A Republican Senator is proposing jail time for live streaming outlets that violate copyright law.
Oh my God. Comcast, MSNBC, I mean, NBC, huge money moving into this space that are getting these,
do nothing politicians that don't do anything unless they receive really big money. This guy
right here, right? He won't do anything unless he gets money from, from the media industry. So what
is the media industry trying to accomplish here? This is absolutely terrifying, you know, for,
for, for us, for what we do, because Thom Tillis has put this rider on a must pass spending bill,
which could come to a vote this week, that says if you use any kind of copyrighted material, if
it's a clip from another network, if it's a song owned by one of these, you know, music outlets,
instead of it being just the, you know, Facebook or whoever is going to flag you for it, no,
we want to be able to prosecute you with a minimum sentence of jail time, prison time for using a
clip of a song in your video. I mean, these are things that we do every single day here and we
have for many years. We don't use copyrighted material, but sometimes if you're showing a clip
from another network, you know, if somebody on MSNBC or Fox news says something weird,
you put that in there. They want to be able to put you in jail for using five seconds of their video.
Yeah. So I went back and looked a little further. You know who the face of all this
was when it started, Harvey Weinstein. This is, this was the face of the guy going and saying,
oh, we need some new laws, this pig of a person, absolute pig of a person leading the charge on
behalf of the media. Then comes Tillis, right? Tillis is the guy that's writing the legislation.
He's their gimp. He's the one they pull out of the box anytime they need something. They
pull the gimp out of the box and then the media industry, corporate media pulls him out and gets
whatever they want. I hope this dies just like Justin Bieber, I'm not a huge Justin Bieber fan,
but he says this is disgusting, it's revolting. That what you're trying to do is you're trying
to dampen creative effect in the United States. Well, and a lot of it is too, is this is, you
know, the corporate media fighting back against independent media, because that is where a lot of
these viewers are now turning. They're turning off the television, they're going to YouTube,
they're going to Twitch and they're watching these people with new independent ideas
that they know are not influenced by corporate shareholders. They're flocking more to that and
these networks are trying to hold onto the last little bit they have and say,
okay, but if you use our material, it's going to be hard for you to stream when you're behind bars.
Yeah. So as you think about it, you think you have some sympathy for corporate media, for Comcast and
NBC and Sony and all these folks trying to make this happen. Visualize the pig, Harvey Weinstein,
he was the face of this when it started, before they threw him in prison for raping people.
The US Supreme Court has rejected Texas bid to in, to invalidate the results of this year's
presidential election in four swing States where Donald Trump lost. Brigida Santos joins me now to
put this in perspective, you know, Brigida to me, no surprise here, even though, you know, you have
everybody who was, oh my God, the Supreme Court is lost to the right. They're not going to be judges
anymore. Doesn't this kind of get in the way of that argument? Why has the high court denied the
complaints? I mean, what's their reasoning. Yeah. This gets in the way of that,
for sure. Now the US Supreme Court has rejected a complaint aiming to invalidate election results in
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. The lawsuit was spearheaded by Texas attorney
general, Ken Paxton, who accuses government officials in the four defendant States of
unconstitutionally revising their state's election statutes without legislative authority when
updating mail in ballot rules during the pandemic. Now in the lawsuit, Paxton also questions the
security of mail-in ballots and accuses the States of weakening signature verification and witness
requirements for the ballots that were cast. But SCOTUS has denied the motion citing lack of
standing under article three of the constitution. The high court States, "Texas hasn't demonstrated
a judicially recognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.
All other pending motions are dismissed as moot." The Supreme court's rejection
is widely seen as the final stop for those in the Republican party who are seeking to overturn the
results of the presidential election. Yeah. I mean, coming from Ken Paxton
being charged that there's crimes taking place, that is very special because five years ago,
Ken Paxton, the guy who's making these accusations well, he was charged with crimes and
it's issues still going on. You know, why hasn't he gone to trial? He instead, he's up there making
this issue in front of the Supreme Court. Starts with no legitimacy, simply because it's Paxton to
begin with. He hasn't gone to trial yet, has he? Is something happened with Paxton that I missed?
No, he hasn't gone to trial. Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton was indicted on felony
securities fraud charges back in 2015. And this October seven of the highest ranking officials in
his office wrote a letter to the Texas director of human resources stating that they have good faith,
belief and knowledge that Paxton is violating federal and or state laws, including improper
influence, bribery, abuse of office, and other possible crimes. Paxton denies the allegations.
As to why he's yet to face trial, well, that's not clear, it's, it reeks of corruption. So
far there's no trial date on the books and the main activity in the case has been venue changes
and disputes over payments to these special prosecutors handling the case. But the recent
whistleblower complaints and Paxton's highly publicized efforts here to overturn the election
results are renewing the pressure to get a trial on the books. Now we'll see if that happens. A lot
of people believe that he filed this lawsuit as a plea to president Trump, to try to get a pardon.
In other words, corruption center led by Paxton in Texas, I mean the very heart of corruption
is going to the Supreme Court and they're saying there's corruption in the electoral process.
That is very rich. You know, this, this week the electoral college has officially affirmed
Joe Biden's presidential win, but the Donald, well, he continues to fight the court. What's
his latest legal battle. We know the, we know the ending to the legal battle and nothing has
worked for him because there's no evidence. It's like somebody was interviewed the other day on,
on corporate media and they were saying, well, what evidence do you have that there's been
anything on, on toward here? And the guy says, well, I don't, I, I didn't actually, I wasn't
there when they landed on the moon. So isn't that an analogy here? That's, that's the kind
of thinking we have. What's your take on this? Yeah. Look despite the actions of the
electoral college and Supreme Court this week, president Trump and his legal team, of course,
they're not going to give up. They're now filing another election lawsuit, this time in New Mexico,
accusing the state of breaking the law when allowing voters to drop off absentee ballots,
rather than handing them to the location's presiding judge in person. Now, at this point,
any new lawsuits are completely performative. This is unsurprising for the president. He's
not going to go down without a fight and he'll probably drag this out all the way to the end.
Yeah. The question is how much damage does he do to the democratic process
while he's doing that? That's what we ought to be focusing on. Brigida, thank you. I, I, we want to
do another story in a few weeks and I think it's going to be the same story and Trump is going to
have the same results. Nothing is going to happen here. Joe Biden is the president. Get over it,
Trump. Thank you for joining me. Okay. Thanks Mike.