Charles Blow on impeachment: I'm tired of all the fear and trepidation

[BeyondGeography]

...I find the conflation of Clinton and Trump ill-reasoned on the issue of the public’s response in polling.

First, Clinton’s approval was subject to change in a way Trump’s is not. Clinton experienced a 40-point swing in his approval over his presidency, according to Gallup. Trump’s seems almost impervious to change, no matter the news.

People either love Trump or hate him. Impeachment will most likely not change that any more than Trump seeing fine people among Nazis or locking children in cages.

Furthermore, Clinton jumped 10 points, from 63 percent 73 percent, just after the House voted to impeach him. But, five month later, those gains had vanished and then some. His approval rating sank to 53 percent.

I’m tired of all the fear and trepidation.

...House Democrats, at least the leadership, are afraid of looking like they have a blood lust and inadvertently increasing Trump’s chances of re-election.

Folks, this is not the 1990s. Until 1996, CNN was the only cable news network. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram didn’t exist. Google wasn’t founded until 1998. Cellphones were in their infancy, and few people had them.

Furthermore, the massive — and growing — amount of campaign spending will drown out anything that happened months prior.

In 1996, Clinton raised $42 million for his re-election bid; in 2012, Obama raised a billion for his.

And finally, there was no President Trump in the 1990s producing a head-scratching number of headlines each day. Trump can’t ride a victory nor will he be crestfallen in defeat. There would likely be untold new outrages even after an impeachment.

As for me, I’m afraid of lawlessness and the horrible precedent it would set if Congress does nothing.

More at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/opinion/impeach-donald-trump.html

[uponit7771]

1. K&R, The arguments against impeachment are falling apart the more facts and data are included

[cwydro]

2. He makes a very good point.

I’m really changing my view on impeachment.

We need to take a stand.

[ginnyinWI]

3. And that's what the Mid-terms were all about--

--stopping this President in his lawless tracks!

[Scarsdale]

4. Without impeachment on the table

how many more laws will tRump and the gop break? They have moved the goalposts too many times to be allowed any more leeway. Now Ghoulliani is claiming there is no shame accepting information from Russia to help in an election. Enough already. Impeachment should start ASAP.

[forgotmylogin]

46. Conviction is not necessarily the goal of Impeachment.

Investigation is. Congress can look into matters that were out-of-scope for Mueller.

Plus if Bill Clinton was worthy of being investigated and acquitted and having impeachment on his record, McDonald definitely is also.

[BigmanPigman]

57. Exactly, first have an impeachment probe

and then move to televised hearings then a vote to impeach or not. That is what the House is supposed to do according to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. It is called checks and balances.

[SayItLoud]

75. Impeachment on the table will not stop these people. nt

[NewJeffCT]

5. excellent points

I agree - it's time to start the process

[leftieNanner]

6. I think we need to start down the path

Ramp up the hearings to eleven and put the findings out there for all the world to see.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Nixon is a much better analogy for tRump's case than Clinton. . . . nt

[lagomorph777]

45. Trump is so much worse than Nixon, Clinton, or even Andrew Johnson.

Trump is destroying or stealing everything he can get his hands on. He is a Russian agent. Even Nixon did some positive things, shocking as that may seem.

[world wide wally]

8. Stop feeding into this myth that bringing impeachment benefits the person being impeached.

Republicans must be behind it and they are masters of deception.
Don't buy it... Period!

[BeyondGeography]

21. Yes, I wonder which side of the issue Trump is coming down on

Actually, I don't wonder.

[Duppers]

32. +100

[TwilightZone]

37. There's no proof it's a myth.

Neither you nor anyone else knows for certain how the public will react to an impeachment and an acquittal.

Personally, I think it will have little effect because the vast, vast majority of people made up their minds about Trump on both sides long, long ago.

But, in the end, I don't know and neither do you.

[world wide wally]

42. I never claimed I did, but I certainly don't see the "Trump will win" if we impeach theory at all

[yaesu]

9. People understood that Clintons Impeachment was based on BS, that he had consensual sex

with another very willing adult & he lied about it. So, he did the same thing as 45% of married men have done as a recent poll has shown. I don't condone what he did but that's life. I think he got the boost because people said who cares, its overreach, republicans went too far. As the article said the boost didn't last & things got back to political normal.

[Merlot]

15. This.

Clinton's impeachment bears little resemblance to the trumpft investigation. Obviously the republicans will try their best to spin it as overreach and play victim. That's what they do. His devoted base will believe that. The rest of the country deserves to make their own decision based upon the evidence.

I think it's important for presidential candidates to focus on issues, not trumpft. But congress has the responsibility to examine the evidence. If they "take it off the table" they are giving the republicans a talking point. They are opperating from fear of an outcome that can not be determined.

The special council for Clinton lasted twice as long as the one for trumpft, yet everyone kept saying "what's taking so long."

[c-rational]

10. Agreed - as a true Americn we are duty blund to start the impeachment process. Also, regarding

the Dumpster's poll numbers, I do not believe them. I believe they belong in the same basket as tabulations from electronic voting machines.

[Renew Deal]

11. Fear and trepidation is also the current logic for Biden's candidacy.

"He can win" is the only logic for it right now.

[McKim]

12. Tired of Democrats Acting Like Battered Wives

I am tired of democrats acting like battered wives and staying within parameters that bullying republicans have drawn for them! These outrageous criminals need limits! It is time to be strong leaders or no one will vote for us!

[smirkymonkey]

16. +1000

[Paladin]

18. Good comparison. Enough wimpiness---impeach NOW. (nt)

[Calista241]

13. For Team Trump it's mission accomplished.

The Mueller Report and impeachment were off of the Headlines section of Google News this morning. The release before Easter weekend was perfectly managed. Outrage has died down, and we'll have to fight to get it back to front of mind.

[marble falls]

14. Charles, so am I ...

We scream at them when they circumvent law, why do so many of want to fast track the process to dump the Trump in the same way? The system works. It is working.

[KPN]

17. Kicked. CB nailed it.

[panfluteman]

19. Enough of Holding Our Fingers Up to Figure Out Which Way the Political Wind Is Blowing!

This is NOT a matter of politics! It's a matter of the house members' patriotic duty to protect and uphold the constitution, an oath they all swore to take. Sweep the impeachment of Donald Trump under the rug, and we've swept our constitution and our entire democracy under the rug along with it.

[hot2na]

35. Agreed but there's more...

...many more reasons to impeach. He must be in impeached for history. 50 years from now if a google search, does not return Trump, in response to the question of impeached presidents; it would be a travesty but of history.

[disndat]

20. What if Trump gets impeached

and Pence pardons him?
Another thing if Trump is still around 2020, it would be easier to beat him than some other.

[world wide wally]

24. Trump would still face criminal charges from the State of New york

[Butterflylady]

25. Can't have a pardon without a conviction!!!!!

[disndat]

33. I tought Nixon resigned.

Was he also convicted?

[CaptainTruth]

22. As long as we have open hearings/testimony so the public sees the basis...

...the majority of the public needs to see that this is a matter of upholding the Constitution & not a partisan attack. It looks like our House committee heads have started down that path, & they should continue.

[Dorn]

23. I just call Debbie Dingell(my rep) and basically said: It is time.

[Roy Rolling]

26. Biggest Difference?

Clinton lied about a blowjob, Trump lied to cover Russia's attack on our democracy.

I don't recall Monica Lewinsky working for a foreign government.

[MartyTheGreek]

27. So let's call these exploratory impeachment hearings

Let's bleed-em a little first over the summer...

The ongoing Oversight hearings and likely charges coming from the referred cases beyond Mueller's scope will reveal even more dirt and coordination and very likely first hand evidence of direct conspiracy TBD.

I'm seeing more and more GOPers and MAGAts now changing their opinions vice others suddenly flipping the other way for DJT and he's never gotten over 50% approval so I believe this apple is already rotting on the vine. Tax returns are a dud and that raise that Joe Sixpack got was gone when gas when up at least .50 since the withholding change shell game.

We still need to hear from Stone this summer and expect more bleeding as the public in general, and about half of the 30% ers break off when gas hits $4 / gal and interest rates jump. Are the steel prices hit yet in washing machines and new cars? How are we winning again?

So let's call these ongoing Oversight hearings, exploratory impeachment hearings and when the tide is more predictable even the fake GOP evangelicals will get on-board once they realize they were duped by a false prophet (or profit?).

[kimbutgar]

28. It seems like it the repuke narrative and the media then says it's is the Democratic narrrative

The media still puts on more repukes who from fat Donnie administration. Look at chuck toad yesterday he is the ultimate media troll.

Why wasn’t there repukes being asked what they think of the mueller report?. It’s been like crickets with them with minimal outliers like Romney who is safe in his Utah because he is Mormon. But where was Nunez, McCarthy, etc? Hiding under their beds like scaredy-cat.

[47of74]

29. If elected democrats had grown a steel spine years ago we would not be in this position now.

We need hard, pipe hitting liberals in government who have no issues with going medieval, hell dark ages or Roman Empire on Republican asses. Reps AOC and Omar are a good start but we need thousands more of them at all levels of government. We don't need the continued

The milquetoast set is always so worried that Sean Hannity, Fucker Carlson, the Five Giggling Couch Tumors, and so on will be mean to them if they press too hard. They need to get it through their heads that those fucks at Faux "News" are going to call them names no matter what so it's time to give these idiots a real reason to despise them.

That orange tapeworm needs to be impeached now.

[BeyondGeography]

30. I agree

We're supposed to reason with this guy?:

Link to tweet

[orangecrush]

48. Agree 100%

[qazplm135]

31. investigating is not doing nothing

IF the evidence is there and IF the public sees it in the investigations, then impeachment will follow.

[SunSeeker]

38. They must be formal impeachment investigation hearings -- the only way to get the Grand Jury info.

From the Washington Post:

In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

[qazplm135]

40. they don't need the grand jury report

call the witnesses themselves.

Expand the investigations to include emoluments and all sorts of other things Mueller didn't touch.

[SunSeeker]

41. Yes, we do need the info. We don't even know who all the witnesses are.

By they way, there is no "grand jury report." There are myriad grand jury transcripts and other information upon which Mueller made his findings. We must get that.

Formal impeachment investigation hearings will draw national, indeed global attention, and emphasize the seriousness of Trump's crimes.

Trump welcomed a Russian attack on our country in order to gain office, then obstructed our Justice Department, sacking an AG and an FBI Director, in order to stop the investigation into that attack. This is horrifically worse than Watergate. A censure would be a laughable slap on the wrist for these grave crimes against our country.

[qazplm135]

43. you've made the grand jury

into some sort of grand thing that is all encompassing.

We know enough of the witnesses, and can guess at some of the others pretty reasonably.
And the issues are way broader than just what Mueller was looking at.

It's all a start, not a finish.

[SunSeeker]

44. We don't have time to lose trying to recreate Mueller's investigation, even if that was possible.

November 2020 is only 18 months away.

We don't know "enough" of the witnesses, particularly on the Russian conspiracy part. It was substantially blacked out.

Why are you so resistant to formal impeachment investigation hearings for these grave crimes?

[qazplm135]

51. well guess what

he ain't getting removed before 2020. So you would only do impeachment to have hearings and get information out, which you can as easily do without impeachment to the same positive effect.

I'm resistant because impeachment is a political process. Folks can argue some sort of moral angle, but at the end of the day, it's a purely political process. That means you need enough support of the people to avoid any political hits.

As we stand, right now, there are no polls that put impeachment over the low 40s in approval rating.
Until that number gets at or very close to 60, the public isn't ready for it.

You get there by laying the groundwork and doing investigations and THEN if you do it right and you put the information out, and the public wants it, you will see that number rise and you can justify a process that has been quite rarely and has never actually successfully removed a President. (the threat caused one to resign).

You jump right into it and you either:

1. Do it very quickly in which case folks say you rushed to it
2. Do it very slow and methodically in which case people say you are dragging it out

It's the same reason why you don't bring charges to trial against someone unless you've already done the investigative legwork.

We ALSO know there are several areas of criminality that Mueller didn't even touched. Those too need to be investigated and put together with what Mueller found.

[SunSeeker]

52. No, regular oversight hearings will NOT have the same effect as a formal impeachment investigation.

Dems started impeachment investigation hearings agaisnt Niixon when support for impeachment was in the 20s. Support for impeachment right now is twice that at 40%. It will build as we treat these charges seriously by pursuing a fomal impeachment investigation.

And impeachment is a JUDICIARY proceeding. That is why it falls into the judiciary exception for relese of grand jury info. We must get Mueller's grand jury info and only formal impeachment investigation hearings can do that.

[qazplm135]

53. Nixon was WAY different

1. You had much clearer evidence of actual crimes
2. You had way more members of the opposition party at least amenable to the idea that Nixon might have done something wrong
3. You didn't have the level of polarization you have now politically
4. You didn't have competing internet and cable news programs to feed folks their side's viewpoint.

No, impeachment is a political process. It has the indicia of a judicial process which allows a court to shoehorn it into an exception in that case. But no, it is not remotely a "judicial proceeding." The CJ presides over the Senate process but the voting, the decision to enter into the process, the reasons for the process, and the analysis of the process are all political.

[SunSeeker]

55. Trumps crimes are worse. And we have clear evidence as well.

Remember, the smoking gun tapes was just Nixon saying the CIA should stop the FBI investigation. We have Trump saying on video he fired Comey to stop the FBI Russia investigation.

So you think we shouldn't start impeachment hearings because the country is polarized? That makes no sense. The country will be polarized whether we impeach or not. We must do our Constitutional duty and commence impeachment investigation hearings, as Mueller laid for in the report.

Please stop calling impeachment hearings political. That is a right wing talking point now. Under your definition, EVERYTHING a legislature does is political.

Are you suggesting we should shirk our Constitutional duty because of "politics"? Because the right wing blogosphere will make it just too hard?

[qazplm135]

59. Impeachment is political

It only works when you have sufficient support for it.

We don't at this time.

You build that support by investigation.

I said nothing about half the things you typed.

[SunSeeker]

61. Why do you insist on using right wing talking points? The GOP does not need help besmirching this.

An impeachment proceeding is a judicial proceeding according to the law, case law and our Constitution. To suggest it is "political" is delegitimizing it and is just wrong.

When Democrats started out with the Nixon impeachment investigation hearings, support for impeachment was only at around 20%. They built approval using the serious nature of those proceedings.

We DO have sufficient support for an impeachment investigation hearing RIGHT NOW. 40% of Americans support the impeachment of Trump RIGHT NOW---That's twice as many as supported Nixon's impeachment when Dems commenced impeachment proceedings against Nixon. 58% of Americans believe Trump obstructed Justice RIGHT NOW.

[qazplm135]

77. Lol

The idea that you don't think impeachment is political is ridiculous.

The idea that you think Nixon from fifty years ago is relevant to today is ridiculous.

[Ligyron]

54. Yeah,but I wonder if the MSM would cover Hearings adequately?

Or if after a couple weeks they'd start saying, "And now we switch you over to the Rose Garden where President Trump will welcome the Ambassador from Shemoliland". I KNOW they'd cover Impeachment.

[SunSeeker]

56. Exactly. Impeachment hearings have consequences for the president.

Even if the Senate votes party line and does not convict, Trump still goes down as the 3rd president in history to be impeached by the House, and the history books will list his treasonous crimes as the grounds for impeachment. We owe our country that.

[qazplm135]

60. So this is all about media coverage?

The same both sides media we are always complaining about?

[SunSeeker]

63. It is about our country.

I was simply comparing how much more news coverage an impeachment proceeding would get compared to an oversight hearing. If you want to build support and get the truth out, an impeachment investigation hearing is the way to go. And it is also the only way to get grand jury info.

But most important, an impeachment hearing is our constitutional duty in the face of the grave crimes committed by this lawless President. We must do this for our country.

[bluescribbler]

34. Yes 100%

If we don't impeach, we look weak, and more importantly, we set a dangerous precedent.

[SunSeeker]

36. K & R

[Ferrets are Cool]

39. K and R

[orangecrush]

47. All the investigating and they came up with nothing on Bill

or Hillary.

Does anyone seriously believe that will be the case with Trump?

[trickyguy]

49. Nixon's downfall was not the crime but the coverup. It is the same with Trump. Go get him.

[Pepsidog]

50. If don't impeachTrump, then impeach who, for what in the future?

[Honeycombe8]

58. Good points. But the crux of the matter is...impeaching doesn't remove him.

It's just on paper, for history's sake.

Of course that's worth it...history. So there will be a clear record, and hopefully hearings about the criminal behavior aired during prime time, preserving it for history.

But, there is always the danger of blowback.

It's not my decision, so I'm glad to let the Democratic leaders decide. It needs to be decided by experienced lawmakers/politicians having heated discussions of different scenarios and different strategies, so they can work it out.

I just don't know. I can't say any particular approach is wrong. Except today, right now, they don't even have the unredacted report, or any of the evidence in testimony before them. I think they need those things. Or is "need" too strong a word?

[Jarqui]

62. Trump and the GOP have spent nearly 2 years running a disinformation campaign against Mueller.

Mueller has finally delivered and proven them wrong.

And we're supposed to pack up, put our tail between our legs and go home after all this waiting, effort and BS from the Russians installing their buddy as President?

I don't think so. Utterly incomprehensible nonsense!

Use our collective heads. Look at what they did to Hillary with effectively nothing on Benghazi.

Look at Kellyanne or Sarah Sanders or Rudy. They're going down in history as bullshit artists.

We've sat on our hands waiting for Mueller. Now it is our turn.
There is one thing bullshitters can't handle: facts and evidence.

Bring it. Educate your fellow Americans on what has gone on.

The tide will turn with the truth.

I don't want him impeached. Just damage him badly like they did to Hillary and let him run.
There will be plenty of indictments waiting for him when he loses.

[SunSeeker]

65. I want him impeached by the House.

It is our Constitutional duty in light of the grave crimes this lawless President has committed. If the Senate Republicans block his removal after we impeach him in the House, history will not judge them kindly. Either way, we have put Democrats on record as doing all they can to remedy these traitorous crimes, as Mueller called on us to do in his report. Trump will forever be remembered as the 3rd president in History to be impeached by the House for obstructing an investigation into his coordination with Russia to win election. And Democrats will stand for the rule of law.

I'm with Lawrence Tribe and Elizabeth Warren. We need to start immediately with formal impeachment investigation proceedings.

[Jarqui]

68. I'm all for something like this "formal impeachment investigation proceedings."

Always have been.

The time from voting for Bill Clinton to be impeached to the decision in the Senate for acquittal was less than two months. I think Mitch McConnell would be delighted to shut the impeachment of Trump down in a couple of months. I bet he'll do it faster than that ... if he even allows it to come to the floor - he might drag it out in the courts like Trump and Barr will.

What I think we need to do is jack hammer the evidence for about 18 months.

The GOP Senate is far too corrupt to go along with impeachment at this juncture.
The only chance for impeachment is to turn the tide of public opinion significant for it.
With FOX News and all the cable outlets giving equal time to the liars, my guess is the odds are against it.
But I'm all for giving that a try.

I'd be careful about jumping right into impeachment.
If their case is solid and comprehensible to the average person, the evidence should take care of it.
Let's see how good the evidence and case really is and then evaluate where we go from there.

[SunSeeker]

69. Have you read the Mueller report? The evidence is there, and is overwhelming.

And that's the redacted version with no grand jury info.

[Jarqui]

70. I have not read it all.

It's 400+ pages. and some of it is heavy reading.
I've read the summaries and key parts.
It's going to take me a while to digest it all.

I followed the case all along. Read some the indictments, etc.

I think he's guilty as can be of campaign finance, obstruction & conspiracy crimes. And he's probably guilty of a bucket of other stuff like tax evasion, money laundering, etc,

But I do not think enough of the public feels that way. The next step is to get more of them feeling like we do. Otherwise, this case is going nowhere fast other than Mitch McConnell's waste basket.

They inverted Hillary's favorability with no crimes - Benghazi and emails.

Trump's favorability is already well under water.
Feed the media piranhas every day with more evidence ...
and we'll drown him before Nov 2020.
Impeachment would be great but I doubt McConnell will let it happen.

After that, he's probably going to jail anyway.

[SunSeeker]

71. We don't need McConnell to impeach. That just takes a majority of the House.

Then the Senate votes on whether to remove Trump. Either way, Trump goes down as only the 3rd president in history to be impeached, and we stand for the rule of law.

Nothing is going to emphasize the seriousness of these charges and get media attention/educate the public like impeachment investigation hearings.

[Jarqui]

72. As I've said a number of times "impeachment investigation hearings"

sound great.

I'm visualizing beyond that.

Take a could of days and take a vote and he'll be impeached.
But McConnell will snuff it.

Take their time and point by point the pound out the story.
They'll do some damage and we can reevaluate where we go from there.
Maybe more hearings. Maybe impeachment

[Beartracks]

64. I think the GOP is *counting on* Congress "doing nothing." n/ t

[EndGOPPropaganda]

66. Excellent brandeis quote

[BeyondGeography]

67. What a heavyweight he was

Imagine this happening today:

In 1908, Louis Brandeis turned American law on its head with the "Brandeis brief." The Supreme Court was in the midst of the notorious Lochner era, in which a pro-business majority routinely struck down laws protecting workers' health and safety. Brandeis was defending an Oregon law that limited women's workdays to 10 hours. It seemed likely the court would rule, as it just had in a similar case, that maximum-hours laws violated employers' "right of free contract."

In his brief, Brandeis devoted just two pages to legal analysis. He spent more than 100 pages setting out statistical and sociological data on the harm that long workdays did to women. His use of facts and sociological arguments was both shocking and enormously successful. The court upheld Oregon's law, 9 to 0.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/opinion/14tue4.html?searchResultPosition=1

[qdouble]

73. I'll be happy when the younger generation of democrats take over

The Democrats that have been in office 20-30 years have spent so much time compromising and playing politics that they seem to not know when it's time to take a stand.

[SayItLoud]

74. Get the full un redacted report then start the process basing it on the full report, as

they used to say in the old Dragnet series: "Just the facts" . Develop the case for impeachment with a non passionate, planned and logical process and focus the findings messages for the world to see. Stop the screaming. Follow the law, let them do what is legal in response and march on.

[calimary]

76. Always have liked Charles Blow's work. This time, too.

And - I’m also enjoying the read of the comments. Sooooooo many already saying they’re FOR impeachment, and that they’ve become convinced it’s the right thing to do. And whether it’s Blow’s compelling argument for impeachment or the truths being learned from the Mueller report’s release, the sentiment FOR impeachment is definitely there.

Just heard a Congressman on the air, Jared Huffman of California, saying it’s Congress’s duty NOT to punt on this.

Which is good to hear.

And yesterday, I went to the ol’ Google machine and looked up Nancy Pelosi’s contact info.

https://pelosi.house.gov/contact-me

And BOOM! There it is. You can call her DC office or her comment line for her San Francisco district. And I did just that. It only takes about a minute-and-a-half. Left a comment urging Congress to embrace its duty - and recognize the responsibility that history imposes. Just a few moments - is all it takes to leave your mark on this particular “page”.

And ABSOLUTELY call your own Congresscritter. Leave your mark. Leave YOUR voice on the record, for the record. And you may even talk to a real human, not just a recorded comment line. Either way, register YOUR view! Don’t let this opportunity fly away! I think I’m gonna try calling in to my reps all week. But then again, I don’t mind being a nag.

History will NOT be kind to those who punt.