In this episode Steve is joined by his good friend and background investigation expert Ken Roybal. Steve and Ken examine the Kavanaugh confirmation circus and the following supplemental investigation. Ken’s commentary on the ordeal gives some really great insight and should clear up any lingering questions in your mind.
thingspolicesee@gmail.com
hey guys welcome to the podcast I’mgonna keep this intro really brief I’vebeen sick as a dog all week and I’mhaving troublenot having coughing fits when I talk soin this episode I interview a goodfriend of mine in expert in the field ofbackground investigations ken Roybal wetalked all about the Kavanagh I shouldsay the circusthat was the Cavanaugh conformation Ithought it was super interesting to pickKen’s brain he’s a super smart guy andhe’s very knowledgeable in this subjectmatter so I think you’re gonna like itthank you for joining me without furtherado here’s episode number 23this is Zane’s police seized first-handaccounts with your oast Steve Gould[Applause]ken thank you for coming on the showonce again man not a problemoh my pleasure I’m glad to have you Iwas gonna touch on this a little bitlast week I wanted to add I wanted totalk about the background investigationgoing on with the Cavanaugh appointmentand you know when something comes to thenews that you know about and you youknow a lot about it’s it’s excitingbecause you’re like you can kind of callout all the flaws and what they’resaying wrong and I wanted to talk abouta little bit then I said oh wait a goodbuddy mine is an actual expert onbackgrounds so I’m glad you could comeon so we do police backgrounds which theone the backgrounds we do from what Iwhat I’ve looked into they’re prettythey’re they’re pretty in-depth the onesthat we’re doing at work and they’re notthey’re not that dissimilar to federalbackground investigations I have acouple buddies have been through themwhen they went up through the ranks forfor their agencies and they’re verysimilar actually they’re all pretty muchalike would you agree with that oh yeahpretty it doesn’t matter really whattype of background well I take it backif it’s a law enforcement background itreally doesn’t matter what type it isthey’re generally the same themethodology may be a little differentbut the the outcome and what they’relooking for is pretty much the same Imean they’re talking to people peopleclose to you family members spousesgirlfriends employments neighbors thingslike that yeah anybody hasn’t beenthrough anybody hasn’t that hasn’t beenthrough a background of policebackground it’s one of the moststressful things you can do in yourentire life your whole entire life sinceyou were bornis laid out there and everything is opento investigation there’s no questionsthat cannot be askedit’s so true I mean I know you’veprobably had the same feeling when youwhen you’re going through a candidate’sbackground it’s like you’ve just beengreen-lighted too and you have a waiverto just go into this person’s life andyou start finding things and it’s likesorry dude this came up and you kind ofhave to confront him with it kind ofawkward yeah it can be embarrassing attimes but it’s it just it’s just thenature of the beast you know it’s it’sthe background is looking to absolutelyeveryand that and when I say everythinganything you can think of if somebody’slistening and they’re going I wonder ifthey yes so you’ve been in backgroundshow many years total 16 years I did fouryears in background as an LAPD officerand then 12 years as a civilianbackground investigator so in LAPD Iknow you’ve been asked to consult indifferent scenarios I know you’ve beenasked to be an expert witness orsomething like that in a federal federalmatter so you you are bona fide expertin this field you watching this wholecircus that’s going on that was going onhe’s now confirmed but what was whatwere your thoughts when the backgroundinvestigation started coming up well Iknow that he had already gone throughsix FBI background investigations forvarious positions in the judiciary andso I knew they had already done thebackgrounds before and when they wereasking for another backgroundinvestigation I knew what they were Iknew that the FBI knew what they weretalking about or what they’re asking forbut was frustrating was the the senatorsand anybody else that chimed in that hasnever done a background suddenly becameexperts on what the background shouldconsist of and they were they were to bequite frank they were ignorant in whatthey were saying and they were wrongyeah it seems like a lot of them weremmm I mean they they like to compare itto Clarence Thomas when he gotinvestigated criminally by the FBI whichis a different thing and he gotinvestigated criminally because he washe had allegations against him from thatthis person was a I needed Jones was itI need a hill neither hill she was um afederal employee the events happened onfederal property it was actuallysomething the FBI could investigate butthe didn’t feel like that the the watersare real muddy for people who aren’t inthis line of work between backgroundinvestigation criminal investigationstate and local authorities the wholething was a mess oh yeah it’s just twodifferent animals I mean thethere they shouldn’t have comparedClarence Thomas to Kevin on the firstplace and to say that there was a lot Ihave a lot of opinions on thisparticular this particular scenario andI mean I can go into it and what thewhat was messed up on it and things likethat if you like IRI or if you havequestions you want to ask more thanwilling to answer those to know I’d loveto hear your opinions on it because it’sthe whole thing was highly politicizedit was not it wasn’t yourrun-of-the-mill job interview I meanthey were they held on the informationfor too long they could have beenprivate and they made it public so yeahI’d love to hear all your thoughts onthat well it’s a thing the thing is isthat people have to know first andforemost that the backgroundinvestigation was already completed theFBI already did another backgroundinvestigation a61 and so when they wereasking for these additional witnesses tobe to be interviewed it then became asupplemental background investigationwhich means that it’s not a fullinvestigation and when people get upsetthat that you know these 40 witnessesweren’t interviewed and things like thathere’s the way a supplemental works nowkeep in mind the first background isexhaustive it’s already been completedit’s sealed up now someone’s comingalong with some additional informationthat they want to offer and so what whatthe scope of that investigation is ismuch much smaller than a fullinvestigation where they will beinterviewing everybody so what happensis whoever is directing theinvestigation a lot of times it can comefrom a supervisor or the investigatorthemselves is theirs here’s somethingthat’s that’s hanging out there that wewant to check into so the scope of theinvestigation in which people aregetting really hung up on the scope isdictated either by the investigators ora supervisor or someone says thisinvestigation is completed but herecheck into this okay nowyou’ve got this set of interviews thatyou have to do and there are four orfive or six interviews I forget how manyand then someone comes up with 36 or 35more people that’s not going to work andI’ll tell you why the the first thing isthere’s a group of people that weresubmitted by Professor Ford that weresubmitted as corroborating witnesseseverybody knew they weren’t because ifsomething happens and then after thefact you tell somebody about it thatdoes not make you a corroboratingwitness that makes you a witness to thestatement that person made right itdoesn’t make you a witness to the eventso right off the bat all the people thatFord submitted were not cooperatingwitnesses and so when they interviewedthem they had already submittedstatements Ford already did a you knowinterview with the or she submitted aletter to the Senators and they did aninterview with I forget who it was NewYork Times something like thatWashington Postwhoever it was so that whole scenariowith her statements was alreadyexhausted including the statements fromthe people she submitted asquote-unquote witnesses so those peoplearen’t really witnesses they’re justsaying she said these things she wasemotional about it I believe her that’snot cooperation for a backgroundinvestigation and soon oh good no goahead I say so many times like whendoing a background investigation I meanI obviously haven’t been to him for acouple years but inevitably you’re gonnabe doing a background where you’re gonnareceive one piece of adverse from awayward neighbor or an ex-girlfriend orsomething that could blow someone’s spotup you know just something wacky and wecan’t leave it to one one person aloneto ruin someone else’s life that’s thewhole point of cooperation and it’s beenlike thatfor I mean that’s all the way back ifyou want to go is back far far back isJewish courts in the Old Testament youhad to have two or three people bearwitness to be charged for this reasonand I think people are really gettinghung up on that yeah I mean if youcalled me and I was in the middle of abackground you said somebody said I knowyou’re doing Steve Gold’s backgroundinvestigation and you know he beat uphis dog when he was 10 I’d say okay isthere anybody else that can tell me theexact same thing and if you can’tprovide that to me it does mean no goodI can document it but we’re not going towe’re not going to submarine abackground because one person saidsomething absent of any corroboratinginformation because anybody the classicthing for us is background investigatorsand I know you know this too is that thethe angry ex-spouse oh we’re goingthrough a divorce this guy is the worstshe’s the worst she did this he did thatand they’re like this is common this isa common thread that they’re upset atthis person there’s no way they’re gonnaget a job do you have anybody else thatcan substantiate what you’re saying moreoften than not no it doesn’t do me anygood I’ve even had it where an ex blowssomeone up and they get back togetherand calls me back and wants to take itback no yeah it’s like yeah thecooperation is a huge part of it nowpeople one of people’s big complaintsthrough this whole thing was well theynever even interviewed her the FBIbackground they never interviewed her sothere’s a reason for that could youexplain to everyone why they wouldn’thave done thatthat that whole scenario is just full oflandmines and her I’m I was surprisedvery surprised that her attorney saidhey how about you interview professorFord because a really good backgroundinvestigator is is going to during aninterview we’re gonna ask things thatpertain to their statementsand we’re also going to look forinconsistencies in the statements andwith a thing like the problem with Fordbeing interviewed by the FBIokay now we’re not there’s no camerasthere’s nobody else in the room – FBIdoesn’t even record their in theirinterviews there’s nobody else in theroom that can say hey hold on unless shehas in her attorneys in there whichwould not make it a true interview forthey would have to be quiet because youhave to let the investigators do theirjob and and investigators don’t go inthere with the with the thought that I’mgonna just destroy this witness they goin there to find the truth backgroundinvestigators this is all they do if youwanted to find what a backgroundinvestigator is they are fact gathererswith the emphasis on the word fact allthey do is they gather information Itell people all the time I’ll write downanything you want to say if it’sridiculous Alden I’ll write it down I’llsubmit it to someone else who reviews itmy job is just to gather informationtake what you said put it in a reportsomeone else is going to read him I’llwrite down anything you want to say theproblem with Ford being interviewed bythe FBI is if she gets caught in anyconflicting statements she’s settingherself up for a perjury charge becauseshe’s not only submitted a letter to theSenate she told her story in in the inthe media and she testified with theJudiciary Committee anyone the morethings you say the more chances you’regonna get stuck with it with ainconsistent statement a conflictingstatement you get her in front of someFBI guys who have been doing interviewsfor years guaranteed guaranteed she’sgonna step over herself you know tripover her statements and they’re gonnaget her caught with conflictingstatements not a good idea to interviewher yeah so that that her attorneys umyou’re right that is surprising thatwould it could only damage her so heprobably you could imagine they kind ofthrew that out there tootry to give credibility to her but ifthey came back and said okay we’ll dothat they probably wouldn’t allow itthey they would have come up with someexcuse no and they were upset becausethey didn’t interview Kavanagh eitherCavanaugh all he has to do is toconsistently say I didn’t do it I wasn’tthere he doesn’t have to prove anythinghe just has to say I didn’t do it what’sthe point of view interviewing him yeahthat is the kind of a strange part ofthe whole story his uh them wanting himto kind of go along with his own youknow they kind of like go why aren’t youasking for this investigation like whowould that’s like inviting the cops tosearch your car for no reason like whywould unless he’s already had six ofthem so why would he remember they werejust kind of like pointing fingers athim for not inviting the investigationof himself where he’s you know he’ssaying he’s been falsely accused so whywould you invite that if you’re innocentyeah and the whole thing about that oncethey got into the investigation therewere a couple thing was one thing washer statements really were put to theside all of a sudden the big deal waslet’s see if I can get him to confess toblacking out when he was drunk all of asudden went to the drinking which is anon-issue because we’ve alreadyexhausted that how many people need themand and and prior to that so many peoplewent on the air and we’re in the newsand they were sayingI knew Brett Kavanaugh when he was incollege in four he used to drink did youever see him blackout no no but Ibelieve he could have done thatthat’s not cooperation that he perjuredhimself saying he never had that happennobody came out to do it so thosestatements alone did no good for thebackground investigators because thereagain there was zero corroboration therecould be 40 people who said I’m prettysure I’m pretty sure he could haveblacked out doesn’t help me at all rightand he’s supposed to also uh they’retrying to get him from he’s angry athe’s clearly angry at Democrats he’s ashowing his true colors as a Republicanhow is he gonna sit on the bench it’slike well that’s ridiculous statementfor a lot of reasons butthere’s a roomful of Democrats callinghim a racist I mean a rapist so I couldstart therethe anger could come from there and whatone of the other things that I want totouch on too is that there’s a lot ofthere’s a lot of sympathy for foreignand nobody nobody’s saying that that itdidn’t happen to her but one thing toconsider when you’re a backgroundinvestigator is is backgroundinvestigations a lot of times are veryemotional for the people involvedwhether it’s someone that you’reinterviewing or the or the candidatethemselves it can get emotional based ontheir past history things that havehappened the last thing we can do ishang our hat on an emotional andemotional statement if somebody’s cryingin front of us or something or whateverwhatever they’re doing that’s emotionalwhile they’re talking to us we can’t sayoh for sure for sure a true statementand you and then you and then youscuttle the background investigation acandidate doesn’t get a job becausesomeone cried that is we understand thatthat’s an emotional thing but we cannotas background investigators becomeemotionally involved in the cases and soif something we can in our heart ofhearts no gosh you know I know there’sprobably something yeah maybe probablytelling the truth we can’t write it downthe the the person interviewed criedbecame emotional the backgroundinvestigator believes this person thoughno waythat does not go in a backgroundinvestigation so do you think that theywere there was any way that Democratswere going to accept this backgroundinvestigation once it was ordered no ohyeah they could have any read all 40people and they would find somethingelse to do it because guaranteed here’sthat here’s another something to add onto so we can make it a you know go fullcircle on this Deborah Ramirez thisthing where he took his pants down andshoved his penis in her face right thatwhole thing there are people going I Iwanted to be interviewed by the FBIbecause I was in the same dorm buildingandand I believe Cavanaugh could have donesomething like that that’s not aninterview that’s worthless because againthere’s nobody who witnessed it it whowould state that there these 40 peoplethe reason they weren’t interviewed tobe quite frankthey’re totally worthless during thebackground investigation because allyou’re doing is you’re repeatingredundant information people who weren’tthere who think he could have done sucha thing does no good especially during asupplemental background investigationthat that’s worthless that what are yougonna keep writing the same thing justchange people’s names without any hardevidence if someone can say I was thereat least they were honest right saidyeah no I can’t say he did that rightyeah I mean this could this could havejust like you said before it could justgone on forever if you’re gonna take allcomers you know it the whole thing canis so it’s sad it was a second but itwas entertaining in sad and angering towatch and the bottom line too is likethey’re like Cavanaugh has his historyas being a judge and when the nomineescame up was a couple months ago orwhatever I started looking at him andwhat their histories were just googlingthem a little bit and you know theDemocrats could have they could add adifferent angle with him like he hewasn’t a lot of Republicans favorite piceither like and not because of any kindof thing like went on but because oflike Fourth Amendment cases and and madeit metadata and allowing GPS tracking togo on go on subject without warrants andthere was some legitimate stuff therethat was like he’s kind of wishy-washyin the Fourth Amendment but of courseanything like that based in reality wascompletely ignored from this whole thingand we just talked about this event thatmay or may not have happened 36 yearsago that’s what the focus because thewhole thing was what I didn’t appreciateas a background investigator is thatthey had already determined that nomatter who Trump nominated they weregoing to they were going to sabotage thethe nomination process whereknew that going into into the wholething so going back to July his name wasalready on the list in blah blah blah hewas already nominated we already knewthat they they were gonna say there’s noway we’re going to we’re gonna approvethis and as a background investigatorwhat they did was they tried to use thebackground investigation as a tool forthis sabotage and when it when thebackground investigators are from theFBI said no we did our job this is thisis standard procedure for a supplementalinvestigation we’ve already done six ofthese this is a seventh a supplementaland there’s nothing more we can tell youthen they got really upset but from abackground investigators perspectivethey did it by the numbers nobody canquestion them and that’s why you haven’theard about it since then yeah mm-hmmlike you said maybe they thought the FBIwas still in their corner but aftertheir little partisan mishap that wasn’ttoo long ago with the 2016 campaignthere’s no way they were gonna not playit by the book no on the and they weresaying that the direction was comingfrom the president’s office and stuffwhich the scope of it probably was butthere’s nobody I’ve never had a chief ofpolice or anybody in any kind of rankingposition talked to my supervisor and sayokay this is what we want can to lookinto in this background they what theydo is they tell you okay here that hereare the issues and you decide what youhow you’re gonna handle this up I’mgonna background investigation based onyour experience there’s nobody from theWhite House gonna tell an FBI backgroundinvestigative unit how to do their jobor what they need to do they’re going totell them here are the parameters theseissues that we want taken intoconsideration investigate those but theactual how the background is done andall the particulars of it if abackground investigators goes hey DebraRamirez gave us the name of a solid leadthat said he was there he saw BrettKavanaugh drunk they’re not going to gosorry the White House only gave us thisauthority Polonia man yeah absolutelyso can in your opinion was was this acomplete thorough and acceptablebackground or backgrounds that were doneon Kavanagh oh yeah absolutely the thesupplemental as well as the otherbackgrounds I don’t think you caninvestigate Kavanagh any more than ourthen already been done because basicallyfrom his first background that he had tothe sixth one that they did for for thisappointment are you doing theseshootings you’re pretty much almostdoing supplemental backgrounds cuz youcan’t redo from when he was born to whenhe went to college for one to college towhen he went to law school you knowthose type of things you only picking upwhere you left off so they they’ve hadtheir thumb on this guy’s background fordecades and but how thorough wasn’t azero to ten year old background how muchdo we really know that was that was thevery first background that he did and sothat one was probably the most intensivebackground that that’s he’d ever had soI think was I think it was as thoroughas they can get I don’t think you can’tinvestigate him any more than they didawesome Ken thank you again for comingon the show a second time and will youwill you come backoh absolutely this is fun and we have agood time I appreciate thatabsolutely all right brother I’ll talkto you soon all right thanks
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
