ones hammering quote unquote woke policies. Also, think, you know, woke has become sort of a dog whistle used by the Republicans, but I think Republicans are the ones talking about it. And I think it's become effective for the Republicans. I think that they're the ones going out there and saying Democrats care more about DEI and you know, trans people competing in high school sports and whatnot. And Democrats have a tough time responding to that messaging. So I wouldn't say that Democrats are faltering by bringing it up, but I think there is a much needed good response to those things. And I do think ultimately, Tom, authenticity in a response. If a Democratic candidate says “I've thought long and hard about this and here's the conclusion I've come to”

 Even someone like Andy Beshear, he is a Democrat and he is the governor of Kentucky, which seems impossible for a Democrat to win in Kentucky, but he's managed to do it. And I think he's done it without throwing quote unquote woke communities or the trans community under the bus. He talks about these issues thoughtfully and I don't know his exact talking points, but we need to look at candidates like that who've done a pretty good job. But no, I would not say that Democrats are faltering by bringing these issues up. I would say they're faltering by simply not knowing how to respond to attacks against them. 

The Trump campaign, as you may remember, Tom, I saw it maybe a hundred times on TV. They said something like Trump cares about you. Kamala cares about they/ them. And It had a picture of a lot of trans folks and I found it abhorrent personally, but testing has shown that that ad itself might have moved the needle a couple points. And so as much as I hate to admit that cruelty might win the day, it is having a practical, unfortunately, victory in some ways. So we need to figure out how to respond to that, but I don't think our issue is bringing it up.

Tom Kagy (30:51)

Okay, so what is the way that Democrats should respond? Do you have any, aside from authenticity, which I agree is probably appealing in any candidate for any party, but are there any specific topics or issues that you think that Democrats could spend more time hammering on?

Romen (31:10)

I actually think we use the Republicans' own messaging against them. I think we say Republicans were meant to be a conservative party that wants less government. And now all of sudden you want government interfering in these things. You want government to decide whether or not gay people can get married. You want government to decide whether or not trans people can live their own lives normally. You want government to decide whether or not, ou know, women can get abortions. I think Democrats should be able to say, if those are the things you believe in, in smaller government, don't believe the lies, we are the party for you. We want every individually to be able to be themselves and live freely. And yes, that means trans people and gay people and, you know, minorities can can do what they want without bothering us and we won't bother them. But that's what it means to have. smaller, non-intrusive, smarter government. And those are Republican talking points that the Republican Party has strayed away from. So think there's an opportunity to use that messaging against.

Tom Kagy (32:17)

Yeah, that's a very insightful point. And I think you're absolutely right. I do think that you should become the Democratic strategist. I think you could do the party a lot of good. it's sort of shifting back a little bit toward the topic of getting Trump out of office. You mentioned that it would take two things, the other one being that he commits some unspeakably horrible offense. You know, shooting somebody on the proverbial Washington Mall apparently is not a horrible enough offense if we're to believe the conventional wisdom. What do you imagine would be the kind of things that could come out that would be horrible enough that he would get impeached even by, let's say, a 50-50 Senate?

Romen (33:10)

My goodness. I mean, it's crazy, Tom. It is literally, in my mind, it is literally hard to imagine it because, you know, we talked about this a few minutes ago. January 6th was so abhorrent. Cops, several cops committed suicide afterwards. It was so bad. Some of the January 6th police officers. And that wasn't enough. So maybe the...

Maybe we get stronger evidence about Trump being involved with Epstein. Maybe that's the straw that breaks the camel's back. At least it seems to me like it could be based on the sentiment. And as you and I have talked about, of course, the elections. you know, there's two parts, right? Part one is Democrats have a huge showing. And then part two in the midterms. And then part two is Trump does something that you and I can't even think about. But I don't know, I guess something more Epstein related, more solid evidence. What do you think, Tom, when you've mentioned your perhaps optimism that such an impeachment could actually happen, do you think that's over things he's already done or do you think it would take some new catastrophic incident?

Tom Kagy (34:29)

Yeah, I mean, it's kind of hard for me to discuss it because it sounds self-contradictory. mean, on the one hand, we don't want the economy to become shambles. And yet I think that is one of the things that can free us of this person, is the economy tanking.

And yet I don't want that to happen. I'm, you know, half of me is hoping that it will tank for a while. And the other half is hoping that somehow we can avert this by getting rid of the tariffs and, you know, going back to a normal, our normal supremacy really that we've been enjoying in global trade and commerce, which this guy is destroying. So yeah, that that I think would be a big part of it. I think the economy where, you know, our jobless rate goes up to, you know, somewhere in the south.

Seven or eight, nine percent combined with people paying five or 10 percent more for their essential items, food, clothing, things like that. I think that would move the needle as far as the electorate. And we might even get a Senate that is a clear majority Republican. mean, I'm sorry, Democrat. And I think on the other side, in terms of what can Trump do to help us get rid of him, I think if there were some really clear specific instances of him granting policy favors to people who have given him money, essentially, by buying his worthless world financial, whatever that thing is called, world financial tokens, I think if we have even one or two instances where he clearly, as a quid pro quo, made a policy decision based on a few million dollars being plunked into his world financial or some of his other crypto assets, I think that would do it too. So, mean, the combination of those two, think, would ensure that he gets convicted, which is what I would love to see. Because if anybody deserves to be convicted, it would be him.

So that's my feeling. you know, Rom, you have, because I'm not a political junkie. I was not able to see some of those things that you brought up, you know, about democratic messaging, about the fact that it's not the Democrat messaging so much as their failure to, you know, to be able to respond to GOP messaging about, you know, really GOP putting words in their mouths, you know. I think that's a very important point because Trump is very good at, very masterful actually, in saying very simple, you know, simple minded things that mean something to the average person. And I think a lot of Democrats, by the time they become, you know, congressmen or senators, they forget how to do that.

So, yeah, I I hate to admit it, but it does speak a bit to Trump's gift for, you know, self-promotion, as well as, you know, a kind of a creepy kind of a dynamism. And I do think it's a very sad statement of the American psyche that all of these terrible, stupid, illegal, power grabbing things that he's done is not enough to offend them and yet they might be pissed off enough if he were to have been implicated in some sexual activity that took place 20 years ago. But I agree with you. That is probably the kind of thing that would weaken his 35% core bass.

Romen (38:29)

Yeah. And I agree with you as well about Trump's strength as a messenger. You I think in 2016, I and frankly, a lot of people thought that his victory was an anomaly. I think that in 2020, he had everything going against him from the economy to COVID to the scandals. And yet Biden's victory wasn't by a huge margin. 

And then in 2024, he won the popular vote. And I think it's time for, you know, Democrats to acknowledge that Trump has been a strong candidate for president in terms of, you know, not in terms of doing anything good, but in terms of being able to attract voters to his side. So hate to give him credit, but he's doing something right in terms of gaining power and, you know, convincing people.

Tom Kagy (39:25)

Yeah, well, you've actually put some doubt in my mind. I came into this thinking, yeah, this Trump guy has been doing so terribly that, he's going to lose the midterms, you know, and he's going to get impeached and convicted. But you have put some doubt in my mind. So let's leave it at this. mean, if Trump gets impeached and convicted, you owe me lunch. If he doesn't, I owe you lunch.

Romen (39:54)

Deal, we'll shake on it next time I see you, Tom.

Tom Kagy (39:57)

Okay, all right. Thank you very much, Ram, for your insight.

Romen (40:01)

Thank you for having me.