Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who briefly served as national security adviser to President Donald Trump, is seeking immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying to those conducting investigations into the president’s ties to Russia, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

According to the report, Flynn made the offer to the FBI, the House intelligence committee and the Senate intelligence committee. All three entities are currently investigating whether Trump’s associates had contact with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign. According to the Wall Street Journal, none of them have yet accepted Flynn’s offer.

NBC’s Peter Alexander confirmed part of the WSJ report:

Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, confirmed in a statement that “discussions have taken place” with both committees, but declined to provide details on what those discussions entailed.

“General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit,” Kelner wrote. “Out of respect for the Committees, we will not comment right now on the details of discussions between counsel for General Flynn and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, other than to confirm that those discussions have taken place.”

Spokespeople for both the chairman and ranking member of the House intelligence committee denied the Wall Street Journal report.

“No, Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] in exchange for immunity,” Jack Langer, a spokesman for House intelligence committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), wrote in an email to The Huffington Post.

A committee aide said committee Democrats “have not received an offer to testify to the committee for immunity.”

An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment on the report. Spokespeople for the chairman and ranking member of the Senate committee did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

While Flynn’s attorney didn’t explicitly confirm Flynn’s request for immunity, he argued that his client is the target of “unfounded allegations” and “outrageous claims,” and should not be blamed for seeking “assurances” prior to agreeing to testimony.

“No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution,” he said.