Podcaster and former Fox News personality Megyn Kelly has lashed out at MSNBC's Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, calling them hypocrites for meeting with Donald Trump this week after years of scathing public criticism of the president-elect.

The meeting at Mar-a-Lago was characterized by the duo as an attempt to restore communication with Trump, stirring controversy and criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, as the Daily Mail reports.

Unexpected Mar-a-Lago Rendezvous

On Friday, Scarborough and Brzezinski journeyed to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Donald Trump, marking their first face-to-face encounter with the former president in seven years. The hosts, who are known for their sharp criticism of Trump, described the meeting as a step to "restart communications" with him. This unexpected conference has raised many eyebrows, given their previously strained relationship with Trump.

The last interaction between Brzezinski, Scarborough, and Trump reportedly occurred in March 2020, aside from a call Scarborough placed following an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump, who described the meeting as "extremely cordial," mentioned that Scarborough was the one who requested the gathering. They traveled to Palm Beach, Florida, for what appears to be a conciliatory discussion.

During the conversation at Mar-a-Lago, various significant and contentious topics were covered. These included discussions on abortion, mass deportation, political retribution, and media criticisms. Although the meeting touched on these critical issues, there remain profound disagreements between the two parties, as acknowledged by the hosts.

Reaction, Backlash to Meeting

The meeting has drawn substantial backlash, especially from those who recall the harsh words once exchanged among the figures involved. Kelly was quick to criticize Brzezinski and Scarborough, labeling the meeting as a "farce" and accusing them of hypocrisy. She questioned their sincerity, given their past condemnations of Trump.

Kelly did not hold back in her scathing assessment, suggesting that the hosts' motivations were driven by their show's declining ratings. She referred to them as "dishonest" and accused them of being "faux journalists." This uncompromising stance has been echoed by others in the media industry, adding fuel to the controversy.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald joined Kelly in her criticism, describing Scarborough and Brzezinski as "humiliating" and "pathetic," questioning their integrity and dedication to their profession. His strong words reflect a broader sentiment among those skeptical of the hosts' intentions in meeting Trump.

Historical Context of Fractured Relationship

The relationship between Trump and the Morning Joe hosts has been tumultuous and marked by public clashes. In the past, the hosts were known for their biting critiques of Trump's character and policies. Brzezinski once called Trump "mentally ill," suggesting he needed psychiatric attention. Their show frequently featured harsh denunciations of Trump's conduct and political positions.

Trump, for his part, has been no stranger to retaliatory attacks against Brzezinski and Scarborough. He famously dubbed them "low I.Q. Crazy Mika" and "Psycho Joe" in a series of social media posts in 2017. This public feud laid the groundwork for a contentious and complex relationship.

Despite their turbulent past, the hosts have claimed that their intention in meeting Trump was genuine. They assured viewers that while they discussed important issues, there were still many points on which they did not "see eye-to-eye" with Trump. Nonetheless, the meeting's motivations have come under intense scrutiny.

Implications And Public Perception

The implications of this meeting extend beyond personal relationships to the broader media landscape. Critics claim that such interactions with Trump might compromise journalistic integrity, especially given the well-documented history of antagonism between the parties.

In addressing the meeting, Mika Brzezinski expressed that the opportunity was about engaging directly with Trump and that many were fearful following his bouts of political behavior and declarations. However, the meeting has not alleviated all concerns, as skepticism remains about the hosts' true intentions.

Kelly's remarks and Greenwald's critiques have amplified the conversation, underscoring a divide in how media figures engage with political power. These reactions have fueled debate over the role and responsibilities of journalists in a politically charged environment.

Moving Beyond Past Conflicts

Despite the criticisms and the lingering skepticism, the conversation between the Morning Joe hosts and Trump could mark a shift in their engagements with each other. Trump indicated that the meeting should have happened much sooner, suggesting that open communication might avert some ongoing confrontations.

The nature of the meeting raises questions about the effectiveness and sincerity of reconciliation efforts in political and media circles. As the United States braces for upcoming elections, the dynamic between media figures and political leaders remains under intense scrutiny.

While this meeting was described as "cordial" by Trump, the divergent views on important issues suggest that reconciliation may be more symbolic than substantive. The event highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in navigating relationships between media and politics.

Conclusion: Media, Politics, And Public Trust

The meeting between Trump and the Morning Joe hosts has generated significant public and media scrutiny, highlighting an ongoing debate over journalistic integrity and the role of media in politics. The backlash from figures like Megyn Kelly and Glenn Greenwald underscores the challenges media faces in maintaining public trust.

As the nation looks toward future political chapters, the balance between challenging power and maintaining access continues to pose complex questions for media professionals. The profession must navigate these turbulent waters with discernment and responsibility.

The public's reaction to this meeting will likely continue to evolve, reflecting broader concerns about media accountability and transparency. Ultimately, the dialogue surrounding this event underscores the dynamic and sometimes adversarial relationship between media and political figures.