All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2025 - Lionel Nation
01:12:19
The Clinton Crime Family EXPOSED—Why No One’s in Jail Yet Is the Real Scandal | Charles Ortel
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Did you know that 97% of Americans are deficient in omega-3s?
While omega-3s are often correlated with fish and fish oil, we here at Assent Nutrition uniquely water extract our omega-3s from algae, the source of omega-3s.
For a limited time, try Assent Nutrition's algae oil DHA at goascentnutrition.com and use discount code SUMMER10 for 10% off.
That's Summerten for 10% off at goascentnutrition.com.
And my friend, we're talking again to our friend, the inimitable, the ineffable, the ineluctable and not ineluctable, Mr. Charles Orgel.
Charles, welcome back, my friend, to the show that never ends.
It's a pleasure to be with you.
Let us talk about you pick up whatever area you find the most fascinating, the most critical.
What's on your mind, sir?
When you and I first started talking, we were talking primarily about the Clinton Foundation, and we were talking at a time when I did not trust James Comey, the head of the FBI.
I just didn't trust him.
But I had no idea just how crooked the FBI management seems to have been and may still be.
With the recent revelation by Chuck Grassley through whistleblowers, that the main system when the FBI does investigations is called Sentinel.
And you're supposed to, when you do an FBI investigation, all the evidence that you find, you're supposed to put into Sentinel.
And now it's emerged through whistleblowers that the practice of the FBI under James Comey and maybe others was to not do that, to have in certain politically sensitive investigations, to bury the evidence, to put it in a special pocket where nobody other than the very senior people or the people who had a need to know at the FBI could see this information,
which means that when Freedom of Information Act requests were filed and or in criminal matters when defendants had a right to see potentially exculpatory evidence, they couldn't see it.
And this is over perhaps a long period of time, maybe even decades.
So when I hear that, and I see what I see in the Clinton Foundation files, that with great glee in 2023, a fellow at the New York Times wrote an article saying, well, see, they closed the last investigation that began in either 2015 or 16 into the Clinton Foundation.
They closed it in the waning days of the first Donald Trump administration in January of 2021.
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas closed the investigation, declining prosecution.
And it's a very short entry of the fourth part.
It's, I don't know how many pages, less than 15, and with the notation that all the evidence should be destroyed, that there was nothing really serious.
This is for an investigation that lasted, let's say from January of 2016 to January of 2021.
There's only like 14 pages in the FBI call on that investigation.
And I call mega BS on that.
I mean, the investigation that launched should have gone all the way back into the period 2001 to 2005 to ask why the first Clinton Foundation investigation didn't see obvious fraud.
And why didn't they connect the dots to the mysterious disappearance of John Glasgow, who was the chief financial officer of the entity, the joint venture entity that was responsible for constructing the Clinton Foundation complex out there in Little Rock.
He disappears January, I think, 29th, 2008, roughly 18 days, 19 days following the issuance, the late issuance, past the final filing deadline of the audit for the Clinton Foundation.
Is he still missing?
He's presumed dead.
And he was an accountant.
He started out at the very same firm that audited the Clinton Foundation and the city of Little Rock and many other places inside Arkansas.
This guy, on January 9th, 2008, around then, there was a series of meetings in the public record where angry meetings where this guy was, he was responsible for figuring out, he worked for, he was the CFO of a joint venture between Dillard's retail stores and the Clark family, a prominent family in Arkansas.
They had a construction operation that was initially formed to build out Dillard's stores, of which there are many.
And then beyond that, it started getting big business.
The biggest project it ever had at the time was the Clinton Foundation complex, building it in Little Rock.
And the accounting for that is diabolically wrong.
It is not in the Clinton Foundation financial statements.
I can tell you, I'm not an accountant, but I've hired and fired many accountants.
And I know enough accounting to know that the accounting for the Clinton Foundation is wrong.
It's just, it's not even close to being in compliance with relevant rules.
This is something that the head, the chief financial officer or the contractor would have cared about.
Because in typical construction contracts, you negotiate a price.
And if there are cost overruns, you fight about it.
And in this case, the math is just hopelessly wrong.
Without getting into minutiae, a big portion of the expenditures was for landscaping.
Landscaping typically is depreciated over a much shorter period than the buildings.
We're talking about, say, 26 million out of 100 million of the cost of that thing.
And that landscaping would have all happened after the buildings were done, right?
So the actual accounting for what's called construction in progress until the building's finished has never been audited.
This is something that this guy would have known and he would have cared about.
And he had a reputation and looking him up of being a stickler.
He was one of these people who just really cared about the rules.
He wasn't going to put up with baloney.
The first accounting for it occurred June 30th, 2005, not in compliance with American accounting principles.
That audit is hidden on the Clinton Foundation website.
It's not there, but you can find it looking at state filings, and I found it, and it's awful.
It's wrong.
The second accounting occurred June 9th, 2006.
That is also not in compliance with American rules.
It's something that this guy, an accountant, would have known immediately.
He actually began his training at the same firm that audited the Clinton Foundation, so he would have known the people who were involved in this.
And beyond that, at Dillard's, the lead director was a former partner of the same firm, BKB, which was not authorized in Arkansas to do the work that it did initially on the Clinton Foundation.
All of that work is hidden as well in the Clinton Foundation site, but you can find it in state filings, as I've found.
So, you know, what I was originally skeptical about the FBI, now I'm deeply concerned about it.
You know, this revelation, for example, Cash Patel comes into the FBI, he's going to fix it.
And he says without providing any evidence that Epstein killed himself.
And, you know, I'm sorry, you don't just get to go on Fox News and say that without providing detailed evidence.
There are a lot of questions about that.
And so on this question of what's going on with the Clinton Foundation, it's important to me because I've spent so much time on it, but it's much broader than that.
So many non-governmental operations organizations seem to me to be crooked.
Our educational institutions, you know, the many entities that were funded under the Biden administration, in past settlements under the Obama administration, you know, companies would get in trouble and the settlement would be, you've got to give a billion dollars to a slew of left-leaning organizations.
The whole tax-exempt organization operation in the IRS needs to be shut down.
The people who were involved in this need to be investigated.
If they committed crimes, they need to go to prison for a long time.
You should not, you know, when you look at the literature, the legal and academic literature on nonprofit organizations, the duty of the primary duties of the trustees are duties of care, loyalty, and obedience to the law.
And what they've done is they've gained the system.
The current person who heads, the acting head of the tax-exempt organizations unit is the same person who was involved persecuting Tea Party organizations back under Obama, a guy called Robert Choi.
That's ridiculous.
I mean, under the second Trump administration, how can we be in a place where we're not disciplining these tax-exempt organizations?
We see what Elon Musk found in a short period of time at USAID, taking taxpayer money, funneling it to crooked NGOs.
We see the example of the gap-toothed Stacey Abrams, governor of Georgia, getting $2 billion from the waning days of the Obama administration into an organization whose revenues previously
I am on, in my list of grievances, in addition to this, nobody's ever looked at BLM, Black Lives Matter, this colors, who, by the way, openly, notoriously, without under color of title or of authority, purchased mansions, million-dollar mansions.
Not only that, we have Antifa, which is nothing more than a version of a domestic thug terrorist organization.
So let me ask you a couple of questions.
Will anything ever be done, do you think?
Or will we be talking about this in our wheelchairs?
Will we be wheeled out to the lawn as we're just talking, waiting for the cavalry to show up?
Well, what's a little different now is we have $37, close to $38 trillion in debt on the books of the federal government that we know about.
We have untold additional contingent liabilities at federal level.
Then state and local governments have a lot of debt.
And given the geopolitical messes that we're in around the world, given just what's going on, we're now in the beginnings of a debt crisis and a dollar crisis.
And in that kind of environment, you can't just talk.
You can't have these omnis pork bills come out of Congress.
You can't have Washington, D.C. on perennial vacation, the Unit Party enthralled to the lobbyists.
That's just not going to work.
We're facing, we're soon going to face the bond vigilantes who, you know, interest rates on the U.S. dollar have gone up.
Trump wants them to go down.
But if you have all these government entities spending money that we don't have, money that's our grandchildren, potentially our great-grandchildren's responsibility to repay, at a certain point, the sharks around the world notice this and say, you know, this is a great short.
Let's short the U.S. dollar.
Let's go against in the bond market.
Let's go against federal debt and U.S. dollar-denominated debt.
We're close to that kind of a crisis, particularly if what we do in Iran doesn't bear fruit.
Now, I wish the president and our administration the best, but this opening a can of worms in a country of 90, 92 million people, that is Iran, is one thing to get one aged mullah out of leadership, but there are a lot of other ones.
And, you know, the Shia religion is an ancient one.
The Shia strand of Islam, it stands in stark conflict with the Sunni strand that is led, I suppose, spiritually from Mecca.
And, you know, just replacing one guy or even 50 people or 100 people in Iran, you're going to have to have some kind of caretaker government.
After that, you're going to have to have some kind of election, unless you go into a military dictatorship, which I don't think we want.
but we don't, listen, how is, do we know how Afghanistan is doing?
I don't even know what the status of that is.
Or Iraq?
Is it better?
Libya?
Libya is horrible.
And the thing is, is that if I did not know better, I have this, and I can only speak for me.
In my circle, I don't, I'm a man without a country, so to speak.
The radical left, by the way, you cannot believe this fellow, Zoran Mamdani.
You cannot believe everything you thought about OAC or anybody else for the matter.
Cannot get near that.
Anyway, the radical left, the lefties over here, I don't get along with them.
If I didn't know better, and if Donald Trump or anybody else, I would say this guy doesn't know what the hell he's doing.
He's talking to people who are misleading him.
But because it's Donald Trump, he goes, oh, no, no, no, no, no.
4D chess, he knows what's going on.
And I want to believe this because I like him.
And I still think he's the best president in my lifetime.
And I'm not going to change.
But we have absolutely no business in Iran.
None.
With all that's going on here.
What are you doing?
And they say, Charles, well, you know, Iran shouldn't have a nuclear bomb.
Okay, I'll give you that one.
Is this the way to do it?
Is negotiation off the table?
I don't understand this.
And if you even suggest that there is either a Jewish lobby, not a Jewish lobby, pardon me, an Israeli lobby, which of course there is, like there's any other kind of lobby.
There's a Second Amendment lobby, big tech, Jack Keene from the Institute for the Study of War.
You're called an anti-Semite.
So that has turned into a ball of confusion and a it's beyond anything at this point.
So then today the president says, or yesterday, he says, you know what?
I've been thinking about this.
And I think this is starting to look a lot like Libya.
I think I'm going to wait a couple of weeks.
Iran says, screw you, bud.
Every time you wait, you regroup.
No, we're going through.
We've had it.
We're done.
Deals off.
It's just one thing after another.
And if you had to ask, and if Iran asks you, Mr. Ortell, why can't we have a bomb?
Everybody else does.
Well, you can't.
Well, North Korea's got one.
They haven't done anything yet.
I mean, it's a silly question, but it's not silly.
And if you want to do that, give incentives.
Give them a reason.
We're going to bomb them?
Sorry.
But my answer was to the question of, you know, is anything going to happen on the non-governmental organizations?
And I think we're now to a place where you and I started on this back in 2016.
Yeah, a lot of people cared about it.
It wasn't, I think, an issue, a significant issue in the election of 2016, the Clinton Foundation.
But now everybody who follows politics understands that we have a serious problem with these non-governmental organizations.
Nobody knows how much taxpayer, U.S. taxpayer money is flowing through these entities that are not really non-governmental organizations.
In some cases, a majority of the revenue of these entities comes from us, from taxpayers.
And this money is being burned, literally burned.
I mean, and you look, we can talk endlessly about minutiae.
I like doing that.
But, you know, you look at the Clintons as an example.
Unlike the Trumps, the Clintons were technically bankrupt as Bill left the White House in January of 2001.
Their assets were less than their liabilities.
It's well known.
Today, 24 years later, they have two mansions in Chappacaw, one mansion in Washington, D.C., untold wealth.
Some say $100 million, some say $250 million.
I have friends who claim they have assets, the Clintons in Panama and in Ireland.
These are Panamanians and Irish people who claim that they know the Clintons have real estate, a lot of real estate assets around the world.
How did they get all this money?
It wasn't because they invented, they ran SpaceX, or they created Microsoft.
Bill and Hillary go around the world writing books.
If you ever tried to read their books, Bill's case, I mean, Bill's case, My Life is a very interesting book.
It's a horrible editor.
It's a thousand pages long.
But he actually reveals some very dark sides of his personality in that book.
But Hillary's books are just travelogues.
Today I met with Indira Gandhi.
Today I met with Nelson.
It's just all name-dropping after name-drop.
What about worse than Kamala Harris's?
Kamala Harris, you know, I'm somebody who really enjoyed school.
I'm the eldest of three boys, and my parents were highly educated people who instilled in me a love of learning.
So I enjoyed learning how to read.
But that first book that I remember reading, C, Spot, Bark, Bark, Spot, that's the level that Kamala Harris writes and speaks.
If she studied for 20 years, she'd be a moron.
She's not stupid.
But you look at this political class and they blithely, they're surface level thinkers.
Nobody stands up to a Hillary, to a bill, and say, you can't do this.
They just go ahead and they do what they want to do.
They think they're being cute.
And you're right.
On our foreign policy, I refer to the one country you mentioned, not as Afghanistan, but Algonistan.
I mean, we were there.
It's unclear.
We have, you know, of the 20 people associated with 9-11, 19 were from Saudi Arabia.
So the first thing we should do is go bomb Afghanistan.
That's obvious.
That's obvious.
Don't punish Saudi Arabia.
Go after Afghanistan.
And Libya, Libya compared to Iran, Libya I think is 6 million people.
It's a big, vast territory.
They have not only oil wealth, but they have historical wealth.
And if you're going to try to fix a foreign country, we should have been able with our allies to fix Libya.
But instead, the largest open-air slave market, slave trading market in the world is in Benghazi right now.
And here you have an African-American president taking victory laps, encouraging BLM riots, encouraging the resistance, leading the resistance against Trump.
And nobody says, hey, Barack, you know, if you care so much about black people and oppression, you know, why did you go into a country that was prepared?
Muhammad Gaddafi was trying to do a deal with the U.S. He's trying to cooperate.
And Hillary joked, you know, I came, I saw, and he's dead or whatever.
She joked.
One of the things that we have to do is first, if we are the only people who know something, then we're just talking to each other.
We have to somehow be able to distill it and bring it to the level of the American folks, because unless the electorate gets mad, unless it translates into something, this is yet, you know, the American people, Charles, they're saying, I'm tired of you.
I've got Iran.
I've got this.
I've got that.
I've got Bobby Kennedy with a red dye.
This, I've got that.
I don't, I'm, you're giving me something.
Nobody else is doing anything about it.
And, you know, going back to Gaddafi, this is a guy who, this whole country kind of cobbled together, gerrymandered during, I think it was Mussolini and, you know, this group.
But it is Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and the Fazan, or Fasan.
And these were the black Libyans.
They loved him.
And there was a guy who, interestingly enough, was going to dump about $25 billion to make Libya arable.
It sits atop the Nubian sandstone aquifer and happens to be, because I'm telling you, the Cassus Bellai is going to be hydro-imperialism and water.
And whenever anybody wants to really go into the deep, dark, interstitial purposes of what the whole Middle East problem was, especially with Iraq, when you have the Tigris and Euphrates, they basically intersect at what we used to call the Fertile Crescent, the Garden of Eden.
You know, water is even the Golan Heinz.
So anyway, so there were all these wonderfully fascinating, intriguing issues, a side issues.
So what did we do?
We called him crazy.
Called him crazy with a Sergeant Pepper outfit.
Remember when he appeared at the UN?
He said it smells of sulfur.
He spoke for two hours.
So he, of course, is crazy and evil and terrible.
But that's how we dismiss people.
The same thing with the Ayatollahs.
These are Persians.
These aren't the Iranians.
These aren't Arabs.
These people have a tremendous, they have a pride that nobody can even understand.
And because they have a beard and a hat and wear a cape, we, of course, say, we translate that into some kind of backwards prehistoric Neanderthal reasoning.
They're not to be taken seriously.
And we throw in these 72 virgins.
So I go back to what I'm saying.
Charles, what do we do?
I'm President Trump.
I think Cash Patel is an oaf.
I think Dan Bongino is trying to stab Cash in the back as soon as he could to jump over him because these are basically podcasters.
These are media folks.
They love the glory.
Every time they do something, they go on Fox News.
Pam Bondi, I'm profoundly disappointed with what she did during that thing.
Christy Noam, they're trying to poison her.
Yes.
I don't know what's, I'm waiting.
Do you know that's only been 10% of his 140, whatever days, 10% of his term.
Can you name Charles other than the couple of state judges who were arrested?
Can you think of any great law enforcement moments where the Trump administration could say, we went and we name one person, Hillary and Chain of Purpock or anybody?
Anything?
Well, and really, I remember I began my career on Wall Street in the merger and acquisition business, dealing with large publicly traded companies, buying and selling them.
And I actually interacted with Dennis Levine.
He was a guy, he was at Lehman Brothers.
He was a number of years ahead of me.
And I would go in the deal we were on, I would go into meetings with him, and I had to do a lot of all the work, right?
And this guy was, he hadn't done any work.
He was, you know, we in that quiet time, he was on the other side of a deal.
You know, he's boasting about the real estate he was going to buy and Sands Point, Long Island, and, you know, talking about nonsense and not really stuck into the details that I needed to talk to him about.
And I remember when he was arrested for insider trading, thankfully he liked me and he wanted to recruit me to Drexel Burnham.
And I just had the good sense to say, you know, no, no, no, no, I'm very happy here at Dillony.
But I remember all the hue and cry in the media about Wall Street can't regulate itself.
Wall Street can't regulate itself.
And that may well be true.
But the one thing that I know is true, and I know you're trained as a lawyer, the legal profession absolutely cannot regulate itself.
There are so many crooked judges, crooked lawyers, people like Norm Eisen is one, or Andrew Weiss, people like that, who are just engaged in partisan politics, law affair, bending and twisting the rules, lying under oath.
Norm Eisen has dedicated himself to toppling Donald Trump and his supporters by any means possible.
And you hardly ever see judges being impeached, lawyers being impeached.
Well, the last time I think anybody, Al C. Hastings in Florida might have been one.
There's no such thing.
One of the issues, put it this way, the real, let me give you an analogy.
The real issue is the definition of, or the parameters of what a judge or the amount of lawfare that can be engaged in and how these people explain it.
They'll say, Charles, you don't understand.
I'm giving a wide berth here.
Law is not perfect, but what you consider me to be zealous or I'm trying to upend or, no, I'm merely using the laws as is.
You may not appreciate that.
What I don't understand is target prosecution and nothing, and there's another little known and rarely enforced federal statute, and that is misprision.
When you have a duty of doing something and you don't do something, look at the amount of time that is being spent on the Diddy trial.
I have not to, we're not going to go into that, but if you understand the three things he's charged with, violation of the Man Act, the white slavery law, federal human trafficking, and basically a racketeering enterprise, there's no evidence of that.
But it is sucking the air out and thinking, what are we doing?
We had a case.
This is the best one, where the Justice Department decided to dismiss the case against Mayor Adams.
It is axiomatic.
If you bring a case, you can dismiss it.
If you're a plaintiff or prosecutor, it's yours.
And most judges would say, I've got a docket that's choking me.
Anything that can basically lessen my, please do.
So the federal government wanted to drop a, and this was axiomatic, a no-brainer.
The federal judge picked a special, didn't even have the guts to just say, no, you can't do this.
This was unheard of as a practical matter.
This never happened because you were daring to drop a particular case against somebody.
You know, this idea of justice, you know, not being able to see, it's a joke.
It's embarrassing to me.
It's not, there are many, many good cases, and it may represent a de minimis amount of the cases.
But after lawfare, you think somebody would have told, hey, listen, back off Trump.
This is too much.
Letitia James brought a case that nobody could even understand.
You know about real estate.
If you decide to take your palatial manse that you're in right now and you assess it of a value of $5 billion and you try to get a loan based on your appraisal of your, they would say, well, thank you, Mr. Ortell, but we're going to have our own auditors look at this.
So let's assume that what Trump did was wrong.
The bank didn't cry fraud.
Nobody did.
And they brought him.
So no wonder nobody trusts the legal system.
I don't blame them.
Well, where the rubber meets the road on that one, you know, I'm sitting here in Penang, Malaysia, in part because of that case.
I saw that and I said, you know, why would I want to make a significant new investment in New York City?
It just doesn't make any sense.
You know, we could have this mayor you talk about, if he wins, we could have a team of hacks go into the city government and the state government and decide they want to review, you know, my investments in New York City from 20 years ago.
You know, get out.
So I did.
Took everything out.
And, you know, what's going on in New York City and New York State is a disgrace.
You know, people, I have a large number of friends around the world.
They all think the same thing.
You know, get as much capital out of New York City as you can, as quickly as you can, because that house of cards is crumbling.
And other, there are other places in the world, Singapore is one, where it makes sense to put your capital.
Certainly not in New York City.
Think about it.
New York City and state have embraced the gangster charity criminals, the Clintons, embraced them.
These are out-of-towners who are living in Chappaqua, have multiple offices in New York City.
No explanation of why a foundation that's supposed to be based in Little Rock needs multiple offices in one city, New York City.
It's never a good reason for that.
So they embrace the Clintons and they take the Trumps.
One of the things that's really interesting in the campaigning season, when you hear the different testimonials from the people inside the Trump organization who were hired for various reasons and long-serving employees of Donald Trump and his family, they speak to his decency, his generosity.
The amount of money that Donald Trump has created, the tax revenue in New York City and New York State dwarfs the money that the Clintons have stolen through their foundations, their foundations.
And Donald Trump is reviled by the state and city government.
And Hillary Clinton goes into a Broadway play and everybody says that's fantastic.
It's ridiculous.
It makes me wonder who the hell is actually still living.
I mean, I know you're there, but what is going on in New York City?
Well, there's also, but it's, look at LA, look at other places as well.
This new fellow is Zoran Mamdani.
Listen to this.
They ask him, what is your work experience?
You know how many years he actually worked in a job?
Three.
Now, if I told, you mentioned this about Trump.
Listen, Trump, I don't know why people think that you want to canonize him or beatify him.
I'm not suggesting that.
He's a human being.
I think he's made some mistakes, but I will take him hands down.
On the west side, as you know, he basically created this real estate and they made it what it is.
From 57th up to 60th, this riverside.
Now it is just beautiful.
All because of him.
He changed the skyline.
And what did those bastards do?
The first thing they did was they took the Trump name off.
They said, we don't want to be insulted.
This is it.
Anyway, he's done this.
He was also, as you know, being in the area, he was the darling of the media.
They loved him.
He could do no wrong.
He could, I mean, he was on every show from Howard Stern to you name it, loved him.
And now somebody rang the bell and said, how quickly could, can we, you remember the Milgram experiment?
1960, Yale University did electroshock.
Then there was the Stanford prison experiment.
It goes to show you how people can be ordered to do something, think something.
It was at a time in 1960 when Eichmann was on trial.
And they said, how do people, seemingly normal parents, but family members, German Nazis, run prison camps and basically oversee the liquidation of the human soul?
Well, it's just like all of a sudden somebody said, Monday at noon, everybody hate Trump in three, two, and that was it.
Are you talking about COVID then?
Talking about COVID?
Oh, that's another one.
We'll talk about it.
But anyway, so here he is doing so much.
Let me ask you this, you being an insider.
What's the story?
You mentioned Elon.
What do you think is going on?
Isn't it funny how his rocket blew up?
You know, Charles, these things don't blow up.
It's one thing about rockets that they don't blow up.
You don't think I'm getting a little conspiratorial, do we?
Kind of teach old boy a lesson?
Well, I think, you know, with not just Elon, but with any publicly traded company that's complex, I like to see a CEO like Jamie Dimon.
You know, Jamie Dimon is, Morgan is a gigantic bank and very, very complicated.
One of my brothers worked there in a senior role.
My ex-wife worked there in a junior role.
I bank with them.
I like them.
He's not on any outside boards.
You know, he's the CEO of J.P. Morgan, and that's more than enough work for him to do.
I don't like to see in a big company a part-time CEO.
And so I really don't like the fact.
I mean, I admire Elon Musk's story.
Here's an immigrant, a lawful immigrant.
African American.
An African-American, exactly, who came to this country with maybe some modest advantages.
I don't know.
There's different stories about whether he's wealthy or not wealthy when he's growing up.
But nonetheless, on his own and with partners, he has created how many jobs, how much wealth for how many people?
But I really, if I were advising him, I'd say, listen, just pick one of these things and you be the CEO of that.
The other stuff, you know, you can still have shares in all these companies, but find a full-time CEO to do nothing other than make the Neuralink and the boarding company, all these other things.
So I don't like to see that in anybody, let alone in him.
And I think there was a certain amount of over-promising in what Doge was going to do.
And I think a lot of people have underestimated the degree to which public sector unions, which really at this point shouldn't exist, government workers are more highly paid than private sector workers.
Why do you need unions at this point?
But they've underestimated how tough it is to make real change.
I think we have done this in this country going way back.
You and I weren't around.
But Washington, D.C. was not the original seat of government.
New York was.
And I think for a time Philadelphia was as well.
But what we need to do, I think, if we want to have real change is we need to move the capital outside of Washington, D.C. The richest people in America are concentrated in the metropolitan D.C., Maryland, Delaware, Washington, D.C. area.
And you just need to treat Washington, D.C. as a Disneyland, you know, history Disneyland.
Keep the buildings, let people go there and look at them.
But government needs to be reinvented, fractured, taken out of Washington, D.C. So you don't have to.
Weren't they, Charles, talking about doing that with agriculture?
Or come as if they were going to move into Nebraska or, you know, the heartland where, you know, the grain belt or what have you?
Let me ask you this question.
Go, please.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, just to follow up.
So on the question, will anything ever happen?
You know, you and I both know Janine Pirow.
She's a firebrand and I hope she does, continues to do great work as interim U.S. attorney, and maybe she gets confirmed as full-time U.S. attorney.
But every time she has to try a case involving government officials in Washington, D.C., you've got a jury pool that's tainted.
You know, it's 95% pro-swamp.
How are you going to obtain a conviction from that jury pool?
That's a practical problem that the swamp knows and plays to their advantage.
You know, the Judge Boesberg, who was head of the Pfizer court, you know, you've got all these judges who are determined.
They love the swamp.
You know, they're all in for the swamp.
They're all in.
Oh, they are so.
And they are, you know, we this past week was the conclusion of the, I think the 50th anniversary of Bilderberg.
I think it was 50th in Stockholm.
And people were saying, oh, this is a secret organization.
Yeah, maybe, maybe, maybe it was.
I said, but the, but the organization that makes Bohemian Grove and Bilderberg look like the junior league is the judiciary because they do it right in the open.
They don't even care.
They don't care.
Not changing the subject, but what if I told you, explain to me why rational people all of a sudden can have this absolute Rabid fascination with wanting to protect illegal aliens of the worst stripe.
Not somebody who has been a Sunday school teacher for 25 years, who, for one reason or another, never followed through with the red tech.
No.
Kilmar, O'Brey, I mean, these killers and rapists.
And to have people as a red badge of courage to go out and be slapped around as they openly and notoriously hide, like this judge in Washington, hide illegals.
And if this doesn't disbar you, forget being indicted, disbar you when you pledge your oath to support the Constitution and you're acting, aiding and abetting an accomplice to obstruction of justice and you're proud of it?
I mean, judges normally were like to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety.
That's always been their candidate.
To avoid even the mere appearance.
What happened?
Well, I mean, you have to remember there's a bottom half of every class, including in law school.
And there are a lot of dumb people on the bench, in the legal profession, in politics, in business, in positions of great power by design, because the puppeteers want to be able to manipulate the leadership.
I don't think it's because I think there's some very, very smart people.
Norm Eisen, by the way, is no dummy, but he might be one of the most evil people there is.
This woman, I think, might be, or this Washington one judge, I don't know if she's stupid, it might be stupid to throw your career away, but I think what motivates them doesn't necessarily speak to any kind of intellectual paucity or dearth, but it might be, who knows, judgment or morals or getting caught up in the moment.
Well, I think because I've encountered this, I've had people argue this to me, in the same way that the U.K. had to deal with losing its empire and reinventing itself going forward and trying to still be relevant as a junior partner of the U.S. in many international organizations.
There are smart people, Tom Friedman is one of them.
He was a classmate of mine at Yale, who argue that, look, the U.S. is only 335 million people.
We've had an outsized role in global governance.
And eventually, a larger power is going to be more important than the U.S. And that larger power, they would argue, is China.
So we need to get on the good side of China now, even though we're really much more significant, and teach them into a position where they're going to be nice to us.
They'll remember how nice we were.
And they'll never abuse, they'll never take advantage of the help that we've got.
Yeah, and those people are basically stupid.
I mean, China right now, you know, Gordon Chang is somebody I've known for quite a while, and he has me on his show since 2009.
Very smart man.
And he's been saying for a long time that China is a house of cards.
And there's a story recently, the last 48 hours, that the cities in China, in order to promote these electric vehicle and motor car companies, were giving huge subsidies to their residents to buy these cars.
But the cities are in trouble.
So they're cutting the subsidies.
And there's a fear that the entire Chinese auto industry is going to collapse in the same way that happened in the U.S. So the biggest story, actually, that I've noticed in the last week is the revelation that the FBI had evidence that Chinese and Ukrainian interests were trying to steal the election of 2020.
And the FBI listened to the whistleblower, did the standard thing that the FBI seems to do.
Say to the whistleblower, listen, give me all your evidence, give me your report, and then destroying that evidence, destroying the report, and instructing the FBI people who knew about it not to talk about it and just shut up before the election.
Well, there's your quid pro quo.
Everybody says on Uranium One, you can't prove that Hillary Clinton did it.
On Joe Biden and the Biden family, it is crystal clear that the Chinese government, the Chinese interests and Ukrainian interests paid off multiple layers of that family for long periods of time to get a moron installed in the White House to do what he did do with the Autopen and otherwise,
to allow Ukrainian oligarchs to steal tens of billions of dollars, to allow the Chinese to strengthen their hand in global governments and vis-a-vis the U.S. to have fentanyl pouring into the country.
There's your quid pro quo.
And if I were Cash Patel, I don't want to hear about Dan and I need to go to field offices and buck up morale.
I would drop everything.
And after I fired all the people who persecuted the January 6th people, I'd take my core group and I'd say, we now know because of this whistleblower, everybody involved in stopping that investigation, bring them front and center and bring them into a room.
Say, listen, here's the deal, guys.
One of you is going to cooperate.
The people who don't cooperate, there's a place called Gitmo.
That's where you're going to spend the rest of your lives.
Well, also, you need to have, I would have multiple, remember, who was it, Laverrenti Beria, Stalin's guy who said, show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
Well, I don't want to have target prosecution, but I would have at least 10 special grand juries, not necessarily in Washington.
I would have them in Holbrook, Montana, you know, or Tuscaloosa, or maybe Dallas, because a lot of these, you don't necessarily have to be in the jurisdiction where all this happened.
And I would have these things, and I would present to a grand jury the following.
I would have a series of indictments unsealed.
That would be, it's what Rudy Giuliani did in the commission Case.
That's the thing.
And I would have a series of priorities.
And I would say, either you're going to do this, you're going to follow through with this, or not.
And these are the cases.
Somebody somewhere has said, and you know this, we cannot bring Hillary Clinton to justice, either because of a deal, whatever.
Somebody somewhere has said, we can't do this.
That has to be, it would be not that she's the scalp on the wall, but it would show people once and for all, we mean business.
There's a new sheriff in town.
That's it.
That's simple.
Well, you know, one way to do that, I don't know that you and I have talked about this, but you know, excuse me, as a lawyer, you know that if you want to have a corporation, a real corporation that exists, that corporation actually has to have articles of incorporation and bylaws.
And the articles are how you organize a corporation.
And in those articles, you've got to explain your purposes and other things.
And in the bylaws, that's the governance document.
That's how you run the machinery.
And they have to agree.
Not only the two documents have to agree.
It's called conform.
But beyond that, they also have to be in compliance with applicable law.
If it's an Arkansas corporation, you start, it has to comply with Arkansas law.
If you want to operate outside Arkansas, you've got to register in the various states and places, and outside the country, in those various nations.
This entity, the Clinton Foundation, is a public charity.
It's a special type of charity.
It stands in the shoes of government.
So its board of directors has to be broadly representative of the public at large.
It cannot be controlled by a family.
On April 25th, 2005, it ceased to have, there were no bylaws anymore.
They changed the name of the corporation, but they kept the bylaws in the old name.
You can't do that.
But they did it.
The FBI investigated it from 1516 to 2021.
They didn't notice this, apparently.
So from April 25, 2005, until November 2nd, 2013, there were no bylaws.
Then on November 2nd, 2013, magically, bylaws got adopted.
But you can't do that if you don't already have.
So these bylaws that get adopted, there were real problems in 2013.
The New York Times wrote an article, Unease at the Clinton Foundation over Finances and Ambition.
That article in August got all kinds of publicity.
Bill Clinton went apoplectic.
He wrote a counterpiece on WordPress or something like that.
And so they adopt these bylaws.
The bylaws created two classes of directors, Class A and Class B. The Class A were the Clinton family.
And by operation of the bylaws, business between board meetings, and there are very few board meetings, all business of the Clinton Foundation was controlled by the Class A directors in between board meetings.
And any decisions made by the Class A directors between board meetings pursuant to these bylaws were not subject to review by anybody.
That you can't do in a public charity.
It's just on the face of it, you just look at this document.
Is it criminal or is it absolutely criminal?
Yeah.
You look at this and you say, you know, how could you do this?
You know, and all the while, there's a hidden agreement, which you can get, but I have, where when the donation of the Clinton Foundation to the National Archives and Records Administration, when that donation was made on November 18, 2004, it was for a term of 99 years.
The relevant federal statute, it's a Presidential Libraries Act, and it states that if you make a donation other than an entire interest in property, a partial transfer, it has to be made, if it's made to the National Archives, it has to be made by a foundation, a foundation, governmental unit, or whatever the relevant term is, foundation.
This is not a foundation.
And this donation is by, it's a right to use portions of this complex out there in Little Rock.
And there is no foundation right now.
So the National Archives is allowing this Clinton Foundation to pretend that it's a foundation because if it raised the alarm, the National Archives would look pretty stupid.
National Archives are the same people who instigated the raid on Mar-a-Lago.
The archivists conspired, I would argue, with relevant people, persons unknown, to sick the FBI on a raid on Mar-a-Lago when Trump's lawyers were cooperating on the issue of are these presidential records or not, should we have them or not?
They were cooperating.
They were negotiating.
They raid Mar-a-Lago to get Trump.
And had he been there, they might have shot him or members of his family.
But they let this Clinton Foundation pretend that it's a real thing when it isn't.
And to this day, we don't know where all the presidential records of the Clinton administration are.
And by the by, not to let this go by, there was a provision.
I forget who the Merrick Garland or someone said that took into account that deadly force could be used.
They had armed agents for something which normally would be some out of courtesy, you would just say, listen, we're going to come by.
These are documents.
But they actually even suggested in there.
Just the language of such.
You know, when you told me years ago, the first time I ever talked about this, I'll never forget, that when the William Jefferson Clinton Library is designed for one thing, a library, or library, as George Bush would say, that's it.
That's it.
And it has to comply and comport with rules as far as documents and the like.
Okay.
If later on somebody says, you know what, we got a lot of money here at the Bill Clinton Library and we've done some good stuff.
But I think that money will be better used for AIDS research and maybe working on new technologies and new formulae and new pharmaceuticals.
You know what we're going to do?
We're going to, out of the goodness of our heart, and even if it was legitimate, we're going to send money that way.
That is verboten, irrespective of the reason, the motivation, the intent, right off the bat.
And from that day on, it was off and running.
But Charles, as you know, if there are no policemen to pull people over for traffic, traffic violation, you're going to get a lot of speeding.
The Clintons were told, don't worry, nothing will happen to you.
And as of today, nothing has happened to them.
Well, actually, you raised an important point.
There is an executive order.
It's executive order 13233.
It was issued by George W. Bush on, I think, November 1st, 2001.
And it changed the way in which presidential records were handled.
So after 9-11, you know, you wonder, why is George W. Bush issuing an executive order concerning how presidential records might be handled?
Well, one of the reasons is that Ronald Reagan's records should have been released on January 20th, 2001.
And who was the vice president, George H.W. Bush, and Iran-Contra and other issues are issues that still have not been appropriately explained.
In Bill's book, My Life, he talks about, explicitly mentions in several places when discussing Mark Rich and the pardons, he said he didn't understand the Fuhrer because George H.W. Bush had pardoned Caspar Weinberger on Christmas Eve,
whatever it was, 1992, and seven other co-conspirators who had basically, I think it was Lawrence Walsh, I believe, was the special prosecutor looking into Ron Contra.
And George H.W. Bush had a diary and other records that he withheld from Walsh.
And they were very close to getting George H.W. Bush.
He pardons Cap Weinberger.
And then Clinton points this out in his book, you know, what's all the bother about Mark Rich?
Look what George H.W. Bush did.
We know the Clintons.
They pioneered the use of the war room in the 1992 election.
There are various books about it.
There's a movie about it or whatever.
Right, Carville, right, right.
Carville and the others treated Democrat opponents and certainly Republican opponents as the enemy.
You don't think that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and the people around them, the second they got into the White House, you don't think that they went, all right, now we're here.
Let's hope we're here for eight years, but we're certainly going to make sure we know everything we can possibly know about our opposition.
So go into the IRS, go into the legal records, you look at stuff you shouldn't see and you report back to me.
We're going to create files and we're going to have these files that we can hold over anybody who dares to.
It's the old J. Edgar Hoover thing, but he could do it at least theoretically through his act.
Let's go back from the moment they stepped in.
Hillary Clinton has been a crook.
Wasn't she thrown off the original Watergate Commission?
Remember the Rose Law Firm Records?
There was Whitewater.
They were, it was like low-rent Hillbilly, the travel office.
They had to get involved in the travel office, the brother, I mean, just everything they did.
Some people are just, they're a crook.
They're a gangster in their mentality.
There's no way around it.
Right.
Absolutely.
And just for a second, going back to the presidential records, I am not a historian, but my ex-father-in-law is a very famous historian.
I have a great respect for people like him who really care about laying out for posterity a view, a perspective on what happened.
There is, you could say, no more consequential figure, former president, than Barack Obama in the sense that, you know, it really, if you go, I remember as a kid growing up for a number of years when America was segregated.
And to go from that place to electing and reelecting an African American is a major shift in the way this country operated.
And real historians, again, I'm not a trained historian, should be able to go into the presidential records of Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush and others, and explain and organize and present these records.
We paid for it, the American taxpayer.
We paid for these presidencies.
But because of Executive Order 13233 and because Barack Obama, out of the graciousness of his heart, has decided to seize all of his records and, quote, digitize them.
That doesn't mean save them, you know, digitize them.
We still do not have access to Barack Obama's presidential records.
We don't know, I suspect that the Clinton presidency, which was the first one to operate on the internet, that there are mountains of records that are not there, that should be, where, you know, different people were using alias emails and doing all kinds of things that were conducted on the taxpayer dynamic.
And so we should be able to see them, but we can't.
So we are ignorant, frankly, of what these people truly did because we can't look at Barack Obama's record.
He left in January of 2017, right?
I mean, there's no library.
They've raised a billion dollars.
Why do you need in the digital age to spend a billion dollars on this campus?
And the government, was it the GAO or whatever is spending how many millions a month in some mall or something in Chicago for his records?
And put it this way, I know this may seem trivial, but if you and I had a chef at our Martha's Vineyard Estate who drowned in three feet of water, who was a pretty well-known and very accomplished swimmer, we would have been dragged for so many, there would have been, I mean, put it, chap aquitic, you know, something.
He is immune from this.
He is immune.
But that's a whole other ball of ice.
Charles Ortell, in conclusion, dear friend, as we get to the, because we could talk, I mean, when I speak with you, it's such a bofa, a breath of fresh air.
For the legions of your fans and the like, what is your final message, either of admonition or focus or hope?
Well, America, just speaking about America, the founders envisaged the governance structure as being involving every one of you, every one of us.
We weren't to delegate the process of governance to the House, to the Senate, to the President.
Those people were supposed to be part-time government employees, not full-time.
And they were supposed to reflect the will of we, the people.
And it's ordinary people in America who pay the taxes.
They may not pay income taxes, but they pay sales taxes and the cost of everything that you buy, you're paying taxes.
We're being ripped off by a governance structure that has placed the bureaucracy above the people.
And we are hurtling over the cliff, Thelma and Louise style.
And we need to stand up and be counted.
We need to understand that the number one responsibility today of younger people is to educate their children.
You can't rely on Randy Weingarten and the Teachers Union to teach your children.
You're going to end up with worse than these purple-haired nose-ring woasters.
So we need to stand up, not accept this gruel that we're being served.
We're paying $500 a plate to get gruel and slop out of government.
And enough of this.
Bondi, I believe you know her, or you said you knew her.
I mean, one of her early Fox News appearances, I've seen the Epstein file.
Right.
You know, it's horrifying and we need to, I've seen it.
I've been through it.
No, she hadn't.
And what's going on?
I mean, Cash says, oh, trust me, he killed himself.
I don't trust you if you said that.
You've got to show me evidence.
And we've got to, the entire country has to be the show me country.
Show me the truth.
And we've got to get serious about closing the deficit, bringing the debt down, restricting our ambitions.
I mean, you can't have, you can't be meddling in Gaza and Iran and Ukraine when you've got still crime-rich cities.
You can't do that.
And let me also throw in one little, this thing that we're doing right now, this medium, I don't think people really take into account how important it is.
You know, historically, the most important, Don Hewitt talks about it, the first debate, televised debate.
Not the first debate, televised debate, the fireside chat.
I'm sure you know that Abraham Lincoln was considered politically blasphemous for daring to put up pictures of himself and campaigning where you actually ask people to vote.
This was heresy.
So there's always been these incremental changes, which seem kind of trite and innocent.
So now we have something which is the most interesting.
There is a fellow by the name of Tucker Carlson who came out of nowhere, who has overnight commanded legions.
I can give you names.
When Theo Vaughn, an otherwise kind of a recovering addict, kind of a simpleton, a bit of a hayseed, a rusticator, who has more people watching any of his podcasts than Sean Hannity's radio or TV show, it's a new world.
And when you have this new reset, you have people.
It was funny.
If you'd have told me, Charles, that I'm not the biggest Steve Bannon fan, though I like what he does, he's making more sense.
I'm going to say something to you that I will say one time, and you must destroy this tape.
I actually heard Greta Tunberg speak regarding our involvement either in the Middle East or whatever.
She made absolutely 100% sense.
I couldn't believe.
So not only is there a reset of the enemy of my enemy is now my hero, but the rules are changing and prior platforms.
And when President Trump said, oh, Tucker, he's just jealous because he doesn't have his own TV station or number.
I don't think he understands.
This is a different world.
This is completely different.
And the worst thing in the world is to be mocked.
I don't care whatever it is.
They can admire you.
They can love you.
They can think you're terrific.
Just avoid being mocked because when you become part of that troll vortex, that target, you're through.
And now we're seeing in many respects a lot of people who were really serious stalwarts regarding various positions.
Ted Cruz, did you ever think you would see Ted Cruz, this, again, one of your alums, so to speak, in the law school, this genius, know absolutely nothing about Iran and dig himself more and more.
So everything is changing.
So just take a picture of this now.
Next year, you're going to see people leading huge swaths of voting you never heard of before or heard of them, but never believed they have since acquired such power.
It's incredible.
It is indeed.
I mean, to see legacy media destroyed, I mean, I actually, in making the move out of New York, I just decided January 30th, I think it was 2023, June 30th, 2023, I decided I was not going to watch television anymore.
And I haven't.
Now I'm in my apartment.
I have two TVs here, but I watch YouTube.
I don't watch legacy media.
I don't read the newspapers.
I don't read Magazines, I go into the facts as I find them and I cross-check them.
I like the sources.
And this stuff that people waste their time on, legacy media.
I mean, who cares what Kristen Welker thinks or Margaret Brennan, these people?
I actually, when I was doing business commenting for Bloomberg as a guest, there was a guy called Pim Fox who was a great guy.
He had me on his show, Taking Stock.
Very, very well-trained and deep thinker.
But Margaret Brennan came on Bloomberg for a short stint.
And the top rats, the story I was exposing GE was a big story.
And so Pim was supposed to interview me.
And he said, look, the top brass want to give Margaret Brennan a chance.
Would you mind if she interviewed you?
I said, Pim, tell me what you want to do.
If you want me to say, I mind, I'll say I mind.
No, no, Charles, have her do it.
So I sat down with her on TV.
She's an idiot.
She's a complete idiot.
But they've elevated her to be the star of CBS.
I think it's Facebook Nation now.
And she gets all these top guests and she's rude to them and interrupts them and she's got her perspective.
I don't care what the anchor thinks.
I want to listen to the guests.
It's funny.
I live right here.
We're in right by 57th Street and CBS.
By the way, that whole block is for Sherry Redstone is done.
Anyway, across the street was where 60 Minutes was.
And there was Walter Crunker.
Most people do Walter Crunker.
He was so worried, they said, should I give an opinion regarding the Ted Offensive?
Okay, I don't know.
They agonized over it because he, you know, there's an expression, he wouldn't say, you know, shit if he had a mouthful of it.
He would not dare.
Bob Schieffer used to all of a sudden have this signature.
This is my opinion.
This is my opinion for what it's worth.
Point counterpoint.
Anyway, so there was Cronkite at the time he said, and by the way, it was like a no kidding, the Tetoffensive.
It's okay.
Trust me, you're not going out on a limb.
But this is how scrupulous they were.
This is how they worried.
This is how they separated that firewall, you know, that blood-brain barrier between news and commentary.
Today, there is no news.
And it's moved for us even because we sound like a bunch of fossils talking about these things.
And also, isn't you think, isn't it funny, the paradox, when you and I were kids, we had three networks.
We knew during the day, it was a blackout.
You might have an evening paper.
You might have, when Kennedy was assassinated, breaking in was, well, how do we do this?
Can we do this?
They never did it.
So from the morning until you never heard anything, never.
Six o'clock, maybe local, seven o'clock, Walter, that's it.
But yet we knew maybe Time magazine, maybe you got a good daily when the New York Times meant something.
We knew more.
We knew more.
Now with this plethora, this inundation of news, it's like drinking from a fire hose.
We know little.
Not only that, we can't read.
We can't write.
Though we're writing constantly, we can't write.
And even though we're ostensibly reading, we can't read.
Because one of my relatives who's a teacher said, because kids today are shown news like this, they don't know how to track.
So they can't read.
So anyway, we sound like the fossil hour, but it's true.
And this is the next.
So with that in mind, the people who are the Cronkites are going to be people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens.
And irrespective of whether you like, that is our, that's it.
Whether you like it or not, that's the way it is.
Well, you've done a lot of interviewing, I'm sure, and I have as well.
And in a typical format, I remember one time Pim decided to have me on a show and speak for 25 minutes, you know, on different issues.
That's rare on TV, right?
It's typically six minutes, eight minute maybe.
It's typically you have to have a left-leaning and a right-leaning person and the anchor.
And you've got, say, let's say you have eight minutes.
You can at most speak for three minutes, maybe, two minutes.
And then they go, you know, your topic to a different topic, and the half hour is over.
So similarly, in congressional testimony, Senate and the House, Republicans have five minutes, Democrats have five minutes.
You can't build a head of steam up and going into a deep issue because you're constantly doing this and that.
And it's as if the mainstream media and government set up to not get to the truth.
To pretend that you're investigating it, but you're not.
They also say, Charles, that younger people today don't have the attention span when Netflix will show you that they will binge watch the entire Joe Rogan, who I think is the Milton Burrell, the Ed Sullivan, whatever you want to call it.
He is it.
He'll do two hours on Egyptian pyramids.
And I don't mean just silly stuff.
And people are focused on it.
So everything you thought about kids today, despite their psych meds or whatever, it's wrong.
Charles Ortell, how does one get a hold of you in case you want to drop you a line or find out what you're doing or just follow your incredibly important work?
Oh, thanks so much, Lana.
I'm on at Charles Ortell, of course, with our mutual friend Jason Goodman.
I do a podcast, Crowdsource the Truth, on Sunday, American Time in the evening, and on Wednesday, American Time in the evening.
Those would be the principal ways.
I've got a sub stack with my name that's about to get very active because I've been sifting through all this minutiae and trying to put it, organize it in a way that the patient people who Have the time and interest can actually get into the details.
Those would be the principal ways, Lana.
Well, people have been asking to have you on.
It's always a pleasure, my friend.
It's so interesting.
You are, we are exactly 12 hours apart.
And no matter how many times I know that, I'm telling you now, Friday night, and my Friday is your Saturday.
And Friday, I've been doing this WABC on overnights.
So Friday at five o'clock in the morning is my weekend.
So I'm ready to go.
And so anyway, there's just always this wonderful adaptation and adjustment.
But Charles Ortell, you're a great, great, great man.
And I'm so proud to call you my friend.
And we will do this again.
And I thank you again, sir.
Thank you, John.
▲
Export Selection