Why is this Epstein buddy getting a pass from the left?



In what BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales calls a “fluff piece” from Politico, major Democrat donor Reid Hoffman has warned Kamala Harris to stay out of the presidential race.

“We just talked about Gavin Newsom saying, ‘Yeah, I mean, sure, I’ve thought about running for president, but if Kamala runs, I’m out. I’m out. She can just have it,’” Gonzales begins.

“And now we hear that this big Democrat, you know, shadow puppeteer and megadonor Reid Hoffman … he’s like, ‘OK, I’m going to choose my fighter.’ And it’s not Kamala,” she continues, explaining that he did show favor for AOC.

But Hoffman, Gonzales notes, isn’t just the founder of Linkedin.

“There’s a lot of fishy stuff about him in the Epstein files that I’m going to share, and then you can draw your own conclusions,” she says.


In 2013, Hoffman sent Epstein an email that read: “Also: when will you be @ your island? Chatting with Joi about setting up a joint visit.”

“By the way, we know that he went to the island, based off of other files, too. There’s an entire itinerary of how he was flown in for the visit,” Gonzales says.

“Now, Reid Hoffman has said, ‘Yes, I went to the island, but I didn’t know anything about the girls, and I didn’t do anything with the girls,’” she continues.

“He also said he didn’t know about Epstein’s criminal history or allegations of any wrongdoing,” she adds.

However, she’s “not buying that.”

“I’m not buying that he didn’t know about Epstein’s criminal history or allegations of any wrongdoing when this email from 2015 exists where he is trying to help him with bad press,” she says.

In the email, Epstein writes: “is the metal sculpture yours?”

Hoffman responds: “my gift to you. … been giving a bit of thought to how I can help with recent press fu. Mostly looking for help on the on-line front.”

In another strange email, Hoffman writes that he sent “two gifts” to Epstein.

“1 - Ice cream. If you have any interest, you should try – else for=the girls. 2 - something that may strike your funny bone for the island,” he wrote.

“I’m just wondering who are the girls? What is the island gift? What do you mean ‘ice cream’?” Gonzales asks, pointing out that sending ice cream “doesn’t seem like a good idea.”

“So being that Reid Hoffman has this weird history with Jeffrey Epstein … it bothers me that the media is giving any kind of legitimacy to the guy who was this close with Jeffrey Epstein,” she continues.

“And yet Donald Trump is orange man bad because he was in a grainy picture with him in 2000,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘Racist’ new Sacha Baron Cohen film sparks a boycott before it even hits theaters



Sacha Baron Cohen is bringing Ali G back to the big screen, but the character is already stirring controversy.

Tens of thousands of emails were sent urging theaters not to screen "Ali G: Who Iz I?" over accusations that the character is rooted in offensive racial stereotypes — something that’s never stopped theaters from promoting his films before.

And for this reason, BlazeTV hosts Stu Burguiere and Dave Landau aren’t sure the negative hype is entirely organic.

Dave recalls his old films where he would interview important figures like Dick Cheney who “wouldn’t know who he was.”


“It was always a fascinating interview because he would just bomb the interview, and it was always pretty funny to watch,” he says, noting that his film "Borat" made him laugh “the hardest” he ever has in theaters at “how unbelievably funny and inappropriate it was.”

“I am not a fan at all ... of this, ‘Well, our standards have changed, and now he can’t do this character anymore.’ It's more of just like, 'I don’t know, I’m kind of done with that character from 20 years ago,'” Stu chimes in.

“Well, everybody knows who he is,” Dave agrees. “So it’s either they’re in on the joke, or they’re being paid to be on it. I mean, half the trailer is just people breaking because they know who he is.”

“It’s played out,” he continues. “We know the joke and so do the people that he’s playing the joke on. I certainly don’t think it’s racist. If it’s racist against anybody, it’s probably Jews, and he’s Jewish.”

“I mean, the most offensive stuff in Borat was against Jewish people,” he adds.

Dave also notes sarcastically that “sending emails because a movie shouldn’t be shown and getting 37,000 of them” doesn’t “at all build hype and give incentive for places to show a film.”

“I’m kind of skeptical, honestly,” Stu says. “It feels to me like a promotional stunt, like, ‘Oh gosh, everyone’s calling him racist, this is a big controversy.'”

Want more from Stu and Dave?

To enjoy more of Stu and Dave's lethal blend of wit, humor, and insightful commentary subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Senator: Biden Agency Used ‘Benghazi’ To Hide Emails On Planned Parenthood Loans

'... Perhaps now we know why the Biden administration did not want to share its Planned Parenthood records with Congress,' Sen. Ernst wrote.

Using AI In Personal Communication Makes Us All Less Human

For the good of our humanity, let’s communicate without the AI-helpers.

Durham annex proves Russiagate was a coordinated smear



Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last week declassified a 29-page document known as the Durham annex. Its publication has received remarkably little attention from major media outlets, despite containing one of the most significant intelligence disclosures since the origins of the Russiagate investigation.

The Durham annex is not conjecture, analysis, or political spin. It is a collection of sensitive intelligence reports, internal memos, and declassified emails compiled by the intelligence community and withheld from public view for years under the pretext of “source protection.”

The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence in 2015 and 2016 suggesting that foreign governments were attempting to collude not with Trump, but with Clinton.

The declassified document offers a clearer view of what many Americans have long suspected: that the narrative surrounding Trump-Russia collusion was not only politically motivated but deliberately constructed by the Clinton campaign, facilitated by sympathetic actors within U.S. intelligence agencies, and ultimately endorsed by senior members of the Obama administration.

This trove of documents does not merely reinforce existing criticisms of the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election. It provides evidence that the Clinton campaign approved a strategy to discredit Donald Trump by promoting a false association with Vladimir Putin. And it does so using intelligence collected from foreign surveillance of American political actors — surveillance that the CIA deemed credible enough to brief President Barack Obama directly.

The cover-up unraveled

Central to the Durham annex is a source codenamed “T1” — a foreign intelligence asset who intercepted Russian cyber-espionage activity targeting American entities, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the Clinton campaign, and U.S. think tanks. The reports T1 relayed to U.S. intelligence included detailed assessments of internal American political strategy. In effect, T1 was watching Russian spies watch us — and reporting back.

T1’s identity remains classified, but strong circumstantial evidence points to a Dutch intelligence source. The Netherlands reportedly gained access to Russian cyber operations as early as 2014. Regardless of who provided it, U.S. agencies treated the intelligence from T1 as credible.

Then-CIA Director John Brennan quickly briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Those briefings included memos indicating Hillary Clinton had personally approved a plan to tie Donald Trump to Russian election interference.

One memo, dated 2016 and reportedly obtained through Russian surveillance of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, outlined a Clinton campaign strategy: “Smear Donald Trump by magnifying the scandal” over Russia’s preference for Trump. That memo laid the groundwork for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax now known as Russiagate.

Intelligence running Clinton’s interference

The CIA labeled the intelligence “sensitive” and credible. The FBI rejected it. Agents claimed it relied on hearsay, appeared exaggerated, and might have suffered from translation errors.

That kind of skepticism might seem reasonable — if the FBI had applied the same scrutiny to the Steele dossier. Instead, they accepted that now-debunked document without verification and used it to justify surveillance warrants.

The inconsistency runs deeper than analysis. The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence from 2015 and 2016 showing that foreign governments weren’t courting Trump — they were cozying up to Clinton.

One memo, written before Trump even announced his candidacy, described a foreign intelligence operative preparing to meet with a Clinton associate to discuss a “plan.” The operative was acting on direct orders from a foreign head of state.

RELATED: The Russia hoax and COVID lies share the same deep-state fingerprints

Photo by Gilbert Carrasquillo/FilmMagic

The precise content of the plan is redacted, but the FBI’s field office viewed it as serious enough to request a FISA warrant. That request, however, was left to “languish in limbo” by senior FBI officials, who subsequently warned Clinton in a defensive briefing.

Frayed trust, no accountability

The documents suggest a coordinated operation — one in which political, bureaucratic, and media institutions aligned to discredit a political opponent using information they had strong reasons to believe was false. The CIA deemed the intelligence worth a presidential briefing. The FBI discarded it. The media ignored it. And Clinton operatives implemented it.

This is not merely a scandal of partisan excess. Nearly 10 years after the first Hillary Clinton email leaks, and eight years after Trump’s unexpected victory, we are only now beginning to see the scope of institutional complicity in the Russiagate deception. The political cost may never be fully calculated, but the institutional damage — to the FBI, to the intelligence community, and to the trust of the American people — is already done.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Comey FBI Sandbagged Clinton Email Investigation By Skipping Basic Steps

Then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, and others chose not to fully investigate the available evidence related to Clinton's misconduct.

Biden Says The Emails, Bank Records, Whistleblowers, And Testimony Proving His Involvement In Family Biz Are ‘Bunch Of Lies’

Emails, texts, bank records, receipts, White House visitor logs, photos, and testimonies say Joe took part of his family’s influence-peddling.

Joe Biden Used Email Aliases To Correspond With Hunter’s Business Partner 327 Times

Emails reveal that Joe Biden used email aliases to communicate with Hunter's business associate more than 300 times prior to becoming POTUS.

VP Biden Followed Advice Hunter Sent To His ‘Champ4’ Burner Email

Joe’s burner accounts are subject to scrutiny because evidence suggests he used them to advance his family’s foreign influence-peddling schemes.

As VP, Biden Emailed With His Brother, Son, And Their Firms About Foreign Business More Than 29,000 Times

Joe, Hunter, Jim, and the firms are at the center of the GOP investigation into the Biden family's influence-peddling operation.