Quit Lying, Democrats. Millions Have Watched Video Of You Supporting Strong Border Security

Uncategorized

“The media, if they were doing their job, would be blasting the Democrats,” ForAmerica Chairman Brent Bozell told Mark Levin Sunday.

“A, for being dishonest and B, for being absolute hypocrites…”

“Sen. Clinton, Sen. Schumer, Sen. Obama — all supported building a wall,” he said.

He’s right. But don’t take our word for it. Take theirs.

Here’s Chuck Schumer in 2009 (emphasis added):

“…illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple…Above all else, the American people want their government to be serious about protecting the public, enforcing the rule of law…”

Since ForAmerica posted this video a little over a month ago, it has been viewed over four and a half million times.

 4,600,000 times…

Americans know you’re a political hack, Sen. Schumer, when you now say you oppose funding border security. 

Here’s Nancy Pelosi in 2008 (emphasis added)

“While we need to address the issue of immigration and the, and the challenge we have of undocumented people in our country, we certainly don’t want any more coming in.” 

Pelosi was obviously speaking in favor of stopping illegal aliens from entering the country.

Since ForAmerica posted this video just a few weeks ago, it has been viewed over a quarter of a million times.

Americans know you’re dishonest and hypocritical, Speaker Pelosi, when you rail against President Trump’s call for stronger border security.

Here’s Barack Obama in 2006 (emphasis added):

“The bill before us will certainly do some good. It will authorize some badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders, and that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

This is a former Democrat president suggesting not only that we need to fund a wall, but that it will definitely help stop illegal immigration.

Since ForAmerica posted this video just last week, it is headed to one million views.

Americans know you’re unprincipled and disingenious , Mr. Obama, when you turned around and criticized President Trump’s campaign promise to build a border wall.  

What about the woman who wanted to be president before Trump beat her?  

ForAmerica released a video Monday that Hillary Clinton, too, supported a border fence not long ago: 

In less than one day, more than 300,000 viewers have tuned in to watch and share her blatant political flip-flopping.

Most Democrats seemed to be on board with increasing border security until President Trump wanted the same.

Now everyone knows it.

Millions of people have watched and shared these videos across social media. ForAmerica has put them in front of millions of viewers, who can see with their own eyes how deceitful and hypocritical Democrats are being in opposing the wall.

“The American people have watched our government spend $8 trillion in the last two years, but they can’t find five billion? This is a joke,” Brent Bozell said Sunday.

He’s right. This isn’t about funding. It’s not about Trump being difficult, nor is it some kind of “manhood thing,” as Pelosi claims.  

This is all about political games. The Democrats are lying right now.

And we’ve got the video to prove it.

The post Quit Lying, Democrats. Millions Have Watched Video Of You Supporting Strong Border Security appeared first on For America.

Benefits Of Superchargers For Your Vehicle

There are various sorts of cold air intake easily available in the marketplace. So you would like to guarantee the carb itself doesn’t come to be a bottleneck or you’ll shed boost, efficiency and obviously, power. More power than that and you aren’t able to use complete throttle without wheelspin if you don’t wait to be at a higher and greater speed related to the degree of modifications. The brakes are extremely effective and the ABS doesn’t upset the car once it engages. You’re always aware that you’d prefer somewhat more brakes under the vehicle, though.

Including a supercharger is a huge means to reach forced air induction. For M62’s, you’re want to eliminate the whole supercharger from the vehicle. The supercharger needs to be sized for the use, because it’s driven off the engine using a mechanical transmission, and thus increases the load of the engine. A Roots-type supercharger is an incredibly straightforward device. So as it has no internal compression, then it is just a pump! The stock pulley is among the very first things MINI Cooper S owners replace to raise the performance of their vehicle. Luckily, there are loads of pulleys available to decrease the boost for you.

whipple whine sound tube

Top Supercharger Whine Secrets
All kits include detailed install instructions. If you don’t need the full kit or you’re interested in some sort of custom setup, give them a call. At this time you can get to the ECU plug Pull back on the lever and it will pop right out. Installation is not hard. See the way the installation went below.

The Demise of Supercharger Whine
You have to think about what kind of fuel you run. A third technique is to use E85 fuel. When the oil has gone, then the actual damage starts!

The engine has plenty of life within it. Engine downsizing is all of the rages. The LSA engine with 1900 Supercharger in the newest Gen-F HSV is the strongest engine ever utilised in a Holden. If you’ve purchased a motor your new motor can have an electrical plug that differs from your old motor.

Selecting the one which will best choose a particular car relies on the automobile kind an individual possesses. In the event that you were hoping to find a three-way romp between the cars, however, sadly you’re out of luck. The car is currently a freakin rocket. It idles perfectly and has no cold startup issues. Cars which are known for their sound ought to at least sound right in the game… Jags tune that burble in their cars.

The top part of the supercharger has to be disassembled so the supercharger snout can be taken off. A lot of airflows is the trick to the power score. Actually, a couple of things will want to get relocated, for example, an air pump, the cruise control, and the horn. Make certain you have a complete tank of premium fuel. Specifically, there is an increased mesh between both gears.

Turbo lag is the time that it takes the turbo to get started boosting. The whine is intoxicating and definitely should be experienced to genuinely appreciate. In a perfect scenario, a supercharged car’s whine shouldn’t be audible. A mechanical sound or insufficient boost indicated on the gauge. The sound is truly really cool.

Typically, if you see the dilemma is simply beginning, it is not critical that you replace it immediately, but plan on it soon. In brief, very low boost issues CANNOT be brought on by the supercharger itself unless there’s a catastrophic failure that needs to be very obvious. The ductwork that’s connected to your furnace can likewise be a noise producing annoyance. The Screw type supercharger’s capability to make a dramatic increase of power from idle and throughout the remainder of the power curve make them a great option for heavy vehicles, towing or business use. Any approach in order to add power is to construct a larger engine. A different way to add power is to create a normal-sized engine more efficient. More boost isn’t always better.

McMaster to Resign as National Security Adviser, and Will Be Replaced by John Bolton

Uncategorized

“H.R. McMaster has served his country with distinction for more than 30 years. He has won many battles and his bravery and toughness are legendary,” Mr. Trump said in a statement. “General McMaster’s leadership of the National Security Council staff has helped my administration accomplish great things to bolster America’s national security.”

General McMaster had struggled for months to impose order not only on a fractious national security team but on a president who resisted the sort of discipline customary in the military. Although General McMaster has been a maverick voice at times during a long military career, the Washington foreign policy establishment had hoped he would keep the president from making rash decisions.

Yet the president and the general, who had never met before Mr. Trump interviewed General McMaster for the post, had little chemistry from the start, and often clashed behind the scenes.

General McMaster’s serious, somber style and preference for order made him an uncomfortable fit with a president whose style is looser, and who has little patience for the detail and nuance of complex national security issues. They had differed on policy, with General McMaster cautioning against ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran without a strategy for what would come next, and tangling with Mr. Trump over the strategy for American forces in Afghanistan.

Their tensions seeped into public view in February, when General McMaster said at a security conference in Munich that the evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was beyond dispute. The statement drew a swift rebuke from the president, who vented his anger on Twitter.

“General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems,” Mr. Trump wrote, using his campaign nickname for Hillary Clinton. “Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!”

Mr. Trump selected General McMaster last February after pushing out Michael T. Flynn, his first national security adviser, for not being forthright about a conversation with Russia’s ambassador at the time. (Mr. Flynn has since pleaded guilty of making a false statement to the F.B.I. and is cooperating with Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.)

General McMaster carried out a slow-rolling purge of hard-liners at the National Security Council who had been installed by Mr. Flynn and were allied ideologically with Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, earning the ire of conservatives who complained that his moves represented the foreign policy establishment reasserting itself over a president who had promised a different approach.

General McMaster’s position at the White House had been seen as precarious for months, and he had become the target of a concerted campaign by hard-line activists outside the administration who accused him of undermining the president’s agenda and pushed for his ouster, even creating a social media effort branded with a #FireMcMaster hashtag.

Last summer, Mr. Trump balked at a plan General McMaster presented to bolster the presence of United States forces in Afghanistan, although the president ultimately embraced a strategy that would require thousands more American troops.

Continue reading the main story

Quit Lying, Democrats. Millions Have Watched Video Of You Supporting Strong Border Security

Uncategorized

“The media, if they were doing their job, would be blasting the Democrats,” ForAmerica Chairman Brent Bozell told Mark Levin Sunday.

“A, for being dishonest and B, for being absolute hypocrites…”

“Sen. Clinton, Sen. Schumer, Sen. Obama — all supported building a wall,” he said.

He’s right. But don’t take our word for it. Take theirs.

Here’s Chuck Schumer in 2009 (emphasis added):

“…illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple…Above all else, the American people want their government to be serious about protecting the public, enforcing the rule of law…”

Since ForAmerica posted this video a little over a month ago, it has been viewed over four and a half million times.

 4,600,000 times…

Americans know you’re a political hack, Sen. Schumer, when you now say you oppose funding border security. 

Here’s Nancy Pelosi in 2008 (emphasis added)

“While we need to address the issue of immigration and the, and the challenge we have of undocumented people in our country, we certainly don’t want any more coming in.” 

Pelosi was obviously speaking in favor of stopping illegal aliens from entering the country.

Since ForAmerica posted this video just a few weeks ago, it has been viewed over a quarter of a million times.

Americans know you’re dishonest and hypocritical, Speaker Pelosi, when you rail against President Trump’s call for stronger border security.

Here’s Barack Obama in 2006 (emphasis added):

“The bill before us will certainly do some good. It will authorize some badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders, and that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

This is a former Democrat president suggesting not only that we need to fund a wall, but that it will definitely help stop illegal immigration.

Since ForAmerica posted this video just last week, it is headed to one million views.

Americans know you’re unprincipled and disingenious , Mr. Obama, when you turned around and criticized President Trump’s campaign promise to build a border wall.  

What about the woman who wanted to be president before Trump beat her?  

ForAmerica released a video Monday that Hillary Clinton, too, supported a border fence not long ago: 

In less than one day, more than 300,000 viewers have tuned in to watch and share her blatant political flip-flopping.

Most Democrats seemed to be on board with increasing border security until President Trump wanted the same.

Now everyone knows it.

Millions of people have watched and shared these videos across social media. ForAmerica has put them in front of millions of viewers, who can see with their own eyes how deceitful and hypocritical Democrats are being in opposing the wall.

“The American people have watched our government spend $8 trillion in the last two years, but they can’t find five billion? This is a joke,” Brent Bozell said Sunday.

He’s right. This isn’t about funding. It’s not about Trump being difficult, nor is it some kind of “manhood thing,” as Pelosi claims.  

This is all about political games. The Democrats are lying right now.

And we’ve got the video to prove it.

The post Quit Lying, Democrats. Millions Have Watched Video Of You Supporting Strong Border Security appeared first on For America.

FACT CHECK: Trump Speech On Border Security ‘Crisis’ Amid Shutdown : NPR

Uncategorized

President Trump speaks to the nation during his first prime-time address from the Oval Office of the White House on Tuesday.

Pool/Getty Images


hide caption

President Trump speaks to the nation during his first prime-time address from the Oval Office of the White House on Tuesday.

President Trump used his first prime-time address from the Oval Office to make the case for his controversial border wall. The president’s demand for $5.7 billion in wall funding — and Democrats’ opposition — has led to a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Here we check some of the arguments made by the president and top Democrats in their response.

Claim 1: Humanitarian and security crisis

“There is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern border.”

Fact check: Illegal border crossings in the most recent fiscal year (ending in September 2018) were actually lower than either 2016 or 2014 and much lower than at their peak around 2000. The number of unauthorized border-crossers is also dwarfed by the number of people who overstay their visas. But there has been a spike in crossings in the past few months, topping 60,000 in both October and November. And while illegal crossings are still well below the levels of a generation ago, the makeup of the traffic has changed. There are now many more children and families from Central America, who present different challenges than single adults from Mexico.

Many of the Central American migrants are seeking asylum, citing a fear of violence or persecution back home. While the majority of these asylum claims are ultimately rejected, assessing them can take months or years. In the past, asylum-seekers were typically released into the U.S. during this period, a practice the Trump administration criticizes as “catch and release.” The administration wants to detain migrants while their asylum claims are adjudicated. This has led to overcrowded detention centers. And under a court order, young migrants generally cannot be detained for more than about 20 days. (The administration tried to get around that last year with its ill-fated and short-lived family separation policy, to allow indefinite detention of adults while children were turned over to the Health and Human Services Department or resettled with family members.) Importantly, most asylum-seekers turn themselves in to U.S. authorities, which they could do with or without a border wall.

Claim 2: Driving down jobs and wages

“All Americans are hurt by uncontrolled illegal migration. It strains public resources and drives down jobs and wages.”

Fact check: The effect of illegal immigration on wages has been studied extensively, and conclusions vary quite a bit. Because of the underground nature of the problem, hard evidence can be hard to come by. Some evidence exists that because illegal immigrants tend to be low-skilled, they compete with native-born workers and can lower wages for those at the bottom of the income scale. But they can also reduce the cost of production in some industries, which can mean lower prices for Americans as a whole. Indeed, many employers complain that in today’s tight labor market, the shortage of immigrant labor is driving up their costs. As for the president’s claim that illegal immigrants drain public resources, many studies have concluded that while illegal immigrants may also drive up the cost of government services in some places, they also make up for it by paying taxes.

Claim 3: ICE arrests

“In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records including those charged [with] or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 violent killings. Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country.”

Fact check: The president is right about the total number of arrests of immigrants with criminal records that ICE has arrested over the past two years. But that number alone is misleading, because many of those of immigrants have very likely committed immigration-related offenses rather than violent crimes as the president is suggesting.

Trump has frequently pointed to sympathetic crime victims to justify his crackdown on illegal immigration. But experts say the president’s rhetoric overstates the threat posed by immigrants, who tend to commit crime at lower rates than people who are born in the United States — including murder and other violent crimes.

Claim 4: Illegal drugs

“Our Southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs. … My administration has presented Congress with a detailed proposal to secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers and human traffickers. It’s a tremendous problem.”

Fact check: According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, most illegal drugs imported to the U.S. from Mexico are smuggled through legal ports of entry. Only a small fraction comes through parts of the border that would be covered by a wall.

Claim 5: Wall paid for by Mexico

“The wall will also be paid for, indirectly, by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.”

The president is referring to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which was signed by the leaders of the three countries on Nov. 30, 2018. In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly claimed that the new pact would usher in huge economic benefits, essentially making up for the cost of the wall. The problem with that is twofold: First, the agreement has to be approved by Congress, and that’s not a sure thing, so presumptions about how much money it will bring in are premature. Second, many economists say the new agreement is at best a modest reworking of the North American Free Trade Agreement and are skeptical about its economic benefits. Typical was Phil Levy of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, who wrote that “there is very little in the USMCA to suggest it will create an economic growth spurt in the United States.”

Claim 6: $5.7 billion request

“Law enforcement professionals have requested $5.7 billion for a physical barrier. At the request of Democrats it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall. This barrier is absolutely critical to border security.”

Fact check: The administration’s latest request — presented to lawmakers over the weekend — seeks $5.7 billion for 234 miles of “new physical barrier,” which works out to about $24 million per mile. That’s a shift from December, when Homeland Security said it wanted $5.7 billion to secure 215 miles of border but only 100 miles of that was expected to be a new barrier. The rest would go to restoring existing walls and fences. The switch from concrete to steel was not made at the request of Democrats.

In addition, the administration is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars for additional border guards, immigration judges, detention beds and “to ensure the well-being of those taken into custody.”

Democrats’ Response

Claim: Democrats and the president want border security

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: “Make no mistake. Democrats and the president both want stronger border security. However, we sharply disagree with the president about the most effective way to do it.”

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned the president’s proposed border wall as costly, ineffective and immoral. “We’re not doing a wall,” Pelosi said. “A wall is an immorality between countries.” Though, as the president noted, congressional Democrats including Schumer have at times supported border barriers in the past. Nearly 700 miles of wall and fencing have already been built along the U.S. border with Mexico since 2006. Some have argued that where walls make sense, they have already been built and where they haven’t been built, they don’t make sense. Each party is seeking to blame the other for the partial government shutdown. According to a new Reuters/Ipsos Poll, 51 percent blame the president, an increase of 4 points from a similar poll just before Christmas. The same poll found only about about 4 in 10 Americans support the idea of additional fencing along the border, and support has fallen since 2015. Among Republicans, however, support for the wall is stronger, with 77 percent supporting additional fencing and 54 percent approving of a shutdown as a means to that end.

Trump walks out of border security meeting after Pelosi rejects wall pitch | Fox News

Uncategorized

President Trump walked out of a White House meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday afternoon over the partial government shutdown after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi again rejected supporting new funding for a border wall, according to those in the meeting.

Speaking to reporters after the brief session, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the “president just got up and walked out.”

“He asked Speaker Pelosi, ‘will you agree to my wall?’ She said no. And he just got up, and said, ‘Well we’ve got nothing to discuss,'” Schumer said.

The president, in a tweet, called the meeting “a total waste of time” and appeared to confirm that he left after Pelosi’s answer.

“I asked what is going to happen in 30 days if I quickly open things up, are you going to approve Border Security which includes a Wall or Steel Barrier? Nancy said, NO. I said bye-bye, nothing else works!” Trump tweeted.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said after the meeting that the president was “petulant.” Schumer said Trump slammed his hand on a table in frustration, but Vice President Mike Pence and other Republicans, speaking to reporters afterward, denied that happened.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the president was willing to make a deal in the meeting.

“I just listened to Senator Schumer,” McCarthy, a California Republican, said. “I know he complained the time that you had cameras in the meeting. I think we need to bring them back. Because what he described the meeting to be is totally different than what took place.”

The meeting in the Situation Room on Wednesday afternoon came ahead of Trump’s planned trip to the Texas-Mexico border on Thursday. Earlier, the president traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Republicans, saying afterward, “We have a very unified party.”

Still, a growing number of moderate Republicans – like Susan Collins of Maine and Cory Gardner of Colorado — have appeared uncomfortable with the toll the partial shutdown is taking.

Trump has said he might declare a national emergency and try to authorize the wall on his own if Congress won’t approve the $5.7 billion he’s asking.

“I think we might work a deal, and if we don’t I might go that route,” he said.

Past meetings with Democrats have resulted in both sides digging in, with Trump insisting on nearly $6 billion for a border wall and Democrats saying they won’t entertain the discussion until Congress passes and Trump signs a package re-opening shuttered federal agencies.

The president’s prime-time address on Tuesday night saw both camps drifting even further apart, with Trump declaring a “humanitarian and security crisis” and vowing to protect America, “so help me God” – and Democratic congressional leaders saying Trump was working to “manufacture a crisis, stoke fear and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.”

How the two sides will bridge this difference – and how long they will resist a compromise – has been unclear. The mounting impact of the partial shutdown, including federal workers’ paychecks and national parks services, is likely to increase pressure on Congress and the White House to forge a deal in the coming days.

Trump told congressional leaders the standoff could last months, even years, as he demanded Washington take action to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, drugs and criminals crossing the border.

Fox News’ Judson Berger and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Officials rejected Jared Kushner for top secret security clearance, but were overruled

Uncategorized

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
 / Updated 
By Laura Strickler, Ken Dilanian and Peter Alexander

WASHINGTON — Jared Kushner’s application for a top secret clearance was rejected by two career White House security specialists after an FBI background check raised concerns about potential foreign influence on him — but their supervisor overruled the recommendation and approved the clearance, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

The official, Carl Kline, is a former Pentagon employee who was installed as director of the personnel security office in the Executive Office of the President in May 2017. Kushner’s was one of at least 30 cases in which Kline overruled career security experts and approved a top secret clearance for incoming Trump officials despite unfavorable information, the two sources said. They said the number of rejections that were overruled was unprecedented — it had happened only once in the three years preceding Kline’s arrival.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information, said the Trump White House attracted many people with untraditional backgrounds who had complicated financial and personal histories, some of which raised red flags.

Kushner’s FBI background check identified questions about his family’s business, his foreign contacts, his foreign travel and meetings he had during the campaign, the sources said, declining to be more specific.

Kushner given top secret clearance over officials’ objections

The White House office only determines eligibility for secret and top secret clearances. As a very senior official, Kushner was seeking an even higher designation that would grant him access to what is known as “sensitive compartmented information,” or SCI. That material makes up the government’s most sensitive secrets, including transcripts of intercepted foreign communications, CIA source reporting and other intelligence seemingly important for Kushner, whose job portfolio covers the Mideast and Mexico.

The CIA is the agency that decides whether to grant SCI clearance to senior White House officials after conducting a further background check.

After Kline overruled the White House security specialists and recommended Kushner for a top secret clearance, Kushner’s file then went to the CIA for a ruling on SCI.

After reviewing the file, CIA officers who make clearance decisions balked, two of the people familiar with the matter said. One called over to the White House security division, wondering how Kushner got even a top secret clearance, the sources said. Top secret information is defined as material that would cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security if disclosed to adversaries.

The sources say the CIA has not granted Kushner clearance to review SCI material. That would mean Kushner lacks access to key intelligence unless President Trump decides to override the rules, which is the president’s’ prerogative. The Washington Post reported in July 2018 that Kushner was not given an “SCI” clearance. CIA spokesman Timothy Barrett said, “The CIA does not comment on individual security clearances.”

“What you are reporting is what all of us feared,” said Brad Moss, a lawyer who represents persons seeking security clearances. “The normal line adjudicators looked at the FBI report…saw the foreign influence concerns, but were overruled by the quasi-political supervisor.”

“We don’t comment on security clearances,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said when asked for comment.

NBC News was unable to reach Carl Kline for comment. Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, had no comment.

The sources said they did not know whether Kline was in communication with senior political White House officials. They say he overruled career bureaucrats at least 30 times, granting top secret clearances to officials in the Executive Office of the President or the White House after adjudicators working for him recommended against doing so.

Jared Kushner loses top security clearance

The reasons for denying a clearance can include debts, a criminal past or questions about foreign entanglements. Anything in a person’s background that could make them vulnerable to blackmail can be a factor.

Kushner’s application followed the normal path for security clearance. It passed a “suitability review” in the White House and then went to the FBI for a background investigation.

Following the FBI investigation, the case went back to the White House office of personnel security, where a career adjudicator reviewed the FBI information, including questions about foreign influence and foreign business entanglements, the sources said.

The Washington Post, citing current and former U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter, reported last February that officials in at least four countries had privately discussed ways they could manipulate Kushner by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience.

Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage, according to the current and former officials, were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico, the Post reported.

On the basis of potential foreign influence, the adjudicator deemed Kushner’s application “unfavorable” and handed it to a supervisor.

Rpt: Foreign officials have discussed how to manipulate Kushner

The supervisor agreed with the “unfavorable” determination and gave it to Kline, the head of the office at the time, who overruled the “unfavorable” determination and approved Kushner for “top secret” security clearance, the sources said.

“No one else gets that kind of treatment,” Moss said. “My clients would get body slammed if they did that.”

Sources also told NBC News career employees of the White House office disagreed with other steps Kline took, including ceasing credit checks on security clearance applicants. The sources said Kline cited a data breach at the credit reporting firm Equifax.

Kline is the subject of an October 2018 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint viewed by NBC News that was filed by Tricia Newbold, a current employee. Newbold has a rare form of dwarfism and the complaint alleges Kline discriminated against her because of her height.

Her complaint states that in December 2017, Kline moved security files to a new location which was too high and out of her reach and told her, “You have people, have them get you the files you need; or you can ask me.”

Her attorney, Ed Passman, told NBC News, “My client has been subjected to ongoing discrimination by a ruthless supervisor who was destroying the personnel security division by granting security clearances over the objections of civil servant recommendations.”

In a letter to her family obtained by NBC News, Newbold described Kline’s behavior towards her as “aggressive,” involving “emotional and psychological abuse” starting in July 2017, a few months after he took over the office.

In the same letter, Newbold wrote that she also had serious concerns about how Kline “continuously changes policy” and makes “reckless security judgments”. She added that Kline’s decisions “if disclosed, can cause embarrassment and negative attention to the administration.”

Newbold raised concerns about Kline’s behavior with her second level supervisor regarding his “hostility and integrity” according to the EEOC complaint.

The EEOC confirmed to Newbold’s attorney that an investigation of her claims was conducted. He is now waiting to hear if his client will be granted a hearing.

The House Oversight Committee, now run by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D.-Md., announced yesterday that it is digging into how Kushner obtained his security clearance.

Laura Strickler

Laura Strickler is an investigative producer in the NBC News Investigative Unit based in Washington.

Ken Dilanian

Ken Dilanian is a national security reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

Peter AlexanderPeter Alexander

Peter Alexander is a White House correspondent for NBC News.

Julia Ainsley, Carol E. Lee and Courtney Kube contributed.

Trump Chooses Bolton for 3rd Security Adviser as Shake-Up Continues

Uncategorized

General McMaster will retire from the military, ending a career that included senior commands in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had discussed his departure with Mr. Trump for several weeks, White House officials said, but decided to speed it up because questions about his status were casting a shadow over his exchanges with foreign officials.

Mr. Trump, the White House officials said, also wanted to fill out his national security team before his meeting with Mr. Kim, which is scheduled to occur by the end of May.

Photo
John Bolton, who will take office April 9, has met regularly with President Trump to discuss foreign policy.Credit Alex Wong/Getty Images

Mr. Bolton, who will take office April 9, has met regularly with Mr. Trump to discuss foreign policy. Though he has been on a list of candidates for the post since the beginning of the administration, officials said Mr. Trump has hesitated, in part because of his negative reaction to Mr. Bolton’s walrus-style mustache.

On Thursday, however, Mr. Trump summoned him to the Oval Office to discuss the job. Hours later, Mr. Bolton was on Fox, where he has been an analyst, for a pre-scheduled interview, in which he confessed surprise at how quickly Mr. Trump announced the appointment. “This hasn’t sunk in,” he said.

The news of the appointment competed with an exclusive interview on CNN of a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal, who described to Anderson Cooper what she said was a 10-month sexual relationship with Mr. Trump in 2006. Mr. Trump has denied the affair.

In his interview on Fox News, Mr. Bolton declined to discuss his views on Iran, Russia or North Korea, though he acknowledged his positions were hardly a mystery after years of writing and speaking. He described the job of national security adviser as making sure that the bureaucracy did not impede the decisions of the president.

Officials said that General McMaster’s departure was a mutual decision and amicable, with little of the recrimination that marked Mr. Tillerson’s exit. They said it was not related to a leak on Tuesday of briefing materials for Mr. Trump’s phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, which infuriated the president and did not help General McMaster’s case. Mr. Bolton complained on Fox News that “a munchkin in the executive branch” was responsible for the leak and called it “completely unacceptable.’’

Mr. Trump issued a statement that coincided with his tweet. “H. R. McMaster has served his country with distinction for more than 30 years,” the statement said. “He has won many battles and his bravery and toughness are legendary. General McMaster’s leadership of the National Security Council staff has helped my administration accomplish great things to bolster America’s national security.”

General McMaster said in a telephone interview on Thursday that his departure had been under discussion for weeks, and, “really, the only issue that had been left open is timing.” He would have preferred to stay in the West Wing until the summer, but the timing was dictated by “what was best for him and the country,” he said, referring to the president.

White House officials said the Army sounded out General McMaster, who is a three-star general, about four-star commands after he left the White House, but he declined them. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has had a contentious relationship with General McMaster, and it was not clear what role he played.

Democrats greeted the news about Mr. Bolton with deep alarm. “The person who will be first in first out of the Oval Office on national security matters passionately believes the U.S. should launch pre-emptive war against both Iran and North Korea with no authorization from Congress,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut. “My God.”

Republicans, however, expressed satisfaction. “Selecting John Bolton as national security adviser is good news for America’s allies and bad news for America’s enemies,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “He has a firm understanding of the threats we face from North Korea, Iran and radical Islam.”

Inside the National Security Council on Thursday night, one person described the mood among career officials as somber, with offices largely empty by 9 p.m., unusually early for an agency renowned for its round-the-clock work schedule.

General McMaster struggled for months to impose order not only on a fractious national security team but on a president who resisted the sort of discipline customary in the military. Although General McMaster has been a maverick voice at times during a long military career, the Washington foreign policy establishment had hoped he would keep the president from making rash decisions.

Yet the president and the general, who had never met before Mr. Trump interviewed General McMaster for the post, had little chemistry from the start, and often clashed behind the scenes.

General McMaster’s didactic style and preference for order made him an uncomfortable fit with a president whose style is looser, and who has little patience for the detail and nuance of complex national security issues.

They had differed on policy, as well, with General McMaster cautioning against ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran without a strategy for what would come next, and tangling with Mr. Trump over the strategy for American forces in Afghanistan.

Their tensions seeped into public view in February, when General McMaster said at a security conference in Munich that the evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was beyond dispute. The statement drew a swift rebuke from Mr. Trump, who vented his anger on Twitter.

“General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems,” Mr. Trump wrote, using his campaign nickname for Hillary Clinton. “Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!”

General McMaster also had a difficult relationship with the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, people close to the White House said. Mr. Kelly, they said, prevailed in easing out General McMaster but failed to prevent Mr. Trump from hiring Mr. Bolton, whom they said Mr. Kelly fears will behave like a cabinet official rather than a staff member.

Mr. Trump selected General McMaster last February after pushing out Michael T. Flynn, his first national security adviser, for not being forthright about a conversation with Russia’s ambassador at the time. Mr. Flynn has since pleaded guilty of making a false statement to the F.B.I. and is cooperating with Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

General McMaster carried out a slow-rolling purge of hard-liners at the National Security Council who had been installed by Mr. Flynn and were allied ideologically with Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, earning the ire of conservatives who complained that his moves represented the foreign policy establishment reasserting itself over a president who had promised a different approach.

General McMaster’s position at the White House had been seen as precarious for months, and he had become the target of a concerted campaign by hard-line activists outside the administration who accused him of undermining the president’s agenda and pushed for his ouster, even creating a social media effort branded with a #FireMcMaster hashtag.

Last summer, Mr. Trump balked at a plan General McMaster presented to bolster the presence of United States forces in Afghanistan, although the president ultimately embraced a strategy that would require thousands more American troops.

General McMaster had been among the most hard-line administration officials in his approach to North Korea, publicly raising the specter of a “preventive war” against the North. He was among those who expressed concerns about Mr. Trump’s abrupt decision this month to meet Mr. Kim, according to a senior official.

Correction: March 23, 2018

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the duration of a sexual relationship with Mr. Trump as described by Karen McDougal in her CNN interview. She said it lasted 10 months, not nine months.

Mark Landler reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington.

A version of this article appears in print on March 23, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Chooses Hawk For 3rd Security Adviser As Shake-Up Continues.

Continue reading the main story