All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2017 - The Ben Shapiro Show
26:20
Ep. 275 - Can Everybody Stop Lying For 30 Seconds, Please?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Media reports from the British press in the aftermath of Wednesday's truck and knife attack on Parliament, resulting in the death of at least four people and catastrophic injuries to more than a dozen more, have focused in on the identity of the perpetrator in vague terms.
We knew, according to The Telegraph, that the attacker was described by witnesses as, quote, an Asian guy in about his 40s carrying a knife about seven or eight inches long.
The Daily Star of the UK called the suspect a black or Asian man who was spotted running with an eight-inch knife.
The Daily Mirror called him, quote, reportedly Asian in appearance.
The picture of the suspect shows that he is, in fact, some guy from the Middle East or Pakistan.
In America, Asian has a different connotation than it does in the British press.
It generally means people of Pakistani or Indian descent, not people from Southeast Asia, as it does in the United States.
It's also often a cover for Islamic background.
The press will generally avoid talking about the religion of a suspect in favor of focusing in on ethnicity, and then they will broaden out the ethnic label to include people who aren't Pakistani in order to create the impression that the Pakistani perpetrator might not be a Muslim.
In May 2012, the BBC reported that groups representing Sikhs and Hindus complained to the media about the use of the term Asian to apply to nine Pakistani suspects erected for grooming girls for sex.
The network of Sikh organizations, UK, the Hindu Forum of Britain, the Sikh Media Monitoring Group, UK, accused the media Of unwillingness to mention the, quote, disproportionate representation of Muslims in such cases, and the non-Muslim identities of the victims, calling the Asian label, quote, unfair to other communities of Asian responsibility, adding, quote, we believe that in this case, the government itself is sanctioning the use of the term Asian as a way of clouding responsibility.
The same pattern held true in reporting of the Rotherham incident, where British authorities, fearful of supposed backlash, held back on investigations into a serious upsurge in rape and child sex slavery involving Muslim men.
Up to 1,400 children were involved.
The police filed a report in 2010 openly mentioning, quote, a problem with networks of Asian offenders, both locally and nationally, and stated that the crimes were related to culture.
From 1997 to 2013, the crimes were under police and underreported.
This is how media and government turn individual criminal issues into actual tribal conflicts.
By refusing to hold everyone to the same standard, refusing to acknowledge that not all cultures are equally compatible with Western standards of decency, and instead using ethnic descriptors rather than ideological ones, the media and authorities actually drives xenophobia rather than alleviating it, as well as sweeping up innocent people in the net.
Sikhs and Hindus do not deserve to be placed in the same risk category as radical Muslims with regard to terrorism.
Attempting to protect moderate Muslims by ignoring all ideological leanings whatsoever is stupid.
And using the overbroad ethnic descriptor Asian, pretending that Indians and Pakistanis are part of the same ethnic group for purposes of avoiding ideological conclusion jumping is purposeful obfuscation of accuracy.
Maybe the terrorist isn't Muslim.
We now know that he is.
That would have been possible.
But it's not fine to give the public misleading information on the grounds that they might jump to conclusions suggested by probabilistic thinking and then lump in innocent people in the process.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Okay, I'm gonna be spitting some hot fire today because there's a lot of lying going on.
I'm gonna debunk all of it because it's really maddening.
It's really making me upset.
I'm very sick of it.
I am annoyed.
I am frustrated.
Everyone is lying.
They're all lying to you and it is making me sick to my stomach and so we are going to put an end to that today when we discuss the truth about what's happening on this Trump-Russia stuff and on the wiretapping stuff and on all the rest of it on Trumpcare.
So many lies, so little time, so much to get to.
But first, we have to say thank you to our advertisers over at Wink.
If you are somebody who knows nothing about wine, like me, if you're somebody who would buy just a bottle of grape juice that is fermented too long and think that that was wine, number one, you don't know anything about wine.
Number two, you need to actually go to trywink.com slash Ben because you're going over to somebody's house and now you need to bring a decent bottle of wine and that old bottle of Ketam ain't gonna do it.
So you need something that's actually going to go with the food.
You go to trywink.com and they ask you what your tastes are like, what kind of flavors you like, and then they personalize a bottle to you.
They tell you what bottle you will like.
All the bottles of wine are cheap.
Our staff has tried them.
They say that the wine is really, really top-notch, which is why they're always drunk.
Trywink.com.
You get $20 off plus complimentary shipping when you trywink.com.
Slash Ben, and it's W-I-N-C.
It used to be Club W. It's W-I-N-C, Wink.com slash Ben.
And again, the bottles are not random.
They are personalized to your palate.
And you can rate the wine that you choose so that they won't send you the same bottle.
Again, if you don't like the wine, they will replace it with a bottle that you like.
No questions asked.
100% satisfaction guarantee.
Try Wink.com slash Ben.
They cover the shipping for $20 off right now, which could be like two bottles.
So that's a pretty solid deal.
Try wink.com slash been terrific service, particularly if you're ignorant about what wines are good.
Okay, so, so as I say, lots of lying going on, many a lie from all sides, and it's making me want to vomit.
So let's begin with the biggest lie told by the media last night, that Donald Trump is on the verge of impeachment.
All is over.
Donald Trump, they found the silver bullet.
Anderson Cooper, Anderson Cooper is on CNN and he says, we have new information.
What is that new information?
Well, we now know that the FBI may or may not have information that Donald Trump's team was coordinating with the Russians in order to release info on Hillary Clinton during the campaign.
Here is the Silver Fox, Anderson Cooper.
She has Pamela Brown and Evan Perez joining us now.
They broke the story along with our justice reporter, Shimon Prokopez.
Pam, first, what are you learning?
Well, Anderson, the FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, U.S.
officials told us.
FBI Director James Comey made his bombshell announcement, as you'll recall, Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.
So the FBI is now reviewing this information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records, as well as accounts of in-person meetings according to the official we spoke all this sounds pretty damning right this sounds like ooh the FBI has the material that's gonna get Trump his associates were working with the Ruskies and they were going to take down Hillary Clinton Adam Schiff the demo ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee he comes forward and he says basically the same thing but you admit it's a circum all you have right now is a circumstantial case
actually no Chuck I I can tell you that the case is more than that.
And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.
So, again, I think... So you have seen direct evidence of collusion?
I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation.
Okay, this is rumor mongering, rumor mongering.
Here's what the CNN report actually said.
The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Okay, so in the first sentence you have three qualifying words.
Indicates, suspected, and possibly.
And then when you read down to, of course, paragraph nine or 10 in the article, quote, one law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready.
But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial.
So no, Adam Schiff, apparently the information is largely circumstantial, according to other U.S.
officials.
So they got one person saying it's not circumstantial, a bunch of people saying it is circumstantial, and the entire media running with it, Trump is on the ropes!
It's all over!
Okay, no, it's not.
Come on, cut it out.
Okay, so that is side one, exaggerating the case, or lying, or making the case out to be ironclad, when it simply is not.
Then, on the other side, we have a bunch of people saying that Trump has been vindicated in his wiretapping claims.
So.
No, he hasn't.
No, he hasn't.
Okay, I'm just being honest here.
If you don't want honesty, there are plenty of other places that will tell you that Trump is the most vindicated person who has ever lived and all is well and all this crap.
Okay, here is what Trump actually said.
Trump said that like McCarthy, like McCarthy, there was purposeful wiretapping of Trump Tower.
And I'm not even going to be specific.
I'm not even going to say that it was wiretapping of Trump Tower specifically.
We'll make the claim a little broader.
We'll say that Trump said that Obama directed surveillance at him.
We'll make it even broader than that.
Trump said that Obama intelligence officials directed surveillance at him and his officials.
Okay, that's what we will say.
Now, is there any evidence of that whatsoever?
No, there isn't any evidence of that whatsoever.
Okay?
All the evidence suggests, so far, that if there were Trump associates who were caught up in the quote-unquote surveillance, they were caught up incidentally.
Meaning, we don't have any FISA warrants that we know about, other than I think one report in like Heat Street or something.
There are no FISA warrants that we know about that were actually directed at U.S.
citizens on this one.
There's no FISA warrant that went out on Mike Flynn, for example.
There's no FISA warrant as far as we know.
There was no direct surveillance of these people.
Now, does that mean that there was no surveillance of these people?
No, that there was surveillance of these people in the same way that, for example, you wouldn't say that the cops were targeting you if they were staking out a drug den and you were a client.
Okay, they weren't targeting you.
They were targeting the drug den, and you were a client.
Okay, this is the same thing that's happening here.
They were targeting the Russians, and the Russians were talking with Trump people, and some of the Trump people were on the line with the Russians.
That is not the same thing as what Trump was claiming, which was, Obama basically put a team on me and my friends, and then he was attempting to gather information on us so that he could release it and take us down.
Okay, that's not true.
So, it doesn't matter.
People have gotten into this business and it's driving me absolutely up a wall, up a freaking wall, okay?
The left did it during the Michael Brown-Darren Wilson scenario, where they claimed, hands up, don't shoot.
And people like me said, that never happened.
And the left said, ah, you're right, it never happened, but the facts may not be true, but the narrative is true.
And we'd say, what the hell does that mean?
Why don't you show me some facts, generating a narrative, and then we'll determine if it's true.
You can't just say the narrative is true without any facts to back it up.
The right is now doing a lot of the same stuff on Trump's surveillance claims.
So, it is true, factually speaking, that there were people who are in the Trump team who were caught up in the surveillance net that was directed at people who are not the Trump team.
Okay, that is true.
You don't have to draw a narrative from it.
Okay, that's just a fact.
What is not true is when you take Trump's original claim that he was purposefully wiretapped by Obama, and then you broaden it out to not only include Trump, but also his team, and then you broaden it out to also include incidental collection of information, and then you claim Trump is vindicated.
That's a bunch of horse crap.
Okay, so...
Here's what Devin Nunes said yesterday.
We're going to go through this in detail because I think it is important to debunk things that are not true.
I still care about things like truth, even if they don't benefit my side, quote-unquote.
Okay, here is Devin Nunes.
He starts off by saying, this is his big announcement that was supposedly earth-shattering yesterday.
He is the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.
And he had just gone to the White House and met with Trump on this.
I was concerned that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates.
So first, I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S.
citizens involved in the Trump transition.
Details about U.S.
persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value, were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.
And fourth, and finally, I want to be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities, or of the Trump team.
Okay, so, here's the important part.
So, we'll get to the wiretapping part, the leaks part in a second, because Nunes is right on the leaks.
That is the most important part of what is happening in all of this.
I agree with that.
Because again, there is no hard information that one, Obama directed wiretapping at Trump, or two, that Trump is in the pocket of the Russians.
But what we do know with 100% certitude is that Obama intelligence officials were leaking information to the press.
That is a crime, okay, and those people need to be tracked down and prosecuted because Regardless of how they got the information on Mike Flynn being on the phone with Sergey Kislyak or whatever his name is, they were not supposed to release that.
That is illegal.
So the last part of what he's saying is not the controversial part.
It's the first part.
What did he say?
Here is what he exactly said again.
The intelligence community incidentally collected information about US citizens involved in the Trump transition.
Incidentally.
Okay, so for all the people claiming that this vindicates Trump, no, incidentally means the drug deal I was talking about before.
Incidentally means that they were listening to the Russians, and some Trump people were on the other end of the line.
That is not the same thing as what Trump claimed.
And to pretend that it is, is to be dishonest.
Okay, and then, it is clarified, okay, a reporter says, were these communications picked up at Trump Tower?
Was any of this, that sort of, uh, these communications, were they picked up at Trump Tower?
Uh, we don't know that yet.
That's why we need to get the information.
Okay, and then he is asked specifically, was Trump targeted or was this just incidental collection of information?
Was he just on the other line?
Was the president also part of that incidental collection?
His communications?
Yes.
They were?
Yes.
Let me just clarify.
The President of the United States' personal communications were intercepted.
I think we have to, yeah, I think what we have to, it's very, when we talk about intelligence products here, we got to be very careful.
From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection.
Stop it there.
Incidental collection.
Okay.
Clip four.
Are you concerned that the surveillance was done illegally?
Was there anything illegal here?
Here's Nunez.
Are you concerned that any of the surveillance was done illegally or it was incidental but a legal warrant?
Yeah, that's a really good question.
So, I believe it was all done legally.
Stop it there.
Again, that's not what Trump is claiming.
Trump is claiming that he was illegally surveilled.
That's what he says.
Okay, so again, is this great stuff?
No.
But are you claiming the intelligence community is doing things that they're not doing?
If Trump is doing that, that's bad.
It's just mind-boggling to me that people are willing to overlook basic truth because they want a political agenda to win here.
I hate this.
Trump could have easily made the case that the leaks that are coming out of the Obama apparatus are the problem.
That was the case that Mark Levin made.
Mark Levin was right.
The case that Trump has made is not that, because Trump reads the headline, assumes what he wants to assume, and then determines that it's true based on his gut that day.
He basically said that today in an interview with Time, which I'm going to get to in a second.
Again, just more fibs.
Okay.
Continues.
He has now asked Devin Nunez, the House Intel Chair, he has asked about whether the President's conversation appeared in intelligence reports.
Mr. Chairman, was the President's conversations or anything about the President appearing in intelligence reports?
Is that what you're saying?
I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the president-elect and his team were, I guess, at least monitored and disseminated out in intelligence.
And what appears to be raw, or I shouldn't say raw, but intelligence reporting channels.
Nunes is not being exact in his language here.
It's annoying.
When he says his teamwork was monitored, people are latching onto that to say, Ooh, that means that Trump was right.
He was surveilled.
Except that Nunes said a half dozen times in this press conference that it was the Russians or whoever was on the other... He doesn't even say it was the Russians.
He says it was whoever on the other end of the line was being surveilled.
And Trump was caught up incidentally.
He said that a thousand times.
We've just played it, him doing it a bunch of times in a row.
Okay?
And the weirdest part is that Nunes actually said it has nothing to do with the Russian investigations.
Also, all of this was happening between the election and Trump's inauguration.
Okay, so in other words, Trump claims he was wiretapped in October purposefully by Obama.
Not one element of that has been verified.
Okay, not one element of that has been verified.
It just hasn't.
Again, does that mean that the leaks are okay?
No, the leaks are terrible.
And that's why it's so stupid that everybody on the left keeps denying that the leaks are bad and everybody on the right keeps saying Trump was right.
No, none of- all of it's crap.
All of it's crap, all of it's crap.
And then, finally, Núñez is asked, this morning he was asked, actually, if he got all of this information from the White House, because he apparently went to the White House and gave them the information before he gave the Intelligence Committee all this new information, supposedly, that he's breaking, this Clip 16, and he won't answer the question.
Over the course of this investigation, we've had many sources who have come to this committee.
And as you can imagine, many don't want you to know, they don't want anyone to know who they are.
And I think you guys in the press understand this.
You have your own sources.
But there's suspicion that this was engineered by the Trump administration to muddy the waters, give them some political cover.
Yeah, look, I came out here and briefed you guys yesterday.
I said, this is what I'm going to go do so that you knew.
The president didn't invite me over.
I called down there and invited myself because I thought he needed to understand what I saw and that he needed to try to get that information because he has every right to see it.
Adam Schiff responds to this and he says, look, this is, you don't get to not tell the rest of the intel committee and then just go coordinate with the president on something that is currently at issue in investigation.
And I hate to say this, but Adam Schiff is not entirely incorrect here.
Adam Schiff, Democratic California.
And I can't stand Adam Schiff, but everybody's lying.
It's the worst.
Okay.
It's really impossible for us to evaluate any of the merits of what the chairman has said.
But I can say this.
The chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct, which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House, because he cannot do both.
They're saying, oh, how dare Schiff go after Nunez for all of this?
Okay, you know what?
Okay, see this?
I don't have my shoe with me.
This is the shoe.
Put it on the other foot.
You see this shoe?
Put it on the other foot.
Let's pretend for a second that there was some independent investigation of Barack Obama going on.
Okay?
And Barack Obama made an allegation that Republicans were targeting him.
Okay?
And the head of the investigation into that thing then went to the White House without telling the other Republican members of the committee, briefed the President on all that stuff, and then came back with a bunch of talking points that helped the President.
Would you be okay with that?
I wouldn't be okay with that.
Everybody needs to stop with this crap.
What is true is true.
What is false is false.
And when people claim- Now Trump is claiming he's vindicated.
He's not vindicated!
Okay, Trump is claiming vindication on something where he's not vindicated.
And I'll explain why this matters in a second, and it's not just all talk and jabber.
Okay?
Here's Trump saying he was vindicated.
I somewhat do.
I must tell you, I somewhat do.
I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found, but I somewhat do.
I somewhat do.
Okay, well, of course he feels vindicated, because anything that provides him any fig leaf under which to hide makes him feel vindicated.
Now, I'm going to explain in a second why all this matters, and why it's not just a bunch of jabber, and why I think there is something that is deep at stake that I don't like, okay?
But first, I want to say thank you to our advertisers over at Zeel.
So, zeel.com, promo code Ben, will get you 25 bucks off a massage.
Zeal.com, I need one right now.
Everybody in my family has used Zeal.
Zeal is fantastic.
You schedule a massage for your house.
They do a background check on you to make sure that you're not some sort of creeper.
But the people who come and give you the massage, they're all professionally licensed masseuses.
We've had four or five different masseuses actually do massages on people in my family.
I'm My sister has gotten a massage through Zeal.
I think two actually through Zeal.
My father has had one.
I've had one.
My wife has had one.
My mother-in-law has had one.
Zeal is a fantastic service.
And again, not only is it cheaper than having to go to a spa, it also means you don't have to wait in line at a spa.
You actually get to schedule it at your house.
They bring all the materials.
They bring the table.
They bring the soothing music.
The whole deal.
And it is just an excellent service.
One of the things that I like to say is that in life there are certain things that just make you feel rich even if you're not and ZEEL is one of those things.
ZEEL is one of the things that will make you feel not only rich but healthier after you use it.
To start off right now you go to ZEEL.com.
Make sure to click add promo code at checkout and use my name Ben.
You get 25 bucks off your first massage by doing that.
It's a pretty solid deal.
ZEEL.com.
ZEEL.com.
Promo code Ben.
And you can use their iPhone or Android app and you get that special offer with promo code Ben.
That also lets them know that we sent you as a thank you to them.
Okay, so the reason that all of this is important, and then I have to go to another set of lies on Trumpcare that Democrats are telling.
The reason all this is important is because, unfortunately, President Trump has an extraordinarily casual relationship with the truth.
That's not good for a Republican president.
If you want him to succeed, he needs to have a certain level of public trust.
And that level of public trust can only, only be built if he says true things.
I did an interview with Time Magazine, did President Trump today, and this interview is just, it's just awful, okay?
Again, I have a very consistent standard here.
When people tell the truth, I like it.
When people lie, when they obfuscate, I don't.
So, Trump, honest to God, the man treats the truth like a whore.
He treats the truth like a whore, and he leaves some money on the bedside stand in pursuit of his actual goal, which is power.
And you may like the things that he does with that, but let's not pretend that truth is not truth.
Democrats do the same thing.
I don't want to pretend that this is solely Trump, okay?
Democrats do the same thing, politicians do it all the time, but he's supposed to be somebody who represents me and represents the American people, and he's instead pursuing Whatever idiocy comes into his mind at a given time.
I'm really angry about this because it's undermining what could be a great agenda.
It's undermining what could be great policies.
It's undermining true things that need to be said because he can't keep his mouth shut.
It's really frustrating.
It's really frustrating.
So two things.
One, Trump, number one, will say things that are just blatantly untrue and then he will defend them all the way down the line.
And two, Trump mistakes predicting things for saying true things.
Those are not the same thing.
Okay, they're not the same thing.
Donald Trump, for example, says things like, I was totally right about Brexit.
Okay, he did.
He predicted Brexit in March 2016.
Congratulations.
Does that mean that he said true things about Ted Cruz's father?
No, it doesn't mean he's a truth-telling person.
It means that he made a good prediction on Brexit.
Okay, bookies do it all the time.
Would you trust a bookie to take care of your kids at night?
Okay, not the same thing.
Just because you predict things, and I shouldn't say all things, you predict some things correctly, that does not mean that you are a trustworthy person.
And the reason that I say this is because in this interview, Trump says he's a very instinctual person, but my instinct turns out to be right.
So he just says things without any sort of verification.
Number one, he says, he was asked about the Obama wiretap Trump Tower comments.
He said, we will see what happens.
Look, I predicted a lot of things that took a little bit of time.
Okay, that was not a prediction.
That was a claim of fact about what has already happened.
Okay, if I say that the War of 1812 was not engaged in 1812, that's not a prediction, that's a misstatement of fact.
If I say the Civil War didn't happen between the North and the South in America, my answer to that cannot be afterward, well, you know, eventually I'll be proved right.
No.
No.
It's just not true.
He's supposed to know.
He's the president.
He still says in this interview that he'll be proved right about his unsubstantiated claim of 3 million undocumented votes in the 2016 election.
No, you don't have any evidence of that, and you claimed that it happened, so you have to provide evidence of that.
I like evidence.
I like facts.
Don't tell me that the narrative is true and the facts are false.
It's a bunch of crap.
He justified, again, the Ted Cruz- again!
Okay, a year after it happened, the Ted Cruz's father murdered JFK garbage.
He called the- he said that- he said, quote, that was in a newspaper.
That was in a newspaper!
Number one, it was in the National Enquirer.
Number two, so the hell what?
You're the one who keeps saying that the news is fake news and you can't trust what you read in the newspaper, unless apparently it's the National Enquirer.
In the same interview, he calls the Wall Street Journal fake news.
So just to get this straight, the National Enquirer is real news, but the Wall Street Journal is fake news.
And when he's asked about his accusations that British intelligence was complicit in wiretapping him, he goes, why do you say I have to apologize?
I'm just quoting the newspaper.
Just like I quoted the judge the other day, Judge Napolitano.
You're the president.
You can pick up the phone and find out whether this is true.
Don't we have some responsibility to the truth?
And look, this is not about hurting Trump.
The minute he starts doing good things, I'm more than happy to praise him.
I want, I want to praise him.
Okay?
I want the president to do good things so I can praise him.
But I'm not going to praise him lying just because it benefits my side.
That's a bunch of horse manure.
And people who do that are complicit in destroying their own credibility and the credibility of politics.
We cannot have conversations with each other if all we do is say the facts don't matter, all that matters is my narrative.
If that's the case, the facts don't matter at all, and we cannot have a conversation in this lightest.
Okay.
With that rant done, I now want to move on to Trumpcare and where that is, because that is still moving along and there's a lot of controversy over where that's going, and a big lie that is currently happening from the left on Trumpcare.
We'll talk about that in just a second, but for that you have to go over to DailyWire.com and become a subscriber.
DailyWire.com, $8 a month, get you a subscription.
If you want an annual subscription over at DailyWire, then you can get a free signed copy of Reasons to Vote Democrat, a comprehensive guide by our very own Michael Mulls.
Brilliant, thorough piece of literature on why to vote Democrat.
And Amazon Best Seller.
Sold tens of thousands of copies.
The dude's getting rich off of it, which is shocking.
But in any case, dailywire.com.
You can get a free copy.
It's a lot of fun.
$8 a month, and annual subscribers get that copy of that book.
If you just want to listen to the rest of the show a little bit later, you go over to iTunes or SoundCloud, and you can check out the show over there.
Leave a review at iTunes.
We do appreciate it.
▲
Export Selection