Patrick Slevin


“The genius of iPR is in how it creates harmony between simplicity and complexity, discerns influence from persuasion, and reconciles external impressions with internal mindsets of individuals.”

- Patrick Slevin


We’re still months away from the start of hurricane season, but Governor Ron DeSantis is already taking Florida by storm.  A recent Mason-Dixon poll has the governor at a 62 percent approval rating, making him one of the most popular governors in the nation.


The interview could not have gone better.  You owned it and the host expresses her gratitude, thanking for being on the program.  Then, right before you sign off, everything goes south and you blow it.  The image you crafted for yourself of control, knowledge and persona has been canceled out by 5 careless words repeated every day in news media by both pro and amateur guests alike.


Pregame 1.jpg

WARNING! Establishing a positive first impression is no longer achievable with a firm handshake and a smile. In today’s world, people have already decided whether they like you well before you ever meet them or even say a word. 

According to a recent survey commissioned by Dollar Shave Club, it takes the average person 27 seconds to form a first impression about someone they’ve met.  Yet, what was more interesting in the same survey was that of 2,000 Americans surveyed, seven out of ten people made their decision before the person even said a word.

So, what does that tell us when it comes to making a good first impression in our personal and professional lives?

Pregame 2.jpg

Let’s first look at the 27 seconds to make a good first impression. Certainly, within that half minute, you can construct a good first impression with the requisite facial expressions (smiling), body language, attire, eye contact, firm handshake, dry hands, vocabulary/tone, and even your cologne/perfume (smell scores very high in the survey).  These physical cues certainly contribute to someone’s assessment on whether they like you or not. 

However, as the study briefly touched upon, someone’s impression of you is now made well before they ever meet you.    

How do you protect yourself from false impressions from people you’ve haven’t met yet?  When you’re about to conduct a job interview, business pitch or go out on a first date, what’s the first thing you do before you to meet with someone?  That’s right, you Google search them and look for both positive and negative cues.    

Pregame 5.jpg

What you find or don’t find will frame expectations and impressions before the actual handshake.  Therefore, it’s important to establish your personal and professional persona online. 

To begin with, in a business scenario such as a job interview, sales pitch, or even a simple coffee meeting, you need to square away the Google search with the prominence of your LinkedIn profile, which is usually within the first 5-10 links.  More seasoned professionals will have corporate bios, blogs, articles and other social media, but they still need to have a prominent LinkedIN profile or they risk a negative first impression.  If you don’t have a LinkedIN account, it may explain why your network of influence is subpar or that your social life is lacking.

Having a static, unattended LinkedIN account is no longer good enough either.  It’s imperative to not only have a LinkedIN account, but you need to have your summary profile updated with a headshot photo at a minimum.  A few years ago, executives who didn’t have a photo and 1 follower were considered “too important or too busy” to fret over a LinkedIN account – it was acceptable - they were given a pass. 

Pregame 4.jpg

Today, a lack of online presence or poorly managed social media (Twitter account with Tweet posted years ago) influences a person’s impression of you well before you say hello.      

Same applies after you meet someone impromptu for the first time. If that meeting had a good outcome based on the first 27 seconds, then when they do a Google search later, so your online profile should be reinforcing those first impressions, or you risk never hearing back from that new contact. 

“The study reveals what assumptions we make when meeting someone new, why we make those assumptions, and how fast it takes us to judge a new book by its cover.”

 Be sure to pre-game your profile online to give you the best first impression that elevates your desires for success and happiness, one handshake at a time.   

About Patrick Slevin

 Patrick Slevin is a former Florida mayor.  He is a two-time winner of the PRSA Silver Anvil Award of Excellence for Crisis & Issues Management.  Influence Magazine named Slevin one of the "Great Communicators".  Slevin has been recognized by Campaigns & Elections Magazine as one of the nation’s top political “Movers’ & Shakers".  He is the founder and head of Florida-based SL7 Consulting. 

73492_Twitter_Cover_Image 01a.jpg


My legal fees are well over half a million dollars and are projected to cost as much as two million dollars before this witch-hunt is over.  In truth, I face bankruptcy and financial ruin for my family.


Influential coalitions can carry a campaign far and deep into the legislative process.  Coalitions are very effective means of influencing public policy from city hall to the state capital to Washington DC. 


For over 20 years, Patrick Slevin has successfully counseled C-Suite executives leading multi-nationals, trade associations, corporations and special interests who've faced billions of dollars of potential economic loss from man-made crises and natural disasters. 


Dealing with the unknown, unexpected and unimaginable tests a leader’s skills as a strategist, communicator and risk taker.  In the extreme endurance racing world, nowhere do these traits get tested more than in the 2018 Spartan Death Race, which Patrick Slevin recently competed. 


Chris Ure is recognized as one of the leading advisors to the über wealthy in the nation. Many seek out his counsel to help them with their legacy planning and ultimately benefit the greater community that’s our state of Florida. 


Jacob Engels is one of the rising stars in Florida politics.


Elnatan Rudolph is a name you need to know and a person you want on your side.  Very few politicos outside the Tallahassee beltway know of this rising political star’s influence in Florida politics.



In an INFLUENTIAL exclusive, Patrick Slevin interviews Roger Stone who spoke out against a recent Atlantic article, Roger Stone’s Secret Messages with Wikileaks. The Atlantic story has caused a stir in political circles claiming Mr. Stone had prior knowledge of the Hillary Clinton emails that would eventually be disclosed by Wikileaks. More importantly, Stone said he never discussed the Wikileaks disclosures regarding Hillary with Donald Trump before, during or after the election.

SLEVIN:  What is your reaction to the report in The Atlantic that you were communicating with Wikileaks via direct message on Twitter? 

STONE: If anything, the exchanges cited by the Atlantic prove conclusively that I had no advance knowledge of the content or source of WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton.  I had merely confirmed Julian Assange’s public claim that he had information on Hillary Clinton and he would publish it.

A true copy of this DM exchange was provided many months ago to the House Intelligence Committee clearly demonstrating I had no ‘collaboration” with WikiLeaks. Assange himself said in an interview with Amy Goodman that I never tweeted anything he or WikiLeaks hadn’t said or written publicly. I have never claimed otherwise.

SLEVIN:  What about your public claim of a back channel to Assange?

STONE:  To clarify, my mention in a Florida speech of a ‘back channel to Assange” is merely a reference to confirming a source who told me, consistent with Assange’s public statements, that WikiLeaks did indeed have material embarrassing to Hillary and would publish. While I initially declined to identify this confirming source to the Committee, because I feared professional reprisal against him, I ultimately provided his name to the Committee at the strong urging of Rep. Trey Gowdy.

Randy Credico, then of WBAI in New York confirmed that WikiLeaks did have material devastating to Hillary and WikiLeaks would publish it in October. Assange himself had said this publicly. Credico was, as I feared, terminated from his job at the legendary progressive radio station.

SLEVIN:  But Credico denied he was a “back-channel?

STONE:  Credico’s claim that this predates his first on-air interview with Assange is irrelevant as Credico had other contacts with WikiLeaks. To be clear Credico, with whom I have worked in the struggle for drug law reform, never said who confirmed this at WikiLeaks or indicated he knew the source or content of the material. Perhaps Randy is now embarrassed in front Assange about talking out of school. As I consider Assange to be a journalist and WikiLeaks to be a news organization and a repository of accurate information, I reject unproven claims that they are Russian assets thus, there would be nothing illegal about Credico’s communication with them, however limited. I note that I addressed these issues extensively under oath before the House Intelligence Committee while Mr. Credico elected to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify.

Assange himself has said I simply followed his tweets and interviews and re-cycled what he said. I have never claimed otherwise or than my effort to confirm that he really had the motherlode on Hillary and was really going to publish it.

SLEVIN:  Where did these direct messages come from?

STONE:  The reporter for the Atlantic, Natasha Bertrand said in a text message that she was told I gave a screenshot of this exchange to a friend. This is false, I shared the true exchange only with my lawyers and the Committee. Something here smells like Schiff…….


SLEVIN:  The messages seem to show you were not collaborating with Wikileaks?

STONE:  The content of the exchange with WikiLeaks shows neither any claim by me to have any information beyond what Assange himself had said publicly and reiterates the statement by WikiLeaks that I had not communicated with them prior to the release of the DNC emails that were both accurate and so damaging to Hillary. My frustration that whomever is manning the WikiLeaks Twitter direct messages is unaware that I had confirmed Assange’s claim to have Clinton material is also reflected. That was what I meant when I said WikiLeaks “leaks.”

SLEVIN:  What about questions regarding your contacts with an alleged Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0?

STONE:  All of this is evocative of a similar limited exchange I had over Twitter direct message function with someone claiming to be Guccifer 2.0. I once believed his public claim that he had hacked the DNC and provided the hacked material to WikiLeaks. I no longer believe that he did so or that he is, in fact, a Russian asset as I testified for the Committee.  More importantly, the complete exchange, which is now public is banal, benign and innocuous and takes place entirely four weeks after WikiLeaks has already published the DNC material proving that charges I colluded with Guccifer 2.0 to obtain those documents and give them to WikiLeaks are false.


SLEVIN:  So, how did you know about the hacking of John Podesta’s e-mail?

STONE My prediction on twitter that "John Podesta's time in the barrel" would come is based on the January 2016 Panama Papers exposure of the Podesta brother's Russian business dealings with oligarchs close to Putin in banking, gas and uranium. I never said anything about Podesta’s e-mails and did not predict they would be hacked. There is no evidence that I learned anything about Podesta or his e-mails from Wikileaks. I had also seen a summary memo regarding the Podesta's business dealings by Dr. Jerome Corsi- all culled from public sources.

SLEVIN:  Did you tell candidate Trump about what Wikileaks had on Hillary?

STONE:  I never discussed Wikileaks, Assange or the stunning disclosures regarding Hillary with Donald Trump before, during or after the election.

SLEVIN:  Have you ever met Julian Assange?

STONE:  Several reporters have insisted that I visited and met with Assange in London in 2016. This too is false. My passport proves I never left the country in 2016. I did drop my card off at the Ecuadorian Embassy when I was in London to address the Oxford Union in February of this year, to punk the British media and protest the continued persecution of Julian Assange who I believe is an honest journalist with a stunning record for accuracy. I have however never met or spoken to Julian Assange.

SLEVIN:  What do you hope this interview will achieve, once-in-for-all, with respect to future claims of prior knowledge as alleged in the Atlantic?

STONE: I have no idea what the President knew about the Wikileaks disclosures, when he learned it and who he learned about them from.  This entire discussion is designed to distract attention from the devastating content of the material released by Wikileaks.  Hillary is shown to be corrupt, greedy, vain and unhealthy. Her teaming up with Deborah Wasserman Schulz to cheat Bernie Sanders was exposed. The efforts to handle the allegations of sexual assault by Bill Clinton was exposed.  Is it surprising that the Democrats, and their handmaidens in the media, want to talk endlessly about where these emails came from rather than what it is.


Patrick Slevin is the publisher of THE INFLUENTIAL blog and e-newsletter.  Sign up for our E-newsletter to begin receiving exclusive information about the People, Politics and Power that influence your bottom line interests. Go to