The Law’s Favorite Outlaw

Listen to this episode

S1: The following program may contain explicit language and. It’s Monday, August 17th, twenty twenty from Slate, it’s the gist.

S2: I’m Mike Pesca. You know, I have a lot of cops in my family, many cousins, uncle growing up stories, good cops, smart cops, lessons on how to be a good cop, prevalent good cop. Pretty much meant redirecting a possibly dangerous situation toward de-escalation.

S3: Wasn’t in the air then. I realize now that’s what my uncles and cousins would always talk about, not having to draw your gun, that sort of thing. And if you listen to the show, you know, there’s no topic that I’ve done more in the past few months than police reform I’ve had on experts and professors and reformers and members of overpoliced communities and the police themselves. I don’t think I’m knee jerk, pro or anti cop. There are a couple of things that annoy me, like when someone says, oh, Kamalesh, he’s a cop, and let lets those three words serve as a condemnation. I think that’s pretty ridiculous. And also, when people denigrate the NYPD and talk about their wanton brutality, I don’t always say no, you’re wrong, especially when we’re talking about recent protests when that wasn’t exactly wrong. But in general, I am more driven by facts about the NYPD. I know a lot about the history of the NYPD. I know, for instance, that the NYPD discharge firearms 52 total times in twenty nineteen. All right. City of eight million people, thirty five thousand sworn officers. Fifty two times a weapon was discharged, the bulk of them accidentally or dogs, or nine times in an act of suicide every year before this one. The NYPD oversees a city with a lower murder rate than the country as a whole and does so while firing their guns actually at subjects twenty five times or less. I also do know that stop and frisk was oppressive. It turns out it was unnecessary. And I think I can criticize the NYPD when they do wrong. Just bear with me. This is Prelude. I’m going somewhere with this, but I do get a little frustrated when I read stories like One in The Intercept. Plainclothes NYPD cops are involved in a staggering number of killings. And then you dig into the numbers and you find that staggering number of killings to be fifty four in the last twenty years. In other words, fewer than three a year. Again, city of eight million again, the year I was born. Ninety three citizens were shot and killed by police as compared to three by the staggering number of plainclothes police officers. Again, thanks for bearing with me through all that. I just lay that out there because I want to talk about what happened Saturday. This is what happened, Mr. President.

S4: Today, it’s an honor for me to stand at this podium. And be the voice for twenty four thousand New York City police officers crowd police officers that are here today chanting USA, chanting Trump for president. And they mean it each and every time they say it.

S3: That was Patrick Lynch, the head of the NYPD Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association. The biggest NYPD union represents the majority, the big majority of NYPD officers. He said that in his time and to his knowledge, that union had never endorsed a president. But over the weekend, they endorsed President Trump. I don’t know if bomb throwing ignoramus Patrick Lynch gives a damn about the opinions of anyone in the media who isn’t on Fox News or one of New York’s two conservative talk stations. I don’t know if Patrick Lynch and those he represents actually conceives that there are a lot of New Yorkers who don’t instinctively hate the cops, but are also not chanting blue lives matter at protesters marching through Mill Basin. I have no idea how or to what extent the NYPD actually thinks about the city they police. But I can only assume there is is an attitude of most New Yorkers disdain us, so therefore we will disdain them back. They propagate a siege mentality. I guess they need to ensure it. Do they want to every member of the middle class in New York City to loathe the NYPD? Do they want to and discussed every member of the media who isn’t Heather McDonald or Jeanine Pirro? You know, Trump got less than a quarter of the vote in Queens, less than 20 percent in Brooklyn, less than 10 percent in the Bronx in Manhattan. I almost named all of New York. Yes, there is Staten Island, by far the least populated county, also one where a disproportionate number of the NYPD live. But Trump in New York State, which he lost massively, the four worst counties were the four counties of New York that are in Staten Island, that it is the NYPD job to patrol. By supporting him, police in New York are expressing their disdain for the NY part of NYPD. They’re also insulting the idea of law and order because no president has flouted laws like Donald Trump has, maybe not in terms of street corner bys, but the important laws, they endorse the guy they might soon have to put in cuffs. Proud moment for the police then. I’m really disgusted if you can tell by this endorsement. I’m also disappointed. And yeah, I know there are listeners out there who have a deep hatred of the cops who will scoff at the idea that I’m disappointed, but I am because I expect a little more from the NYPD. I expect the police to, for instance, respect the law and respect those who express respect and not stand at a rally endorsing this president and cheer. When Rudy Giuliani articulates this as a job appropriate for the police, they’ve become really radicals who want to overthrow our way of life.

S5: That’s what they’re about. And you’re a part of it. You’re in the way you’re in the way of their being able to create a socialist government.

S3: That is a horrible thing to tell police. That is an absolutely unfathomable message to endorse that the police’s job should be to stand in the way of socialism, putting aside the exaggeration and the pejorative definition of socialism as a slur, if the American people vote for socialism or any other form of government or philosophy of government, it is absolutely not the job of the police to do or say a goddamn thing about it. The guardians of safety cannot be used to prevent democratically decided policies, especially ones that have nothing to do with crime and public safety. When politicians say they should, you know what we should call those politicians. I know Rudy Giuliani doesn’t like it because it was said of Muzz Lini, but it’s fascistic. It’s a terribly dangerous and irresponsible thing to do to say that the job of the police is to oppose a certain political philosophy. And it’s horrible. Even if that was said by a doddering, washed up, sad sack wannabe dictator, sorry to be literal and to take him seriously, but I just have to point out, it is unconscionable to allow that sentiment to be expressed to a crowd of New York police officers to say nothing of the fact that it was cheered on by a crowd of New York police officers in considering an endorsement of Donald Trump. You’d hope that some within the ranks of the NYPD would have had some foresight to see the message that it sends when the cop on the beat there was supposed to engender respect from all members of the community supports a lawless, malevolent force. It is a horrible statement that the police shouldn’t be making. And I also think it’s a violation of their oath because every police officer swears to support the Constitution of the United States. I think it’s a violation of the mission of the NYPD, which contains such sentiments as enhancing the quality of life, working in partnership with the community, preserving peace and reducing fear. This endorsement is a maddening dereliction of duty. On the show today and in fact, all week, it will be a different kind of just spiel less but very substantive. The DNC is this week and I will be featuring longish longer than usual interviews with different smart people, people who have a deep knowledge of politics and well-earned opinions about what the Democrats are doing and saying and what they should be doing on this the first day of the Democratic National Convention. Let us talk about Republicans or one time Republicans, the very voters that a Joe Biden candidacy is designed to appeal to people who once voted for Trump.

S2: Charlie Sykes is the host of the Bulwark podcast and the author of How the Right Lost Its Mind, a book that had the ultimate respect for because it had a subtitle here to speak to an agent moment when subtlety is lost, perhaps along with subtitles. Charlie Sykes.

S1: Charlie Sykes is the host of the Daily Bulwark podcast. Before then, for many years, he was as influential a guy in local radio as you get TMJ six twenty first in your heart, first on the dial up there in Milwaukee. He then became a never Trumper. He wrote how the right lost its mind. You have to listen to the BOAC podcast. It’s, I would say, the second best daily news and information podcast out there. Hello, Charlie, thanks for coming back on. Hey, thanks for having me on. So here we are. We’re on the. By the time this airs, maybe people will be listening to it in its MD convention and John Kasich will be talking. But do you think that switching the minds of 2016 Trump voters, is that the primary concern of this campaign in this convention?

S6: Oh, no. I think we we’ve been at this long enough to know that the hard Trump voters are just not going to move for any one or anything. But on the other hand, you know, you have two other jobs. Number one, you want to fire up your troops. You want to focus them on getting out the vote. And in the November election, which, of course, Trump is trying to make as difficult as possible, and then there are just a small sliver of voters who might be persuadable. You know, here in Wisconsin, I am here in Wisconsin, just north of the where the zombie convention is being held. There are probably maybe it’s not a huge number, maybe four percent of the electorate or so-called Biden Republicans. That’s a big number when you consider that Trump won by less than point eight percent four years ago. So that’s kind of the target audience of this. And also, here’s another thing. Guys like us, we pay attention all the time. And so Joe Biden is kind of old news to us. For a lot of people, this is a good chance for him to reintroduce himself. And I do think the Republicans have done him a favor by spending hundreds of millions of dollars convincing people that he’s completely senile. He’s going to get up there and he’s going to drool and babble. He stands up there and he’s coherent, maybe even eloquent, makes a cogent case. I think he helps himself.

S1: Yeah, no, that is exactly what I meant. By the way. I knew that you couldn’t reach the 33 percent of the people who are writing postcards from the fringe, as you sometimes say, but the persuadable, the handful of persuadable. And it strikes me that if this were a regular convention where it was to be run on all the different ways that a convention is run, which is we’ve got to get our people out, but we’ve also got to persuade this persuadable. And we have to maybe use it to make good with different parts of our constituencies. That would be one thing. And I know mostly that the more ideologically committed a liberal you are or to the Democratic Party or the more ideologically committed a conservative you are to the Republican Party, you also want those messages and to chime certain notes. But I’m wondering if you are thinking that the main purpose here is not to excite the base, is not to tell the Latino community that they are loved and valued. Is the main purpose here to tell people who maybe did vote for Trump but could vote for Biden? You’re safe with us. Is that the main purpose as you see it?

S6: I think so, yeah, exactly. You know, it’s not it’s not really fanservice for the the progressives. I mean, they’ve been watching MSNBC for the last four years. They don’t need another week of that. I think that there’s a certain permission structure that it’s OK to line up behind this particular ticket. I have no idea what this is going to look like. I really I mean, I’ve been to conventions. I’ve watched conventions my my whole life. This is going to be something completely different. So I don’t know that people are going to come out of here with their hair on fire, excited one way or another. I don’t even know who’s going to be watching this thing.

S1: Right. What’s out of here? You know, logging off for the night, I guess there is no here to be out of. It is interesting. This is the chance that the parties have. So you do what you can. And I agree with that. I do think that it is about persuasion. And as I talked to more liberal people, they don’t want to admit that because that to some extent, writes Bernie and Elizabeth Warren and the more progressive side of the Democratic. That writes them off a little bit, but I think winning the election is telling the white disaffected suburbanite or maybe former machinist in a place like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin that things are safe. And so is that more done by an act of commission or omission? Are there things we know what Joe Biden can say about I have your back, but are there things that the Democrats should stay away from so as not to repel these potential voters?

S6: Yeah, you’ve got to keep your crazy under wraps. The trumpet’s line has been these Democrats. They’re crazy. They’re in teeth with their hair on fire. They hate America. They want to destroy your way of life. They hate God. You come out and you look normal, you look empathetic. You look like America and you keep your crazy off in the corner. And it can be very, very reassuring to people, especially. I mean, if you have folks who are tuning in kind of wondering, you know, is this going to be like the nineteen seventy two convention all over again? No. And so to a certain extent, the Democrats are kind of locked out here with this virtual convention because there’s not a lot of opportunity for things to run off the rail. They’re not going to have any spontaneity whatsoever. The protests will be minor. So, yeah, I think they have a chance to both through commission and omission, establish the fact that, hey, we are the reasonable, decent guys, we have ideas and we’re not nuts.

S1: Yeah. And I even think that someone like Bernie Sanders knows how to make those noises and knows how to communicate in that way, which is really interesting.

S6: And I think we underestimate this because we’re so close to it. But I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about the 1968 Democratic Convention because I was there. So I’m going back to my father’s old notes and looking at the pictures and everything when the when the Democrats were 13. Right? I was. But the party was tearing itself apart. You had riots and everything. It’s impossible to imagine that the Democratic Party would be as united as it is right now. Now, now, maybe that’s just a surface unity. Maybe they’re going to tear each other apart in four years, whatever. I don’t know. But this is really has to be one of the takeaways. Speaking of things that are not happening, the Democrats are not at each other’s throats, even though there is a huge ideological divide here. Bernie’s behaving himself. Elizabeth Warren’s behaving himself. Pretty much everybody has, aren’t they?

S1: Yeah. Yeah. And I think that just like a hanging concentrates the mind, so does a second term of Trump. Now that you are never Trump or and you weren’t one of those like Jason Chaffetz or some of our elected officials who claim to be and then serve, as I say, let’s say chief of staff for Donald Trump after castigating him as famously occurred. If you had to articulate a couple of bedrock principles that makes you and never trump her and will keep you and never Trump or what are they?

S6: Well, I think you start with the man, Donald Trump, you know, that the the man is so manifestly unfit. And so it starts with that. And then it goes out to the the issues. But I mean, you here you’re talking about a con man, a serial liar, somebody with the emotional vocabulary of a nine year old, a a bully, a narcissist, somebody who is aggressively uninformed and and just just a nasty human being. I mean, so if you have any belief that character matters or that the president of the United States is a role model or that the United States should have some of the values of Americans, he’s disqualified. You know, there’s nothing about the way he has played out over the years that has surprised me. What should have surprised anybody? This is you know, this is this is one of the worst things that that we’ve that we’ve sort of burped up as a society and we decided to make him president, the United States. But then you layer on this the the fact that that he is the xenophobia, the racist, the racism, the treatment of of women, the way in which he he is the way he conducts himself, the that sort of soft novelty, soft. That’s not, I would say, dumbed down authoritarianism, which may not be dumbed down in a in a in a second term. I think that what he does is he also then exposes the shallowness of a lot of conservative politics. All the things that conservatives said they were for in push comes to shove. They’re willing to bow to the orange God king and surrender one principle after another, because for them, politics is really not about ideas. It turns out to be about cult of personality and about tribalism.

S1: This is interesting. So by conservatives bowing down to him, I think in your framing they expose themselves essentially as hypocrites. But what about the phenomenon in conservatives bowing down to him and keeping with them certain planks of their conservatism, you know? Tax cuts or maybe small government to the point of stupid government. What about it reflects poorly on how conservatism defined itself by rethinking Trump? Have you rethought some of the planks of conservatism?

S7: A lot of politics is being part of a group and you learn to trust other people and you feel that you have shared values. And then you wake up one day and find out that, well, wait, you didn’t know who your allies were. And apparently these values were much thinner on the ground than you actually thought. I think for me, the main thing has been to essentially say, look, let’s step out. It’s been liberating. The conservative movement has discredited itself by its alliance with Donald Trump. And then from that point to go, what do they write about this? Now, I’ve generally been in favor of low taxes, but then when they push through taxes at a point that it creates trillion dollar deficits, then they get the cognitive dissonance of saying, well, we’ll wait. How are we going to pay for that? Weren’t we supposed to be against deficit spending? Weren’t we supposed to worry about the debt sitting here in Wisconsin? Have you done a radio show? I probably did more than 100 hundred radio shows with Paul Ryan, one on one where we talked about the danger of the deficit and the debt and the debt crisis that’s coming. So you become speaker and presides over a trillion dollar a year deficit. So then you step back and go, OK, was that really important? Did you really believe that? Would you just care about that under certain circumstances? So I think that part of that is leading you to question all the things that had once been regarded as dogmas or anything else.

S3: Gay rights, gun rights, abortion law.

S7: I’ve never been an ideologue when it comes to most of those things. I am pro-life, Obama said. And to set that aside, gun rights administered point with the NRA for years. They, I think, were pretty good indication of what was happening on the right, the this grifter movement, the loudest voice, the bully at the end of the bar that forces you to be against every reasonable idea. So I think I’ve probably been a heretic on that issue for some time. I’ve never had a problem with with gay rights. So that was never that never seemed to me to be a fundamental issue on the right to life. Yeah, I am where I am on the right to life. But my main concern right now is that by align itself so close to Trump ism, that whole movement will discredit itself for a generation. How can you be a pro-life movement that then embraces a man who puts children in cages and who is clearly, clearly lacks basic human empathy? So I think on just on the basis of tactics, I think this is one of those bargains that the pro-life movement has made that will not age well.

S1: So first of all, being at sword point with the NRA, that is the right tactic. Otherwise you’re playing on their turf. So you chose the right weapon for that. But second of all, I I have interviewed Max Boot and David Frum and you and a bunch of people. And it seems like there are generally two different ways that the never Trump is go. And one is more of someone like Steve Schmidt probably says he’d love a chance to run different self-identified Republicans with the right values John McCain values for office, whereas others, like Max Boot is the epitome of this, said, you know, leaving that ideological bubble made the scales fall from his eyes. And he’s really rethought a whole raft of issues. Now, probably we’re all somewhere in between. But who do you think you’re closer to?

S8: I have tremendous respect for these guys and I understand exactly what they are saying. I mean, I really do, but I’m not quite there yet. Just simply because Donald Trump comes into office doesn’t mean that everything we believed about everything else is wrong. I think there’s a place for a healthy conservative movement in this country, a movement that is skeptical of the power of government to solve every single problem, skeptical of bureaucracy opposed to certain elements of class war. And then again, I agree with a lot of what they’re saying. But I do think that you’re going to see one would hope that if Joe Biden is elected, that there is a center right. I won’t say opposition, but a center right critique that will say, OK, we may share the same goals, but here are some different ways of achieving them. Look, the the the difference between traditional conservatism and the left, these ideas are not discredited by Donald Trump. But I do like the line you quoted from Max Boot. The scales do kind of fall from your eyes and you can look at them fresh. And I hope that we will we will have fresh eyes and not simply be reactionary. My prediction is what’s going to happen is the Republican Party will reunite itself because it will be where it really wants to be, which is in opposition. It loves being reactionary. And that’s what it does best.

S3: I mean, that’s what it does at. All I think they have almost no governing instinct, desire and ability, it would seem well, and this may be misunderstood.

S1: Look, let me just say Charlie Baker. Charlie Baker does and Larry Hogan does. And I’m talking about on the national level, Mitch McConnell and those of his cronies.

S7: Yeah, yeah. But there’s a distinction between wanting to defeat your enemies and have power on the one hand, and the actual business of governing, because the business of governing is hard work. And I don’t think that there is a an established governing philosophy on the right, which is in this pops up again and again and again in many ways personified by Donald Trump, the complete lack of interest or knowledge about the details of public policy, the inability to actually handle crises or to develop responses. This, unfortunately, is very trumping. But it also reflects something that had been going on in the Republican Party for a very, very long time. Look, there’s a reason why the Republican Party rejected Paul Ryan and decided it wanted to go with Donald Trump. Paul Ryan, well, you may disagree with him, but actually was interested in public policy. Donald Trump has no interest in public policy whatsoever. And I think that put him in line with his base campaigning and politicking.

S1: I don’t know how much Democrats can articulate policies that will excite maybe a moderate Republican or someone who still identifies as a Republican, but maybe the Lincoln project can or is that mostly inside the Beltway positioning where the real purpose is just to agitate one man in America? Or do you think the Lincoln Project can actually get out there and do some messaging that can affect the election?

S7: I think the Lincoln Project, I think they’re working on two tracks. One is the inside the Beltway track, which is really inside Donald Trump’s head track. They’re doing that to him. That’s number one.

S6: Number two, though, I do think they understand how voters outside of the Democratic bubble might think about some of these issues. And so they have a unique ability to go after Trump. And I think Trump, one of the reasons why the Trump is hate them so much is they they understand how to exploit vulnerabilities among some of those soft voters. The other group that’s out there, Republican voters against Trump in many ways is even more effective. I don’t know if you’ve seen these these are these testimonial ads. They’re not polished or anything. They’re just basically people, you know, in their in their living rooms who’ve recorded videos saying, I’m a Republican, I’m a conservative. I may have even voted for Donald Trump four years ago. This is why I can’t stand the idea of voting for him again. And those are specifically aimed at that small cohort of voters that might just be enough to flip places like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

S1: So you wrote a piece in the bulwark, burn it all down, and you were advising, not just voting against Trump for all the reasons you articulated, but voting against all his, as you say, Senate enablers, which is to say, moderate Republicans like Susan Collins and Gardner of Colorado. Now, there is a counterargument with, OK, if that happens, how does it advance the cause? All the Republican Party will be is essentially a rump faction, if you remember that. And I was thinking to myself, well, here’s Charlie. He works for the bulwark. He’s writing and evoking rump factions. Maybe he’s just into 19th century political terms. Why, from your perspective, is burning it all down better for the advancement of the ideology in this interview talked about, hey, I hope there’s going to be a center right critique. Won’t that cut the very idea of any center right impetus off at the knees?

S7: Yeah, let me mix my metaphors a little bit in terms of of of burning it all down, because, like, right now I think we’re in a state of emergency. It’s like your house is on fire. You put the fire out, you worry about redecorating later. OK, that’s what I’m saying. But burn it all down is that look, we need to break this thing and it’s not enough just to beat Donald Trump. You have to beat the Trump enablers, the Trump butt kissers, because that’s part of the story as well in a lot of ways. And I think that it might be the worst thing that happened in four years. It’s not the actions of Donald Trump. It’s watching all of the Republicans fall over for him, acquiesce to him, you know, decide that they are going to move the goalposts again and again and again. And so I think it’s naive to think that that you’re going to ever be able to have the Republican Party cleanse itself without actually cleansing itself, not look a little bit. A lot of people who push back and said, well, you know, burning it all down is not a conservative value. You can’t just burn it. And I suppose I was reacting to some other things that people had written. But what I’m really saying is that at this point, you have to hold. Applicants who failed to uphold their constitutional vows, you need to hold them accountable. You need to hold the senators who look the other way while these constitutional norms were being eroded. You need to vote them out of office. And I think that is a fundamentally conservative idea. Now, to your point about the rump, is that let’s say that the Susan Collins is are shoved aside. Does that mean that the Republican Party, that that remains, which in it will remain will just be even more Trumpy? Yeah, that’s actually a that’s a strong argument. But look, there’s also the reality factor that if the Republicans lose this year, they’re looking at 40 years in the wilderness or just on the basis of demographics. You know, they had a chance to eke out some victories for a short time. But a national political party that alienates women, young people, African-Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans is not going to be a successful national party. And at some point they’re going to have to confront that. So the only possible way that they are going to begin to confront a lot of these issues is you start with the defeat and then you move from there. I can’t tell you what’s going to happen a year from now because I can’t tell you what’s going to happen a week from now. But at this point, I think all the people who enabled this need to be held accountable.

S1: I like having you on the bulwark. I’m glad that you’re doing this national podcast. It’s to my interest, but I think back on the show that you had been doing for many years, and I wonder if you wonder couple of things. One, A, do you miss having the connection to actual voters, maybe some people who agree with you, maybe some people, if you come out as a never Trumper who don’t? I mean, you often on your show will talk about how many calls you would get of a certain sentiment and that changed your mind and convinced you that that sentiment was out there. So that’s useful. And that’s, I think, interesting. In the second part of this question and excuse the two parter is how do you think you’d run that show if you had it still, if it was essentially, you know, a conservative radio station and you had established this brand as a conservative, but also you were never Trumper and you’d maybe be in a position to have to argue with your audience constantly so you could take either of those bits of reflection.

S9: I done this job for twenty three years and had this really close connection with the audience. And, you know, people talk about why you were influential. And the real key there, though, was you built trust with the listener. You were there for them every day. You were in their heads. They knew you, you knew them. And then, of course, came along. Donald Trump, in this transformation, I don’t think I could have made it. And then they let me tell you why I I think it’s part of the transformation of of the conservative media. We had gone from being the other side of the story, the alternative voice to being the alternative reality silo. And increasingly, people on the right look to conservative media to be a safe space for them. They didn’t want to have their ideas challenge. They didn’t want to have somebody within the tent who was telling them inconvenient truths about about their presidential candidate. So there was a real anger. Now, he didn’t peak until after I left. I mean, I had planned to leave earlier in the year, so I stayed till about the middle of December of 2016. And then I think there was still a lot of goodwill there. But if it had gone into twenty seventeen, I think it would have been a brutal slog. And you look around the country and there are just not a lot of Trump’s skeptical people in conservative broadcast, not necessarily conservative media, but there are many conservative talk show hosts who are anti Trump. I can count them on one hand. And I think part of it is there’s no business model for that anymore because the audience will not tolerate it any longer. So one by one here in Wisconsin, and when we beat Donald Trump here in Wisconsin, I was very anti Trump, but there were six other conservative talk show hosts. Every one of them was anti Trump. Today, they either off the air or they have become Trump cheerleaders because that’s the way the medium and the audience has gone. So I don’t miss it. Yeah, I’m wanting to.

S1: Yes, the button. I almost denied you the button on that. Charlie Sykes is the founder and editor at large of the BOAC, where he hosts Every Day the BOAC podcast. Thanks so much, Charlie.

S2: My pleasure. And that’s it for Today Show that just was produced by the Shrader, Margaret Kelly, the executive producer of Sleep podcast, Alicia Montgomery. But it’s not just them. Many, many others are here today.

S10: In this crowd is our family members to the ones that worry what happens when their loved one takes that last step off the stoop and goes to work?

S2: The just your repository of stupe related platitudes since 2014 and proved that Peruggia, Peru. And thanks for listening.