Biden staffers met with special counsel Jack Smith's aide ahead of Trump indictment, raising concerns about possible election interference: Report



Weeks prior to former President Donald Trump's indictment for allegedly handling documents much in the same way President Joe Biden is said to have done, elements of the Biden White House reportedly met with a top aide for special counsel Jack Smith — an aide who happens to have been one of the loudest voices in support of a raid on Mar-a-Lago.

The news of this curiously timed meeting has prompted additional concerns over whether the Biden administration and the Department of Justice might have colluded in an attempt to eliminate the Democratic president's top political rival from the running ahead of the 2024 election.

The New York Post reported that White House visitor logs indicate that Jay Bratt, the head of the DOJ's counterintelligence division who joined the special counsel team in November 2022, met on March 31, 2023, with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for the White House counsel's office.

BlazeTV host Mark Levin highlighted that "Bratt is the senior DOJ official who insisted on securing a warrant and sending an FBI SWAT team to Mar-a-Lago" and "stands accused by Stanley Woodward, who represents Walt Nauta in the documents case, of extorting him."

Bratt has also fought against transparency concerning the probe into Trump, having strongly opposed the release of the affidavit used to obtain the warrant to search Trump's Florida resort.

An FBI agent at the Washington, D.C., field office joined Bratt and Saba at the 10 a.m. meeting.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, told the Post that Bratt was at the Biden White House for a "case-related interview."

The FBI declined to comment.

There is no publicly available transcript or other documentation concerning what was actually discussed during this meeting, noted Just the News.

Nine weeks after this meeting, Smith's office indicted Trump.

Although it was largely unknown at the time of the indictment that a top aide to the special counsel and a Biden staffer had touched base in advance, Republicans at the time nevertheless stressed that the DOJ had become weaponized against the Democratic president's opponents.

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) said, "Biden is attacking his most likely 2024 opponent. ... He's using the justice system to pre-emptively steal the 2024 election. This is what's happening, plain and simple."

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said, "No one should be in doubt of what's happening tonight. Joe Biden and his cronies are trying to take out their chief political opponent.

Biden responded to the criticism, claiming, "I have never once, not one single time, suggested to the Justice Department what they should do or not do relative to bringing a charge or not bringing a charge. ... I'm honest."

Bratt's March rendezvous at the White House was hardly his first.

The Post reported that Bratt met with Saba in November 2021 around the time of Trump's vexatious negotiations with the National Archives concerning the documents he retained after leaving office. Bratt also came to Biden's stomping grounds in September 2021 to meet with an adviser to the White House chief of staff's office, Katherine Reilly.

Mike Davis of the Article III Project indicated Bratt's visits might constitute violations of long-standing rules about inappropriate communications with White House staff, as detailed in a July 21, 2021, memo from Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, suggested Bratt's March meeting "raises obvious concerns about visits to the White House after [Bratt] began his work with the special counsel."

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, recently booked in Georgia over his alleged role in the election interference case, told the Post, "There is no legitimate purpose for a line [DOJ] guy to be meeting with the White House except if it's coordinated by the highest levels. ... What's happening is they have trashed every ethical rule that exists and they have created a state police. It is a Biden state prosecutor and a Biden state police."

Mark Levin said that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing Trump's classified documents case, should order from the bench "that all records related to Bratt's meetings and discussions at the White House be preserved and provided to the court."

Levin further stressed that the "outrageous news" about Bratt's White House meetings "adds to the overwhelming case for a special counsel, as this not only creates the impression of a conflict of interest but a conflict of interest in fact. The Biden administration cannot be relied on to truthfully explain itself. The standard for appointing a special counsel — a qualified lawyer from outside the government — has been met, again!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Jack Smith CRIMINALIZES Free Speech in 3rd Trump Indictment | 8/2/23

Jack Smith CRIMINALIZES Free Speech in 3rd Trump Indictment | 8/2/23

Trump claims his indictment is a  'distraction' from the Bidens' possible crimes



Various Republicans and legal experts have suggested that the recent indictment against former President Donald Trump amounts to an effort by partisans to take the unpopular Democratic president's top rival — now leading in the polls — out of the 2024 race.

Trump reckons there may be another reason behind the indictment and its timing.

The Republican presidential candidate suggested on the debut episode of WABC's "The Roger Stone Show" Sunday that "it was done for political reasons, but it was also done, I guess, to cover up the kind of massive crime that's now being revealed by the Republicans in the House."

Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability have been investigating President Joe Biden's involvement in his family's alleged influence peddling schemes. These efforts and other hard looks at the Biden families' foreign dealings have reportedly been stymied at every turn by elements of the Biden administration and the administrative state.

For instance, the FBI — which whistleblowers claim precluded investigators from looking into Hunter Biden's laptop ahead of the 2020 election — spent the month of May trying to avoid handing over a document detailing alleged criminal activity involving Biden.

TheBlaze previously reported that while the FBI was flouting a congressional subpoena, an IRS criminal supervisory special agent came forward as a whistleblower, alleging that the Department of Justice had interfered in the Hunter Biden probe.

"There was [sic] multiple steps that were slow-walked at the direction of the Department of Justice," said Gary Shapley, a 14-year veteran of the IRS.

"When I took control of this particular investigation, I immediately saw deviations from the normal process. It was way outside the norm of what I've experienced in the past," he explained. "These deviations from the normal process, each and every time, it seemed to always benefit the subject."

Responding to the claim by longtime Trump ally Roger Stone that the indictment was dropped on "the exact same day that House Republicans discovered undisputed evidence that Vice President Joe Biden and his son each took $5 million bribes to ensure that Biden would pressure a Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor who was investigating corruption in Ukraine involving Hunter Biden and Burisma," Trump suggested the timing was indeed tactical.

"I do believe it was put up at a time that they found horrible things about the [Biden] family," said Trump.

"It’s incredible when you look at what happened, when you look at the kind of money that flows into the Biden family, and to Joe Biden, by the way, and so they wanted to do a distraction," added Trump. "They'll probably come up with a jaywalking charge on Hunter in the not-too-distant future — you know, a very small charge — so they can say it's fair, but this is a very unfair situation."

Per Trump's suggestion, a minor charge that might be cited by Democrats as evidence of fairness, but will be unlikely to adversely impact the Biden campaign, is possibly in the works.

The Hill reported that the U.S. attorney in Delaware is looking into Hunter Biden, with prosecutors nearing a decision on whether to charge the absentee father with tax- and gun purchase-related violations.

Sources familiar with the investigation told CNN in April that prosecutors were mulling over whether to bring two misdemeanor charges for failure to file taxes, one count of felony tax evasion, and a charge of a false statement regarding a gun purchase against Hunter Biden.

While theories vary about the machinations behind the indictment, nearly half of Americans are convinced it is ultimately about politics, not justice.

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll revealed that 47% of respondents viewed the latest charges as being politically motivated: 80% of Republican respondents said this was the case, and 16% of Democrats conceded that the indictment was likely politically motivated, reported The Hill.

The poll also showed that Trump's favorability increased by six points since April, whereas Biden's has fallen another three points.

The indictment lists 37 felony counts against Trump, including 31 counts of willful retention of classified documents; 1 count of conspiracy to obstruct justice; 1 count of withholding a document or record; 1 count of corruptly concealing a document or record; 1 count of concealing a document in a federal investigation; 1 count of scheme to conceal; and 1 count of making false statements and representations.

CBS News indicated that at least four of the charges carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

Trump is set to appear in court Tuesday.

While similarly accused of mishandling classified documents, Biden has neither been indicted nor had his properties raided.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'We will never back down in our defense of the 2nd Amendment': Smith & Wesson president and CEO says politicians push policies that worsen crime problem then scapegoat gun manufacturers



Smith & Wesson president and CEO Mark Smith issued a statement in which he said that politicians who have denigrated the gun manufacturer have actually contributed to the nation's crime problem due to the policies that they support.

"A number of politicians and their lobbying partners in the media have recently sought to disparage Smith & Wesson. Some have had the audacity to suggest that after they have vilified, undermined, and defunded law enforcement for years, supported prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions, overseen the decay of our country's mental health infrastructure, and generally promoted a culture of lawlessness, Smith & Wesson and other firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the crime wave that has predictably resulted from these destructive policies," the statement reads.

"But they are the ones to blame for the surge in violence and lawlessness, and they seek to avoid any responsibility for the crisis of violence they have created by attempting to shift the blame to Smith & Wesson, other firearm manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners," Smith continued.

\u201cAmid an unprecedented and unjustified attack on the firearm industry, Smith & Wesson President & CEO issues strong statement:\u201d
— Smith & Wesson Inc. (@Smith & Wesson Inc.) 1660579503

Many politicians remain staunch advocates for gun control measures — last month the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2022," though the bill will probably not advance through in the Senate.

While the term "gun violence" has become a commonplace expression, guns do not commit crimes, people do.

"To be clear, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never broken into a home; a Smith & Wesson firearm has never assaulted a woman out for a late-night run in the city; a Smith & Wesson firearm has never carjacked an unsuspecting driver stopped at a traffic light. Instead, Smith & Wesson provides these citizens with the means to protect themselves and their families," Smith declared.

"We will never back down in our defense of the 2nd Amendment," he concluded.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."