Ben Shapiro sharply criticized Megyn Kelly on Thursday after she accused him a day earlier of implying that she was anti-Semitic. The dispute erupted after Kelly defended Piers Morgan, whose program Shapiro had recently attacked for hosting what he described as extreme anti-Semitic voices.
Shapiro addressed the controversy while taking questions from viewers during his program. One viewer asked about a pattern Shapiro has encountered in confrontational interviews, suggesting that critics often accuse him of focusing on Israel when they run out of other arguments.
“Josh says, quote, ‘Dear Ben, I’ve been watching a lot of your adversarial interviews lately, and I’ve noticed that once they run out of arguments, they always fall back on the Israel issue.’ Yeah, I noticed that, too,” Shapiro began before reading the remainder of the viewer’s question.
“‘I noticed this especially in Megyn Kelly’s defense of Tucker Carlson, where she claimed that your issue with him and recently her all boiled down to Israel, which I believe is an incorrect characterization. They just find it convenient to blame Israel instead of facing the actual points you are making. My question is: How do you deal with people like this? People who, anytime you disagree with them just say the reason you disagree with them is because of Israel? I like the way Matt Walsh said it: People that are Israel first, but from the opposite direction—meaning the first thing they care about is being anti-Israel. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.”
Shapiro responded bluntly to the suggestion that critics were misrepresenting his arguments.
“So yes, they’re lying. Megyn is lying, and so is Tucker. I mean, period. They’re just lying, OK?” Shapiro replied.
He said his criticism of Tucker Carlson began years earlier and had little to do with Israel.
“I started originally criticizing Tucker Carlson for his economic programs back in 2018. And then in the more modern, post-Fox iteration of Tucker, I started criticizing Tucker over his going to Russia to sniff the bread and kiss Vladimir Putin…”
Shapiro also pointed to Carlson’s decision to interview white nationalist Nick Fuentes as a major reason for his criticism.
“My generalized critique of Tucker in the last few months has been one: he hosted and glossed over a Nazi, Nick Fuentes, which doesn’t have to do with Israel. It has to do with glazing a Nazi, Nick Fuentes. And then I did a speech at Heritage in which I went through the fact that Tucker Carlson is in no way, shape, or form a traditional conservative and he’s a conspiratorial near-anarchist at this point, seeking to tear down the fundamental ideas and institutions of the United States.”
Shapiro referenced a speech he delivered at the Heritage Foundation to emphasize that Israel was not the focus of his critique.
“Go watch the Heritage Speech. I believe Israel is mentioned once in a 35-minute speech that is all about Tucker’s general view of the world and how it does not represent traditional conservatism in any way.”
He then accused Kelly of being even more misleading about the origins of their disagreement.
“Megyn is even more dishonest. I’ve literally never—not once—mentioned Megyn Kelly in the context of Israel. My critique of Megyn Kelly began when—and again, go back and watch the tape because it’s all on tape, gang. Go back and watch the tape. Megyn wanted me to come and do one of her live events, which we did for free, obviously, and came down as a favor to Megyn because Megyn and I were friendly.”
Shapiro said he had also supported Kelly professionally in the past.
“And of course, we’d had a long, longstanding business relationship in which we had really, really helped her launch her business, which she freely admits or admitted at the time. I don’t know if she does anymore. She used to have me on her Fox News show sometimes. Now I see she’s taking credit for my entire career. Well, you know, congrats, Megyn, I suppose. And see if you’re happy about your decisions. I disagree about my career trajectory, but that’s fine. If you want to take credit, sure.”
He said the disagreement between them stemmed from his criticism of Kelly for not confronting other conservative figures over controversial statements.
“In any case, my critique of Megyn on the stage was: Why don’t you call out Candace Owens for implicating Erika Kirk in the murder of Charlie Kirk? That was my critique on the stage. And why don’t you call out Tucker Carlson for glazing Nick Fuentes as the leading enemy of Charlie Kirk? Because Nick Fuentes hated, despised Charlie Kirk, and the feeling was mutual. That was my critique of Megyn,” Shapiro continued.
He said Kelly had defended Owens and disputed his claims.
“And then she went on to claim that I was lying about Candace and that actually Candace was even, quote unquote, ‘defending in her own way, Erika Kirk.’ Well, that didn’t age amazingly, as it turns out,” Shapiro jabbed.
Shapiro also insisted that he has never accused Kelly of anti-Semitism.
“So here’s what’s actually happening: What’s actually happened is that there is a game that has now emerged on this part of the right. The game goes something like this: I don’t accuse you of anti-Semitism. You instead claim that I did. And then you say, “How dare he call me an anti-Semite. He’s trying to cancel me.” It’s the Jussie Smollett of political claims. You attack yourself and then you claim that I attacked you as an anti-Semite. That’s absurd.”
He reiterated that his criticism of Carlson was focused on Carlson’s platforming of anti-Semitic figures.
“I think that Tucker Carlson has fostered anti-Semitism by having on some of the worst anti-Semites in America over and over and then essentially laundering their views. I have never remotely called Megyn Kelly an anti-Semite. Nor, by the way, did I call Piers Morgan an anti-Semite. I said that his show is the Jerry Springer of politics—a clown car of stupidity. And it is. That’s all. That’s literally all. I didn’t say that he should be taken down. I didn’t say that people should stop watching his show if they want to. I said I did not wish to appear in the clown car stupidity, which seems to me an aspect of free speech. I don’t have to associate with Piers’s dumb show. I mean, lots of people like it. Good for him. And Piers measures his morality by clicks.”
Kelly responded to Shapiro’s remarks later Thursday on her own program and defended Morgan, arguing that he challenges controversial guests rather than promoting their views.
“It’s very sad to me as somebody who’s known Ben forever, and made Ben. One hundred percent—he became a star on my show at The Kelly File. I’m very sorry to see this happen. And like, there is absolutely no cause to go run around policing the guests on somebody else’s show and trying to diminish somebody who is as interesting but—and I mean this complimentarily—benign as Piers Morgan,” Kelly said.
She rejected the idea that Morgan represents a harmful force and accused Shapiro of imposing ideological tests on others in conservative media.
“Piers is not a pernicious force. Piers is an interesting guy who’s got an interesting show. Maybe it’s for you, maybe it’s not. It’s up to you. I think he’s really interesting, and I think his interviews are great. But now we have to get rid of Piers Morgan? So obviously, in Ben’s view, Tucker had to go. Clearly, even though he helped build Candace, she had to go,” Kelly continued.
She said their long friendship made the public dispute particularly disappointing.
“Then I had to go, even though I’ve had a 15-year friendship with this guy—publicly attacked me. Same thing. Not even a text in advance, even though we had had a text literally four months or four weeks earlier saying, “No matter what, who we’re friends with”—because he was mad I was friends with Tucker—’our friendship means more to us than it, and we won’t do anything to [mess] it up.’ Next thing I know, I get attacked by him on stage at Turning Point.”
Kelly concluded by questioning how many figures in conservative media Shapiro would criticize.
“Now, Piers Morgan—how many people have to go? Truly, how many people must be called out from the conservative movement in order to make Ben happy? This is ridiculous, and it’s not just Ben. There are others who take his lead once he calls you an anti-Semite or says you need to be kicked out of polite society. There are a couple of others—not a huge amount, I have to say. Ben’s numbers are very bad right now, but he’s got some influence with some crew. This is so wrong. Good for Piers Morgan for fighting back. I’m completely on Team Piers, and I’m sorry to see Ben going in this direction.”
{Matzav.com}
