Eyebrow Raising Comments by Judge in the Mike Flynn Case

1
Share

Comments Judge Contreras made in December are very interesting in light of the information we now have.

Newly uncovered texts, hidden by the DoJ, show that left-wing agent Peter Strzok had a relationship with the recused Judge Contreras, the judge in the Mike Flynn case. Strzok planned to collude with the judge.

Strzok and his alleged lover Lisa Page planned to have a small dinner party and invite the judge. They wanted to have a covert conversation with the judge after they realized he was going to preside over the Mike Flynn case. The texts also revealed that Peter Strzok had a relationship – friendship perhaps – with the Obama-appointed Judge Contreras.

In Light of This, Contreras’s Comments in December Raise Eyebrows

In light of this information, read the Washington Examiner story on this link.

In short, on December 1st, 2017, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras accepted Flynn’s guilty plea to a single felony count for lying to the FBI about two contacts with Russian officials and told Flynn he faces a maximum five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

He stressed to the former Army lieutenant general that prosecutors will request less punishment than sentencing guidelines recommend. Then he said it will take place “if and only if” he provides substantial assistance “in the prosecution of another person.”

Flynn was interviewed after only four days on the job by Strzok and one other agent. The agents concluded he was not lying. They felt he had forgotten some things and at times was confused. After Mueller entered the case, the decision was made to charge Flynn with lying to the feds. On top of this, Sara Carter reported that Andrew McCabe, the recently fired former deputy director, might have altered the 302s [basic information, interview notes] and deleted the revisions in the Flynn case.

Andrew McCabe lied to the feds and he did it to obstruct justice. So far, he has only been fired. He needs to be prosecuted as well.

Share

1 COMMENT

  1. I doubt the judge is so gullible to not realize what was going on there. His remark can be interpreted as predatory towards Trump. The public needs to know why he recused after conviction, and gave no reason, bothe things are unusual. Some things were coming out that discredited him (i.e. fraudulent warrant, FBI friendships, …).

Comments are closed.