FBI helped Trump coverup Epstein | Major NEW Details

Um, President Trump directing Pam Bondi

to unseal grand jury transcripts in the

Epstein prosecution, which which brings

around a lot of questions like when do

we ever see grand jury testimony being

revealed to the public? How does this

work and what would this entail?

>> It's really rare because remember it's

an unopposed hearing. The Epstein drama

keeps evolving with now FBI agents,

according to CNBC, apparently being told

to quote flag any Epstein records that

mentioned Donald Trump. This is per

Senator Durban, Rich Durban. Take a look

at this. FBI agents assigned earlier

this year to review investigative files

in the criminal case against Jeffrey

Epstein were instructed to flag any

documents that mentioned Trump. Now Dur

Democrat sent the Justice Department and

the FBI letters seek asking them to

explain the discrepancies regarding the

handling of the Epstein files and the

findings from the July 7th Department of

Justice memorandum. Mind you also that

Republicans in Congress have both in the

House and the Senate now blocked

attempts by Democrats to release the

Epstein files. Donald Trump responds and

says, "Well, if there was something bad

in the files, they would have released

these files a long time ago." Of course,

to that people say the Epstein files

just have bad things on both Democrats

and Republicans, and nobody secretly

wants them out, and maybe Democrats are

just putting on a show saying that they

want these files to come out. Obviously,

yesterday we heard Donald Trump suggest

that, hey, don't worry. You know what?

Based on the ridiculous amount of

publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein. I

have asked Pam Bondi to produce any and

all pertinent grand jury testimony

subject to court approval. This is a

scam perpetuated by Democrats. I, you

know, minutes afterwards tweeted, you

should follow me on X, by the way, at

Real Me Kevin. minutes afterwards

tweeted, "Trump knows that judges

regularly deny releasing grand jury

evidence to protect victims. This is a

4D chess move by Donald Trump. He's good

at this. And he could basically in the

future say, "I asked them to release

everything and they said no." It now

puts the pressure on the judge, takes it

off of Donald Trump. It's a brilliant

move. Now, why do we usually not get

grand jury evidence? You usually don't

get grand jury evidence because it's

really just a one-sided argument to try

to convince a group of people, a group

of your peers, that there's enough

evidence to actually bring an indictment

or to bring charges against a person for

a crime. It's not a traditional court

proceeding. Now, uh what we would think

of with like a jury, let's say, and sort

of a decision in terms of whether or not

somebody's guilty or not. You also

generally wouldn't get information on a

potential co-conspirator like Trump. you

typically only get information on the

person that has crimes alleged against

them and then you potentially run the

risk of revealing victim information.

Now, Donald Trump says he is going to

sue the Wall Street Journal for the

release of this uh discussion yesterday

or talk yesterday that the Wall Street

Journal has some form of birthday letter

that went to Jeffrey Epstein with him

signing his signature in the form of

pubic hair on the image of a girl with,

you know, doodles of a girl with uh

with, you know, drawn basically with

Sharpie or some kind of thick black

marker. uh as a birthday wish to Jeffrey

Epstein. Donald Trump denies that he

ever doodled or drew uh any images uh

regarding Donald Trump. Though it's

worth noting that Donald Trump

repeatedly, even in some of his books

like Never Give Up, has told us that

hey, I could draw a drawing in 15

minutes and then I can sell it and make

money. And here are many doodles of

Donald Trump using marker to sign

drawings that he made to sell or for

charity or for whatever purposes. In

fact, here is the excerpt from the book

Never Give Up. It takes me a few minutes

to draw something. In my case, it's

usually a building or cityscape of

skyscrapers and then sign my name. But

it raises hundred it raises thousands of

dollars to help the hungry in New York,

which is great again either for charity

or other purposes. But Donald Trump

actually does have quite a bit of a

history of using the marker to sign

things. Uh not only uh letters

potentially for uh charity or drawings

for charity purposes, but also take a

look at this. This individual suggests

that here is a letter uh that I own that

Donald Trump apparently signed. It was a

letter to Hillary Clinton in 2000,

November 10th, 2000. Congratulations on

your well-deserved victory. I know you

will do a great job in Washington. And

you can see Donald Trump's signature

with the marker, the Trump Organization

seal and lettering. Great going

underline underline. And here you have

that Trump Organization seal. Obviously,

a lot of the stuff,

who knows what's real, what's fake

anymore, but this idea that the FBI

potentially is going through

scraping what mentions Donald Trump,

probably directed by Cash Patel, you

know, a Trump nominee or deputy director

Dan Bonino

doesn't look good. And this is again why

Americans are frustrated thinking

there's a two-tiered criminal justice

system. Now, Donald Trump throws around

his weight to argue that, hey, well, if

you end up uh releasing this

information, Mr. Murdoch, the owner of

uh the Wall Street Journal, then I'm

going to quote unquote sue your ass off.

Uh well, I mean, you could literally see

that here. Wall Street Journal printed a

fake letter supposedly to Epstein. These

are not my words, not the way I talk.

Mind you, this is also what MAGA circles

are alleging now. A lot of MAGA circles

are now all unifying unifying around the

same argument that well this is not how

Trump talks. Everybody's echoing this

now. JD Vance, even Elon Musk. To me, it

almost said Charlie Kirk. It seems like

they all got a phone call like let's all

say that this isn't this doesn't sound

like Trump. And the more we say it, the

more it'll sound like we're united.

They're trying to get united here. Now,

who knows? Maybe that's wrong, maybe

not. But suing the Wall Street Journal

is going to be really hard. And I think

this is why the Wall Street Journal went

ahead and published a story anyway

because even though Donald Trump says he

told Rupert Murdoch it was a scam, he

even in an earlier post on Truth Social

says that uh not only did he say it was

a scam, but he alleges that Rupert

Murdoch said he would take care of it.

Obviously, Roupert didn't have the power

to do so. kind of trying to water down

the power of uh Murdoch at the Wall

Street Journal arguing that he's not

even in control of his own paper. Uh

that these rogue editors are going off

and as a result now he's going to sue

all of them. On top of that, Donald

Trump makes the argument that I look

forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to

testify in my lawsuit against him in his

pile of garbage newspaper, the Wall

Street Journal. This will be an

interesting experience. Something to

know though is the press has severe

privileges in protecting their sources

as long as that information is

potentially accessible through a

different method. There are also really

strong antislap provisions in law that

protect the basically freedom of the

press. So look at this. The Wall Street

Journal is headquartered in New York.

New York has very strong anti-slap

provisions. And slap provisions are

basically ways for if a newspaper is

sued or even a public commenter is sued,

like a YouTuber or whatever, you could

potentially sue back with a an anti-SLAP

lawsuit saying you can't sue me to

silence me or intimidate me into

silence. that could not only shift

attorney fee burdens to Trump, but it

could be really hard for Donald Trump to

overcome unless he can prove that his

lawsuit will win against the Wall Street

Journal. The problem is in order to

prove that you could win in a lawsuit

against the Wall Street Journal, you're

going to have to break reporters

privilege. Reporter privilege, also

known as journalistic privilege, is

basically something that's held in the

first amendment for the right to free

press that journalists are not required

to disclose non or are not required to

disclose really any material whether

it's confidential or non-confidential.

In other words, they don't have to

reveal their sources. Now, they only

have to reveal their sources in very

rare circumstances, such as in this 1972

case where Brazenberg versus Hayes or in

a more recent case of Judith Miller from

the early 2000s. These cases happen

maybe every 20 years where a journalist

is forced to give up their sources. And

it usually only happens when there's

some question of uh a potential leaker

at the federal government, some kind of

potential ongoing threat to public

safety because there's some ongoing

critical information that by the

reporter not providing this information,

they're potentially creating a public

safety risk. And the government is not

able to obtain that information from any

other alternative source alternative. So

in other words, if the Wall Street

Journal can argue, hey, you can get this

drawing from Maxwell herself or from the

binder itself, which is, you know,

located here, there, or whatever, the

Wall Street Journal doesn't have to say

where they got a copy of it from. The

Wall Street Journal can protect their

source because the actual letter could

be obtainable from an alternate source

which would then protect the

journalistic privilege of the Wall

Street Journal and their source. Now,

this is leading people on social media

to say, "Oh, the Wall Street Journal was

sitting on this information for years.

Why they didn't re why didn't they

release it earlier?" To this, people say

the Wall Street Journal may have just

obtained the information. But it's very

difficult to pierce uh this journalistic

privilege because you don't want to

chill freedom of the press which mind

you is not just to protect newspapers

but is also to protect independent

journalists in my opinion like myself.

Uh so that like if you had let's say

dirt on Donald Trump and you sent me

something that we could verify like

where you worked or where you lived or

whatever or you had dirt on Gavin

Newsome. I don't like Gavin Newsome,

right? and we can verify where you work

and how you might have access to

intelligence and what you provide looks

verifiable and legitimate. You know, we

could report and go, "Hey, we got this

from an anonymous source

that says this." You're putting that

information out there. What you're

really doing is you're saying, "Hey,

this is for the public to decide, is

this true or not?" That's why Donald

Trump and sort of the MAGA circles are

going, "Well, this doesn't sound like

Trump." Because actually the best

defense is just placing doubt in the

public that this is real. Because

actually suing the Wall Street Journal

is probably just going to lead to an

anti-Slap lawsuit against Trump. The

problem is Trump is also the president

and usually when businesses get involved

in a fight with the president, they

lose. So businesses usually don't win

when they fight the president. However,

the fact that the Wall Street Journal

likely already 40 chess played this out

suggests that maybe the Wall Street

Journal has even more where this came

from. And now this FBI rumor mill

doesn't look good either. Obviously,

this is coming from a Democratic

allegation, Senator Dick Durban. Uh, so

it could also just be a game of politics

here. The senator's description of the

instructions given to FBI agents

regarding mentions of Trump's names was

made in a letter to Bonino. According to

information my office received, the FBI

was pressured to put approximately 1,000

personnel in its information management

division on 24-hour shifts to review

100,000 Epstein related records in order

to produce more documents that could be

released on an arbitrarily short

deadline. This effort, which reportedly

took place from March 14th through the

end of March, was haphazardly

supplemented by hundreds of FBI field

office personnel, many who lacked the

expertise to identify statul

statutoilally protected information

regarding child victims and child

witnesses to properly handle FOYA

Freedom of Information Act requests. My

office were told that the personnel were

instructed to flag any records in which

Donald Trump was mentioned.

The story unfortunately sounds very

evolutionarily. All right, somebody in

the comments here, uh, it really doesn't

sound like today's Trump. Well, but then

again, that letter was written 20 years

ago, right? Potentially even more than

20 years ago at this point. Uh, so I

mean, people do change over time, right?

Uh that said, also it is very

interesting to see how much aggression

there is from Trump. If this was just

another fake news story, why is Donald

Trump so keen on potentially risking an

anti-SLAP lawsuit against him

for trying to silence the Wall Street

Journal? In fact, I would make the

argument that Donald Trump's message on

uh uh Truth Social actually plays

towards the Wall Street Journal's hand.

Take a look at this. Donald Trump very

clearly says right here that the Wall

Street Journal were warned directly by

President Trump that the supposed letter

they printed was fake and if they

printed it, they will be sued. In other

words, Donald Trump himself, like a

lawyer would never say this, Donald

Trump himself is arguing, "Yeah, we

threatened to sue them if they released

it." That's a form of trying to silence

the press. Now, again, you'd have to

prove that it's false because ultimately

the best defense is the truth. And if

in, you know, private redacted manners

through a lawsuit, the Wall Street

Journal is able to go, look, here's what

we got. We're not going to reveal from

whom it is, but here's what we got, and

it is true information.

Wall Street Journal has a really strong

case against Donald Trump. And I think

that's why they had the coonas, so to

speak, to get into this fight with

Donald Trump because really what it does

is draw business for media eyeballs

classic uh for the Wall Street Journal.

So it it kind of like you could see the

arguments on both sides. I don't think

this one is as clearcut as people make

it out to be at Aldo. What is clear-cut

is that coupon code expiring for the

programs on building your wealth and

those alpha reports every day where we

set up trade suggestions before the

market opens at meetke.com. Check it

out. Fundamental analysis on stocks,

real estate, technical analysis, courses

on building your wealth, courses on the

big beautiful bill, real estate,

do-it-yourself property management, AI,

you name it. Go check it out at

mekevin.com.

>> Why not advertise these things that you

told us here? I feel like nobody else

knows about this.

>> We'll we'll try a little advertising and

see how it goes. Congratulations, man.

You have done so much. People love you.

People look up to you.

>> Kevin Praath there, financial analyst

and YouTuber. Meet Kevin. Always great

to get your take.