Richard Burr
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Deborah Ross
|
Political opponents |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
General Flynn
|
Witness investigator |
5
|
1 |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031674.jpg
This document is Page 5 of a legal letter from the law firm Covington, addressed to Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner, dated May 22, 2017. It argues on behalf of General Flynn (Michael Flynn) against a subpoena demanding lists of meetings and communications with Russian officials. The text asserts that complying with these broad demands would force Flynn to create new documents and provide testimony, violating his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Note: While the user prompt references Epstein, this document text is exclusively related to the Michael Flynn/Russia investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031673.jpg
This document is Page 4 of a legal letter from the law firm Covington to Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee), dated May 22, 2017. It argues that a subpoena issued to General Michael Flynn is overly broad and that complying with it would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because the Committee lacks 'reasonable particularity' regarding the existence of the documents. The text details specific subpoena demands for records of Flynn's meetings and communications with Russian officials and the Trump campaign between 2015 and 2017. Note: Despite the user prompt, this document pertains to the Russia investigation/Michael Flynn, not Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031671.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter from the law firm Covington to Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner regarding General Michael Flynn. It argues that General Flynn is exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege to decline a Congressional subpoena for documents, citing that the act of production is testimonial in nature and could be used against him in ongoing investigations, including one by a newly appointed special counsel. The document cites legal precedents including *Watkins v. United States* and *United States v. Hubbell* to support the refusal.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031670.jpg
A letter from attorney Robert K. Kelner to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence responding to a subpoena issued to Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn. The letter invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to decline the production of documents regarding Flynn's communications with Russian officials and the Trump campaign.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022377.jpg
This document, produced by EY following the 2016 election, provides a profile of expected US Senate committee leadership for the upcoming Congress. It details the chairmen and ranking members for key committees and analyzes the various political scenarios influencing these appointments, such as retirements, term limits, and senators' strategic choices. Despite the prompt's framing, the document's content is purely about US Senate politics and contains no information related to Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022374.jpg
This document, produced by EY and labeled HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022374, is a political analysis of the 2016 US election results. It discusses the Republican party's control of the White House and Congress and provides a detailed breakdown of outcomes in key Senate races across multiple states. This document is exclusively about US politics and contains no information, mentions, or connections to Jeffrey Epstein or any related subjects.
General Flynn's response to subpoena
Legal argument asserting General Flynn's Fifth Amendment right to decline the production of documents in response to a Congressional subpoena due to the testimonial nature of the act of production and the appointment of a special counsel.
Response to Subpoena regarding General Flynn
Legal argument claiming the subpoena is too broad and violates Fifth Amendment rights.
Response to Subpoena regarding General Flynn
Legal argument regarding Fifth Amendment privilege and the breadth of the subpoena demands.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity