The unlawful FBI surveillance and spying operation against presidential candidate Donald Trump.

And how an intentional non-oversight of the Department of Justice National Security Division was used in the construct! Sundance reports at The Conservative Treehouse,

During a radio interview on WMAL legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney General for Washington DC, Joe DiGenova, specifically highlights the DOJ National Security Division head John P Carlin and his role in the 2016 FISA warrant. Other than within our own research few people are paying attention to the DOJ-NSD side.

Additionally, and in complete concurrence with our prior research, DiGenova states first-hand knowledge that FISA Court Judge Rudolph Contreras did not recuse himself – but was rather forcibly recused from the Michael Flynn case by either U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts or the aggregate FISA court.

One might think the media apparatus, or pundit proletariat writ large, might be curious about why a U.S. District Court Judge would be recused. Alas, One would be wrong. The recusal angle is transparently missing from any follow-up by media, and apparently, the judicial cat also has stolen the tongue of congressional curiosity. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

We have speculated that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused, either by himself or by challenge, because he is also a FISA Court Judge and could have signed off on the October FISA warrant that led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Flynn. However, we have received information that it wasn’t ‘by challenge’, leaving the preponderance of the motive for recusal directly upon Judge Contreras personal decision.

However, if Judge Contreras ‘recused himself’ based on the conflict within the FISA warrant he approved, the question then becomes why did he even allow himself to preside over the first hearing of General Mike Flynn’s rather odd guilty plea?

Was the October 2016 FISA warrant part of the evidence in the overall process charge against Mike Flynn? What are the rules of FISA warrant content in cases where the warrant leads to a prosecution? Did Judge Contreras sit on the initial plea hearing so another judge would not see the FISA information, recognize any problems, and maybe not approve the plea?

The only two significant things that happened between the initial Mike Flynn plea hearing and the recusal from Judge Contreras was:

#1) The stories about anti-Trump FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his involvement with Fusion-GPS and Christopher Steele; and

#2) FBI Director Chris Wray appearing before the House Judicial Committee and hearing Representative Jim Jordan demand to see the 2016 FISA application.

In fact, Judge Contreras recused himself only a few hours after that House Judicial Committee hearing.

These are all just general questions that stem from Judge Contreras appearing to concede to a conflict, but doing so only AFTER the first administrative hearing on the case. If the conflict existed on December 7th 2017, such that a recusal was needed, would not that conflict exist prior to December 7th, 2017?

Summary of the Appearance of Activity – •Obama’s political operatives within the DOJ-NSD, that had no oversight, appear to have been using FISA 702(17) surveillance “about inquiries” that would deliver email and phone communication for U.S. people (Trump campaign). •The NSD unit was working in coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Peter Strzok etc.). •In an effort to stop the activity NSA Director Mike Rogers initiated a full 702 compliance review. •However, before the review was complete the DOJ-NSD had enough information for their unlawful FISA warrant which worked retroactively to make the prior FBI surveillance (began in July ’16 per James Comey) lawful. Mike Rogers stopped the process on October 26th 2016. •As a result of his not going along, Rogers became a risk; DNI James Clapper demanded he be fired.

Read more here.