Carl Kline: Lawbreaker Or Law-Abiding Citizen?

Carl Kline is a former U.S. White House official who served as the director of the personnel security office in the Executive Office of U.S. President Donald Trump from 2017 to 2019. Prior to this role, Kline was the Chief of Personnel Security for Security Policy and Oversight Directorate at the Department of Defense. In this role, Kline was responsible for making decisions about security clearances for Trump officials. There have been allegations that Kline overruled professional security experts' concerns and granted top-secret clearances to specific individuals, including Jared Kushner. In 2019, Kline was subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee to appear for an interview, but he did not comply with the request. Additionally, one of Kline's staff members accused him of retaliation for raising concerns about security clearance practices and discrimination. These incidents have raised questions about whether Kline broke the law during his tenure as a White House official.

Overruling security clearance concerns

Security clearances can be issued by many US government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Each agency has its own criteria for granting security clearances, but there are some common factors that are considered. These include the applicant's personal conduct, drug involvement, and security violations.

Personal conduct that may result in a denial or revocation of a security clearance includes questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. For instance, refusing to cooperate with security processing requirements or providing false or misleading information to investigators can be grounds for denial or revocation.

Drug involvement is another reason for security clearance concerns. Illegal drug possession, diagnosis of drug abuse or dependence, and failure to complete a prescribed drug treatment program are all conditions that may disqualify an individual from obtaining or maintaining a security clearance.

Security violations, such as unauthorized disclosure of classified information or deliberate, multiple, or negligent violations of security regulations, can also lead to a denial or revocation of a security clearance.

In the case of Carl Kline, there were reports that he overruled intelligence agencies' recommendations not to provide Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and adviser, with a full security clearance. This raised concerns among members of Congress, who introduced the Security Clearance Review Act to curb such instances. The Act proposes that the FBI makes the final determination on security clearances for appointees to the Executive Office of the President and that the president provides written justification for overruling any denial.

While the full details of Carl Kline's actions are not publicly available, overruling security clearance concerns can have serious implications for national security. It is essential to balance the need for qualified personnel with the risk of granting access to sensitive information to individuals who may not properly safeguard it.

Retaliation against staff

In January 2019, one of Carl Kline's staff members, Tricia Newbold, accused him of retaliation and discrimination. Newbold, who has a rare form of dwarfism, claimed that Kline retaliated against her for raising concerns about security clearance practices. She also alleged that Kline discriminated against her on the basis of her height.

Newbold's accusations against Kline led to the House Oversight Committee subpoenaing Kline to appear before them for an interview. Initially, Kline was instructed by White House deputy counsel Michael Purpura not to appear, citing constitutional concerns. However, a compromise was eventually reached, and Kline met privately with the committee on May 1, 2019.

During the interview, Kline was expected to address questions regarding his perspective, knowledge, and mindset concerning various items that occurred during his tenure as the Personnel Security Office Director. One of the specific issues that he was expected to address was the claim of retaliation made by Newbold.

Kline's attorney had informed the committee that his client would avail himself for the interview, and Kline reportedly told the committee that he made all decisions about security clearances himself and that no one in the White House tried to influence him.

Racketeering and conspiring to extort

Carl Kline was charged with racketeering and conspiring to extort Cherry's Video, an adult video store on Long Island, New York. Kline worked under Charles Carneglia, a member of the Gambino crime family. Kline approached Danny Melendez, the owner of Cherry's Video, and told him that he was involved in organized crime. He then threatened harm to Melendez and his business if Melendez did not agree to make regular payments to Kline.

After this initial contact, Melendez contacted the FBI and agreed to cooperate with their investigation. He frequently wore a wire to record conversations between him and Kline. These recorded conversations revealed a dispute between Kline and Tommy DiFiore, a member of the Bonanno crime family, over which "family" had the right to extort Melendez.

Kline was arrested by the FBI in May 2000, along with numerous co-defendants, after months of surveillance. He initially cooperated with the FBI, helping to record conversations between organized crime members. However, he stopped cooperating in June 2000, approximately one month after his arrest, when the FBI disclosed his identity to the other organized crime members.

Kline pleaded guilty to seven counts of Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence and was sentenced to 33 months in prison. He later filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. However, this motion was denied by the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence

The law defines "robbery" as the unlawful taking of personal property from an individual or in the presence of another against their will through force, violence, or fear of injury. "Extortion" is defined as obtaining property from another with their consent by using force, violence, or fear, or under the colour of official right.

The penalties for violating this law are severe, with convicted individuals facing fines, imprisonment of up to twenty years, or both. This law ensures the smooth flow of commerce and protects individuals and businesses from coercion or violent interference.

While I cannot find specific information regarding Carl Kline in relation to this law, the above paragraphs provide a detailed overview of the Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence legislation.

Ineffective assistance of counsel

In the case of Carl Kline, he filed a motion in 2002 alleging that his previous counsel, James Pascarella, provided ineffective assistance by:

• Failing to call key witnesses for trial or a Fatico hearing;
• Preventing Kline from testifying.

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that their lawyer's conduct fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness" and that there was a reasonable probability the outcome of the criminal proceeding would have been different without their lawyer's errors.

Kline's claim that his attorney failed to contact or investigate critical, exculpatory witnesses was denied because he did not identify which witnesses his attorney should have contacted, nor did he demonstrate how their testimony would have affected the outcome of the criminal charges against him.

Kline's assertion that his defence counsel prevented him from testifying by not fully advising him of his rights was also denied. He did not specify at what proceeding he wished to testify or what testimony he would have given, and how it may have changed the outcome of his case.

Kline's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence arising from his 2002 conviction was ultimately denied by the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Frequently asked questions