Megyn Kelly wants the world to believe she’s a crusader for decency, justice, and the protection of young women.
When Russell Brand was accused of having a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old, Kelly didn’t just condemn him - she went scorched earth. “I’m done if he had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 31. I’m done,” she declared.
Kelly demanded that conservatives stop defending Brand, lambasting tribal loyalty and calling for “good men” on her side to step up and say, “This is wrong.”
But when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein - who preyed on girls as young as 15 - Kelly’s moral clarity crumbles faster than a MAGA hat during a fact-check. Suddenly, she’s parsing legal definitions, minimizing the severity of Epstein’s crimes, and making excuses for the men in his orbit.
The same woman who condemned Brand with righteous fury now insists there’s “a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, you know?”
Yes, Megyn, we know. And your hypocrisy is nauseating.
Epstein: Suddenly, It’s “Not That Bad”
As Kelly dissected Epstein’s crimes on her show, she worked overtime to muddy the waters. She claimed Epstein wasn’t a pedophile but rather someone who “liked the barely legal type.”
She even downplayed his predatory behavior, arguing that he wasn’t into “8-year-olds” but instead preferred girls who were 15 and “could pass for even younger.”
In Kelly’s world, this distinction apparently absolves Epstein of the full weight of his depravity.
But Kelly didn’t stop there. She also floated the idea that Epstein’s victims were “money-grubbing” adults rather than vulnerable teenagers.
The Hypocrisy Is the Point
This isn’t just hypocrisy; it’s a calculated strategy. When a disposable figure like Russell Brand is accused, Kelly dons her “Mama Bear” persona to score moral points with her audience.
But when someone like Epstein - or more importantly, a Trump-adjacent scandal - comes under scrutiny, Kelly switches gears. She manufactures ambiguity, reframes the narrative as a partisan attack, and minimizes the severity of the crimes.
Her goal isn’t justice; it’s tribal loyalty. By throwing Brand under the bus, she builds moral credibility with her audience. Then she spends that credibility defending men like Trump, who are far more critical to her political tribe. It’s as transparent as it is cynical.
⭐⭐ Support fearless, independent journalism that holds power accountable.⭐⭐
Final Thoughts: Pick a Lane, Megyn
Megyn Kelly wants to have it both ways. She wants to be the righteous defender of young girls when it’s convenient, but when her tribe’s power players are implicated, she’s quick to pivot to apologist mode.
Her selective outrage isn’t just hypocritical; it’s dangerous. By minimizing Epstein’s crimes and attacking the credibility of his victims, Kelly perpetuates the very culture of silence and complicity she claims to oppose.
So, the next time Megyn Kelly starts lecturing about morality, remember: Her red lines are more like red carpets, rolled out for the powerful and ripped away from the vulnerable. If integrity were a sport, Kelly wouldn’t even make the qualifying round.
I never paywall my articles, so feel free to share them with others.
Megyn, would you let your 15 year old go to
Epstein’s island with 40 and 60 year old men?
This piece isn’t just a critique it’s a cry of betrayal. Samuel Wynn Warde doesn’t write with outrage for its own sake; he writes from the wound left when moral clarity is traded for tribal convenience. Megyn Kelly’s pivot from fierce defender to equivocator doesn’t just expose hypocrisy; it fractures trust. The pain lies not only in what she says, but in what it signals: that some victims are worth defending, and others are negotiable. That justice is conditional. Warde’s voice is sharp, yes, but beneath the satire is sorrow for the girls dismissed, for the truth diluted, for the silence that follows when power is protected. This isn’t about politics. It’s about the cost of forgetting who we claim to be.