All Episodes
Previous Next
March 13, 2024 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
35:19
Episode 159 LIVE: House Bans TikTok – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
You're not taking Matt Gaetz off the board, okay?
Because Matt Gaetz is an American patriot and Matt Gaetz is an American hero.
We will not continue to allow the Uniparty to run this town without a fight.
I want to thank you, Matt Gates, for holding the line.
Matt Gates is a courageous man.
If we had hundreds of Matt Gates in D.C., the country turns around.
It's that simple.
He's so tough, he's so strong, he's smart, and he loves this country.
Matt Gates.
It is the honor of my life to fight alongside each and every one of you.
We will save America!
It's choose your fighter time!
I'm sending the firebrand.
Welcome to Firebrand.
We are live broadcasting out of room 2021 of the Rayburn House Office Building here at the Capitol Complex in Washington, D.C. Already a busy week in Washington.
Special Counsel Rob Herr testifying to the House Judiciary Committee yesterday.
I'll have some of our exchanges there.
We'll talk about some of the peculiarities of the conclusions in Rob Herr's report, who was prosecuted.
He wasn't the double standard.
And there is a mass wave of humanity coming across the Florida Straits from Haiti.
Haiti has collapsed into a failed state run by gang violence.
The government has essentially dissolved there.
And the result is that Southeast Florida will see a wave of migration from these folks from Haiti.
I just moments ago was speaking to a local law enforcement official in Southeast Florida saying that these arrivals are often violent.
They are often desperate.
They end up in our jails.
They end up in our hospitals.
And we've got to do a lot to deter that.
We're going to talk about it.
And also a member of Congress, a Republican, going all in in favor of DEI.
You will not want to miss who that is and how we plan to hold them accountable today.
But first, I want to bring us to the news of the day.
The House of Representatives has passed legislation that would ban TikTok.
Now, TikTok is a national security concern.
I actually think it should be banned.
It's a way the Chinese Communist Party has an ability to collect facial recognition information, voice acquisition information.
All of those things, they store it in China.
ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, has the capability to access that stuff.
But here's the problem.
As is typically the case in the U.S. House of Representatives, we had a bad bill to deal with a real problem.
This legislation was overbroad.
It dealt with websites.
It wasn't even available for amendment.
If we really were serious about banning TikTok, and we should be, my assessment is that we ought to have a deliberative process.
We shouldn't rush something to the floor.
And then the way you make it better is you offer amendments, you take consideration, you take votes.
And then we probably would have an appropriately tailored legislative product as opposed to what we had today, which I voted against because it was overbroad, because it was rushed, and because it was not available for amendment.
If we did this right, we should have been able to get the job done.
The bill will now go to the Senate.
We expect the Senate to have a perspective on it that I would hope would appropriately lash the solution to the problem.
Some of the debate in favor of of creating this TikTok ban was offered by Illinois Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthy in committee.
Take a listen.
Mr. Ray, you've also talked about various threats associated with TikTok including its ability to potentially mobilize public opinion.
This particular push notification pop-up Ended up convincing many members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that day to change from being lean yeses to being hard yeses, because they felt this was exactly the nature of the threat that the legislation was being proposed to address.
So could you just talk about whether this is an example of the type of mobilization of public opinion that TikTok, under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, might conduct in the future?
Well, while I can't speak to the specific example, I can tell you that the kind of thing you're describing illustrates why this is such a concern.
I think Americans need to understand that distinctions that we take for granted in our system between businesses and government, between businesses and the government itself, don't exist for all practical purposes in China.
So Americans need to ask themselves whether they want to give the Chinese government the ability to control Access to their data.
Whether they want to give the Chinese government the ability to control the information they get through the recommendation algorithm, and whether they want to give the Chinese government the ability to leverage the data, the software, on their devices, which allows the Chinese government to compromise their devices, if they so choose to exercise.
And just let the record reflect that when you were talking about the type of algorithm or example of what could happen, you were pointing to this very poster with a pop-up menu.
Let me just make it clear.
You cannot rule out that the Chinese Communist Party actually ordered this particular pop-up to appear on people's phones that day, right?
That's right.
And I think it illustrates why when it comes to the algorithm and the recommendation algorithm and the ability to conduct influence operations, that is extraordinarily difficult to detect.
You can't tell.
To detect.
And that's what makes it such a pernicious risk.
And that's the problem.
You can't tell.
Because the CCP ultimately controls ByteDance, ByteDance can manipulate the algorithm and has access to all this data.
Now, Director Haynes, in this year's threat assessment on page 12, he said, TikTok accounts run by a PRC propaganda arm reportedly targeted candidates from both political parties during the U.S. midterms in 2022, right?
Can you just speak up?
Sorry, yes, I was just getting to the page.
Apologies.
So just to be clear, TikTok has already been used to influence the elections in 2022. And then on that same page, it says TikTok could, quote, attempt to influence elections in 2024. So, Director Haynes, you cannot rule out that the CCP could, again, just like they did here, use TikTok as a platform to influence 2024 elections, right?
We cannot rule out that the CCP could use it.
Correct.
Thank you.
I will be back.
We're back live.
I thought that was a very effective presentation by Raja Krishnamoorthy about the specific threat of TikTok, but the live stream right now has a very strong sentiment that the broad provisions of this bill could be used to go after Rumble, which we enjoy.
We hope you download.
We hope you have your notifications turned on so that you see when we give you these updates.
They worry about its impact on X, Oasis on Rumble saying, just closer to banning free speech.
So as we speak to the direct impact of TikTok, I wanted to show you what Krishnamoorthy was arguing.
But on the floor, we heard a lot of the concerns from the live stream animated by the debate of our fellow Firebrand and good friend Republican Dan Bishop of North Carolina.
Take a listen.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that restricting speech has been pursued in the interest of national security.
In fact, in five days' time, next Monday, I'll go to the Supreme Court for the first time I've attended an oral argument in the case of Murthy v.
Missouri, the case where Agents from the White House and the Department of Justice and other federal agencies embedded themselves with American social media companies to manipulate what could appear on social media, expression by the American people, described by the lower court as the most massive attack on free speech in U.S. history.
And even as that pins for a decision by the Supreme Court, Congress would, in this legislation, say, in effect, hold my beer.
I don't use TikTok.
I think it's ill-advised to do so.
Members of this body are famous on TikTok, and I think that's unwise.
but I respect the choices of 170 million users in the United States.
The Trump administration attempted to ban Tektok in 2020, and it was held that it couldn't do so in two court decisions, because under the International and it was held that it couldn't do so in two court decisions, because under the International Emergency Economic Powers
passed in 1988 by this body, to provide that in the interest of dealing with hostile foreign powers, the President can do all sorts of things with respect to commerce, but cannot ban the free flow of information across international boundaries.
I've heard that described as a gap in the law.
But it's a feature, sir.
It's not a bug.
This change cannot be, this legislation cannot be described as other than receding from the Berman Amendment and that principle in American law, which does not, by the way, did not emerge From the brow of Representative Berman in 1988, but was predicated on a much earlier principle of First Amendment law established in 1965 by the United States Supreme Court in the case Lamont v.
Postmaster General, which said the American people have a right, a First Amendment right of access to foreign propaganda.
At first, it may be remarkable or strike one as odd to hear that But that's because the proper relationship between government and citizen in the United States is that the citizen decides what to be exposed to and what ideologies to embrace and consider, and is always free to engage in expression, including across international boundaries.
That remains the prevailing constitutional law today, and it begs this question.
How could it be that Congress should be working hard to devise a means to circumvent that principle, that prevailing principle of the First Amendment against the use of a particular means of expression by 170 million Americans?
And isn't it ironic That the technical advisors in the construction of this legislation, to design it so that it can get around legislation challenges, including isolating litigation challenges to 180 days and only in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Those technical advisors are the same folks at the Department of Justice who devised that plan to embed agents of the Department of Justice and other federal agencies with social media platforms in the United States to restrict what Americans could say online.
Mr. Speaker, America confronts a grave challenge in China, and it will not prevail by becoming more like it, I yield.
That was U.S. Congressman Dan Bishop and following the debate we had a vote where the legislation was passed overwhelmingly more than two-thirds of Congress voting in the affirmative for the ban TikTok bill that I hope doesn't do all of the terrible things that go well beyond banning TikTok and that could be Weaponized against folks just as a consequence of some sort of viewpoint discrimination.
We've seen that all too often when the federal government gets involved in these matters.
Again, I am against TikTok.
I think it's bad.
I wouldn't have it in my house.
I wouldn't have it in my family.
But at the same time, When you construct a regulatory regime that can zap a variety of different platforms, I think you've got to look to that with great skepticism.
I did.
I voted no.
Now we'll see how that legislation fares in the United States Senate, where Lindsey Graham and some others actually want larger swaths of power for the executive to be able to take action against digital platforms.
I actually think it should be narrowed a bit.
In the House Judiciary Committee this week, we had Special Counsel Rob Herr.
Rob Herr is the person who was initially working at the Department of Justice for Rod Rosenstein when Hillary Clinton got off the hook.
He was appointed by President Trump to then go be U.S. Attorney in Maryland and then brought back by Merritt Garland to serve as Special Counsel narrowly on the Biden records matter.
Remember the boxes of records in Biden's garage next to the Corvette?
Well, Herr was to determine whether or not Joe Biden would be charged.
He determined that he would not be charged.
And a few of us thought that was a little strange.
Here's my exchange with Special Counsel Herr.
Take a listen.
February 8th, the White House questioned, Mr. President, why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter?
The President, I did not share classified information.
I did not share it.
I guarantee I did not.
That's not true, is it, Mr. Herr?
That is inconsistent with the findings based on the evidence in my report.
Yeah, so it's a lie.
It's just what regular people would say, right?
Yeah, all right.
So the next one.
And all the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked.
That wasn't true either, was it?
That was inconsistent with the findings of our investigation.
Another lie, people might say, right?
Because what you put in your report was, among the places Mr. Biden's lawyers found classified documents in the garage was a damaged open box.
So here's what I'm understanding, right?
As Mr. Armstrong laid out, you find in your report that the elements of a federal criminal violation are met, but then you apply this senile cooperator theory that because Joe Biden cooperated and the elevator doesn't go to the top floor, you don't think you can get a conviction.
And I actually think You get to the right answer in that.
I don't think Biden should have been charged.
Don't think Trump should have been charged.
But under, like, the senile cooperator theory, isn't it frustrating that Biden continues to go out and lie about the basic facts of the report that lay out a federal criminal violation?
Congressman, I need to disagree with at least one thing that you said, which is that I found that all of the elements were met.
One of the elements of the relevant mishandling statute is the intent element, And what my report reflects is my judgment that, based on the evidence, I would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that that intent element had been made.
Right, but the reason you have that doubt is the senile cooperator theory.
The fact that Joe Biden is so...
Inept in responding that you can't prove the intent.
Which again, I don't quibble with that conclusion, but it's frustrating to be like, oh, well this guy's not getting treated the same way as Trump because the elevator's not going to the top floor so we can't prove intent, while at the same time Biden goes out there at the White House and says, well, you know, he just blatantly lies.
And what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not Biden's lying because he's still so senile, he hasn't read your report, or whether it's a little craftier and a little more devious and perhaps a little more intentional.
than we might otherwise think.
So I also want to go to this Biden-Penn Center.
Did it give concern to you that the Biden-Penn Center, where all this classified stuff was being mishandled, was being floated by foreign governments?
Congressman, we were concerned with getting to the bottom of all of the classified documents that were recovered during the course of our...
Yeah, but what bothers me is that the money that was paying for the place where the documents were being inappropriately held, it was the Chinese and it was other foreign countries.
Did that play into your analysis?
Did you look into the billion dollars in foreign funding sources at the Biden Center at UPenn, for example?
Congressman, we conducted a thorough, impartial, and fair investigation, and we were very, very concerned with getting to the bottom of all the relevant questions relating to the recovered documents.
Mr. Sir, did you look into the fact that the Chinese were floating the place where this guy was keeping the documents unsecure?
Yes or no?
Congressman, to the extent that we identified evidence that was relevant and significant to our investigation, we put it in our report.
Okay, it seemed relevant to me.
Maybe not to you.
Another thing that seemed relevant to me is this ghostwriter, right?
So the ghostwriter purposefully deletes this evidence that seems to be, like, show culpability of Biden's crimes, and you don't charge him.
Why did you not charge the ghostwriter with obstructing justice and deleting evidence?
Well, for a number of reasons that are laid out in the report.
But in brief, Congressman, yes, when we interviewed the ghostwriter, he did tell us, and I'm trying to get the exact language, that one of the things on his mind, one of the things he was aware of, was that I had been appointed special counsel and was conducting an investigation.
So he didn't, just so everybody knows, the ghostwriter didn't delete the recordings just as a matter of happenstance.
Ghostwriter has recordings of Biden making admissions of crimes.
He then learns that you've been appointed.
He then deletes the information that is the evidence, and you don't charge him.
That is reflected in the report, and one of the reasons...
What does somebody have to do to get charged with obstruction of justice by you?
If deleting the evidence of crimes doesn't count, what would meet the standard?
As we state in the relevant chapter of the report, one of the things that Mr. Zwanager did not delete was transcripts of the recordings that he had created that included inculpatory evidence relating to Mr. Biden.
Oh, so if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence, that somehow absolves you of the evidence you destroy?
Like, here's what I see.
Zwanager should have been charged.
Wasn't.
Biden and Trump should have been treated equally.
They weren't.
And that is the double standard.
That I think a lot of Americans are concerned about.
I see my time's expired.
I yield back.
The senile cooperator theory.
Isn't that something?
If someone proves that they are so out to lunch in responding to basic facts, and if they show up to demonstrate that senility, apparently it is absolving of crimes.
And since when is cooperating with the government the thing that you have to do to not get charged?
Doesn't everyone have the right under the Fifth Amendment to not cooperate with the government when the government is trying to pin something on you that is biased, that is inequitable, that is a misapplication of the law?
It seems as though Trump's being punished for something that isn't even a crime, not cooperating with the government when they're trying to lie about you.
Rob Herr, quite something.
Now, he also had an exchange with Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen regarding the memory of Joe Biden.
We found that interesting.
Take a listen.
That's what Joe Biden does in understanding Social Security and Medicare.
Medicaid are important institutions that help seniors, not senile people.
I mean, I really object to that comment.
Nobody suggests he's senile.
And that's disrespectful of senior people with any kind of memory disability.
Lots of seniors have memory disability, but they're not senile.
And to do such, we're shameful.
Joe Biden is a competent, good president who knows American values.
Sometimes the hit dog will holler and it seems as though the criticism of Joe Biden is inept has certainly hit with some of my Democrat colleagues.
What's also hitting is a wave of illegal migration in the state of Florida as a consequence of the deteriorating conditions on the island of Hispaniola, particularly Haiti.
There the criminal gangs are running the country and so you've got this mass exodus of people Coming to Florida, I'm worried the Biden administration is not ready for it.
We get this reporting from the New York Post.
Florida border agents placed on high alert for refugees following breakdown of order in Haiti.
Border agents in Miami have been told to prepare for a wave of migration from Haiti.
Following the takeover of the country by bloodthirsty gangs, the Post has learned, it is unlikely Haitians who take to the sea and enter Florida illegally will be repatriated back to their home country.
Given this instability, roughly 15,000 people have been internally displaced in recent days due to the gang takeover of the country.
According to the UN, gangs have wrecked violence and terror through the burning of buildings, lootings and attacks on police stations and government infrastructure resulting in the closure of hospitals, disease and starvation.
With the breakdown of the government in Haiti, repatriating Haitians may not be happening for the foreseeable future, the email read.
So I guess...
If all this is going on in Haiti, and it's the view of some in the Biden administration that we're not going to repatriate them, that just becomes the new situation in Florida.
Guess what?
Florida's not going to become Haiti.
Miami's not going to become Port-au-Prince.
We have to deter this invasion, and when we apprehend these people, whether it is at sea or whether it is in our beloved Florida, we have to send them back.
We have to activate authorities right now with the U.S. military to get this done.
I pressed senior Biden administration military officials on this question just yesterday.
Take a listen.
So what's the difference between Haiti and a failed state?
It's telling, right?
We can't really identify them, because the gangs are in charge, the government has been thrown out, and as a Florida man, I'm deeply concerned about this wave of people that we're about to have, that we are having, coming from Haiti, and it will accelerate, because I've gone to Opelaka, and I've spent time with the folks that are engaged in Operation Vigilant Century, and they say the number one push factor That drives these Haitians into Broward County, Palm Beach County, where they don't disperse throughout the country.
They stay in Southeast Florida.
That driving factor is the deterioration of conditions in Haiti.
So what are we doing to prepare for that wave and to ensure that these people are not paroled into the United States as the administration has done with people on the southern border, but instead are repatriated back at the dock at Port-au-Prince?
Go ahead.
Congressman, we're doing a number of things to ensure that we're keeping track of the situation and we're prepared.
At the moment, we have not yet seen large numbers, what we would characterize as a maritime mass migration.
You anticipate a mass migration, though?
We are alert to that possibility.
I think you're right that the driving conditions in Haiti could very well press more people.
We've recently approved some additional assistance that we can provide to the Coast Guard.
I think that that has now fully been approved.
We'll be providing notifications, if we haven't already, to provide additional shipboard assistance.
Because I've talked to the Coast Guard, and what they say would really support them would be more naval vessels, would be DOD support.
And because I think you correctly said that there is an anticipated mass migration here.
There are specific legal authorities that we can access, that I would implore you to access.
Specifically, George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13276. And in that executive order, there is the ability for any president to designate an anticipated mass migration and then get gray-haul naval vessels into the Straits of Florida to deter that migration and then to repatriate those people So,
General Richardson, is it your best military advice, based on what we just heard from Ms. Zimmerman, that we activate the authorities anticipating a mass migration?
So I think that we need to be postured appropriately for that, exactly what you're talking about.
And I have put in a request for increased capability to do exactly that.
And we are ready if a mass migration, if we need to deal with a mass migration, we did a full walkthrough of our contingency plan on Gitmo last summer with all of the interagency and all of my components.
When I talk to the Coast Guard folks, they seem to say that we don't have to go drop these folks off at Gitmo, where they become a burden on the U.S. taxpayer.
We can interdict at sea and then repatriate directly at Port-au-Prince.
When you say you're preparing for that, does that specifically mean DOD assets?
So, for what happens on a daily basis that the Coast Guard is doing and the repatriation under Homeland Security authorities back to Cap-Haitian happens on a daily basis.
Yeah, no, I got that.
But when I go down to Opelika and get eyeball to eyeball with these folks, they say, Congressman, we really could use the DOD assistance, not more money for the Coast Guard, not more meetings, conference calls and committees, but gray hull vessels in the Straits of Florida doing the interdictions, doing the repatriations.
So when you say you're anticipating, I think Ms. Zimmerman laid it out correctly, So given the fact that an anticipated maritime mass migration is specifically contemplated pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 70051, can I leave this discussion believing that it will be your best military advice to the administration to utilize DOD assets for this purpose, General Richardson?
If I'm requested to do that, I will definitely do that.
No, I want you to make the request, not be requested.
That's what I'm trying to ascertain.
Okay.
Yes, Congressman.
Yes, you will make that request for DOD assets.
So I will talk with District 7 and our Coast Guard on the Atlantic side, Atlantic area, and see if they need additional DOD gray holes.
They have not requested that specifically from Southcom, but if there's a need for that, I would absolutely request it.
Thank you for that, because I really think getting ahead of this will ensure that the humanitarian conditions will be far better, that we could perhaps deter some of this, because, I mean, it's tragic conditions.
When you talk to these folks and they say that these Haitians are pouring gasoline on little babies and doing everything they can to deter interdictions, it sharpens the minds of my fellow Floridians to want to make sure you guys are doing everything possible, and I greatly appreciate the exchange today.
You'll be back.
We're back live.
A lot of comments about this wave of Haitian migrants.
Debbie on Facebook says we have a mass migration now.
I don't want to be hearing about the anticipated migration and the legal authorities that append there too.
Noel on X says he's glad all the Haitians are going to stay in Florida and not go around the country because it will make them easier to round up.
Well, Noel, you must not be from Florida because we do not want to be the dumping ground for the prisons and mental institutions and gang-ridden streets of Haiti.
And Anti-Neocon on YouTube says, send barbecue to Martha's Vineyard.
Now, Anti-Neocon is not talking about a pulled pork sandwich.
Barbecue is the nickname of a gang leader in Haiti who is rising in prominence.
And if you're wondering how one gets the nickname barbecue, it's by lighting people who are alive on fire.
So I don't really think we should have barbecue in Florida.
I think barbecue should stay in Haiti.
We'll keep following the story.
We'll keep communicating with our state, local, and federal assets to determine how to deter this thing, how to round these people up at sea, and how to drop them right back off in Port-au-Prince before they ever hit Florida's shores.
Congressman William Timmons is a Republican from South Carolina and he had some thoughts on diversity, equity, and inclusion to share in a recent congressional hearing.
They caught our eye because usually we count on Republicans to be with us to fight against DEI. We think you should treat people the same regardless of their skin color.
See if Congressman Timmons is with us in that fight.
Take a listen.
In the 116th Congress, we made a recommendation to make permanent the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and I am pleased that this recommendation came to fruition and is now a permanent office.
In both this Congress and last Congress, we have heard from many witnesses on ways Congress can improve its hiring practices and promote diversity inclusion broadly.
Our objective should be that Every member's office, well, let's start with Congress.
Congress should be representative of the country, and then within Congress, every member's office should be representative of the people they represent.
So it should be diverse based off of race, gender, geography, socioeconomic background, lifestyle.
And it should be proportional based off of the population they represent.
Would we benchmark success as making it representative?
I mean, is the definition, is our success...
My whole thing is it should be proportional.
So if there's a decision, if there's a decision about, well, not decision, an option...
Go ahead.
As a minimal benchmark, that would be great, but if that were our minimal benchmark and that were success, We're not there yet based on the data that we've collected for the House.
If we wanted to set that as a baseline benchmark and to say that we could reach that and that be a success as a benchmark.
I couldn't agree more.
This is a top priority for this Congress, and we need to get it right.
So I just appreciate you working so hard on this.
And with that, I will yield back.
A top priority for Representative William Timmons, the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
You can count on this office to be on the opposite side of that fight.
We believe in merit.
Merit.
That is the way to advance in American life and in American society.
Before we go, we've got breaking news.
A Fulton County judge has killed six counts in the Trump indictment.
This from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on Wednesday struck down six counts of the August indictment that alleged felony conduct by former President Donald Trump and 18 others, saying they lacked sufficient detail.
McAfee dismissed counts logged against Trump, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, lawyer Charles Eastman, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and attorneys Ray Smith and Bob Cheesley.
Many of the charges relate to allegations that defendants illegally urged Georgia elected officials, including Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, then House Speaker David Ralston, and members of the General Assembly, to violate their oaths of office by convening a special session of the legislature to appoint pro-Trump electors.
Quote, the court's concern is less that the state has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the defendants.
In fact, it is alleged in abundance, McAfee wrote.
However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned opinion, fatal.
McAfee said the six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes, but don't provide enough detail regarding the alleged felonies committed.
Quote, they do not give defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligibly, he added.
All of the remaining defendants are still under indictment for racketeering and other Offenses.
McAfee noted this does not mean the entire indictment is dismissed.
If you are Trump, Meadows, the lawyers...
This is good news.
You want to narrow the issues.
You want to thin out some of these charges where the pleadings did not occur with particularity and those pleading deficiencies are important for due process.
Notice the ability to prepare your defense to know what's coming and what should be coming in that entire Fulton County prosecution is a broad dismissal based on the conduct of Thank you so much, as always, for joining us.
We always appreciate it.
If you're listening on Spotify, iTunes, give us a five-star rating.
That helps more people get our program in their recommendations to stay up to date as to what's going on.
And we love when all of our supporters get on Rumble, follow at RepMacGates, and ensure that you've got the app downloaded with that notification able to give you real-time information, real-time notice whenever we go live and give our reports.
Have a great day.
Roll the credits.
▲
Export Selection