Trish Regan: [Music playing] This is American Consequences With Trish Regan, a view of things you won’t get anywhere else. Trish talks the Fed, the White House and the world like no one. The biggest guests and best analysis starts right now. Here’s Trish Regan.
Trish Regan: Wow. We have a lot of news to talk about this week. My goodness. When you see what Big Tech and Big Media are doing right now to suppress the story about the alleged scandal of Hunter Biden and Ukraine… and Hunter Biden and China… and Hunter Biden and a few other countries. And you see how actively they’re working to make sure that you don’t hear this. We’ve got to discuss. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is finally filing a lawsuit alleging effectively a monopoly in anticompetitive practices by Google – by Big Tech.
We got a terrific show for you today with Jenna Ellis, who is a senior legal advisor to the campaign as well as counsel to Donald Trump, the president. We have Senator Marsha Blackburn here, and we have the CEO of a company that’s working overtime right now to make sure that every single American will get the coronavirus vaccine. Anyway, let me start with Jenna Ellis. Jenna, welcome to the program. Welcome to American Consequences With Trish Regan. So good to have you here.
Jenna Ellis: Great to be with you, Trish. Thanks for having me.
Trish Regan: So let’s drill down first into these allegations, right? Now, it’s come forward that there’s this laptop that was given to the New York Post, a copy of which was also given to Rudy Giuliani. It looks like Rudy Giuliani gave it to the New York Post. And the FBI had it as well. And on this laptop, we’re learning that there are some questionable e-mails that deal with some potential conflicts of interest, shall we say, between Hunter Biden and Burisma – the Ukrainian energy company and Hunter Biden – and a Chinese energy company. And I guess the big question now is “you know, to what extent might it have involved his father?” And importantly, “why didn’t you know about this?” or “why wasn’t this brought forward, you know, by the FBI to you when you were dealing with the whole impeachment crisis?”
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and those are all great questions, Trish. And I think that the real question here centers on Joe Biden – the scandal, the corruption, the potential crimes involved and the potential for really inability to hold public office under the Constitution really centers on Joe Biden and the fact that he has hid from the media for almost five days now, leading up to the debate. His unwillingness to be straightforward to answer these questions and now, for the debate commission to take foreign policy off the table.
This is just another example of the mainstream media going the extra mile to be Democrat political activists and operating to help Joe Biden try to hide the truth of what’s going on here. And the American people really deserve answers because we saw how much the impeachment of President Trump over a perfect phone call – perfectly legally, perfectly Constitutionally – was a 24/7 news cycle for four months.
And yet, the mainstream media refuses to cover this story that we really deserve to get to the bottom of it and to make sure that the American people have an informed decision of, really, what the true allegiances are of Joe Biden and how he may have used his public office when he was vice president of the United States really for his own corrupt political purposes and to help his family financially. I mean, these are very, very serious allegations. And early voting has already started. And this is something – you’re absolutely right – that the FBI should’ve brought up.
Trish Regan: Oh, and it’s being ignored. It’s being suppressed. And I’m shocked. I mean, we’ve got a debate going on, and the NBC reporter is not including foreign policy as a discussion topic? I mean, that’s sort of bizarre. I mean, it’s the president of the United States for goodness sakes. One of his biggest jobs is foreign policy, and we’re just going to ignore the elephant in the room. Why? Perhaps the president might bring up or maybe she would be forced to bring up these allegations?
I mean, I’m truly troubled. I got to tell you, Jenna. I’m truly, truly troubled by it. Because, you know, he ought to be at least willing to answer the question. There are rather reasonable questions here. And he’s running for the office of the presidency. And the idea that somehow Big Media and Big Tech is in cahoots with this [laughs] and is just trying to suppress the story… that to me is very troubling when I think about our freedom of speech as Americans.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. It’s shameful. And there’s only one obvious reason why the debate commission changed the rules, then their name, and why they’re trying to take foreign policy off the table… and you know, President Trump, of course, is going to go into the debate. And I have every anticipation that he’s going to be asking those questions of Joe Biden. And we’ll see if the moderator actually allows that back-and-forth discussion or whether now the mute button is going to play –
Trish Regan: Or whether his mic gets muted?
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. [Laughs] A big element there. But, you know, this is fundamentally so antithetical to our American system, Trish. And from this 30,000-foot perspective, our Constitutional republic is designed that government only has limited power to protect and preserve our individual rights for the liberty and true meaningful justice for all. And we the people, through our votes, get to select and prefer who we put in office for a limited time in order to fulfill that mandate. And so, when you have these deep-swamp media activists and operatives – when you have Democrats who don’t want to be held accountable, who don’t want free and fair elections – this no longer looks like the United States of America. It looks like another country that maybe Joe Biden has some allegiances to.
Trish Regan: [Laughs] I think you’re talking about Cuba, Venezuela, former USSR. No. I mean, I – Ron. I mean, I agree. When you’re suppressing the media like this – and of course the obvious one, China – where you’re not allowed to have this freedom of expression. We are talking with the President’s attorney right now – senior legal advisor to the Trump campaign, Jenna Ellis. You can follow her on Twitter: @JennaEllisEsq. Jenna, the idea that the Trump campaign actually saw its account locked because it dared to share a New York Post story… the idea that Kayleigh McEnany, the press person for the White House, saw her account locked – I mean, we’re talking about days ahead of a campaign and they’re locking out the Trump campaign account? What kind of recourse do you guys have for something like that?
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Well, you know, for social media tech giants to say that they’re not the arbiters of truth, they certainly have a lot of opinions on repressing speech and content. And so, [laughs] you know, unfortunately with only two weeks to go there aren’t a lot of options. And thankfully, you know, both Kayleigh and Team Trump’s Twitter accounts have been restored. But I think that this highlights very particularly why Section 230… why this immunity that is provided by the government to the social media giants who have said that they aren’t publishers, that they don’t want to be responsible for third-party content. That has to be recontemplated.
They have to be held accountable because they are acting as publishers. They are acting as viewpoint moderators. And this is something – we’re only seeing this against Conservatives. And so I think moving forward, this is exactly why we need another four years of President Trump… to make sure that, moving forward, we do hold these tech giants accountable. And I was really glad to see that the Department of Justice today is now filing this lawsuit in connection with 11 state attorneys general to hold Google accountable under this antitrust hearing.
And finally, you know, government is holding Big Tech accountable. And obviously, Trish, we want more freedom and liberty in this country. We don’t want too much government interference. But it is the job of government when Big Tech tramples on the rights of citizens to be able to go in and just say, “You know, this does violate the consumer protection laws and our trust laws,” and have some of those rational, fundamental hearings.
Trish Regan: Well said. I mean, Jenna, if you think about it, if they’re supposed to just sort of be the information superhighway. right? They’re just sort of the highway where all this content is trafficked… and if we’re holding publishers like the New York Post responsible for content, then I would think the Biden family could go to the New York Post and say, “Hey, you know, this is a fictitious story” – if it were to be fictitious, of course, and could sue them for libel. But given that Google and others are protected from that… it’s sort of like they want to have their cake and eat it too.
On the one hand, they’re like, “Oh, we’re not responsible… except when we don’t like the content.” [Laughs] Then we suddenly become responsible. And you’re talking about organizations now that are so big, right? I mean, Google really controls all the traffic on the Internet. I mean, very few other players really have a say. And according to this lawsuit – I was just briefly reading through it – one of the concerns is that they effectively pay off, right? Whether it’s Apple for the new iPhones to have Google loaded in there, or any other cellphone maker – Google’s right there on the platform immediately. So it’s almost like people don’t even look to do something else.
Jenna Ellis: Right. And, you know, if you compare and contrast this – for example, what social media did to the New York Post story… compared to how they treated the fake, false Russia-collusion narrative. So the Trump campaign – currently, we have three lawsuits against the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN for defamation. And these stories were allowed to proliferate through social media. They popped up on Google searches.
There was no problem with, you know, social media giants saying, “Hey, we’re not the arbiters of truth, and you guys can go and read this,” and, you know, “Hey campaign, it falls to you to get meaningful justice in the court system and equity from the court system.” But yet, they’re treating the New York Post story so incredibly different because they don’t like that content. And that’s where there is an inequitable enforcement of their own policy against users that are conservative… against the Trump campaign… versus users that are liberal and the Biden Campaign.
Trish Regan: Yeah. No, I mean, I think about the dossier, right? As a great example. Somehow, that was just perfectly fine for the New York Post – or, forgive me, not the New York Post, the New York Times – and the Washington Post to be reporting on… it was fine for BuzzFeed to put it up. But, you know – and it was talked about at length. And Twitter didn’t do anything then. But now, suddenly the tables are turned, and Twitter’s become quite an activist or Google or any of these other folks.
While I have you, let me ask you about Amy Coney Barrett. Because I think no matter what happens on November 3, the legacy of this president will have been extraordinarily, extraordinarily strong in the – not just the economic stuff, not just foreign policy stuff, but you’re talking about the court and sort of a return, if you would, to the Constitutional roots of the court. You know, now with the majority being more favored toward a conservative interpretation of the Constitution with Amy Coney Barrett, it looks like the Democrats nonetheless want to make this a political and potentially ruin all of that with a packing of the courts. Anyway. Your thoughts on Amy Coney Barret and what happens next.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Well, of course the Democrats want to make this just political because they don’t want to be held accountable. And that’s the problem here. They can use the judicial branch and manipulate it for so many decades that they just want a rubber stamp on their partisan, unconstitutional activist policy. They don’t want the judicial branch to actually function according to its Constitutional purpose. And so, what President Trump has done – and I agree with you, Trish, that this is going to be his most lasting legacy – is restoring the federal judicial branch to its original intent to be an unbiased, impartial arbiter of the political branches and to make sure to hold them accountable to the United States Constitution.
That’s our separation of powers. That’s the design. And what I saw so clearly from Amy Coney Barrett is that she actually wants to be a judge. She doesn’t want to be a lawmaker. She’s not going to be a partisan policy activist. She is going to hold the two political branches – both Republicans and Democrats – accountable to the United States Constitution. And that is exactly why we need originalists and textualists on the bench. And that’s why restoring the court to the conservative majority is so incredibly important to save our American system.
Trish Regan: Yeah. She’s such an impressive woman and such and role model, I think, for women everywhere. [Laughs] To really – I don’t know how she does it. Believe me. I got three kids. I can’t even imagine having seven and the career that she does. Truly, truly impressive. But you too, Jenna, are truly, truly impressive with all that you do. And I encourage everybody to follow you on Twitter, @JennaEllisEsq, constitutional law attorney, senior legal advisor to the Trump campaign and counsel to President Trump. Jenna Ellis, thank you so much as always. Good to talk with you.
Jenna Ellis: Great talking with you, Trish. Thanks so much.
Trish Regan: As we see escalating cases of coronavirus throughout the country, people can’t wait for a vaccine to be distributed. There is talk of a vaccine possibly being distributed as late as next month, assuming all the trials go well. Well, one of the companies that wants to have a role in all of this and is actively working on creating a vaccine at a massive level is a company called Dyadic. We are joined right now by Mark Emalfarb. He is the founder and CEO of Dyadic, which has a very original way of creating the vaccines. And Mark and I have spent a lot of time discussing it. But I wanted to bring him on for you to hear in person. Because, well, let’s face it. I’m not the scientist. Mark, good to have you here. Welcome.
Mark Emalfarb: Thanks, Trish. Very much appreciate the opportunity.
Trish Regan: So, you know, you guys have just a fascinating sort of way of approaching how you create the vaccines themselves. And it’s very different. You do it on a much more massive scale, much more cheaply. which as we think about coronavirus and the need for a vaccine to be produced on a massive scale… really calls into play a company like yours. So walk us through as briefly, sort of, and as easily as you can for those of us that are laypeople… how it is that you recreate these vaccines, and what your role is, right now, in doing so for coronavirus.
Mark Emalfarb: Great. Thank you very much. So basically, we can help eradicate the pandemic from both the vaccine-side and the antibody-side because our C1 cell line is more efficient and affordable than a manufacturing or cell lines paid by Big Pharma. So what we did is, we actually took 25 years and developed a cell line that can give massive amounts of proteins at very large scale very affordably. And that was used initially in the industrial business making enzymes for feed, food, and biofuels with companies like BASF, Shell Oil, Abengoa Bioenergy.
And then ultimately, DuPont purchased the industrial cell line and the business, the industrial business, for $75 million. But we kept the rights to that cell line because it was hyper-productive, and we thought we could apply it to human-mammal health in terms of pharmaceuticals and vaccines. And we’ve demonstrated now over the last several years that we can actually just do that. We can make really record levels of product – whether it be a vaccine or an antibody. And I explained to you how we do that.
So T-cells are very unique and novel in the way that they were created over two and a half decades to synthetic biology, basic recombinant DNA…all the wonderful things you hear about. Kind of like Moore’s Law on steroids for the biotech industry. And we programmed the cells with DNA or gene sequences. Because in order to make a vaccine, you need a cell line – which is the platform to produce something – and the gene sequence, which basically tells the cell line what to produce. So we’re kind of agnostic in terms of what we make. But just trying to make a lot of it, at massive scale, and the massive scales affordably… that can be tech-transferred globally to be produced for worldwide distribution. And so, what we’ve started with – and I think it’s interesting because we kind of fell into this situation through sort of the backdoor.
But for the front door, we’ve been working since 2015 with the European Union in a collaboration with 22 universities and corporations and academics called the Zoonoses Anticipation and Preparedness Initiative – which is basically what we’re dealing with here – is from animals to humans. They’re not our diseases, right? And so, in that five-year journey ,we worked together with that group of scientists and institutions that developed a fast, coordinated, practical response to new infectious diseases as soon as they emerged. So when this pandemic showed up, we were well-prepared to deal with it because we had a five-year head start.
Trish Regan: A lot of what you’re talking about is pretty revolutionary, and the technology is such that you can produce this in a really massive way on a global scale for less money. And, you know, I’ve looked at some of your research. It seems more accurately than some of the current ways of replicating the vaccine. So how – where are you in the process of, you know… what is it that you can do with the current vaccine to really distribute it?
Mark Emalfarb: Sure. So what we did is, when the pandemic hit three of the top 20 coronavirus scientists in the world from Utrecht University in Holland, Erasmus Medical Center and TU University in Germany – were involved. They came up with the idea to use the receptor-binding domain, which is the sort of the head, or spike protein – the vulnerable part. And we’ve now programmed our C1 cell line with that sequence. And we’re making massive amounts, record levels, of that vaccine. And actually, there’s seven different parties using the same vaccine candidate in 10 global animal studies we expect will be done by the end of the year, including –
Trish Regan: So this is – I’m just going to jump in because it’s so fascinating. And, again, you know, you’re talking to a non-scientist here. But it’s kind of like – forgive me because you know I’m oversimplifying this, Mark. But it’s sort of like you guys have a recipe, right? And there’s different recipes out there for different vaccines. And your goal is to take that recipe and make massive batches of it. So you put it into your bowl with your mixer, and you’re able to replicate it in your view much faster and more accurately than some other kinds of mixing bowls? Is that a fair way of describing it?
Mark Emalfarb: Yeah. That I think is a very accurate way in terms of our vaccine candidate that we’ve produced. But we’re also taking vaccine candidates and recipes from people like the federal National Laboratory, which is part of the NIH, the National Institute of Health… and the NIAID, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, where they gave us their recipe – which is their gene sequence – and said, “Hey, can you try to make our vaccine in your cell line? And let’s see how much you can produce in the quantities and then provide it back to us so we can move potentially forward to bring it up?”
So we’re not only just working on our recipes, to your point, but we’re offering our services and our cell line and our technology to anybody… whether they want to make their gene sequence into a vaccine or an antibody and help the world, you know, solve the pandemic issues that we’re facing in terms of mass distribution and low-cost and affordability. So you’re right. It’s a recipe. But we’re not just making our recipe. We’re –
Trish Regan: No, no. I understand. Yeah. You’re taking other recipes because you’ve got sort of the magic combination in terms of being able to make it. And then, you know, that’s important, right? Because you want to be able to make this in massive, massive ways as cheaply as possible. And all that technology is new. Let me ask you… Realistically, like, they’re talking about end of next month for a vaccine – when do you see this really getting widely distributed? First coming on to market and then being widely distributed?
Mark Emalfarb: Well, I think the first vaccines going to market are the warp-speed vaccines because they have the government backing of, you know…with $10 billion combined. And we believe some of those vaccines are going to need a boost. So our vaccine can be used as a prime, which means the initial shot, hand over a boost to some of the vaccines that aren’t going to create, let’s say, the long-lasting protection that people are going to need and expect.
And then, God forbid that we – this thing continues like the seasonal flu, which some people think may be the case. We all hope it’s not… We’ll be there to provide continuously – year after year, after year – and need a lowest-cost solution to the problem. Whether, again, it’s RBD vaccines which creates neutralizing antibodies or someone else’s sequence that we load up or have loaded up into our, you know, sort of mass-production system.
Trish Regan: How much more low-cost is it than traditional methods? And do you run into any roadblocks because they’re, say, vested interests in the sort of status quo?
Mark Emalfarb: I think we’ve run into both issues. But let’s start with the comparative productivity levels. So in the ZAPI program – again, which when I go head-to-head with another cell line called baculovirus… it’s an insect cell – we produce 300 times more of that antigen, that vaccine, than you could produce in that type of virus cell. And you don’t want to believe it, but Novavax – which is one of, let’s say, the premier, top vaccine candidates from Warp Speed, is actually using that inefficient cell line to produce their vaccine. So that’s mind-boggling if you think about it.
And, yes, politics certainly is at play here. And we’re trying to sort our way through the political, you know, sort of – I don’t know what you call it, government or red tape or the old-boy network. Because what happens is, Pharma uses the same technology over and over again and expects different results. And I think you and I both know that’s Einstein’s version or definition of insanity. And we got to think outside the box. And we didn’t think outside the box. We brought the box that worked for 25 years in the industrial biotech space [laughs] that we knew we could make a lot of something… very sort of massive-scale, affordably
But because we’re so productive – and by the way, Trish, we just tripled the productivity of the record level we had a month ago by doing process optimization. So as much as we’ve already made and demonstrated, it’s getting better, quicker, faster, and cheaper all the time. So I feel good about we sort of have the goods to deliver what the world needs. And now, we just need to put into the hand of the people that can help accelerate the adoption and the use, not only for this pandemic, but for the future pandemics and, of course, to drive the cost of regular prescription drugs down as well.
Trish Regan: It’s a pretty neat thing. I mean, how do you feel as the founder and CEO of this company with the chance that you could possibly save so many lives? I mean, what is your sort of mission right now, Mark? You know, when you get up every day.
Mark Emalfarb: Yeah. When I get up every day, I’m trying to make sure that this technology gets put in the hands of anybody and everybody that has the ability to actually take it, advance it, and apply it to do exactly what you said… is bring affordable health care, including a vaccine and potentially antibody treatments. And I don’t want to forge that because we’ve all heard President Trump when he just got COVID. He was getting an antibody cocktail, right?
In his mind, it’s sort of a miracle cure. And we can make four batches of that of an antibody using our technology in the time it takes them to make one. So probably each batch producing more as well. So you can – I think as bad as the vaccine situation was and is coming to life hopefully – the situation for treatment in antibodies – the world is going to really have a shortage of antibody treatments. And as you know, they’re too expensive because you’ve got to use a lot of it for a patient. And so, we’re going to try to make more than less… so more people can have treatments affordably globally.
Trish Regan: Wow. That’s a pretty exciting mission and a good reason to get up every day. Mark, it’s wonderful to have you here. Thank you so much for joining me on American Consequences.
Mark Emalfarb: Thank you for helping me simplify the message so that [laughs] your listeners will understand it.
Trish Regan: Well, you know, it’s – listen. It’s dense stuff. But it’s so important, and I want to encourage everybody to Follow you on Twitter @Emalfarb. This is Mark Emalfarb. He’s the founder and CEO of Dyadic, and he wants to make sure everybody has a shot at this vaccine cheaply, efficiently, and very soon. Mark, thanks so much. [Music starts and fades] Right now, I’m so thrilled to be joined by one of the most brilliant women in Washington, D.C., the senator from Tennessee, she is out with a brand-new book called The Mind of a Conservative Woman: Seeking the Best For Family and County. And she’s really just extremely, extremely bright. It’s so good to have her on the program here today: Senator Marsha Blackburn. Welcome.
Marsha Blackburn: Well, thank you. I’m delighted to join you. And I tell you we do have an interesting time going on in D.C. with our [laughs] news on Big Tech and with Judge Barrett’s confirmation. And of course, this little thing called an election. [Laughs] A lot of activity here.
Trish Regan: I would say. I would say. So listen. I want to get to all of it with you, including your book. But let’s start first with this Google antitrust lawsuit. So the Justice Department just filed this, and they’re saying, “Wait a second. You know, Google, you’ve gotten a little bit too big here.” I mean, I’ve kind of thought this for years now. But I think it’s come to light, Senator, in ways that are pretty important right now and are pretty profound given what’s been going on with the suppression, if you would, if the Hunter Biden story that questions his relationships with some of these foreign countries and possibly any kind of influence that he might have been peddling for his father. A lot of questions right now, right? Which I think journalists should be asking. But Big Tech and Big Media seems to be shutting it down. What is your thought on that and on this new suit?
Marsha Blackburn: You know, Trish, I have to tell you. We’ve been watching the Big Tech issues, as you know, for years… working on privacy, working on censorship. They have not been cooperatively. Periodically, we would slap their hand, and they would stop pushing the envelope and kind of circle back around to it and push it a little further a little later. But they wanted to get us off their back. Now, what I think has happened – a couple of things. And it’s sort of a convergence of activity. People started doing more of their functional day-to-day life online. When their children came out of school, they were doing Zoom school. All of a sudden, the office moved home. Everything was being done by Webex or Microsoft Team or Skype or Zoom.
And they realized how intrusive that social media had become and data-mining and lack of privacy and just following your life, if you will. And you’ve heard me say many times, “Everyone has the right to privacy and a right to protect their virtual you.” Which is you and your presence online. So people saw that happening on a day-to-day basis and complained about it and didn’t like it and were frustrated. Then they started seeing the censorship pop up as they would be following politics online because events – in-person events – were cancelled.
And all of a sudden, they started seeing a lecture they wanted to hear would be blocked. Or an article they wanted to read would be blocked. And it all crystallized around Hunter Biden and this story. Now, the New York Post is not a fly by night. The paper’s been around for 200 years. It is one of the top five in circulation regularly. So this is a story that had legs, if you will. It is a story that sent. We have found out, yes indeed, that is Hunter Biden’s laptop. Yes, he did sign a receipt for the repair. His former partners who were now in prison and awaiting sentencing have corroborated and said, “Yes. These are valid e-mails.”
So people are going, “Hey, wait a minute. Why did you block me when I tried to ask a question about this story or participate in comments about this story?” And Facebook was blocking people. Instagram was blocking people. Twitter was blocking not only the article but the Post website. They were blocking the Trump campaign, Kayleigh McEnany, and dozens of Tennesseans that I heard from that, all of a sudden, had their accounts locked up because they were trying to find out if this was true or false. It’s astounding.
Trish Regan: So that’s Twitter. And then, you got Google. I mean. I guess what I would ask… and then, you got Facebook. Facebook – which, by the way, came out with a statement, Senator, and said, “We are suppressing this story because, you know, until we can fact-check it” – so since when did they become the fact-checkers? I mean, the last I understood it, right? The news organizations themselves, they’re responsible. And they can be held liable if they goof. And, you know, that’s their thing. And these guys were supposed to be just the providers, right, of content. They’re sort of like the superhighway, and you’re just driving down. And now, all of a sudden, they’re like, “OK. No. You know, we have the right to block this or that”? I mean, this is getting a little nuts.
Marsha Blackburn: Yes. The Internet is an information source. It is denoted as such in federal statute. It is an information source. Now, they have always claimed to be the new public square. And we have said to them, “Well, the public square has a cop on the beat if somebody gets out of line. But you all don’t want a cop on the beat. You want to make your own rules.” And this has been a point of contention, and that is what has led us to the 230 reforms – the Section 230 reforms.
But see, Mark Zuckerberg, years ago, said Facebook worked more like a government than a company. And we are seeing the application of that. He has taken it upon himself and his company with their media content reviewers – and, yes, this is a content moderation issue. And Jack Dorsey has, with Twitter and their content moderation, reviewers. All of these have decided they are going to make the rules of the road because it is their platform. Well, then if that is true then they should be hiring news directors and setting up a news department that is going to manage a newsfeed and know that what they are report is correct.
Now, when I – several years ago – recommended to them that if they were going to launch a newsfeed that they hire a news director, it was, “Oh, no. Because we are just simply the public square where the information gets shared.” Well, guess what? They obviously decided that is not what they wanted to be. They want to control what you’re going to hear, when, how you’re going to hear it, what you’re going to see. And if they don’t like it, they’re going to say, “We’re going to throw us a little fit, and we’re going to block it.”
Trish Regan: Do you think there’s a somewhat incestuous nature between the people that are in charge at some of these companies and the Democratic Party? I mean, Breitbart had a story on one of the content managers at Facebook who actually was formerly apparently working for Joe Biden as a Ukraine policy advisor. So [laughs] I’m imagining, Senator, she probably has a few biases of her own when it comes to all of a sudden seeing a story about Burisma, etc., with Ukraine. I mean, is there a – is that part of the problem that so many people in the top echelons of these companies perhaps come out of the Democratic Party or just have their own liberal biases that they then implement?
Marsha Blackburn: Well, that is a big part of it. And when Zuckerberg was before us in 2018, my question to him explicitly was, “Do you subjectively manipulate these algorithms?” And of course, he did not have an answer for that question because the answer is, yeah, they do. We see it every single day. But he couldn’t or wouldn’t answer that question. But yes. He finally got around to saying, “Well, you know, our company is located in San Francisco. That’s a more liberal area. People bring their political biases to work.” And he accepted that as being the state of play and normal. Now, how dare anybody who wants to be a federal judge have a religious or a center, center-Right political underpinning. God help us all. You know? But it’s OK for these content reviewers to be liberal and to bring their bias to work, and it is accepted as standard operating-
Trish Regan: Yeah. In fact, I’m going to talk a little bit at the end of the program today because I’ve seen it in my own social media accounts where [laughs] – believe it or not – YouTube literally, like minutes after I do an analysis on something, will actually demonetize the account. And my team has to go back in and, you know, file a ticket. And then, they review it manually, and everything is all fine because I’m pretty measured in my approach. And you know me, Senator. My bias is pretty much economic. And, you know, I speak on behalf of the American people for lower taxes and less regulation.
But that’s not allowed, right? [Laughs] That’s just not allowed apparently in today’s tech world. Let me get to – by the way. Congratulations on the book. You know, if people have not read it, I encourage you to go out and read this because it’s an important work here. The Mind of a Conservative Woman: Seeking the Best For Family and Country by Senator Marsha Blackburn. And, you know, I think conservative women have been so mistreated, if you would, also by the liberal media and by the Left and kind of demonized in ways. But your point is that women really have been able to rise up and confront so much in the way of actual challenges and take them head-on while simultaneously, you know, being able to still be women.
Marsha Blackburn: Oh, absolutely. And we saw this with Judge Barrett last week. She came for the hearing. She did a stellar job defending herself and defending her positions. And we know that what the Left was trying to do is… here’s the thing, Trish. They prefer intellectual isolation as opposed to viewpoint diversity. If their mind is made up, they’re sticking to it. Don’t give them a different point of view. And if you are a female and you are pro-life and pro-family and pro-religion and pro-business, then they don’t care to hear from you.
Because it does not fit their narrative of what women’s issues should be and what successful women should be. In order to keep the Left living off of the women’s vote, they have to convince women that you have to agree with the Left in order to be able to push forward your agenda – to move forward in your company… to get elected to public office… to be able to seek an appointment as a judge.
And it is one of those things they try to verbally beat you into submission to the Leftist agenda. So then, you can say, “Oh, I’m one of the clique or the club.” And that’s where…and I really think this is one of the reasons that – you know, the Cato Institute survey that came out. 62% of American adults will not tell you where they are on politics because they’re afraid it will hurt their career, their spouse’s career or their children and their children’s education. Now, that is a sad state of affairs when, in this country, you cannot exercise your First Amendment rights without fear of being penalized. That is a sad point.
Trish Regan: Well said, Senator. Well, well said. And very quickly, before I let you go, any thoughts on November 3?
Marsha Blackburn: For November 3, I think that – there again, a lot of people are going to go vote. They wouldn’t tell you who they were going to vote for. They just are sick of all of the rioting, the looting, the love-fest with some of these anarchist groups that they see happening in companies or in cities. They would like to have safety, security, a good job and a better future for their family. And I think at the end of the day, that is where the votes are going to be.
Trish Regan: That’s what matters to people, for sure. Senator Marsha Blackburn, thank you so much. Congrats again. The Mind of a Conservative Woman: Seeking the Best For Family and Country, available now on Amazon. Thank you again. [Music plays and stops] What a fantastic show with so many really, really interesting interviews. This is crazy, what is happening right now on the Left and this effort, if you would, to just shut down [laughs] any other point-of-view. I mentioned to Senator Blackburn I have seen it.
I’ve seen it in my own social media accounts with the social platforms that are trying to effectively, really ban Conservative content – “shadow banning,” as it’s been called. I wasn’t entirely familiar with it until recently, until I actually confronted it head-on. And I’ve seen [laughs] the shadow-banning. I’ve also seen the demonetization effort, if you would, by YouTube. I have a YouTube show, the Trish Regan Show. And they’ve actually gone in and – minutes after I broadcast something, they’ll demonetize it because they say, “No. No. No. You can’t advertise on something like this.”
And, you know, we file a ticket as I explained to the senator. And sure enough, everything’s fine because I’m a pretty responsible person [laughs] who has a point of view, of course. But nonetheless, I’m very responsible. And so, consequently they figured out, “OK. It’s fine. You know, you can” – but think about what’s happening here. They’re effectively trying to discourage anybody who represents a different point of view from having a seat at the table. And the senator is right. That is a very dangerous position for us to be in right now. Anyway. Everybody stay safe, let’s hope. We heard from Mark earlier, the CEO of Dyadic.
Let’s hope that they are able to get a vaccine out there promptly and cheaply so that the world has access. Let’s hope our freedoms increasingly are restored because our freedom of speech is so important and that our economy continues to grow. Thank you for listening, everyone, to this edition of American Consequences With Trish Regan. I’ll see you here next week, and I’ll see you back on my daily podcast, Trish Intel, tomorrow. [Music starts]
Announcer: Thank you for listening to this episode of American Consequences With Trish Regan. For more of Trish and to read the magazine, visit www.americanconsequences.com/podcast and enter your e-mail for special access. We’d love to hear from you too. Send Trish a note – [email protected] This broadcast is for entertainment purpose only and should not be considered personalized investment advice. Trading stocks and all other financial instruments involves risk. You should not make any investment decision based solely on what you hear. Trish Regan’s American Consequences is produced by Stansberry Research and American Consequences and is copyrighted by the Stansberry Radio Network.
[End of Audio]