Jack Owens on investigating Kavanaugh’s allegations – Fast Company

/in AMS Intel Page /by Allen Media Strategies

Former FBI official: Here’s how I would investigate the Kavanaugh allegations

Jack Owens, who served for 30 years as a special agent in the FBI from 1969-1999, has conducted dozens of background probes of federal judges. In his own words, he describes how he’d probe the allegations.

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is questioned by Rachel Mitchell at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, September 27, 2018, on Capitol Hill. [Photo: Matt McClain-Pool/Getty Images]

BY JACK OWENS 5 MINUTE READ

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Democracy is not perfect, but it is better than anything in second place.” The FBI is also not perfect, but it is superb at interviewing, especially with background investigations of federal judges at stake. In this case, it’s whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh is qualified to sit as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have no doubt that Senate staffers are warm-hearted and dedicated to doing their best at interviews in background investigations of Supreme Court nominees. But staffers are not FBI agents backed by the full weight of and stellar experience of the Bureau. There is nothing like staring down the barrel of an agent interview to get your full attention. You lie at your peril—it’s a serious crime to lie to a federal agent.

I conducted dozens of background probes of federal judges during my 30-year career as an agent, both as the case agent or carrying out leads from other case agents. All of these inquiries are married to bureau deadlines that must be fully met. FBI headquarters demands it. Be good or be gone is the FBI mandate for agents when it comes to asking questions in interviews, whether you’re dealing with members of the Ku Klux Klan, mob figures, KGB defectors, kidnappers, common bank robbers, POWs in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Saddam Hussein for seven months after he crawled out of his rat hole in Iraq. There is no higher skill or art in the bureau.

Vetting federal judges is one of the FBI’s most important mandates, none more crucial than nominees to the Supreme Court. The bureau can conduct extensive and complicated interviews within a week. While the FBI does not make recommendations, it does write thorough and extensive reports reflecting the results of interviews gathered from simply sitting down with citizens, listening carefully, and following up leads wherever they point. Interviews are the DNA of agents’ investigations.

Currently, front and center are the allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her many decades ago at a party in a home when they were both in high school, an allegation vigorously denied by Kavanaugh. Blasey Ford has alleged that the assault was witnessed by a third person, Mark Judge, who was known to her and also a close friend of Kavanaugh. All three of them will be interviewed by agents to establish when and where the assault took place. All persons listed by Blasey Ford as having attended the party will be interviewed.

President Donald Trump authorized a limited scope investigation to be conducted with a one-week deadline to determine whether the sexual assault took place as alleged. While I do not know the president’s definition of limited scope or the parameters that he set, the FBI will pour into the investigation as many agents as required to determine whether there is evidence that the alleged sexual assault took place. Agents successfully live with deadlines all the time.

WHAT I WOULD DO

Here is what I would do. Since there is evidence that Mark Judge worked at a Safeway during the crucial time period of the summer of 1982, I would request that he sign an FBI form authorizing agents to look at his employment records at Safeway to establish when he worked there. This could set a more precise timeline since Blasey Ford claims that she entered the Safeway around six to eight weeks after the assault, and by chance met Judge, who was working there.

I would request that Blasey Ford ride with agents around neighborhoods that are her best guess as to the location of the home where the party and the alleged assault took place. We are looking for a house described by her as having a living room near the front door, stairs to a second-floor bedroom and a bathroom across the hall from the bedroom. If she can identify the home, Agents will knock on the front door and request permission from the owner to look at the interior of the house and have Blasey Ford examine the home as well, if she is agreeable to that.

If Blasey Ford can pinpoint a general neighborhood, agents will examine public real estate records as to the identities of the homeowners who lived there during that summer, find them, and interview them. I would canvass real estate companies and interview their agents who regularly sell homes in the area and were also doing so in 1982. If retired, find them.

Since Blasey Ford was 15 at the time and did not have a driver’s license, who drove her to the party, and who took her home?

Who hosted the party where the alleged assault took place? Agents will interview the high school friends, however numerous, of Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, and Judge, for evidence. Also it’s important to ask these same friends as to whether Kavanaugh drank to excess during his high school years and suffered blackouts as a result. Blasey Ford alleges that Kavanaugh and Judge were very drunk at the party and during the alleged assault.

With authority from Blasey Ford, agents will examine the records of therapists, psychologists, or psychiatrists who treated Blasey Ford for evidence that she suffered trauma as a result of being sexually assaulted. Also, interview any person she told about the alleged assault.

The bureau will need Kavanaugh’s calendars to interview everyone listed on them during the critical period of 1982.

The FBI stands ready to polygraph Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge, even though Blasey Ford was previously polygraphed by a non-bureau examiner.

The FBI pledges to the American people that all interviews will be impartial, non-judgmental, painstakingly thorough, and as relaxed as possible, given the inherently stressful nature of bureau interviews. Agents are friendly, well prepared, of professional attire and demeanor, and strive to establish rapport to get the best results from an interview. We owe our fellow citizens no less.

Jack Owens served for 30 years as a special agent in the FBI from 1969 to 1999, a veteran of the bureau’s counterintelligence mandate to help the U.S. win the Cold War. Owens worked undercover for four years against hostile intelligence services from the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China. He also concentrated on SWAT operations and terrorism. Jack retired in order to write, and is the author of a memoir of three decades in the FBI, Don’t Shoot! We’re Republicans!, a novel about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Watchman: JFK’s Last Ride, and two satiric, dark comedy novels about a serial killer in Alabama (Pock, Give Them Over to Death)

AMS client David Dorsen’s op-ed in The Hill – Sept 26

/in AMS Intel Page /by Allen Media Strategies

Untangling the chaos of Kavanaugh and Rosenstein

BY DAVID M. DORSEN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/26/18 07:00 AM EDT

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Thursday’s events involving two developing issues — Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s reported remarks about President Trump — may define the Trump presidency for the remainder of his term and define the Supreme Court for a generation. They could have a major impact on the midterm elections, just weeks away, as well.

Rosenstein could be gone by noon Thursday, either having resigned or been fired by Trump, with whom he’s scheduled to meet that day. His departure would have a major but unknowable impact on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with the Russians, obstruction of justice and other matters.

Strangely, Rosenstein’s fate may depend on a murky statement he made during a meeting at the Department of Justice that led to no action or follow-up; he seems to have insulted President Trump, but it’s not clear.

It seems undisputed that Rosenstein said two things at that meeting: First, that he could wear a recording device in a meeting with the president and send the results to members of the Cabinet; second, that the 25th Amendment provided an avenue for removing Trump for his inability to perform his presidential functions.

Rosenstein said those things either seriously or sarcastically; while only he knows for sure, the next best way to find out is to question those present to learn the context and the exact words he used. Who said what that prompted his statement? What exactly did he say? Presumably, at least some of those present have been interviewed. Those and those alone will tell the story.

The suggestion that Rosenstein may have to recuse himself because he has become a witness in the Russia investigation is not valid. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself because he participated in Russian-related events during the campaign that are the subject of the investigation. Rosenstein was a participant in a discussion at the Justice Department about the president’s qualifications and performance. That discussion may be disloyal or foolhardy, but it is not relevant to Mueller’s investigation. Even if Rosenstein believes Trump is incompetent, that is not grounds for recusal.

Another point on Rosenstein’s future: Unlike Mueller, who has some protection from termination, Rosenstein — like any political appointee — serves at the pleasure of the president. Trump does not need a good reason or, in fact, any reason to fire Rosenstein. It will be a political decision that considers the advantages and disadvantages of the various options.

What Trump will do on Thursday is anyone’s guess. My guess is that he will not fire him because he doesn’t want the ensuing uproar before the Nov. 6 midterms; the passage of a week since the story broke also suggests that restraint will rule.

As for Kavanaugh, I believe the conservative base is putting enormous pressure on the Senate and the White House to confirm him immediately; Trump also is putting pressure on Senate leaders. Just listen to what the obviously uncomfortable Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been saying: It’s damn the Democrats, full speed ahead. I wouldn’t be surprised if Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley holds the committee vote on Friday and the Senate votes on Saturday to mollify the conservative base.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct hearings on Thursday, apparently with Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh as the only witnesses. Yet, that would be wrong; remarkable for an allegation of sexual assault, there is an eyewitness, Mark Judge. The unwillingness of the Senate majority to call him as a witness is tantamount to saying they are not interested in the truth.

The problem for Republicans with Judge goes beyond the possibility that he would support Ford’s allegations. He may not know now what he would do if he were required to testify; he has said that nothing happened, but that is very different from swearing that nothing happened.

Even if Judge rejects Ford’s allegations and supports Kavanaugh’s statement, his testimony might hurt his friend. Judge has written of the alcohol-laced parties that he and Kavanaugh reportedly attended while in high school. His lurid accounts provide extraordinary material that Democrats can use to impeach Judge’s testimony and to damage Kavanaugh, although probably not enough to doom his confirmation.

The all-male Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee will probably insulate itself by taking the apparently unprecedented step of having a female lawyer do all the questioning. They do not want to choose between antagonizing women (and some men) by aggressively questioning Ford or antagonizing the conservative base by asking her softball questions. Relying on a non-senator to question the witnesses might provoke ridicule, but probably not do as much damage to senators as their questioning of Ford might.

The one thing that could hold up the stampede to confirmation is the loss of two Republican senators’ votes. Even then, it would require all the Democrats on the committee to vote against confirmation, an action that would hurt red-state Democrats on Nov. 6. I think Republicans have the votes to confirm Kavanaugh, largely because Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) would rather be Senate majority leader than defeat Kavanaugh; he’s prepared to allow red-state Democrats to vote to confirm Trump’s nominee, in order to protect their seats.

The only chance that Democrats have is if they can force a procedural vote on whether to call additional witnesses. A vote to call more witnesses is less risky to both moderate Republicans and red-state Democrats than a negative vote on Kavanaugh; if two Republicans vote to call more witnesses, Schumer might be able to present a unanimous front on the question. It is doubtful, however, that such a vote will take place.

My guess is that, come Monday, we shall have Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

What about Nov. 6? We’ll have to wait and see whether the Trump base will be energized by the confirmation of Kavanaugh or complacent after winning the big battle. Something in the middle, I suspect.

I believe Nov. 7 will see a Republican Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives.

David Dorsen was assistant U.S. Attorney in New York and, later, assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee. The author of “The Unexpected Scalia: A Conservative Justice’s Liberal Opinions” and “Henry Friendly, Greatest Judge of his Era,” he has taught law at Duke, Georgetown and George Washington universities.

AMS client David Dorsen – US Kavanaugh Analysis

/in AMS Intel Page /by Allen Media Strategies

AMS client David Dorsen, a prominent D.C. attorney and author on US Kavanaugh Analysis. http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/128eb2ee5ce0cc292f0848d32e0b82b5

David Dorsen is an attorney and author. He is the author of the book “The Unexpected Scalia”(Cambridge Press), on his close friend, late Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia. He was the Watergate assistant chief counsel. His upcoming novel “Moses V. Trump” ready to hit the shelves soon.

Annual Rocket Boys Festival celebrates 7th year

/in AMS Intel Page /by Allen Media Strategies

(Brad Davis/The Register-Herald) An All-Star group consisting of (from left) West Virginia filmmaker Daniel Boyd, “Mrs. Gilligan” Dreama Denver, Rocket Boy Roy Lee Cooke and rocket enthusiast Tom Moseley launch a rocket together as spectators look on to kick off the rocket launching portion of events at the Rocket Boys Festival Saturday afternoon at the Exhibition Coal Mine.

Although it was a dreary Saturday afternoon, spirits were still high as family and friends gathered to show off the work of this year’s rocket builders.

Now in its seventh year, the Rocket Boys Festival comes to town every year to celebrate “The Rocket Boys.” In the 1950s, they surprised people in Coalwood with their skills at building rockets and brainpower.

“Are you all ready?” Hickam shouted, while all the children shouted “yes!” with glee. “I’m going to attempt to set this rocket off for you all.”

As Hickam’s rocket soared, everyone cheered. He smiled.

It was the kickstart to the official rocket launch at the Beckley Exhibition Coal Mine.

Nearly 100 rockets were launched Saturday.

Beckley residents Frances Allen-Henderson and Wendi Shumate stood with their sons, Blake and Cole, cheering and clapping as rockets were launched.

“I think we’re just as excited as the kids are,” they both said, while taking multiple photos and videos with their phone.

Allen-Henderson said it took her and her son Blake around an hour to build their rocket, and although this wasn’t their first time attending the event, it was their first time building and launching their own rocket.

“I’m ready!” Blake shouted.

“It gives him a chance to learn something new and then come and give his hard work a go,” Allen-Henderson said, “and we just think that’s really cool.”

Shumate agreed. She said she liked having the opportunity to bring her son Cole to an event built around important moments in history.

Caitlyn Stone, a Mullens native and recent graduate from Virginia Tech, stood in the crowd with her rocket, which stood high enough to reach her midtorso.

When asked if she was going to launch her rocket, she said, “No, not today. The clearance rate isn’t safe for a place like this; it may knock someone out.”

Stone, who completed her rocket in February, said although she couldn’t launch it at Saturday’s event, it was important for her to attend.

“I really like history, and obviously I really like rockets,” she said. “I’ve been coming here every year, and I just don’t see that changing. It brings people together to talk about the history that took place because of these guys.”

Stone did get her rocket autographed by Homer Hickam.

She pointed to his name etched in silver marker and said, “Now it’ll be there forever.”

Email: jnelson@register-herald.com; follow on Twitter @jnelsonRH

AMS clients Ambassador Akbar Ahmed and David Dorsen

/in AMS Intel Page /by Allen Media Strategies

AMS client Ambassador Akbar S Ahmed after a talk at the Cosmos Club in Washington DC with new AMS client David Dorsen

AMS client Homer Hickam’s OpEd in Washington Post – Sept 5

/in AMS Intel Page /by Allen Media Strategies

The new Neil Armstrong movie is about more than the lunar flag-planting

This July 20, 1969, NASA photo taken by Neil A. Armstrong shows Buzz Aldrin posing beside the U.S. flag the astronauts planted on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. (NEIL A. ARMSTRONG/AP)

By Homer Hickam

September 5 at 6:00 PM

Homer Hickam is the author of the memoir “Rocket Boys,” which was made into the film “October Sky.”

More than a few Americans are fed up with Hollywood and want no part of what the industry produces. For a while now, once-unifying entertainment awards shows have become minefields of woke declarations and Trump-bashing, which are perceived by many Americans who voted for the president as insults directed not just at him but also at them.

This has now thrown “First Man,” a major new movie about one of America’s greatest heroes, into the path of some hard cultural headwinds. Back in 1969, in the real world, Neil Armstrong and fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin spent some 10 minutes raising the American flag on the lunar surface. But in the film version, the flag scene is nowhere to be found. When the question of why came up last month at the Venice Film Festival, Ryan Gosling, the actor who plays Armstrong in “First Man,” stumbled with his answer, explaining that the landing was a “human achievement” and that Armstrong didn’t view himself as an “American hero.”

The result was outrage, especially from many of the folks who’ve felt insulted by Hollywood’s recent history. Although I count myself among those who think Hollywood should stay out of politics, I think the folks railing against “First Man” are wrong.

The history here is instructive. Although the lunar flag-planting may seem like a given in hindsight, for months before the flight of Apollo 11 there was a debate within the federal government and in the press as to the wisdom of doing it. The argument for the flag was that the voyage was an entirely American effort that was paid for by American taxpayers, who deserved to see their flag planted in the lunar regolith. The argument against was that it could cast the landing in the eyes of the world as a nationalistic exercise, diminishing what was otherwise indisputably a triumph of American values and ideals, not to mention a demonstration of our technical superiority over our great adversary, the Soviet Union.

Ultimately, just a few months before the flight, Congress ordered NASA to put up the flag. The result, a rushed bit of engineering, was a set of spindly tubes holding a government-issued flag valued at around $5 and, since there was no room in the moon lander, flown clamped to a leg of the vehicle. Armstrong and Aldrin put up the flag and saluted it, then got on to other business.

As it turned out, people across the world didn’t much care. What they saw and celebrated were two fellow human beings walking on the surface of the moon. I watched Apollo 11 on a battered television set at Fort Lewis, Wash., along with other Army officers, most of us just recently returned from Vietnam. The picture was so fuzzy I don’t even recall the flag, only the ghostly images of Neil and Buzz moving about. We fresh Vietnam vets were just relieved that our boys on the moon were alive and well.

“First Man” the movie is based on an excellent book that has the same title, but also the subtitle “The Life of Neil A. Armstrong.” It is not the story of the moon-landing but of the world-famous astronaut himself. Author James R. Hansen worked hard to reveal a man who comes across in the book as a kind of techno-Atticus Finch — someone who never says outright what he believes but demonstrates it through his actions.

I suspect this vision of Armstrong affected the filmmakers. No one ever saw Armstrong do a fist-pump; he just didn’t do that kind of thing. Raising the flag on the moon might be perceived as that kind of gesture and therefore jar the flow of a film trying to uncover the inner workings of a man who spent a lifetime keeping his emotions in check. Although I personally would have included the flag-raising — it was a moment of rare lightheartedness between Neil and Buzz — I understand from experience the decisions that writers and directors sometimes make to fit their vision of their characters, even ones based on real people.

Because I’m interested in space history, and because I think “First Man” will be a unique and dramatic view of an important American who most of us never got to know very well, I will see this movie. If it’s anything like the book, I fully expect it to move me to even greater appreciation for my country, a nation that saw fit to attach to one of the moon lander legs not just its national flag but also this honest and humble declaration: “We Came In Peace for All Mankind.”