Flynn and Trump lawyer subpoenaed over Russia investigation

The House Intelligence Committee approved subpoenas for two individuals today.

The subpoenas require Flynn and Cohen to testify before the committee and turn over personal documents and business records.

Flynn and Cohen have resisted the committee's requests for their testimony.

Flynn previously declined the committee's invitation to speak with the panel and provide documents on the issue. In March he offered to be interviewed by the committee if he received immunity from prosecution, but congressional investigators said they would not make a deal with him at that time.

He also declined the Senate Intelligence Committee's request for an interview and on May 22 rejected its subpoena for documents, citing the Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination.

Cohen said Tuesday that he declined to participate in the House’s and Senate’s Intelligence Committee investigations.

“I declined the invitation to participate, as the request was poorly phrased, overly broad and not capable of being answered,” he told ABC News in an email Tuesday.

However, Cohen said Tuesday that he would gladly testify if subpoenaed because he has “nothing to hide.”

Firms associated with Flynn and Cohen — the Flynn Intel Group and Cohen & Associates — were issued subpoenas, as investigators believe business entities are not afforded Fifth Amendment protections.

The subpoenas related to the committee’s unmasking investigation were issued by Nunes alone. While he has recused himself from the Russia investigation because of his handling of classified information, he has not recused himself from the unmasking probe.

Two congressional sources said the three subpoenas for the unmasking investigation are for the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency in order to obtain information on unmasking requests made by then–U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, then–national security adviser Susan Rice and then–CIA Director John Brennan.

The action to issue the unmasking subpoenas "would have been taken without the minority's agreement. Any prior requests for information would have been undertaken without the minority's knowledge," a senior Democratic Intelligence Committee aide told ABC News.