A curious recusal in the sentencing of Michael Flynn could be an indicator of something very big happening

Something very strange, and possibly extremely significant, happened yesterday, with no explanation and little notice from the media. But two different writers for the same DC-insider publication rushed to be the first to note this barely-noticed move, suggesting that they know something big is happening.

To my deep sorrow, the skills of a Kremlinologist – the people who specialized in interpreting small signs, such as who stood next to whom reviewing military parades in Red Square, to figure out the real power structure within the secretive upper ranks of the USSR – are necessary to figure out what is going on in the Deep State attempts to take down the Trump presidency. The two writers rushing to be the first to break the story work for Politico, the publication that specializes in DC insidership. They rushed to be the first to note the case of the curious recusal.  First was Sean Davis, whose tweet went up at 5:23 PM yesterday:

If we put on our Kremlinologist hats, “nobody knows why” translates to “Something big could be happening!” and implying “I was the first to note it.”

A mere 15 minutes later, his colleague at Politico, Josh Gerstein, published an article on that site with more background, but no explanation of why:

Judge Emmet Sullivan was randomly assigned to take over the case after Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself. (snip)

Sullivan is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Contreras was appointed by President Barack Obama.

When it comes to assembling evidence, creating timelines, and inferring what is really going on beneath the veneer the public is allowed to see, nobody is better than Sundance of Conservative Treehouse. He writes:  

As soon as CTH saw the name Judge Rudolph Contreras our spidey sense alarm bells began ringing.  You know why?…

Judge Rudolph Contreras is one of a very small group of FISA Court Judges. –LINK

My instincts tell me that Judge Contreras was most likely the judge who signed off on the FISA warrant that led to the surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign officials, that included National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn.

Those FBI FISA warrants are now coming under scrutiny.

It would be EXPLOSIVE if it turned out that the FISA warrants were gained by deception, misleading information, manipulated information, or fraud…. and that warrant led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Michael Flynn was authorized by Contreras…. who would now be the judge in Flynn’s case.

Yes, the conflict of interest would be beyond stunning.

That FISA warrant, of course, is the potential Rosetta Stone of the suspected plot to surveil the Trump campaign for president. Spying on the opposition by using the most feared surveillance capacity in the world, provided by US taxpayers. And, it is reasonably suspected (but not proven because everything is under wraps) that the bogus “dossier” produced by Fusion GPS with the help of Russian sources was used to obtain a FISA Court warrant to use the NSA’s universal surveillance of electronic communications to “unmask” first Carter Page, and subsequently an unknown number of staffers in the Trump campaign.

In a lengthy post elsewhere, Sundance laid out the timeline and inferences about how the FISA warrant was obtained after first being rejected by the FISA Court (something that happens very rarely). I will not attempt to summarize it here, but a key figure (and White Hat) is Admiral Mike Rogers.

The Inspector General of the DOJ currently is investigating these matters, and his report, expected early next year, may answer all these questions. Or it may not.

So we are left with straws in the wind, and our suspicions.

If and when the details are exposed and prove out Sundance’s (and my) suspicions, this will make Watergate look like the “third rate burglary” it was characterized as by President Nixon’s allies.  A sitting president and his candidate to succeed him weaponizing the nation’s intelligence agencies to sabotage the opposition. You cannot exaggerate the magnitude of the consequences.

Hat tip: Mike Ford

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com