All Episodes
Previous Next
April 19, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
33:43
Roger Severino - April 18th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Mr. President, don't.
Stop it.
Support Israel.
With respect.
Go to Amazon and buy a spine online.
Overturning Rome was just the opening act.
Just the opening act of a larger strategy to take women's rights and freedoms.
The clock is ticking.
Believe it or not, only 200 days left till you get to vote.
Yeah, we have come in to your city.
Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
From coast to coast.
From border to border.
From sea to shining sea.
Sean Hannity is on.
All right, thanks, Scott Shannon.
And our two Sean Hannity show, toll-free, it's 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
I got a note earlier today, and I've been saying this, of a person that was in the courtroom at the Trump trial in New York City today.
You can't imagine the panel, not one person, and this was sent to a friend who then forwarded it to me, reads the post, meaning the New York Post or watches Fox or listens to talk radio.
Quote, he is screwed.
And literally, you know, it's kind of liberal.
You just see liberal New Yorker after liberal New Yorker that get their news from Google, NPR, CNN, and the New York Times.
I have yet to see one working class person.
Now, the judge in this case was scolding the press for reporting too much information.
He said, use common sense.
What was a little ambiguous in his remarks, and he addressed the press directly and telling them that reporting on too much background information about the jurors defeats the purpose of anonymity.
And he said, but I'm directing the press.
And this is weird.
He said, the press is certainly able and permitted to write about anything that's on the record because it's on the record.
But I'm directing that the press simply applies common sense.
Well, what does that even mean?
How do you interpret that?
I mean, if you say so-and-so is from this place in this profession of this age, race, whatever, whatever demographic information you want to give out, I mean, you got to explain that.
Of course, prosecutors are furious.
Trump violated the gag order, you know, seven times.
But all the other people in the trial are free to say anything that they want.
We talked about that yesterday.
I've said from the beginning, I don't think this is a fair venue.
I don't believe that Donald Trump can get an unbiased jury in this case.
We did have one juror that was dismissed and immediately races out to the cameras of MSTNC and talks about her time being going through this jury process.
Let's listen.
I do.
This is Kat.
She runs a VC fund here in Manhattan for folks that are over 60 years of age.
She was just dismissed as a potential juror.
What happened?
Why were you dismissed?
Because I couldn't be impartial.
You couldn't be impartial.
So when the judge asked that hand, can you be impartial?
You raised your hand and you said you cannot.
Exactly.
Wow.
When did you first come?
On Tuesday.
On Tuesday.
At that point, when did you realize that this was a trial involving the ex-president of the United States?
So we were here on Tuesday from 9 a.m.
Yeah.
But we realized that it's about this case on 4 p.m.
We went into the courtroom and we showed Donald Trump.
You went into the courtroom at 4 p.m. on Tuesday to see Donald Trump.
Yeah, we didn't know before that.
What was your first thought?
I was shocked.
I was sitting on the second row, like six feet away.
And when I realized that Trump is there, I was like, oh, wow.
I couldn't believe it.
What about the people around you?
Everybody was shocked.
Everybody was frozen.
No, like frozen, no expressions, nothing.
We were all, you know, did he, did that was okay?
Did he look back at you?
Did any of the attorneys look back at you at that time?
Sometimes Trump would turn his head.
Yeah.
But that was it.
Yeah.
He didn't stand up or anything.
Were you following the case before this?
I didn't really.
I'm too busy.
You're too busy, but you knew he was on trial or you knew he was on the trial.
I knew.
Yeah, it's just the headlines.
But yeah, too busy to read the details.
Have you ever served as a juror before?
No, that's my first time because I just became a citizen in August.
Yeah.
And that was my first call.
So you just became a citizen of the United States.
So that means you've never voted in a presidential election.
Exactly.
You call to be a juror, and this is the jury that you are called to.
Yes.
What was that?
Unbelievable.
That is unbelievable.
I know.
What was your impression of Donald Trump when you saw him?
You know, he looked less orange, definitely, like more yellowish, like yellow.
Nothing else on that.
He looks, he doesn't look angry or I think he looks bored, like he wants this to finish and go do his stuff.
That's how it, yeah.
He looks forward, but he looks less orange.
And now, the fundamental question here is whether that, whether Donald Trump in a city that had, what, 12% or less than 12% of the electorate vote for him can get an impartial jury.
Here to weigh in on this is Roger Severino, Vice President of Domestic Policy at Heritage and Trump's former director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Health and Human Services.
And anyway, he has a lot of experience as a trial attorney in jury selection.
First, the ambiguity of the judge's comments, oh, you have every right to report on what goes on in the courtroom, but use common sense about what you say about jurors.
I mean, what does that mean?
How does anyone determine that?
All we have ever talked about is where in New York they're from and where they get the news from for the most part, you know, or whether they're a male or female or what demographics they may fit, but that's about it.
Yeah, it's very unusual.
Trials are supposed to be public to ensure there's transparency because a person's life and freedom are on the line in criminal trials.
So you want to have the public be able to see what goes on.
In a free society, you don't do trials behind closed doors.
That's what you do in communist countries where people get disappeared.
So there has to be a role for the media to be there.
And it's very important to get insights into what this jury pool is going to be that gets selected.
So the media is important to be reporting on, okay, this is the type of questions that are being asked.
Is the judge asking the right questions?
Are the lawyers acting within bounds?
And what about the jurors?
Are they missing key aspects of potential bias?
Because again, we have the former president's freedom on the line, and a lot of the benefit of doubt in our constitutional system protects the innocent, and rightly so.
There's a real question as to whether President Trump can get an impartial jury in Manhattan.
That's a real question, and we're seeing a lot of that play out given the overwhelming number of jurors that have already been dismissed because they admitted, to their credit, they couldn't be fair with President Trump.
To their credit, I will share that view.
By the way, the Associated Press, two-thirds of Americans are not convinced that Alvin Bragg's case is even legitimate.
One thing, there are a number of things that I doubt this jury is ever going to learn, at least in that courtroom.
One is that the judge himself voted for, I'm sorry, donated to Joe Biden in 2020 to the issue of his daughter and political connections, and that brings up the issue of recusals.
I don't think they're going to learn about the gag order preventing Donald Trump from going out and speaking about the case, which I think is a violation of his First Amendment rights.
You know, I thought what former A.G. Barr said, this is a real threat to democracy, then that being the progressive left and how this case is an abomination.
And I think he's exactly right here.
I think Stephen A. Smith is right when he said he believes Democrats want Trump convicted to avoid facing him in election.
We're now 200 days outside of the, I think, a tipping point election for this country.
I have a greater sense of urgency than I've ever had.
And there's a lot that I think that this jury is never going to know about this case.
They're not going to know that the statute of limitations have run out.
They're not going to know that Alvin Bragg is now reaching into federal law as a means of sort of justifying this case.
A guy that had reduced felony charges to misdemeanor 60% of the time, except if your last name's Trump, it goes in the other direction.
I don't think they're going to hear any of that.
And President Trump will have a lot of arguments on appeal if he were to be convicted.
Okay, on appeal after conviction, what are the odds that that is taken care of and handled before the election?
Yeah, that's the difficulty.
We know what the plan was.
These claims could have been brought years ago, literally years ago, but they waited conveniently at a time that puts President Trump in maximum political peril.
Now, by and large, it has blown up in their faces.
The more the radical left goes attacking President Trump with lawfare, the more popular he's become and the more support he's gotten because people know this is abuse of the justice system.
It is so ridiculous at this point.
Americans see right through it.
The question is, does this Manhattan jury see right through it?
And the points you raised earlier, there's so many things in the background that the jurors are probably not going to be aware of why this case was brought at all.
Now, it is interesting that two jurors that got through so far, and there's still a few to go, are lawyers.
And that's very interesting to me because I served on a jury.
I was a jury foreman years ago.
And it tends to happen that one or two people start to dominate the conversations.
And I had the personality where I started to dominate the conversation.
And that makes a tremendous difference.
And lawyers might have an advantage here.
And if we get a lawyer that says, you know what, this case doesn't make any sense, that just looks at the law dispassionately, what does this have to do with campaign finance when we're talking about business records under state law?
Does this make any sense to anybody?
It's such a weak case that you might have an impartial lawyer that says to the other jurors, you know what, this doesn't make any sense.
And according to the law, he's going to be not guilty.
Alternatively, you might get a liberal Manhattan lawyer that doesn't like Trump.
So it could cut both ways.
Oh, I agree with all of that.
I mean, so you think actually that might be favorable to Donald Trump, the two attorneys are on this case.
It's very possible.
I mean, they got through, which means Trump's attorneys didn't find enough reason to strike them.
And they still have a couple, what they're called, peremptory challenges, where they don't have to explain why they're striking a juror.
If they find cause, indications of bias, there's unlimited people they could pull out if there's evidence of bias.
But they also a limited number where it's peremptory, right?
Just say, you know what, we just have a bad hunch about this person.
They're off the jury.
There's a few more perentary strikes left, and they're saving it.
All right, quick break more on the latest in this ridiculous Trump trial in New York.
More with Roger Severino.
All right, we continue now with analysis of jury selection in the Trump trial with Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy at Heritage.
Let's get to the issue of the gag order and the recusal issue of the judge in the case.
Do you think the gag order itself is constitutional?
Do you believe that in this case, knowing what we know about the judge, just the fact that he donated to Biden in 2020, I think would be cause for recusal?
The issue that has been brought up by Elise Defonic and others about the daughter and political activities that she's been involved in that even are affected by this case.
Would that be grounds for recusal based on the law in New York, which I've laid out many times?
I won't read here again, but do you think this is grounds for recusal?
Recusal is always tough because the burden of proof is fairly high.
Because it's so politicized, these questions need to be asked about this judge.
The problem is the judge has already issued a gag order on President Trump.
And again, the timing of this trial was trying to inflict maximum political harm to President Trump to prevent him from being president to deprive the American people of getting their say through the ballot box instead of putting it in the hands of 12 jurors from Manhattan.
That's been their plan.
Now, what Trump can do about it is make the case that this is further evidence of a weaponized justice system, but not a republic level.
And he has a constitutional right to be able to say that, to petition the government for redresses, to protest it.
He is running for president of the United States, and he's being deprived of the ability to talk about one of the main issues.
And the main issue is he needs to, he wants to fix the broken justice system that has been weaponized against political enemies, right?
That is a distortion of the constitutional structure.
That is a key campaign event, and he's living that nightmare right now.
And the judge is on precarious grounds to try to limit a former president from being able to campaign effectively on an issue of public concern.
Well, the judge has been very clear that Donald Trump must be in court every single day or he will send him to jail for however long this trial lasts.
Estimates are a month or longer.
That, in fact, Donald Trump will be literally ceding the entire playing field, that is, swing states in this election to his opponent, Joe Biden, who's been in Pennsylvania for the last couple of days.
And I would argue, too, that if Democrats had their way, Donald Trump would be in a courtroom from now until November 5th and not have any opportunity to run a real campaign.
At some point, does the Justice Department step in and follow what, quote, is not unwritten policy that you don't do this just prior to an election?
Yeah, there is long-standing policy if you don't bring political prosecutions right before an election.
And that norm has been shattered.
But the DOJ, it has all the hallmarks of the deep state.
And they went after Trump with the Russia hoax.
They now have been further weaponized under Biden, given a complete free reign to go after him.
So all those norms of non-political interference have been thrown out the window when it comes to Trump.
And we've seen it in the Kid Gloves treatment they've done with President Biden, not going after him or his son for tax evasion, for gun charges, for the documents of the secret documents and confidential information that President Biden should not have had in his garage next to his Corvette and in the open garage.
All these things where you get this differential treatment, a two-tier system of justice, and that's why President Trump has promised to clean house if he gets back into office.
That is a popular message, but there are all these forces from Judge Gag orders to the cases brought against him himself to try to put him in jail and to try to bankrupt him that want to preserve the status quo of the weaponized DOJ to go after political enemies.
That has to change.
This cannot go on.
It really is unbelievable.
Anyway, we appreciate your time.
Roger Sebarino, thank you so much for your insight.
It's going to get more interesting by the day, that's for sure.
800-941-Sean is on number if you want to be a part of the program.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I 25 to the top of the hour, our toll-free telephone numbers, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
I want to remind you about our friends at Pre-Born and the Hannity Baby Shower we've been talking about.
Linda.
Yes, so we have all of these amazing moms out there, and we want to bring more moms into the fold.
And the only way we can do that is by showing these young moms that are pregnant, even if it's unplanned, what that beauty is inside of them.
It is a real life.
And ultrasounds are 28 bucks.
If we can get a thousand people to donate 500 bucks, and please know, we get it.
It's a lot of money.
Biden is crushing us, but it's up to us to look beyond it and help save a life.
So please donate some money.
Go to preborn.com forward slash Sean.
That's S-E-A-N, or you can dial the number 250 on your cell phone.
You say the keyword, baby.
Please, guys, Mother's Day is around the corner.
We're really trying.
Give whatever you can.
It's going towards saving a life.
Planned Parenthood is taking your money and they're killing babies left and right.
We're trying to do the exact opposite here.
Please help us do this for Mother's Day.
All right, preborn.com/slash Sean or pound250 on your sell keyword baby.
Anyway, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we have so much to talk about today.
Well, this it's, I know it's a little off the beaten track, but when I saw this, I said, there's no way this could be true.
But here's the headline.
It is, California lawmakers say buying 16, 17-year-olds for sex is not a felony.
California Democrats, well, they decided this past Tuesday that purchasing a 16 or 17-year-old for sex is not a felony.
Democrats in the Senate Public Safety Committee forced amendments on the bill of the author that the author Shannon Grove of Bakersfield objected to.
Those amendments denied her efforts to protect 16 and 17-year-old children from being purchased as part of a commercial sex trafficking ring.
Backstory, current California law makes it a misdemeanor for anyone who purchases or solicits a minor for sex and only carries a jail sentence of two days to one year and a maximum of $10,000 in terms of a fine.
And last year, Grove pushed through the Senate Bill 14, which reclassified human traffickers of minors for the purpose of sex as a serious felony under the law.
Now, while SB 14 went after human traffickers who are selling children for sex, her new proposal goes after the buyers.
Anyway, her proposal would make it a felony to purchase or solicit any minor for sex, whether or not the person knew that the minor was under the age of 18.
I mean, what's going on with our society?
This is what we're talking about.
It's a big piece in the New York Post today.
Psychiatrists warned, youth gender change must never be questioned.
You can't question it.
And then you get into this gender-affirming psychiatric care.
Gerald Posner writes the article as the first textbook dedicated to providing affirming intersectional and evidence-informed psychiatric care for transgender, non-binary, and or gender-expansive people.
Close examination reveals it's an extremist handbook that could put kids on a fast track from the therapist chair to life-changing hormones, treatments, and surgery.
And the textbook, he points out, he believes, is more than just a curiosity with the American Psychiatric Association's reference in this book that is widely used in medical schools by specialists, et cetera, as a practicing psychiatrist and mother of three,
an Oklahoma City-based psychiatrist, told me I've lost sleep knowing this textbook is being taught in medical schools and residencies, sold as peer-reviewed, necessary, life-saving, and evidence-based, and it is simply not.
I mean, that's a pretty big shockwave that secret files revealed last month that members of the leading transgender healthcare organization privately admitting that children and adolescents are incapable of giving informed consent when what is irreversible in terms of the medical procedures to which they would be subjected for such care.
A 388-page report from the UK named after the chief author, a pediatrician Hillary Cass, excoriated the lack of scientific evidence for the use of hormones and surgery for gender questioning minors.
One result is Britain's banning of puberty blockers for those under 18.
But this is where these are the issues I never thought we'd discuss, like squatting, stealing somebody else's home.
Unreal.
A lot of people lost their ability to dial 911 yesterday in three states, according to officials.
There's a lot of these instances happening, seemingly not related, but you begin to question what's going on here.
In the UK, by the way, lawmakers are voting decisively in favor of legislation to ban smoking in Britain completely.
The tobacco and vapes bill, now one step closer to becoming law after clearing the first hurdle in Parliament.
The bill would make it illegal to sell tobacco to anyone born after January 1st, 2009, with the legal age for the purchase of tobacco products increasing by one year every year until it eventually covers the entire population.
How about freedom?
But if you decide to make the decision to smoke, then you can't expect the rest of society to pay for the health care costs.
All right, let's get to our phones.
A lot of you standing by patiently.
Let's say hi to Athena.
She's in South Carolina.
How are you, Athena?
There was an article today that there are many conservatives that they are racing over to South Carolina, and South Carolina is growing by leaps and bounds.
And all the data that we've seen on it confirms that.
Yes, that's true.
And good afternoon to you and Linda.
I love both of you.
Who do you love more, me or Linda?
Oh, don't put me in that position.
I'm putting you in that position.
I love you both the same.
Athena.
Good answer.
That's a good answer.
You can tell him you love him more.
Everyone loves Sean more, and I am at peace with that.
You're at peace with that because she thinks she's superior.
That's why.
Anyway, what's on your mind?
I'm going to be real quick, and then I'm going to hang up and let you give me your answer.
But, you know, tell me what you think.
But this is it.
I hear you all the time, and you say, you know, you've got to get people to register, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And we did that.
And we had millions more votes last time, but it didn't work.
I think this is a good idea because you do it and you have the connection.
But every conservative, and now that Laura Trump is an associate director or whatever of the GOP, you know, that they should, you know, just like they pay for ads, well, they should pay all the conservatives to go to town halls, to have town halls, and have the local people, the local representatives and council and senators that are running for office there and also talk about Trump's successes when he was in office.
But get these people in town halls so the other people that don't, because like yesterday I was talking to somebody online, and he said that President Trump had 91 sexual assaults and nobody like that should be president.
They believe the crap that they hear on regular TV.
So we need town halls and to pay all of y'all because there's hundreds of you.
Stacy on the right, you know, Terrence, everybody to hold town halls, but they can't afford to do that.
But with the GOP for it, go ahead.
Let me give you some good news.
Laura Trump happened to be on Hannity last night.
I asked her for an update in their efforts to get people to vote early, vote by mail, and she says they're making a lot of progress.
I asked her about the progress about legal ballot harvesting.
She said they're making a lot of progress there.
And then she gave out a website.
And on the website, you know, they're letting people sign up to become trained poll watchers.
And that's, I think, every single voting precinct in the country needs trained poll watchers that get to watch the voting all day and the vote counting all night.
Now, one thing Democrats won't be able to do is what they were able to pull off in 2020, which is many states have laws that say that partisan observers get to watch the vote counting.
And because of COVID, there were no accommodations made.
And as a result, you know, people that were partisan observers were 1,000, 2,000 feet away if they were even allowed in the room.
That's not going to happen this time.
So I think that hopefully brings more integrity.
I am just telling all of you, and some of you have been angry at me that I'm saying this.
You're telling people, you're giving them bad information.
No, I'm not giving them bad information.
You cannot start out Election Day, down hundreds of thousands of votes, and hope that people show up that one day in droves and are able to overcome what is the banking of votes by Democrats.
Republicans have got to embrace early voting, voting by mail.
And it's not the system I want.
I want Election Day to be a national holiday.
I want one day voting, not 30 days voting.
I want voter ID.
I want signature verification.
I'm one chain of custody controls, where any ballots that are mailed in are under camera, under watch the whole time.
I want updated voter rolls and I want partisan observers.
But we can't change those laws unless we win elections first.
So the system we're stuck with, we better embrace and we better master or we're not going to maximize the potential vote of conservatives and Republicans.
That's correct.
I agree.
I agree with all that.
But he's got to be our president.
I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me and y'all have a blessed day.
Bye-bye.
You too.
You have a blessed day as well.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
David in Alabama.
Where in Alabama are you, David?
I'm doing all right, sir.
Where are you in Alabama?
Where do you say?
Where do you live in Alabama?
Birmingham.
I know it well.
What's on your mind?
I lived in Huntsville, 90, what was it?
Just up 65, about an hour, hour and a half away.
Well, my brother had a radio station or had a radio, political radio show for a long time.
It was called Radio Underground with Joshua Coy.
And he spoke the truth.
He didn't sugarcoat things much like you.
And unfortunately, he passed away a few years back.
But the length that people are willing to go to to make the Republicans fear the Democrat has gotten to bullying.
I mean, there's no other way of putting it.
You can't walk out of your car at a gas station with a Trump shirt on.
You can't make an innocent comment on Facebook about it.
I posted something the other day about, please, I have some friends in Israel.
Please pray for them.
And then before I knew it, I've got people bashing me because I'm not supporting Palestine.
And I mean, let me give you my take on social media.
And I think it does play a useful role.
I think there's good information that you can glean from it and you can share it.
And there's a lot of smart, funny, witty people on there, but there's a lot of, it's pretty toxic.
It's a toxic environment.
And I will tell you, just for my own mental health purposes, you know, who needs to read Hannity, you suck all day.
I mean, I just, unless I'm, you know, unless I want to really feel bad about myself, why would I go and read posts of people that don't like me and will never like me?
I can tell you, yeah, it's a divided country.
The difference in terms of when I lived in New York versus when I live in Florida now as a full-time resident, domiciled resident in Florida, I can tell you that it is night and day.
I am treated so differently here.
It almost has been shocking to a certain level.
However, it's what I experience when I go to most states around the country.
People are extraordinarily nice and kind to me, more than I deserve.
I did not get that same treatment in New York, especially in recent years.
And it's gotten worse and worse and worse.
And, you know, it's one of the big reasons why I said I'm out.
I'm done.
But I've wanted to get out for a long time, and there were very specific reasons I couldn't.
And here I am, and I think it was the best decision I've made.
Anyway, appreciate the call, my friend.
Glad you're out there.
All right, quick break, right back.
More of your calls coming up.
Toll-free are numbers, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program as we continue.
All right, back to our busy phones.
Roy, also in Alabama, next on the Sean Hannity show.
How are you, Roy?
Great.
You're good.
What's on your mind today?
I'm a veteran.
I'm a proud veteran.
I've done two deployments in Iraq and two deployments in Afghanistan.
And that is just with a very heavy heart.
Thank you, my friend, for putting your life on the line for us.
We appreciate it.
You're a hero.
Thank you.
Do you really think that if a terrorist attack happened again, do you think half the country that raised their hands would on September 12, 2001, do you think that we'd have the same response?
Because this country is so fractured.
Why would we want to run into the fight when a whole bunch of Democrats in a Democrat-controlled city just got destroyed?
I don't know.
Things have changed dramatically in the last 24 years because the country did unite after 9-11.
And I was in New York at the time, and the outpouring of love that came into that city and how that city came together, I'll remember for the rest of my life.
I mean, it was deep, it was profound, it was impactful.
And frankly, I wish we were more united than we are.
But I don't know how you reconcile those people that want wide open borders and those people that want legal immigration.
How do you reconcile those that believe in limited government, lower taxes, less bureaucracy, and what the Green New Deal socialists want?
How do you reconcile those that want defund, dismantle, no bail laws, reimagining police departments versus those that believe in simple law and order and safety and security?
How do you reconcile those that believe in peace through strength versus those that are outright appeasers in some cases, even sympathizing with terrorists?
I don't know.
I mean, these are very, very troubling times.
And I think that there really is only one answer, and that's for the right people to be in power.
And that's why this election in 200 days is so important.
Anyway, I got a roll, but good call.
You raise a great question.
▲
Export Selection