As everyone is now aware, the latest approach of President Trump’s political opposition writ large is to insufferably attack his mental fitness.  This is a historic pattern of the left-wing against people they disagree with.  If you disagree with a far-left Marxist your thinking is wrong.

Not accidentally this is the exact same common approach within mainstream communist media; a modern example is China.  Disagree with authoritarian-minded people and the way you think becomes the primary focus of your risk toward them.  Professor Alan Dershowitz puts this into context:

The word is getting out. People are slowing beginning to piece together the BIGGER STORY of what fundamentally lies behind the Obama administration’s 2016 use of FISA 702(16)(17) surveillance, and how the intentional non-oversight of the Department of Justice National Security Division was used in the construct of the unlawful FBI surveillance and spying operation against presidential candidate Donald Trump.

During a radio interview on WMAL legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney General for Washington DC, Joe DiGenova, specifically highlights the DOJ National Security Division head John P Carlin and his role in the 2016 FISA warrant.  Other than within our own research few people are paying attention to the DOJ-NSD side.

Additionally, and in complete concurrence with our prior research, DiGenova states first-hand knowledge that FISA Court Judge Rudolph Contreras did not recuse himself – but was rather forcibly recused from the Michael Flynn case by either U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts or the aggregate FISA court.

IMPORTANT: Listen to the first 7:30 of the interview below. This is secondary confirmation of what we have independently been outlining for months:

On December 7th, 2017, 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 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 and the recusal from Judge Contreras 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, it was previously 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) Lisa Page is the legal bridge between the FBI Counterintelligence operation (Peter Strzok) and the DOJ National Security Division (John P Carlin).

REMINDER – FBI Agent Strzok to FBI Attorney Page:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

In 2015 Asst. Attorney General Sally Yates blocked any inspector general oversight of the DOJ National Security Division (SEE Pdf HERE).  The Office of Inspector General. Michael Horowitz, requested oversight over the DOJ National Security Division and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

During the 2016 FBI Counterintelligence operation (began in July 2016 per Comey) the DOJ National Security Division appears to be the originating entity for the FISA 702(17) “About Queries”. Again, 702 is basically spying on Americans; the actual “spying” part is 702. Item 17 is “About Queries“, which allows queries or searches of NSA collected data within the search fields of intelligence inquiry.  Those “About Queries” retrieve the content of email and phone conversations for the targeted response.

As a result of NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers suspecting [FISA 702 (#17 – email and phone calls)] surveillance activity was being used for reasons he deemed unlawful, in mid 2016 Rogers ordered the NSA compliance officer to run a full audit on 702 NSA compliance.

The NSA compliance officer identified several strange 702 “About Queries” that were being conducted. These were violations of the fourth amendment (illegal search and seizure without a warrant), ie. unlawful surveillance and gathering. Admiral Rogers was briefed by the compliance officer on October 20th, 2016.

The DOJ National Security Division then set Admiral Mike Rogers up to take the fall for their unlawful conduct.  John P Carlin preempted Rogers by filing a notification with the FISA Court on 26th September 2016 (look at the pdf).

DOJ-NSD head John P Carlin was setting up Rogers as the scapegoat while knowing the NSA FISA compliance officer was still reviewing their conduct. Carlin wouldn’t notify the court unless he was trying to cover something. Carlin then announced his resignation.

The NSA compliance officer did not brief Admiral Rogers until 20th Oct 2016. Admiral Rogers notified the FISC on 26th Oct 2016.

Summary of the Appearance of Activity – •Obama’s political operatives within the DOJ-NSD, that had no oversight, appear to have been using FISA 702(17) surveillance “about inquiries” that would deliver email and phone communication for U.S. people (Trump campaign). •The NSD unit was working in coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Peter Strzok etc.).  •In an effort to stop the activity NSA Director Mike Rogers initiated a full 702 compliance review.  •However, before the review was complete the DOJ-NSD had enough information for their unlawful FISA warrant which worked retroactively to make the prior FBI surveillance (began in July ’16 per James Comey) lawful. Mike Rogers stopped the process on October 26th 2016. •As a result of his not going along, Rogers became a risk; DNI James Clapper demanded he be fired.

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 (albeit enhanced and weighted by the additional unlawful evidence collected, ie. the “insurance policy”) evidenced in his seeing how the FISA warrant he granted was used against the defendant, Flynn, that appeared in his courtroom?

Did Contreras see in Flynn’s outcome – evidence of what he feared would happen? Did that lead to Judge Contreras forced recusal?… or was Contreras a participant in the ‘matter’?

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

Ten days after the 2016 election, November 17th 2016, Admiral Rogers travels to Trump Tower without telling ODNI James Clapper. Rogers likely informs President-elect Trump of the prior activity by the FBI and DOJ, including the probability that all of Trump Tower’s email and phone communication was being collected.

♦ On November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers went to see President-Elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower, New York.  –SEE HERE–  Director Rogers never told his boss DNI, James Clapper.

♦ On November 18th, 2016, the Trump Transition Team announced they were moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. –SEE HERE– Where they interviewed and discussed the most sensitive positions to fill.  Defense, State, CIA, ODNI.

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 Main Justice: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr’s former boss was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Sally Yates boss was Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  John P. Carlin was head of the National Security Division inside the DOJ, and Lisa Page was the DOJ lawyer who represents the bridge between the legal side (DOJ) and the investigative side (FBI).

Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Trey Gowdy, appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo.

Some key takeaways:  Remember, Gowdy is Chairman of the specifically purposed UniParty committee that drives investigations to no-where (FnF, IRS, Benghazi, emails etc.). As such, it is obvious between the spoken lines that Gowdy is positioned on HRC’s defensive flank; it is part of the UniParty fingerprint.

Secondly, mid-interview Mrs. Bartiromo is 100% accurate in her framework of the Strock described “insurance policy”; she gets it exactly correct.  Thankfully, the beltway apparatus has wedged the investigations that really matter away from Roosterhead.

Accepting the current storyline, in combination with the conversation, it looks like the Clinton email and Clinton foundation investigations will likely go no-where.  The investigation(s) that matter are how the FBI and DOJ handled the prior investigations and the mounting evidence against both agencies surrounding the 2016/2017 election corruption (Intel and Judiciary).

CIA Director Mike Pompeo appears on CBS Face the Nation for a conversation with John Dickerson.

Dickerson walks the fine line between maintaining his invitations to the DC cocktail circuit parties, where President Trump must be regarded as a vulgarian to gain admission, and yet he doesn’t want to go full-Tapper-childish and diminish his own credibility.

As such Dickerson sticks mainly to the substantive issues which confront the challenges of foreign policy and geopolitical adversaries: North Korea, Iran and Pakistan.  Toward the end of the interview Dickerson questions Pompeo about FISA-702 re-authorization.

Good Interview:

President Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller appeared on CNN with Jake Tapper for an interview today.  The level of sanctimonious condescension and snark from Tapper throughout this interview is typical for a Clinton Traveler that cannot yet come to grips with her defeat.  In short, Tapper triggered his inner child, and used the recent Wolff book to frame his defensive shield.

Additionally, Jake shows a complete disconnect from understanding the subject matter of his questioning when he states, wrongly, that Steve Bannon was the impetus for Stephen Miller joining the Trump campaign in early January 2016.  At the time Tapper attributes the claim, Steve Bannon (and Robert Mercer, and Breitbart Inc.) was working for the nomination of Ted Cruz.   It was the relationship between Senator Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump that led Sessions to recommend Miller for the Trump campaign.

The combative and argumentative nature Tapper reflects an ongoing disposition of opposition toward the continuing successful presidency of Donald Trump.  In an embarrassing display of petulance and denial Tapper ends the combative interview.

Fox News Host Judge Jeanine Pirro interviews Representative Jim Jordan and Representative Mark Meadows about current DC issues and the recent moves by the Attorney Generals’ office.

Reuters is reporting that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers has announced to his staff he is resigning, and that a nominee will be announced to replace him shortly.

It took us a while to figure it out, but now that we have become aware of his place in history, Rogers departure makes sense.  His incredible accomplishments are complete.

In hindsight it appears that President Trump was fully aware when the tide would change. The moment when an empowered group of congressional people would develop the coordinated plan to defeat the corruption amid a corrupt intelligence apparatus Admiral Rogers had been holding back for the past several years.

On October 7th 2017 President Trump stated:

…”You guys know what this represents? Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.”..

Everyone was trying to figure out what the president meant.  The media went bananas for a few cycles talking about it.  However, a picture from that evening –in addition to the recent discoveries– likely tells us all we need to know:

That night, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was seated at the head of the table as each member of the military likely aware -in varying degrees- just how consequential NSA Director Mike Rogers was in fending off the biggest constitutional crisis in the history of the U.S.

A grateful U.S. President, recognizing a great and patriotic man, amid many great and patriotic men.  ….And no-one outside that room even knew.  Until now.

You know it’s funny…. We all felt the tide change mid-November, something was different. By early December the Inspector General stories about the DOJ and FBI malfeasance and corruption began to hit the headlines (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker, etc.); but it only becomes clear today, how that entire chain-of-events began.