RADIOFebruary 17, 2023

‘IT’S ALL A SHAM’: Why Buttigieg & FEMA are DITCHING Ohio

The recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio caused intense health and environmental concerns thanks to the massive leaking of toxic chemicals. But, yet, the Biden administration’s Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg is nowhere to be seen. AND, as Glenn details in this clip, FEMA just denied assistance to the Ohio town as well. But since when has FEMA turned down the chance to take control of a town, Glenn asks. In this clip, Glenn explains why he believes the left are ABANDONING Ohio: ‘It’s ALL A SHAM.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So, Stu, help me make sense of this story.

STU: Uh-huh

GLENN: Republican governor Mike dewine said, he's not seen secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg, at all.

At all. Now, I'm sure he's seen him on TV. I'm not talking about Ohio. I'm sure he's seen him, you know, at some point, at his life, maybe.

But since the train derailment, nothing.

STU: I mean, he probably saw him on TV, talking about how there weren't enough black people in construction jobs. He saw that. That's an important thing to talk about.

GLENN: Liar. What a liar!

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Anyway, and then yesterday, the Biden -- I read this verbatim. The Biden administration has turned down Republican Ohio governor Mike HEP Dewine's request for federal disaster assistance, for the train derailment.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, otherwise known as FEMA. Have you ever heard of them?

STU: I have heard of them, yeah. Too many white people working there too.

They say that Ohio is not eligible to receive assistance. Because the incident didn't classify as a natural -- as a national disaster. The rejection came nearly two weeks after the Norfolk Southern train. Which carried harmful chemicals derailed. 2,000 residents were evacuated.

Blah, blah, blah.

FEMA classifies a national disaster declaration as when there is property damage caused by a tornado, flood, hurricane, or earthquake.

The state currently does not have any associated costs that could demonstrate to FEMA to be able to get a disaster declaration.

Bras the train cars didn't cause any power outages, block any roads, or impede resident's property.

That's a quote from FEMA.

STU: Didn't impede resident's property. I mean, they had to evacuate. They are just saying, everything is fine. Right. That's their claim.

GLENN: You can go back there. You can go back.

STU: Just check it out.

GLENN: Just check it out. We're not saying. Do you get your vax. If you got your vax.

STU: Did the vaccine work for this too? For train derailments?

GLENN: I don't know that. But I just don't want them to go back, if they haven't had their vaccine, you know what I mean? But if you've had your vaccine, go back in. You're fine. You're good.

The federal government has nothing to do with your puny, little life there. What?

Train, big toxic clouds.

STU: Is it just -- are they trying to say, it's just not FEMA's purview. I mean, if we had a chemical fire somewhere.

GLENN: Tell me the time that FEMA has not champed at the bit, to come into your community to take over.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I can't think of one.

STU: But their lying there, seems to be, it's not a natural disaster. And we only deal with natural disasters.

Is there another government agency? Another alphabet collection of letters that's supposed to come in and deal with chemical accidents? The EPA?

GLENN: Well, the EPA is there.

STU: Are they helping the people?

GLENN: What they're trying.

Oh, yes, they are. They're saying, come on back in. Everything is fine.

Come into the water. Just, take a net, scoop all those dead fish, off of the surface of the water. They died from something else, I'm sure.

STU: Right. Some of them seem to sprout wings and fly off of your property. Just scoop them up. They're dead now.

GLENN: And if you don't scoop them up, they'll grow feet.

STU: You don't want the fish feet. No, fish feet around your property will lower property values. Your Zillow thing is going to go through the floor.

GLENN: Now, let me give you this story from the New York Times.

By the way, I'm leading someplace, and it's -- it's a happy place.

STU: Is it fish feet? Does this all come back to fish feet?

GLENN: Well, so here's the headline from the New York Times. Now, listen to this story. Chernobyl 2.0. Ohio train derailment spurs wild speculation. So this story is about the conspiracy theories, that are coming from --

STU: Conservatives.

GLENN: Yeah. Conservatives. Yes.

STU: So wait a minute. We finally found an ecological issue that the New York Times is downplaying?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: There finally is one? Every time there is an oil spill of like three drops, they all -- they send like 12 reporters from the scene, and any bird that has any oil on their feathers. There is a snowstorm, and it is because of your hair spray.

All right. Since a train carrying hazardous materials derailed in Ohio, nearly two weeks ago, writes the New York Times, residents have feared for their safety.

A controlled burn of toxic materials, has filled the air, and covered surface waters with soil -- and soil with chemicals.

Dead fish that floated in nearby creeks. And an unnerving aroma has lingered in the air. Okay.

STU: This is a lot of -- this is a lot of evidence.

GLENN: But for many commentators, from across the political spectrum. The speculation has gone far beyond known facts.

Right-wing commentators have been particularly critical, using the crisis, to HEP sow distrust about government agencies. And suggest that damage could be irreparable.

You mean like, we have to act on global warming, and completely destroy all of any kind of modern living, and eat bugs? Within the next ten years?

Or the earth will be destroyed forever?

You mean that kind of irreparable?

On social media, like Twitter and telegram, commentators have called the situation, the largest environmental disaster in history. Or simple --icismy Chernobyl 2.0. Invoking the 1986 nuclear disaster.

By the way, let's go back and see how the press reacted to the Three Mile Island accident. Remember?

That was the greatest nuclear meltdown of all -- no. Nope.

Nothing was measured in the air. Nothing. Nothing.

STU: Yeah. The worst side effects of that incident were the equivalent of a full set of chess x-rays.

GLENN: Correct. And that, they made in -- they stopped nuclear energy.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Because of that.

STU: And arguably caused day -- if you want to believe their narrative, or at least their outcomes. They're not going to give this narrative. But arguably caused the problems that we had with global warming today. Right?

They shut down the nuclear industries, so we had to go to other --

GLENN: Stay on fossil fuels.

STU: Fossil fuels.

And in their world, this is what has caused all the problems.

Which, by the way, which means they caused all the problems.

GLENN: Well, isn't that what progressivism worked?

They caused the problems, and then tried to fix the problems they caused. Which causes more problems, which they then try to fix those problems.

It's a never-ending series, chain of events.

They warned, they said, they warned, that vital water reservoirs, serving states downriver could be badly contaminated.

Key word there, could.

And they suggested that the authorities, railroad companies, and mainstream news media were purposely obscuring the full toll of the crisis. Right.

Because when have you ever done that, mainstream media. Government.

Or railroad companies.

STU: You've already had several bits of information that have come out, that different chemicals were on board, that we didn't know about initially.

There were more effects than we thought. Of course, they're going to speculate, that there was more than they told us.

GLENN: Stu, please read the New York Times.

STU: I've read the New York Times. And the New York Times, every time there's any sort of chemical that leaks anywhere on the planet, they say it's going to be a catastrophe. This is the entire papers. Is basically based on someone dripped some chemical 3,000 miles away.

GLENN: But those were disasters. This is not.

Listen --

STU: This is fine.

GLENN: Since then the EPA has said air quality has returned to safe levels. Residents have been allowed to return.

Yeah. A chemical order lingers, because people can smell the contaminants, even when they are far below hazardous concentrations. This is all according to the EPA.

That's what it says right here.

Water testing found no indication of risk to public water systems so far, the EPA said.

Through private -- though private wells should be tested, but the public water, fine. The private water we're not sure.

Utilities drawing from the Ohio river were taking precautions at least one company said.

At town hall meetings on Wednesday, frustrated residents, pressed officials for assurances that the air and water were safe.

Experts urged caution as they assessed the long-term consequences. Warning that airborne contaminants, settle on to surfaces. Seep into wells, and migrate through cracks and basements to homes.

Yet, influencers and right-wing commentators were quick to draw the conclusion of their own, theorizing about the extent of damage in and the federal response, which they say, have amounted to an extensive cover-up.

STU: This makes no sense. How could the New York Times take that side of the story?

There's a good argument to be made. This happens a lot. You have an accident like this. And it's a pretty natural series of events. That people who live close by. They are pretty worried about it. Because they can smell stuff in the air, and they're worried about what's going on with their water. They are worried if their children are going to die or develop cancer next week.

All really rational fears. And then maybe some scientific experts come in and say, we don't think it's a risk.

When that series of events occurs. The New York Times always sides with the families.

Always sides against the companies. Always says, actually, we found some person, this one random person, who has this effect.

It's not proven to be connected. But we're going to say it's connected anyway.

They always, always side with the freaking out side of this this argument. And for this one side. This one incident, they're all of a sudden, on board, with it don't go going on.

Seriously, isn't this weird? Seriously, isn't this weird?

GLENN: No. You have no -- you have no example of that. Let me give you -- let me give you an unrelated story.

Headline, Russian pipeline leaks spark climate fears, as huge volumes of methane spew into the atmosphere.

STU: Every time.

GLENN: What is methane?

That is natural gas. Natural gas. Key word, natural. Okay?

It seeps out into the atmosphere all the time. Because it's coming from the earth, and it's natural gas.

Not man made chemicals, that are not meant to burn, that they just set on fire.
(laughter)
No, no, no. This is natural gas. They call it methane, which is also what comes out of the butt and the mouth of a cow, that they say, God created all of this. This is a master plan.

This is an incredible thing.

But what he didn't know, is that he actually created animals, that live on the planet, that spew a toxic chemical that will make their entire planet die!

That's what -- yeah. Yeah. Well, if you don't believe in God, you believe in -- you know, natural evolution.

Well, if the cow and the farts from animals, is toxic to the planet. Well, evolution will figure that out.

No, no, no. No.

Methane, natural. Natural. Not chemicals in the sky.

Again, used, made for World War I, setting those on fire. No. It's not a problem.

Climate scientists acknowledge that it's hard to accurately quantify the exact size of the emissions. And say leaks. Are, quote, a wee bubble in the ocean, compared to the massive amounts of methane emitted around the world every day.

Nonetheless, environmental campaigners argue the incident reaffirms the risk of sabotage or accident makes fossil fuel infrastructure, a ticking time bomb.

Wow.

But you and Ohio.

Now, I'll tie this together.

I'll tell you what I think this -- what's really going on here in 60 seconds.

Just about every day on this program, they share real experiences with people here. People with their lives changed on Relief Factor.

I'm one of them. I can honestly say, I wouldn't be here today, if it wasn't for Relief Factor.

That is an honest statement. I told my wife, I don't know how I'm going to live this way, and continue to go on and do this.

In my mind, I was settling for, I'm going to live this way the rest of my life.

Moments that I have, that's not in pain, I'll enjoy them with my family. And before, you know, I said, I have that decision to make next year. We have to talk about it.

And she said, have you tried Relief Factor?

This is an honest to God conversation. have you tried Relief Factor?

No, it's not going to work for me. It's all natural, blah, blah, blah.

I've been to the Mayo Clinic. Really? Something that's not a drug, it's all natural. And advertised on radio, and TV.

That's going to fix it.

Well, I don't want to hear you whine about it. If you won't try everything. So I tried it. Three weeks later, I said, it's not working.

But I -- I didn't notice, I was dismissing within that I was feeling better. Thinking I was just in a good period.

Then I stopped taking it.

And all of it came rushing back. That's my experience with Relief Factor.

Want to give it a whirl?

Get out of pain. What if it works.

70 percent of the people who try it, go on to order more, month after month. ReliefFactor.com.

Try the three-week Quick Start.

Exactly the same thing I did. ReliefFactor.com. 800-4-Relief. Relief Factor, feel the difference. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: Okay. So let me tell you exactly what I I think is going on. These people do not care about the things they say they care about. It's all a sham. It's all a sham.

This whole global warming thing. Look, at first it was global -- no. First it was global ice age coming. When I was growing up.

It was an ice age. Then it was global warming.

Now it's global climate change, because it's going different ways. Okay?

Now you can't predict it. But they were absolutely sure you could predict it, just a few years ago. That it was going to be warming. Now, we can't predict it. But we can predict, that will it will be unpredictable.

Oh, okay.

It's a sham.

Now, I believe climate is always changing. We may be in a new period, but all the rest of it is bullcrap for control.

Otherwise, they would care about this just as much as they care about everything else. But see, this one has politics involved. This is a red state.

This is a state where they don't care about. They'll rush FEMA any place. Any place.

Well, not to the border here, where we're being overrun. Not to Ohio. Where the skies are on fire.

No, no, no, no. These people honestly don't care about any human condition, except for their condition of power.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

THIS is why self-reliance may be your ONLY protection from SLAVERY

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

Claire's warning: The dark side of gender care EXPOSED

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

Deep State NGO CAUGHT trying to restart opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.

STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.

GLENN: They don't. They don't.

He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.

And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.

And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.

STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.

GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.

There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.

The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.

Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?

DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.

DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.

GLENN: Good. I know.

DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.

GLENN: Oh.

DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.

And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.

GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?

DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.

And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.

They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.

GLENN: Wow!

DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.

Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.

What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.

Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.

The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.

It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!

GLENN: What was their thinking?

DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.

GLENN: Yes.

DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.

And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.

Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.

And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.

These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.

GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.

Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.

When it's in the State Department.

When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.

And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.

It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.

And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.

We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.

GLENN: Good. Good.

DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.

So within the next couple of weeks.

We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.

GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.

I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.