http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/16/revealed-peter-strzok-had-personal-relationship-with-recused-judge-in-michael-flynn-case/

Newly discovered text messages obtained by The Federalist reveal two key federal law enforcement officials conspired to meet with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) judge who presided over the federal case against Michael Flynn. The judge, Rudolph Contreras, was recused from handling the case just days after accepting the guilty plea of President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser who was charged with making false statements to federal investigators.

The text messages about Contreras between controversial Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) lawyer Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the senior FBI counterintelligence official who was kicked off Robert Mueller’s special counsel team, were deliberately hidden from Congress, multiple congressional investigators told The Federalist. In the messages, Page and Strzok, who are rumored to have been engaged in an illicit romantic affair, discussed Strzok’s personal friendship with Contreras and how to leverage that relationship in ongoing counterintelligence matters.

“Rudy is on the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]!” Page excitedly texted Strzok on July 25, 2016. “Did you know that? Just appointed two months ago.”

“I did,” Strzok responded. “I need to get together with him.”

“[He] said he’d gotten on a month or two ago at a graduation party we were both at.”

Contreras was appointed to the top surveillance court on May 19, 2016, federal records show.

The pair even schemed about how to set up a cocktail or dinner party just so Contreras, Strzok, and Page could speak without arousing suspicion that they were colluding. Strzok expressed concern that a one-on-one meeting between the two men might require Contreras’ recusal from matters in which Strzok was involved.

“[REDACTED] suggested a social setting with others would probably be better than a one on one meeting,” Strzok told Page. “I’m sorry, I’m just going to have to invite you to that cocktail party.”

“Have to come up with some other work people cover for action,” Strzok added.

“Why more?” Page responded. “Six is a perfectly fine dinner party.”

It is not known whether the proposed party happened as planned.

While working as one of the top counterintelligence officials at the FBI, Strzok reportedly took part in the FBI’s interview of on January 24. Flynn later pleaded guilty to one charge of providing false information to federal investigators. Strzok later left the FBI to join Mueller’s special counsel team, which obtained the indictment of Flynn.

Flynn’s guilty plea was accepted in federal court by Contreras on December 1, 2017. The New York Times reported the next day that Strzok, who left the FBI to work for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, had been removed from the case by Mueller due to inappropriate text messages between Strzok and another federal official, now believed to be DOJ attorney Lisa Page. On December 5, 2017, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to FBI director Christopher Wray demanding text messages from Strzok as well as any notes he took regarding his interviews with Flynn. Contreras was recused from the Flynn case on December 7, 2017, and the case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, according to federal court documents.

Neither Contreras nor federal judiciary officials have publicly indicated the reason for Contreras’ removal from the case. Contreras’ office declined to comment on inquiries asking about his relationship with Strzok, or why he was not recused from the Flynn case until after he had accepted Flynn’s guilty plea.

The pre-existing relationship between Strzok and Contreras and Contreras’ mysterious recusal from the Flynn case, forced or otherwise, raise serious questions about whether Flynn’s case, among others, was properly conducted.

The text messages that show Page and Strzok conspiring to meet with Contreras were originally hidden from Congress. In records provided by DOJ to Congress, the exchanges referencing Contreras, and plans to meet with him under the guise of a cocktail party, were completely redacted by federal law enforcement officials. The exchanges obtained by The Federalist include information that was never turned over to Congress.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620183)

T I C K

O

C

K

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620262)

lmao strzok sold this guy out to save his own ass

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620574)

he "was recused", not "recused himself", you're assuming he recused himself less than a week AFTER the guilty plea? that's a very poor assumption. someone forced him out.

also:

new judge ordered mueller to hand over all exculpatory evidence to flynn

mccabe ordered strzok to alter the 302's

and now you have this

flynn's guilty plea will be withdrawn soon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620616)

it was a set-up, flynn didn't know he was being investigated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620647)

Author: alprazolam

it was a set-up, flynn didn't know he was being investigated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620689)

Please link to proof of Contrerras "being recused." The docket says the case was randomly reassigned at the direction of the calendar committee. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.9.0_2.pdf I have seen recusal orders in other case and they actually say Judge X is recused, which is followed by a reassignment entry on the docket. That seems to be absent here.

So what about the exculpatory evidence? He already pled guilty. Do you think the evidence shows he didn't lie? The order concerns the timing and format of turning the information over.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.10.0_2.pdf

edit: as noted below it seems to be a form order entered in every case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620727)

Author: alprazolam

it was a set-up, flynn didn't know he was being investigated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620760)

the exculpatory evidence is probably the altered 302s which formed the basis of flynn's guilty plea

apparently an order forcing exculpatory evidence to be handed over to the defense AFTER a guilty plea is highly irregular and unusual

everything that strzok has touched is compromised

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620763)

Every time I have seen a recusal, there has been a recusal order that does not disclose a reason. For example, see: http://www.parkervision.com/company/public_relations/PatentCase_PDFs/QualcommDoc484.pdf

Why is there not one in this case?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620839)

Like if I believe I'm fucked for murder even though I didn't commit it because this prosecutor says he'll give me the death penalty if I don't plead guilty so i plead guilty, and he has evidence that might be favorable to me that he withholds, that's alright?

Not a lolyer but that seems a bit wrong and due process violation-y

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620777)

In your hypo, if you knew you wouldn't do it, you would wait to get the exculpatory evidence before making your decision. You have to get the evidence before trial, obviously.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620807)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35621004)

Faggot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35629086)

You assume that the government's case is based entirely off of an interview with Flynn and some scribbled notes and a form filled out by an FBI agent. I think that's an unreasonable assumption. If that's the entirety of the case, I'd be surprised at the speed with which Flynn's counsel had him plead, because that's a pretty weak case, and certainly worth fighting. I think a better guess is that Flynn faced a lot more charges and a lot more embarrassing evidence that would come out at trial and that this was something he could plead to without revealing anything else.

Anyway, better to take a wait and see approach than immediately assuming everyone is an evil cuckmaster bent on the destruction of america.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35621199)

I don't agree with you that it's obviously worth fighting when you have a sweet easy plea deal on the table that wraps it up for you. If he took a deal to do five years, I'd agree it's worth fighting.

I agree with waiting and seeing, but re Strzok we already see he's a shady, conspiring motherfucker of whom an example should be made.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35621348)

Author: ''''''"'''''

The far more likely answer is that Flynn's exposure was a lot broader than false statements you dishonest retard. He literally conspired to kidnap a legal US resident, he's the the only American who has toured GRU headquarters, he got hundreds of thousands of dollars from Kremlin-connected entities, he was in frequent contact with an FSB honeypot (and signed all his emails to her "Misha"). Maybe you should consider that he might be a compromised POS who belongs in Leavenworth and not some poor sap who got bullied into pleading to 18 USC 1001.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3911005&forum_id=2#35544263)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35621676)

You're right about the recusal. There should be an order entered in the docket. Otherwise it's just a reassignment. That being said, it could really be anything (a subtle recusal, a subtle consolidation of the case with a bunch of other related cases before the other judge).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620822)

Date: March 16th, 2018 3:52 PM

Author: alprazolam

flynn's guilty plea will be withdrawn soon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620616)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35646094)

edit: saw the Reuters argument, apparently an actual recusal. Interesting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35620927)

the corruption is so deep and the MSM aren't doing shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35623254)

Big fucking deal. Who cares.

I am personal friends with many judges I appear in front of and it’s not uncommon. Same goes for some prosecutors and other judges.

Just being friends with a party doesn’t call for recusal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35624021)

This latter reading would be especially retarded, given the fact that it was WIDELY reported at the time that Judge Conteras recused himself, as confirmed by District Court spokesperson. Politoco: "A court spokesperson confirmed to POLITICO that the reassignment was due to Contreras' recusal, but said the court generally does not disclose the reason a judge begged off the case."

In other words, the case was randomly reassigned *after* Judge Contreras was recused.

2) The docket makes clear that the Brady order is a standing order that Judge Sullivan enters routinely in all criminal cases that he is assigned. However, the odd thing is that Judge Sullivan re-entered the Standing Order in February, stating that "unfortunately the prior version of the order was entered rather than the Court's current version."

The "current" version is the same in all respects, except it contains a giant footnote of cases stating that "impeachment" evidence (as opposed to evidence that is outright excuplatory) is not necessary to disclose before plea negotiations, for purposes of Brady. It seems like the Court specifically added this footnote after the fact due to Flynn's situation, which would be odd for a standing order.

3) There are a lot of outright retarded people that posted in this thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35647805)

Obviously the "punishment" for Flynn trying to unwind the plea would be over the top trumped up charges from Mueller, which he loves to do.

Personally, if Robert Mueller was aware that Strzok altered statements after pressure from DOJ (i.e. Yates and company), and still pursued a 1001 charge on the basis of Strzok's report then I think Rosenstein should fire his ass.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3920565&forum_id=2#35647998)