(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)
If sufficient judicial conflict existed on December 7th, why wasn’t that conflict present on December 1st, when Judge Contreras presided over Flynn’s initial pleading?
The story behind why U.S. District Court Judge would be recused, is transparently missing from any follow-up by media. With all the current sunlight over possible manipulation of a FISA court application by the FBI, no-one seems curious if Judge Rudolph Contreras was the FBI’s FISA approval judge, and the U.S. DC Judge in the Flynn pleading.
The story has disappeared into the swamp; but the story is important.
There is a very strong possibility that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras was forcibly recused by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, because Contreras is also the FISA Court Judge who signed-off on the 2016 FISA application (warrant) that led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Flynn. That FISA application is now being questioned.
The initial media report stated Judge Contreras "was recused" implying the decision was ultimately put upon him. However, I repeat, if there was a conflict on December 7th, 2017 wouldn’t that same conflict have existed on December 1st (Flynn pleading).?
If the conflict did exist on December 1st, 2017, why did Contreras even allow himself to preside over the first hearing of General Mike Flynn’s rather odd guilty plea?
Continues.