Attorney for former White House personnel security director blasts Oversight Committee, calls clearance probe 'opposition research'

When it comes to investigating White House whistleblower Tricia Newbold's concerns about security clearance applications, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are more motivated by the opportunity to dig into information about members of the first family than protecting national security, maintains Robert Driscoll, an attorney for Newbold's former supervisor, Carl Kline.

"There's no legislative interest in any of this," Driscoll said in an interview on the ABC News podcast, "The Investigation." "There's been kind of opposition research that people have tried to convert into government investigations."

"This is about getting Jared's FS86 right or getting Ivanka's FS86 or getting somebody's FS86," Driscoll continued, referencing the form used by military and government employees to apply for security clearances.

In a letter to White House counsel Pat Cipollone last week, committee Chairman Elijah Cummings summarized Tricia Newbold's apprehensions about the security clearance process and her former supervisor, White House personnel security director Carl Kline, who left the job earlier in the year. Cummings' letter says Newbold told the committee "she and other career officials adjudicated denials of dozens of applications for security clearance applications that were later overturned."

Cumming's letter also identified three specific cases that Newbold said she found concerning, but the applicants were only identified as "Senior White House Officials." Driscoll did not confirm the identity of the individuals, but Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner had previously drawn scrutiny after allegations that their security clearances were granted only after President Donald Trump intervened. The president, Kushner and Ivanka Trump have denied these claims.

The White House has previously denied any wrongdoing related to the security clearance process and declined to comment on Newbold's allegations. House Republicans have been critical of Newbold's statements, writing in a rebuttal memo that she had "limited first-hand knowledge on particular security applicants and had trouble recalling specific detail."

Newbold's attorney, Ed Passman, previously told ABC News that characterization was unfair to his client.

"Republicans are cherry-picking her testimony," Passman wrote in an email. "[Newbold] didn't have access to her files when she testified before the House Committee and couldn't realistically remember every case."

Last week, the House Oversight Committee authorized a subpoena of Kline. Driscoll said that his client would have testified willingly regardless of a subpoena, and had the White House's permission to do, although Kline would not be able to discuss specific decisions or files. Driscoll said he believes the House Oversight Committee is needlessly involving Kline, and would be better suited pursuing documents relevant to the investigation.

"I just think it's a bad road to go down," Driscoll said. "And I think the legal narrow legal issue can be worked out by the way by the House subpoenaing a document would be one easy way to get around it."

"Carl's got 42 years in the game here," Driscoll continued. "Now he's dragged into this and that's unfortunate."

Newbold previously filed a discrimination complaint against Kline with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for "continuous harassment, a hostile work environment and disparate treatment" based on her sex and disability listed as "dwarfism."

Driscoll said Kline now works at what the Department of Defense, and is still involved in reviewing security clearance applications. He said any allegations that Kline left his post at the White House because of Newbold's allegations were untrue, and characterized Kline's new role as a better job.