NEW YORK – Megyn Kelly went after Hillary Clinton during a heated segment on Sky News Australia, accusing the former secretary of state of blatant hypocrisy. Kelly argued that Clinton is trying to tie President Donald Trump and his Department of Justice to a Jeffrey Epstein file “cover-up” while ignoring how often Bill Clinton shows up in the same material.

The clash comes as renewed attention hits the ongoing release of millions of pages tied to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender. Speaking to the BBC during the Munich Security Conference in mid-February 2026, Hillary Clinton claimed the Trump administration had dragged its feet on full disclosure. She also alleged the DOJ has kept key names out of view through redactions and has resisted congressional requests.

“Get the files out. They are slow-walking it,” Clinton said, framing the delays as an effort to protect powerful people, with Trump implied in her remarks.

On Sky News host Paul Murray’s show, Kelly said Clinton’s comments look like a distraction. She pointed to Bill Clinton’s history with Epstein and argued that Hillary Clinton’s attacks on Trump don’t hold up when her husband’s name appears so often in the record.

Megyn Kelly’s blunt message: Bill Clinton shows up again and again

Megyn Kelly didn’t soften her point during the interview.

“There are few in the Epstein file as many times as Bill Clinton,” she told Murray. “There is a long, long history between those two.”

Over the years, court filings, flight logs from Epstein’s private jet (often called the “Lolita Express”), and witness accounts have repeatedly referenced Bill Clinton’s travel and connections to Epstein after Clinton left office.

No criminal charges have ever been brought against the former president tied to Epstein’s crimes. Still, Kelly stressed that his name appears frequently in unsealed materials, more often than many other prominent figures.

From Megyn Kelly’s view, that context undercuts the Clintons’ posture in the current debate.

“They folded like cheap tents because they knew they didn’t have a leg to stand on,” she said, arguing that efforts to keep the spotlight on Trump fade fast once Bill Clinton’s links come up.

That theme matches a wider conservative argument. Critics say Democrats push Trump-Epstein angles hard while minimizing or brushing past Bill Clinton’s documented association with Epstein.

The Epstein files fight, and why it won’t go away.

Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. After his death, public pressure grew for transparency about his circle of wealthy and influential contacts, which included political figures, business leaders, scientists, and celebrities.

Several developments have kept the issue alive, including:

• Rolling releases of court records from civil cases, including Virginia Giuffre’s defamation lawsuit involving Ghislaine Maxwell.
• Congressional action in late 2025orderedg the Department of Justice to declassify and release remaining Epstein-related materials.
• A large document release in early 2026 that totaled millions of pages, although critics on both sides say heavy redactions remain.

During Trump’s current term, the DOJ under Attorney General Pam Bondi has overseen the latest round of releases. Supporters of the process say the DOJ must protect victim privacy and follow legal rules. Opponents, including Clinton, argue the government is shielding elites connected to the current president.

Clinton’s BBC interview added fuel to the partisan fight. She said potential congressional subpoenas for her and Bill Clinton were meant to distract from Trump.

“Why do they want to pull us into this? To divert attention from President Trump. This is not complicated,” she said.

In response, the White House said the administration has “done more for the victims” than previous administrations and remains committed to transparency.

The hypocrisy argument, and the broader political fallout

Megyn Kelly’s comments highlight a familiar pattern in US politics, where each side accuses the other of playing favorites in major scandals.

Critics point to Bill Clinton’s Epstein connections, including:

• Multiple trips on Epstein’s plane.
• Shared social circles and overlap in philanthropic settings.
• No proven criminal wrongdoing, but ongoing questions raised by unsealed documents.

At the same time, Trump’s Epstein-related history has also drawn attention, including:

• Past social ties in New York and Palm Beach circles.
• A 2002 comment describing Epstein as a “terrific guy” who liked “beautiful women… on the younger side.”
• Later separation from Epstein, including a ban from Mar-a-Lago.
• Mentions in released files, though Kelly and other commentators claim they appear less often than Bill Clinton’s.

Megyn Kelly’s central claim is that Hillary Clinton’s focus on Trump ignores that imbalance. She argues Clinton can’t credibly demand answers from others while sidestepping her own family’s exposure in the same story.

The debate also reflects a split in coverage. Right-leaning outlets, including Sky News Australia, have highlighted Kelly’s pushback. Meanwhile, many mainstream US outlets have placed more focus on Clinton’s claims of a cover-up and on congressional efforts aimed at the Clintons.

What it could mean for 2026 politics

As Trump’s second term moves forward, the Epstein files remain a political flashpoint. Each new release risks naming more people and reshaping public opinion across party lines.

For Democrats, Clinton’s public push for more transparency may rally supporters, but it also risks pulling Bill Clinton’s past back into headlines. For Republicans, Kelly’s comments offer a ready counterattack, framing Democratic criticism as selective and self-serving.

Above all, the fight shows how little trust many voters have in institutions handling cases that touch powerful people. Full, unredacted disclosure still isn’t guaranteed, and the argument over what’s being held back keeps growing.

Megyn Kelly’s bottom line, that the Clintons “didn’t have a leg to stand on,” captures the tone of the moment. As more documents surface and pressure continues, the Epstein saga remains a tool in ongoing political warfare, and neither side seems ready to let it drop.

Related News:

Megyn Kelly Talks With Buck Sexton About Left-Wing Brainwashing

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a top progressive voice in the Democratic Party, drew global attention at the 62nd Munich Security Conference in February 2026. However, her debut on that stage quickly became a flashpoint.

Organizers invited her to talk about changes in U.S. foreign policy and the rise of authoritarian politics. She tried to offer a working-class-focused alternative to the Trump administration’s style.

Instead, several awkward moments and charged lines sparked criticism from conservatives, moderates, and even some Democrats. As a result, talk grew about possible weak spots if she pursues bigger plans, including a potential 2028 presidential run.

The conference ran from February 13 to 15, 2026. It brought together global leaders, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to discuss transatlantic security.

The agenda focused on alliances, migration, and major power rivalry. AOC joined panels on populism and U.S. foreign policy. Throughout, she argued that economic inequality links directly to the global rise of far-right movements.

Key moments that drove the AOC backlash

Several parts of Ocasio-Cortez’s appearance set off immediate pushback across the political spectrum:

• Taiwan’s defense hesitation
  During a Bloomberg-hosted discussion, she was asked whether the United States should commit troops to defend Taiwan if China invaded. She paused for a noticeable moment, then gave a careful answer centered on deterrence and alliances. Critics called the exchange a “word salad” and said it showed she wasn’t ready for core national security questions.
• Venezuela geography mistake
  While talking about Latin America, she wrongly said Venezuela sits south of the equator (it’s in the Northern Hemisphere). The slip spread quickly online and in media coverage, and opponents questioned her grasp of basic geopolitics.
• “Cowboy culture” jab at Rubio
  She tried to respond to Secretary Rubio’s comments about the Spanish roots of American cowboy culture. In that context, she said Mexicans and descendants of enslaved Africans “would like to have a word.” Critics argued the line was historically off and flattened a complex history into a quick punchline.
• Wider foreign policy framing
  She linked U.S. aid to Israel to enabling “genocide” in Gaza. She also urged a progressive, class-first foreign policy as a way to push back on authoritarianism. Those positions energized many progressives. At the same time, they turned off centrists and some pro-Israel Democrats.

Republican voices moved fast. Strategist Matt Whitlock called the weekend an “absolute train wreck,” and he pointed to the Taiwan moment and her history references as the biggest problems. Former President Donald Trump and allies also boosted clips on social media, aiming to frame her as out of her depth on a world stage.

Criticism from the left and center-left

The blowback didn’t stay on the right. Some veteran Democrats and liberal commentators said the mistakes were avoidable and distracting.

• New York Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf said the appearance showed “a complete lack of chops about international issues,” and he added it wasn’t “ready for prime time.”
• Moderate and left-leaning voices, including social media commenters and opinion writers, admitted the Taiwan answer “was not great” and could hurt her credibility.
• Even some progressive outlets said the stumbles pulled focus from her main point, that inequality fuels far-right populism.

In later interviews, Ocasio-Cortez defended the trip and pushed back on the idea that it was about personal ambition. “I went to Munich not because I’m running for president,” she told The New York Times, “but because we need to address runaway inequality.”

What it could mean for her political future

After Munich, attention on Ocasio-Cortez’s national path only grew. As a leading member of “The Squad” with a large online following, she has a loyal base. Still, she also faces ongoing questions about whether she can expand beyond progressive voters, especially on foreign policy.

• Near-term downside
  The missteps give opponents ready-made clips for future campaigns. They could also make fundraising and endorsements harder with establishment Democrats who worry about national security gaps.
• Longer-term staying power
  Supporters argue the reaction reflects discomfort with her class-based challenge to elite foreign policy thinking. They also point to her joint appearance with Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), where she promoted a “working-people” approach. In contrast, Rubio leaned into messages focused on migration and borders.
• National-level math
  Analysts say her base turnout remains strong. However, broader viability often requires steady command of tough topics, including China policy and Middle East conflicts.

Overall, the Munich episode highlights a familiar challenge for progressive leaders who step into national security debates. With global tensions high, any sign of inexperience can carry a real political cost.

Ocasio-Cortez has faced controversies before and often turns criticism into motivation for her supporters. Whether Munich slows her down or fires up her base is still unclear. Even so, it marked a high-stakes test of her first major foreign policy appearance.

In the days after the conference, she said she was frustrated that coverage of “slip-ups” drowned out her warnings about authoritarianism. Yet the wide pile-on from both parties suggests the moment may stick in the public memory as her profile continues to grow.

Related News:

AOC Accuses Jessie Watters of Fox News of Sexualizing and Harassing Her

WASHINGTON, D.C. – New reporting and congressional activity have brought fresh attention to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and people later convicted in a sweeping Minnesota welfare fraud case.

Ilhan Omar has not been charged, and federal prosecutors have not accused her of taking part in the scheme. Still, recent disclosures and media reports point to personal and campaign-level ties between Omar and at least two individuals convicted in the Feeding Our Future case.

At the same time, the Trump administration has expanded its focus to claims that stolen public funds may have moved overseas, including allegations tied to Al-Shabaab. Alongside that effort, House Republicans have also increased scrutiny of Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, and business activity linked to multiple countries.

Supporters and critics now frame the story in sharply different ways. Omar and her allies call the attention a political attack, and they say it distracts from prosecuting the people who committed fraud. Republicans argue the connections, oversight failures, and money trails deserve deeper review, including beyond the United States.

Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 and has repeatedly pointed to Minnesota as a fraud hot spot. Omar, a member of the progressive “Squad,” has pushed back and urged investigators to focus on proven wrongdoing. Even so, with House Republicans driving several inquiries, the situation keeps widening, and Mynett’s companies have drawn a global spotlight.

The Minnesota Somali Fraud Scandal: A Billion-Dollar Problem

The core case involves large-scale fraud in Minnesota that targeted government programs during the COVID-19 era. The best-known prosecution centers on Feeding Our Future, a Twin Cities nonprofit that said it provided meals to children. Prosecutors say it became a pipeline for stealing hundreds of millions in public funds instead.

Key points often cited in coverage and hearings include:

• Size of the fraud: Prosecutors have put total losses across multiple schemes above $1 billion. They say Feeding Our Future accounts for at least $300 million, with false meal claims, fake invoices, and kickbacks.
• Charges and convictions: Since 2022, more than 75 people have been charged, and many have been convicted. Because many defendants are Somali immigrants or the children of immigrants, the case has also fueled debate about community stigma.
• Other alleged schemes: Reports and testimony have also highlighted Medicaid-related fraud claims reaching into the billions, including assisted living and autism services. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson described the system as easy to exploit, saying it drew fraud “tourists.”

Critics have blamed poor oversight during the Biden administration and under Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Indictments began in September 2022, and the public record has continued to grow through late 2025 and early 2026. In December 2025, a U.S. House hearing pressed officials on how billions in public dollars were lost, and some testimony described coordinated networks that knew how to work the system.

Minnesota’s Somali community, often described as the largest in the country with more than 100,000 residents, has felt the fallout. Local leaders have condemned fraud while also warning against backlash. Omar addressed the issue on CBS’s Face the Nation in December 2025, saying alarms had been raised and that fraudsters should be prosecuted and jailed.

Ilhan Omar’s Reported Links: Donations, Photos, and Community Overlap

Federal prosecutors have not accused Omar of fraud. Even so, a mix of campaign finance records, photographs, and public appearances has driven a steady stream of headlines about her proximity to people later convicted.

Reports have highlighted several areas:

• Campaign donations that were returned: Coverage from outlets including 77 WABC and OpenTheBooks has said Omar’s campaign received $7,400 tied to individuals later convicted in the Feeding Our Future case, and that the campaign later returned those funds. The timing has raised questions about donor screening.
• Photos tied to convicted individuals: Media reports, including the New York Post, have circulated images that show Omar with at least two people later convicted in the case. One report described one of them as an undocumented immigrant with a fraud record who was arrested in December 2025, and it also referenced ties to Minnesota Democrats, including Gov. Walz.
• Advocacy and public promotion claims: OpenTheBooks commentary has pointed to statements and posts during the period when fraud expanded, including claims that Omar backed looser oversight and promoted a site later connected to fraud convictions. Some critics also point to changes in her personal financial picture during that period, although public reports have not shown prosecutors tying her finances to stolen funds.
• Close community networks: Other coverage, including a December 2025 Daily Mail report, framed Omar’s Somali background as part of why public interactions and shared events have drawn attention, especially in a tight-knit community.

Omar has denied wrongdoing and has argued that the public should not paint Somali Americans with a broad brush. In a Fortune interview, she urged aggressive prosecution of fraud while also warning against confusion and chaos driven by political motives. Meanwhile, critics such as Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) have used the reported connections to press for more answers, and social media claims have amplified accusations tied to immigration and theft.

The story has advanced through court filings, media reporting, congressional statements, and commentary from watchdog groups. Local coverage, including Fox 9 Minneapolis, has described the fraud environment as large and persistent, even as prosecutions continue.

Trump Administration Review: Claims About Al-Shabaab and Overseas Money Flows

The issue has taken on a national security angle as the Trump administration reviews allegations that some Minnesota fraud money may have moved overseas, including claims tied to Al-Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda affiliate in Somalia.

Publicly reported elements of that push include:

• Treasury involvement: In December 2025, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced an inquiry into allegations that taxpayer dollars may have been diverted to Al-Shabaab. He pointed to a City Journal report that claimed millions from fraud schemes may have ended up connected to the group, citing federal counterterrorism sources.
• Disputes over evidence: Some officials and reports have pushed back on the claim. Former U.S. Attorney Andy Luger has said investigators have not found direct evidence that fraud dollars were sent to terrorist groups. A Minnesota Reformer report from December 2025 suggested much of the money appeared to fund luxury spending, while also noting that indirect flows can be hard to trace.
• Related actions by the administration: Reports have said the administration paused certain federal child care funding to Minnesota, described the state as a center of money laundering, and sent more than 2,000 immigration agents to Minneapolis. Trump also ended Temporary Protected Status for Somalis, affecting about 1,100 people, and cited fraud concerns.
• Congressional and agency steps: In December 2025, House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) announced a separate probe tied to widespread fraud. Other reports said HUD sent staff to review aid programs, and Treasury lowered reporting thresholds for money transfers to look for overseas links.

Trump has used Truth Social posts to highlight the Minnesota cases and to promise deportations tied to fraud. Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, have criticized the approach as targeting immigrants without proof. Reuters, in a January 2026 explainer, reported that the scandal began under Biden but has become a major Trump talking point.

Growing Scrutiny of Tim Mynett and Business Deals Abroad

Omar has also faced questions tied to her husband, Tim Mynett, a political consultant she married in 2020. Republican investigators have focused on financial disclosures that show large swings in the stated value of his business interests. Those disclosures have fueled claims of opaque funding and concerns about who may be seeking access to Omar through investments.

Reported developments include:

• Sharp valuation changes: Omar’s financial disclosures list holdings tied to eStCru LLC, described as a California winery, and Rose Lake Capital LLC, described as a venture capital firm. House Oversight Republicans, led by Comer, have questioned an increase in reported value up to $30 million, compared with a much smaller figure reported in 2023. Comer requested documents with a deadline of February 19, 2026.
• Prior lawsuit tied to an investment promise: A 2023 lawsuit accused Mynett of promising a 200 percent return on a $300,000 investment in eStCru and not repaying until legal action was filed. Media coverage has pointed to that dispute when questioning the later jump in valuation.
• International scope of the inquiry: In a February 2026 letter, Comer sought records tied to Mynett’s dealings in Somalia, Kenya, and the United Arab Emirates, including travel, communications, and business outreach tied to mergers, debt work, and capital raising.
• Influence concerns raised by investigators: Comer has argued that undisclosed investors could seek influence over Omar. Reports have also described Rose Lake Capital as having limited public information. Some coverage, including the New York Post, has suggested a possible subpoena for Mynett.
• Omar’s response: Omar has framed the investigation as political. In a TikTok video, she said valuations reflect full business costs and do not represent Mynett’s personal share. She has also noted that a prior Justice Department review during the Biden era ended without action.

Several outlets have portrayed the inquiry as extending beyond Minnesota because Rose Lake Capital has described itself as having global interests. Some reports have mentioned possible FBI involvement, although public confirmation has been limited. Fox News coverage has also tried to connect the Mynett review to the broader Minnesota fraud story, suggesting possible overlap.

What It Could Mean Next: Politics, Community Impact, and Legal Risk

The combined controversies have created pressure on several fronts. Somali community leaders in Minnesota have warned that fraud headlines can lead to harassment and stereotyping. Politically, Republicans have used the cases to support tougher immigration and oversight proposals ahead of the 2026 midterms, and some commentary has suggested the fallout could touch Walz’s plans.

Several themes continue to stand out:

• Backlash and stigma: Reports and surveys have described increased hostility toward Somalis in Minnesota as the cases stay in the news.
• Policy tightening: Trump agencies have moved to tighten Medicaid billing controls and increase scrutiny of money transfers, aiming to reduce fraud risk.
• Ethics and legal exposure: If investigators uncover undisclosed conflicts or improper benefits, Omar could face ethics complaints or more serious allegations. Supporters call the effort a partisan hunt, while critics say transparency is the point.

As of February 2026, no charges have been filed against Omar or Mynett. Still, House Oversight demands continue, and Trump allies keep calling for aggressive enforcement. With federal reviews, congressional probes, and intense media attention all running at once, the story remains active, and the next wave of findings could shape Omar’s career and Minnesota politics for years.

Related News:

Ilhan Omar’s Exploding Wealth Investigated By Federal Authorities