Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras all of a sudden recused himself Thursday night from the Michael Flynn case– without any explanation. But there are other facts that just don’t add up related to the Flynn case. First, Contreras sat on the FISA court when Obama “illegally” wiretapped and surveilled the Trump campaign team. Contreras was appointed to the court on May 19, 2016 prior the surveillance operation that began “in the summer” of 2016. Two logical questions are:

Did Contreras oversee the surveillance request?

Was Contreras involved in surveilling Michael Flynn?

Who is investigating Contreras?

Second, for someone who claimed to be committed to “transparency” Barack Obama appointed every single sitting FISA Court judge.

Third, why did Michael Flynn plead guilty to a false statement charge brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller when Mueller and FBI Director Comey are intricately connected to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Especially in light of the circumstances surrounding the illegal wiretap and surveillance. The retired Army lieutenant general and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency was fired only 24 days after he was appointed as Trump’s National Security Advisor for allegedly lying about his meeting with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. According to various sources, Flynn also admitted to lying about his interaction as a private lobbyist with Turkish government officials.

Again, it is unclear why meeting with an ambassador would be a fireable offense when Hillary Clinton illegally sold uranium to Putin and would have been owned by him if she had become the president.

Fourth, it’s clear the Obama administration intended to set up Flynn to discredit him and the Trump administration. Zero Hedge highlights a point made by Robert Parry at Consortium News:

What is arguably most disturbing about this case is that then-National Security Adviser Flynn was pushed into a perjury trap by Obama administration holdovers at the Justice Department who concocted an unorthodox legal rationale for subjecting Flynn to an FBI interrogation four days after he took office, testing Flynn’s recollection of the conversations while the FBI agents had transcripts of the calls intercepted by the National Security Agency. In other words, the Justice Department wasn’t seeking information about what Flynn said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the intelligence agencies already had that information. Instead, Flynn was being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts. Then, just four days into the Trump presidency, an Obama holdover, then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates, primed the Flynn perjury trap by coming up with a novel legal theory that Flynn although the national security adviser-designate at the time of his late December phone calls with Kislyak was violating the 1799 Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from interfering with U.S. foreign policy.

Finally, Zero Hedge also points to two other discrepancies about the Flynn case:

“the Logan Act … was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period – and in the past 218 years, has resulted in no successful prosecution,” and

According to Sara Carter via Hannity.com: Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel FBI Peter Strzok interviewed Flynn on January 24 at the White House but then was recently fired from investigating Flynn.

Too many contradictions point to a conspiracy against Flynn, which mask the true culprit involved in criminal activity with Russia: Hillary Clinton.