HOUSE OVERSIGHT 031674 COVI NGTON The Honorable Richard Burr The Honorable Mark R. Warner May 22, 2017 Page 5 the existence of any particular responsive documents. See United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 613 n.12 (1984) ("The most plausible inference to be drawn from the broad-sweeping subpoenas is that the Government [is] unable to prove that the subpoenaed documents exist . ..."). The first demand for a list of all meetings with any Russian official (or "representative of Russian business interests") over 18 months fails for want of specifying particular individuals, locations, or dates. Moreover, this is not merely a demand to produce existing documents. It is actually an interrogatory demanding that General Flynn create a new document containing information that the Committee seeks to discover. This is a demand for direct testimony, not merely a testimonial act of production. As in Hubbell, General Flynn's compilation of such a list would be akin to him "answering a series of interrogatories asking [him] to disclose the existence and location of [meetings] fitting certain broad descriptions." Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 41. The Court in Hubbell held that the witness could not be compelled to prepare such a list without violating his Fifth Amendment privilege. Finally, the nebulous term "representative of Russian business interests" necessarily would require General Flynn, in responding to the request, to testify as to who is or is not a "representative of Russian business interests." This too constitutes direct testimony that is clearly covered by the Fifth Amendment privilege. The subpoena's second and third demands are even broader in scope than the first, given their request for all communication records with any Russian official. The complete lack of specificity in the request makes clear that, unlike in Fisher, the existence of any document responsive to the Committee's request is far from a "foregone conclusion." Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411.