Expand.
Who interviewed Flynn?
What redacted texts were released yesterday?
Coincidence?
Why did Flynn take the bullet?
Rubber bullet?
Lawmakers make public?
Lawmakers learned gmail draft comms yesterday?
Lawmakers go hunting?
What is the purpose of a laser pointer?
You have more than you know.
Comms understood?
Q
Rudolph Contreras is a United States District judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
He also serves as a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Wikipedia
Born: December 6, 1962 (age 58 years), Miami, FL
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/31/why-was-judge-recused-muellerflynn-case/
https://www.westernjournal.com/judge-kicked-off-flynn-case-issued-the-fisa-warrant-to-spy-on-carter-page/
Dick Morris: Judge Kicked Off Flynn Case Issued the FISA Warrant to Spy on Carter Page
By Dick Morris
Published February 5, 2018 at 1:18pm
Share on Facebook
Tweet
Mewe
Share
P
Share
According to “two sources familiar with the material that underlies the Memo published by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday” (and printed in the blog Offended America), the judge — Rudolph Contreras — who granted the warrant in the FISA Court to wiretap Carter Page, was removed from presiding over he case of Mike Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor.
While it is not uncommon for a judge to recuse himself from a case due to conflicts of some sort, it is very unusual for a judge to be recused from a case by his judicial supervisors.
The wording of the District Court’s announcement that Contraras “was recused” suggests that it was not his decision to remove him from control of the Flynn case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/texts-show-judge-who-recused-himself-in-flynn-case-was-friendly-with-fbi-agent-involved-in-probe/2018/03/16/3b3736f2-293d-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html
https://twitter.com/MegHays46/status/1369342107077517321
Twitter Sues Texas AG Ken Paxton for Investigating Their Censorship Practices – Watch This One Closely It Appears Twitter is Leveraging Their Alliance With FBI
March 9, 2021 | Sundance | 41 Comments
CTH spidey senses are on maximum alert on the background to this story.
On its face Twitter is suing Texas AG Ken Paxton for targeting them with inquiries into their practice of censorship and deplatforming. The lawsuit baseline is essentially (and ironically) because Paxton is a government official, Twitter is claiming their ‘first amendment’ right to control speech on their private platform is under attack.
However, you might ask yourself why Twitter chose Paxton and not Florida Governor DeSantis or any other government official who is doing essentially the same thing as AG Paxton with their efforts against Big Tech. This is where suspicious cat comes into play because there’s always another angle with these tech leftists…. you just need to know how to spot it.
Ken Paxton is under investigation by the FBI for an unrelated securities fraud case, and there has been a long-standing court battle underway. If you have watched the ideological merge, the alliance of common interests between Big Tech leftists and DOJ/FBI leftists, you might consider the appearance of a convenient leverage situation here that would explain why Twitter selected Paxton. [Insert Suspicious Cat Here]
ASSOCIATED PRESS – Twitter has filed a lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, claiming the Republican used his office to retaliate against it for banning the account of former President Donald Trump following the riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Days after the deadly January insurrection, Paxton announced an investigation into Twitter and four other major technology companies for what he called “the seemingly coordinated de-platforming of the President.” The attorney general’s office demanded that the companies produce a variety of records related to their content moderation policies and troves of internal communications.
Twitter responded Monday with a federal lawsuit alleging Paxton is seeking to punish it for taking Trump’s account offline — a decision the social media company says is protected free speech. It asks a judge to declare the decision to be under the ambit of the First Amendment and to, in essence, halt Paxton’s investigation.
“Paxton made clear that he will use the full weight of his office, including his expansive investigatory powers, to retaliate against Twitter for having made editorial decisions with which he disagrees,” lawyers for the company wrote in the suit filed in a Northern California court.
Spokespersons for Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening.
Twitter’s counterpunch comes as states, in addition to federal lawmakers and governments outside the U.S., are cracking down on tech companies they see as having amassed too much power in the past decade. This includes antitrust and anti-monopoly regulation, internet privacy laws as well as attempts to regulate how platforms like Twitter, Facebook and others moderate their sites. (read more)
https://youtu.be/EwSGGg7UFGo