Michael Flynn to take the Fifth Amendment and decline Senate subpoena

[workinclasszero]

Michael Flynn to take the Fifth Amendment and decline Senate subpoena
By Matthew Mosk Meghan Keneally May 22, 2017, 10:31 AM ET

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to honor a Senate committee's subpoena request for documents relating to Russian interference in the election, a source close to Flynn confirms to ABC News.

The Fifth Amendment gives an individual the right to protect against self-incrimination.

"He will not be producing the documents they sought. He is entitled to decline pursuant to the Fifth Amendment," a source close to Flynn tells ABC News.

To date, Flynn is the only Trump associate whom the Senate has subpoenaed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-flynn-amendment-decline-senate-subpoena/story?id=47560095

[SoCalNative]

1. LOCK HIM UP!

cowardly POS

[workinclasszero]

9. Better yet cut a deal with him for immunity

if he spills the beans on Trump's treason with Putin to subvert the presidential election.

Flynn was just a useful stooge probably, lets get the crime boss Trump!

[haele]

23. That's what he wants. Unfortunatly for him, Ollie North's actions slammed that door shut.

The GOP f**ked it's future options, just as it has always done since Nixon. "Scooter" Libby bore the brunt of it, also.

The disgraceful debacle that was Iran-Contra changed a lot of policy rules with dealing with granting immunity with investigation of Administration actions. Because of loopholes then, Ollie North avoided being stripped of all rank and benefits and sent to jail. So now, no immunity.
And frankly, for this sort of act, there shouldn't be.
Flynn's a hypocritical, stupid, greedy man who used his position to enrich himself, pretending he was above the law and causing death and pain to innocent people. Just like "Lt. Col. Oliver North, Reagan's great Marine Hero".

Haele

[kimbutgar]

2. He must of got the message chump will protect him and give him a pardon

[emulatorloo]

6. Hopefully there are recordings of that conversation.

FBI's been keeping track.

[kimbutgar]

14. Most certaintly

I seem to remember traitor Flynn asked for immunity but the FBI has the goods on him. Couldn't happen to a better group of cretins.

[tblue37]

15. He sent the message in code: "Stay strong." nt

[emulatorloo]

18. Well that'll fool the FBI, won't it?

[imanamerican63]

3. Up! No cover up HERE!

[emulatorloo]

4. But I thought he was innocent?

[WinkyDink]

5. Unbelievable. Simply staggering.

[Cracklin Charlie]

8. Like a never-ending nightmare.

[WinkyDink]

24. Some patriot, huh?

[malaise]

7. Lock him Up

That is all

[Lotusflower70]

10. Not surprising

He asked for immunity so early so he must know things. I didn't think you could just decline a supoena, that would put him in contempt.

[burnbaby]

12. during the clinton

email thing the tech guy denied a subpoena? I'm not sure if anything happened to him. Didn't Rice refuse to testify? Seems everyone takes the 5th.

[wishstar]

16. Hillary never took 5th, Rice agreed to testify privately but not publicly last week

Hillary fully cooperated and never took 5th, Rice agreed to fully cooperate except she declined to participate in that last public Senate hearing (no subpoena involved) which was smart of her since the Repub Senators would have distracted and wasted time bringing up Benghazi instead of focusing on Russian investigation.

FBI had enough info to complete the Hillary email investigation, so Congress never pursued anything further with her IT aide who pled 5th.

Flynn has nothing to gain by complying with Congressional or Senate investigations and Mueller probably wants FBI to take over Flynn investigation anyway due to criminal aspects.

[former9thward]

32. The tech aide did defy a subpoena.

Last fall Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano defied two subpoenas and nothing happened. Last summer the NY AG and MA AG defied Congressional subpoenas about a climate change investigation and nothing happened.

[MineralMan]

11. Holding out for immunity.

He'd already have that immunity if there weren't others who have more information that will be more valuable, if shared.

The DOJ and Congress are not going to hand out immunity deals to every Mike, Steve and Jared. Instead, they are going to try to find one or two people who can do the most damage before giving immunity.

Flynn may just not be the person they are looking for.

[emulatorloo]

19. Spot on analysis. I think they already have everything they need on Flynn.

I expect what they have shows how deeply he is in Putin's pockets. And any testimony he might give now will be dishonest obfuscation.

[DeminPennswoods]

21. I expect it won't be long until his lawyers

make a proffer to DoJ attorneys to tell what he knows. I think Flynn could be looking a treason charge if the FBI thinks it can establish he was spying for Russia.

[emulatorloo]

22. Yes, agreed.

Especially about the treason charge.

[DeminPennswoods]

29. Wasn't he still in uniform for part of the time

he was doing this stuff? If so, he could also be prosecuted under UCMJ.

[blogslut]

13. Is that how it works?

I thought one had to actually come to court to plead the fifth.

And lawyers want to elaborate?

[DeminPennswoods]

20. He'll probably have to appear then invoke his 5th

Amendment privilege.

[Turbineguy]

17. Probably to protect himself from

Putin.

[KWR65]

25. He can't decline a subpoena. He can't invoke fifth amendment over documents.

He must appear at the hearing and then he can invoke his right to remain silent. But any subpoena for materials or papers can not be protected by the Fifth Amendment. If he fails to produce the documents he can be found in contempt of Congress and jailed until he turns over the documents.

[underpants]

26. I was wondering about that

Thanks.

[PoliticAverse]

28. "He can't invoke fifth amendment over documents" - sure he can, and it may stick if....

a court finds "that the act of production communicates statements of fact,"

See United States v Hubbell...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell


On the other hand, we have also made it clear that the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena may have a compelled testimonial aspect. We have held that “the act of production” itself may implicitly communicate “statements of fact.” By “producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic.”19 Moreover, as was true in this case, when the custodian of documents responds to a subpoena, he may be compelled to take the witness stand and answer questions designed to determine whether he has produced everything demanded by the subpoena.20 The answers to those questions, as well as the act of production itself, may certainly communicate information about the existence, custody, and authenticity of the documents. Whether the constitutional privilege protects the answers to such questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a question that is distinct from the question whether the unprotected contents of the documents themselves are incriminating.

[RKP5637]

27. There, damn it all, that'll show them I'm innocent! n/t

[Lyricalinklines]

30. These people in office sure like to use the word "entitled" where they are concerned.

But anyone else thinking about it will be eliminated. Quickly.

[coeur_de_lion]

31. and Cheeto is telling him to "stay strong"

In other words, keep your mouth shut.