By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly has publicly criticized President Donald Trump on her podcast, describing him as “not a moral man” and “extremely petty and thin-skinned.” Kelly’s remarks stem from Trump’s negative reactions to former allies, including herself and Tucker Carlson, who have voiced opposition to his stance on the Iran war. Despite these criticisms, Kelly continues to support Trump’s candidacy, citing his inspirational qualities and willingness to challenge the status quo, while acknowledging aspects of his personality that are “obviously not good.” This pattern of Trump turning on supporters who express principle disagreements highlights a recurring theme in his relationships with former allies.
Read the original article here
It seems the former Trump supporter, Megyn Kelly, has recently declared that the former president is “not a moral man,” adding that he is “not the greatest husband in the world and he’s extremely petty and thin-skinned.” This statement marks a notable shift for someone who was previously quite aligned with the Trump campaign, leading many to question the timing and sincerity of her current assessment. It’s a rather stark contrast to her past outspoken support, and the public’s reaction reflects a general skepticism about this sudden change of heart.
Kelly’s current pronouncements, particularly her assessment of Trump’s character, don’t exactly come as a revelation to many observers. The descriptions of him being “extremely petty and thin-skinned,” and certainly not the “greatest husband in the world,” echo sentiments that have been widely discussed and debated for years. Given his public persona and past actions, these traits have been on display for a long time, making Kelly’s late acknowledgment of them feel a bit… belated, to say the least.
The timing of Kelly’s comments also raises eyebrows. With elections on the horizon, some are interpreting this as a strategic move, a way to distance herself from a figure who may be perceived as increasingly problematic. It’s as if the ship is showing signs of instability, and some are looking for an early exit, or at least a way to signal they are no longer firmly on board. This perceived shift in allegiance has been met with considerable cynicism, with many suggesting it’s less about genuine moral awakening and more about positioning for future opportunities.
What makes Kelly’s current stance even more noteworthy is the memory of her past defenses of Trump. There are recollections of her previously stating she would still support him even under extreme hypothetical circumstances, like him dropping a nuclear bomb. This stark contrast between past unwavering loyalty and present criticism fuels the narrative that her current words might be driven by something other than a sudden moral clarity.
The sentiment that “rats are jumping ship” seems to capture the mood of many who are observing this development. For those who have been critical of Trump from the outset, Kelly’s eventual acknowledgment of his perceived flaws is neither surprising nor particularly impactful. Instead, it’s seen as a predictable consequence for someone who aligned themselves with him and is now reassessing their position as political tides potentially shift.
There’s a prevailing view that this is not an epiphany, but rather a calculated maneuver. The idea of “grifters starting to jump ship” or “positioning themselves as reasonable off-ramps” is a recurring theme in the discussions surrounding Kelly’s statements. It suggests a belief that individuals who previously benefited from their association with Trump are now seeking to redefine their public image, perhaps to avoid being associated with his controversies in the long run.
Furthermore, some of the commentary points to a history of Kelly’s own controversial remarks, specifically referencing her past comments about age and consent, which are being brought up as evidence that her own moral compass has been questionable. This perspective suggests that it’s perhaps disingenuous for her to now be the arbiter of someone else’s morality, given her own past statements and actions that have drawn significant criticism.
Ultimately, the current discourse surrounding Megyn Kelly’s assessment of Donald Trump suggests a deep-seated distrust of her motives and a skepticism about the genuineness of her perceived change of heart. While she may now be voicing criticisms that many have held for a long time, the context of her past support and the current political climate lead many to view her statements as opportunistic rather than indicative of a sincere shift in moral conviction. It’s a narrative of perceived self-interest playing out in the public eye, a story many feel they’ve seen before.