An attempt in court by former President Donald Trump’s onetime national security adviser Michael Flynn, to block Jan. 6 investigators from obtaining his phone records and testimony, has failed—for now.
U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven issued the ruling against Flynn from Tampa, Florida, on Wednesday. The hammer dropped on Flynn quickly; the former White House official and reported QAnon adherent only filed his lawsuit against the Jan. 6 Committee on Dec. 21.
The committee initially issued a subpoena to Flynn on Nov. 8, asking him to provide records spanning over two dozen categories to investigators by Nov. 23. He was expected to sit for deposition during the first week of December. After he was served, Flynn began “engaging” with the committee, according to a spokesperson. He received a slight postponement of his deposition until this Monday.
But just before his expected appearance, the committee announced it would delay Flynn’s hearing until “a date to be determined.” Flynn says he told lawmakers that he intended on asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and that he preferred to duke it out in court.
As expected, he sued the committee, claiming the investigation was unconstitutional and that access to his phone records was a bridge too far, Judge Scriven neatly shot Flynn down.
Scribd Content
Judge Scriven Order on Flyn... by Daily Kos
To stop the committee, Flynn needed to prove that he was injured by their deadlines or that the committee was unfairly hastening the deadlines. Flynn proved neither, according to Judge Scriven.
The ex-White House official did not offer any evidence showing his attempts to comply with the committee nor, Scriven wrote, did he provide any information showing how congressional investigators were imposing upon him. He also has not “provided any information about the alleged subpoena to telecommunications provider, specifically whether such a subpoena imposes any imminent deadlines for production of documents,” the six-page ruling states.
“Thus, on this record, there is no basis to conclude that Flynn will face 'immediate and irreparable' harm before Defendants have an opportunity to respond," Scriven wrote, pointing to the ‘date to be determined’ meeting with Flynn requested by the committee after his initial waffling.
Flynn, who plead guilty in 2017 to making false statements to law enforcement—he was later pardoned by Trump for those crimes—was reportedly at a meeting last December in the Oval Office where the seizure of voting machines was discussed. Flynn was reportedly involved, too, in talks with Trump where suggestions to invoke martial law was discussed. The aim of those talks, according to analysis and public reporting, was to rerun the 2020 election and install Trump as president despite his loss.
Last October, Flynn promoted an ad taken out by the Ohio-based conservative political group, We the People, in the Washington Times. The ad urged Trump to declare a limited form of martial law and suspend the Constitution and civilian control of the federal election “for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a re-vote.”
After Scriven’s ruling, Flynn’s attorney David Warrington told CNN that if the committee were to move more aggressively to obtain records from his client, like pushing up the deadlines for the requests, then Flynn would likely seek a temporary restraining order again.
Warrington also railed against the committee’s probe, saying it was “unconstitutional.” A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled against similar claims lobbed by the former president two weeks ago. Trump is poised to appeal that ruling at the Supreme Court.
Flynn is not the only probe-target asserting the Fifth Amendment. So too has John Eastman, author of an election subversion strategy focusing on former Vice President Mike Pence. Trump ally, GOP operative, and conspiracy peddler Roger Stone has invoked it as well. Former Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Clark has also said he plans to invoke it. Clark was allegedly responsible for running a pressure campaign on Georgia election officials with Trump’s endorsement. Clark was also reportedly attempting to install himself as attorney general.
U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven issued the ruling against Flynn from Tampa, Florida, on Wednesday. The hammer dropped on Flynn quickly; the former White House official and reported QAnon adherent only filed his lawsuit against the Jan. 6 Committee on Dec. 21.
The committee initially issued a subpoena to Flynn on Nov. 8, asking him to provide records spanning over two dozen categories to investigators by Nov. 23. He was expected to sit for deposition during the first week of December. After he was served, Flynn began “engaging” with the committee, according to a spokesperson. He received a slight postponement of his deposition until this Monday.
But just before his expected appearance, the committee announced it would delay Flynn’s hearing until “a date to be determined.” Flynn says he told lawmakers that he intended on asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and that he preferred to duke it out in court.
As expected, he sued the committee, claiming the investigation was unconstitutional and that access to his phone records was a bridge too far, Judge Scriven neatly shot Flynn down.
Scribd Content
Judge Scriven Order on Flyn... by Daily Kos
To stop the committee, Flynn needed to prove that he was injured by their deadlines or that the committee was unfairly hastening the deadlines. Flynn proved neither, according to Judge Scriven.
The ex-White House official did not offer any evidence showing his attempts to comply with the committee nor, Scriven wrote, did he provide any information showing how congressional investigators were imposing upon him. He also has not “provided any information about the alleged subpoena to telecommunications provider, specifically whether such a subpoena imposes any imminent deadlines for production of documents,” the six-page ruling states.
“Thus, on this record, there is no basis to conclude that Flynn will face 'immediate and irreparable' harm before Defendants have an opportunity to respond," Scriven wrote, pointing to the ‘date to be determined’ meeting with Flynn requested by the committee after his initial waffling.
Flynn, who plead guilty in 2017 to making false statements to law enforcement—he was later pardoned by Trump for those crimes—was reportedly at a meeting last December in the Oval Office where the seizure of voting machines was discussed. Flynn was reportedly involved, too, in talks with Trump where suggestions to invoke martial law was discussed. The aim of those talks, according to analysis and public reporting, was to rerun the 2020 election and install Trump as president despite his loss.
Last October, Flynn promoted an ad taken out by the Ohio-based conservative political group, We the People, in the Washington Times. The ad urged Trump to declare a limited form of martial law and suspend the Constitution and civilian control of the federal election “for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a re-vote.”
After Scriven’s ruling, Flynn’s attorney David Warrington told CNN that if the committee were to move more aggressively to obtain records from his client, like pushing up the deadlines for the requests, then Flynn would likely seek a temporary restraining order again.
Warrington also railed against the committee’s probe, saying it was “unconstitutional.” A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled against similar claims lobbed by the former president two weeks ago. Trump is poised to appeal that ruling at the Supreme Court.
Flynn is not the only probe-target asserting the Fifth Amendment. So too has John Eastman, author of an election subversion strategy focusing on former Vice President Mike Pence. Trump ally, GOP operative, and conspiracy peddler Roger Stone has invoked it as well. Former Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Clark has also said he plans to invoke it. Clark was allegedly responsible for running a pressure campaign on Georgia election officials with Trump’s endorsement. Clark was also reportedly attempting to install himself as attorney general.