You are on page 1of 7

May 3, 2019

TO: Members of the Committee

FROM: Republican Committee Staff

SUBJECT: Summary of May 1, 2019, Transcribed Interview with Carl Kline, former
White House Personnel Security Director

In January 2019, Chairman Elijah Cummings initiated a partisan investigation into what
he described as the White House’s “security clearance process.”1 Chairman Cummings recently
made clear, however, that the real purpose of his investigation is to obtain sensitive details about
specific people, including the President’s daughter and son-in-law,2 both of whom serve on the
White House staff and were deemed eligible for national security information. Last month,
Democrat staff conducted an 8:30 a.m. Saturday closed-door transcribed interview of Tricia
Newbold, an employee in the White House’s security office, with virtually no notice to
Republican Members. During her testimony, Ms. Newbold a lodged a litany of workplace
complaints, including several against her former supervisor, Carl Kline, the former White House
Personnel Security Director.

Democrats exploited and distorted Ms. Newbold’s testimony to create a misleading


narrative about Mr. Kline—a 43-year military veteran and career civil servant—and about the
security clearance processes at the White House. The Democrats’ irresponsible actions fed
speculation about the specific information in the background files of particular White House
employees, including the President’s daughter and son-in-law. The Chairman’s fixation with the
President’s family has emerged as a central theme in the 116th Congress.

Following Ms. Newbold’s testimony, Chairman Cummings pursued a deposition


subpoena for Mr. Kline’s testimony. Chairman Cummings initially declined Mr. Kline’s offer to
testify voluntarily, choosing to subpoena him instead and initiating a conflict with the Executive
Branch. On May 1, 2019, as a direct result of Ranking Member Jim Jordan’s efforts to de-
escalate Chairman Cummings’s penchant for conflict, Committee Members and staff participated
in day-long transcribed interview of Mr. Kline.

1
Letter from Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, to Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the
President, White House (Jan. 23, 2019).
2
Eliana Johnson, Andrew Desiderio, Kyle Cheney, Former security clearance chief denies White House aides
pressured him, POLITICO (May 2, 2019), https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/02/carl-kline-white-house-
security-clearance-1297925.
Memorandum to Members of the Committee
May 3, 2019

During the interview, Mr. Kline offered a more complete account of the White House
security clearance function and provided rebuttal information about certain allegations made by
Ms. Newbold. Mr. Kline testified in no uncertain terms that he was never instructed by anyone to
change a security clearance determination and that no one ever attempted to influence him in
decisions he made in evaluating security clearance applications. In fact, the interview revealed
more about the Democrats’ goals and desires for the investigation than it did about Mr. Kline; it
showed that the Democrats are truly interested in obtaining highly personal information about
specific White House staff members.

This memorandum summarizes the key take-aways from the transcribed interview.

Background

On April 1, 2019, Chairman Cummings issued a press release and memorandum that
cherry-picked excerpts of Ms. Newbold’s testimony to the media.3 Committee Republicans were
forced to issue a supplemental memorandum to correct the record.4 That same day, Chairman
Cummings wrote to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, indicating that “the Committee now
plans to proceed with compulsory process and begin authorizing subpoenas,” starting with the
deposition of Mr. Kline.5

On April 1, the White House notified Chairman Cummings that Mr. Kline would be
willing to voluntarily testify about the White House’s security clearance policies and
procedures.6 Mr. Kline’s personal attorney, Robert Driscoll, likewise informed Chairman
Cummings that Mr. Kline would be willing to appear voluntarily and forego the unnecessary step
of issuing a subpoena.7 Eschewing this cooperative posture, Chairman Cummings chose
confrontation and did not accept these offers. Despite Mr. Kline’s willingness to testify before
the Committee, Chairman Cummings issued a deposition subpoena to compel testimony from
Mr. Kline.8 Mr. Kline’s deposition was scheduled for April 23; however, the White House
directed Mr. Kline not to appear following a disagreement with Chairman Cummings.

3 Memorandum from Democrat Staff to Members of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, Summary of Interview
with White House Whistleblower on Security Clearances, (Apr. 1, 2019); Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Reform, White House Whistleblower Comes Forward in Oversight Committee Investigation of Security Clearances
(Apr. 1, 2019), https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/white-house-whistleblower-comes-forward-in-
oversight-committee-investigation-of.
4 Memorandum from Republican Staff to Members of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, Democrats’ White
House Security Clearance Transcribed Interview, (Apr. 1, 2019).
5 Letter from Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, to Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the
President, White House (Apr. 1, 2019).
6
Letter from Michael M. Purpura, Deputy Counsel to the President, White House, to Rep. Elijah E. Cummings,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform (Apr. 1, 2019).
7
Letter from Robert N. Driscoll to Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform (Apr. 1,
2019).
8
Subpoena to Carl Kline, Former White House Personnel Security Director, issued by Elijah E. Cummings,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform (Apr. 2, 2019)(on file with the Committee); see also Press Release,
H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, Committee Approves Subpoenas in Security Clearance and Census
Investigations (Apr. 2, 2019), https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-approves-subpoenas-in-
security-clearance-and-census-investigations.

Page 2 of 7
Memorandum to Members of the Committee
May 3, 2019

Following Mr. Kline’s nonappearance, Ranking Member Jordan sought to de-escalate


Chairman Cummings’s orchestrated conflict with the White House by asking the White House
whether Mr. Kline would appear voluntarily before the Committee.9 The White House reiterated
its willingness for Mr. Kline to appear for a voluntary transcribed interview, suggesting May 1 as
an appropriate date.10 Chairman Cummings acquiesced and agreed to a transcribed interview.

However, even before affording Mr. Kline the opportunity to voluntarily testify before
the Committee, Chairman Cummings and Rep. Connolly adopted unusually harsh rhetoric about
having Mr. Kline and other Administration officials imprisoned if they do not comply with the
Committee’s demands for information – information largely related to the President’s daughter
and son-in-law.11 The fact that Committee Democrats are willing to entertain the notion of using
a partisan and political investigation to jail a lifelong military veteran and civil servant raises
grave concerns about abuse of power.

Carl Kline’s Testimony

1. Mr. Kline is a Career Public Servant Who Sought to Professionalize the White House
Security Office

• Mr. Kline is a 43-year public servant and military veteran with experience in security
clearance adjudications, processing background investigations, and making
determinations of whether federal employees should have access to classified
information. Mr. Kline also worked with the Department of Navy’s security appeals
board and on security reform efforts.

• Mr. Kline actively sought to improve and modernize the office’s processes given his prior
experience. For example, when Mr. Kline began his role as Personnel Security Director
(a career position) in May 2017, one of his first steps was to assess the efficiency of the
office’s operations.

• Mr. Kline sought to digitize the security office’s paper files. Mr. Kline testified that the
use of paper files would make it difficult to locate particular files. Additionally, Mr.
Kline noted that efforts to go paperless were something his previous employers, such as
the Department of Defense, had been doing “for years.”

9
Letter from Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, to Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the
President, White House (Apr. 26, 2019).
10
Letter from Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President, White House, to Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Reform (Apr. 26, 2019).
11
Leigh Ann Caldwell and Alex Moe, House Democrats threaten admin with fines, jail for stonewalling, NBC
NEWS, (May 1, 2019), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-dems-ratchet-threats-include-fines-
possible-jail-noncompliant-officials-n1000336; Caroline Kelly and Kevin Liptak, Connolly threatens to jail Trump
officials who won’t comply with subpoenas, CNN (Apr. 26, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/politics/gerry-
connolly-subpoenas-white-house-cnntv/index.html.

Page 3 of 7
Memorandum to Members of the Committee
May 3, 2019

• Contrary to Ms. Newbold’s assertions, Mr. Kline testified that he secured contractors for
the digitalization process who were vetted through a screening process. The contractors
completed scanning approximately 560,000 pages in around four or five months. Mr.
Kline testified that Ms. Newbold complained that the contractors were visually impaired
and thus unable to do the work. However, Mr. Kline said that he visited the contractor’s
job site and determined that it could complete the work capably. A quality check was also
performed.

• Mr. Kline substantially reduced the backlog of security clearance adjudications during his
time at the White House. Mr. Kline testified that when he arrived, about 1,300 security
clearance adjudications were backlogged. Despite the “heavy lift” for the office in
reducing the backlog, Mr. Kline testified that the backlog was down to less than 100
adjudications by the time he left the office. Mr. Kline assisted in reducing the backlog of
the adjudications by coming in on weekends and performing second-level review of the
files.

• Mr. Kline testified that when he began at the office, staff only had a series of draft
policies and procedures and one formal procedure. He testified that his supervisor wanted
to memorialize the policies for the current and future administrations. Mr. Kline testified
that he prepared new written policies, drafting them in about six to eight months.

• Additionally, while Mr. Kline served Personnel Security Director, he oversaw the
construction of a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) to house the
security office, as a SCIF enabled the capability of the office and was “helpful.”

2. Mr. Kline Testified There Was No Political Interference or Influence

• Mr. Kline testified that no one ever attempted to influence him to grant or overturn a
security clearance adjudication determination. He explained, “I have never been
approached by anybody at the White House or outside the White House to adjudicate a
case, one way or the other, in my tenure at the White House.”

• Mr. Kline testified that he never had any of his decisions overturned by any official
within the White House. Likewise, Mr. Kline testified that he never received any
direction on how to adjudicate an individual’s security clearance from the President, the
White House Counsel, the White House Chief of Staff, or any other official.

• Mr. Kline testified that he did not have any relationship with the President or others
connected to the President when he began his employment at the White House and is not
a political person.

• Mr. Kline testified that when adjudicating a security clearance determination, he would
base his decision on the individual’s file and the standard adjudicative guidelines. Mr.
Kline testified that he was comfortable with all the decisions he made, which were based
on his 43-year experience and objective guidelines.

Page 4 of 7
Memorandum to Members of the Committee
May 3, 2019

• Mr. Kline testified that despite his character being “assassinated” in the press and having
no “ability” to defend himself to the public, he would not change the decisions he made
and would make those same decisions again.

3. Mr. Kline’s Relationship with Ms. Newbold

• Mr. Kline testified that he was told by human resources that he needed to be careful
because Ms. Newbold had a “history.” Mr. Kline noted that the office had several
supervisors over the years—to the point that Mr. Kline was contacted three months into
his role as Personnel Security Director and was told he was doing a great job and had
“outlasted at least three or four of your predecessors. We’re glad you’re here. We think
you’re doing good stuff. Please don’t quit.”

• Mr. Kline testified that Ms. Newbold was “resistant” to Mr. Kline’s policies and changes.
For example, Mr. Kline testified that Ms. Newbold did not follow Mr. Kline’s policy of
scanning and sending documents to the CIA for SCI (sensitive compartmentalized
information) processing. Despite Mr. Kline’s guidance to staff on how to implement the
policy, Mr. Kline said that Ms. Newbold did not follow his instructions.

• Mr. Kline testified that Ms. Newbold subverted his instructions and independently
reached out to the CIA to discuss the policy. However, Mr. Kline later learned that the
CIA approved of his policy.

• When asked if ever tried to work out his differences with Ms. Newbold, Mr. Kline
testified that his “door was open” and he was available to “have conversations about any
case she had a concern with and any questions she had about how I reached that
decision.”

• Mr. Kline testified that Ms. Newbold’s suspension was not retaliatory, and he wanted to
remove Ms. Newbold for several reasons, including failure to follow instructions and
subverting his authority. In August or the end of September 2018, Mr. Kline notified the
Office of Administration, White House Counsel’s Office, and Human Resources of his
interest to remove Ms. Newbold. Ultimately, Ms. Newbold was suspended for two weeks
without pay from January 31, to February 13, 2019.

4. Mr. Kline Had Never Seen Sensitive Personal Information “Pushed” to the Media—Until
Now

• Mr. Kline testified that until recently he had never seen sensitive personal information
from security clearance files being “pushed” to the media. On a personal level, Mr. Kline
testified that he found the leaks from someone in the White House Personnel Security
Office to be “troubling,” and said the leaks could be a threat to national security. Mr.
Kline testified the information disclosed in the media likely emanated from the Office’s
adjudication team.

Page 5 of 7
Memorandum to Members of the Committee
May 3, 2019

5. Based on Their Statements at the Interview and to the Media, Democrats Will Likely
Argue that Mr. Kline’s Testimony Was Not Sufficient

• Democrats will likely complain that Mr. Kline’s testimony was limited by the White
House.

o In truth, Mr. Kline testified for the duration of a day-long interview, and the
White House allowed him to answer a plethora of questions about the White
House’s security clearance processes. The White House Counsel’s office raised
limited objections only when Democrats sought specific information about
current and former White House officials.

o Nonetheless, despite the Democrats’ effort to pry in the personnel files of White
House officials, including the President’s daughter and son-in-law, the White
House Counsel’s office vowed to maintain an open dialogue with the Democrat
staff about the professed need for that specific information.

• Democrats may raise concerns that Mr. Kline stopped the White House security clearance
office from administering credit checks.

o Mr. Kline testified that when he arrived at the White House, the security office’s
suitability branch was conducting credit checks for security clearance
applications. Following the 2017 Equifax data breach, however, Mr. Kline
decided to stop this practice. Mr. Kline explained that the credit checks were an
unauthorized purchase using a government credit card.

o Mr. Kline testified that he stopped requiring credit checks because the White
House was duplicating similar processes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI). He explained that the FBI conducts credit checks from the three major
reporting agencies as a part of its role in each background investigation. Mr. Kline
testified that the FBI would send copies of the applicant’s credit checks to the
office and that it would be a part of the adjudication determination.

• Democrats may raise concerns about Mr. Kline’s implementation of an updated


reciprocity policy—a policy that allows executive branch employees with security
clearances to retain their clearances after they have moved over to a new government
agency.

o Democrats may argue that the Executive Office of the President should be held to
a higher standard to reinvestigate or re-adjudicate a security clearance despite an
individual’s prior basis for holding an active clearance.

o Mr. Kline testified that the purpose of the reciprocity policy, in part, was to
efficiently on-board employees and to and not duplicate efforts or cause delay.

Conclusion

Page 6 of 7
Memorandum to Members of the Committee
May 3, 2019

While Chairman Cummings initially indicated that the purpose of his investigation was to
examine the White House’s security clearance process, he has now admitted that his focus is on
obtaining sensitive personal information about the First Family and other senior White House
officials. For example, in a recent letter to the White House Counsel, Chairman Cummings
argues the White House has “refused to provide any information about the specific individuals
the Committee is investigating . . . .”12 Likewise, following the interview of Mr. Kline, Chairman
Cummings reportedly told a news outlet “[b]ecause of the White House’s obstruction . . . we still
have no idea why the President’s daughter and son in law were given clearances, and we still
have no idea who some of the other two dozen employees are who were given clearances when
they should not have been.”13

While Mr. Kline did not provide the sensitive information about specific individuals that
Chairman Cummings seeks, he was definitive that he based all decisions on security clearance
applications on objective guidelines and relied on his 43 years of experience in evaluating these
issues. No one outside his office sought to influence his decisions; they were his responsibility
while leading the office and he carried out his responsibility without any political interference.

If you have any questions about this transcribed interview, or Chairman Cummings’s
unilateral and partisan investigation into White House security clearances, please contact
Republican Committee staff at (202) 225-5074.

###

12
Letter from Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, to Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the
President, White House (Apr. 1, 2019).
13
Eliana Johnson, Andrew Desiderio, Kyle Cheney, Former security clearance chief denies White House aides
pressured him, POLITICO (May 2, 2019), https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/02/carl-kline-white-house-
security-clearance-1297925.

Page 7 of 7

You might also like