YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Alexander Nix, former Cambridge Analytica CEO, testifies to 'fake news' inquiry - watch live

Alexander Nix, former Cambridge Analytica CEO, testifies to 'fake news' inquiry - watch live — Transcript

by Guardian News · 30,835 words · 4,468 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00afternoon and welcome to this further
0:04session of the digital culture media
0:07sports select committee inquiry into
0:10disinformation of bait news committees
0:13very grateful to Alexander Nix for
0:15agreeing to come back in front of the
0:17committee today to answer our questions
0:20appreciate a lot of transpired since the
0:23end of February this year I thought it'd
0:25be helpful for the committee and for the
0:27record perhaps if you could just give us
0:29an update as to what the current status
0:31of Cambridge analytics occur is what is
0:36Cal who is in possession of its assets
0:38and what role do you have with the
0:40company in the moment thank you thank
0:44you mr. Collins and I'd be pleased to
0:46answer your question but before I do so
0:50I'd like to make a few short
0:52clarifications these will only take a
0:55few minutes but it is important to be
0:58able to frame my answers I think miss
1:01Nicks rather do is that we could take
1:03the questions in the order the committee
1:05has them I would imagine that we will
1:07probably raise questions and issues
1:09where you want to make clarifications
1:11and statement as we go through if by the
1:14end of the session there are there are
1:15things that we've not covered that you
1:16wish that you wish to place you all
1:18response on the record I'll be very
1:19happy for you to make a closing
1:20statement to cover that off but it's not
1:22not the practice the committee to have
1:24opening statements and witnesses so
1:25gratefully we start with committees
1:27questions and then see how we go through
1:28the earth
1:28I do appreciate that and ordinarily I
1:34would respect that but these aren't
1:36ordinary circumstances and so if I may
1:39I'd like to start with a very brief
1:40statement just to set out my position
1:42this is sorry if this is to do with the
1:45substance of evidence resist to do with
1:47your current status and
1:50and the impact that might have on your
1:51customer as a witness this is to do with
1:54framing my answers today okay
1:57well see everything thank you first as
2:00the committee is aware I did not refuse
2:03to attend to give live evidence quite
2:05the contrary
2:06over the last few weeks I've expressed
2:08the committee my desire to attend as I'm
2:11keen to deal with the untrue and
2:12misleading statements that have been
2:14made about me and my company over the
2:17past few months my request was that this
2:20hearing was postponed until after the
2:22investigations in the United Kingdom and
2:24in the u.s. have concluded alternatively
2:27as with certain other witnesses I asked
2:30whether evidence could be given in a
2:31private in private so that I was able to
2:34answer all of the committee's questions
2:35fully and openly I've been given clear
2:39advice that discussing topics that
2:41relate to ongoing investigations in the
2:43UK and the u.s. may prejudice those
2:45inquiries and infringes my right to
2:47silence this is a fundamental right
2:50extended to all those who find
2:52themselves in a similar position to me
2:55nonetheless I've been compelled to
2:57attend with this in mind you'll
2:59understand there is a limit to what I
3:01can say in relation to certain topics
3:02that touch on those investigations out
3:06of respect to the committee I've
3:08attended today will answer the questions
3:10that I can can i address straight away
3:12the suggestion that I misled this
3:15committee about receiving data from GSR
3:18mr. dicks I think will will I think with
3:21that appreciate the opening statement
3:22about your position and and the fact
3:25there are other inquiries which were
3:26cooperating I think we're now getting
3:28into you giving a statement about the
3:29substance or I think this will be
3:31covered in the questions the members
3:32wish to put to you and I'd rather take
3:33this on a question by question basis
3:35rather than being dealt with there's a
3:37statement at the beginning I just do
3:38understand that but it is important I
3:40know slack on this and so I'm going to
3:42have to insist me so that I finish my
3:44snow I'm sorry but seriously I've led
3:46you to give this up as opening remarks I
3:48feel the Orient make statement is now
3:49going into the substance of issues with
3:51bone arrays with you which is based on
3:52your previous evidence to the committee
3:53and the reason we invited you back so
3:55I'm going to deal with that on it
3:57a question by question basis it's up to
3:59you how you respond to those questions
4:01as I said at the beginning if there are
4:02things that we've not covered where you
4:04wish to place a statement on the record
4:05I'm very happy for you to do that at the
4:07end of the session once the members have
4:09completed their questioning but I'm not
4:11going to allow an opening statement that
4:13goes into the substance of topics that
4:14we were members our one question you
4:15about mr. Collins you'll have plenty of
4:18opportunity as will all the committee to
4:20ask me as many questions as you want but
4:22I have to insist on delivering the rest
4:25of this I'm sorry miss annex is not your
4:26place to insist on anything in front of
4:28this committee you've agreed to come and
4:30you're here to answer the most questions
4:32I've allowed you to make some opening
4:34remarks about which I think reflect
4:35their constraints you may be under
4:37because of other investigations you're
4:38taking part of and that's completely
4:40completely proper but I want now to go
4:41on to the questions the committee
4:43intends to put to you and to Miami a
4:45question which is about the current
4:47state is came in general it's occur and
4:49your current state is with that company
4:50could you answer that question please
4:52then we're going as I said I'd be
4:53pleased to answer that question but I
4:54just will just finish this state knows
4:56the same so I'm gonna start the
4:58questions now I accept that some of my
5:05answers could have been clearer just
5:09reading out the statement can you answer
5:10the first questions that I've put to you
5:13then we'll go into the questions from
5:14the members if there are other things
5:16you want to put on the record I mean I
5:17would imagine a lot of problems in that
5:19statement you can cover lock in your
5:20answers to members questions as we go
5:21through it's could you answer the first
5:23question please mr. Collins I really
5:28don't think this is appropriate
5:30other witnesses have given statements to
5:32this committee and I think I should be
5:35allowed to do likewise no they're not
5:36given statements to this committee
5:38people have been asked as I've asked you
5:40actually at what is a relatively general
5:41opening question which you can respond
5:43to and the character of all of the
5:45hearings so far has been that members
5:46have put questions with myself starting
5:49as chair to witnesses who've answered
5:50them and we don't have prepare ending
5:52statements and that is the case for all
5:54witnesses appear in front of the
5:56committee regardless of the
5:57circumstances I think it was appropriate
5:59for me to allow you to make some opening
6:01remarks about your status as a witness
6:02which i think is helpful to the
6:03committee's work but the way this works
6:05is we ask questions
6:08could you repeat your first question yes
6:11thank you
6:11it's I just really like you to say since
6:15we last met as I said in the beginning
6:17obviously there's been quite a lot of
6:18change at Cambridge analytic of perhaps
6:20you could update the Committee on what
6:22the current state is Cambridge Ireland's
6:23core is who's in control the assets of
6:25the company and whether you have any
6:27direct involvement in the running of the
6:29company today so Cambridge analytic is
6:33in Chapter seven in the United States
6:36the SCL group and associated companies
6:40are in administration in the UK
6:42obviously the process is being managed
6:45by the administrator and I have no
6:47further involvement and these are the
6:50assets of the company are in the control
6:52of the administrator that's correct
6:54and is that the same with sorry so I
6:58hear someone a device has no photography
7:00allowed in the room from the members of
7:02the gallery and if people can't respect
7:03that then I'll ask that they they leave
7:05the room I hope I don't have to make
7:07that state in the game
7:10so sorry is that the the same with SEL
7:15group as well are their assets and the
7:17hands of the administrator of X correct
7:19mutative the obviously you'll have seen
7:22reports in the newspapers today
7:24suggesting that you took a eight million
7:26dollar sum of money out or came down
7:28let's go before it went into
7:30administration is that correct well I
7:35saw that newspaper article today what I
7:39can say is the allegation made in that
7:41article is false the facts of that
7:44article are not correct other than that
7:48I can't speak to it simply because it
7:51leads to other matters that I'm not so
7:54familiar with what I can say is that
7:56over the last three months
7:59since this media storm erupted I have
8:03personally invested unbeknown to anyone
8:06except the board millions of dollars
8:09millions of dollars to meet staff
8:12salaries staff bonuses and staff
8:15redundancies could you say when when was
8:18the last time that staff members at a
8:20CLK me journalist curve were paid I
8:23can't speak to that because as I think
8:27this committee knows I was suspended
8:30from my role as CEO and then resigned
8:33from the board and so these matters
8:35would have been handled by the board and
8:37then the administrator so that the money
8:39that you said you put into meets off
8:41payments that money you you gave to the
8:44company or to the administrator and when
8:46did you make those payments to the
8:48company to the company or one more how
8:49long ago was that well I'd be happy to
8:53circle back to you once this this one
8:59time have more facts about this article
9:01but I don't think that this is relevant
9:03to this committee hearing but I just
9:05wanna give you the chance to respond to
9:07what was in the article and just just
9:09finally if I could ask has the
9:11administrator been in touch with you
9:13this about that that amount of money
9:15that was taken from the company no he
9:17hasn't
9:18okay poor fairy I just uh if it's in in
9:26line with justjust the current state of
9:28player because it's it's right to give
9:31the opportunity in a public to to
9:33respond to the continuing me media storm
9:39did you you said that you you you'd put
9:43money into the company using you to the
9:45word invest to pay staff salaries and
9:49bonuses was any of that but then
9:53redeemed in any way by myself yes did
9:58you receive any of that back no I did
10:00not my intention was to try and help the
10:03company through a difficult period when
10:07obviously we were uncertain about what
10:10was happening and I was also keen to try
10:14and help staff as much as I could and
10:17obviously at that time none of us
10:19envisaged that this outcome would happen
10:22so not a cent of that has come back to
10:24not a cent okay and how did we did that
10:29put you place he was a creditor of the
10:30company or how did you invest the money
10:32did you you loaned it to the company
10:33well again I don't think the details of
10:36that are important but given that the
10:38company has no assets being accredited
10:40the company's it's probably not so
10:46important
10:48and the aussie aside from the financial
10:52asset all the assets our company
10:54including data it holds other
10:56information that it holds that has a
10:57commercial value of a it's all of that
10:59in the hands of the administrator that's
11:01my understanding
11:02could you just one one one question
11:05on the some of the events are transpired
11:07affected the company directly at the
11:10time after the publication of the story
11:14in The Observer newspaper the Facebook
11:18sent lawyers and dates forensic data
11:22staff to the officers came to analytical
11:24they were asked to leave by the
11:26Information Commissioner but things were
11:29also removed from the offices by
11:30Cambridge on let's go itself under the
11:33direction of Cambridge a little care can
11:35you tell us what was going on at that
11:36time of what was what what was removed
11:39from the building and is that they've
11:41documents files whatever it was data set
11:44so they've been made available either to
11:45the administrator or to the other
11:48relevant authorities that may have an
11:49interest of it could I ask you mr.
11:52chairman what makes you presume that
11:54anything was removed from the office at
11:57that time well there were there were
11:59photographs that boxes being removed and
12:01things being taken out the spill
12:02reported on so if that's not the case
12:04I'm very happy if you say that's not the
12:05case but I just want to know check yeah
12:07that's where you were getting your
12:08information theorem so I also saw those
12:11photographs my understanding is that
12:13those photographs were from personnel
12:15who worked in a different office on a
12:17different floor but have absolutely no
12:19connection to do with Cambridge
12:20analytical or SEL and that the media
12:24simply interpret this interpreted this
12:26in the way that they thought was most
12:28beneficial to them but you can say as
12:30far as far as you're concerned there was
12:33no there was no documents files
12:35computers anything removed I can tell
12:37you that security that the people or
12:39person in those photographs was not part
12:42of Cambridge or SCL and those boxes were
12:44not ours
12:45yeah and otherwise populate what the
12:47sporting media there was no other remove
12:49of documents information computer files
12:53whatever it may be from came down it
12:55occurs offices during that week as far
12:57as I'm aware the ice CEO with the only
13:01people to remove documents and files and
13:05that's all but during that period of
13:07time so they didn't get a warrant to go
13:09into the offices until the end of that
13:10week but in that in that week in that
13:13week as far as you're aware nothing was
13:15taken from the offices as far as I'm
13:17aware yeah Jay Stevens and the channel 4
13:24undercover footage of you and Mark
13:26Turnbull discussing work you did I just
13:32wanted to ask you now that it's some
13:34weeks on and in view of everything
13:36that's happened how you feel about Anna
13:37do you feel embarrassed about it well
13:40clearly that was that was you know
13:52for me to get carried away and try and
13:56impress someone who I thought was a bona
14:00fide er
14:01clients who come to us with a very
14:04genuine and and serious project to help
14:09the people in Sri Lanka with health and
14:13IT infrastructure solutions to then get
14:17entrapped into talking about the sort of
14:20things that we did was not only deeply
14:23embarrassing but it's something I regret
14:25enormous Lee because of the damage it
14:27caused to the company and ultimately to
14:30my staff and the impact that it had on
14:32them I I wouldn't wish that on anyone so
14:38you're not embarrassed about what we
14:42told them
14:42so the bribery and the honey traps and
14:45the fake IDs and the websites and the
14:46extortion you're embarrassed about the
14:49impact it's had on your reputation and
14:51and on the jobs of I think it's 80
14:54people isn't it who worked well in the
14:56business more than that if you count the
14:59u.s. of course no that's not what I said
15:02at all what I said was that clearly by
15:07speaking with such exaggeration
15:09hyperbole I didn't represent the company
15:12properly I didn't represent what we do
15:15as a company or as individuals and that
15:20in doing so obviously there was a
15:24significant impact from that I go on to
15:29say that
15:31there was some five and a half or six
15:34hours of meetings that took place with
15:37this individual ostensibly these were
15:39were very legitimate meetings about
15:42legitimate subjects that that obviously
15:47all of these were recorded and they were
15:49condensed to maybe six or seven minutes
15:52of footage and even those minutes of
15:56footage were heavily edited to portray
16:00the worst possible picture of the
16:03company and myself and my colleagues and
16:06very so the journalists so you know you
16:15gave them that information you gave them
16:17that evidence I just I was just
16:18interested to just understand you know
16:20how you feel about it now some weeks on
16:23I mean obviously this statement that
16:26clearly we did obviously say those words
16:29but the context in which they were said
16:31has been massively altered and also the
16:36caveats that we attached those words has
16:38been altered and let me just illustrate
16:40if I may for a moment my colleague was
16:43absolutely crystal-clear in in telling
16:46the undercover reporter that we're not
16:49in the business of fake news we're not
16:50in the business of lying making stuff up
16:53we're not in the business of entrapment
16:54so we wouldn't send a pretty girl out to
16:57seduce a politician and then film them
16:59please if you don't mind in their
17:01bedroom and then release the film there
17:03are no companies that do this there are
17:06companies that do this but to me that
17:08crosses the line and if I may go on if I
17:11may get one please when the when the
17:14other undercover reporter put these
17:16issues to me it's my job to ask the
17:19questions it's your job to answer them
17:20if you could just do me that courtesy
17:22please so Mark Turnbull said that I
17:24accept that entirely I've read the
17:26transcript but then you go on to say
17:28about beautiful Ukrainian girl
17:30and you give examples of what you would
17:32be doing and I've referred to them
17:34before bribery honey traps fake IDs
17:36extortion fake websites you were
17:40suspended by Cambridge uncle it occur
17:42the company put out a statement saying
17:44that your comments do not represent the
17:46values or operations of this firm and
17:48his suspension reflects the seriousness
17:50with which we review this violation so
17:54what are the values what were the values
17:57of Cambridge on the Whittaker well I
17:59will address your question but let me
18:01let me let me continue by saying please
18:04answer my question I'd caveated my
18:07comments very very clearly by saying the
18:11answers are hypothetical and that's
18:14really important please don't pay too
18:17much attention to what I'm saying I'm
18:19just giving you examples of what can be
18:22done and of course this was edited out
18:25of the video I was asked a very leading
18:27question a hypothetical question about
18:29what sort of tactics could be employed
18:32to discredit a politician and I answered
18:35hypothetically and I caveated my answer
18:38by saying please don't pay too much
18:39attention
18:40of course this was edited from the
18:45values of Cambridge analytic oh well
18:48look at that meeting we had a client
18:52that we thought was bringing a very
18:54interesting contract to the company and
18:57the client started taking the
19:00conversation down a completely uncharted
19:03Avenue and in our overzealousness to
19:07secure a contract marked Hermel and i
19:11were guilty of of hyperbole hyperbole
19:14and agreeing with the client on matters
19:17that not only have we never involved
19:20ourselves in before but we had no
19:22understanding of we were just telling
19:24the client what we thought he wanted to
19:27hear in order to find out exactly what
19:30his intentions were and to move the
19:33contract forward so I'm just being
19:35passed a case
19:36study from your website that says sorry
19:40from the brochure your brochure
19:41marketing brochure as part of an
19:43election campaign that turned nasty we
19:45launched a targeted digital attack on
19:48the opposition candidate within three
19:50weeks every single reference to him on
19:52the first two pages of Google referred
19:54to the candidates horrific track record
19:55of corruption coercion rape allegations
19:58and victimizations
19:59are those the ethic so those are the
20:02values of Cambridge analytic oh well if
20:05you have a candidate that is been found
20:09guilty of corruption or guilty of rape
20:11or or other such things pushing those
20:14into the public space is is in the
20:21public interest
20:22surely the ethics and what are the
20:25values that came from China Mexico did
20:27you have any at all I mean if you didn't
20:29just tell me but I'm interested to know
20:31did it have any business ethics or
20:34values
20:34Karajan Whitaker is a company that's
20:37predominantly staffed by very young very
20:40ideological and very talented
20:43individuals who who come from a broad
20:47range of political ideologies and
20:50interests and who genuinely have been
20:54working to understand how they can use
20:57data to make the world a better place on
21:00many different levels both obviously by
21:03contributing to developing communication
21:07and how that's used also in the social
21:10and development sphere in
21:11counterterrorism counter-radicalization
21:14there are huge areas of positive work
21:16that I could point to but instead the
21:19media and it seems this committee are
21:21intent to focus on this this one meeting
21:25which was clearly not representative of
21:28the values nor the ethics of the company
21:32okay let me move to mr. Mallen's jr.
21:35Mullins QC report in
21:38cage analytic Oh you mentioned young
21:41idealistic employees of the company
21:43would they be the same employees that
21:45mr. Mallen's talked to who described you
21:47as delusional that you should have been
21:50reined in a long time ago that you and
21:52Mark Turnbull were behaving like
21:53teenagers deaf desperately trying to get
21:56a deal
21:57those accurate assessments of you mister
21:59turn well I think that the quotes that
22:01you're referring to were in their
22:03response to that particular channel for
22:06investigate investigative video and I
22:10think that they're quite right in in
22:12their criticisms as I think Brittany
22:15Kaiser said in her testimony she didn't
22:18recognize the company that was portrayed
22:20in that video and I think the staff were
22:23rightly very disappointed by the fact
22:25that under the very skillful
22:30manipulation of the journalist he was
22:34able to coax us into saying things that
22:36neither represent what we do nor the
22:39values and ethics that the company holds
22:41so why sailin well clearly if I could
22:46have the meeting again I would have it
22:48differently you do appreciate that I
22:50mean obviously I'm sure you won't take
22:54exception to this but it goes to the
22:56very heart of your credibility in terms
23:00of both your business reputation and
23:02your evidence to us but you will say
23:05those sorts of things when you're
23:06telling us actually they're completely
23:08untrue well I hope in due course and and
23:12overtime that I will be judged by my
23:14actions and not my words because clearly
23:16in this case my words were foolish
23:20Claire I'm gonna see on the channel 4
23:23investigation that was quite a lot of
23:24focus on the reference to the Ukrainian
23:26girls which she'll make sure you'll
23:28remember that what you said there was he
23:30said they are very beautiful I find that
23:32works very well so a hypothetical that
23:35was saying it I find that works very
23:37well so was that just a lie to impress
23:40the people you talking to or was it
23:43something else that was just a lie to
23:44impress the people that I was talking to
23:46Joe Stevens another closet into us of
23:49whether this is out of character with
23:50with company Joe Stevens mentioned the
23:53QCs report the company commissioned in
23:56that he says that if there was if this
23:58sort of thing happened then you probably
24:00find examples where politicians who were
24:04on the opposite side of the campaign the
24:06SCL all came from this cause involved
24:08with would would be exposed in in some
24:10sort of sex scandal and he said for what
24:13he'd seen that that hadn't happened but
24:15that isn't true is it
24:16because in 2015 the prime minister said
24:19Vincent was caught out in a sex tape
24:21scandal and he was the he was on the
24:24opposition side of a campaign that you
24:26your company was involved with isn't
24:28that isn't it correct I did believe that
24:32is correct
24:33I've got a I've got a copy of the
24:35newspaper report of the scandal itself
24:38Cynthia's Prime Minister comments on sex
24:40tape the party that you were working for
24:42and that is the NDP and they said that
24:45they've nothing to do with it but
24:47nevertheless the sex scandal took place
24:48so those the QC ology write your report
24:51wasn't aware of that particular and nor
24:53was I aware of that mr. Colley's that's
24:56the first time I've learnt about that
24:59and I'm sure that we will and I will
25:03revert you on this but 2015 you say
25:05that's when the so if I'm I'm gonna say
25:14to the committee and I will circle back
25:15to you on this but I can say with a high
25:18degree of certainty that we were not
25:20involved in that election in 2015 okay
25:23with will check please go on the other
25:25day I have
25:26frontally after the the piece of work
25:28itself may have been earlier but I think
25:32I may become over 2010 but but
25:36double-check that do you not have that
25:38story but I'm not that seem to be to me
25:40that seemed to be a case where the QC
25:42may not been aware of the breadth of
25:44some of the weather look I'm sure that
25:45any of the committee can point to a
25:48politician involved in a sex scandal but
25:51that doesn't automatically mean that
25:53because I got entrapped by a journalist
25:56that we were responsible for it I think
25:58you're drawing a connection that doesn't
25:59exist what was in the KUSI's report
26:02because he was saying that you know if
26:03there was any any example of people kind
26:07of it being on the wrong side of a SC L
26:09came to another campaign you've been
26:10exposed in a sex sex scandal that might
26:12suggest that maybe there was some
26:13credence to it wasn't to something being
26:14said for the benefit of the table to
26:16impress a new client but actually this
26:18sort of thing had gone off well no let
26:20me let me make this absolutely
26:22categorical so that that we can put this
26:24to bed there is no credence to it
26:27we've never undertaken any work that
26:30involves a honey trap or the use of a
26:34sex scandal or anything like that all
26:37try to create a sex scandal for
26:40political leverage or for work on a
26:42campaign I can't be more blunt or plain
26:45than that I've seen and I've seen a also
26:48document that was presented by you to
26:52some potential clients in Mongolia in
26:54late 2014 this doesn't this is not about
26:57honey traps but just about other forms
26:58of what the document calls proactive
27:00campaign intelligence which it says can
27:03provide including investigations Sting's
27:06infiltrations designed to shed light on
27:08the opposition and to better anticipate
27:10their strategy is that reflective of the
27:12sort of work la comédie does well I'm
27:15not familiar with that document but the
27:17answer is no we we simply - in 2014 we
27:21probably had six or eight staff in the
27:26company most of them were 25 to 35 years
27:29old they came from
27:33either political consulting or from
27:37academic backgrounds we had not even the
27:41wherewithal to be able to wanted to take
27:43any of that work even if we'd wanted to
27:45and we wouldn't have wanted to and we
27:48never have so vamoose was gave to an
27:53emerging pattern that in documents that
27:56have been presented in interviews that
27:57you'll be you would given rather
27:59interviews but when you recorded to a
28:01channel for that you're saying one thing
28:02to your potential clients about what the
28:04company does but it but in reality you
28:06don't do any of those things you don't
28:07do infiltrations
28:08I think you need to be careful about
28:10making sweet sweeping statements with
28:12implications of stings or two words
28:14there is mercy on interview and it it
28:17was it was it was very leading and and
28:22the questions would were deliberately
28:26opaque and they led me down a certain
28:28Road and and I've already apologized to
28:31to the board and the shareholders and
28:34the employees and you know I'm very
28:37sorry I can say to everyone that that
28:41that I was so foolish to fall for a
28:44trick like that but it was a trick and
28:47and it doesn't represent what we do and
28:51it wouldn't be fair to characterize me
28:53or the company by that one incident well
28:56I'm not trying to do about that one
28:57incident I think I'm sure this will be
29:00something to look at as we go through
29:01the questions this afternoon is whether
29:03and actually what you said to what you
29:06call it the same telephone news reflects
29:09the sorts of things that you say wasn't
29:11a one-off though those are sorts of
29:13things you say to potential clients
29:14those are the thoughts or things that
29:15get put in put in pitch documents to
29:18potential clients stings you know and
29:21attempts to acquire information about
29:23opposition candidates and it can be
29:24exploited during the course of a
29:26campaign whether that is something that
29:27you routinely talk about when you meet
29:29new clients whether that was a one-off I
29:31think that is is pertinent to
29:33understanding
29:33the channel poor thing was an aberration
29:35or whether that these sorts of untruths
29:37are told routinely or indeed whether
29:39this some of this sort of work goes on
29:45it does seem strange that you're now
29:48telling us this was just all a little
29:50mistake in elaboration and you shouldn't
29:52really have said these things because
29:53actually in that wonderful document you
29:56yourself certainly you referred to
29:59SCL it's the largest political
30:01consultancy working in the shadows and
30:04there are actually you're quoted as
30:06saying how you you use the method of
30:10going to meet a potential incumbent and
30:17having video evidence of what they had
30:20done so that you could basically pop it
30:24on the internet and then they might be
30:26accused of corruption they they look for
30:30a large amount of money to a candidate
30:31to finance this campaign exchange for
30:34land etcetera etcetera it seems to me
30:36very odd that you're now saying you
30:38don't you didn't put anything in any of
30:40these involvements you had practice what
30:42I might call the dark arts well let me
30:45start by saying that there's nothing
30:48more sinister about what you've just
30:51read out than what Channel four were
30:54undertaking themselves so but they're
30:57actually your words that we does that
31:02mean that Channel four also work in the
31:05dartium are to make sure with videos so
31:08that you could use it later
31:09mmm-hmm it does seem really odd that
31:13you're now saying none of that was true
31:14you weren't practicing these dark arts
31:16well so let me clarify first and
31:21foremost I was brewing a very particular
31:24distinction about what mr. chairman was
31:27talking about which was the use of honey
31:29traps and the use of of
31:35well the other word you used I can't
31:37remember infiltrations and things like
31:41that we don't do that we haven't done
31:43that and I think that most of this
31:47committee would recognize that there is
31:49a difference between honey traps and
31:53infiltrations than for instance what
31:58channel four would call an expose to the
32:08committee and you may recall that I
32:10asked you about ethics and in particular
32:15whether the company had ever refused a
32:21proposal from a client in connection
32:24with advertisements or or a film on
32:28ethical grounds then you said you go
32:32away and come back to us and we have
32:35received a response from you which says
32:36you cannot find an example of where we
32:39have had to refuse to put out an advert
32:42on behalf of one of our clients isn't
32:46that the clear example that you have not
32:48applied an ethical approach to the
32:52advertisements that you put out after
32:55Kendrick analytic year and this year
32:57well that's certainly one interpretation
33:00of that alternatively you could simply
33:02say that that is an example of where we
33:04haven't had to employ those sanctions
33:08because we haven't had a nun effort
33:09being asked to undertake anything
33:11unethical by a client there were some
33:14films about the Kenya election that were
33:17featured in the channel 4 film which
33:20which I think your colleague actually
33:24referred to as being effective
33:30are you saying that at no stage of any
33:33of your clients used unethical
33:36advertisements or communications so this
33:40was an allegation I believe that was
33:42made by mr. Wylie about the fact that we
33:44disseminated unethical media content in
33:49the Kenyan elections I think that
33:51subsequent to that testimony what we've
33:54seen is that the actual company
34:01responsible for producing and
34:03disseminating that was an American based
34:05political consultancy digital
34:08consultancy who had no relationship to
34:11Cambridge and whatsoever and that it was
34:15simply convenient for mr. Wylie to imply
34:19that we had disseminated that when
34:21actually we had nothing to do with that
34:23campaign we weren't involved in in that
34:26particular set of adverts or TV
34:32commercials or whatever they were and I
34:35believe a spokesperson for the campaign
34:37has also exonerated us from any
34:41involvement in in that mr. Nix isn't
34:46isn't the truth that Cambridge analytic
34:51cannot produce a single example of
34:55refusing a proposal from a client for an
34:59unethical that advertisement and
35:03therefore kim-jong of the ticket was and
35:08I think an ethical company itself I
35:11didn't apply high ethical standards
35:14well I just don't think you can draw
35:16that conclusion from your statement I
35:19think you'd like to draw that conclusion
35:21because I think it fits with a certain
35:24prejudice which has been prevalent in
35:26the media but has not been borne out by
35:29evidence I've certainly haven't seen any
35:33evidence that supports this obviously
35:35apart from this this channel for
35:39entrapment video and so I don't agree
35:43with what you've said so the answer is
35:45no it's not true you produced no
35:48evidence of Cambridge analytical
35:51rejecting an advertisement on ethical
35:53grounds that is correct but that does
35:58not mean that we are unethical it simply
36:00means that we haven't worked or been
36:03asked to disseminate unethical
36:05advertising Thank You mr. Lucas's French
36:10was well on the case of the video
36:12the violent extreme violent video
36:14related to the Nigeria campaign was that
36:16SEL were running the campaign aiq were
36:19asked to disseminate it and what aiq
36:21told us was they refused to do so they
36:23didn't say that the video didn't exist
36:24they said that they refused to have
36:26anything to do with disseminating it now
36:27we only have their word to go on for
36:29that but that was the evidence that they
36:31gave so that's that the result of his
36:33communica so they were there were two
36:34incidents one was in regards to Kenya
36:37and the other which I've addressed I
36:38hope to your satisfaction and the other
36:40was in regards to Nigeria now when I
36:43appeared before the committee last I was
36:45unaware of that video I still haven't
36:48seen that video so I can't speak to its
36:50content but I did obviously listen
36:53carefully to the testimony of Jeff
36:56Sylvester I also read the testimony of
36:59Brittany Kaiser and then I've spoken
37:02since two other employees who were in
37:04the company at the time and again this
37:06was another allegation that stemmed from
37:08mr. Wiley against the company unethical
37:11practices but what has become clear or
37:14what is absolutely clear to me is that
37:17that video was not produced by SEL
37:20Elections or Cambridge and Attica not
37:22only did we not have the in-house
37:24capability to edit or produce videos we
37:30certainly didn't have that capability in
37:32Nigeria for the team that were on the
37:34ground and and that my understanding is
37:38that that video was presented to us by
37:41the client who asked us to disseminate
37:43it and that a discussion took place
37:46between the members of the campaign
37:48team some of whom were sel some of whom
37:50were subcontractors like AI Q and a
37:53decision was reached not to disseminate
37:56it now I can't speak to this directly
37:58because I never went to Nigeria on this
38:00campaign but that's my very clear
38:01understanding from the other parties and
38:04members of the company that I've spoken
38:05to so at the time when you asked me that
38:07question mr. Lucas I wasn't aware of
38:10this I am now aware of this so I now can
38:13point to a video or a client campaign
38:16that we were presented with that we
38:17didn't disseminate because when I became
38:23became in front of the committee on the
38:2527th of February that was prior to
38:27Brittany kaisers testa me and
38:29Christopher wines tested me and Jeff
38:31Sylvester's tested me and I wasn't aware
38:33that this video even existed but in your
38:36response which was subsequent to you
38:38giving evidence you on the specific
38:42point you still didn't that features an
38:45example you first time we've heard about
38:47this today well my apologies I mean I'm
38:51telling you now that response when did
38:54that response come to you was it before
38:55Brittany's testimony I really go
38:57responses incorporate assessment certain
38:59and there you are it's the answer to
39:00your question I think I know this mother
39:02questions on Nigeria Conti I think make
39:04better progress and then Chris Madison
39:07Thank You chair it distract me from
39:11listening to test me a little while ago
39:13that you were a bit unlucky with that
39:16channel for video weren't you mr. Nix
39:17because well they're all the business
39:19pictures that you've done and they've
39:22done ethically and the one that you did
39:24it yes or ethically was the one that was
39:26recorded well I don't know that I was
39:28unlucky I think other business meetings
39:33are not steered by an undercover
39:36reporter who's deliberately trying to
39:38entrap you and therefore they never the
39:41conversation never moves into into those
39:44areas and towards those subject matters
39:46so it wasn't like it was a very
39:50deliberate and coordinated program of
39:56deception by channel 4 together with
39:58other newspapers
39:59where they you know deliberately seeded
40:03questions to elicit certain answers so I
40:05don't think luck had anything to do with
40:07it but that's the business of course the
40:09you were in wasn't it was behavioral
40:12change by deliberately ceding people's
40:15thoughts well it looks I know the
40:18committee would like to believe the
40:20media's impression that we are this
40:23large nefarious multinational company
40:27that influences politics and another
40:32things around the world the truth of the
40:34matter is we are we are a very small
40:39advertising agency that happens to work
40:42across a number of sectors one of which
40:45is political campaigns which only
40:48constitutes about 25 or 30% of the
40:51revenue of the business where most of
40:54our time is spent selling toothpaste and
40:57automotives
40:58and things like that and just if I can
41:03come back onto the on to the question of
41:06substance in this in this session
41:07chairman you told us previously that in
41:10relationship well in respective the
41:12organization WikiLeaks we have no
41:15relationship with WikiLeaks we've never
41:17spoken to Annette WikiLeaks we've never
41:18done any business with WikiLeaks we have
41:20no relationship with them period full
41:23stop does that remain the case that
41:27remains the case right I see that this
41:29afternoon there's an article on the
41:32Guardian website suggesting that
41:36Brittany Kaiser when she had been wanted
41:39to came to analytical director was
41:40visiting Julian Assange in February last
41:43year and was told friends that it was to
41:47discuss what had happened during the
41:48u.s. election the article also goes on
41:52to say that
41:56the seed all that also claimed to have
41:59channeled cryptocurrency payments and
42:00donations to WikiLeaks is that correct
42:05I simply cannot speak to that that isn't
42:07the first time that I've heard that I
42:09haven't read the article I had
42:10absolutely no knowledge of the fact that
42:13Brittany Kaiser had met the June Sarge I
42:16cannot speak to the veracity of that
42:17reporting if it's anything like the
42:20majority of the reporting that that
42:22newspaper has said about our company I
42:24can only be skeptical about the truth
42:27that it's based on their source their
42:29sources visitor logs from the Ecuadorian
42:31Embassy obtained by the Guardian and an
42:33organisation that don't know called
42:34focus Ecuador
42:35so it sounds that if the visitor logs
42:37are correct that it might be the case it
42:40might well be the case you're probably
42:41better off speaking to Carol and asking
42:44her directly I might do it's just about
42:46ask her before because the session
42:48already started for which I apologized
42:50for now I really have never heard this
42:52before this is completely new to me but
42:55I'm assuming what Brittany did that in a
42:58personal capacity it certainly had
43:00nothing to do with Cambridge analytical
43:02or SEL elections right the one concern
43:06about that is obviously she'd be doing
43:08it on your time and and also that's the
43:10second this the second incident is now
43:13following on from my colleagues I'm
43:16asked where things are being gone in the
43:17company that you whence you went fully
43:19aware of are you a little bit concerned
43:21that perhaps you didn't have a complete
43:23grip on the activities of your
43:25colleagues in terms of what they were
43:27doing around the globe well if you're
43:29asking me if I if I micromanage 120
43:35staff in offices across you know the US
43:39and and the United Kingdom such that I
43:42understand how they spend every minute
43:44of every day when I myself am traveling
43:46extensively you're absolutely correct
43:50but in terms of WikiLeaks and Julian
43:52Assange who obviously is a very high
43:54profile individual and
43:56has undertaken some fairly high-profile
43:59publication of leaks including those
44:01that are used for political
44:04embarrassment and we've seen that from
44:06the United States for example it might
44:08have been useful particularly since your
44:09work you had work in the United States
44:11if you'd been aware of that would look I
44:14don't know how I can say this more
44:15clearly I wasn't aware of it I didn't
44:17know that that Brittany Kaiser had been
44:20to the embassy I can't speak to her
44:23motives I can't speak to what she was
44:25doing she certainly wasn't there
44:27representing Cambridge analytic or SEO
44:30okay thank you thank you I've just on
44:32were gone in Judas arms I just want to
44:35ask you a couple of questions about
44:36Brittany kaisers evidence to us which a
44:38bunch will UC cos did you did you did
44:43you hire Brittany Kaiser personally to
44:45come work for your company did was she
44:47someone you knew before she joined the
44:48firm well I was introduced to her
44:50personally and then she would have been
44:53interviewed as other candidates for a
44:57job um she she was he knew Julian
45:01Assange before she came to work for you
45:03she spoke about about that and a
45:05particularly through her relationship
45:07with the legal chambers that represent
45:09him and she said that you knew that she
45:13knew Julian Assange as well I just want
45:15to ask him with about was correct
45:16well it's certainly correct that that
45:21Brittany Kaiser had worked I don't know
45:25for how long in human rights for the QC
45:30John Jones yeah and I believe that he
45:32represented yes Julian Assange at some
45:36point so whether she knew Julian Assange
45:38directly or had ever met him I can't
45:40speak to that but I know that I knew
45:42that she had a relationship with John
45:43Jones but so you were aware of that
45:45connection and the connection altitude
45:46that is fresh yes I've met Jon Jones
45:48myself once yes because it came up in
45:51Britain
45:52as evidence because you spoke to us
45:53about ginger sauce the last time you
45:55came saying that you made an attempt to
45:58reach him virus I think speaker Bureau
46:00or some of the but given that you knew
46:03Britney Kaiser and had a route into
46:06joining us on at least through his legal
46:08representation why didn't you just ask
46:09her if you wanted to get you get a
46:11message Julian Assange why did you go
46:12through that convoluted route
46:13well actually of one of my colleagues
46:17put that question to me the other day
46:18and the answer is I mean I really think
46:21this demonstrates how much of a
46:26spur-of-the-moment idea it was to reach
46:30out to them it wasn't something that was
46:32thought through as I think I told this
46:34committee last time very plainly I read
46:37an article in The Guardian I believe it
46:39was that that Julian massage had access
46:42to tip to this to these emails and I
46:45simply reached across to my colleague
46:47and said would you mind seeing if you
46:49can contact him to see if he'll share
46:50these with us that's that was the extent
46:53of it
46:54we didn't sit down and strategize this
46:55we didn't think it through she very
46:59kindly followed up for me and at ten
47:01days later we've got a response saying
47:03no he wasn't interested but your
47:05motivation was to to seek to gain access
47:08to the emails that Julian Assange had
47:10Hillary Clinton emails in order to
47:13benefit your client do you chop them
47:15back well I don't think we'd really
47:16thought it through that far I mean I
47:18think the point was so that you could
47:20even have these were very contentious
47:22emails potentially and we wanted to
47:25understand as did every journalist and
47:28and I would say most political
47:30consultants on both sides of the aisle
47:32in in the United States what was
47:34contained in them I don't think that
47:37curiosity is indicative of anything
47:40nefarious I'll just asking what the but
47:42just to clarify what the motivation was
47:44sure Julie Elliot
47:46mr. Nixon February when you appeared
47:49before this committee you said that you
47:52had no relationship with aggregate IQ
47:56apart from using IE IQ to develop some
47:59software that's correct
48:01would you like to reassess your original
48:03answer that in light of what we've heard
48:05in the last few months about all of this
48:07well I think I think I want to double
48:12check I think the question was do you
48:13have a relationship with aggregate IQ to
48:15which I know because we do not have a
48:18relationship without Richert IQ and we
48:20have not had a relationship we've acted
48:21IQ for for many months or indeed for
48:25well over a year or year and a half and
48:28so I was absolutely correct and I stand
48:30by that I then volunteered some
48:33additional information to you to help
48:35you understand that we had had a
48:36relationship with aggregate IQ
48:38principally in 2014 they built a
48:43software platform for us well internally
48:49we use the name rip on for it but in
48:53addition to that they also worked as a
48:55subcontractor to our firm on a number of
48:59projects which involve building other
49:01very small or smaller pieces of software
49:03and also they undertook some digital
49:06marketing for us and if we're talking
49:09about the rip on platform can you tell
49:11us a little bit in detail of how that
49:14was built
49:17I couldn't speak to that you mean
49:19technically how but the code base was
49:21put together yeah and no icon well look
49:28I can speak to that certainly look we
49:31used aggregate IQ as an independent
49:35company of specialist software engineers
49:38to help us build what was called a voter
49:42engagement platform the easiest way to
49:45think about this is a piece of software
49:48that allows you to visualize and
49:53manipulate data so that you can so that
49:58you can make decisions based on those
50:01data and what was the intention of using
50:04that data of using that the intention
50:09was to be able to provide this as a tool
50:12to clients to be able to use so that
50:15they could identify target audiences for
50:20campaigns and where would they got the
50:24data from to use with the vast majority
50:29of data that was that was that was used
50:34in this platform was a combination of
50:39voter registration data which is
50:42something that's commercially available
50:43in the United States and consumer and
50:46lifestyle data which again is something
50:49that you can you can go out and
50:52commercially acquire or license from
50:55from data vendors so the tech website
50:58Gizmodo revealed the entire code base
51:02FERC Ames analytic has written platform
51:04and the security firm upstart revealed
51:07the integration of Cambridge analytical
51:10and a IQ through another base called why
51:13was so much your source called kept in
51:15such infancy
51:17patience well firstly that source code
51:20was was written as I just made clear and
51:23develop my a IQ and so you'd have to
51:27address that to them it was it would
51:29have been their responsibility to keep
51:30that code safe but that oh well we
51:37tasked a subcontractor to build us a
51:39product we tasked them to do that
51:44because we didn't have the capability or
51:45wherewithal in-house to do that so so
51:51therefore for us to be able to to
51:53micromanage or police that at that time
51:56would have been difficult certainly but
52:00I think more romantic more importantly
52:01for what information did they give you
52:04or did you ask them to make you
52:06satisfied that that data was secure well
52:10I think there's a confusion here and I
52:12want to explain this as best I can
52:14given that that neither of us are
52:17technical software developers but well
52:23the confusion seems to be that this code
52:27base was the same as the data that was
52:32contained on the platform my
52:34understanding from the article which we
52:36both seem to have read and from the
52:38evidence that Chris Vickery gave was
52:41that the code base pertained to the
52:43platform it was the code for the
52:45development of the platform and it was
52:47only part of the code not even the
52:49entire pipe it was just a small piece of
52:51the code was my understanding there is
52:53no correlation between the code base for
52:56the platform and the data that went into
52:58it so the best way to explain this using
53:00a metaphor would be that aiq were tasked
53:06to build a car for us they had to have
53:10left a door lying around that somebody
53:13found but possession of that door does
53:16not necessarily does not at all give you
53:19access to the petrol that's put into the
53:21car
53:22does that work for you but do you think
53:25it was acceptable that the source code
53:27was in such unsecure place well look
53:32there's nothing other than the fact that
53:35it's our IP or IP that we've
53:37commissioned there's nothing sensitive
53:40or or put at risk by the code for a
53:47program being left on an open forum and
53:50indeed many developers choose to leave
53:53their code in open forums so that it can
53:55be shared with other developers for the
53:58benefit of the good of the community
54:00I don't think analogy is quite straight
54:05I think it's quite a straightforward is
54:06that though is it because what we've
54:08seen is evidence of that joint project
54:11working people a IQ and SEL having
54:13access to the same databases working on
54:15the same databases wasn't as simple as a
54:17RQ is being hired to design tools that
54:20the rest have come to use people working
54:21together on the same data on the same
54:23campaigns
54:24well my analogy was very specifically to
54:27illustrate the point that the MS Elliot
54:30was was making in regards to the the
54:33code base that had been left on the on
54:36the Internet
54:37so I think that it could be better but I
54:41think there was a fair analogy but your
54:43point stands mr. chairman which is after
54:46they'd built the software platform for
54:49us a IQ continued to work with us as
54:53consultants not least to help some of
54:55our clients to interface with the
54:57product that they built and to teach
55:00them effectively how to use it
55:04a RQ worked with you before they built
55:06their works in Trinidad that's the route
55:09to first engage that's correct
55:10and I believe you were introduced to
55:12Eric you by Chris Wiley as that code is
55:14also correct and you obviously were very
55:16impressed with them because after
55:18meeting them there very quickly involved
55:20in a you know
55:21important campaign for you what why was
55:23that you were having met this this I
55:26mean people have said you know you
55:27people some fairly disparaging things
55:29about Chris wildly in terms of his role
55:31of a company but he introduced you to IQ
55:33and you hide them pretty much straight
55:34away would that be fair what happened
55:36look I don't think that's fair at all I
55:38mean first let's talk about Chris Wiley
55:40Chris finally had an absolutely
55:41instrumental role in the company I mean
55:43nobody says in the QCs report that your
55:45company commissioned it's basically
55:46makes him sound like someone who was a
55:48kind of like intern freelancer well no I
55:50mean I think those are the facts of the
55:52matter and you and what you said no how
55:55about the case he said well the facts of
55:56the matter are that Chris Wiley was on a
55:59tear to student visa he was limited to
56:01working 20 hours a week I believe you
56:04have to check that and as such he could
56:07only work two days a week or also at the
56:11company which is probably why mr.
56:15Mallen's
56:16alluded to him as a part-time or a
56:18consultant or an intern or whatever he
56:20said but that's not to undermine his
56:22value Chris while he's brought some some
56:25very significant value to the company
56:27not only did he introduce us to a IQ but
56:30he he was also the the person
56:33responsible for introducing us to dr.
56:35Kogan he was the the architect of that
56:38relationship and the idea of of asking
56:43kokand to collect data and and and to
56:48use that sort of data on modeling
56:52personalities and then he went on and
56:54managed that relationship right up until
56:56the point that he left the company okay
56:59well I think that's I think what you
57:00said there it will be a fair reflection
57:01of the value you brought to company them
57:03what was in the KUSI's report well I
57:06can't speak to the QC report it was
57:08independent well it was commissioned by
57:10by kim jong Miska the so our q works in
57:15trinidad they're then engaged to design
57:19the RIP on the system that you've
57:20described they work on
57:24campaigns for the campaign work that was
57:25done for John Bolton's PAC in the
57:28election races in America in 2014 there
57:32then working on Ted Cruz campaign in
57:342015 I mean Jeff Sylvester said to us
57:36the probably 80% of their revenue from
57:38end of the beginning of 2014 through to
57:41the start of their work with vote leave
57:44was with SEL and I think many people
57:47would say that they were during that
57:49time they're those their teams were
57:50totally integrated with yours and that
57:52was they may be a legally separate
57:54entity they were effectively part the
57:57same team isn't that the reality of the
57:59situation well certainly not in my mind
58:03I never considered a IQ part of our
58:07company they were a subcontractor who
58:09was brought in over a period of time to
58:12undertake very specific tasks for the
58:17company they came in they undertook a
58:19piece of work such as building the
58:21reform platform and then they left and
58:23then possibly later they would come in
58:25and undertake a different piece of work
58:26so the answer to your question is no but
58:29they have they have access to the same
58:31data during that period of time so
58:33they're not just desserts I think that's
58:35why that your what your what you want us
58:37to believe I think is that they are just
58:39designing discrete tools they make those
58:41tools they're given to you they go away
58:42again they might come back for another
58:43project now they didn't design and
58:46create a very important tool the report
58:47at all that you described but other than
58:49that they're working continuously with
58:51SEL sharing data helping improve
58:55targeting campaigns helping to run and
58:57execute those campaigns and did you have
58:59any kind of policies in place because is
59:01there a separate company on on what
59:03protocols or rules that you have in
59:05place around data sharing did you make
59:07whether agreement signed by the moon on
59:08data sharing and data handling given
59:10they were handling your company's data
59:12well I think that you are not correct
59:21when you talk about data sharing I cure
59:25a software engineering company
59:27and Cambridge analytical was a data
59:30analytics company they built a
59:32production if we go back to my rather
59:35trite analogy of the car and the petrol
59:37they built the car and we put the petrol
59:39in now the petrol that was put into the
59:42car was not raw data it was modeled data
59:45they would not have had access to the
59:47raw data and the only way that they
59:50could have had access to that data other
59:54than in their work that they were
59:57undertaking for us would have been if
1:00:00they'd taken a copy of these data
1:00:03illegally and and obviously in you know
1:00:09against the contracts that they were
1:00:12bound by you see the raw data wouldn't
1:00:16be much juicier than any way with it
1:00:17because their job is not to handle the
1:00:19raw data as he turned the profiles that
1:00:22had been created by the algorithm is
1:00:24your company worked with and then use
1:00:26that and you know turn those profiles
1:00:27into customized audiences and then to
1:00:29execute advertising campaigns that's
1:00:31that's what they do to do that they have
1:00:34to have access look at the printout
1:00:35that's not what they did because that's
1:00:37not their role in regards to rip on was
1:00:40was largely to maintain the platform and
1:00:44to to work on the platform to ensure
1:00:47that it's scaled that isn't how many
1:00:49bugs that if the client requested a
1:00:54particular functionality that they could
1:00:56then do that so their role was very much
1:00:59a functionary world role in order to
1:01:02make sure that this platform that they
1:01:05built for us was a usable tool for
1:01:08clients and yes I mean that's it really
1:01:17well I think if that's the case then I
1:01:19think that is no case what surprised us
1:01:21is that in looking at we're doing some
1:01:22work looking at evidence Chris victories
1:01:24given to us from the aiq faculty found
1:01:26on on gitlab which shows evidence of
1:01:29both people in a deploys of sel
1:01:31employees from MQ
1:01:32access to the same data sets now we'll
1:01:35see if there's more evidence of that but
1:01:37that wouldn't seem to sit that odds with
1:01:39what you've what you said to ask because
1:01:40there have been no need for that if
1:01:42people weren't working on on data sets
1:01:44that were being used in Holland well
1:01:47look I don't really understand the
1:01:48thrust of the point that you're making
1:01:49but maybe I can color this in in a
1:01:52different way it it would not be unusual
1:01:54for us as a firm to undertake data
1:01:58analytics on behalf of our clients where
1:02:01we would be working on their data
1:02:03sometimes we would take receipt of that
1:02:05data to work on it and sometimes we
1:02:07would work within clients own firewalls
1:02:10say a bank or somewhere where the data
1:02:13is more sensitive just because we are
1:02:15working on clients data does not and
1:02:19therefore we have access to the data
1:02:20that we're working on does not mean that
1:02:22we have a right to that data we can make
1:02:25a copy of that data or otherwise own
1:02:29that data it simply means that we are a
1:02:31contractor working on clients data and
1:02:33that was the relationship with aiq but
1:02:37ii seem to be any kind of policies in
1:02:39place in terms of the handling of data
1:02:41and you talk about their not having
1:02:44access to raw data that was gathered by
1:02:48SEL what justjust for the record can you
1:02:51just explain what that raw data would
1:02:52include what data sets i know you've
1:02:54given talks of presentations about the
1:02:56methodology that cambridge journalistic
1:02:57is use but what sort of raw data would
1:02:59be processed by SEL well i mean i've
1:03:05just explained to your colleague that
1:03:06these data and i explained when i was
1:03:08here last time i think if you you would
1:03:10like to check my testimony but this is
1:03:12largely largely consumer and lifestyle
1:03:15data so this is data on for instance
1:03:18loyalty card data transaction data this
1:03:21is data that pertains to lifestyle
1:03:25choices such as what car you drive or
1:03:27what magazines you jury drive make a
1:03:29pardon what magazines you read it could
1:03:32be data on consumer habits and together
1:03:38with some demographic and geographic
1:03:40data
1:03:41and obviously the voter data which is
1:03:42very important for the u.s. politics and
1:03:45thank your Facebook well obviously
1:03:48there's a GSR data set but I think you
1:03:52need to understand that that data was
1:03:53was in the grand scheme of things was
1:03:56really a very very small component of
1:03:58the larger data set I think we're gonna
1:04:00move on to that subject now sorry thank
1:04:05you very much sir and just before we do
1:04:07can i just just clarify one thing
1:04:08because these newspaper reports be very
1:04:10very recent when you appeared in in
1:04:15february and so much has gone on since
1:04:18you you you've made the distinction
1:04:20between came journalistic and their seal
1:04:22elections and the SCL group as separate
1:04:25entities apart from certain common
1:04:27showings but it is the case that all of
1:04:32the SCL companies have now gone into
1:04:34either chapter 7 or or administration
1:04:36that's correct so the as far as the the
1:04:40SCL group companies a concern is it has
1:04:46it been the case that what's happened
1:04:48with all the media publicity surrounding
1:04:51Cambridge analytical and SCL elections
1:04:54that the whole SCL brand has been
1:04:57toxified and and therefore extinguished
1:05:02well look as I've already stated it's
1:05:05certainly the case that all the SEO
1:05:07companies are in administration but the
1:05:11SCL group was to carrying out defense
1:05:13movement that is correct additionally
1:05:15but but what's happened with your your
1:05:17side of the your companies as so made it
1:05:22the situation so toxic that Lee that the
1:05:24shareholders have decided also to put
1:05:27SEL group into administration this was a
1:05:36commercial decision based on the
1:05:39negative press and the the allegations
1:05:42that have been made against the company
1:05:45many of which have now been proven to be
1:05:46false but as a result of these
1:05:51the board decided that the company was
1:05:55no longer a viable going concern and
1:05:58decided to put it into administration
1:05:59those are the different boards of the
1:06:01different companies
1:06:02indeed I just want to come on now to UM
1:06:07to where I think you you left off in
1:06:09your opening opening comments I just
1:06:14wanted to it's it's regarding the
1:06:16relationship between your company or
1:06:20companies and and GSR and alexander
1:06:25Cogan when new pages in February or the
1:06:30chair asks you this question does any of
1:06:33your day to come from global science
1:06:35research company you answered GSR chair
1:06:39said yes you then said we had a
1:06:42relationship with GSR they did some
1:06:45research for us back in 2014 that
1:06:47research proved to be fruitless and so
1:06:50the answer is no the chair and asked you
1:06:54they have not supplied you with data
1:06:56information you entered a game was no
1:06:58and the chair then asked again your data
1:07:02sets not based with information you've
1:07:05received from them again you said no the
1:07:08chair at all and your final response was
1:07:11was at all so since then we've had some
1:07:17rather conflicting evidence from dr.
1:07:22Cogan himself from Christopher Wiley
1:07:26about what data was supplied and used
1:07:30indeed mr. Wiley described that data
1:07:37obtained via the the Cogan app from
1:07:40Facebook is the foundation data set of
1:07:43the company and which may have may have
1:07:46collected data on up to 87 million users
1:07:50and also clearly there's been action by
1:07:53by Facebook following these revelations
1:07:57are allegations so do you want to I
1:08:00think you were perhaps going to do it in
1:08:01your opening statement you want to
1:08:02clarify or amend
1:08:05the evidence that you gave in February
1:08:07with respect to data supplied by GSR and
1:08:14dr. Kogan
1:08:14thank you I'm grateful for that
1:08:17opportunity I certainly would like to
1:08:18continue with the very short statement
1:08:21on this and so we'll do that and then we
1:08:25can move on to questions from there look
1:08:28clearly I accept that some of my answers
1:08:30could have been clearer but I assure you
1:08:33that I did not intend to mislead you
1:08:36it was my firm impression that mr.
1:08:38Collins questions were focused on
1:08:39whether we were currently in possession
1:08:41of data from GSR following the research
1:08:43they carried out and which I was very
1:08:45clear in telling the committee about my
1:08:48belief was and remains that we deleted
1:08:51all such data licensed in good faith
1:08:54from GSR under that research contract so
1:08:57I answered no to his questions on the
1:08:59topic when I read the transcript it
1:09:02became clear that mr. Collins was also
1:09:04asking about whether he had ever been
1:09:06supplied with such data of course the
1:09:09answer to this question should have been
1:09:11yes but my focus was on whether we still
1:09:14held the data from GSR research which is
1:09:17the issue that Facebook had been most
1:09:19concerned about there was certainly no
1:09:22intention to mislead the committee the
1:09:24fact that we receive data from GSR was
1:09:26already in the public domain from his
1:09:28long ago as December 2015 when the
1:09:31Guardian published an article detailing
1:09:34Cambridge analytic his relationship with
1:09:36dr. Cogan there was there was and is no
1:09:39need to hide this fact indeed on the
1:09:4220th of March three days before the
1:09:45committee first race this specific
1:09:47inconsistency I appeared on Newsnight
1:09:50and made it clear that we licensed
1:09:52research data from GSR I also stand by
1:09:56my evidence that we do not work with
1:09:58Facebook data and we do not have
1:10:00facebook data the only Facebook data we
1:10:03ever received was via GSR on dr. Cogan
1:10:06and that was subsequently deleted at
1:10:07Facebook's request at the time we got no
1:10:11reason to believe that data had been
1:10:12provided to us improperly by GSR
1:10:17okay so you in short you've
1:10:20misunderstood the the Chairman's
1:10:21questions when you look at the
1:10:25transcript it's very plain or it's
1:10:27certainly clear of what the Chairman was
1:10:29was asking when you read when you listen
1:10:32to the video and I have several times
1:10:33it's the conversation is much less clear
1:10:37and indeed we spoke over each other and
1:10:39he did ask about whether we had data
1:10:42from Cogan he then reiterated that point
1:10:45and then he returned to that point and
1:10:47that was my understanding and it was a
1:10:49genuine misunderstanding front of them I
1:10:53did ask you about
1:10:55I said does any good data come from
1:10:57global science or any shows company you
1:10:59said gs arts the clarifying I said yes
1:11:02you said we had a relationship with GSR
1:11:04they did some research was back in 2014
1:11:06and that research proved to be fruitless
1:11:08so the answer is no I they said they
1:11:11have not supplied you with data or
1:11:12information you said no your data sets
1:11:14are not based with information you've
1:11:16received from them no I said to clarify
1:11:18at all and you said at all no I think
1:11:21there's there's no ambiguity in the
1:11:22exchange there at all dated up our data
1:11:26sets are not stasis or information or
1:11:29information yes are not informed by that
1:11:31data because it was deleted so cheerless
1:11:35that's exactly the same exchange that
1:11:36I've just just read out so ham Assad
1:11:38will have it now in duplicate so you you
1:11:42misunderstood the he was mixing his
1:11:44tenses up and he misunderstood the
1:11:46questions and you were talking over each
1:11:48other so why didn't you just take the
1:11:51opportunity later just to write and
1:11:53clarify with your previous with your
1:11:56follow-up supplementary information
1:12:00because I don't believe that when I
1:12:03submitted the supplementary information
1:12:05and you can certainly correct the
1:12:06timeline that that inconsistency had
1:12:09been flagged
1:12:10no but you flagged it yourself
1:12:14you flagged it yourself you've read the
1:12:16transcript and realized that oh I did
1:12:18not read the transcript until after it
1:12:21had been flagged by this committee
1:12:22so after whenever it was that the 23rd
1:12:25of March or something like that still a
1:12:27few months back so but you didn't take
1:12:29the opportunity to write say actually
1:12:30want to comment I want to clarify what I
1:12:32always do hurry I agreed to come in here
1:12:35and talk to you in person
1:12:37well you've now had given them accounts
1:12:39of it could I
1:12:40I mean clearly the the the its you might
1:12:45might say it's not up to you as to
1:12:47whether whether doctor kept to check
1:12:49whether doctor code was complying with
1:12:52Facebook's terms and conditions which he
1:12:57which he clearly wasn't but the the
1:13:00methods he was using it was it was it
1:13:02was a it was a neat neat trick in a
1:13:04sense because you could get friends data
1:13:06and therefore multiply greatly the data
1:13:10you got from people completing surveys
1:13:12was that it was that a a neat trick at
1:13:16all which Cambridge analytical or SEL
1:13:20elections or any of your companies
1:13:22repeated with respect to any other
1:13:25surveys that you did directly which
1:13:28involved any logging in at the end on
1:13:30Facebook so unfortunately and as you
1:13:34will recall from my opening statement
1:13:36there are some topics that as much as
1:13:39I'm wanting to talk about them and
1:13:42willing to talk about them I'm simply
1:13:44not able to because they refer to to
1:13:46live investigations and unfortunate this
1:13:48is one of those topics I think you're
1:13:50all aware that the ICO is conducting an
1:13:54investigation in the moment and so I'm
1:13:57not able to speak to any matters in
1:14:00relation to to GSR and to to that to
1:14:05that project that's or answer that's or
1:14:09answer but the Information
1:14:10Commissioner's make clear to us on I
1:14:11believe to your representatives that
1:14:13they have no objection
1:14:14discussing these issues today well I'm
1:14:16sure that they don't but you know the
1:14:21Information Commissioner's Office took
1:14:30advantage of my parliamentary privilege
1:14:32the last time I appeared here to use my
1:14:34testament to this committee as part of
1:14:36their application for a search warrant
1:14:38of our premises and so whilst in theory
1:14:42this privilege exists clearly it's open
1:14:44to abuse it depends what you say that's
1:14:47better
1:14:47well they shouldn't depend what I say
1:14:50it's either a privilege or it's not well
1:14:52it's not even to abuse of anything if
1:14:54they if they are interested in something
1:14:56you said and they never wish to talk to
1:14:57you about it that's that's the matter
1:14:58with them but if you were declining to
1:14:59answer those questions that somatically
1:15:01you and if you're doing that under
1:15:02advice I understand that thank you but
1:15:04just to make clear for the record the
1:15:06icao themselves don't feel that you
1:15:08aren't in these questions would in any
1:15:09way jeopardize or prejudice their
1:15:11investigations well look the committee
1:15:15should be reacting to findings from the
1:15:18ICO and not the other way around it's a
1:15:20complete separate bodies we were there
1:15:22is there a very clear sub juice you
1:15:24would supply and the prevent us from
1:15:26asking witnesses questions relate to
1:15:30matters port chords this isn't currently
1:15:31a matter for the courts we did Azzam it
1:15:33as a matter of procedure seek evidence
1:15:36seeking guidance from the ICO themselves
1:15:39so that was their guidance to us you
1:15:41given your answer to mr. Peroni resume
1:15:43will say about that but I think it's
1:15:44just clear for the record that as far as
1:15:46the ICA is concerned they don't have any
1:15:48concerns about you
1:15:49questions on that thank you sorry Paul
1:15:52okay I just just got one final final
1:15:54question on on this strand really but I
1:15:57think that the the refused to answer the
1:16:00question will will be taken in the
1:16:02record as meaning it was a relevant
1:16:04question to ask you mr. mr. Nix but can
1:16:07I just ask ask um and gain this is this
1:16:10is again dude a question with relation
1:16:13to potential use of data which you may
1:16:15feel you you you don't want to answer
1:16:19and it's really just a question to try
1:16:23and exemplify your approach to data you
1:16:26had a staffer from your companies
1:16:29working on data from Breitbart which has
1:16:33got a strong connection with Steve Steve
1:16:36Bannon I understand what was that sir
1:16:40was a with any data gathered from from
1:16:45that seconded to Breitbart and and if so
1:16:49how how would that have been used by the
1:16:52company I'm sorry you're gonna have to
1:16:56help me understand you're saying that
1:16:58one of my former employees went on to
1:17:00work for Breitbart no you you had
1:17:01someone seconded I understand Breitbart
1:17:03I don't believe that we did you didn't I
1:17:08mean I don't believe that we did I can't
1:17:10did certainly I can't think of anyone
1:17:13who was seconded to Breitbart and I'm
1:17:16certainly not trying to mislead you know
1:17:18in this regard yes input but I haven't
1:17:21heard of about that before no okay then
1:17:23you can't answer Jeff okay like a POW
1:17:27Chris picker he's kindly to since the
1:17:29message to the relation to a IQ data
1:17:30does whether they had access to raw data
1:17:33raw SEO date or not and he says that it
1:17:36basically hit the work he's done looking
1:17:38at the aiq files that there was it was
1:17:41almost certainly accessible the
1:17:42usernames passwords networ locations are
1:17:44all present that anyone who had access
1:17:46to the Eric you get lab store could
1:17:49access to all the SEL data that they'd
1:17:51they'd work with and I noticed well from
1:17:53the email exchange that we published the
1:17:56document given us by Chris while that
1:17:58relates to the Bolton super PAC work as
1:18:00well there's an email on the sent to it
1:18:02a RQ that Alyssa says the next steps to
1:18:04be undertaken during the campaign and in
1:18:07that it's one of the one of the items
1:18:08that it says AIT needs two days to put
1:18:10all information made available to them
1:18:12into a form look and me access and using
1:18:14the platform therefore all currently
1:18:15available data would need to be ready
1:18:17and sent to provide to them by the close
1:18:18of business on Saturday UK time so they
1:18:20have the weekend to do what they need to
1:18:22do we know as well obviously from
1:18:24Facebook that they found evidence of
1:18:27shared audience files on STL for sclar q
1:18:33campaigns that they'd run where there
1:18:34was a eighty percent correlation in the
1:18:36members of those audiences and they
1:18:37argue so to us that they've been given
1:18:39an audio Center by SEL I mean these you
1:18:42see these things that you were aware of
1:18:44because if they are I'm not sure that
1:18:47the answer you gave to us was was truly
1:18:49reflective of the nature of the
1:18:50relationship between aiq and SEL well I
1:18:54think what I explained to you mr.
1:18:56chairman was that I think the example
1:18:59that I gave you was that it's not it
1:19:02wouldn't be unusual for Sen or Cambridge
1:19:04America to work on a client's data sets
1:19:07whether it was a bank or a corporation
1:19:10and to have access to the data whilst we
1:19:13were working on them but that didn't
1:19:15entitle us to have any privileges over
1:19:18that data or any wherewithal to make a
1:19:23copy or retain any of that data
1:19:26ourselves the relationship where they IQ
1:19:30would not have been dissimilar to that
1:19:31whereas a subcontractor who was brought
1:19:33in to assist us on projects they would
1:19:37have had possibly access to some of the
1:19:39data as its indicated there whether that
1:19:41was modeled data or otherwise but again
1:19:45that would be covered by the contract
1:19:47relationship that we have with us that's
1:19:49why most are you saying they have used
1:19:51it they would have had access to model
1:19:54data or otherwise including raw data
1:19:55it's clear that they did have access to
1:19:57water well I I can't answer that with
1:19:59certainty but again I don't want to
1:20:00lead you because I did speak to my
1:20:02technical team my data team prior to
1:20:05this to this hearing and they assured me
1:20:09that there was no raw data that went
1:20:11into the record platform so again I can
1:20:15only defer to their expertise and again
1:20:18this could be a topic that we could
1:20:19circle back to you on yeah again there's
1:20:21a difference between war there - going
1:20:23into the ripple platform is almost
1:20:24certainly wouldn't have done and we
1:20:26offered more data being accessible to a
1:20:27IQ which it looks like it certainly was
1:20:30but based on what Chris Vickery says
1:20:32yeah and I think based on that wasn't
1:20:34that email based on other thing other
1:20:36evidence that we've seen that data is
1:20:38being an email digest model sorry
1:20:41doesn't suggest raw data it could
1:20:43certainly suggest model data well we see
1:20:45what was we've seen both in Chris
1:20:47victory and other evidence that we've
1:20:48seen from the aiq files that we've had a
1:20:50chance to look at exactly it's shared
1:20:52access to all data and Chris is saying
1:20:53that it's certainly technically possible
1:20:55as what he's saying it would be easy for
1:20:57anyone to do that but the premise
1:20:58remains whether so let's agree that we
1:21:02need to establish what data they had
1:21:04access to but regardless of that that
1:21:07doesn't give them any rights to that
1:21:09data as it wouldn't any contractor
1:21:12working with anyone elses day I'm not
1:21:13saying they didn't understand you said
1:21:14earlier on they had no access to raw
1:21:16data and that seems to be a matter of
1:21:17dispute and I think even you you are now
1:21:18saying that that's not well stated you
1:21:20could stand by I was told very firmly
1:21:22and unequivocally that no all data was
1:21:25put in to rip on and so I stand by what
1:21:28I was told but what I've agreed with
1:21:30this committee is to circle back to you
1:21:32and confirm this point who puts data
1:21:34into report
1:21:35when you're working on that way or Cupid
1:21:37the legend triple-a data scientists I
1:21:39believe they came to RIT well for SEO
1:21:42elections or Cambridge analytic oh okay
1:21:45mr. chairman remember sorry could you
1:21:48mind if we take a break for a few
1:21:49moments please
1:21:58sure one was you said we're gonna refer
1:22:03back to your team I just wonder what
1:22:06technical team that was because
1:22:07as CLC in administration is it not that
1:22:11is correct but I still just for her a
1:22:14relationship remind my colleagues I can
1:22:18obviously ask them in a as a friend for
1:22:22their advice and it's just a few points
1:22:26were relating to your last appearance
1:22:28here where we dealt a lot with Facebook
1:22:31and the cert those surveys on Facebook
1:22:35this is where a lot of our discussions
1:22:36actually began which seems like a long
1:22:39time ago yeah and at that first meeting
1:22:43where we talked about those surveys and
1:22:47that had a facebook login at the end and
1:22:51you said that if they had a login it
1:22:54didn't mean that your personal data was
1:22:56then giving me access by Cambridge
1:22:57analyst occur but Brittany Kaiser told
1:23:00us that the purpose of the surveys were
1:23:01was to gather information and that by
1:23:04competing it with your log in Cambridge
1:23:06an ELISA this would also get access to
1:23:09your data
1:23:09I just wondered whether you might just
1:23:11like to change your mind and amend your
1:23:14comments about that well I also was
1:23:19surprised by Brittany's answer she is
1:23:22also a non-technical person as am i I
1:23:25did discuss this with my technical
1:23:28colleagues and that they assured me that
1:23:30my original testimony reflected what was
1:23:36the case and therefore what I would like
1:23:38to do with because obviously I don't
1:23:41want to run the risk of misleading this
1:23:42committee is to agree to circle back to
1:23:44you on that point but my understanding
1:23:48is no data can answer now my
1:23:52understanding is that no data was
1:23:54collected but again I'd like to confirm
1:23:56that because obviously we we don't want
1:23:59to have a miscommunication that's a pity
1:24:02and I just wanted to clarify one other
1:24:04thing you've told us act that that first
1:24:07meeting that Cambridge analyst occurred
1:24:09did not work with Facebook Davis stuff
1:24:11that those were your exact words I think
1:24:14they might have been to me actually do
1:24:16you want to change your view on that
1:24:18would you just like to put on the record
1:24:20in the light of everything else that
1:24:22we've heard since whether you change
1:24:24your mind on that well I think the point
1:24:26that I was making there well actually
1:24:29again this is sorry I must stop myself
1:24:33from continuing because again this is
1:24:35again another topic that unfortunately
1:24:39falls under the investigation by the ICO
1:24:42so we're going to have to let that
1:24:44investigation play out before I can
1:24:46address that I just my final point
1:24:48something that you mentioned early is a
1:24:50very few very little data would have
1:24:53been in collected anyway but Brittany
1:24:55cars refer to 87 million people being
1:24:59having their Gator data gathered in this
1:25:01way well I can't I can't address that
1:25:04because this is in the public domain and
1:25:07I think and I urge you to revisit the
1:25:10testimony of dr. Cogan because I think
1:25:13his testimony was a very fair reflection
1:25:15of what happened and that is in contrast
1:25:20to two people who who weren't
1:25:22necessarily so involved such as Brittany
1:25:25Kaiser but I think what dr. Kogan made
1:25:29amply clear was that whilst he collected
1:25:33data on potentially 87 million people
1:25:36and a great deal of data that Cambridge
1:25:40analytic or SEO elections only received
1:25:42data and a very small amount of data on
1:25:44about 26 or 27 million individuals in
1:25:49the USA and that the only person to
1:25:53receive the entire dataset not just in
1:25:57its entirety in terms of all the people
1:26:00that had included but also all the data
1:26:01which it included which I believe dr.
1:26:04Kogan said was about 96 percent more
1:26:07data 96 percent more data than that
1:26:10which Cambridge analytic or SEO
1:26:12elections had received was Christopher
1:26:14Wylie for his company company you knowa
1:26:17now I think before we have a break this
1:26:20would be a good opportunity just to talk
1:26:21about that because
1:26:23a lot of the allegations in fact I'm
1:26:26going to say 90% of the allegations that
1:26:29then gain traction in the media have
1:26:32actually all come from a single source
1:26:33they've all come from Christopher Wiley
1:26:36and I think it's really important that
1:26:38this committee understands that and
1:26:42understands the motivations behind this
1:26:45and what was going on at the time so if
1:26:48you'll permit me I just like to give you
1:26:50a little bit of background because I
1:26:52think it's very relevant and extremely
1:26:54important where so many allegations have
1:26:57been made and so many of them have now
1:26:59been proven to be false that you
1:27:02understand what is going on here can I
1:27:05just interrupt you there just on
1:27:06Christopher whitey when you were talking
1:27:08about him just now I think you suggested
1:27:10he was just on some kind of simple
1:27:11students Bizu but he told us that he was
1:27:14on an exceptional talent visa so you're
1:27:18dissing him with all these comments but
1:27:20he was clearly in his own mind a very
1:27:23intelligent man look no one no one has
1:27:29suggested that mr. Wiley is not
1:27:31intelligent least of all me I think I
1:27:33stand by the fact that when he worked
1:27:35with Cambridge analytic or an SEO
1:27:36elections he was on a tier 2 student
1:27:38visa as the reason I stand by that is
1:27:41because I applied or my company applied
1:27:43for that visa so if he went on to change
1:27:48his status at a later date after he left
1:27:49me I can't speak to that
1:27:52what I can tell you is that Christopher
1:27:55Wiley was at the company for 10 months
1:27:57he was instrumental in defining the
1:28:01relationship with Cogan and for being
1:28:03the architect of that particular program
1:28:05of data gathering and as the company
1:28:10grew and started to undertake business
1:28:14with the methodology that he felt that
1:28:16he had designed and was the architect of
1:28:18he grew more and more resentful and to
1:28:23the point where he was opening oh sorry
1:28:26openly discussing with clients that he
1:28:28wanted to replicate SEL elections or
1:28:30Cambridge analytic without
1:28:32NIC's ie without me his he also stated
1:28:35things like he wanted to create the
1:28:37nsa's wet dream he had his own ideas
1:28:40about a company that he wanted to build
1:28:42and at the time that he left us which I
1:28:45believe was in around July or June or
1:28:47July 2014 he'd already set up a company
1:28:51called Arg dot us and he developed a
1:28:55pitch which he took to Silicon Valley to
1:28:57raise fifteen or twenty million dollars
1:28:59for some twenty percent of his company
1:29:02what was clear was that he was totally
1:29:04agnostic about where the money came from
1:29:06and even courted Russians
1:29:08stating that he found the idea of
1:29:10working with crazy evil Russians quite
1:29:12intriguing one San Francisco based
1:29:15investor who spoke to Wiley about his
1:29:17startup in 2014 please of the
1:29:26allegations that have been put this
1:29:28committee stem from one source they've
1:29:30gained traction in the media and if you
1:29:33don't understand why these allegations
1:29:35have been made then they're going to be
1:29:37given unnecessary credibility and it's
1:29:40important yours yours your session is
1:29:42not true that the only evidence that we
1:29:44have about the work Alexandre kokum is
1:29:46doing the significance of it it comes
1:29:49from what crystal Wiley is told as it
1:29:50comes from documents that the committee
1:29:51have received contracts that you signed
1:29:53with with JSON bear your stigma story
1:29:56there's not that I said well it was most
1:29:57different allegations that have been
1:29:59made against my company come from what
1:30:02is it the issued issue but she totally
1:30:04glossed over when you can you could have
1:30:05you could have chosen and to give a more
1:30:08honest and more full answer to the
1:30:10questions you asked I asked you about
1:30:11your relationship with GSR when you gave
1:30:14evidence before and you didn't mention
1:30:15any of it now you will freely 8ms wanted
1:30:18Aaron leave that there was a very small
1:30:20you said small short-term academic
1:30:22project that had gone nowhere and yet
1:30:24what we have is not crystal while his
1:30:26opinion but facts documents detailing
1:30:29cognitive the work that was to be done
1:30:31what was to be paid for it what it was
1:30:33to be used for not on an ad-hoc basis
1:30:35but commissioned to support elections
1:30:37being run in specific States United
1:30:38State
1:30:39and what and how you dream you narrate
1:30:41is that's what we're basing our
1:30:43questions on and that questions you
1:30:44about whether you agree with us not just
1:30:45what Christopher widely said but by
1:30:47evidence that you don't dispute and that
1:30:49is that that is in the public domain you
1:30:52will remember that at the time that I
1:30:54appeared before you this the issue of
1:30:57Facebook data the issue of GSR and Cogan
1:31:01was not a sensational news story the
1:31:11thrust of your inquiry was in a
1:31:13completely different in question sorry
1:31:15in a completely different area and
1:31:17that's where we were focusing you
1:31:18yourself only asked three questions on
1:31:21it out of 200 or 250 it wasn't an
1:31:25important topic and I gave it as much
1:31:27attention as you gave it yourself there
1:31:30was not an intention to obfuscate as I
1:31:32told you earlier
1:31:33my relationship with geo so is already
1:31:35in the public domain and of course that
1:31:37is why I came back here to clarify that
1:31:39clearly things have changed in the last
1:31:42three months but things are changed for
1:31:44us because we know because we've
1:31:46actually seen evidence you know at the
1:31:47time we didn't so you're quite right
1:31:49that I asked you three or four questions
1:31:51about it I don't read them out for a
1:31:53third time but I think we've I think
1:31:55it's pretty clear what I asked you and
1:31:57why I asked you we'd actually ask came
1:31:58down we lost Facebook the same questions
1:32:00about came down a little having access
1:32:03to Facebook data when we took evidence
1:32:04of them now we also feel the Facebook -
1:32:07were not open and honest with the
1:32:08committee in the answers they gave to us
1:32:10that day and we've challenged them about
1:32:12that - so I think there's Fault on both
1:32:14sides but I think I think what we asked
1:32:17you was pretty clear and you chose not
1:32:19to talk about any of this and it is
1:32:20documents that we've seen not just
1:32:22crystal Wiley's testimony that lays out
1:32:24for everyone to see the nature of the
1:32:26work that alexander Cogan did that why
1:32:29it was important and that work was based
1:32:31on the data that he acquired from
1:32:34Facebook wrongly and that's Facebook -
1:32:36you bought it wrongly
1:32:37and the figure of 87 millions you know
1:32:39because it's been verified by can I can
1:32:41I can i address that continue to address
1:32:43the point that I was making before but
1:32:46Chris no no I'm not not if it's gonna be
1:32:48a sort of Millennials use on Christopher
1:32:51Wiley well I did not a purpose you're
1:32:53serious and you're free to make that
1:32:55statement any way you like what I think
1:32:58but if that's not the question you were
1:32:59asked about I gave you quite a little
1:33:00attitude but I think it was quite clear
1:33:02we were going into your character
1:33:04analysis crystal Walter the fact that he
1:33:08he set up a competing company to
1:33:12undertake exactly the same work that
1:33:15Cambridge had been set up to do
1:33:16using exactly actually a much much much
1:33:19larger data set to target the same
1:33:22Republican clients that he has said that
1:33:26he's so ideologically opposed to and
1:33:30then went around America pitching his
1:33:32business my point being is you have an
1:33:34individual who's purporting to be a
1:33:37whistleblower who in fact was who was
1:33:41motivated to come forward because he
1:33:43didn't agree with the the political
1:33:45parties that we were working for when he
1:33:47was pitching exactly the same political
1:33:49parties all over America including
1:33:51Donald Trump's campaign itself who was
1:33:54purports to be a protector of data and
1:33:56and and and data sovereignty and
1:33:58everything that goes with that who
1:34:00actually acquired a significantly larger
1:34:04data set than us materially larger data
1:34:07set and then went out to actively try
1:34:09and commercialize that data set in a
1:34:11very similar way or exactly the same way
1:34:15that we did and so therefore really
1:34:18doesn't care about data sovereignty and
1:34:20who is spent the last two or three years
1:34:24having left the company and watch the
1:34:27success of the company getting bitter
1:34:28and jealous and has now been using this
1:34:31to bombard us with a raft of allegations
1:34:34which many of which are now me on the
1:34:37crew of the purpose of these hearings
1:34:38has to put these questions to you based
1:34:41on subsequent evidence we've received
1:34:42since you died forget last imminence to
1:34:43us know that you've used all crystal
1:34:45Wylie having a pretty clear and you're
1:34:46free to make those statements wherever
1:34:47you like you know
1:34:48the purpose here is to ask new questions
1:34:49based on the evidence we've subsequently
1:34:51received and that's what we intend to do
1:34:54Becky have you finished your ferret yeah
1:34:56just if you'll put it would take now
1:34:57should we take that break now just on
1:34:59this point it's on it's on this point if
1:35:01you'll permit me chair so the hats odd
1:35:03now has this little section in
1:35:05triplicate this time right what you said
1:35:07in with regard to the relationship with
1:35:10GSR in the in the exchange with the
1:35:14chair included the statement that they
1:35:18did some researchers back in 2014 that
1:35:21research proved to be fruitless now
1:35:24that's not that statement is is not a
1:35:27any misunderstanding and when judged by
1:35:30the evidence that has subsequently
1:35:32emerged your clarification
1:35:36notwithstanding that was simply not true
1:35:41well I believe you're familiar with dr.
1:35:45Cohen's testimony which echoes that
1:35:48sentiment which was that the data that
1:35:51dr. Cogan gave to us wisdom was modeled
1:35:56data and building a model on top of a
1:35:59model proved to be less statistically
1:36:01accurate and this is again echoed by
1:36:03what was said by Cogan than actually
1:36:06just using Facebook's own algorithms for
1:36:08placing advertising communications and
1:36:10that was what we found out so I stand by
1:36:12that statement I stand by that statement
1:36:14that I made you before and that was was
1:36:17was echoed and amplified in much more
1:36:20technical detail by dr. Cogan this it's
1:36:26an interesting exercise in semantics
1:36:27isn't it no it's not it's a fact the
1:36:31fact is that the data that we received
1:36:34wasn't fit for purpose and that's why we
1:36:37abandoned that data long before we
1:36:40deleted that data from our servers in
1:36:44accordance with Facebook's wishes they
1:36:46did some research for his back in 2014
1:36:48that research proved to be fruitless and
1:36:52yet it was the basis on which you you
1:36:55are you are
1:36:57well the foundation dataset as it's
1:36:59being called according to whom well I've
1:37:03made it clear that was that that were
1:37:04those those are the words of mr. mr.
1:37:05Weil mr. Wylie yes so funny how all your
1:37:08evidence seems to circle back but one
1:37:10individual mr. Farrell it doesn't
1:37:12actually cause it wasn't the
1:37:14foundational data set on which we built
1:37:15our company because we went out and we
1:37:17licensed millions of data points on
1:37:21American individuals from very large
1:37:23reputable data aggregators and data
1:37:25vendors such as axiom Experian info
1:37:28group that was the cornerstone of our of
1:37:31our database together with political
1:37:36data voter file data a regular pardon
1:37:39which again is commercially available in
1:37:41the United States that was the
1:37:42cornerstone of our company and on which
1:37:44we continued to build the company after
1:37:47we realized that the GSR data was
1:37:49fruitless
1:37:50well let's not trade trade trade
1:37:52semantics you told us that they did some
1:37:56research for his back in 2014 that
1:37:58research proved to be fruitless
1:38:00but you attempted to use the the you
1:38:04attempted to use the products of that
1:38:06research in in your in your political
1:38:09activities on behalf of clients in the
1:38:11United States the fact that it's it's
1:38:13been alleged that actually it wasn't
1:38:15worth the the computer it was stored on
1:38:17later doesn't doesn't does not mean that
1:38:20what you told us was not really had any
1:38:25real relationship with the truth what
1:38:27you were trying to do was to minimize
1:38:29your your downplay your relationship
1:38:33with GSR and there are other in other
1:38:35relationships which you've consistently
1:38:37downplayed but have come come back here
1:38:40now to clarify in an interesting way
1:38:43when when your account has been
1:38:46challenged by the evidence that
1:38:47subsequently emerged is not the case
1:38:49that's not the case and I urge you
1:38:51whilst I take a break briefly to revisit
1:38:54the testimony of dr. Cogan
1:38:57he was extremely articulate in
1:39:01explaining how this data was modeled and
1:39:05its application and its usefulness and
1:39:08maybe if you familiarize yourself
1:39:09with that you'll understand that coming
1:39:11from an eminent academic in this area
1:39:14that the data was ultimately fruitless I
1:39:18think what this ferret is getting at is
1:39:21that is what says in the contract that
1:39:22you signed with with dr. Cogan is this
1:39:25when you enter into that agreement all
1:39:27parties believe that's what you're
1:39:29paying for was the Facebook Likes could
1:39:31be analyzed nor an accurate accurate
1:39:33predictor of behavior and interests of
1:39:36Facebook users and the doctor tokens job
1:39:38was to acquire Facebook Likes from
1:39:41Facebook data both the profiles of
1:39:43people to engage the survey and of their
1:39:45friends but that that data will be
1:39:46combined with other datasets including
1:39:48us patient registration data that you
1:39:50gave to dr. Koh that's part of the
1:39:52projects that he delivered that project
1:39:54for you not just the scoping work but
1:39:56the full-scale project there was then a
1:39:58second contract signed with dr. Cogan
1:39:59where he continued to do further work
1:40:01linked to American elections of that
1:40:03year in 2014 and so whether your models
1:40:07changed or you and dr. Cogan took a
1:40:09different view at some point in the
1:40:10future that there was a better way of
1:40:12working
1:40:12you've made your views clear on that but
1:40:15I think given the substance of the work
1:40:17that was done to say that the
1:40:18relationship was fruitless and the work
1:40:20was fruitless certainly doesn't reflect
1:40:22your view on that at the time because
1:40:24this was a very substantial piece of
1:40:25work that was done and I think it's it's
1:40:28obvious if material interest to us
1:40:29because the evidence the people have
1:40:30given to us about this and I think very
1:40:33important to our investigation and I
1:40:34think I think mr. Ferrell is right to
1:40:36say and we've challenged Facebook in the
1:40:38same way but when we asked these
1:40:39questions initially I think people sort
1:40:41of gloss over something that I think
1:40:43they vanished they should have disclosed
1:40:45but I don't take that right now and
1:40:48resume thank you
1:41:15you
1:42:15you
1:43:10you
1:56:39program of targeted donation
1:56:42solicitation using digital advertising
1:56:44and other meters propria to raise funds
1:56:47for levy you in the UK the USA and in
1:56:51other countries I mean when that
1:56:54document was drawn up did you take any
1:56:58legal advice to whether whether what you
1:57:02were proposing there would in fact be
1:57:03legal yes we did actually we took a
1:57:06considerable amount of legal advice and
1:57:08at the time it was suggested to us by
1:57:12our counsel that we could target British
1:57:15nationals living abroad for donations I
1:57:19believe and I'm not a lawyer as you well
1:57:22know that there is still some lack of
1:57:27clarity about whether this is true or
1:57:29not and in any event in the absence of a
1:57:35firm decision to proceed by legal we did
1:57:39not proceed not that we won the contract
1:57:41anyway okay so by that you you meant
1:57:46British nationals within the assumed I
1:57:48believe that was the intention obviously
1:57:50I wasn't involved as you know in any of
1:57:53these pitches but that's how I was
1:57:54explained to me at the time okay as I
1:57:58say I don't want to dwell on leave dot
1:58:00EU but I do want to talk about you kit
1:58:04because subsequently and you'll have
1:58:07seen this this invoice
1:58:11it was invoice not to leave dot EU but
1:58:13for forty one thousand five hundred
1:58:14pounds to the United Kingdom
1:58:16Independence Party and in her evidence
1:58:21Brittany Kaiser who was involved in the
1:58:24pitch told us that it was decided that
1:58:29while leave dot EU didn't possess much
1:58:31data we could begin with an engagement
1:58:34for the UK Independence Party which we
1:58:36did we took receipt of their membership
1:58:38and survey later now to anyone in
1:58:40politics if you were going to do some
1:58:42work
1:58:44on it given the characters involved
1:58:47youuuu a starting point would indeed be
1:58:50a perhaps the the canvas stage than
1:58:53anything else that you can you keep held
1:58:55but but you keeps a political party
1:58:57isn't it that's correct so how how does
1:59:01that work square up with the statements
1:59:04you you made to us about your lack of
1:59:07any interest in in getting involved in
1:59:09in UK politics Murray scratching around
1:59:14here mister parody we've been working
1:59:17well I've been working this company for
1:59:1815 years at times we undertake 8 9 10
1:59:22national elections a year somewhere
1:59:25around the world we've never undertaken
1:59:28an election in the UK so I stand by my
1:59:31statement that the UK was not a target
1:59:33country of of interest to us obviously
1:59:36the referendum was a unique a moment a
1:59:39unique moment in in international
1:59:43campaigning and for that reason it was
1:59:46more significant than perhaps other
1:59:48opportunities to work on politics and
1:59:52political campaigns in the UK might have
1:59:53been which is why we explored it but we
1:59:57didn't work on that came campaign either
1:59:58as you well know well I was I hope I
2:00:02wasn't scratching around I was really
2:00:04just comparing what you told us with the
2:00:06evidence that's subsequently emerged and
2:00:09you clearly felt that that the work that
2:00:12you've done irrespective of whether you
2:00:15you were successful in because of a
2:00:19leave dot EU was not successful was
2:00:21worth 41 and a half thousand pounds and
2:00:23you build the UK Independence Party well
2:00:26look I think this has been covered very
2:00:28extensively by the Election Commission's
2:00:33office and was covered in my previous
2:00:36testimony we undertook some scoping work
2:00:40to look at these data unfortunately
2:00:45whilst this work was being undertaken we
2:00:48did not agree on the terms
2:00:50contract as a consequence that the
2:00:53deliverables from this work were not
2:00:54handed over and the the invoice was not
2:00:58paid and therefore the Election
2:01:01Commission was absolutely satisfied that
2:01:05that we did not do any work for for for
2:01:10leave dot EU and that includes for you
2:01:13Kip well it doesn't really and we talked
2:01:15about leave dot EU before but now I'm
2:01:18talking about work for for UK mmm not
2:01:22leave dot EU whom you whom you build and
2:01:25and I take it that this this invoices
2:01:28wasn't wasn't paid notwithstanding any
2:01:31transfers that may have been later made
2:01:33to you kid do you know what what what
2:01:37use was made of your your work for you
2:01:40kid well as I just explained to you we
2:01:45didn't hand over any work to you Kip
2:01:49that wasn't the question do you know
2:01:52what use was made of the work that you
2:01:54did for you kid no do you mean by
2:01:59Cambridge analytical no do you know what
2:02:02use was made of the work that you did
2:02:05for You c'n I'm afraid I don't
2:02:07understand the question
2:02:08okay you um well can you can you
2:02:12describe what work you did for you give
2:02:14them well I believe that we analyzed
2:02:18their membership database to understand
2:02:21the data that contains with a view to
2:02:24understanding how that could be
2:02:26incorporated into a wider program of
2:02:29research and data acquisition to build a
2:02:32targeting model so you could gave you
2:02:35data to to look at that's my
2:02:39understanding was any of that data
2:02:40that's applied either by you or you kept
2:02:43to leave Dottie you know it wasn't it
2:02:46was all well I can't speak for you care
2:02:47but clearly so as far as you're aware
2:02:51none of that data went beyond your
2:02:56relationship not would leave Dottie you
2:02:57but
2:02:58with you kid that is correct
2:03:02the final question on now is Brittany
2:03:07guys have told us that you'd also made
2:03:11pitches to Eldon insurance and go Skippy
2:03:18I think is the name did any of those
2:03:22pictures come to anything so I'm I'm not
2:03:27entirely sure if that's correct
2:03:30clearly again I wasn't there but when I
2:03:33say yeah I mean we actually pitch Tilden
2:03:37insurance all go Skippy I think what I
2:03:40believe that Brittany met with them or
2:03:43representatives from those companies or
2:03:45at least that's what our testimony said
2:03:47but that's not to suggest that we were
2:03:49pitching them for services to become a
2:03:52client but again I don't want to mislead
2:03:54you you might have to ask miss Kaiser to
2:03:58clarify that I think she used the word
2:03:59pitch but as far as you're aware it
2:04:00didn't lead to anything or any any
2:04:02further ongoing relationship
2:04:04I don't even record a pitch just
2:04:09speaking on the levy you theme just for
2:04:11a moment and then you write you were but
2:04:14you were very clear back in February
2:04:15when asked about your involvement and
2:04:18your actual words the word let me be
2:04:20absolutely crystal clear about this I do
2:04:22not know how many ways I could say this
2:04:24we did not work for levy you have not
2:04:26undertaken any paid or unpaid work for
2:04:28them okay it's do you stand by those
2:04:32words exactly that fall now
2:04:36as now as you did that I absolutely do
2:04:39and I feel entirely vindicated by by by
2:04:43the Electoral Commission's investigation
2:04:44report of 11th of May which said and I
2:04:47quote the Commission is satisfied that
2:04:49leave da T you did not receive donations
2:04:51or paid for services from Cambridge and
2:04:53Attica the evidence shows that the
2:04:55relationship did not develop beyond the
2:04:57initial scoping work and no contract was
2:05:00agreed between them the Commission saw
2:05:01no evidence that Cambridge analytic have
2:05:03had any important to leave da to use
2:05:05referendum campaign pretty well repeated
2:05:10what you indicated the time for which
2:05:13I'm grateful as you know the committee's
2:05:15published transcripts of tapes of Li bu
2:05:19strategies which described your workers
2:05:21to put in a vertical reserve back Nigel
2:05:24Nigel Oaks not great again said that you
2:05:26provided proof of concept what did that
2:05:29mean what is a proof of concept and what
2:05:32did you offer what is he who provided
2:05:34that in the words Nigel Oakes well I
2:05:37looked Nigel X is a colleague and a
2:05:40friend of many years but he was not
2:05:42working in the company at that time why
2:05:46would he have described your work as a
2:05:47background I can't speak to that mr.
2:05:51Hart Nigel ran a different company from
2:05:54a different office in a different
2:05:56country working on different projects
2:05:58with different clients he had absolutely
2:05:59no involvement to what we were doing he
2:06:02had no access to our servers to our data
2:06:04to our personnel to all intents apart
2:06:08from my close personal relationship with
2:06:10him he could have been a stranger so he
2:06:14was obviously speaking to what he'd I
2:06:16can conjecture that he may have been
2:06:17speaking to what he'd read in the
2:06:18newspapers I have no idea
2:06:20literally
2:06:23so we've heard as you know anecdotally
2:06:26and in indeed by people sitting where
2:06:28you're sitting people casting some
2:06:31asking some questions about the
2:06:33integrity of that denial if you like and
2:06:36as you know Andy Widmore and Aaron banks
2:06:38will be getting evidence in the next
2:06:40couple of weeks do you think that they
2:06:43will give such an unequivocal oops sign
2:06:47up so unequivocally to your denial as as
2:06:50you are today absolutely I do I when I
2:06:53was shortly after I was last here
2:06:56I believe Aaron banks submitted a
2:06:58statement to this committee where he
2:07:01timelined and detailed our relationship
2:07:05with him and that almost exactly
2:07:07reflected the details that that you've
2:07:10heard from myself and details that we
2:07:13presented to the ICO regarding our
2:07:16relationship with various brexit
2:07:20campaigns I want to take this
2:07:23opportunity to point out that this is in
2:07:26stark contrast stark contrast to to the
2:07:31testimony that this committee received
2:07:33where Christopher Wylie stated and I
2:07:35quote Cambridge analytical played an
2:07:38absolutely pivotal role in brexit that
2:07:42is really important for people to
2:07:44understand another round lasat
2:07:48accusation and allegation and similarly
2:07:50the headline in The Guardian was and I
2:07:52quote a plot by a shadowy global
2:07:56operation to hijack British democracy it
2:07:59is deeply troubling that this conspiracy
2:08:03theory has gained such traction and
2:08:05cause such irreversible damage to our
2:08:09company
2:08:11can I just get back to no genetics for a
2:08:13minute yeah because you clearly sir
2:08:16don't dispute that so you're saying that
2:08:19there any hint that he has suggested
2:08:20that you provided work which could have
2:08:23attracted a value is simply not symptom
2:08:26oh sorry any any any work that the
2:08:30suggestion is that there might been work
2:08:31carried out only for levy which should
2:08:34have been declared to the local
2:08:35Commission because it had a value either
2:08:37as a direct donation or donation in kind
2:08:39are you saying that is that that
2:08:41accusation is entirely observation is
2:08:45entirely I'm saying that that I stand by
2:08:51the findings of the electoral
2:08:54commission's report and it's not quite
2:08:56what I'm asking what you're asking me to
2:08:58do is to make a judgement about not
2:09:02Nigel Oaks his statement and I don't
2:09:05think that it's for me to try and
2:09:07second-guess what he was happy to engage
2:09:10the same conjecture just now to use your
2:09:12word about what his motives might have
2:09:15been for making these comments well I
2:09:16did preface it by saying this is
2:09:18conjecture I was trying to help you
2:09:20understand that he had no direct access
2:09:23to information or decision-making or
2:09:25documents at the company therefore I
2:09:27can't speak to to his leave it leave it
2:09:33at the moment just as an aside you were
2:09:38creating an impression that bit earlier
2:09:40on this afternoon that came to analytic
2:09:43was almost being misrepresented is a
2:09:46sort of shady organization which was
2:09:47capable of affecting the outcome of
2:09:50elections and actually what you really
2:09:51were were sort of toothpaste advertisers
2:09:53I think this expression you used are you
2:09:58therefore suggesting that you were over
2:10:00playing your role as a president
2:10:02election influencer in because we know
2:10:07you were going around the world charging
2:10:09large sums of money for service which
2:10:11you're now saying constituted a rather
2:10:12minor part of your business and you were
2:10:15in fact much more comfortable in the
2:10:17in the role of an advertising agency
2:10:19which of these is which of these is
2:10:21right seems to me well it was it was
2:10:23leading there so if they're both correct
2:10:26obviously historically there was a
2:10:28greater emphasis on political business
2:10:31that was certainly the company that I
2:10:34founded in 2012 but prior to that there
2:10:39were that the emphasis was on was much
2:10:41more on the government and defense space
2:10:42and more recently as we moved into 2017
2:10:47late sixteen seventeen and early
2:10:49eighteen that the emphasis moved across
2:10:51towards the commercial and brand space
2:10:53so it was an evolution as the company
2:10:58grew we looked at different avenues that
2:10:59we could provide services to but you
2:11:04were an effective operator in the
2:11:06elections field well yes I mean we had
2:11:11almost measurements Travel track record
2:11:13of helping our clients succeed in
2:11:16elections clearly as everyone
2:11:20understands you know success as many
2:11:23fathers and failure as an orphan but
2:11:25over a twenty seven twenty six year
2:11:28period if if you can point to a
2:11:32consistent winning pattern at some point
2:11:35you know in a humble way you couldn't
2:11:38say well maybe we're doing something
2:11:40right um thank you last question
2:11:43question really when it came to the
2:11:48final crunch a few weeks ago when you
2:11:50were suspended as chief 'take me who who
2:11:52made the call who who rang in and said
2:11:54sorry Alexander you've got to go who
2:11:56made that call was it a face-to-face
2:11:58meeting or telephone well it was a
2:11:59decision with the board and obviously I
2:12:04was involved in that decision I mean I I
2:12:07put it on the table and said that if
2:12:10this is what's best for the company then
2:12:11you know this is what we should do my
2:12:15firm belief at that time was that that
2:12:21the company would survive the initial
2:12:26media onslaught and that an independent
2:12:30inquiry that was commissioned by the
2:12:32board to understand really the
2:12:35allegations that have been made by the
2:12:38press against the company would prove
2:12:41that they were unfounded and that that
2:12:46in due course we would get back to
2:12:49businesses as normal so it was a joint
2:12:51decision for the board and you and for
2:12:55the reasons that you've loosely internet
2:12:58that it was becoming a distraction for
2:12:59the business on the guy something along
2:13:01those lines
2:13:01well look I take a huge responsibility
2:13:03for my part in misrepresenting the
2:13:06company whether I did that intentionally
2:13:09or rather knowingly or not and I think
2:13:12we've covered this at some length you
2:13:15know that was you know it wasn't my
2:13:17finest hour and I have to accept that
2:13:21and I'm going to have to live with that
2:13:22it was you know it was a very very well
2:13:25executed sting and you know you've got
2:13:29capo to channel for for what destroying
2:13:33we we were excellent
2:13:35British technology company where you
2:13:38offered up pay off the big plan where
2:13:40you offer to pay off have you had a
2:13:44painful way to pay off in the future
2:13:46you've received no money for well it's
2:13:49not relevant to this committee but the
2:13:50answer's no question is here Luca cement
2:13:54brendi yes I do did he work for
2:13:59Cambridge on netiquette or STL yes he
2:14:02did
2:14:03when did he work for them well again I
2:14:07don't wanna mislead you but I would say
2:14:10between 2014 and 15 but I'd have to
2:14:13confirm his exact dates when did you
2:14:17last speak to mr. get Lawson
2:14:23early 15 when he left the company so you
2:14:26haven't spoken to him since he left the
2:14:28company no I don't believe so
2:14:31not a word have you discussed a IQ with
2:14:34Mark Everson when he was at the company
2:14:37yes it's very possible because as you
2:14:40well know a IQ were a contractor to us
2:14:44you are aware of Jeff Sylvester's
2:14:47evidence
2:14:48what specifically that's Bob get Olson
2:14:52introduced a IQ to the vote leave
2:14:56campaign ah yes I am aware of that
2:14:59that's correct so there is a connection
2:15:02between Cambridge analytical and the
2:15:07referendum campaign and campaigns in
2:15:12well if you're trying to suggest that a
2:15:16former employee of mine who I hadn't
2:15:20spoken to for three and a half years who
2:15:23happened to move on and work in another
2:15:25line of business or businesses that
2:15:28coincidentally worked or were connected
2:15:32with a referendum campaign demonstrates
2:15:36that there was a connection I would say
2:15:39that that was about as tenuous as the
2:15:42connection that mr. Farrell is trying to
2:15:44make and it's only that in a very small
2:15:49world of political consultancies that
2:15:52there are circles been in circles of
2:15:54people who work together and who know
2:15:57each other yeah it is a small world who
2:15:59introduced Canberra John Whittaker to
2:16:01Erin banks
2:16:09god help you mr. Kyser says it was Steve
2:16:12Ballmer
2:16:13that could well be possible again I
2:16:17don't want to mislead you it could well
2:16:18be could well have been Steve Madden I
2:16:19can just it was a so we were you there
2:16:24when the first in particular first
2:16:26meeting took place with Alan banks I was
2:16:28there that was the only meeting I
2:16:29attended was the initial meeting
2:16:30obviously mr. banner was not there so
2:16:33again I can't visit a bigger pond
2:16:37because the meeting took place in the UK
2:16:38and mr. melon was in was in the US and
2:16:42therefore I can't confirm exactly a
2:16:46faster connection but I was at the
2:16:48meeting there was certainly mr. banks I
2:16:50remember I can't with any certainty
2:16:53recall who else was there but I think
2:16:55Britney spoke about this in her evidence
2:16:57so mr. banks and mr. baumann are two of
2:17:00the most prominent political campaigners
2:17:04in recent years who've been involved in
2:17:07two of the most important referendum and
2:17:12election results and they they were
2:17:16introduced to each other it's freaking
2:17:19regional etiquette well that's not what
2:17:23you just said what you've said to me
2:17:25just now was that mr. Bannon introduced
2:17:28Cambridge and it occurred to mr. banks
2:17:31therefore what I'm saying we said not he
2:17:35the one that introduces the gentleman to
2:17:37he teller what I'm saying is this is a
2:17:39very small world in which can be channel
2:17:42it occur is a very prominent player and
2:17:44your your assertion earlier on that you
2:17:48have had nothing to do with the
2:17:52referendum it's just complete nonsense
2:17:57look I'm sorry if members of this
2:18:00committee are unhappy with the outcome
2:18:02of the referendum I'm sorry if members
2:18:04of this committee are unhappy with
2:18:06Donald Trump being president of the
2:18:09United States but you can't simply put
2:18:13forward your prejudices on
2:18:15me and make sweeping assumptions about
2:18:18our involvement with a particular
2:18:21campaign simply because that's what you
2:18:24want to believe because that narrative
2:18:26suits your view of the facts there's no
2:18:31evidence decision I love doing now is
2:18:35you're building a conspiracy theory
2:18:37facts mr. Nixon not rudeness facts is
2:18:41what we are presenting to you what we
2:18:43are getting back from you is bluster and
2:18:45rudeness
2:18:46the fact is the ballon Steve Bannon from
2:18:51Cambridge analytical was someone who
2:18:54introduced Aaron banks to came to
2:18:58Cambridge I love it again and we've had
2:19:01that that in evidence from an
2:19:03enumerative new sources and we also have
2:19:05a fact that a former employee of
2:19:07Cambridge analytic air was the person
2:19:10who introduced a IQ to the vote leave
2:19:14campaign those are facts and that's why
2:19:18there's a link in this story so all
2:19:22those facts are true that's not what
2:19:23you've said what you just said was that
2:19:25you refused to believe that Cambridge
2:19:27analytic who was not involved in the
2:19:29referendum and that is not a fact and
2:19:32it's not supported by the hypothesis
2:19:34that you've just put forward it's not
2:19:36supported by the relationships that
2:19:38you've just alluded to there's
2:19:39absolutely no connection between that
2:19:41statement and what you've just set the
2:19:43connection of the individuals who are
2:19:45linked to each other in this small world
2:19:47in which you operate in from which
2:19:49you've made an awful lot of money so so
2:19:52the position is there are links I think
2:19:55we've covered cover this ridiculous line
2:19:59of questioning if I may absolutely I
2:20:02think I mean you'd say that the claim
2:20:05was for one I mean it's very damaging to
2:20:06your company
2:20:07that you've worked or the referendum
2:20:09campaign but I mean if lethally you had
2:20:11got the destination you would have
2:20:12worked and the referendum campaign
2:20:13willingly that was the the only reason
2:20:15it didn't happen was because you didn't
2:20:17you didn't get the designation therefore
2:20:19the relationship didn't go any further
2:20:20and that's and nothing I'm not a problem
2:20:23with that is not at all but you seem to
2:20:26a great exception to even the idea that
2:20:27you know I take exception to the fact
2:20:30that Christopher Wiley can state to this
2:20:33committee that we played an absolutely
2:20:35pivotal role in brexit are you can
2:20:37point-blank lie to you as he's lied over
2:20:39a great many issues involving Cambridge
2:20:43analytic --is sorry involvement in
2:20:45election campaigns in this country in
2:20:46the United States and overseas and all
2:20:49sorts of allegations about unethical
2:20:50practices and illegal practices and yet
2:20:54I'm sitting here and being subjected to
2:20:57frankly ridiculous accusations based on
2:21:01on the most tenuous connections that are
2:21:05simply not supported by evidence well I
2:21:07don't wanna go over this again whenever
2:21:10this koala time as well as today I mean
2:21:12one of the reason these hair started
2:21:13running the first place was because the
2:21:15statements you made and Arab banks made
2:21:16and it Whitmore made about the way you'd
2:21:18work together it's not just crystal
2:21:19Wiley's do Britney Kaiser places a value
2:21:21on the work she did but working with
2:21:24leave to the year in preparation for the
2:21:26referendum the Electoral Commission's
2:21:28position is they acknowledge that work
2:21:29took place but they don't believe it had
2:21:31any valuable bearing on the the work
2:21:32believe that you eventually did so I
2:21:34think it's not baseless I mean it's
2:21:36people have had their say you've had
2:21:37your set on it but that's that's where
2:21:39it's come from Brendan in session China
2:21:54for know that she would be very robust
2:21:57statement and replied said and they
2:22:01absolutely disagree and reject the
2:22:04allegation that they heavily edited the
2:22:06footage to portray you as you said in
2:22:09the worst possible light and they say
2:22:11quite categorically that their comments
2:22:13were used in context specifically when
2:22:17pitching to the report I'm the it was
2:22:21you who said these are just examples of
2:22:24what can be done and you followed up by
2:22:27saying and what has been done but that's
2:22:30not hypothetical so you are on the
2:22:33record as saying these are just examples
2:22:35of what can be done and what has been
2:22:39done to do best trip to modify your area
2:22:42sleep you know I don't wish to modify my
2:22:44statements there was there was there was
2:22:47no suggestion that they'd been done by
2:22:50our company I was giving examples of the
2:22:55sort of things that could be done and
2:22:56have been done to to damage the
2:23:02reputation of politicians and that was
2:23:04the question that was put to me and I
2:23:06answered that question frankly and
2:23:09openly so you're absolutely clear this
2:23:13was not an offer on behalf of your
2:23:16company
2:23:17to do these things and if it wasn't an
2:23:19offer to do them why make such a play of
2:23:22it I think when I went on to say and
2:23:25let's have a quick look here was was to
2:23:31make it clear to the reporter
2:23:37that after I said that I said went on to
2:23:41say the right solution will be made for
2:23:43for the right for you for the right
2:23:46problem I didn't commit to doing
2:23:50anything to them
2:23:51I simply played along and listened to to
2:23:55this to this potential clients desires
2:23:59without committing or suggesting that we
2:24:02would follow through and deliver any of
2:24:04those any reasonable person listening to
2:24:08that conversation viewed what making and
2:24:12Morpher that this was part of your
2:24:14armory should it be required surely any
2:24:17reasonable hurry you don't need to sit
2:24:21there and Sully my reputation I've
2:24:25already done that and it's been
2:24:26broadcast nationally and possibly
2:24:29internationally to millions of people
2:24:32okay so I think we've covered this point
2:24:34I've apologized for my exaggeration and
2:24:37hype over the perb hyperbole in my
2:24:39interest to to win a client contract I
2:24:42alluded to services that we don't make
2:24:47we've never made as a company and yes it
2:24:51was extremely foolish of me and it was a
2:24:53very well-constructed
2:24:54entrapment sting whatever you want to
2:24:57call it and Channel four got there man
2:24:59but beyond that I really can't speak to
2:25:02this any further the problem that I have
2:25:05evolved that says that we're I'm setting
2:25:09since you've come here today you have
2:25:12attempted to paint yourself as the
2:25:14victim here no by no stretch of the
2:25:18imagination
2:25:19can you be seen as a victim surely you
2:25:21can see that you're not the victim here
2:25:27climber's if I was the victim no para
2:25:30things you believe you let's just let's
2:25:32just run with this hypothesis for a
2:25:34moment well if I was the victim what
2:25:36happens if if as we've seen we were
2:25:39accused of working brexit we didn't work
2:25:41in brexit we were accused of
2:25:43disseminating videos in Kenya Kenya we
2:25:47didn't disseminate videos in Kenya we
2:25:50were accused of I think what was it that
2:25:53mr. Wylie said he said of capturing
2:25:58government's colonizing countries and
2:26:01being part of some white right-wing
2:26:03conspiracy what I'm is if none of that
2:26:05is actually true and that in due course
2:26:08as some of these investigations are
2:26:11concluded or more of these
2:26:13investigations are concluded people
2:26:15realize that actually we were simply the
2:26:19guys who were perceived to have
2:26:23contributed to the Trump campaign and
2:26:25were wrongly accredited with being the
2:26:29architects of brexit and as a result of
2:26:32the polarizing nature of those two
2:26:34political campaigns the global liberal
2:26:37media took umbrage and decided to put us
2:26:40in their crosshairs and launched a
2:26:42coordinated extremely well coordinated
2:26:45and effective attack on us as a company
2:26:48in order to destroy our reputations and
2:26:51our business and all of this was
2:26:53underpinned by a stream of allegations
2:26:57unfounded groundless allegations that
2:26:59came from mr. Wylie who gave the media
2:27:02the ammunition that they needed that
2:27:04they wanted to be able to attack us for
2:27:07something that that in the case of
2:27:09breaks it we simply didn't do you are
2:27:11the victim in all of this well if you're
2:27:15sitting where I am right now and you
2:27:17probably feel quite victimized the
2:27:22situation is that you know according to
2:27:26you everything that has been written or
2:27:29said about Cambridge analytics that was
2:27:31wrong yet the only thing we've ever
2:27:33heard directly from you turns out by you
2:27:37don't measure
2:27:38to be a pack of lies so you can
2:27:41understand the frustration that you deny
2:27:43everything that's ever been that I've
2:27:45said about you and then when you do when
2:27:48you are caught going on the record
2:27:50seeing something your first reaction is
2:27:52that's always you can understand you
2:27:56know that is treating possession for us
2:28:00to be and to have to listen and to try
2:28:02and not a straight position as it is for
2:28:06me so questions want to come back to
2:28:09either times marching on a bit we've got
2:28:11a few other things you want to do
2:28:12undercover officer we might Joe Stevens
2:28:16and I just like to ask you mr. Nix about
2:28:20the work you know foresees elections you
2:28:22mentioned that any one time you might be
2:28:24involved in you know I think you said
2:28:25eight nine ten elections around the
2:28:28world because you didn't want to talk
2:28:30about that when you came and gave
2:28:31evidence in February other than the
2:28:33Trump and the Cruz campaigns
2:28:34so the period I'm interested in is 2009
2:28:38to 2011 when you were working on
2:28:40elections in st. case and nervous
2:28:43Dominika st. Vincent and the Grenadines
2:28:45and the referendum in st. Vincent and
2:28:48the Grenadines what was the nature of
2:28:50your business relationship with dr.
2:28:53Christian Kaelin from Hanlon partners I
2:28:57was familiar with Christian Kaelin
2:28:59because he had work in the Caribbean
2:29:03islands some of those islands he I
2:29:06believe well I know he used to run
2:29:09citizenship by investment program
2:29:11certainly instant kits and possibly in
2:29:16Dominica I don't know about the other
2:29:18countries okay so can you tell us a bit
2:29:20what's this citizenship program it's not
2:29:23the same thing as like so I believe it's
2:29:26the same or similar to a system that we
2:29:29have in the UK and other European
2:29:32countries again you have to
2:29:34to explore this yourself where an
2:29:37individual has a right to acquire
2:29:40citizenship through investment well
2:29:49again I don't want to mislead the
2:29:50committee but I believe that the
2:29:53citizenship can include includes a
2:29:55passport
2:29:56so you're basically making investment
2:29:57into the country and and I don't know
2:30:02what the nuances in terms of how much
2:30:04time you have to live there and things
2:30:05like that
2:30:06so were you working with him when you
2:30:10were doing election work in the
2:30:12countries that I mentioned well I was
2:30:15certainly a new mr. Callen I've met with
2:30:18mr. Callen on numerous occasions and
2:30:21when I was working in the countries some
2:30:24of those countries that he was also
2:30:25involved in he was obviously a colleague
2:30:31of some of our clients when we were both
2:30:34working for the girl when you work with
2:30:36him did you undertake work together in
2:30:38any of those countries well you mean on
2:30:42citizenship for investment whatever as
2:30:43part of the work that you were doing was
2:30:45he involved in any aspect of that work
2:30:49well he certainly had an interest in the
2:30:51outcome of the elections he definitely
2:30:54you know as a government contractor had
2:30:59an interest in how the elections would
2:31:04unfold but did he work with you you said
2:31:06you knew him did you do any work
2:31:07together asking well it's a difficult
2:31:10question because I don't want to mislead
2:31:11you of course he didn't work on any of
2:31:13the campaign's that would be a
2:31:14ridiculous notion but he didn't but but
2:31:20he was he dipped in and out of the
2:31:22island I met with him what well he would
2:31:27ask me about the election campaign and
2:31:34but we had a relationship
2:31:36so you'd meet him you talk about the
2:31:41election campaigns you presumably told
2:31:44him how things were going
2:31:45mm-hmm for your clients what was he he
2:31:49was getting a benefit what were you
2:31:50getting from that what's the purpose of
2:31:54you meeting with him well I don't really
2:32:01know what you're alluding to I'm asking
2:32:04what the purpose of the meetings were
2:32:05from your perspective you know you're
2:32:08obviously very busy man you travel these
2:32:10are time these are tiny countries and
2:32:13and the there are not that many people
2:32:21who certainly foreign as you come in and
2:32:24out and you have an active ongoing
2:32:25relationship with the government I think
2:32:27I met with lots of people over that
2:32:29period who had some the relationships
2:32:31with the government did he finance any
2:32:34elections he may well have made
2:32:40contributions towards the election
2:32:43campaigns but you'd have to talk to him
2:32:46about that and whether it campaigns for
2:32:48parties who were your clients I can I
2:32:54can't speak about his activities but I
2:32:57my understanding is that you may well
2:32:59have financed some of the elections or
2:33:01given contributions towards some of the
2:33:03elections who were who are did you ever
2:33:07discuss his finance
2:33:08in the meetings that you've said you had
2:33:10with him yes but not overtly can you
2:33:17that's right understand whoa whoa did
2:33:20you discuss it or didn't you yes we did
2:33:22right
2:33:28he said he was a big contractor with
2:33:30governments in those countries so is
2:33:35that where the passports and the
2:33:36citizenship stuff comes in well I
2:33:40haven't spoken to mr. Callen for a
2:33:42number of years many years now but at
2:33:46the time I believe he ran the economic
2:33:50citizenship program in some kits
2:33:52certainly innocent kits and and we were
2:33:57involved in the elections and kids would
2:34:02effectively buying a citizenship or buy
2:34:04a passport oh I couldn't speak to that I
2:34:07genuinely never discussed that well I
2:34:10mean I did people who wanted to have a
2:34:12second citizenship I guess people who
2:34:15maybe were looking and I'm speculating
2:34:17here but maybe looking for a more
2:34:19beneficial tax regime did you do much
2:34:27work in Latin America obviously bit
2:34:30about the Caribbean but do any work in
2:34:32South America a little bit did you do
2:34:35any work on Austin Tina
2:34:36yes we've worked in Argentina and people
2:34:39and who was that for in Argentina well I
2:34:42think as I said last time we don't
2:34:43generally like to talk about specific
2:34:46clients simply because it's there's a
2:34:50client confidentiality there sure I had
2:34:52a I saw the site of a a note about some
2:34:56of the work in Argentina that it was
2:35:00anti Kirchner campaign so you're working
2:35:03for one of the opposition parties or
2:35:05someone seeking to change the leadership
2:35:07in Argentina would that be correct as
2:35:10far as I'm aware and I again could
2:35:14circle back to you on this I don't
2:35:16believe that we have ever worked on an
2:35:18antique
2:35:18in a campaign okay I just signed this
2:35:20looking at a note that I've someone who
2:35:23shared with me that's a summary of a
2:35:25management meeting a SEL group from the
2:35:2727th of May where there's a note on
2:35:30Argentina and it says anti Costa
2:35:31campaign am presented to decision maker
2:35:33awaiting feedback right so it suggests
2:35:38that you did present an anti-corrosion a
2:35:40campaign to someone who might be in the
2:35:41market for buying one well no that would
2:35:44resent that
2:35:45maybe I pitched ourselves such a
2:35:47campaign yeah to carry the campaign yeah
2:35:49yeah so but it's clear that that was the
2:35:52purple meeting so around that premise
2:35:54that it was an antique antique urshela
2:35:56campaign so working for an opposition
2:35:57party or some some other person
2:35:59interested in influencing politics in
2:36:02Argentina wasn't supporting the
2:36:03government that would that would be the
2:36:07appearance of that yeah did them have
2:36:09you ever work with Paul singer as it was
2:36:11he funded an equal working never work
2:36:13for something that's good there's one
2:36:14question I'd ask as well about them was
2:36:16someone sent me a copy of a note that
2:36:18was prepared having submitted to the
2:36:21decision maker in in Argentina and it
2:36:24just talks about the nature of ICL's
2:36:27work and it said our management team
2:36:28consists of retired Intelligence and
2:36:30Security Agency officers from Israel USA
2:36:32UK Spain and Russia is that is that the
2:36:35case that you have former intelligence
2:36:38and security agency workers from Russia
2:36:39who work there see oh no that's
2:36:42absolutely not the case
2:36:43am i able to have a look at this note or
2:36:45not I'm probably not able to share it
2:36:48but discern but if the person who gave
2:36:50it to me is happy commute arity on happy
2:36:52to circle back as you would say or mass
2:36:54and do and do so or probably not a
2:36:57liberty share it but it's Russia has
2:36:59been included on that list of list of
2:37:00countries and but I mean have had people
2:37:03Russian nationals work for SEL his work
2:37:06or Kim Jong let's go no as far as I'm
2:37:09aware and and I think I was pretty
2:37:13adamant about this when I saw the
2:37:15committee last time we've never worked
2:37:17with a Russian individual we've never
2:37:20worked for a Russian client we've never
2:37:23worked in Russia
2:37:24certainly not
2:37:26being in the company or have Russians
2:37:27were you all had Russians work for us
2:37:30pop off Malik on Cogan I leave he's a
2:37:34u.s. national okay Russia I believe he's
2:37:38a US National okay okay so that's that's
2:37:40the distinction that's why I'm not not
2:37:42seeking to ascertain making appointment
2:37:44did you know point are you making did
2:37:48you know that he was working when he was
2:37:49working did you know that he had links
2:37:51with Russian universities he conducted
2:37:52research workers at Petersburg
2:37:54University funded by the Russian
2:37:55government
2:37:56I believe I met Alexander Cogan twice
2:37:59once in January 14 and once in September
2:38:02okay I had lunch with him twice okay
2:38:07that was my relationship so just me I
2:38:09wanted to just clear up on a different
2:38:11election area something we've had
2:38:12different conflicting bits of evidence
2:38:13about there's Nigeria and we touched on
2:38:15this a little bit and Iran I don't want
2:38:17to go over the issue of the the film I
2:38:19think we've covered that but there is
2:38:22this interesting of interest to us
2:38:24anyway issue of intelligence work is
2:38:27Israeli intelligence workers who were
2:38:29brought in to work alongside the sel
2:38:31team who were delivering the project in
2:38:34Nigeria Britney Kaiser spoke a bit about
2:38:37this in her evidence session that there
2:38:41were people from Israel this year they
2:38:43came all to work on the project that
2:38:46she'd been introduced to in Israel the
2:38:47cheapening were former intelligence
2:38:50officers are you were able to tell us
2:38:52anything about that but are you aware of
2:38:54Israeli intelligence officers performer
2:38:56internships officers working as
2:38:57contractors on alongside sel in in
2:38:59Nigeria so again this is another
2:39:02groundless accusation that I believe was
2:39:05made by mr. Wiley unfortunately having
2:39:09read his his statement to the committee
2:39:13he he suggests that this is something
2:39:16that's been reported to the authorities
2:39:17and so whilst it would be honestly very
2:39:20tempting to try and talk this through
2:39:23with you this is another one of those
2:39:25areas that I simply can't can't can't
2:39:28discuss in No Child for Guinness and the
2:39:31transcript of the sessions that they
2:39:34filmed
2:39:35he filmed you in those meetings and I
2:39:38think conversations you've had with
2:39:38channel 4 reports artist you said that
2:39:40we used some British companies be used
2:39:42in Israeli companies and that you'd said
2:39:44that one of the Israeli companies you'd
2:39:45use was black cube is that correct no I
2:39:48think the transcript because I did read
2:39:50this he said was it black you have you
2:39:54worked with black cube and I replied yes
2:39:56I was totally mistaken we have never
2:39:59worked the black cube and we have been
2:40:00contacted by black you after the
2:40:03publication of of that call it expose by
2:40:12channel 4 and we confirmed to them in
2:40:16writing that we had no relationship with
2:40:18them and we've never worked with them
2:40:19and that they obviously were keen for
2:40:21that because their name was was used
2:40:24okay well I don't see that the
2:40:26accusation was made you've given you all
2:40:28response to that if you haven't worked
2:40:30with black Hugh have you worked with
2:40:31other Israeli intelligence officers
2:40:33we're former intelligence offices to
2:40:35support SEL election work not knowingly
2:40:37no so it may have happened but you don't
2:40:40you don't know if it did well I mean in
2:40:44a sorry I don't have be trite but you
2:40:47could be an Israeli intelligence officer
2:40:49it was the point I'm trying to make is I
2:40:51have not knowingly contracted with any
2:40:54intelligence officers from any
2:40:55nationality to work on projects with no
2:40:59I understand that that was the point of
2:41:00making was whether other people in the
2:41:02company could have contracted them but
2:41:03you wouldn't have been aware of it or
2:41:04would you know I'm sure I would have
2:41:07been aware if someone was making a
2:41:08higher regardless of whether they were
2:41:11hiring a you know Israeli intelligence
2:41:15officer or someone else I'm sure I would
2:41:18have been away so you would have you'd
2:41:19have known who Britney Keizer hired to
2:41:21work on that campaign in Nigeria well
2:41:23again I can't speak to this but what I
2:41:25can say because I did read Britney's
2:41:28evidence is that she was very clear in
2:41:31saying that the client had hired some
2:41:35third parties to work for them and but
2:41:40that was nothing to do with camera
2:41:42jamming etiqa well that's and that's
2:41:45what the that's what I really the
2:41:47the report that you see reports now I
2:41:49believe that's what Brittany cousin
2:41:51Minnie says as well is that there was a
2:41:54parallel operation that wasn't anything
2:41:56I could do this yell what Brittany's
2:41:58suggested to us was that she was
2:42:00introduced to some people in Israel she
2:42:02believed have probably been were former
2:42:05intelligence officers and that they came
2:42:07to work in the team and she didn't say
2:42:09no there were she couldn't remember
2:42:10their names didn't know which company
2:42:11they come from but nevertheless they've
2:42:14been introducing sheep walk in and there
2:42:17seemed to be the confusion around
2:42:18exactly who these people were and
2:42:21whether RCL
2:42:22worked with them on other campaigns as
2:42:24well it suggested to me by former co
2:42:27employees that they then went on to work
2:42:29on further campaigns in the Caribbean as
2:42:32well I I can't speak to what happened in
2:42:37Nigeria because I wasn't there all I can
2:42:39say and the only thing I can say on this
2:42:40is we have never contracted with anyone
2:42:44that fits that description
2:42:45we've and and we certainly did not
2:42:48contract with those individuals or in
2:42:52any way offered work remuneration
2:42:56services or have any relationship with
2:43:00them whatsoever I mean it's important
2:43:03not just because of the question of what
2:43:04we know of whether you Israeli
2:43:05intelligence officers and is that
2:43:06relevant but obviously as you know the
2:43:08accusation is that there they were
2:43:09brought in to work as hackers to to gain
2:43:12information act information on the
2:43:14opponent in that I can't speak to this
2:43:17but again this is another accusation
2:43:19that I believed came from mr. Wiley and
2:43:23it was the first we'd heard about him
2:43:26I'd heard about it no one in my my my
2:43:29I'm sorry yeah Britney geysers say it
2:43:33pretty well
2:43:34and what I would say that has been put
2:43:36to us by other people former sel
2:43:38employees as well that they believe
2:43:40these people hackers and so it's not
2:43:42just Christopher while his testimony
2:43:43obviously I can't disclose who these
2:43:45people are they don't wish to be
2:43:46identified but
2:43:47you've given your answer I think that's
2:43:49I stand by my answer Brendan at home mr.
2:43:55Mitch who are the según I don't know I
2:43:59genuinely don't know other than the fact
2:44:01that I read an article in Bloomberg
2:44:02about three or three weeks ago about
2:44:06them and that article suggested a
2:44:10relationship with a sail group in the
2:44:13USA so you have no knowledge of side
2:44:18group other than what you read in
2:44:20Bloomberg
2:44:20that's correct you've never met with
2:44:22them do you know the nature of the work
2:44:26that they're involved in no I did I read
2:44:29in the article as you probably did as
2:44:31well that there was a joint pitch to the
2:44:36US government for some for some work and
2:44:41that was the first I'd heard about it
2:44:43and it's categorically not true
2:44:47that huge analytic up for SCL of any of
2:44:50the other companies involved that you
2:44:55were involved any relationship
2:44:57whatsoever with cycling no I didn't say
2:45:01that I said I've never heard of him
2:45:03before I can't speak as to if the first
2:45:07time I heard about them was in that
2:45:08article and the article suggests that
2:45:11SCL had a relationship with them a CL
2:45:13USA sorry I keep on SEL group in the USA
2:45:16our defense contractor and they joined
2:45:19pitched I cannot confirm or deny whether
2:45:21that is true I've never heard of them
2:45:23before
2:45:24well the Wall Street Journal on May 23rd
2:45:29reported the key bridge analytical had
2:45:32formed a joint venture with cycling they
2:45:35are a private intelligence firm in order
2:45:38to when US government contracts
2:45:40immediately after the 2016 presidential
2:45:43elections is that correct
2:45:46I've told you very plainly that the
2:45:49first I heard about this company was in
2:45:51this newspaper article I can't speak to
2:45:53it more than that
2:45:58so Hebrew generally can be analytical
2:46:02you have telling us categorically have
2:46:05not what with sacred no that's not what
2:46:12I'm saying and I didn't if you're
2:46:13deliberately trying to miss enjoying to
2:46:16get to the truth what I'm saying is the
2:46:18first I've ever heard of the name sight
2:46:20group was when I read these articles the
2:46:22article infers a relationship with SEL
2:46:25group and I cannot confirm or deny
2:46:27whether that relationship existed
2:46:29because I'd never heard of side group
2:46:30before reading the article okay what
2:46:35advantage defect that would be to SEO or
2:46:40communal attica who you said yourself or
2:46:44a very small advertising agency working
2:46:47with side group a company who are
2:46:51reported as being founded and managed by
2:46:53an experienced group of former
2:46:54high-ranking officers from elite units
2:46:57of some of the world's most renowned
2:46:59intelligence agencies why would a very
2:47:04respected journal such as a Wall Street
2:47:06Journal and Bloomberg connect a very
2:47:10small paralyzing agency to a company
2:47:13like that so just for the sake of
2:47:15clarity because facts matter we're
2:47:18talking about SCL group which was the US
2:47:21defense contractor which is different to
2:47:24Cambridge a politico which was a
2:47:25political and commercial communications
2:47:28agency and like if I cannot speculate as
2:47:32to what the advantage would be of joint
2:47:34pitching on a contract other than to say
2:47:37that it's possible that whatever the
2:47:39contract was it required a range of
2:47:43skill sets some of which could be
2:47:44provided by a CL group and some of which
2:47:46could be provided by side group
2:47:48and neither agency had the requisite
2:47:51skill sets to pitch on its own the US
2:47:56defense procurement process is extremely
2:47:59protracted it requires multiple levels
2:48:03of due diligence and proposals and oral
2:48:12hearings and and submissions and it can
2:48:16go on sometimes for months and months
2:48:18sometimes even years to win a contract
2:48:21and obviously there are extremely strict
2:48:26security measures in place regarding the
2:48:31use of contractors so the mere fact that
2:48:34sigh group were according to the article
2:48:38seeking to partner with sel in order to
2:48:40pitch for US defense work would suggest
2:48:42that they were a recognized vendor or an
2:48:46approved vendor or had some tractional
2:48:48or history of delivering to the US
2:48:50Department of Defense which would imply
2:48:53that they'd been in vetted vetted for
2:48:54that purpose but I am clearly
2:48:56speculating ok so the article it's
2:49:02definitely see that they're not seeking
2:49:04to the article is very clear that they
2:49:06say that Sai Group signed a Memorandum
2:49:10of Understanding Cambridge analytical
2:49:13that's not your understanding at all
2:49:17sorry could you repeat that according to
2:49:20The Wall Street Journal side group
2:49:22saying the Memorandum of Understanding
2:49:25with Cambridge analytical that's not the
2:49:29case as far as you're concerned well I
2:49:31look I can't be more strange with you
2:49:34they have B which is I haven't seen any
2:49:37document I haven't heard of the company
2:49:38before I read this article and it's and
2:49:42just because the Wall Street Journal
2:49:44have reported it it certainly doesn't
2:49:46mean that
2:49:47got the facts correct so if if Cambridge
2:49:51analytical had signed a Memorandum of
2:49:54Understanding with side group I would
2:49:58allow the two firms to cooperate in a
2:50:00case-by-case basis to provide
2:50:02intelligence and social media services
2:50:04as a CEO you would have known about and
2:50:07you would have st. off on it my
2:50:09suspicion and again I'm speculating
2:50:12committee my suspicion is that in their
2:50:14reporting The Wall Street Journal have
2:50:17used the name Cambridge journalist ago
2:50:20when they may have meant to use the name
2:50:22SEL group but in answer to your question
2:50:25I would be very surprised if a
2:50:28Memorandum of Understanding had been
2:50:29signed with Cambridge analytical that I
2:50:31was unaware of who they no one else have
2:50:33seen that therefore not ideal to see the
2:50:35document but certainly someone else
2:50:38possibly one of the other see stuff
2:50:39could have sign that that is true but as
2:50:41entirely feasible then that SEL group
2:50:46could have seen a memorandum of
2:50:48understanding with say group but there's
2:50:51no CL group had its own CEO and as I
2:50:54said to the committee very clearly when
2:50:56I was here last because there was quite
2:50:58a lot of confusion about the group
2:50:59structure
2:51:00I said SEL group is a different company
2:51:02as different offices as different staff
2:51:04works of different contracts and and
2:51:09moreover as a defense contractor it has
2:51:12different security status and therefore
2:51:15its privileged to work and address
2:51:16different things to Cambridge le
2:51:18together
2:51:20what contracts did you pitch for an
2:51:23immediate Cal Post November of 16
2:51:31November of 16 what political contracts
2:51:35did we pitch for yeah doesn't contract
2:51:38if you paid for force the government
2:51:41were political well I'll do both of all
2:51:43government contracts well the government
2:51:48contracts that we would have pitched for
2:51:49in the US Post November 16 would have
2:51:52been pitched for by SEL group
2:51:54and and those would have been a
2:51:59contracts that would have spanned
2:52:02defense to homeland security to other to
2:52:09other government divisions and my mind
2:52:12is escaping me now a broad range but I
2:52:15couldn't speak specifically as to what
2:52:17contracts they were pitching for and do
2:52:19much ones in one well again as a general
2:52:25rule of thumb we don't speak about
2:52:27client contracts so if you can help me
2:52:30understand why this is relevant to the
2:52:31committee I just wanted to get through
2:52:34the that you're divorcing yourself
2:52:38entirely from what's going on with SCL
2:52:41group you know that you know may or may
2:52:45not have been a relationship between the
2:52:47site and ACL but that's something you
2:52:52claim to be absolutely and completely
2:52:55unaware of or having anything to do with
2:53:00it's that right that is correct
2:53:03thank you
2:53:05a couple if I'm a chair I've got a copy
2:53:10of your digital overview now it's a few
2:53:15years all of this miss Stevens referred
2:53:17to it before so some of these short-term
2:53:20interventions that it's listed in in the
2:53:25digital in that overview includes a
2:53:27denial of service attacks denial of
2:53:31service attacks did you ever wonder take
2:53:32any so this was a company that we looked
2:53:35at forming and we never formed and that
2:53:38company never undertook any work
2:53:40whatsoever right and in answer to your
2:53:43question no we didn't why did you
2:53:45consider it at the time we were looking
2:53:48at different technologies expanding into
2:53:52different technological areas and this
2:53:55seemed like an interesting business but
2:54:00we didn't have the capability was
2:54:01probably the truth to be able to deliver
2:54:02meaningfully in this business area was
2:54:04it illegal at that time what was was was
2:54:06an institution it distributed denial of
2:54:08service attack was it illegal I really
2:54:11didn't know I can't speak to technology
2:54:13like that right because it's illegal now
2:54:15right I don't I don't know it's it's not
2:54:18something that we ever built it's not
2:54:20something that we ever undertook it's a
2:54:22company that was never realized okay the
2:54:25only reason I ask is because it would
2:54:28give me concern that you have the men's
2:54:31rare to undertake activities which are
2:54:35perhaps outside the law but in everybody
2:54:38net and did it fair enough can ask one
2:54:40at one of the area to take up for much
2:54:44more time
2:54:45what invite you to see if you can
2:54:48remember a question that I put to you at
2:54:51the last the last evidence session where
2:54:54you gave evidence which was concerning a
2:54:56twenty four point two million pound
2:54:58payment from Delaware registered
2:55:00Cambridge analytic the American
2:55:01Cambridge analytical to the UK
2:55:03registered SC an election
2:55:05a conversation about that yesterday and
2:55:08I think at the time you you weren't
2:55:10willing to let me know what the payment
2:55:13was for now again I can't see unless you
2:55:20can help me understand the relevance of
2:55:22that to the committee I can't see how
2:55:25that that is important well let me see
2:55:27if I can help you understand the
2:55:30relevance because under the terms of the
2:55:33bankruptcy final in the state of New
2:55:35York a statement of financial affairs
2:55:38has been publishing the documents are
2:55:41available mm-hmm and it looks from from
2:55:45from the analysis that Cambridge
2:55:48analytic has no cost associated with the
2:55:50revenue it receives and managers and
2:55:53managers to transfer more money to SCL
2:55:56elections than it declares that it
2:55:57generates so for example in 2016
2:56:04Cambridge analytic had a gross revenue
2:56:06of twenty five million two hundred
2:56:07ninety nine thousand two hundred
2:56:08thirteen dollars but according to
2:56:11Companies House and a related party
2:56:13transaction disclosure SCL elections
2:56:16received income from Cambridge a minute
2:56:18ago of twenty four point two million
2:56:20pounds or in dollars thirty four million
2:56:23dollars right so there seems to be some
2:56:26money transfers going on between the two
2:56:29companies and I'm keen to know whether
2:56:33that's work that is being undertaken
2:56:35between the two companies or whether
2:56:38it's a way of using finer added registry
2:56:40of finance from one side of Atlantic to
2:56:42the other no it reflects the
2:56:45relationship between the two companies
2:56:46and the work that was going on between
2:56:48them what kind of work well I suppose
2:56:52this comes in to the structure of the
2:56:55companies which was the point that we
2:56:57discussed at some length with some
2:56:59confusion would this be a good
2:57:01opportunity to try and explain that to
2:57:03you it is quite a confusing structure so
2:57:06if there's
2:57:07if you do add to that if mr. Madsen's
2:57:09happy but if you are chance
2:57:11no probably only them so if I may
2:57:14approach I would like to hand out just a
2:57:18four page document because in
2:57:19anticipation of this what I try to do is
2:57:22to take what is ostensibly quite a
2:57:26complex structure and to and to simplify
2:57:30it to help the committee to understand
2:57:33the relationship between the companies
2:57:35and the brands they represented and how
2:57:40the company expanded and contracted and
2:57:43expanded again which gave rise to what
2:57:47is an unnecessarily complex structure
2:57:50but actually had nothing nefarious and
2:57:54certainly didn't reflect a mafia style
2:57:57franchise as has been alluded to I think
2:58:04McMurphy is staffing
2:58:07[Laughter]
2:58:28[Applause]
2:58:30mr. XML files are you happy for the
2:58:33committee to publish this deserve
2:58:34there's a written submission to the
2:58:36benefit people that obviously can't see
2:58:38it today yeah yes that's funny I was
2:58:44gonna talk you through it if that went
2:58:46angling chairs because it was fine yeah
2:58:48so if you look at the first slide what
2:58:52I've tried to do is I've tried to
2:58:54distinguish between the employer I the
2:58:57company that actually contracted
2:58:59employees and and this I think there was
2:59:04a lot of confusion about Brittany saying
2:59:06she worked for SCO or Cambridge or
2:59:08Jordana Cambridge or SEO or both or both
2:59:10and I'm hoping to address that with this
2:59:14and then underneath we have the brands
2:59:17and the brands are are simply the the
2:59:22marketing or client facing vehicles
2:59:29which which provided services to to the
2:59:33clients so between 2005 and 2012 we had
2:59:37a British company called strategic
2:59:39communication laboratories and
2:59:40underneath that were four brands we had
2:59:44a defense company which obviously
2:59:45service government and defense work a
2:59:48commercial for selling toothpaste
2:59:49elections for political work and social
2:59:52front of taking you know social and
2:59:54humanitarian work in 2012 my partner and
3:00:01I decided to to separate the
3:00:04organisation and he retained strategic
3:00:07communication laboratory's limit limited
3:00:09and his his brand was became known as
3:00:14SEL group and continued to focus on
3:00:16global defence work I incorporated a new
3:00:19company called SEL Elections limited and
3:00:21I focused on the three other divisions
3:00:23commercial elections and social
3:00:26the SEO group defense work then was that
3:00:29run by Nigel X that's correct yes yeah
3:00:31yeah and these really were completely
3:00:34separate companies which is why that
3:00:37there have been a lot of allegations in
3:00:39the press and mr. Wiley again has made a
3:00:42lot of insinuations that we are some
3:00:43sort of military contractor that uses
3:00:45military technology on Elections as you
3:00:48can see there is no crossover there was
3:00:50no staff no IP methodology that was
3:00:53shared between these companies they were
3:00:55completely separate in around 2014 we we
3:01:02incorporated Cambridge analytical in the
3:01:04United States and obviously that was a
3:01:07u.s. vehicle and we needed a u.s.
3:01:11employer to staff that Suri's
3:01:13established SEL inc and that became the
3:01:15employer of staff for all US projects
3:01:18and for global projects we continue to
3:01:21use SEL elections and again we worked
3:01:24across these are the brands again Nigel
3:01:26Oaks is company s Stratcom labs continue
3:01:30to be a completely separate entity and
3:01:32towards the end of 17 early 18 we then
3:01:36amalgamated the group together
3:01:38we got rid of the other brands and you
3:01:40can see that our UK and US defense
3:01:43companies came together as one brand
3:01:46obviously staffed by the two different
3:01:48employers and Cambridge analytical
3:01:50became became the brand for global
3:01:54political and commercial work they kept
3:01:57on who owns them well again I can't see
3:02:02the relevance of that and I think you
3:02:03told you told you last time that you
3:02:05know we don't generally bed speak about
3:02:06shareholders right well it is relevant
3:02:10explain why in a moment but can I can
3:02:13answer the question again who owns these
3:02:16companies well again this is the private
3:02:18companies that have been invested into
3:02:20by private individuals and there is no
3:02:24need for me to elaborate on shareholders
3:02:26is Robert Mercer a shareholder as I
3:02:30quite clear to you there's no need for
3:02:33me to talk about these things Oh Steve
3:02:35banner Michelle we can keep this up I'm
3:02:40afraid I'm not gonna wants your
3:02:42questions okay
3:02:42um the reason it's relevant you'd ask me
3:02:45for the relevance and the reason it's
3:02:46relevant is because I'm looking at these
3:02:47money transfers and they've got and
3:02:49thank you for this by the way it will
3:02:50have a proper look at that we've got
3:02:52more time we've got money transfers from
3:02:54the United States to the United Kingdom
3:02:56uh-huh and there is a lack of clarity
3:03:01about what the money the money was
3:03:02actually for but if it was for work that
3:03:04was being done in the United Kingdom
3:03:06mm-hmm by a British company mm-hmm for
3:03:10political activity in the United States
3:03:11mm-hmm I have a concern that that might
3:03:13be illegal in the United States if it
3:03:16was work that was done in the United
3:03:18Kingdom for political activity in the
3:03:21United Kingdom using funds that were
3:03:23provided by an overseas source I have a
3:03:26fear that that would be illegal in the
3:03:28United Kingdom so can I ask again who
3:03:30provided the funds and who owns them
3:03:32companies well this is an area again
3:03:39unfortunately that is going to stretch
3:03:43into ongoing investigations and so again
3:03:45this is one of those areas that I'm
3:03:47afraid has to be privileged until these
3:03:50investigations are concluded so again I
3:03:53would really like to explain this to you
3:03:55because there is very simple
3:03:58explanations to guess but simply because
3:03:59it touches it touches on some of the
3:04:02investigations that I've been made aware
3:04:03of I can't go back okay and respect now
3:04:06mr. Nix you've talked before in one of
3:04:09the more heated moments of these
3:04:11sessions about concerns about in big
3:04:14international conspiracies if there were
3:04:18to be one mm-hmm
3:04:19then the transfer of money to influence
3:04:21elections and referendum in this country
3:04:24by people who are not really not British
3:04:25would include would be included in
3:04:28consideration of big in that
3:04:29international conspiracy wouldn't it
3:04:30well I think and I'm hopeful that we're
3:04:34all we've reached a consensus on this
3:04:36but I think that we are all of the mind
3:04:39that Cambridge analytic er s Co
3:04:42elections did not undertake any work in
3:04:45the UK on the referendum we did no paid
3:04:49or unpaid work that was certainly the
3:04:50finding of the Electoral Commission and
3:04:52so what you're suggesting simply isn't
3:04:56relevant so in that case this would be
3:04:58working was taken in the United Kingdom
3:05:00for political activity in the United
3:05:01States which i think is problematical in
3:05:04the United States again this is
3:05:07something that it touches on
3:05:09investigations so I can't speak to it
3:05:10but obviously we have a US company in
3:05:13the United States for undertaking us
3:05:15work and we have a British company in
3:05:16the UK for undertaking British work and
3:05:18that's all I can say on the matter
3:05:20okay well I'm grateful for that thank
3:05:22you thank you check on that structure
3:05:25nobody spoke about this earlier on when
3:05:27we were talking about the work of aiq
3:05:29and dr. Kagan and and the Kim gentleman
3:05:32to get SEL teams in the work was being
3:05:36done for for John Bolton in those
3:05:39political races in 2014 where do you
3:05:41remember where people were
3:05:42geographically based when they were
3:05:43doing that work so we know that we had
3:05:45SEL Hogan and aiq working on the same
3:05:49project where where were they were they
3:05:51were based in one office in one country
3:05:54or they work remotely
3:05:55well again I'm sorry mr. chairman I'd
3:05:58love to explain this to you but this is
3:06:00again touches or on some of these
3:06:02investigations I simply can't do that
3:06:05obviously it's I think matter of
3:06:08interests to say if dr. Kogan hasn't
3:06:09seen was based in England or you know he
3:06:12worked in was in st. Petersburg working
3:06:14for time-to-time and irq base in Canada
3:06:16and there and if they're processing u.s.
3:06:19electoral data data about US citizens
3:06:21and designing campaign tools from
3:06:24outside of the United States is to how
3:06:26about that it's legal
3:06:27not a matter for this committee to
3:06:28determine there are US agencies that can
3:06:30do that but I think it's I think it is a
3:06:33simply supporting the question even if
3:06:34it's not one that we can discuss today I
3:06:36appreciate that
3:06:37Thea Lukas he present - gaining
3:06:41contracts in connection with Dominica in
3:06:43September of 2009 I'd have to confirm
3:06:47the timing but I did work in Dominica
3:06:50yes was that you personally I came in
3:06:54and out of the project I was not running
3:06:56the project but I was there so you're
3:06:58involved in the project not on a
3:07:00day-to-day basis typically I would work
3:07:03on sales and obviously working with the
3:07:07client but I wouldn't manage the
3:07:09campaign's themselves tonight present
3:07:12you with a copy of a document which I've
3:07:16been using a CL document
3:07:25it says at the top election clients and
3:07:31included in that graphic of Russian
3:07:39clients can you confirm that's correct
3:07:43that certainly was the picture
3:07:45illustrates and is that a SEL document
3:07:48so I can explain this for you very
3:07:52assign SEL document well it certainly
3:07:54looks like it is right earlier you said
3:07:58that there were no Russian clients for
3:08:03ser that this document contradicts that
3:08:07statement
3:08:07well actually what I said to you was
3:08:09that in the 14 years that I've been
3:08:11working for the company and I was very
3:08:14explicit about this when I saw the
3:08:16committee last time in the 14 or 15
3:08:19years that I've been working for the
3:08:20company at best my knowledge we've not
3:08:23hired any Russians we've not worked with
3:08:25any Russians we've not worked with any
3:08:26Russian clients we've not worked in
3:08:28Russia etc etc think that previous to my
3:08:36joining the company my colleagues worked
3:08:40on a program in for gas problem in
3:08:44Russia and this was a piece of
3:08:47commercial work that would have been in
3:08:49the late 90s or early 2000s is my
3:08:51understanding I can't speak to that I
3:08:53wasn't in the company I was probably
3:08:55still at university ok so that but that
3:08:59was before your your time that is
3:09:02correct so this document says explicitly
3:09:04election clients isn't it that is
3:09:07correct and you were presented in with a
3:09:12specific reference to Russian election
3:09:16clients why was that well I subsequently
3:09:20followed up on this and it seems that
3:09:24this document is produced
3:09:26to refer as part of a larger document
3:09:29that had all clients on it so some
3:09:32election clients and commercial clients
3:09:33some social clients and then that was
3:09:36edited down to just election clients and
3:09:38obviously it reflects some of the wrong
3:09:41clients so what you're saying just took
3:09:45sound clear you're saying this graphic
3:09:47is inaccurate I'm saying that this
3:09:49graphic is inaccurate and that we as far
3:09:53as I am aware we've never worked on a
3:09:55Russian election and that that well some
3:10:03work has been done with Russian clients
3:10:05prior to my joining the company I have
3:10:09no knowledge of that I can't speak to it
3:10:15can you explain the relationship between
3:10:18Cambridge on the lips occur and look or
3:10:213-minute yes I can very much like an
3:10:25this again was another allegation very
3:10:30forcefully put forward by mr. Wylie that
3:10:33somehow we were involved with a Russian
3:10:37company and I think he went on to say
3:10:39that we exposed ourselves to sharing
3:10:42data and information with the FSB
3:10:43another one of these ludicrous ludicrous
3:10:47conspiracy theories the relationship is
3:10:51much more benign than that we we were
3:10:58introduced to lukoil in Turkey to their
3:11:01office in Istanbul in 2014 the purpose
3:11:09of the meeting was to explore whether we
3:11:13might be able to use micro targeting
3:11:14capabilities to target their clients
3:11:19with different messages to increase the
3:11:22sales of petrol at lukoil petrol
3:11:25stations in either an Italia or in
3:11:28Istanbul
3:11:29I hate the introduction the introduction
3:11:32was made by some Turkish colleagues of
3:11:35mine I went for a two-day trip to
3:11:38Istanbul I probably met with eight or
3:11:41nine companies from an airline to a new
3:11:45coil to manufacturing companies and
3:11:48product companies and so forth and we
3:11:52explored working opportunities in Turkey
3:11:55this was one of those pitches it's
3:11:58extremely well documented this
3:12:01particular set of meetings and the
3:12:07follow-up we did submit a proposal to
3:12:11undertake a pilot project where we were
3:12:13looking at I think three five seven I
3:12:16cannot remember gas stations or petrol
3:12:18stations where we were going to to
3:12:20market to people local to that station
3:12:22to see if we could demonstrate an
3:12:24increase in sales it was a Turkish
3:12:28project for a Turkish subsidiary of a
3:12:32Russian company that ultimately never
3:12:34moved forward and so any allegations
3:12:38that this was cleaned of various or
3:12:41connected with intelligence or data
3:12:43sharing or Russian involvement in the
3:12:46u.s. election is just another one of
3:12:49these groundless breathtakingly graphic
3:12:52the presentation to Lukoil
3:12:54did you represent to them that you had
3:12:57had clients in Russia previously I I
3:13:00don't know what what particular cells
3:13:02deck I was using if this was in 2014 and
3:13:06we do a lot of sales pitches I'm sure
3:13:08you could tell me better because I'm
3:13:09sure you're about to show me what was
3:13:11presented no I'm not actually I'm just
3:13:14asking you a question but I I don't know
3:13:17it would have been a very generic sales
3:13:19pitch I would have thought the only
3:13:21problem was at that time was that
3:13:23although we would all we were always
3:13:26keen on getting into the the commercial
3:13:32space
3:13:33the pitch to lukoil and those other
3:13:35companies in Turkey was really our first
3:13:36proper foray into this space and we
3:13:39didn't really have a demo
3:13:40we'll track record - to give to to
3:13:45potential clients so in order to help
3:13:47explain the methodology that we propose
3:13:50to use for them we use that through
3:13:53illustrations of some of the political
3:13:55work that we've done or certain in terms
3:13:57of the methodology to show them how we
3:13:59could segment and target audiences for
3:14:02selling more petrol at petrol stations
3:14:06we ever introduced to any business or
3:14:10have you any of your employees pitched
3:14:12the business by new century media the
3:14:16financial PR consultancy in London yeah
3:14:19that company rings a bell can you tell
3:14:21me a little bit more about it who's that
3:14:24who's the principal you tell me a little
3:14:26bit more about it what do you know about
3:14:27new Century Media I'd like you answer my
3:14:30question actually well so I suppose what
3:14:33I'm really grappling with is I can
3:14:35recognize the name but in order to help
3:14:38me put them on the map if you could tell
3:14:39me their office address or who the CEO
3:14:43is then I might be able to help you know
3:14:44what I want what I want you to say is
3:14:47did that company ever introduce you to
3:14:50any any businesses well any I I can't
3:14:56recall any when II can't recall
3:15:04is it true that one of you're one of the
3:15:07new century media's main PR clients is
3:15:09your former majority shareholder Vincent
3:15:11chambers well I'm struggling to remember
3:15:15who new century media are so if you well
3:15:18it just seems that the former majority
3:15:21shareholder of new century media yeah
3:15:23his visiting chambers who do you know
3:15:29him
3:15:29yes of course as it has he
3:15:33all new century media ever broke with
3:15:35any business or RCL well Vincent
3:15:40changies was an investor in SEL group in
3:15:432005 I believe he sold his equity in the
3:15:50company in I'm gonna struggle 2010 maybe
3:15:54doesn't leaven I'd have to check you
3:15:56could check it companies have some short
3:16:02we have really reduced by a new central
3:16:04media to any business look I'm really
3:16:08not trying to obfuscate my answer here I
3:16:11cannot remember who they are if you
3:16:13can't just help me understand who they
3:16:15are I can't answer your question fairly
3:16:17David Birds okay yes I have met David
3:16:20Burnside I am familiar with him I lost
3:16:22one of my senior staff members to him
3:16:28some time ago I don't believe that we
3:16:38ever did any work with them but I'd have
3:16:43to revert you on that I really really
3:16:45can't remember did he introduce you to
3:16:48any Russian business not as far as I'm
3:16:51aware she's potential clients not as far
3:16:53as I'm aware have you ever met with mr.
3:16:58Alexander Nik Russell No
3:17:08just just a couple just a couple of
3:17:09other questions on on lukoil I've seen a
3:17:14copy of presentation given so what are
3:17:18the case study need to strike case
3:17:20studies which as you lead to our
3:17:21political one of which is on rising the
3:17:26raising awareness of national security
3:17:28issues and the campaign's that will run
3:17:29for john bolton and the other is raising
3:17:35both turnout strategically for for
3:17:37America again in political campaigns in
3:17:39in America can you see how people that
3:17:43are familiar with this might raise know
3:17:45what this might raise an eyebrow that
3:17:47actually the political work done for
3:17:48John Bolton or paid for by John Bolton
3:17:50in America it's presented to the turkey
3:17:52subsidiary in the Russian oil company as
3:17:54part of a consumer customer focused
3:17:57campaign trying to get people to buy
3:17:58more petrol from their party just seems
3:18:01like an odd series of case studies to
3:18:02use in a presentation like that well I
3:18:06think I've explained this haven't I
3:18:08I mean you accept the fact that we were
3:18:11trying to demonstrate the methodology
3:18:13that we didn't have any relevant case
3:18:16studies and in order to illustrate how
3:18:20this methodology could be deployed we
3:18:23Illustrated it through example I
3:18:25understand that and I know I accept what
3:18:28I accept you've given you all answer to
3:18:30the committee on that but in terms of
3:18:33that the concerns dismay raise for other
3:18:35people is I know some people might be
3:18:37concerned that the work that was done
3:18:38with John Bolton in America is highly
3:18:39highly sophisticated piece of work of
3:18:42very sophisticated photo targeting for
3:18:45an election campaign now that's that's
3:18:47being used as an example of you know
3:18:49this is these are the improve results we
3:18:51got because of the work we did that's
3:18:54one thing but if the kind of some of the
3:18:56methodology or work work behind that was
3:18:58being discussed and shared with clients
3:19:00in other countries particularly a
3:19:02company
3:19:03the Turkish the city of Russia normal
3:19:05company some people might be sentence
3:19:07whether that's an appropriate sharing of
3:19:09information insight knowledge as part of
3:19:13your work can you see why people may and
3:19:16so the implication you're trying to make
3:19:18is that we were sharing some top-secret
3:19:20intelligence you know
3:19:23please understand and I'm sure as dr.
3:19:26Kogan will tell you what I'm sure
3:19:27certainly to Chris Wiley reports to be a
3:19:29data scientist he can certainly speak to
3:19:31this micro-targeting it's a very common
3:19:33practice that has been undertaken all
3:19:35over the world in very many
3:19:39jurisdictions and this is not some you
3:19:44know judo government secret that we're
3:19:49giving away we're talking about how to
3:19:52target such segments and target was a
3:19:56small audience groups of people most
3:19:59sophisticated advertising agencies would
3:20:02be able to give a similar presentation
3:20:05all over the world so I'm not entirely
3:20:09sure what you're alluding to well I
3:20:11think if you said you didn't have very
3:20:13much commercial experience and the
3:20:15pictures that from SD out commercial
3:20:16well in a CL elections you used what you
3:20:18had but I'm saying is that the reason
3:20:21probably people have it's raise concerns
3:20:22for some people about the nature of this
3:20:25pitch the nature of the work you might
3:20:27have done if you were referencing and
3:20:29using political working done in America
3:20:30to a Russian owned or company in Turkey
3:20:33that's probably why people get concerned
3:20:35about it you may be you may be you may
3:20:38know that that's totally innocent and
3:20:39there's no no question of any kind of
3:20:41data or intelligence being compromised
3:20:42in any way but I think you can see why
3:20:44people have become concerned about it I
3:20:46mean your your other chart is very
3:20:47helpful and demonstrating the separation
3:20:49of companies as well but then the same
3:20:51day you're presenting to lukoil in
3:20:53Turkey and I sel group are doing the
3:20:57strategic communications work to
3:20:59countering Russian intelligence in Riga
3:21:00at the NATO surgery Communication Center
3:21:02on the same day discussing some of the
3:21:04same techniques and approaches you could
3:21:06see why some people well that's not
3:21:08that's not true at all because the work
3:21:10that was being pioneered by sel group
3:21:13under Nigel's steerage was completely
3:21:16different to the work that we were doing
3:21:17we were using big data to to target and
3:21:21segment audiences and he was using
3:21:24behavioral communications to to deliver
3:21:27I don't know what was happening on that
3:21:29particular project but it siyul training
3:21:33to government or other similar strategic
3:21:36communication programs there isn't an
3:21:38overlap as has been suggested in the
3:21:41media and obviously by by mr. Whaley
3:21:43there were very different methodologies
3:21:45what we were doing is really quite
3:21:47benign and the technologies that were
3:21:50originally pioneered by Obama's campaign
3:21:52in 2008 and then obviously used in 2012
3:21:55and then developed by us in our own way
3:21:57in 2014 15 16 and so forth you know
3:22:02these this is similar technologies that
3:22:08advertising agencies other political
3:22:09consultancies were using all across
3:22:12America certainly across Western Europe
3:22:15but possibly not in countries such as
3:22:18Turkey which was why we saw a potential
3:22:20market opportunity to be able to offer
3:22:22them there was there's there's no
3:22:24sharing of secrets with a with a Turkish
3:22:27company that happens to be owned by a
3:22:29Russian company what I'm saying you give
3:22:32me giving you answers I think it's
3:22:33appropriate we ask you these questions
3:22:35but I don't think this is about
3:22:36conspiracy theories of one or two people
3:22:38I think it's people raising number of
3:22:40different people observing this activity
3:22:42going on raising concerns about it
3:22:45raising questions about it which we've
3:22:46had a chance to to put to you today but
3:22:49in terms of your techniques and
3:22:50methodologies whilst you say that there
3:22:52are lots of companies out there that do
3:22:53this you know I think what we've used
3:22:56you certainly didn't sell it yourself in
3:22:57that way you sort certainly sold as we
3:22:59spoke about last time what kim jongseo
3:23:01does in particular as being particularly
3:23:03powerful particularly effective and
3:23:05particularly with the combination of not
3:23:07just big data but psychological
3:23:09profiling and Facebook data as well we
3:23:11were discussed all that at length but I
3:23:13think there's a particular interest in
3:23:14work because of the work you were doing
3:23:16at that time and the high profile
3:23:18campaigns you were involved with
3:23:20and I think you know we've we've gone
3:23:21through if there's any more we can add
3:23:23on that today but I think I think the I
3:23:25think it's understandable why some
3:23:27people have been concerned I don't think
3:23:28it's the conspiracy theories if just one
3:23:29person short questions if I can
3:23:35and you describes Kingsbridge analytical
3:23:38is a very small advertising agency I
3:23:41think oh you're in your evidence so any
3:23:42one time typically how many clients
3:23:44would count channel it could be
3:23:47representing you know not just humming
3:23:49on your books but actually doing work
3:23:51for well you've seen how the company has
3:23:55developed you're talking specifically
3:23:57about camera journalistic are you
3:23:58talking about it simulates gap and
3:24:00you're talking about politics are you
3:24:02talking about I'm asking anyone to
3:24:05commercially how many clients would
3:24:08Cambridge analyst could be working well
3:24:09let us say but before when I last saw
3:24:14you in February 2000
3:24:16sorry February 27th 2018 we maybe we had
3:24:2030 clients or 35 clients on our books at
3:24:23that time and do you ever do any due
3:24:26diligence on prospective clients but
3:24:29clearly not enough as was demonstrated
3:24:32by channel 4 video do you have a process
3:24:38in place for any sort of due diligence
3:24:40it depends on on what clients is that
3:24:44yes or no yes you do do do to to
3:24:47diligence or no you don't in some cases
3:24:52we undertake due diligence and in other
3:24:54cases we don't if you're working for
3:24:55mercedes-benz it's a different value
3:24:58proposition to sorry it's a different
3:25:01proposition I beg your pardon
3:25:02so if you're working for a company you
3:25:04maybe you've never heard about so it's
3:25:06not a yes or no answer and then finally
3:25:10just can we just go back to where we
3:25:11started which was about the eight
3:25:12million dollars
3:25:13did you take eight million dollars out
3:25:16of a compliment well again I think I've
3:25:21answered this extremely clearly which is
3:25:24that that story was based on a full
3:25:26Selig ation it's been very bad in sorry
3:25:31very inaccurately reported and I you
3:25:37know I only saw it this morning briefly
3:25:38before I came to this committee hearing
3:25:40I haven't had the chance to even read it
3:25:42properly I need to digest it and decide
3:25:44with my counsel you know how we want to
3:25:47follow up that's not clear at all to me
3:25:48I'm sorry mr. Nix did you take a look
3:25:50the answer to your question is that I'm
3:25:54not answering your question I haven't
3:25:55had the ability to consider the matter
3:25:57myself and to decide what action I'm
3:26:00going to take so you don't want to
3:26:02answer the question I do not want to
3:26:04answer the question okay as in February
3:26:10today mr. Nix we're here to follow facts
3:26:13not not not prejudices or conspiracy
3:26:16theories whoever whoever may hold them
3:26:19but to us today you've you've presented
3:26:22or Cambridge analytical as Co elections
3:26:26as a there's a methyl company
3:26:29essentially striving as you use the term
3:26:34in February the breast practice with
3:26:36checks and balances and compliance
3:26:38processes that's absolutely not guilty
3:26:42of any of the dirty tricks or alleged
3:26:46stings that have been that have been in
3:26:49different jurisdictions including
3:26:51Nigeria with the video and I'm the
3:26:55Caribbean but that have been retailed in
3:26:58in recent months since you came here and
3:27:02yet now Cambridge analytical is bust who
3:27:08knows what will follow if
3:27:11none of this is true why do you think so
3:27:14many people have had an interview it's a
3:27:19very good question and I'm pleased that
3:27:21you asked that I think I've touched on
3:27:23this before but I think that I can
3:27:25answer that question I think that our
3:27:31involvement in the u.s. election for the
3:27:36election of a president who's proved to
3:27:40be so divisive among voters and
3:27:43polarizing amongst voters put an
3:27:46incredibly huge target on our back and
3:27:51the ever since that day although it was
3:27:54a great success in some in some terms
3:28:00for the cup of the company and you know
3:28:02it's business growth it actually proved
3:28:05to be its undoing because from that
3:28:08moment onwards there were actors not
3:28:12least Democrats and the liberal media
3:28:16particularly who would just determined
3:28:19to destroy us absolutely destroy us and
3:28:22we became the target of a sustained
3:28:25press and media attack now you couple
3:28:27that with the reporting in the UK driven
3:28:31largely by Carroll and the Guardian
3:28:34about our involvement in brexit and
3:28:38obviously that was proved to be false
3:28:41reporting at every level but we were in
3:28:45this country then perceived to be the
3:28:47architects of that campaign and we were
3:28:49vilified and hated for that and you add
3:28:53into the mix an extremely jealous and
3:28:56resentful employee who's sat there and
3:28:59stood for three years as his baby grew
3:29:03and matured and got all the success and
3:29:05he then saw this opportunity to go to
3:29:08Carroll and to share with her every
3:29:11single possible fantastical allegation
3:29:15that he could come up with and she gave
3:29:18him the mouthpiece to be able to put all
3:29:21of this into print
3:29:22so that it went viral on a global scale
3:29:29and you have the makings of a perfect
3:29:32storm you have people who the public
3:29:34want to hate because of our association
3:29:36with Trump and are false association
3:29:40with brexit you have somebody who's
3:29:43deeply motivated to destroy us who's
3:29:46feeding snippets of information
3:29:48half-baked allegations to a media
3:29:51organization that's incredibly
3:29:53influential and powerful and obviously
3:29:56the Guardian and particularly Carol
3:29:58thought that if by attacking Cambridge
3:30:00analytical and proving that we had been
3:30:04involved in the referendum and that our
3:30:06involvement had somehow been illegal
3:30:09that they might be able to push for a
3:30:11second referendum which is exactly what
3:30:13they tried to do together yesterday that
3:30:15they might be able to change the course
3:30:17of history
3:30:17and I genuinely wholeheartedly believe
3:30:20that that is what has happened I believe
3:30:22that people in America can't accept that
3:30:25lump is their president and they want to
3:30:27blame someone for that and people in
3:30:29England are looking led by Carol are
3:30:31looking to to use us as a way to
3:30:34overturn the outcome of this referendum
3:30:36that they don't agree with and the fact
3:30:38of the matter is we didn't work on the
3:30:40referendum the overwhelming vast
3:30:43majority of the allegations against us
3:30:45simply patently not true and a being
3:30:48proven to be not true
3:30:50yes gosh I'm so guilty of being foolish
3:30:54but that hardly constitutes two kind of
3:30:58cataclysmic response that we've received
3:31:01from the press and media and the
3:31:03destruction of it and otherwise I say
3:31:07humbly but brilliant growing tech
3:31:10company staffed by super talented people
3:31:13that could have gone on to really do
3:31:15some some exciting and good things in
3:31:17this world and that's your answer but
3:31:20just a final final question thought for
3:31:23you but if if the company is responsibly
3:31:26led
3:31:27none of that explains why when there are
3:31:31allegations of dirty tricks or exciting
3:31:37capers to try and swing elections in
3:31:41with a little bit more of a twist than
3:31:43using digital digital um marketing
3:31:46techniques why in those circumstances
3:31:50you should give them credence by
3:31:53behaving as you did on film with channel
3:31:564
3:31:57I think foolishness doesn't even begin
3:31:59to describe it really well I look we
3:32:02could go back over this I think this
3:32:05committee
3:32:06I hope this committee can connect ties
3:32:09with my position just a little bit but
3:32:14you know it wasn't just a single
3:32:16incidence it has been a perfect storm it
3:32:19is it was a very very coordinated attack
3:32:21by the New York Times by channel 4 by
3:32:24the Guardian and by Chris Wylie they all
3:32:26came together and manufactured a string
3:32:28of allegations together with a bit of
3:32:31foolishness and together with obviously
3:32:34the whole GSR and Facebook debacle and
3:32:40and we have become the object of global
3:32:47hatred and that is why our company has
3:32:53has finished your vaults my question
3:33:01today I think we're doing to a close
3:33:02this is not I would put to you a matter
3:33:05of a campaign being run by one or two
3:33:07individuals or one or two journalists
3:33:10because if it was you wouldn't be a
3:33:12being under investigation by as many
3:33:13authorities as you are and these are
3:33:16very serious matters I think you were
3:33:18not straight with the committee in
3:33:20February
3:33:21certainly well on the questions around
3:33:22GSR and Facebook data I think you
3:33:24yourself have acknowledged that in part
3:33:26that the answers you gave were partial
3:33:28and I think I think misleading a lot of
3:33:31the allegations that have been made
3:33:32against you have come from people that
3:33:33use to work for you not just mr. Whalley
3:33:35but others as well something something
3:33:37do not wish to be made to be identified
3:33:39and others who have spoken out and I
3:33:42think the proper no doubt the questions
3:33:44will remain for as long as people do
3:33:45continue to speak out in that way but I
3:33:48think we've covered the questions we
3:33:50wanted to ask you today and thank you
3:33:52for coming back and giving evidence
3:34:03portcullis house the grim and room

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Alexander Nix, former Cambridge Analytica CEO, testifies to 'fake news' inquiry - watch live by Guardian News, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 30,835 words across 4,468 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.