Presented by QTR’s Fringe Finance
From the outset, I must disclose my bias. I have developed a growing admiration for Megyn Kelly in recent years. This is partly due to the way she articulates her thoughts on her podcast, which often align closely with my own views (profanity included). Additionally, when I unexpectedly met her a couple of years ago in Atlantic City, she exuded warmth, charm, and genuine kindness towards a stranger who was likely a bit tipsy.
Throughout the past few years, especially during election seasons, Kelly has consistently demonstrated her keen intellect and dedication to objective truth on her podcast. It is worth mentioning that she is just as striking in person as she appears on television—a rarity in the entertainment industry, based on my observations.
All of these qualities make her an ideal counterpart to CNN’s Jake Tapper, whose work during the same period served as a journalistic contrast to Megyn Kelly’s. As most readers are aware, Tapper’s actions leading up to the election were notable: he staunchly defended President Joe Biden’s mental acuity—a stance that not only diverged from reality but also conflicted with his claim of being an “unbiased” journalist.
Tapper’s embarrassing episode of championing the Democrats’ lackluster candidate prior to the 2024 election turned out to be both futile and glaringly obvious. He, along with a group of equally biased journalists disguised as “unbiased” fact-checkers, received a resounding message from voters in November when President Trump triumphed over Kamala Harris, the Democratic elite, the Biden era autopen operator, and the deep state entourage she brought along.
The overwhelming defeat Harris suffered should have been a wakeup call for Tapper to emulate Brian Stelter—take a hiatus from TV, reflect on his actions, and contemplate the consequences. However, Tapper chose a different path. He opted for a full-on DumbassDoubleDown™ by writing a book postulating that Biden had always been mentally unfit for office—after years of falsely asserting Biden’s fitness. Ironically, the book details a massive cover-up to conceal the fact that Biden’s cognitive abilities have been equivalent to a side dish of mashed potatoes for years.
Tapper embarked on a media blitz, using his book as a focal point in interviews, expressing indignation over how the mainstream media had misled everyone regarding Joe Biden. He attempted to pivot and rebrand himself after such a public debacle. Chris Cuomo managed a similar feat, and Democrats are exploring avenues to engage more in podcasting—presumably to appear more relatable. However, these efforts overlook a simple truth: no amount of focus groups or lengthy PowerPoint presentations can teach one to be honest, speak sincerely, uphold genuine values, or sound authentic.
For instance, consider Cuomo’s journey. During the COVID pandemic, he derided individuals questioning the vaccine or advocating for alternative treatments like ivermectin on CNN. Subsequently, he transitioned to a more conservative-leaning role at NewsNation and even made appearances on the right-wing PBD Podcast. Cuomo faced his critics head-on, notably in a livestream debate with Libertarian Dave Smith, who effectively challenged him on various topics to the applause of a well-informed and rightfully outraged audience.
Perhaps Tapper witnessed this and thought, “All I need is a solid public reckoning on a conservative platform, and I’ll be redeemed. That will appease all those I insulted and deceived.”
This brings us to his recent interview with Megyn Kelly. From the outset, it seemed like Tapper hoped this would be his version of Cuomo’s confrontation with Smith. Undoubtedly, he believed any publicity for the book was good publicity and resigned himself to a half-hearted apology before attempting to set a record for mentioning his book’s title the most times during a two-hour interview.
However, those tuning in to the Megyn Kelly podcast were not interested in the book per se. They were eager for Tapper to be held accountable. After all, detailed analyses of Biden’s inadequacies were readily available, and Tapper had chosen to ignore them.
In a methodical manner, Kelly confronted Tapper with about 25 minutes of his own rhetoric before delving into discussions about the book—a topic that was likely a prerequisite for his appearance on the show.
She wasted no time challenging Tapper on his and CNN’s involvement in what she bluntly labeled “an attempted cover-up” of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. According to Kelly, “It wasn’t just stumbling; it was evident that he was losing his way,” alluding to Biden’s frequent gaffes in public and reliance on editing and teleprompter aids. “We observed the multiple jump cuts in his videos, where it was clear he couldn’t complete a one-minute take,” she remarked.
She emphasized that, from her perspective, it was an open secret that most of the press chose to ignore. “It was evident to us that he was using a teleprompter,” she stated, noting, “There were reports on this at the time, all of which the White House refuted.” Directly addressing the issue, she stated, “There was an attempted cover-up. It could have only succeeded if the press allowed it. Some of us tried to resist, while others were complicit.”
Tapper, evidently defensive, attempted to distance himself from the administration. “The Biden White House did not appreciate me, okay?” he asserted. “I do not have strong ties with the Biden White House.” Kelly seized the opportunity, asking, “Well, do you have numerous sources? You mentioned speaking with over 200 sources for this book.” Tapper clarified that this extensive research was conducted “after the election.”
Unrelenting, Kelly pressed further, “You could have reached out to some sources.” Tapper insisted, “That’s the point— they were not forthcoming.” However, Kelly remained skeptical. “Then how did The Wall Street Journal report on it in June 2024? And Jake Tapper and CNN couldn’t find sources for this story before it broke?”
🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Avail a 50% discount on an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life using this coupon: Get 50% off forever
Tapper acknowledged the outstanding work of journalists Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes in their reporting. He commended their efforts, stating, “They should be applauded. And I applauded them.” He claimed to have invited them on his show “immediately after the debate,” to which Kelly countered, “After the debate. But you did not feature them when they published the story, which was before the debate.”
Caught off guard, Tapper conceded, “True. I’m not sure why they weren’t booked. I’m sure I must have said, let’s get them on that day.”
Kelly countered with a damning assessment, “Yes. Instead, you invited a Democrat who criticized the report as a Rupert Murdoch-sponsored hit piece.” When Tapper interjected, “Megyn…” she interjected, “That’s what happened.”
Exasperated, Tapper retorted, “Megyn, if we’re going to do this, let’s stick to the facts, okay?” Kelly calmly responded, “Jake, that’s precisely what I’ve been doing all along.”
And then, delivering the final blow, Kelly stated, “One of us didn’t overlook the most significant story of the century in presidential politics, and one of us did.”
“You failed to address his struggles climbing stairs,” Kelly pointed out, “his frequent lapses in thought, his slurred speech, his incoherence, his confusion on the White House lawn.”
“You were face-to-face with him and you failed to inquire about any of that,” Kelly continued, “despite his promise to be fully transparent about his health issues.”
For Tapper, the strategy should have been straightforward: acknowledge his errors upfront, seek forgiveness immediately, and show contrition. There is no room for ambiguity here—he grossly misjudged the situation, and no amount of PR spin can rectify three years of misguided political coverage. Unfortunately, that was not the course of action taken.
Instead, Tapper stumbled through the interview, appearing flustered and hesitant, offering feeble excuses while adamantly refusing to accept even a modicum of reality. Had he begun with a genuine apology and admitted to shielding Biden, this article might never have been penned. Yet, he clung desperately to any semblance of a scapegoat, while Megyn Kelly scored points off him as though he were a swing state in November.
And for me? The entire spectacle was immensely satisfying. Watching Tapper face the consequences of his actions is akin to catnip for anyone subjected to his sanctimonious rhetoric during election season. However, what I did not anticipate—the cherry on top—was leaving the interview with the impression that Tapper’s credibility with viewers, readers, centrists, and conservatives may have actually diminished post-interview.
If asked beforehand, I would have deemed such an outcome implausible.
Setting aside the book’s content, which is largely irrelevant and belated, witnessing a “comeback” PR tour implode, undermined by the same arrogance that landed Tapper in trouble initially, was immensely gratifying.
And the entire self-destructive spectacle? It could not have been deconstructed—or narrated—by anyone more adept than Kelly.
View the full interview below:
QTR’s Disclaimer: Kindly review my comprehensive legal disclaimer on my About page here. The views expressed in this post are solely my own. Additionally, please note that I am fallible, often mistaken, and prone to financial losses. I may trade or hold positions in any mentioned securities without prior notice. Posts by contributors and aggregated content are selected by me, not fact-checked, and represent the authors’ opinions. They are submitted to QTR by the authors, reprinted under a Creative Commons license, or with the authors’ permission.
This article does not constitute investment advice, merely my personal opinions. I frequently incur losses in my trades and investments. I may buy or sell any mentioned securities at any time, without warning. None of this content should be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own the assets I discuss and monitor. Sometimes I express bullish sentiments without holding positions, and vice versa. Assume my positions may be the opposite of what you expect. I may shift from long to short positions rapidly. I will not update my positions. They can change immediately upon publication, with or without notice, and at any time, I may be long, short, or neutral on any asset. You are responsible for your decisions. Do not base your choices on my blog. I operate on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. These opinions do not reflect those of my employers, partners, or associates. I strive to be transparent about my disclosures but cannot guarantee their accuracy; sometimes, I write these posts after a few drinks. I edit after publishing because I am impatient and lazy, so check back in half an hour if you spot a typo. I make many mistakes. I emphasize this twice because it is crucial.
Loading…