Megyn Kelly's Tepid Response to Epstein Emails Raises Eyebrows
Conservative media host Megyn Kelly has faced criticism for her carefully hedged reaction to newly released emails from the case files of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The documents, which were released after a lengthy delay, appear to implicate President Donald Trump in Epstein's network, but Kelly attempted to downplay their significance.
In a recent podcast appearance, Kelly acknowledged that the emails "sound bad" for Trump, but also suggested that Democrats' attempts to use them against him are unlikely to succeed. She claimed that redactions made by the House Oversight Committee were an attempt to play up the connection between Epstein and Trump, rather than providing genuine transparency.
Kelly's comments drew attention for their perceived double standard, as she criticized Democrats for redacting certain names while ignoring similar redactions in her own past reporting on Epstein. Her assertion that Democrats are "weaponizing" the emails also raises questions about her own objectivity.
The podcast host's reaction to broader Epstein revelations has been widely panned, including a bizarre rant about the distinction between pedophiles and ephebophiles. Citing an unnamed source close to the case, Kelly claimed she had previously believed that Epstein was primarily attracted to girls around 15 years old. However, following revelations from Attorney General Pam Bondi, she reportedly came to realize that Epstein's true nature was more sinister.
Kelly's shifting stance on Epstein's intentions has left many wondering about her own credibility. Her criticism of Bondi's word on the matter also suggests a deeper distrust of institutions – and potentially her own sources – when it comes to reporting on high-profile cases like this one.
The reaction highlights the challenges of navigating complex and sensitive topics in media, where objectivity can be difficult to maintain, especially when powerful figures are involved. Kelly's response serves as a reminder that journalists must carefully consider their language and actions when dealing with such cases, lest they risk fueling further controversy and mistrust.
Conservative media host Megyn Kelly has faced criticism for her carefully hedged reaction to newly released emails from the case files of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The documents, which were released after a lengthy delay, appear to implicate President Donald Trump in Epstein's network, but Kelly attempted to downplay their significance.
In a recent podcast appearance, Kelly acknowledged that the emails "sound bad" for Trump, but also suggested that Democrats' attempts to use them against him are unlikely to succeed. She claimed that redactions made by the House Oversight Committee were an attempt to play up the connection between Epstein and Trump, rather than providing genuine transparency.
Kelly's comments drew attention for their perceived double standard, as she criticized Democrats for redacting certain names while ignoring similar redactions in her own past reporting on Epstein. Her assertion that Democrats are "weaponizing" the emails also raises questions about her own objectivity.
The podcast host's reaction to broader Epstein revelations has been widely panned, including a bizarre rant about the distinction between pedophiles and ephebophiles. Citing an unnamed source close to the case, Kelly claimed she had previously believed that Epstein was primarily attracted to girls around 15 years old. However, following revelations from Attorney General Pam Bondi, she reportedly came to realize that Epstein's true nature was more sinister.
Kelly's shifting stance on Epstein's intentions has left many wondering about her own credibility. Her criticism of Bondi's word on the matter also suggests a deeper distrust of institutions – and potentially her own sources – when it comes to reporting on high-profile cases like this one.
The reaction highlights the challenges of navigating complex and sensitive topics in media, where objectivity can be difficult to maintain, especially when powerful figures are involved. Kelly's response serves as a reminder that journalists must carefully consider their language and actions when dealing with such cases, lest they risk fueling further controversy and mistrust.
Megyn Kelly thinks she can just play dumb and expect us to believe it? like, come on girl! you've been covering Epstein's story for years and now you're acting all shocked and confused when the truth comes out? 
what is WRONG with her?! it's like she's trying to gaslight us or something.
, she's basically saying one thing but doing another 
. I mean, if the emails sound bad for Trump, then why didn't she just say that? Instead, she's all like "oh no, Democrats are playing with fire" 
. And what's up with her own Epstein reporting history? She changes her mind like 5 times 
. It's like, hello, credibility is important 
.
I'm not surprised Megyn Kelly reacted the way she did to these emails... it's like people think reporting is about being a judge and jury at the same time? 
We need journalists who can be honest with themselves, their sources, and the public. It's okay to say 'I don't know' or 'this sounds suspicious'. But Kelly's constant spinning and trying to deflect blame shows she's more interested in protecting her own reputation than doing real journalism. That's a lesson for all of us: integrity matters in any field we choose to pursue! 
... it's weird how she's quick to call out others for redacting names, but forgets about her own past mistakes 
... sounds like she's trying to spin the narrative instead of just giving an honest account 
... maybe she's more concerned with keeping her own career afloat than telling the truth 
... it's def hard to trust her now 
... I mean, she's got some nerve questioning the Democrats' motives while conveniently ignoring her own past reporting mishaps 
.
. And what's up with her saying that Democrats are "weaponizing" them? That's just not true! She knows full well that Trump was friends with Epstein and that he had some shady connections.
. I mean, I'm all for nuanced discussions, but that was just a mess. And what's with the source saying she thought Epstein only liked girls around 15? Like, who is this person and why are they spouting off like that?
. Journalists need to be transparent and honest when reporting on sensitive topics, not try to sugarcoat or spin the truth. And if she can't handle the heat, then maybe she shouldn't be in this business 
the thing is, we already know she was close friends with Epstein's ex pal, ghislaine maxwell 
. I'm not saying she's definitely in on something or anything 
, but her words are kinda riddled with inconsistencies 
. And when you call out the redactions, she just deflects and says Democrats are trying to manipulate stuff 
. That's not exactly a great look for her 
. And that rant about pedophiles vs ephebophiles? What even is that? 
.