Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn has invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination and declined to hand over documents sought under subpoena by a Senate panel investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.
Key points:
- Michael Flynn’s attorneys argue special counsel appointment created “legally dangerous environment” for client
- Decision to use constitutional protection is not an admission of wrongdoing, attorneys write
- Mr Flynn’s decision not to cooperate does not fully close the door on future cooperation
In a letter to the Senate intelligence committee, Mr Flynn’s attorneys justified the decision by citing an “escalating public frenzy against him”.
It also said the Justice Department’s recent appointment of a special counsel had created a legally dangerous environment for him to cooperate with the panel’s investigation.
“The context in which the committee has called for General Flynn’s testimonial production of documents makes clear that he has more than a reasonable apprehension that any testimony he provides could be used against him,” the attorneys wrote in the letter, which was obtained by the Associated Press.
Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate panel, said in a statement they were disappointed by Mr Flynn’s decision, but would “vigorously pursue” his testimony.
Mr Flynn’s decision not to cooperate with the Senate committee represents a new legal complication for the expanding government and congressional inquiries into Russian interference in the presidential campaign and contacts between Mr Trump’s advisers and Russian officials and representatives.
The retired US Army lieutenant general and top military intelligence chief is a key figure in both the FBI investigation headed by special counsel Robert Mueller and in separate Senate and House inquiries.
Mr Trump appointed Mr Flynn as his top national security aide in January, but he was forced to resign after less than a month on the job, for failing to disclose the content of his talks with Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, and then misleading Vice-President Mike Pence about the conversations.
Mr Flynn’s letter to the Senate committee stressed that his decision to invoke his constitutional protection was not an admission of wrongdoing but rather a response to the current political climate in which Democratic members of Congress were calling for his prosecution.
The Senate Intelligence Committee first requested documents from Mr Flynn in an April 28 letter, but he declined to cooperate with the request.
Flynn ‘within his rights’
According to Monday’s letter, the committee requested that Mr Flynn provide a list of all meetings and communications he had with Russian officials.
It also asked him to provide all records of his communications with the Trump campaign that “were in any way related to Russia”.
The letter notes that the time frame of the request was from January 16, 2015 through to January 20, 2017.
Senator James Lankford, a Republican member of the intelligence committee, said on Twitter that Mr Flynn was within his rights to invoke the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution.
Legal experts had said Mr Flynn was unlikely to turn over the documents without a grant of immunity because doing so might compel him to waive some of his constitutional protections.
Washington lawyer Nina Ginsberg said that if Mr Flynn turned over any personal records in response to the committee’s subpoena, he would waive his Fifth Amendment rights regarding those documents and have to testify about them.
Ms Ginsberg also noted that the committee faces new complications from the Justice Department’s move last week to appoint Mr Mueller as special counsel in the Russia inquiry.
If the intelligence committee wants to give Mr Flynn immunity, it will likely have to enter into discussions with Mr Mueller to determine whether the move could impede the FBI’s case.
“The committee could decide to go ahead and not worry about Mueller,” Ms Ginsberg said, but that could create new legal complications for Mr Mueller’s probe.
No comments:
Post a Comment