Michael Flynn ordered to testify in Atlanta grand jury probe into Trump’s election subversion — but he won’t be subpoenaed
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn will not be required to testify before a federal grand jury investigating Russian election interference in 2016, the Department of Justice announced Friday.
The decision, which clears Flynn, came after a court hearing Friday morning, where the Justice Department’s prosecutors argued that the former Trump administration adviser did not need to testify. But Flynn’s attorneys say the judge “appears” to have ordered Flynn to answer the questions prosecutors have asked, which is enough to make him comply with a subpoena.
“The Court has determined that there do not appear to be any genuine issues of material fact as to Mr. Flynn’s alleged non-compliance,” a court filing states.
Flynn pleaded guilty last month to lying to the FBI about his conversations about sanctions with a Russian official before Trump took office.
The Justice Department’s decision not to subpoena Flynn sets up a second hearing next week in a case stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of allegations of Russian interference in the election, and what President Trump’s campaign knew about it.
Flynn has insisted that he was trying to “turn on” Russia, and had no contact with Russian officials, before Trump took office. He also has admitted to misleading federal agents by talking about his conversations with the Russian diplomat.
The department’s decision not to seek to subpoena Flynn also came after the former national security adviser failed to show up for a scheduled hearing on Thursday at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, despite having been summoned there in March.
Mueller’s team took the unusual step of seeking documents about Flynn’s communications with the Russian diplomat, but that effort failed when Trump’s private attorney John Dowd said Flynn wouldn’t be willing to provide them.
The Justice Department decided against subpoenaing Flynn because it determined that he did not “need to comply” with a congressional subpoena. The department’s decision is not new, as it is likely due to the fact that the committee has
