Sen. Richard Burr, walking back an earlier statement, said Thursday that former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's lawyers had yet to indicate how they'd respond to a subpoena related to the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russian Federation investigation.
Popular Video SNL is not a fan of the Trump administration, and it shows with every new skit they produce.
Flynn's lawyer, Robert Kelner, had already told the panel he would not voluntarily provide the documents responsive to an earlier April 28 request.
The committee is one of several on Capitol Hill investigating possible collusion between Russian Federation and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. "We'll figure out on General Flynn what the next step, if any, is".More news: Vermont senators praise special prosecutor appointment
Then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn speaks during the daily news briefing at the White House in Washington, Feb. 1, 2017.
"This was a problem because not only did we believe that the Russians knew this, but that they likely had proof of this information", Yates stated during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 8. Flynn resigned as President Donald Trump's national security adviser on February 13, 2017.
Flynn Intel was paid only $530,000 for the work, which ended in November after Trump's election victory. Burr later walked back his position, saying Flynn still had "a day or two" to comply.More news: USA airplane laptop ban could be extended to Europe
The Intelligence Committee is seeking to interview Flynn as part of its probe of Russian election interference.
For example, Republicans never heard testimony from Hillary Clinton's former technology aide about her private email server despite a subpoena and committee vote to hold him in contempt. That process could take years due to procedure, Politico reports. If the certification were issued to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. or EDVA (or any other district, for that matter), the relevant offices would report to Rosenstein, and not Attorney General Sessions who is [recused], in deciding whether or not to refuse to bring the matter to the grand jury.
Just as the Supreme Court has long recognized congressional subpoena power, so too has it upheld the enforcement power of contempt.More news: Merkel: British EU immigration cap would have price
- Man who ran over pedestrians was 'hearing voices'
- Nigeria's Inflation Declines For Third Consecutive Month
- Palestinian hunger strikers moved to prisons with field hospitals
- Ford brings Android Auto and Apple CarPlay to its 2016 fleet
- Roger Ailes, Former CEO Of Fox News Dies At 77
- Two frontrunners in race to succeed Enda Kenny
- Pak counsel rubbishes legal fees rumours, adds India misled ICJ
- Ex-MotoGP champion Nicky Hayden 'critical' after cycling crash
- HUDCO makes stellar market debut, shares surge over 22%
- US oil output back near records, challenging OPEC