Staff Reports
Megyn Kelly’s release of fresh footage featuring Charlie Kirk has set off another necessary firestorm about Jeffrey Epstein and who, exactly, might have been protecting him. In the clip Kelly and Kirk openly entertain what many in conservative circles have been whispering for years — that Epstein was not simply a rich predator but may have been an intelligence asset whose activities helped explain the remarkable legal leniency he received.
This is not fringe talk made in a vacuum: Tucker Carlson publicly raised the same questions, and at Turning Point USA the audience loudly responded when Kirk and Kelly sketched out the possibility that Epstein answered to a foreign intelligence service. Conservative commentators have a duty to ask hard questions when the establishment covers things up, and that’s exactly what Kelly did on stage.
There are inconvenient facts that demand scrutiny: the narrow scope of the 2007 prosecution, Alex Acosta’s odd handling of the case, and decades of cozy relationships between Epstein and powerful figures around the world. If a U.S. attorney felt pressured to “treat Epstein carefully,” as has been reported, then the American people deserve to know who issued those orders and why the evidence trail looks so deliberately thin.
Predictably, Israeli officials and other defenders have angrily denied the Mossad theory, with former Israeli leaders calling the charge categorically false. Denials are easy; transparency is hard. When governments reflexively shout “conspiracy” instead of opening files and answering questions, it only deepens public suspicion.
Prominent critics have also pushed back on the Mossad hypothesis, pointing out that an intelligence agency would rarely entrust operations to someone as unreliable as Epstein. Skepticism from legal heavyweights is worth noting, but skepticism must not be a cover for stonewalling. We can accept prudent doubt while still demanding documents, witnesses, and accountability.
This debate isn’t about anti-Israel sentiment or cheap political points; it’s about the rule of law and whether any foreign or domestic actor was allowed to operate above it. Conservatives should be the loudest defenders of American sovereignty and the most relentless seekers of truth when our institutions appear compromised. If evidence exists that foreign intelligence agencies used criminality to manipulate American elites, we must expose it.
Congress and the Department of Justice owe the public a full accounting: release grand jury material where law allows, declassify reviews into prosecutorial decisions, and subpoena witnesses who’ve been conveniently quiet. Enough with equivocations and opaque pronouncements; hardworking Americans deserve final answers, not politically convenient cover stories.
Megyn Kelly and Charlie Kirk didn’t invent a theory; they forced a conversation the powerful would rather bury. Patriotic conservatives should applaud the courage to ask uncomfortable questions, press for real investigations, and insist that no person or agency — foreign or domestic — stands above the law. The truth, however inconvenient, is what will heal this country, and we should demand it relentlessly.
