Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn sues January 6 committee over subpoenas
Retired General Michael Flynn, who was former President Trump's national security adviser, is suing the House January 6 select committee to try to invalidate a subpoena for his documents and testimony.
"Without intervention by this Court," the lawsuit filed in a Florida federal court Tuesday, "General Flynn faces the harm of being irreparably and illegally coerced to produce information and testimony in violation of the law and his constitutional rights."
Flynn asserts that the November 8 subpoenas, which include phone records and "[a]ll documents and communications referring or relating in any way to plans, efforts, or discussions regarding challenging, decertifying, overturning, or contesting the results of the 2020 Presidential election," are "are invalid and unenforceable."
Trump's one-time national security adviser is believed to have attended an Oval Office meeting where attendees discussed seizing voting machines, declaring a national emergency and invoking some national security emergency powers to keep Mr. Trump in the White House, according to multiple reports.
Flynn's lawyers argue in the lawsuit that the committee is "not a duly constituted Select Committee."
Like former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, Flynn is also asserting the subpoenas for his records are overbroad, serve no legislative purpose, and infringe on his rights.
"Allowing an entirely partisan select committee of Congress to obtain General Flynn's records and communications relating to his political activities, associations, and speech as a private citizen would work a massive infringement and chilling of his 1st Amendment rights," his lawsuit argues.
After filing his lawsuit Tuesday, Flynn asked the federal court in the Middle District of Florida to temporarily halt the enforcement of the House January 6 committee's subpoena for his records and testimony by granting a temporary restraining order in the case as litigation moves forward.
But Judge Marcy Scriven said denied that request, stating, "Flynn has failed to comply with [the] procedural requirements" that would give a court reason to order such a pause in enforcement. Scriven ruled in part that Flynn had failed to show what "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result" in the absence of a restraining order.
She did, however, leave the door open for further consideration, ruling that he could refile his motion "if he believes that he can comply with the procedural requirements."
"Of course, if the Select Committee attempts to expedite the response dates for document requests from Flynn or for the third-party subpoenas, Flynn may seek appropriate relief from the Court," Scriven added. "If Flynn chooses to renew his request for a temporary restraining order, he must adequately explain why injunctive relief is necessary before Defendants have an opportunity to respond."
Zak Hudak contributed to this report.
Read the lawsuit here: