All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 8, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
September 8, 2016, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 247 podcast.
So I just saw this Chelsea Clinton story yesterday.
A headline is Chelsea Clinton accuses Trump of sad misogynistic sexist rhetoric.
And I'm wondering if she knows who her dad is.
And I read I said, Who's your daddy?
Pedro Martinez, who's your daddy?
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome.
Great to have you.
Elle Rushmow behind the Golden EIB microphone for yet another excursion into broadcast excellence.
It's a thrill and a delight to have you here as it always is.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
I have to tell you this.
This is just to me, this is just so heartwarming.
At uh near the end of the program yesterday, I think it was in the last half hour.
A woman called who said that she thanked me, wanted to thank me for helping her to understand Donald Trump.
She had hated Trump, she despised Trump, not a usual stuff.
The media portrays him as a bombastic ogre, and she had bought it.
And interestingly, her husband is a military veteran.
And I she said that he was kind of anti-Trump too, which was curious.
But that her 14-year-old son had convinced her to listen to me, which she did.
So she called here to thank me and to thank all of us for helping to change her mind about Donald Trump.
And in the process, or in the in the context of the call, she said that that uh her family did not have a computer.
And that was in response to a question of my wow why she thought what she thought about Trump.
And she made the point of saying she didn't, well, she didn't make a point of it, but it was kind of throwaway.
She didn't have a computer, so the only thing she had was television and broadcast media as a means of learning about Trump.
So at the end of the conversation, I said, Did I hear you right?
You don't have a computer.
That's right.
We have one, but it's really old and it broke and so forth.
And I said, Well, would you like an iPad?
I said, I've I've got a couple of iPads here, and and one of them is I'd be glad to send it to you.
And she said, Oh, oh, that would that'd be so wonderful.
That that'd be buttering around.
So I said, Well, hang on, don't hang up.
Mr. Snerdley will get your address so we can ship it to you.
You'll have it to tomorrow, which is today.
She's probably already got it.
Because we send everything priority one.
None of this second business date stuff here.
I don't understand why people if you're gonna send somebody something, get it there as soon as you can the next day.
That's when I want stuff.
I can't believe people send stuff a week.
Well, I guess I I can't.
I'm just I'm one of these when a package is coming, it's like Christmas morning.
Anyway, the uh Snerdley told me that when he was getting her information, she got very nervous and sheepish and said, I I don't know if I can afford this.
What is it cost?
And it he told me this, and it just did I it almost brought a tear to my eye.
She had she had no idea that that uh it was a gift, and that she she said this thirdly that nobody ever does anything like this uh for us.
And so she was just she was just thrilled as she could be that somebody was giving her an iPad.
And it just it got me to thinking, you know, that's that is significant portion of our country.
Uh we live in in a in a in a great place, but we have we have people who live in in a number of different economic circumstances.
There's not a, you know, we we divide when we talk about the nation's economy, particularly when uh when social scientists talk about income, they divide income into five areas are called quintiles.
And it's just a way of expressing the economic circumstance uh for people in the country to get an idea of GDP productivity and so forth.
And there are a Lot of people, particularly in this economy, who don't have much and are having a tough time finding finding work, in this case, a retired military family and all of the uh problems that they have.
And it uh it just it it it makes me realize, you know, the great fortune all of us have to to be Americans, yet there are a whole lot of people.
I I call them the backbone America, the people that make the country work.
They're out there they're they're working and they're slaving away, or they're trying to.
And some of them just have a really tough time getting ahead, but they're every bit the American citizen that you and I are.
And I always have them in mind uh every day when I'm doing this program, and what and I I have them in mind when I count my own blessings.
And so it was just uh, it was another realization and reminder of people and and and their future and and the and the way they live, and not everything is TMZ, and not everything is a red carpet opening or media event.
And I just I'm I'm so flattered that people like that are in the audience because we we really uh think that that this program is helpful in a in a motivating and even an inspirational way.
I mean, to ask Mr. Snerdley, what does it cost?
I'm not I don't know if we can afford it.
I don't know, folks, it melted my heart.
Uh and not because we were giving it, just because of the attitude.
Obviously, this family hasn't nobody gives them anything.
They're not familiar with that.
They obviously haven't won anything uh prize-wise.
I don't know if they play the lottery or not, but anyway, it was uh it was a great way to end uh the day yesterday.
Okay, so there was a there was a forum last night hosted by Matt Wower of NBC News.
This is amazing.
Matt Wower is catching it from both ends.
And the rule of thumb is that when anybody moderating or hosting an event like this gets it from both ends, that they're doing a good job.
If everybody's got a got a complaint, if everybody's whining about it, that they may have done a good job.
I I must tell you, uh, ladies, I shouldn't admit this.
I didn't see it.
You knew that?
I didn't I forgot that it was on.
I shouldn't admit this, but I figure, why not be honest with I forgot that it was on.
Uh last night was a well, I mean, it was it was a hectic chaotic night for a whole host of reasons.
I had I had all kinds of software upgrades to do, beta upgrades to do, testing.
I must have had, and then I had to watch the Apple event that was on during the program yesterday, and I just forgot this thing was on, and then I'm later in the night I'm I'm checking the internet and I'm seeing stories about it.
I'm starting slapping, oh no, I forgot to watch this thing.
So I get up today and I start reading about it, and there's some things that really Hillary Clinton is lying her head off again about this email business and classified documents, which we're gonna illustrate here in just a second.
And the media in a lot of places, particularly conservative media, is just livid with Trump for supposedly uh uh sidling up to Vladimir Putin.
Trump was supposedly praising Putin and talking about how great his poll numbers are and the reaction to it, well, this guy is swallowing up Crimea, he's murdering journalists, and here's Trump out there singing the guy's praises.
I mean, there are a lot of pieces today saying, is this the best we've got?
Are these two the best we've got?
We are we are doomed no matter who wins this.
We are doomed no matter who loses this.
It was a apparently a very sobering night, because in many people's estimation, neither candidate acquitted themselves well last night.
Is that did you watch it?
You didn't either.
Oh, Snerdley says he didn't want to watch it.
What are you trying to parcel?
So you're not overdose on this stuff, so you only taking a few tired tired of it last night, tired of it.
You'd reached your emotional limit.
You didn't interesting.
Snerdley is uh he's a wonk like you have never seen.
Snurdley is immersed in this stuff.
And for him to tell me my glass was full.
I couldn't take any more of it.
Brian, did you watch any of it or were you reading the Tampa Bay Bucks final roster?
Don, did you did you watch it?
You did.
You did.
You weren't talking to your daughters.
You didn't.
Well, we've got the audio sound bites here, so we're going to review it.
One of the great things about me as your host, I don't have to have seen it to tell you what you saw.
Did you hear what he just said, Mabel?
He said he didn't have to see it in order to tell us what we thought.
That's true, folks.
I don't have to have seen it to tell you what you saw.
All I have to do is listen to a couple sound bites, and I can tell you exactly what happened.
Other things in addition, some new polling data that's out, and it's uh still close margin of error stuff.
This is uh battleground poll.
This is a this is a poll I've often cited.
This is uh uh Ed Goaz and Selinda Lake.
She's a Democrat, he's a Republican, and on that basis they have a premise of an unbiased poll.
And it's called the Battleground, and Clinton's up 42 to 40 uh in this in this poll, and and they claim that the uh debates are gonna be the deciding factor.
You know, people go back and forth in these debates.
I've heard I've heard experts say debates don't really change anything, and I've heard other experts say they are everything in a campaign.
I think it depends on each individual uh campaign.
CNN has a story today.
See if this fits with what do you think?
Millennials are more conservative than you may think.
Now be careful there.
It's not saying millennials are mostly conservative.
It says they're more conservative than you might think.
They could still be little commie uh blips running around, but they may not be as calm as you think.
And from CNN's perspective, that could be translated into millennials more conservative than you may think.
So we will uh we will delve into that.
A warning from a federal election commission commissioner.
Warning that the Democrats are gunning for the conservative media.
Oh, in case you're wondering.
I spent a considerable amount of time on the program yesterday reading and analyzing a very long op-ed opinion piece from the uh Claremont.com website.
It was a piece uh written anonymously, and I didn't know what to expect.
I mean, it was a hard-hitting piece.
It was it was it was uh a piece that basically savaged never Trump conservative intellectuals for not realizing the stakes of this election, how anybody could be or do anything that would support Hillary had this author beside himself, and he he was just lobbing grenades at these people with every paragraph.
There hasn't been a whole lot of reaction to it.
I haven't found a whole Bill Crystal with a couple or three tweets, made a guess as to who it is that wrote it and called it a bunch of sophistry and didn't take it seriously.
And there's a post at National Review Online on their corner blog about it that uh really doesn't even react, just uses the piece as a reason to say something else about Scott Walker, who was not really in the piece.
But I'll explain that.
But there hasn't been, I I I searched some blogs and I didn't see any reaction to this at all.
What do you think that means?
What do you think no reaction to it means?
Well, it that's one way that it hit home, that it hit home so that people are just don't want to react to it with them that just ignore it when somebody hits you with legitimate criticism, ignore it, don't amplify it, don't respond to it.
And then the other school of thought is that it was so off the wall that nobody took it seriously.
But it it was the kind of piece that would uh if you if you are a conservative intellectual and a never Trumper, then it's the kind and it was written right for you and aimed at you, it would be the kind of piece that would really tick you off.
And so you would think there would be some reactions.
So far, none, but it's early.
They may still be uh digesting.
Let's take a brief time out.
We'll come back and we'll review some of the sound bites from the presidential forum last night.
A um a former military man really took it to Hillary Clinton.
Did you hear what this guy said?
He said, Mrs. Clinton, if I had done with classified information what you did, I would be in jail.
And that hasn't made much news today.
You have to dig deep to find that.
And that to me, not having seen the thing, has to be one of the major occurrences.
Oh, you know, you know who the third party candidate is?
Does his name ring a bell?
Gary Johnson, exactly right.
Now, this guy, third-party can the media loves third-party candidates, no matter who they are, because third-party candidates genuinely mean the Republican candidates gonna lose.
Third party candidates take votes from the Republicans, and the media loves these guys.
And the media heaps all kinds of praise on third party candidates.
And they treat them with great respect, and they afford them great substance.
And uh talk about how their their quest to become president, even though hopeless, is deeply, deeply important.
Well, anyway.
This guy, Gary Johnson, was on PMS NBC this morning.
He was being interviewed by the noted plagiarist, Mike Barnacle.
And he asked Gary Johnson, so with all of this going on in Aleppo, did it did it and Gary Johnson, what?
Aleppo.
With all the stuff going on in Aleppo.
Gary Johnson, what are you talking about?
Barnacle said, Are you serious?
You don't know what Aleppo is?
No, no, what's Aleppo?
Why, it's only the center of the refugee crisis in Syria, for Christ, a town in Syria, and that's its center of the refugee.
Oh, oh, oh, that so the third party candidate who's being treated with great respect and admiration, didn't even know what, much less where Aleppo is.
And they talk about Trump.
This is amazing.
You know, I I really don't understand what a big deal is about a libertarian candidate not knowing where Aleppo is.
I mean, I'm not surprised if a libertarian candidate wouldn't know where Damascus is.
Why would a libertarian know anything about a city in a foreign country?
It's not their bailiwick.
Now, if you ask him questions about medical marijuana, if you ask them questions about open borders or whatever, um, or you start with Gary Johnson, if you start talking to him about the glories of the carbon tax, he'll talk your head off.
Especially if you start talking about medical marijuana.
If you start, if you start talking to a libertarian about marijuana, period, they know everything.
They'll talk your head off.
But why would we expect a libertarian who doesn't want us to be anywhere in the world to understand where Aleppo is?
That's not why they are running.
That's my defense of Gary Johnson.
Well, everybody else is piling on the guy.
Um I'm looking at the clock here.
The audio sound bite roster.
Yeah, let's let's look here at number one.
Let's go back to set this all up.
This is what you have to remember.
I don't know how many people do.
March 10, 2015, Hillary Clinton first press conference ever talking about her private email server and the scandal attached to it.
She chose the UN, if you recall, because it was thought that the journalist, the press court, the UN, was an internationalist press corps and didn't know diddly squat about domestic American issues, including her email server.
And she got the surprise of her life.
They were well informed, They were loaded for bear, and she had to walk out of this press conference much sooner than she anticipated.
But here's the question.
Were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using your own server and using your personal address to email with the president?
I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified insurance.
Excuse me.
Don't forget that.
She said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
Don't forget that is March 2015.
Remember?
Get back.
Your guiding light, dude.
Times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, coughing spasms, and yes, even the good times.
So I got a uh I got a note here from Cookie.
Dear Rush.
Well, actually, it says hi, Rush.
I watched the forum last night.
It's my job.
Woo-hoo.
So another employee jabbing the host.
Another employee reminding me that I didn't do my job last night while she did hers.
This is how free my employees are to deal with me.
I just passed this on so you know.
Anyway, hi Rush, I watched the forum, and Hillary was angry and dull.
And Matt Wower let her go on and on so she didn't have to answer many questions.
And then Trump came on.
He was not his best last night, Rush.
Wower was all over him.
Trump was being Trump, not backing down, answering the questions directly and defensively, is what gets him in trouble instead of ignoring or blowing off their questions and saying what he wants to say, like politicians do.
That's Trump, by the way.
Trump does not do politics.
He does not do well, he doesn't behave like a politician.
You ask him a question, he'll answer it.
And for good or bad.
So anyway, that's a review of somebody whose job is to watch this stuff and then provide the audio sound bites.
So I want to go back again to this soundbite that starts this whole thing off.
This is Hillary, we're gonna play number one again, Mike.
This is Hillary's UN press conference back on March 10th, 2015.
First press conference on the email scandal, the private server in the home, the bathroom, wherever it was, in Chappaqua.
Shows the UN because it was thought the press corps there would not be up to speed on domestic American political issues.
Hillary thought it'd be cakewalk.
Plus the UN press contingent thought to be totally slavish to uh former American diplomat Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, basically puff peace, puffball questions turned out not to be that.
The UN press corps was up to speed, and they were pretty hard-hitting, and Hillary walked out of this press conference much sooner than she intended to.
But this is the foundational answer that sets up everything to follow.
Again, the question were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using your own email server and using your personal email address to email with the president?
It's a very good question.
Did anybody ever warn you?
Were you briefed on how risky it was to use your own unprotected email server to send classified stuff back and forth to the president?
I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
So I'm certainly well aware uh of the uh classification uh requirements and uh did not uh send classified material.
Well, now how does that square with what has since been said by Hillary Clinton?
She has admitted many times that she has sent classified information uh or that she didn't know what was classified.
I I I that C. I thought I thought it was uh uh alphabetical C. I I didn't realize it meant confidential, or I didn't mean realize it meant it meant uh secure or classified or or or any of that.
So she's gone from saying at the very beginning of this that she never trafficked in classified material to now giving excuses and explaining how, yeah, yeah, I sent classified stuff, but it was never at risk.
It was all protected.
I take it very seriously.
This is the the biggest lie of all of this to start the the open up with this whole subject back in 2015, which is now a little over, well, just a little under a year and a half ago.
I never sent classified data.
So now the media can talk about Trump all they like.
But this this forum last night, if you ask me, if people watched both sides of it, this this had to be the what would you say, circumstance of the element of the whole night that determined who won or who lost or who looked better or who looked worse?
This is Lieutenant John Lester, United States Navy retired, asking a question of Mrs. Clinton.
As a naval flight officer, I held the top secret sensitive compartmentalized information uh clearance, and that provided me access to materials and information highly sensitive to our warfighting capabilities.
Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned.
Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are entrusted with America's most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?
Why hasn't the press asked that question?
This is the first thing that struck me when I saw this, plus applauding uh Lieutenant Lester, but this is it.
He said right out of the box as a naval flight officer, I held a top secret sensitive compartmentalist uh compartmentalized information clearance.
Had I communicated this information, not following prescribed protocols like you didn't, Mrs. Clinton, I would have been prosecuted and put in jail.
So, Ms. Clinton, how can you expect people like me to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you corrupted national security, not just trafficked in it, when you corrupted it?
That is a that's a qu the media should have been asking this question for months by now.
And I Sternley and I were talking about this today, in fact, because I came in when he came in there the first time I saw him and said, You watched the thing last night.
No, but I saw this press conference, I just saw this press, and he started fuming and cursing about Hillary's.
She did a tarmac press conference at uh at White Plains up in Westchester County.
White Plains Airport, I guess where it was.
She got that putrid-painted new jet of hers, that that baby blue pink, supposed to look like Air Force One blue.
Um, and she's out there talking with the press, and the press is just saying, your hair looks so wonderful.
Did you get enough sleep last night?
How's your health?
And Andrea Mitchell's making some comments, and Hillary's, oh Andrew, I just love you.
I just love you.
Andrew, you're just indefatigable.
Oh my God, I just love you.
And and Sterling came in complaining about the way the press.
I said, What are you talking about?
They did their job.
That's exactly what they're supposed to do.
They're supposed to what Biden said the other day, Hillary's got to show her heart.
So what's the media do?
Show that she has a heart.
They're not going to ask her heart-hitting questions.
They're gonna do this is a a great example.
The media should have asked the question that their lieutenant, the retired lieutenant in the Navy did, but they aren't.
They're protecting her.
And people get mad when they see the way the media treats her.
Why waste the energy getting mad when you know they're not gonna do anything other than that?
Folks, look, they're not media.
They are Democrat Party hacks and activists, and they are disguised as journalists.
But their job is to get Hillary Clinton elected.
Their job is to take Donald Trump out.
Their job is to promote her.
Their job is not to ask her tough questions.
They're not to call her to account.
They're not to do anything Of the sort, and this is evidence that it took a retired Navy man getting into this forum last night to ask her the question.
Here's how she responded.
You know, and I know.
Classified material is designated.
It is marked.
There is a header, so that there is no dispute at all that what is being communicated to or from someone who has that access marked classified.
And what we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people.
You are to send information that was not marked.
There were no headers.
There was no statement, top secret, secret, or confidential.
I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system.
I took it very seriously.
Hold on a minute.
Why did she do?
Grab number one.
I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system.
I took it very seriously.
Here's what she said again back in March.
I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
So I'm certainly well aware uh of the uh classification uh requirements and uh did not uh send classified material.
She has told so many lies about this she doesn't remember who she said what to says to the retired Navy lieutenant I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system back in March 2015.
I did not email any classified material.
Now, this business on the headers.
Look, folks, all of this gets in the weeds.
And I think we're here to try to inform, educate, and persuade people.
Let's make no bones about it.
This email stuff has been going on for so long that a lot of people do have fatigue on it.
The minute you bring it up, I don't want to hear it, I'm tired of it.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
They all do it, and they they tune out.
So that's the wrong way to go about it.
The right way to go about this is to point out that she cannot tell the truth about whatever she's being asked, be it emails, be it servers, be it be it Libya, be it Benghazi, be it climate change, be it whatever.
She makes a big deal here saying, well, you know, and I know classifying material is designated.
There's a header.
Let me tell you something, folks.
Huma Abbotton.
And Cheryl Mills and others in Hillary's office went through many of the emails that they submitted to the FBI and stripped the headers out.
There are actual emails back and forth from people in Hillary's office talking about this.
Have you scrubbed the headers?
Did we make sure to get all the headers?
Have we eliminated the headers?
They did this post facto.
They they they doctored, if you will, they edited classified documents and tried to make them look like they were not classified.
So here comes Mrs. Clinton now saying, Well, you know, there's a header.
So that there's no dispute at all what's being communicated.
They took the headers out of many emails as a way of trying to convey that there wasn't anything classified.
They did it.
But she's relying on the fact that nobody's going to know this.
That the low information crowd, many of the ordinary American voters are not going to have any idea.
And she's probably right about that, but I can't let this go by.
They stripped the headers out on I don't know how many thousands of emails for this express purpose.
They knew, she knew they were classified documents, and they were trafficking in them.
She didn't care.
And that's why the retired naval lieutenant's question is crucially important.
And we will be back.
Look, I realize some people in the audience may not know what the header is in an email, but every email has a header.
Most email programs hide them because it's just a bunch of computer looking gibberish.
It's all it's the root.
Among many things, it's the route and email took from the sender to you.
All of the various servers and addresses and domains that it bounced off of and it was rooted through to get to you.
And there's much more in a header.
Now they are by default not displayed in most email programs.
If you have Apple mail, if you want on the Mac, you can display the headers.
I don't think you can on the iPhone, the iPad.
Maybe the iPad, not sure.
But on your Mac, you can if you want to see it.
And if you are if you're having email problems and you have an IT consultant, the first thing he's going to look at is the header to any problematic emails because it shows the route.
Those are the things.
Anybody can see them if you if you know how to activate them.
They're hidden just because it's a bunch of junk to the to the uneducated, uninformed high-tech uh mind.
But if you want to see them, you can.
And Hillary get the this was in a uh June 2011 email.
Shows Hillary telling her top advisor Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.
In response to Hillary's request for a set of sense-redacted talking points, Sullivan wrote, they say they've had issues sending secure facts.
They're working on it.
Clinton responds, if they can't turn to a non-paper with with no identifying heading and send non-secure.
She was telling them to strip the headers out.
She did this with email.
Send the headers out and send it non-secured.
She was sending classified data like you and I send emails.
And and this is in some cases, it it it's a new lie.
And no matter how many times she claims it, paper documents that have been classified or stamped with a rubber stamp marking their classification, but that's not possible with emails.
Hence the use of letters and brackets like the C to say confidential or classified.
And then there's all kinds of emails where she asks the staff to strip the headers out, which would eliminate any sign that there is any classified data within, and then send it through regular channels.
It was it was not only stripping out the headers, she then proceeded to send secret eyes only, classified emails through regular email.
You wouldn't have even needed to hack it.
All you would have had to do is know somebody to whom she was sending email and have them forward it to you.
It's well, I mean, it was it was irresponsible and it is dangerous to boot.
Here's Julie Temecula, California.
Great to have you up first today.
Hi.
Hi, thank you for taking my call.
Interesting.
So every morning I put today's day, today, September 8th, 2016, and put Trump because I want to see if there's anything good on there.
Usually it's all negative, right?
So if I find a good article, I'm gonna click on it.
And this one, there was one.
It says Trump currently leads the MBC who won commander in chief forum.
So when I clicked on it, I it led to some tweets, and three people said that Hillary was wearing an earpiece last night and had said answer.
So I went and did a search, and I just did Hillary earpiece and put the date.
And it led to, you know, there's actually quite a few YouTube videos on it showing it.
So it's all over the place.
But the one the one that intrigued me was the one that was uh minute and thirty-five seconds, and at about 40 seconds, it shows an email, Kuma Abidin, and this was 92409.
It was an email to her, and this is what she said is a quote.
Did you, when she used the letter U, did you take your earpiece, or do I need to get it?
Right.
And so I was just wondering if you had heard if that is something to spread, or is that true?
Because we don't want her having it at the debate if it is true.
Well, I first of host, so yeah, I've I've heard of it.
The question is, are people getting this right?
I'm not I'm not yet sure.
I I I've seen all the tweets.
James Woods, the actor, has been huge in tweeting out the idea that she's using an earpiece.
His tweets have been retweeted and they're reverberating, and a lot of other people have, and then there are pictures of Hillary, what looks like some pearl and elongated pearl thing in her left ear that people claim might be an earpiece.
And then that Huma uh email that you found asking Hillary, do you have your ear piece that Do you need me to get it for you?
And so forth.
I'm I'm I'm still out school on this.
I'm I'm not sure, Julie.
This is uh, and I'm out of time here.
Look, uh I it's too long to ask you to hang on, but we'll continue this when we get back because I do need to address this.
The thing about these earpieces is they are common.
They are used by actors, stage actors.
Forget their lines, they're prompted with these things.
They're also prompted for other things, particularly if they're elderly.
Um a number of professional uses for these earpieces.
▲
Export Selection