Almost two weeks ago it was announced that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras was mysteriously recused from the Special Counsel case against General Mike Flynn, five days after Judge Contreras accepting the initial pleading. No explanation as to ‘why’?

(Reuters) The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday. (read more)

One might think the media apparatus, or pundit proletariat writ large, might be curious about why a U.S. District Court Judge would be recused. Alas One would be wrong. The recusal angle is transparently missing from any follow-up by media; and apparently the judicial cat also has stolen the tongue of congressional curiosity. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

The story has been memory holed into the concentric whirlpool of nothingness.

We have speculated that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused, either by himself or by challenge, because he is also a FISA Court Judge and could have signed off on the October FISA warrant that led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Flynn. However, we have received information that it wasn’t ‘by challenge’, leaving the preponderance of the motive for recusal directly upon Judge Contreras personal decision.

(link)

However, if Judge Contreras ‘recused himself’ based on the conflict within the FISA warrant he approved, the question then becomes why did he even allow himself to preside over the first hearing of General Mike Flynn’s rather odd guilty plea?

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/366062176/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-QHaNTpsHk3My0BRqqECU

Was the September/October 2016 FISA warrant part of the evidence in the overall process charge against Mike Flynn? What are the rules of FISA warrant content in cases where the warrant leads to a prosecution?

Did Judge Contreras sit on the initial plea hearing so another judge would not see the FISA information, recognize any problems, and maybe not approve the plea?

The only two significant things that happened between the initial Mike Flynn plea hearing (December 1st) and the recusal from Judge Contreras (December 7th) was:

#1) The stories about anti-Trump FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his involvement with Fusion-GPS and Christopher Steele; and

#2) FBI Director Chris Wray appearing before the House Judicial Committee and hearing Representative Jim Jordan demand to see the 2016 FISA application.

In fact, Judge Contreras recused himself only a few hours after that House Judicial Committee hearing.

These are all just general questions that stem from Judge Contreras appearing to concede to a conflict, but doing so only AFTER the first administrative hearing on the case. If the conflict existed on December 7th 2017, such that a recusal was needed, would not that conflict exist prior to December 7th, 2017?

Apparently no-one else is in the least bit curious; and absent of anyone seeking such clarity; it leads CTH to wonder if U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras wasn’t possibly the same judge that denied the initial FISA application in June of 2016.

It’s very rare that a FISA application is denied. Considering he possibility the denial was based, in part, on the target (candidate Donald Trump) of the FISA warrant; and considering the massive ramifications within the U.S. government applying to monitor, wiretap and use surveillance upon a presidential candidate; it would not be a stretch to think Judge Contreras would establish a ‘higher threshold’ for granting such authority.

Given what we know now, that we did not know before, namely that FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr were part of the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016…. and understanding that Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife, was working for Fusion GPS the contractor for Christopher Steele and the Russian Dossier…. ultimately hired by Hillary Clinton;…. and accepting that the information within the dossier was part of the underlying FISA application… the entire construct of the FISA application is suspect.

Adding yet another layer to that sketchy outline, today it is revealed that Peter Strzok’s mistress within the DOJ, Lisa Page, might have been the actual DOJ official to apply for the FISA warrant. (SEE HERE)

Which takes us back to U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras. Was the recusal an outcome of Contreras recognizing the concerns he expressed in the June 2016 FISA denial, that were later presumably belayed with a more narrow FISA application, evidenced in his seeing how the FISA warrant he granted being used against the defendant that appeared in his courtroom.

Did Contreras see in Flynn’s outcome – evidence of what he feared would happen? And that lead to Judge Contreras deciding to recuse himself from the case?

So many questions, and yet a transparent lack of overall curiosity around the recusal.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s former boss was Bill Priestap, FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence. [The same Bill Priestap James Comey stated was the person who decided not to tell congressional oversight of the investigation] Bill Priestap’s boss was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Directly above McCabe in the chain-of-command was FBI Director James Comey.

Inside the DOJ: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr’s former boss was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Sally Yates boss was Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

It is not coincidental that yesterday the FBI and DOJ “small group” began executing a media narrative in both an Exclusive NBC Report (Priestap) and Wall Street Journal (Strzok).  Additionally it is not coincidental that Sally Yates is protesting loudly on Twitter Today.

‘The more she spoke of her honor, the faster we counted our spoons’:

The Robert Mueller “small group” lawyer, the Special Counsel attorney that signed General Flynn’s Statement of Offense filed in U.S, District Court 12/1/2017 was “Brandon L Van Grack”. [See page #5]

When Trump transition team lawyer Kory Langhofer (Trump for America transition organization) contacted the special counsels office about the illegal and unethical way they retrieved transition team emails from the GSA. Who was he put in contact with?

It was attorney Brandon L Van Grack who was in communication with the Trump for America transition organization; and, according to the documents on this topic (pdf letter link), misrepresented (ie. lied about) the Special Counsel access to the GSA emails on 12/12/2017.

What reason would Attorney Brandon Van Grack have for taking the call from the transition attorney in the first place? and then: What reason would he have for lying about the information that was requested?

It is my belief, not speculation – but rather based on mounting evidence, a specific cast of characters -within the Mueller “Russia Election Interference” probe- were placed there specifically to protect the people behind the FBI and DOJ 2016 counterintelligence operation against candidate Donald Trump.

Accordingly, I suspect the same FBI and DOJ “small group”, the team who worked diligently to ensure Hillary Clinton was never found culpable in the 2015/2016 email investigation, also worked on the 2016 Trump counterintelligence operation (FISA wiretapping surveillance etc).

That same “small group” within the FBI and DOJ were then given the task in 2017 of covering both prior operations: A) *Clear Hillary Clinton, and B) *Counterintel op on Trump. To cover, cloud and protect the DOJ and FBI officials engaged in both operations, the “small group” is now assembled within Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team.

Inside Mueller’s crew, the “small group” essentially works to watch over what information the Trump officials or congress could possibly be discovering…. under the auspices of investigating ‘Muh Russia’ etc. If the “small group” comes across a risky trail being followed, they work to impede, block, delay or deflect anyone from that trail.

That explains why the Special Counsel attorney that signed General Flynn’s Statement of Offense filed Dec. 1, was the same attorney who responded to the Trump transition team inquiry. Brandon L Van Grack.

This “small group” are essentially career DOJ and FBI staff lawyers and support personnel standing behind and beside the visible names we have recently become aware of: Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, etc.

DAVENYIII is entirely correct when he shares:

“OIG Michael Horowitz set up the twitter account @OversightGov in May of 2017 and the OIG website in October 2017. He wants the public involved in IG findings so that the media and agencies can’t bury them.”

Oversight Investigations Website HERE

Oversight Investigative Reports HERE

Inspector General Michael Horowitz knows how the Uniparty works within the administrative state to defend itself behind closed doors and in the cover of darkness.

Follow the lead of IG Horowitz, demand sunlight.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe is testifying today behind closed doors to the House Intelligence Committee. Important to note how there have been no leaks; that’s the first indication of coordinated chaff and counter measures deployed by the UniParty enablers of the Deep State institutional government.

Bruce Ohr is scheduled tomorrow; again behind closed doors, this time in the Senate Intelligence Committee setting. Again, dueling intelligence hearings -between House and Senate- (on the same witnesses), indicates the UniParty apparatus has deployed Chaff and Countermeasures and is protecting the administrative state.

Promoting, well, actually the appropriate word is ‘deploying‘, the leveraged and controlled head of the House Oversight/Reform Committee is the tri-fecta in seeing the countermeasures deployed. [Prior: Issa, Chaffetz, now Roosterhead] The Chairman or Chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee is given the responsibility to deflect. In payment for services toward the cause of the UniParty the Chairman gets indulgences.

The oversight “Gang of Eight” appear to have taken over the process to ensure controls are in place. If we had not been watching this exact process play out for the past 8 years, we might not recognize the pattern. Alas, with Fast and Furious, IRS Targeting, Benghazi and more examples of UniParty wagon-circling, we would be naive not to notice the identical replay. The Hezbollah side-show is part of the ‘shiny thing’.

Congressional oversight over FBI, DOJ, CIA and NSA malfeasance has been usurped by the political ideology within the Gang of Eight construct. If a single member breaks ranks they come under fire from the remaining seven and the leadership of both wings of the UniParty. (See: Devin Nunes for the most recent reference)

It is well beyond infuriating.

FUBAR.

Here’s Roosterhead:

The only way we can defeat this DC strategy is to demand open hearings. Period. Why do government officials get to hide behind closed doors when they are being questioned about their official duties as a government official?

If the officials don’t get put in front of cameras PUBLICLY the entire FBI/DOJ scheme will disappear into the ether.

It’s not conspiracy to point out the pattern – any more than it is conspiracy to notice the timing of the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum opening to occur the day before the Alabama Senate election.

Did you really think those thousands of civil rights groups just left Mississippi the day after the opening without sticking around to execute the Alabama operation?

We need a smarter electorate.

It’s not funny how the Haley Barbour/Mitch McConnell and their UniParty schemes always seem to be overlooked by our Right-side “conservative” allies in the media.

I digress.

…Where’s Bill Priestap?

Here’s the way the entire construct looks in simple outline.

Career officials, managers and staff within the DOJ and FBI wanted to help ensure Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election. Those people were ideologically aligned with President Obama, and held the goal of maintaining progressive advances as part of their motive.

A “small group” was formed within the DOJ and FBI to facilitate this goal. The first goal was to remove Clinton from the burden of the FBI email investigation.

Once that goal was achieved, they moved on to Clinton’s 2016 challenger. By the time the 2016 GOP convention drew near, everyone accepted that challenger would be Donald Trump.

As such the FBI “small group” began monitoring candidate Donald Trump in June/July 2016 as part of a plan toward the benefit of candidate Hillary Clinton.

However, the FBI and DOJ officials also needed an actual basis, a legal justification for their behavior and the time they were spending. The plan to justify that behavior was to create an official counterintelligence operation.

To get the counterintelligence operation going, they needed a reasonable basis for creating one. That basis was the formative seeds of claims of Russian connections to the Trump campaign.

To establish the basis the Russian elements needed for the operation; the DNC and Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to contract Christopher Steele to write a dossier that would form the legal grounding for the counterintelligence operation.

Fusion GPS hired DOJ Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, who was well versed in counterintelligence operations, CIA operations, and using tradecraft to create illusions.

Nellie Ohr worked with retired British MI6 Agent Christopher Steele to manufacture the Steele Dossier. The dossier would take innocuous connections between Trump and Russian people, enhance them, fabricate some nefarious appearance, and then be turned over to Bruce Ohr’s counterintelligence buddy in the FBI Peter Strzok.

In essence, the Clinton’s created the Russian “angle” out of thin air; and the FBI and DOJ used that creation as the legal underpinning for the counterintelligence operation.

The cointel op was always just a ruse for wiretapping, surveillance and monitoring of Donald Trump campaign officials.

The FBI (Strzok) and DOJ (Ohr) dressed up the Steele Dossier to apply for a FISA warrant (FBI Attorney Lisa Page). The surveillance was happening with or without the FISA approval; but the FISA warrant would make the surveillance legal.

The initial application to the FISA Court was so sketchy (June/July 2016) is was actually denied. Denials rarely happen. One-in-a-thousand.

The Steele Dossier was dressed up some more. More stuff added, thanks to Christopher Steele and Nellie Ohr, to the second FISA application in Sept./October. That FISA application again submitted by Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page. That warrant was approved.

If Hillary was elected, the entire counterintelligence operation just disappears into the ether. No-one would ever know about it.

But Hillary didn’t win.

Trump did.

Subsequently, the entire Trump Counterintelligence Operation was likely to be exposed. So the team behind the CoIntel scheme, again “the small group”, had to make up the “Russian Interference in The Election” narrative, a larger narrative, to cover their tracks.

The manufactured basis for the FISA warrant, ‘Muh Russia’ now needed to become real; or at least have the appearance of being real or justified.

That’s why the goofy “Joint Analysis Report on Russian Interference” was created. Brennan (CIA), Clapper (ODNI), and Comey (FBI), and to a much lesser extent the outsider Mike Rogers (NSA). This became the “17 intelligence agencies” blah.. blah… blah.

It was never 17 intel agencies. It was four. Only three pushed it. Mike Rogers said he had low/moderate confidence in the underlying intelligence within the report. The report was created as evidence to enhance the cover. Nothing more.

[My hunch is if you put the Steele Dossier together with the Joint Analysis Report, you will find 90% of the FISA application documentation.]

Additionally, the entire crew, from the Obama Administration and current career people within the DOJ, FBI, etc., who understood the larger scheme, needed ongoing people to continue ensuring the story was maintained.

That drove the need for a Special Counsel investigation. Mueller’s investigation was really just another way the players within the original scheme could keep a lid on the events in 2016.

That’s why many of the FBI/DOJ “small group”, the crew who cleared Hillary in the email investigation, were also assigned to the Mueller investigation. Controls were needed.

Inside Mueller’s crew, the “small group” essentially works to watch over what information the Trump officials or congress could possibly be discovering…. under the auspices of investigating ‘Muh Russia’ etc. If the “small group” comes across a risky trail being followed, they work to impede, block, delay or deflect anyone from that trail.

That’s the ‘high-level’ summary of the way things look from a researched perspective.

There’s one guy at the heart of this operation who can blow the lid off EVERYTHING.

His name is Bill Priestap.

Priestap’s position in 2016 was Director of Counterintelligence for the FBI.

Start asking about him.

The BIG UGLY

.

RESOURCES:

• Summary of Scheme and Letter from Trump Transition Team HERE
• Congress Confirms the Investigative Approach for The Big Ugly HERE
• Understanding the Background Motives of Inspector General Horowitz HERE
• Democrats Realize the BIG Ugly Is Coming HERE
• Understanding the Important Role of Bill Priestap HERE
• Inspector General Horowitz Explains how he caught Peter Strzok and Lisa Page HERE
• Understanding the Pattern of Information Releases HERE
• Jim Jordan Questions Rod Rosenstein HERE
• More releases of information about Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe HERE
• Why Was FISA Court Judge Recused – Discussion HERE
• Jaw-Dropping Info. on Demoted DOJ Deputy Bruce G Ohr’s wife, Nellie H. Ohr HERE
• Discovery – Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS on Trump Opposition Research Project
• Intel Chairman Devin Nunes Outlines FBI FISA Warrant Abuse HERE
• The FBI/DOJ Leak Hunting Task Force Everyone Forgot – Outlined HERE
• Jim Jordan Discusses the Fraud Behind the FBI FISA Warrant HERE
• Black Hat Hunting II – Becomes Obvious – False Media Leaks To Catch Leakers HERE
• The BIG UGLY – The Big Picture and What it Means HERE
• Judge Rudolph Contreras Recuses Himself – FISA Discoveries HERE
• “The Predicate” – The Importance of the Origin of The FISA WARRANTS HERE
• Black Hat Hunting I – First Appearance of Coordinated Plan HERE
• Deputy Head of Counterintelligence FBI Agent Peter Strzok – Outlined HERE
  
• Discovering Initial Seeds of DOJ-OIG Investigative Plan – Outlined HERE
• President Trump Reacts to Evidence of FBI Mgmt Bias Against Him HERE
• Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes Threatens FBI with Contempt HERE
• First IG Release of FBI Team Bias on Robert Mueller Squad HERE

IG Stimulated Releases of Information:

♦Release #1 was the FBI Agent Strzok and Attorney Lisa Page story; and the repercussions from discovering their politically motivated bias in the 2015/2016 Clinton email investigation and 2016/2017 Russian Election investigation.

♦Release #2 outlined the depth of FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page’s specific history in the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton to include the changing of the wording [“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”] of the probe outcome delivered by FBI Director James Comey.

♦Release #3 was the information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr being in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time as the FISA application was submitted and granted by the FISA court; which authorized surveillance and wiretapping of candidate Donald Trump; that release also attached Bruce Ohr and Agent Strzok directly to the Steele Dossier.

♦Release #4 was information that Deputy Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was an actual contract employee of Fusion GPS, and was hired by F-GPS specifically to work on opposition research against candidate Donald Trump. Both Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr are attached to the origin of the Christopher Steele Russian Dossier.

♦Release #5 was the specific communication between FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page. The 10,000 text messages that included evidence of them both meeting with Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to discuss the “insurance policy” against candidate Donald Trump in August of 2016.