YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Ex-Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix Testifies to U.K. Lawmakers

Ex-Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix Testifies to U.K. Lawmakers — Transcript

by Bloomberg News · 25,004 words · 3,614 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00was transpired since the end of February
0:02this year I thought it'd be helpful for
0:05the committee and for the record perhaps
0:06if you could just give us an update as
0:09to what the current status of Cambridge
0:11analytics occur is what is current who
0:15is in possession of its assets and what
0:17role do you have with the company in the
0:20moment thank you thank you mr. Collins
0:24and I'd be pleased to answer your
0:25question but before I do so I'd like to
0:29make a few short clarifications these
0:33will only take a few minutes but it is
0:35important to be able to frame my answers
0:39I think what I'd rather do is that we
0:41can take the questions in the order the
0:43committee has them I would imagine that
0:45we will probably raise questions and
0:47issues where you want to make
0:49clarifications and States as we go
0:51through if by the end of the session
0:53there are there are things that we've
0:54not covered that you wish that you wish
0:56to place you all response on the record
0:57I'm very happy for you to make a closing
0:59statement to cover that off but it's not
1:01not perhaps the committee to have
1:02opening statements and witnesses so
1:03grateful to be the sava the committee's
1:05questions and then see how we go through
1:06there I do appreciate that and
1:11ordinarily I would respect that but
1:14these aren't ordinary circumstances and
1:16so if I may I'd like to start with a
1:19very brief statement just to set out my
1:21position this is sorry it's to do with
1:24the substance of evidence resistance do
1:26with your current status and and the
1:29impact that might have on your customers
1:31our witness this is to do with framing
1:33my answers today okay let's see every
1:36day thank you first as the committee is
1:40aware I did not refuse to attend to give
1:42live evidence quite the contrary
1:45over the last few weeks I've expressed
1:47the committee might desire to attend as
1:49I'm keen to deal with the untrue and
1:51misleading statements that have been
1:53made about me and my company over the
1:55past few months my request was that this
1:58hearing was postponed until after the
2:00investigations in the United Kingdom and
2:02in the US have concluded alternatively
2:06as with certain other witnesses I asked
2:09whether evidence could be given in a
2:10private in private so that I was able to
2:12answer
2:13the committee's questions fully and
2:15openly I have been given clear advice
2:18that discussing topics that relate to
2:20ongoing investigations in the UK and the
2:23US may prejudice those inquiries and
2:25infringes my right to silence this is a
2:28fundamental right extended to all those
2:31who find themselves in a similar
2:32position to me nonetheless I've been
2:35compelled to attend with this in mind
2:37you'll understand there is a limit to
2:39what I can say in relation to certain
2:41topics that touch on those
2:42investigations out of respect to the
2:46committee I've attended today will
2:47answer the questions that I can can i
2:50address straightaway the suggestion that
2:52I misled this committee about receiving
2:55data from GSR mr. dicks I think will I
2:59think preciate the opening statement
3:01about your position and and the fact
3:03there are other inquiries which were
3:04cooperating I think we're now getting
3:06into you giving a statement about the
3:08substance or I think this will be
3:09covered in the questions the members
3:11wish to put to you and I'd rather take
3:12this on a question by question basis
3:14rather than being dealt with there's a
3:15statement at the beginning I just do
3:17understand that but it is important I
3:19know sac on this and so I'm going to
3:20have to insist me so that I finish my
3:22snow I'm sorry mister I've lured you to
3:25give this summer's opening remarks I
3:26feel the Orient make statement is now
3:28going into the substance of issue so
3:30wanna raise with you which is based on
3:31your previous evidence to the committee
3:32and the reason we invited you back so
3:34I'm going to deal with that on a on a
3:35question by question basis it's up to
3:38you how you respond to those questions
3:39as I said at the beginning if there are
3:41things that we've not covered where you
3:43wish to place a statement on the record
3:44I'm very happy for you to do that at the
3:46end of the session was the members have
3:47completed their questioning but I'm not
3:49going to allow an opening statement that
3:51goes into the substance of topics we
3:53want the members want to question you
3:54about mr. Collins you'll have plenty of
3:56opportunity as will all the committee to
3:59ask me as many questions as you want but
4:01I have to insist on delivering the rest
4:03of this I'm sorry mr. dicks it's not
4:05your place to insist on anything in
4:07front of this committee you've agreed to
4:08come and you're here to answer the most
4:10questions I've allowed you to make some
4:12opening remarks about which I think
4:13reflect the constraints you may be under
4:15because of other investigations you're
4:17taking part of mask
4:18completely proper but I want now to go
4:20on to the questions the committee
4:22intends to put to you and to Miami in
4:24question which is about the current
4:26state is Cambridge analytic oh and your
4:28current state is with that company Oh
4:29could you answer that question please
4:30then we're going as I said I'd be
4:31pleased to answer that question but I
4:33just will just finish this day no same
4:35so I'm gonna start the questions now I
4:42accept that some of my answers could
4:44have been clearer just reading out the
4:48statement can you answer the first
4:50questions that I've put to you then
4:52we'll go into the questions from the
4:53members if there are other things you
4:54want to put on the record I mean I would
4:56imagine a lot of problems and a
4:57statement you can cover locking your
4:58answers to members questions as we go
5:00through could you answer the first
5:01question please mr. Collins I really
5:07don't think this is appropriate
5:08other witnesses have given statements to
5:11this committee and I think I should be
5:13allowed to do likewise no they're not
5:15given statements to this committee
5:16people have been asked as I asked you
5:18actually at what is a relatively general
5:20opening question which you can respond
5:21to and the character of all of the
5:24hearings so far has been that members
5:25have put questions with myself starting
5:27as chair two witnesses who've answered
5:29them and we don't have prepared ending
5:31statements and that is the case for all
5:33witnesses appear in front of the
5:34committee regardless of the
5:36circumstances I think was appropriate to
5:38meet allow you to make some opening
5:39remarks about your status as a witness
5:41which I think is helpful to the
5:42committee's work but the way this works
5:44if we ask question the witnesses answer
5:45them could you repeat your first
5:49question yes thank you
5:50it's I just really like you to say since
5:54we last met as I said the beginning
5:55obviously there's been quite a lot of
5:56change
5:57I came with analytical perhaps you could
5:59update the committee on what the current
6:01status Cambridge Island agrees who is in
6:03control the assets of the company and
6:05whether you have any direct involvement
6:06in the running of the company today
6:08so Cambridge analytics is in Chapter
6:13seven in the United States the SCL group
6:17and associated companies are in
6:20administration in the UK
6:22obviously the process is being managed
6:24by the administrator and I have no
6:26further involvement and these are the
6:29assets of company are in the control of
6:31the administrator that's correct
6:32and is that the same with sorry so I
6:36know here's some of the device has no
6:38photography allowed in the room from it
6:40members of the gallery and if people
6:41can't respect that then I'll ask that
6:43they they leave the room I hope I don't
6:45have to make that state of the game so
6:50sorry is that the the same with SEL
6:54group as well other assets and the hands
6:56of the administrator of X correct
6:57attitude the obviously you'll have seen
7:00reports in the newspapers today
7:03suggesting that you took a 8 million
7:05dollar sum of money out or came down
7:07there to go before it went into
7:09administration is that correct well I
7:14saw that newspaper article today what I
7:18can say is that the allegation made in
7:20that article is false
7:22the facts of that article are not
7:24correct other than that I can't speak to
7:28it simply because it leads to other
7:31matters that I'm not so familiar with
7:33what I can say is that over the last
7:36three months since this media storm
7:40erupted I have personally invested
7:43unbeknown to anyone except the board
7:46millions of dollars millions of dollars
7:49to meet staff salaries staff bonuses and
7:53staff redundancies could you say when
7:56when was the last time that staff
7:58members at a CLK majolica were paid I
8:02can't speak to that
8:04because as I think this committee knows
8:06I was suspended from my role as CEO and
8:11then resigned from the board and so
8:13these matters would have been handled by
8:15the board and then the administrator
8:17said that the money that you said you
8:19put into meets off payments that money
8:21you you gave to the company or to the
8:23administrator and when did you make
8:25those payments to the company
8:27how long ago was that well I'd be happy
8:31to circle back to you once this this
8:37once I'm have more facts about this
8:39article but I don't think that this is
8:41relevant to this committee hearing but I
8:43just want to give you the chance to
8:45respond to what was in the article and
8:47just just finally if I could ask has the
8:50administrator been in touch with you
8:51about this about that that amount of
8:54money that was taken from the company no
8:56he hasn't
8:57okay I just it's in in line with just
9:05just the current state of play because
9:08it's it's right to give the opportunity
9:10in public to to respond to the
9:13continuing media storm did you you said
9:20that you you you put money into the
9:22company using used the word invest to
9:26pay staff salaries and bonuses was any
9:31of that then redeemed in any way by
9:35myself yes did you receive any of that
9:37back no I did not my intention was to
9:40try and help the company through a
9:43difficult period when obviously we were
9:47uncertain about what was happening and I
9:51was also keen to try and help staff as
9:54much as I could and obviously at that
9:57time none of us envisaged that this
10:00outcome would happen so not a center
10:02that has come back to you not a cent
10:04okay and how did we did that put you
10:08place you as a creditor of the company
10:09or how did you invest the money did you
10:11you loaned it to the company well again
10:13I don't think the details of that are
10:15important but given that the company has
10:17no assets being accredited think the
10:20company is probably
10:23not so important and the suicide from
10:30the financial asset oh all the assets
10:32our company including data it holds
10:35other information that it holds that has
10:36a commercial value of a it's all of that
10:38in the hands of the administrator that's
10:39my understanding
10:41could you just one one one question
10:43on the some of the events that
10:45transpired affected the company directly
10:47at the time after the publication of the
10:51story in The Observer newspaper the
10:56Facebook cents lawyer said a forensic
11:01data staff to the officers came to
11:02analytical they were asked to leave by
11:04the Information Commissioner but things
11:07were also removed from the offices by
11:09Cambridge on let's get itself under the
11:12direction of Cambridge a little care can
11:13you tell us what was going on at that
11:15time of what was what what was removed
11:17from the building and is that documents
11:21part of whatever it was datasets that
11:23they've been made available either to
11:24the administrator or to the other
11:26relevant authorities that may have an
11:27interest of it could I ask you mr.
11:31chairman what makes you presume that
11:33anything was removed from the office at
11:36that time well there were there were
11:37photographs that boxes being removed and
11:39things being taken out the spill
11:41reported on so and if that's not the
11:43case I'm very happy if you think that's
11:44not the case but I just want to know
11:45check yeah that's where you were getting
11:47your information theorem so I also saw
11:49those photographs my understanding is
11:51that those photographs were from
11:53personnel who worked in a different
11:55office on a different floor have
11:57absolutely no connection to do with
11:59Cambridge analytical or SCL and that the
12:02media simply interpret this interpreted
12:04this in the way that they thought was
12:07most beneficial to them but you can say
12:09as far as far as you're concerned there
12:11was no there was no documents files
12:14computers anything removed I can tell
12:15you that security that the people or
12:18person in those photographs was not part
12:20of Cambridge or SCL and those boxes were
12:23not ours
12:23yeah and otherwise populated what was
12:25boarding media there was no other remove
12:28of documents information computer files
12:32whatever it may be from came janitors
12:34offices during that week as far as I'm
12:36aware the ice CEO with the only people
12:39to remove documents and files and that's
12:45all during that period of time so they
12:46didn't get a warrant to go into the
12:48offices until the end of that week but
12:49in that in that week of at the zoo in
12:52that week as far as you're aware nothing
12:54was taken from the offices as far as I'm
12:55aware yeah
12:56Jose Dean and the Channel four
13:02undercover footage I just wanted to ask
13:12you now that it's some weeks on and in
13:14view of everything that's happened how
13:15you feel about that you feel embarrassed
13:17about it
13:18Oh clearly that was that was you know
13:30for me to get carried away and try and
13:34impress someone who I thought was a
13:38bonafide er clients who come to us with
13:42a very genuine and and serious project
13:47to help the people in Sri Lanka with
13:51health and IT infrastructure solutions
13:53to then get entrapped into talking about
13:58the sort of things that we did was not
14:01only deeply embarrassing but it's
14:03something I regret
14:04enormous ly because of the damage it
14:06caused to the company and ultimately to
14:09my staff and the impact that it had on
14:11them I I wouldn't wish that on anyone so
14:17you're not embarrassed about what we
14:20told them
14:21so the bribery and the honey traps and
14:23the fake IDs and the websites and the
14:25extortion you're embarrassed about the
14:27impact it's
14:28on your reputation and and on the jobs
14:32of I think it's eighty people isn't it
14:33who worked well more than that the u.s.
14:38of course no no that's not what I said
14:41at all what I said was that clearly by
14:46speaking with such exaggeration and
14:48hyperbole
14:49I didn't represent the company properly
14:51I didn't represent what we do as a
14:54company or as individuals and that in
14:59doing so obviously there was a
15:03significant impact from that I go on to
15:08say that there was some five and a half
15:12or six hours of meetings that took place
15:15with this individual ostensibly these
15:18were were very legitimate meetings about
15:20legitimate subjects that that obviously
15:25all of these were recorded and they were
15:28condensed to maybe six or seven minutes
15:31of footage and even those minutes of
15:34footage were heavily edited to portray
15:38the worst possible picture of the
15:42company and myself and my colleagues and
15:45very soon the journalists so you know
15:53you gave them that information you gave
15:55them that evidence I just I was just
15:57interested to just understand you know
15:59how you feel about it now some weeks on
16:01I mean obviously this statement that
16:05clearly we did obviously say those words
16:08but the context in which they were said
16:09has been massively altered and also the
16:15caveats that we attached those words has
16:17been altered and let me just illustrate
16:18if I may for a moment my colleague was
16:22absolutely crystal clear in in telling
16:25the undercover reporter that we're not
16:27in the business of fake news we're not
16:29in the business of lying making stuff up
16:31we're not in the business of entrapment
16:33so we wouldn't send a pretty girl out to
16:35seduce a politician and then film them
16:38please if you don't mind
16:40in their bedroom and then release the
16:41film there are no companies that do this
16:44there are companies that do this but to
16:46me that crosses to life if I may go on
16:48if I make it one please when the when
16:53the other undercover reporter these
16:55issues to me it's my job to ask the
16:57questions it's your job to answer them
16:59if you could just do me that courtesy
17:00please
17:01so mark Turnbull said that I accept that
17:03entirely I've read the transcript but
17:05then you go on to say about beautiful
17:07Ukrainian girls and you give examples of
17:10what you would be doing and I've
17:12referred to them before bribery honey
17:14traps fake IDs extortion fake websites
17:18you were suspended by Cambridge jungle
17:21it occur the company put out a statement
17:22saying that your comments do not
17:24represent the values or operations of
17:26this firm and his suspension reflects
17:28the seriousness with which we would view
17:30this violation so what are the values
17:35what were the values that came to John
17:36Whittaker well I will address your
17:39question but let me let me let me
17:41continue by saying please answer my
17:43question by caveated my comments very
17:46very clearly by saying the answers are
17:51hypothetical and that's really important
17:54please don't pay too much attention to
17:56what I'm saying I'm just giving you
17:59examples of what can be done and of
18:02course this was edited out of the video
18:04I was asked a very leading question a
18:06hypothetical question about what sort of
18:09tactics could be employed to discredit a
18:11politician and I answered hypothetically
18:14and I caveated my answer by saying
18:17please don't pay too much attention
18:18cause this was edited from well look at
18:27that meeting we had a client that we
18:32thought was bringing a very interesting
18:33contract to the company and the client
18:37started taking the conversation down a
18:39completely uncharted Avenue and in our
18:44overzealousness to secure a contract
18:48mark Turnbull and I were guilty of
18:51of hyperbole hyperbole and agreeing with
18:54the client on matters that not only have
18:57we never involved ourselves in before
18:59but we had no understanding of we were
19:02just telling the client what we thought
19:05he wanted to hear in order to find out
19:08exactly what his intentions were and to
19:11move the contract forward so I've just
19:14been past a case study from your website
19:16that says sorry from the brochure your
19:20brochure marketing brochure as part of
19:22an election campaign that turned nasty
19:23we launched a targeted digital attack on
19:26the opposition candidate within three
19:28weeks every single reference to him on
19:30the first two pages of Google referred
19:32to the candidates horrific track record
19:34of corruption coercion rape allegations
19:37and victimizations are those the ethic
19:40so those are the values of Cambridge
19:41jungle it occur well if you have a
19:45candidate that is been found guilty of
19:48corruption or guilty of rape or other
19:50such things pushing those into the
19:55public space is is in the public
19:59interest surely what are the values of
20:04Cambridge analytical did you have any at
20:06all I mean if you didn't just tell me
20:09but I'm interested to know did it have
20:11any business ethics or values
20:13Karajan Whitaker is a company that's
20:16predominantly staffed by very young very
20:19ideological and very talented
20:21individuals who who come from a broad
20:26range of political ideologies and
20:29interests and who genuinely have been
20:33working to understand how they can use
20:35data to make the world a better place on
20:39many different levels both obviously by
20:42contributing to developing communication
20:46and how that's used also in the social
20:49and development sphere in
20:50counterterrorism counter-radicalization
20:53there are huge areas of positive work
20:55that I could point to but instead the
20:58media and it seems this committee are
21:00intent to focus on this this one meeting
21:04it was clearly not representative of the
21:08values nor the ethics of the company
21:10okay let me move to mr. Mullins
21:13Jr Mullins QC report into Cambridge
21:17analytic Oh
21:18you mentioned young idealistic employees
21:21of the company would they be the same
21:23employees that mr. Mallen's talked to
21:25who described you as delusional that you
21:28should have been reined in a long time
21:30ago that you and Mark Turnbull were
21:32behaving like teenagers deaf desperately
21:34trying to get a deal
21:35those accurate assessments of you and
21:38mr. turn well I think that the quotes
21:39that you're referring to were in their
21:42response to that particular channel for
21:45investigate investigative video and I
21:48think that they're quite right in in
21:50their criticisms as I think Brittany
21:54Kaiser said in her testimony she didn't
21:57recognize the company that was portrayed
21:59in that video and I think the staff were
22:02rightly very disappointed by the fact
22:04that under the very skillful
22:08manipulation of the journalist he was
22:13able to coax us into saying things that
22:15neither represent what we do nor the
22:18values and ethics that the company holds
22:20so why sailin well clearly if I could
22:24have the meeting again I would have it
22:26differently you do appreciate that I
22:29mean obviously I'm sure you won't take
22:32exception to this but it goes to the
22:35very heart of your credibility in terms
22:39of both your business reputation and
22:40your evidence to us but you will say
22:43those sorts of things
22:45when you're telling us actually they're
22:46completely untrue well I hope in due
22:50course and and over time that I will be
22:52judged by my actions and not my words
22:54because clearly in this case my words
22:56were foolish
22:59clear I'm gonna see on the channel for
23:02investigation that was quite a lot of
23:03focus on the reference to the Ukrainian
23:05girls which you sure you'll remember
23:06that what you said there was he said
23:09they are very beautiful I find that
23:11works very well so a hypothetical that
23:14was saying it I find that works very
23:16well so was that just a lie to impress
23:19the people you were talking to or was it
23:21something else that was just a lie to
23:23impress the people that I was talking to
23:25Joe Stevens I think was introduced of
23:28whether this is out of character with
23:29with company Joe Stevens mentions the QC
23:32report the company commissioned then
23:34that he says that if there was if this
23:37sort of thing happened then you probably
23:39find examples where politicians who were
23:42on the opposite side of the campaign the
23:45SCL all came to us because involved with
23:47would would be exposed in in some sort
23:49of sex scandal and he said for what he'd
23:52seen that that hadn't happened but that
23:54isn't true is it
23:55because in 2015 the prime minister said
23:58Vincent was caught out in a sex tape
24:00scandal and he was the he was on the
24:03opposition side of a campaign that you
24:05your company was involved with isn't
24:06that isn't it correct I don't believe
24:10that is correct
24:11I've got a I've got a copy of the
24:13newspaper report of the scandal itself
24:16Cynthia's Prime Minister comments on sex
24:18tape the party that you were working for
24:21that is the NDP and they said that
24:24they've nothing to do with it and but
24:25nevertheless the sex scandal took place
24:27so those the QC oddity write your report
24:29wasn't aware of that particular and nor
24:32was I aware of that mr. Colley's that's
24:34the first time I've learnt about that
24:38sure that we were and I will revert you
24:42on this but 2015 you say that's when the
24:48so if I'm I'm gonna say to the committee
24:53and I will circle back to you on this
24:54but I can say with a high degree of
24:57certainty that we were not involved in
24:59that election in 2015 okay with will
25:02check please go on the the day I have
25:04frontally I think the piece of work
25:06itself may have been earlier but I think
25:11I maybe came in 2010 but but
25:15double-check that do you not have that
25:17story but I mean that seemed to be to me
25:19that seemed to be a case where the QC
25:21may not been aware of the breakfast or
25:22the weather look I'm sure that any of
25:25the committee can point to a politician
25:27involved in a sex scandal but that
25:30doesn't automatically mean that because
25:32I got entrapped by a journalist that we
25:35were responsible for it I think you're
25:37drawing a connection that doesn't exist
25:38what was in the QC report because he was
25:41saying that you know if there was any
25:42any example of people candidate being on
25:46the wrong side of a SEL came to a little
25:48campaign to be exposed in a second sex
25:49scandal that might suggest that maybe
25:51there was some Kriegers to it it wasn't
25:52to something being except for the
25:53benefit of the table to impress a new
25:55client but actually this sort of thing
25:57had gone off well look let me let me
25:59make this absolutely categorical so that
26:02that we can put this to bed there is no
26:04credence to it
26:05we've never undertaken any work that
26:09involves a honey trap or the use of a
26:13sex scandal or anything like that all
26:15try to create a sex scandal for
26:19political leverage or for work on a
26:21campaign I can't be more blunt or plain
26:24than that I've seen and I've seen a also
26:27document that was presented by you to
26:30some potential clients in Mongolia in
26:33late 2014 this doesn't this is not about
26:35honey traps but just about other forms
26:37of what the document calls proactive
26:39campaign intelligence which it says can
26:42provide including investigations Sting's
26:45infiltrations designed to shed light on
26:47the opposition and to better anticipate
26:48their strategy is that reflective of the
26:51sort of work la comédie does well I'm
26:53not familiar with that document but the
26:55answer is no we we simply do in 2014 we
26:59probably had six or eight staff in the
27:04company most of them were 25 to 35 years
27:08old they came from either political
27:13consulting or
27:14from academic backgrounds we had not
27:19even the wherewithal to be able to want
27:21to take any of that work even if we'd
27:23wanted to and we wouldn't have wanted to
27:25and we never have so it's a reverse gift
27:31for an emerging pattern that in
27:32documents that have been presented in
27:35interviews that you'll be you were given
27:37rather than interviews but when you
27:39record it to a channel for that you're
27:41saying one thing to your potential
27:42clients about what the company does but
27:43it but in reality you don't do any of
27:45those things you don't do infiltrations
27:46well I think you need to be careful
27:48about making sweet sweeping statements
27:50those things or two words there is one
27:54interview and it it was it was very
27:57leading and and the questions would
28:04deliberately opaque and they led me down
28:06a certain Road and and I've already
28:09apologized to to the board and the
28:12shareholders and the employees and you
28:15know I'm very sorry I can say to
28:17everyone that that that I was so foolish
28:21to fall for a trick like that but it was
28:24a trick and and it doesn't represent
28:28what we do and it wouldn't be fair to
28:31characterize me all the company by that
28:34one incident well I'm not trying to do
28:36it by the one incident I think I'm sure
28:38this will be something to look at as we
28:39go through the questions this afternoon
28:41is whether and actually what you said to
28:44what you were recorded the saying on
28:46telephone news reflects the sorts of
28:48things that you say wasn't a one-off
28:50though those are the sorts of things you
28:51say to potential clients those are the
28:53thoughts sorts or things that get put in
28:55put in pitch documents to potential
28:57clients
28:57stings you know attempts to acquire
29:01information about opposition candidates
29:02and it can be exploited during the
29:04course of a campaign whether that is
29:05something that you routinely talk about
29:07when you meet new clients or that was a
29:09one-off I think that is is pertinent to
29:11understanding whether the channel for
29:12thing was an aberration
29:14or whether that these sorts of untruths
29:16are told routinely or indeed whether
29:18this some of this sort of work goes on
29:24it does seem strange that you're now
29:27telling us this was just all a little
29:29mistake in elaboration and you shouldn't
29:31really have said these things because
29:32actually in that wonderful document you
29:34yourself so you referred to SCL is the
29:39largest political consultancy working in
29:41the shadows and there are actually
29:43you're quoted as saying how you you use
29:48the method of going to meet a potential
29:52incumbent and having video evidence of
29:58what they had done so that you could
30:01basically pop it on the internet and
30:04then they might be accused of corruption
30:07they they'll offer a large amount of
30:09money to a candidate to finance this
30:11campaign exchange for land etcetera
30:13etcetera
30:14it seems to me very odd but you're now
30:16saying you don't you didn't put any time
30:18in any of these practice what I might
30:21call the dark arts well let me start by
30:24saying that there's nothing more
30:28sinister about what you've just read out
30:31than what Channel four were undertaking
30:33themselves so but they're actually your
30:36words that mean that Channel four also
30:43work in the dark to make sure it's
30:45videos so that you could use it later
30:48mm-hmm
30:49it does seem really odd that you're now
30:52saying none of that was true you weren't
30:54practicing these dark arts well so let
30:59me clarify first and foremost I was
31:01drawing a very particular distinction
31:04about what mr. chairman was talking
31:06about which was the use of honey traps
31:09and the use of of
31:14what is the other word you used I can't
31:15remember infiltrations infiltrations and
31:19things like that we don't do that we
31:21haven't done that and I think that most
31:25of this committee would recognize that
31:27there is a difference between honey
31:31traps and infiltrations than then for
31:36instance what channel four would call an
31:39expose to the committee you may recall
31:49that I asked you in particular whether
31:55the company had ever refused a proposal
32:00from a client in connection with
32:04advertisements or a film on ethical
32:08grounds then you said you go away and
32:11come back to us and we have received a
32:14response from you which says we cannot
32:16find an example of where we have had to
32:18refuse to put out an advert on behalf of
32:21one of our clients isn't that a clear
32:25example that you have not applied an
32:28ethical approach to the advertisements
32:32that you put out okay which analytic
32:34year and this year well that that's
32:37certainly one interpretation of that
32:39alternatively you could simply say that
32:41that is an example of where we haven't
32:43had to employ those sanctions because we
32:47haven't had an unethical to undertake
32:49anything unethical by a client there are
32:52some films about the Kenya election that
32:56were featured in the channel 4 film
32:58which which I think your colleague
33:01actually referred to as being effective
33:08are you saying that at no stage of any
33:11of your clients used unethical
33:15advertisements or communications so this
33:18was an allegation I believe that was
33:21made by mr. Wylie about the fact that we
33:23disseminated unethical media content in
33:27the Kenyan elections I think that
33:30subsequent to that testimony what we've
33:33seen is that the actual company
33:39responsible for producing and
33:41disseminating that was an American based
33:44political consultancy digital
33:46consultancy who had no relationship to
33:49Cambridge and whatsoever and that it was
33:54simply convenient for mr. Whalley to
33:57imply that we had disseminated that when
33:59actually we had nothing to do with that
34:02campaign we weren't involved in in that
34:05particular set of adverts or or or TV
34:11commercials or whatever they were and I
34:13believe a spokesperson for the campaign
34:16has also exonerated us from any
34:19involvement in in that mr. Nix isn't
34:24isn't the truth that Cambridge analytic
34:29cannot produce a single example of
34:34refusing a proposal from a client for an
34:38unethical that the derivative and
34:41therefore kim-jong of the ticket was and
34:46I think an ethical company itself and
34:50didn't apply high ethical standards well
34:54I just don't think you can draw that
34:55conclusion from your statement I think
34:58you'd like to draw that conclusion
35:00because I think it fits with a certain
35:03prejudice which has been prevalent in
35:05the media but has not been borne out by
35:08evidence I've certainly haven't seen any
35:11evidence that supports this obviously
35:14apart from this this channel 4
35:18entrapment video and so I don't agree
35:21with what you've said so the answer is
35:24no it's not true
35:25produced no evidence of Cambridge
35:28analytical rejecting an advertisement on
35:31ethical grounds that is correct but that
35:36does not mean that we are unethical it
35:39simply means that we haven't worked or
35:42been asked to disseminate unethical
35:43advertising Thank You mr. Lucas's French
35:49was well on that on the case of the
35:50video
35:51the violent extreme violent video
35:52related to the Nigeria campaign was that
35:55SEL were running the campaign Mike you
35:57were asked to disseminate it and what
35:59aiq told us was they refused to do so
36:01they didn't say that the video didn't
36:02exist they said that they refused to
36:04have anything to do with disseminating
36:06it now we only have their word to go on
36:08for that but that was the evidence that
36:09they gave so that's that
36:11the reservist because they were there
36:13were two incidents one was in regards to
36:15Kenya and the other which I've addressed
36:17I hope to your satisfaction and the
36:19other was in regards to Nigeria now when
36:21I appeared before the committee last I
36:24was unaware of that video I still
36:26haven't seen that video so I can't speak
36:28to its content but I did obviously
36:31listen carefully to the testimony of
36:34Jeff Sylvester I also read the testimony
36:38of Brittany Kaiser and then I've spoken
36:40since two other employees who were in
36:42the company at the time and again this
36:45was another allegation that stemmed from
36:47mr. Wiley against the company unethical
36:50practices but what has become clear or
36:53what is absolutely clear to me is that
36:55that video was not produced by SEL
36:58Elections or Cambridge and Attica
37:00not only did we not have the in-house
37:03capability to edit or produce videos we
37:08certainly didn't have that capability in
37:11Nigeria for the team that were on the
37:13ground and and that my understanding is
37:17that that video was presented to us by
37:19the client who asked us to disseminate
37:22it and that a discussion took place
37:24between the members of the campaign
37:27team some of whom were sel some of whom
37:29were subcontractors like AI q and a
37:32decision was reached not to disseminate
37:34it now I can't speak to this directly
37:37because I never went to Nigeria on this
37:38campaign but that's my very clear
37:40understanding from the the other parties
37:42and members of the company that I've
37:43spoken to so at the time when you asked
37:46me that question mr. Lucas I wasn't
37:48aware of this I am now aware of this so
37:51I now can point to a video or a client
37:54campaign that we were presented with
37:56that we didn't disseminate because when
38:01I became became in front of the
38:03committee on the 27th of February that
38:05was prior to Brittany kaisers testimony
38:07and crisper wines test me and Jeff
38:10Sylvester's tested me and I wasn't aware
38:12that this video even existed but in your
38:15response which was subsequent to you
38:17giving evidence you on this specific
38:21point you still didn't appreciate an
38:23example you first time we've heard about
38:25this today well look my apologies I mean
38:29I'm telling you now that response when
38:32did that response come to you was it
38:34before Brittany's mini I really go
38:36responsible for a certain very well it's
38:39the answer to your question I think I
38:40know this mother was on a Giri grunts of
38:42corn soup I think we make better
38:43progress and Chris Maston Thank You
38:47chair it just cracked me from listening
38:50to test me a little while ago that you
38:52were a bit unlucky with that channel for
38:55video weren't you mr. Nix was well
38:57they're all the business pictures that
38:59you've done and they've done ethically
39:01and the one that you didn't ethically
39:04was the one that was because well I
39:06don't know that I was unlucky I think
39:08other business meetings are not steered
39:13by an undercover reporter who's
39:16deliberately trying to entrap you and
39:18therefore they never the conversation
39:20never moves into into those areas and
39:23towards those subject matters so it
39:27wasn't luck it was a very deliberate and
39:30coordinated program of deception by
39:35channel 4 together with other newspapers
39:38where they you know deliberately seeded
39:41questions to elicit certain answers so I
39:44don't think the luck had anything to do
39:45with it but that's the business of
39:47course that you were in wasn't it whose
39:50behavioral change by deliberately
39:52seeding people's thoughts well it looks
39:56I know the committee would like to
39:58believe the media's impression that we
40:01are this large nefarious multinational
40:05company that influences politics and
40:09other things around the world the truth
40:12of the matter is we are we are a very
40:15small advertising agency that happens to
40:21work across a number of sectors one of
40:23which is political campaigns which only
40:27constitutes about 25 or 30% of the
40:30revenue of the business where most of
40:32our time is spent selling toothpaste and
40:36automotives and things like that just if
40:41I can come back on today on to the
40:43question of substance in this in this
40:45session chairman you've told us
40:47previously that in relationship well in
40:50respective the organization WikiLeaks we
40:54have no relationship with WikiLeaks
40:55we've never spoken to any of WikiLeaks
40:57we've never done any business with
40:58WikiLeaks we have no relationship with
41:00them period
41:01. the case that remains the case right I
41:07see that this afternoon there's an
41:09article on the Guardian website
41:12suggesting that Brittany Kaiser when she
41:17had been was heard to came to analytic a
41:19director was visiting Julian Assange in
41:22February last year and was told friend
41:25that it was to discuss what had happened
41:26joined the u.s. election the article
41:30also goes on to say that
41:32[Music]
41:34the seed also claimed to have channeled
41:38cryptocurrency payments and donations to
41:40WikiLeaks is that correct
41:44I simply cannot speak to that that isn't
41:46the first time that I've heard that I
41:47haven't read the article I had
41:49absolutely no knowledge of the fact that
41:51Brittany Kaiser had met the June Sarge I
41:54cannot speak to the veracity of that
41:56reporting if it's anything like the
41:59majority of the reporting that that
42:00newspaper has said about our company I
42:03can only be skeptical about the truth
42:06that it's based on their source their
42:08sources visitor logs from the Ecuadorian
42:10Embassy obtained by the Guardian and an
42:11organization that don't know called
42:13focus Ecuador so it sounds as if the
42:16visitor logs are correct that it might
42:17be the case it might well be the case
42:19you're probably better off speaking to
42:21Carol and asking her directly I might do
42:24it's just that I couldn't ask her before
42:26because the session already started for
42:28which I apologize for now I really have
42:30never heard this before this is
42:31completely new to me but I'm assuming
42:35what Brittany did that in a personal
42:37capacity it certainly had nothing to do
42:39with Cambridge on Whittaker or SC
42:41elevators right
42:43the one concern about that is obviously
42:46she'd be doing it on your time and and
42:48also that's the second this the second
42:51instance now following on from my
42:54colleagues and asked where things are
42:55being done in the company that you went
42:56you went fully aware of are you a little
42:59bit concerned that perhaps you didn't
43:00have a complete grip on the activities
43:03of your colleagues in terms of what they
43:06were doing around the globe well if
43:08you're asking me if I if I micromanage
43:12120 staff in offices across you know the
43:17US and and the United Kingdom such that
43:20I understand how they spend every minute
43:22of every day when I myself am travelling
43:25extensively you're absolutely correct
43:28but in terms of WikiLeaks and Julian
43:31Assange who obviously is a very high
43:32profile individual and
43:35has undertaken some fairly high-profile
43:38publication of leaks including those the
43:40curve are used for political
43:43embarrassment and we've seen that from
43:44the United States for example it might
43:46have been useful particularly since your
43:48work you had work in the United States
43:50if you'd been aware of that would look I
43:52didn't know how I can say this more
43:54clearly I wasn't aware of it I didn't
43:56know that the Brittany Kaiser had been
43:59to the embassy I can't speak to her
44:02motives I can't speak to what she was
44:04doing she certainly wasn't there
44:06representing Cambridge analytic or SEO
44:09okay thank you thank you I've just done
44:11regarding Julian Assange I just wants to
44:13ask you a couple of questions about
44:14Brittany kaisers evidence to us which
44:17I'm sure you've seen sauce to do did you
44:21did you hire Brittany Kaiser personally
44:23to come work for your company did was
44:25she someone you knew before she joined
44:26the firm well I was introduced to her
44:28personally and then she would have been
44:32interviewed candidates for a job um she
44:37she was he knew Julian Assange before
44:41she came to work for you she spoke about
44:42about that and a particularly through
44:44her relationship with the legal chambers
44:47that represent him and she said that you
44:51knew that she knew Julian Assange as
44:53well I just want to ask you whether that
44:54was correct
44:55well it's certainly correct that that
45:00Brittany Kaiser had worked I don't know
45:04for how long in human rights for the QC
45:09John Jones yeah and I believe that he
45:11represented yes Julian Assange at some
45:14point so whether she knew Julian Assange
45:17directly or had ever met him I can't
45:19speak to that but I know that I knew
45:20that she had a relationship with John
45:22Jones but you so you aware of that
45:23connection and the connection at all to
45:25that is Forest yes I've met Jon Jones
45:27myself once yes because it came up in
45:30Britney Kaiser's evidence because you
45:32spoke to us about ginger sauce the last
45:34time you came saying that you made an
45:36attempt to reach him virus I think speak
45:38of Bureau or some other basis but given
45:41that you knew Britney Kaiser had a route
45:44into doing this one
45:45at least through his legal
45:46representation why can't you just ask
45:48her if you wanted to get to you get a
45:49message julian assange why did you go
45:51through that convoluted route well
45:53actually one of my colleagues put that
45:56question to me the other day and the
45:58answer is I mean I really think this
46:00demonstrates how much of a
46:05spur-of-the-moment idea it was to reach
46:09out to them it wasn't something that was
46:11thought through as I think I told this
46:12committee last time very plainly I read
46:16an article in The Guardian I believe it
46:18was that that Julian massage had
46:20accessed to tip to this to these emails
46:23and I simply reached across to my
46:25colleague and said would you mind seeing
46:27if you can contact him to see if he'll
46:29share these with us that's that was the
46:31extent of it we didn't sit down and
46:33strategize this we didn't think it
46:35through she very kindly followed up for
46:39me and ten days later we've got a
46:41response saying no he wasn't interested
46:43but your motivation was to to seek to
46:46gain access to the emails that Julian
46:48Assange had Hillary Clinton emails in
46:51order to benefit your pine do you Tom
46:54campaign well I don't think we'd really
46:55thought it through that far I mean I
46:57think the point was whether you could
46:59have them but these were very
47:00contentious emails potentially and we
47:03wanted to understand as did every
47:06journalist and and I would say most
47:08political consultants on both sides of
47:10the aisle in in the United States what
47:13was contained in them I don't think that
47:15curiosity is indicative of anything
47:18nefarious I just asked a lot about but
47:21just to clarify what the motivation was
47:22sure Julie Elliot mr. Fabri wary when
47:27you appeared before this committee and
47:29you said that you had no relationship
47:32with aggregate
47:34apart from using IE IQ to develop some
47:38software that's correct
47:39would you like to reassess your original
47:42answer that in light of what we've heard
47:44in the last few minutes about all of
47:45this well I think I think I want to
47:49double check I think the question was do
47:52you have a relationship with aggregate
47:53IQ to which I don't know because we do
47:56not have a relationship without
47:57aggregate IQ and we have not had a
47:59relationship with a good thank you for
48:01for many months or indeed for well over
48:04a year year and a half and so I was
48:08absolutely correct and I stand by that I
48:10then volunteered some additional
48:12information to you to help you
48:13understand that we had had a
48:15relationship with aggregate IQ
48:17principally in 2014 they built a
48:22software platform for us well internally
48:27we use the name rip on for it but in
48:32addition to that they also worked as a
48:34subcontractor to our firm on a number of
48:37projects which involve building other
48:40very small or smaller pieces of software
48:42and also they undertook some digital
48:45marketing for us in detail I couldn't
48:56speak to that you mean technically how
48:58the code base was put together yeah well
49:06look I can speak to that certainly look
49:08we used aggregate IQ as an independent
49:14company of specialist software engineers
49:16to help us build what was called a voter
49:20engagement platform the easiest way to
49:24think about this is a piece of software
49:27that allows you to visualize and
49:32manipulate data so that you can so that
49:37you can make decisions based on those
49:41and what was the intention of using that
49:43data of using that the intention was to
49:49be able to provide this as a tool to
49:51clients to be able to use so that they
49:54could identify target audiences for
49:59campaigns and where would they pop the
50:03data form to use with the vast majority
50:08of data that was that was used in this
50:13platform was a combination of voter
50:18registration data which is something
50:21that's commercially available in the
50:22United States and consumer and lifestyle
50:25data which again is something that you
50:28can you can go out and commercially
50:32acquire or license from from data
50:34vendors so the tech website Gizmodo
50:38revealed the entire code base became
50:41general it occurs written platform and
50:43the security firm upstart revealed the
50:46integration of Cambridge analytical and
50:49a IQ through another base called why was
50:52so much your source called kept in such
50:54in insecure locations well firstly that
50:58source code was was written as I just
51:01made here and develop my a IQ and so you
51:05would have to address that to them it
51:07was it would have been their
51:08responsibility to keep that code safe
51:10but that well we tasked a subcontractor
51:17to build us a product we tasked them to
51:22do that because we didn't have the
51:23capability or wherewithal in-house to do
51:26that so so therefore for us to be able
51:31to to micromanage or police that at that
51:35time would have been difficult certainly
51:37but I think more romantic more
51:39importantly so what information did they
51:43give you or what did you ask them to
51:45make you satisfied that that that data
51:47was secured well I think there's a
51:49confusion here and I want to explain
51:52this as best I can
51:53given that that neither of us are
51:56technical software developers but well
52:01the confusion seems to be that this code
52:05base was the same as the data that was
52:10contained on the platform my
52:13understanding from the article which we
52:15both seem to have read and from the
52:16evidence that Chris Vickery gave was
52:20that the code base pertained to the
52:21platform it was the code for the
52:24development of the platform and it was
52:26only part of the code not even the
52:27entire campus just a small piece of the
52:30code was my understanding there is no
52:32correlation between the code base for
52:34the platform and the data that went into
52:37it the best way to explain this using a
52:40metaphor would be that aiq were tasked
52:45to build a car for us they had to have
52:49left a door lying around that somebody
52:52found but possession of that door does
52:55not necessarily does not at all give you
52:58access to the petrol that's put into the
53:00car does that work for you well look
53:10there's nothing other than the fact that
53:14it's our IP or IP that we've
53:16commissioned there's nothing sensitive
53:22or put at risk by the code for a program
53:26being left on an open forum and indeed
53:29many developers choose to leave their
53:32code in open forums so that it can be
53:34shared with other developers for the
53:37benefit of the good of the community
53:41and I think you analogy is quite
53:43straight I think it's quite a
53:44straightforward is that though is it
53:45because what we've seen is evidence of
53:48that joint project working people at a
53:51IQ and SEL having access to the same
53:53databases working on the same databases
53:55wasn't as simple as a IQs being hired to
53:57design tools that the rest have come to
53:59use people working together on the same
54:01data on the same campaigns
54:02well my analogy was very specifically to
54:07illustrate the point that the miss
54:09Elliot was was making in regards to the
54:11the code base that had been left on the
54:14on the internet so I think that it could
54:19be better but I think there was a fair
54:20analogy but your point stands mr.
54:22chairman which is after they built the
54:27software platform for us a IQ continued
54:30to work with us as consultants not least
54:33to help some of our clients to interface
54:36with the product that they've built and
54:37to teach them effectively how to use it
54:42a Ark you work with you before they
54:44build they works in Trinidad that's the
54:48route to first engage that's correct and
54:49I believe you were introduced to a queue
54:51by Chris Wiley as that code is also
54:52correct and you obviously were very
54:55pressed with them because after meeting
54:57them there very quickly involved in a
54:59you know important campaign for you what
55:01why was it you were having met this this
55:04I mean people have said to me people
55:07some fairly disparaging things about
55:08Chris Belisle in terms of his role of a
55:09company but he introduced you to a queue
55:11and you hide them pretty much straight
55:13away would that be there what happened I
55:16don't think that's fair at all I mean
55:17first let's talk about Chris Wiley Chris
55:19finally had an absolutely instrumental
55:21role in the company I mean nobody says
55:23in the queue C's report that your
55:24company commissioned it's basically
55:25makes him sound like someone who was a
55:26kind of like intern freelancer well I
55:30think those are the facts of the matter
55:31and you and what you said no how about
55:33the QC seventies and I did well the
55:35facts of the matter are that Chris Wiley
55:37was on a tear to student visa he was
55:40limited to working 20 hours a week I
55:42believe you have to check that and as
55:44such he could only work to two days a
55:48week or also at the company
55:51which is probably why mr. Mallen's
55:54alluded to him as a part-time or a
55:57consultant or an intern or whatever he
55:59said but that's not to undermine his
56:01value because while he's brought some
56:04some very significant value to the
56:05company not only did he introduce us to
56:07a IQ but he he was also the person
56:12responsible for introducing us to dr.
56:14Cogan he was the the architect of that
56:17relationship and the idea of asking
56:21copan to collect data and and and to use
56:27that sort of data on modeling
56:30personalities and then he went on and
56:32managed that relationship right up until
56:34the point that he left the company okay
56:37well I think that's I think what you
56:39said there it will be a fair reflection
56:40of the value you bought the company them
56:42what was in the cuties report well I
56:44can't speak to the QC report it was
56:47independent well it was commissioned by
56:49by Kim Jong let's go the so Eric he
56:54works in Trinidad they're then engaged
56:55to design the grip on the system that
56:59you've described they work on campaigns
57:03from the campaign work that was done
57:04with John Bolton's pack in the election
57:08races in America in 2014 they're then
57:11working on Ted Cruz campaign in 2015 I
57:14mean Jeff Sylvester said to us that
57:15probably 80% of their revenue from end
57:17the beginning of 2014 through to the
57:21start of their work with vote leave was
57:23with SEL and I think many people would
57:26say that they were during that time
57:28they're those their teams were totally
57:29integrated with yours and that was they
57:32may be a legally separate entity they
57:34were effectively part of the same team
57:36isn't that the reality of the situation
57:39well certainly not in my mind
57:41I never considered a IQ part of our
57:46company they were a subcontractor who
57:48was brought in over a period of time to
57:51undertake very specific tasks for the
57:55company they came in they undertook a
57:58piece of work such as building the rink
58:00on platform and then they left
58:02and then possibly later they would come
58:04in and undertake a different piece of
58:05work so the answer to your question is
58:07no but they have they have access to the
58:10same data during that period of time so
58:12they're not just designs I think that's
58:14why that you're what you're what you
58:15want us to believe I think is that they
58:17are just designing discrete tools they
58:20make those tools they're given to you
58:21the go away again they might come back
58:22for another project now they didn't
58:24design and create a very important tool
58:25the report at all that you've described
58:27but other than that they're working
58:28continuously with SEL sharing data
58:32helping improve targeting of campaigns
58:35helping to everyone and execute those
58:36campaigns and did you have any kind of
58:38policies in place because they're a
58:40separate company on on what protocols or
58:43rules that you have in place around data
58:44sharing did you make whether agreement
58:46sign for the moon on data sharing and
58:48data handling given they were handling
58:49your company's data well I think that
58:55you are not correct when you talk about
59:00data sharing like you were a software
59:04engineering company and Cambridge
59:08analytic who was a data analytics
59:09company they built a product if we go
59:12back to my rather trite analogy of the
59:15car and the petrol they built the car
59:17and we put the petrol in now the petrol
59:20that was put into the car was not raw
59:22data it was modeled data they would not
59:24have had access to the raw data and the
59:28only way that they could have had access
59:31to that data other than in their work
59:36that they were undertaking for us
59:38would have been if they'd taken a copy
59:40of these data illegally and obviously in
59:46you know against the contracts that they
59:51were found by but you see the raw data
59:54wouldn't be much use to them anyway with
59:56it because their job is not to handle
59:58the raw data as he turned the profiles
1:00:00that had been created by the algorithm
1:00:02is your company worked with and then use
1:00:04that and you know turn those profiles
1:00:06into customized audiences and then to
1:00:08execute advertising
1:00:09that's that's what they do to do that
1:00:12they have to have access to the product
1:00:13that's not what they did because that's
1:00:15not their role in regards to rip on was
1:00:19was largely to maintain the platform and
1:00:22and to to work on the platform to ensure
1:00:26that it's scaled that isn't how many
1:00:28bugs that if the client requested a
1:00:32particular functionality that they could
1:00:34then do that so their role was very much
1:00:38a functionary world role in order to
1:00:41make sure that this platform that they
1:00:43built for us was a usable tool for
1:00:47clients and yes I mean that's it really
1:00:55well I think if that's the case then I
1:00:58think that is no case
1:00:59what surprised us is that in looking at
1:01:00and we're doing some work looking at
1:01:01evidence Chris victories given to us
1:01:03from the aiq faculty fandom on gitlab
1:01:06which shows evidence of both people in a
1:01:09deploys of SCM employees from nrq having
1:01:11access to the same data sets now we'll
1:01:14see if there's more evidence of that but
1:01:16that wouldn't seem to sit at odds with
1:01:17what you've what you said to us because
1:01:19there have been no need for that if
1:01:21people weren't working on on data sets
1:01:23that were being used at home well look I
1:01:25don't really understand the thrust of
1:01:27the point that you're making but maybe I
1:01:29can color this in in a different way it
1:01:31it would not be unusual for us as a firm
1:01:34to undertake data analytics on behalf of
1:01:38our clients where we would be working on
1:01:41their data sometimes we would take
1:01:44receipt of that data to work on it and
1:01:45sometimes we would work within clients
1:01:47own firewalls say a bank or somewhere
1:01:51where the data is more sensitive just
1:01:53because we are working on clients data
1:01:55does not and therefore we have access to
1:01:58the data that we're working on does not
1:02:00mean that we have a right to that data
1:02:03we can make a copy of that data or
1:02:06otherwise own that data it simply means
1:02:09that we are a contractor working on
1:02:11clients data and that was the
1:02:13relationship with a IQ but there seem to
1:02:16be any kind of policies in place in
1:02:18terms of hand
1:02:19of data and you talk about their not
1:02:22having access to raw data that there's
1:02:26gathered by SEL what just just for the
1:02:29record can you just explain what that
1:02:30raw data would include what data sets I
1:02:32know you've given talks of presentations
1:02:34about the methodology that camera
1:02:35journalist kids use but what's the
1:02:37reward data would be processed by SEL
1:02:40well I mean I've just explained to your
1:02:44colleague that these data and I
1:02:46explained when I was here last time I
1:02:47think if you you would like to check my
1:02:49testimony but this is largely largely
1:02:52consumer and lifestyle data so this is
1:02:55data on for instance loyalty card data
1:02:58transaction data this is a data that
1:03:00pertains to lifestyle choices such as
1:03:05what car you drive or what magazines you
1:03:06jury drive I beg your pardon what
1:03:08magazines you read it could be data on
1:03:14consumer habits and together with some
1:03:18demographic and geographic data and
1:03:19obviously the voter data which is very
1:03:21important for the u.s. politics and
1:03:24Facebook well obviously there's GSR data
1:03:28set but I think you need to understand
1:03:31that that data was was in the grand
1:03:33scheme of things was really a very very
1:03:35small component of the larger data set I
1:03:38think we're gonna move on to that
1:03:39subject now Larry thank you very much
1:03:44sure and just before we do can i just
1:03:46just clarify one thing because these
1:03:47newspaper ought to be very very recent
1:03:51when you appeared in february and so
1:03:56much has gone on since you you you made
1:03:58the distinction between came
1:04:00journalistic and SEL elections and the
1:04:02SCL group as separate entities apart
1:04:05from certain common showings but it is
1:04:08the case that's all of the SCL companies
1:04:12have now gone into either chapter 7 or
1:04:14or administration mmm that's correct
1:04:16so the as far as the the SCL group
1:04:20companies
1:04:22a concern is it has it been the case
1:04:25that what's happened with all the media
1:04:28publicity surrounding Cambridge
1:04:30analytical and SCL elections that the
1:04:33whole SCL Brandis has been toxified and
1:04:37and therefore extinguished well look as
1:04:43I've already stated it's certainly the
1:04:44case that all the SEO companies are in
1:04:47administration but the SCL group was to
1:04:51carrying out defense more because that
1:04:52is correct additionally but but what's
1:04:54happened with you all your side of the
1:04:57your company is as so made it the
1:05:00situation was so toxic that we but the
1:05:03shareholders have decided also to put a
1:05:06CL group into administration this was a
1:05:14commercial decision based on the
1:05:17negative press and the the allegations
1:05:21that have been made against the company
1:05:23many of which have now been proven to be
1:05:25false but as a result of these the the
1:05:31board decided that the company was no
1:05:34longer a viable going concern and
1:05:36decided to put it into administration
1:05:38those are the different boards of the
1:05:39different companies indeed I'm just want
1:05:45to come on there - um - where I think
1:05:47you you left off in your opening opening
1:05:51comments
1:05:53I just wanted to it's it's regarding the
1:05:54relationship between your company or
1:05:59companies and and GSR and Alexander
1:06:04Cogan when you Clarizen February the
1:06:09Charis to this question does any of your
1:06:11day to come from global science research
1:06:14company you answered the GSR chair said
1:06:18yes you then said we had a relationship
1:06:21with GSR they did some research for us
1:06:24back in 2014 that research proved to be
1:06:28fruitless and so the answer is no the
1:06:31Chairman asked you they're not supplied
1:06:34you with data information
1:06:35your answer game was no I'm the chair
1:06:39then asked again you're datasets not
1:06:41based with information you've received
1:06:44from them again you said no the chair at
1:06:47all and your final response was was at
1:06:51all so since then we've had some Robert
1:06:56conflicting evidence from dr. Kogan
1:07:01himself from Christopher Wiley about
1:07:05what data was supplied and used indeed
1:07:10mr. Wiley described that data obtained
1:07:17via the Kogan app from Facebook is the
1:07:20foundation data set of the company and
1:07:23which may have may have collected data
1:07:26on up to 87 million users and also
1:07:30clearly there's been action by by
1:07:32Facebook following these revelations or
1:07:36allegations so do you want to I think
1:07:39you were perhaps going to do it in your
1:07:40opening statement you ought to clarify
1:07:42or amend now the evidence that you gave
1:07:45in February with respect to data
1:07:50supplied by GSR and dr. Cogan thank you
1:07:54I'm grateful for that opportunity I
1:07:56certainly would like to continue with
1:07:59the very short statement on this and so
1:08:02we'll do that and then we can move on to
1:08:04questions from there look clearly I
1:08:07accept that
1:08:08some of my answers could have been
1:08:09clearer but I assure you that I did not
1:08:12intend to mislead you it was my firm
1:08:15impression that mr. Collins questions
1:08:17were focused on whether we were
1:08:19currently in possession of data from GSR
1:08:21following the research they carried out
1:08:23and which I was very clear in telling
1:08:25the committee about my belief was and
1:08:28remains that we deleted all such data
1:08:31licensed in good faith from GSR under
1:08:34that research contract so I answered no
1:08:36to his questions on the topic when I
1:08:39read the transcript it became clear that
1:08:41mr. Collins was also asking about
1:08:43whether he had ever been supplied with
1:08:45such data of course
1:08:47the answer to this question should have
1:08:49been yes but my focus was on whether we
1:08:52still held the data from GSR research
1:08:54which is the issue that Facebook had
1:08:57been most concerned about there was
1:09:00certainly no intention to mislead the
1:09:02committee the fact that we receive data
1:09:04from GSR was already in the public
1:09:06domain from as long ago as December 2015
1:09:09when The Guardian published an article
1:09:12detailing Cambridge analytic his
1:09:14relationship with dr. Kogan there was
1:09:16there was and is no need to hide this
1:09:19fact indeed on the 20th of March three
1:09:23days before the committee first race
1:09:24this specific inconsistency I appeared
1:09:28on Newsnight and made it clear that we
1:09:30licensed research data from GSR I also
1:09:34stand by my evidence that we do not work
1:09:36with Facebook data and we do not have
1:09:39facebook data the only Facebook data we
1:09:42ever received was via GSR and dr. Kogan
1:09:44and that was subsequently deleted at
1:09:46Facebook's request at the time we've got
1:09:49no reason to believe that data had been
1:09:51provided to us improperly by GSR okay so
1:09:57you in short you've misunderstood the
1:09:59Chairman's questions when you look at
1:10:03the transcript it's very plain or it's
1:10:06certainly clear on what the Chairman was
1:10:08was asking when you when you listen to
1:10:10the video and I have several times it's
1:10:13the conversation is much less clear and
1:10:16indeed we spoke over each other and he
1:10:18did ask about whether we had data from
1:10:21Cogan he then reiterated that point and
1:10:24then he returned to that point and that
1:10:25was my understanding and it was a
1:10:27genuine misunderstanding
1:10:30front of them I did ask you about
1:10:34I said does any of your data come from
1:10:36global science research company
1:10:38you said GSR clarifying I said yes you
1:10:41said we had a relationship with GSR they
1:10:43did some research first back in 2014 and
1:10:44that research proved to be fruitless so
1:10:48the answer is no I they said they have
1:10:50not supplied you with data or
1:10:51information you said no your data sets
1:10:53and our basis and with information
1:10:54you've received from them no I said to
1:10:56clarify at all and you said at all I
1:10:58think there's there's no ambiguity in
1:11:01the exchange there at all dated up by
1:11:04data sets are not ASIS or information or
1:11:08information yes are not informed by that
1:11:10data because it was deleted so
1:11:13journalist that's exactly the same
1:11:14exchange that I've just just read out so
1:11:16ham Assad will have it now in duplicate
1:11:19so you you misunderstood the he was
1:11:22mixing his tenses up and he
1:11:23misunderstood the questions and you were
1:11:26talking over each other so why didn't
1:11:29you just take the opportunity later just
1:11:31to write and clarify with your previous
1:11:34with your follow-up supplementary
1:11:37information because I don't believe that
1:11:41when I submitted the supplementary
1:11:43information and you can certainly
1:11:44correct the timeline that's that
1:11:46inconsistency had been flagged
1:11:49no but you flagged it yourself
1:11:52Thank upon you flagged it yourself
1:11:54you've read the transcript and realized
1:11:56that oh I did not read the transcript
1:11:58until after it had been flagged by this
1:12:00committee
1:12:01so after whenever it was that the 23rd
1:12:03of March or something like that
1:12:05still a few months back so but you
1:12:08didn't take the opportunity to write say
1:12:09actually I want to comment I want to
1:12:10clarify what I always do Perry I agreed
1:12:13to come in here and talk to you in
1:12:15person
1:12:15well you've now had given them account
1:12:17of it could I
1:12:18I mean clearly the the it's you might
1:12:24might say it's not up to you as to
1:12:25whether well the doctor kept to check
1:12:28whether doctor code was complying with
1:12:30Facebook's Terms of addition
1:12:35which he which he clearly wasn't but the
1:12:38the methods he was using it was it was
1:12:40it was a it was a neat the trick in a
1:12:43sense because you could get friends data
1:12:45and therefore multiply greatly the data
1:12:48you've got from people completing
1:12:50surveys was that it was that a a neat
1:12:54trick at all which Cambridge analytical
1:12:58or SEL elections or any of your
1:13:00companies repeated with respect to any
1:13:03other surveys that you did directly
1:13:06which involved any logging in at the end
1:13:09on Facebook so unfortunately and as you
1:13:13will recall from my opening statement
1:13:15there are some topics that as much as
1:13:18I'm wanting to talk about them and
1:13:21willing to talk about them I'm simply
1:13:22not able to because they refer to to
1:13:25live investigations and unfortunately
1:13:27this is one of those topics I think
1:13:29you're all aware that the ICO is
1:13:32conducting an investigation in the
1:13:33moment and so I'm not able to to speak
1:13:37to any matters in relation to to GSR and
1:13:41to to that to that project that's or
1:13:47answer that's your answer but the
1:13:48Information Commissioner's make clear to
1:13:49us on I believe to your representatives
1:13:52that they have no objection to
1:13:52discussing these issues today well I'm
1:13:55sure that they don't but you know the
1:13:59the Information Commissioner's Office
1:14:08took advantage of my parliamentary
1:14:10privilege the last time I appeared here
1:14:12to use my tests to me to this committee
1:14:14as part of their application for a
1:14:16search warrant of our premises and so
1:14:18whilst in theory this privilege exists
1:14:22clearly it's open to abuse depends what
1:14:25you say well I shouldn't depend what I
1:14:28say it's either a privilege or it's not
1:14:30well it's not able to abuse I mean if
1:14:32they act if they if they are interested
1:14:34in some that you said and they therefore
1:14:35wish
1:14:36about it that's that's the math with
1:14:37them but if you were declining to answer
1:14:38those questions that that's the matter
1:14:40for you and if you're doing that under
1:14:41advice I understand that
1:14:42thank you but just to make clear for the
1:14:44record of the ICO themselves don't feel
1:14:46that you answering these questions would
1:14:47in any way jeopardize or prejudice their
1:14:50investigation well look the committee
1:14:54should be reacting to findings from the
1:14:56ICO and not the other way around it's a
1:14:59complete separate bodies we were there
1:15:01are stearic very clear sub juice you
1:15:03would supply and the prevent us from
1:15:05asking witnesses questions relate to
1:15:08matters report courts this isn't
1:15:10currently matter before the courts we
1:15:11did as a as a matter of procedure seek
1:15:15evidence seeking guidance from the ICO
1:15:17themselves so that was their guidance to
1:15:19us you given your answer to mr. Peroni
1:15:21resume will say about that but I think
1:15:23it's just clear that the record that as
1:15:24far as the ICA is concerned they don't
1:15:27have any concerns about you questions on
1:15:29that topic thank you okay I just just
1:15:31got one final final question on this
1:15:35strand really but I think that the the
1:15:38refused to answer the question will be
1:15:40taken in the rec orders as meaning it
1:15:42was a relevant question to ask you mr.
1:15:44mr. Nix but can I just ask ask um and
1:15:48gain this is this is again do a question
1:15:51with relation to potential use of data
1:15:54which you may feel you you you don't
1:15:56want to answer and it's really just a
1:15:59question to try and exemplify your
1:16:03approach to data you had a staffer from
1:16:07your companies working on data from
1:16:11Breitbart which has got a strong
1:16:13connection with Steve Steve Bannon I
1:16:15understand was that sir how was the with
1:16:21any data gathered from from that sir
1:16:26komlin to Breitbart and and if so how
1:16:28how would that have been used by the
1:16:30company I'm sorry you're gonna have to
1:16:35help me understand you're saying that
1:16:36one of my former employees went on to
1:16:38work for Breitbart no you had someone
1:16:40seconded I understand to Breitbart
1:16:44I don't believe that we did you didn't I
1:16:47mean I don't believe that we did I can't
1:16:49did certainly I can't think of anyone
1:16:51who was seconded to Breitbart and I'm
1:16:55certainly not trying to mislead you know
1:16:57this regard yes input but I haven't
1:17:00heard about that before new okay then
1:17:02you can't answer it Jeff Beck a POW
1:17:06Chris picker he's kindly to sense the
1:17:08message relations a IQ data does whether
1:17:10they had access to raw data raw SEO date
1:17:13or not and he says basically hit the
1:17:16work he's done looking at the aiq files
1:17:18that there was it was almost certainly
1:17:20excessive well the usernames passwords
1:17:21networ locations were all present that
1:17:24anyone who had access to the Eric you
1:17:25get lab store could have had access to
1:17:28all the SEL data that they'd they'd
1:17:30worked with and I noticed well from the
1:17:32email exchange that we published the
1:17:34document gives us by Chris Wiley that
1:17:37relates to the Bolton super PAC work as
1:17:39well there's an email sent to it a RQ
1:17:42that olicity of next steps to be
1:17:43undertaken during the campaign and in
1:17:45that it's one of one of the items that
1:17:47it says they are keen is two days to put
1:17:49all information made available to them
1:17:51into a form look and the access and
1:17:52using the platform therefore all
1:17:53currently available data would need to
1:17:55be ready and sent to provide to them by
1:17:57the close of business on Saturday UK
1:17:59time so they have the weekend to do what
1:18:00they need to do we know as well
1:18:02obviously from Facebook that they found
1:18:05evidence of shared audience files on SEL
1:18:09for SEL and the IQ campaigns that they'd
1:18:12run where there was a 80% correlation in
1:18:14the members of those audiences and they
1:18:16argue said to us that they've been given
1:18:17an audio Center by SEL I mean these are
1:18:21these things that you were aware of
1:18:22because if they are I'm not sure that
1:18:25the answer you gave to us was was truly
1:18:28reflective of the nature of the
1:18:29relationship between a IQ and SEL well I
1:18:32think what I explained to you mr.
1:18:34chairman was that I think the example
1:18:38that I gave you was that it's not it
1:18:41wouldn't be unusual for Sen or Cambridge
1:18:43America to work on a client's data sets
1:18:46where there was a bank or a corporation
1:18:49and to have access to the data whilst we
1:18:52were working on them but that didn't
1:18:54entitle us to have any privileges over
1:18:56that data or any wherewithal to make a
1:19:02copy or retain any of that data
1:19:05ourselves the relationship with a IQ
1:19:08would not have been dissimilar to that
1:19:10whereas a subcontract who is brought in
1:19:12to assist us on projects they would have
1:19:16had possibly access to some of the data
1:19:18as its indicated there whether that was
1:19:20modeled data or otherwise but again that
1:19:24would be covered by the contract
1:19:26relationship that we have with us that's
1:19:28why most are you saying they had used it
1:19:30there they would have had access to
1:19:31model data or otherwise including war
1:19:34data it's clear that they did have
1:19:35access to borders well I can't answer
1:19:37that with certainty but again I don't
1:19:39want to mislead you because I did speak
1:19:41to my technical team my data team prior
1:19:43to this to this hearing and they assured
1:19:47me that there was no raw data that went
1:19:49into the reform platform so again I can
1:19:53only defer to their expertise and again
1:19:57this could be a topic that we could
1:19:58circle back to you one yeah again
1:20:00there's a difference between war data
1:20:01going into the rip on platform which
1:20:03almost certainly wouldn't have done and
1:20:04Warford more data being accessible for
1:20:06aiq which it looks like it would you
1:20:08certainly wars but based on what Chris
1:20:10Vickery says yeah and I think based on
1:20:12that wasn't that email based on other
1:20:14thing other evidence that we've seen
1:20:15that data is being but they're working
1:20:18on emails as a chess model sorry doesn't
1:20:20suggest raw data it could certainly
1:20:22suggest model data well we see what was
1:20:25we've seen both in Chris victory and
1:20:26other evidence that we've seen for the
1:20:27aiq files though we've had a chance to
1:20:29look at exactly it's shared access to
1:20:31war data and Chris is saying that it's
1:20:32certainly technically possible as what
1:20:34he's saying it would be easy for anyone
1:20:36to do that but the premise remains
1:20:38whether so let's agree that we need to
1:20:41establish what data they had access to
1:20:43but regardless of that that doesn't give
1:20:46them any rights to that data as it
1:20:49wouldn't any contractor working with
1:20:51anyone elses day I'm not saying they
1:20:52didn't I just think you said earlier on
1:20:53they had no access to all data and that
1:20:55seems
1:20:55in a matter of dispute and I think even
1:20:56you you are now saying that that's not
1:20:58well stated you could stand by I was
1:21:00told very firmly and unequivocably that
1:21:03no raw data was put in to rip on and so
1:21:06I stand by what I was told but what I've
1:21:08agreed with this committee is to circle
1:21:10back to you and confirm this point who
1:21:12put stay tuned to report when you're
1:21:14working on that with a a cupid agent
1:21:16report a data scientists I believe they
1:21:19came RIT well for SEO elections or
1:21:21camera Gianluca okay mr. chairman
1:21:25remember sorry could you mind if we take
1:21:27a break for a few moments please refer
1:21:42back to your team I just wonder what
1:21:44technical team that was because as SEOs
1:21:47is it that is correct but I still just
1:21:52for our relationships remind my
1:21:55colleagues I can obviously ask them in a
1:21:59as a friend for their advice okay and
1:22:04it's just a few points we're relating to
1:22:06your last appearance here where we dealt
1:22:08a lot with Facebook and the cert those
1:22:12surveys on Facebook this is where a lot
1:22:14of our discussions actually began which
1:22:17seems like a long time ago and at that
1:22:21first meeting where we talked about
1:22:23those surveys and that had a facebook
1:22:27login at the end and you said that if
1:22:32they had a login it didn't mean that
1:22:33your personal data was then going to be
1:22:35accessed by Cambridge analysts occur but
1:22:37Brittany Kaiser told us that the purpose
1:22:39of the surveys were was to gather
1:22:41information and that by competing it
1:22:44with your login kami janitor this would
1:22:46also get access to your data I just
1:22:48wondered whether you might just like to
1:22:50change your mind and amend your comments
1:22:53about that well I I also was surprised
1:22:58by Brittany's answer she is also a
1:23:01non-technical
1:23:02as am i I did discuss this with my
1:23:05technical colleagues and that they
1:23:08assured me that my original testimony
1:23:12reflected what was the case and
1:23:15therefore what I would like to do with
1:23:18because obviously I don't want to run
1:23:20the risk of misleading this committee is
1:23:21to agree to circle back to you on that
1:23:23point but my understanding is no data
1:23:29answer now my understanding is that no
1:23:32data was collected but again I'd like to
1:23:35confirm that because obviously we we
1:23:38don't want to have a miscommunication I
1:23:41just wanted to clarify one other thing
1:23:43you've told us act that that first
1:23:45meeting that came with channeling this
1:23:47could did not work with Facebook data
1:23:50stuff that those of you exact was I
1:23:52think they might have been to me
1:23:53actually do you want to change your view
1:23:57on that would you just like to put on
1:23:58the record in the lives of everything
1:24:00else that we've heard since whether you
1:24:02change your mind on that well I think
1:24:04the point that I was making there well
1:24:07actually
1:24:08again this is sorry I must stop myself
1:24:12from continuing because again this is
1:24:14again another topic that unfortunately
1:24:18falls under the investigation by the ICO
1:24:20so we're gonna have to let that
1:24:23investigation play out before I can
1:24:25address that I just my final point it's
1:24:27something that you mentioned early is a
1:24:29very few very little data would have
1:24:31been in collected anyway but Brittany
1:24:34cars are referred to 87 million people
1:24:37being having their Gator data gathered
1:24:40in this way well I can't I can't address
1:24:42that because this is in the public
1:24:44domain and I think and I urge you to
1:24:48revisit the testimony of dr. Kogan
1:24:50because I think his testimony was a very
1:24:53fair reflection of what happened and
1:24:58that is in contrast to two people who
1:25:00who weren't necessarily so involved such
1:25:03as Brittany Kaiser but I think what dr.
1:25:07Kogan made amply clear was that whilst
1:25:11he collected data on potentially 87
1:25:14million
1:25:15and a great deal of data that Cambridge
1:25:18analytic or STL elections only received
1:25:20data and a very small amount of data on
1:25:23about 26 or 27 million individuals in
1:25:28the USA and that the only person to
1:25:32receive the entire dataset not just in
1:25:36its entirety in terms of all the people
1:25:38that he included but also all the data
1:25:40which he concluded which I believe dr.
1:25:43Cogan said was about 96 percent more
1:25:46data 96 percent more data than that
1:25:49which Cambridge analytic or SEL
1:25:51elections had received was Christopher
1:25:53Wylie for his company company you knowa
1:25:55now I think before we have a break this
1:25:58would be a good opportunity just to talk
1:26:00about that because a lot of the
1:26:03allegations in fact I'm going to say 90%
1:26:06of the allegations that then gain
1:26:09traction in the media have actually all
1:26:11come from a single source they've all
1:26:13come from Christopher Wylie and I think
1:26:15it's really important that this
1:26:17committee understands that and
1:26:21understands the motivations behind this
1:26:24and what was going on at the time so if
1:26:27you'll permit me I'd just like to give
1:26:29you a little bit of background because I
1:26:30think it's very relevant and extremely
1:26:33important where so many allegations have
1:26:36been made and so many of them have now
1:26:38been proven to be false that you
1:26:41understand what is going on here and I
1:26:43just interrupt you there just on
1:26:45Christopher Wylie talking about him just
1:26:47now I think you suggested he was just on
1:26:49some kind of simple students visa but he
1:26:52told us that he was on an exceptional
1:26:55talent visa so you're dissing him with
1:26:57all these comments but he was clearly in
1:27:00his own mind a very intelligent man look
1:27:04no one no one has suggested that mr.
1:27:09Wylie is not intelligent least of all me
1:27:11I think I stand by the fact that when he
1:27:13worked with Cambridge earlier to go and
1:27:15SEL elections he was on a tear to a
1:27:16student visa as the reason I stand by
1:27:20that is because I applied or my company
1:27:22applied for that visa so if he went on
1:27:26to change his status at a later date or
1:27:28- he left me I can't speak to that what
1:27:31I can tell you is that Christopher Wiley
1:27:34was at the company for 10 months he was
1:27:37instrumental in defining the
1:27:40relationship with Cogan and for being
1:27:42the architect of that particular program
1:27:44of data gathering and as the company
1:27:49grew and started to undertake business
1:27:52with the methodology that he felt that
1:27:55he had designed and was the architect of
1:27:57he grew more and more resentful and to
1:28:02the point where he was opening oh sorry
1:28:04openly discussing with clients that he
1:28:06wanted to replicate SEL elections or
1:28:09Cambridge Ellen attica without Nicks
1:28:11ie without me his he also stated things
1:28:14like he wanted to create the NSA's wet
1:28:16dream he had his own ideas about a
1:28:19company that he wanted to build and at
1:28:22the time that he left us which I believe
1:28:24isn't around July or June or July 2014
1:28:27he'd already set up a company called Arg
1:28:31dot us and he developed a pitch which he
1:28:34took to Silicon Valley to raise fifteen
1:28:37or twenty million dollars for some
1:28:38twenty percent of his company what was
1:28:41clear was that he was totally agnostic
1:28:43about where the money came from and even
1:28:46courted russians stating that he found
1:28:48the idea of working with crazy evil
1:28:50Russians quite intriguing one San
1:28:53francisco-based investor who spoke to
1:28:55Wiley about his startup in 2014
1:28:58please of the allegations that have been
1:29:06put this committee stem from one source
1:29:08they've gained traction in the media and
1:29:11if you don't understand why these
1:29:13allegations have been made then they're
1:29:15going to be given unnecessary
1:29:17credibility and it's important your your
1:29:20session is not true that the only
1:29:22evidence that we have about the work
1:29:24Alexander Cohen was doing the
1:29:25significance of it it comes from what
1:29:28crystal Wiley is told as it comes from
1:29:29documents that the committee have
1:29:31received contracts that you signed with
1:29:32with Jason bear your signature story
1:29:35there's not that I said well it was most
1:29:36allegations that have been made
1:29:38against my company come from what is
1:29:41judicial but she totally glossed over
1:29:43when you can you could have you could
1:29:45have chosen and to give a more honest
1:29:47and more full answer the questions you
1:29:49asked I asked you about your
1:29:51relationship with GSM and you gave
1:29:53evidence before and you didn't mention
1:29:54any of it manually eight believed that
1:29:57there was a very small you said small
1:29:59short-term academic project that had
1:30:01gone nowhere and yet what we have is not
1:30:04crystal while his opinion but facts
1:30:06documents detailing cognitive the work
1:30:09that was to be done what was to be paid
1:30:10for it what it was to be used for not on
1:30:13an ad-hoc basis but commissioned to
1:30:15support elections being run in specific
1:30:16States United States of America and what
1:30:19and how you dream you narrate is that's
1:30:20what we're basing our questions on and
1:30:22that questions to you but whether you
1:30:23were clear with us not just what
1:30:24Christopher widely is said but by
1:30:26evidence that you don't dispute and that
1:30:28is that that is in the public domain you
1:30:31will remember that at the time that I
1:30:33appeared before you this the issue of
1:30:36Facebook data the issue of GSR and Cogan
1:30:40was not a sensational news story the
1:30:50thrust of your inquiry was in a
1:30:52completely different in question sorry
1:30:54in a completely different area and
1:30:55that's where we were focusing you
1:30:57yourself only asked three questions on
1:31:00it out of 200 or 250 it wasn't an
1:31:04important topic and I gave it as much
1:31:06attention as you gave it yourself there
1:31:08was not an intention to obfuscate as I
1:31:10told you earlier
1:31:11my relationship with gso is already in
1:31:14the public domain and of course that is
1:31:16why I came back here to clarify that
1:31:18clearly things have changed in the last
1:31:21three months but these are change for us
1:31:23because we know because we've actually
1:31:25seen evidence you know at the time we
1:31:26didn't so you're quite right that I
1:31:28asked you three or four questions about
1:31:30it I'm going to read them out for a
1:31:32third time but and I think we've I think
1:31:34it's pretty clear what I asked you and
1:31:35why I asked you we'd actually asked came
1:31:37down we'd ask Facebook the same
1:31:38questions about came down on Attica
1:31:41having access to Facebook data when we
1:31:43took evidence to them you know we also
1:31:44feel that facebook - were not open and
1:31:46honest with the committee and the
1:31:48answers they gave to us that day
1:31:49we've challenged them about that too so
1:31:51I think there's Fault on both sides but
1:31:54I think I think what we asked you was
1:31:56pretty clear and you chose not to talk
1:31:58about any of this and it is documents
1:32:00that we've seen not just crystal while
1:32:01his testimony that lays out for everyone
1:32:04to see the nature of the work that
1:32:05Alexander Cohen did why it was important
1:32:08and that work was based on the data that
1:32:11he acquired from Facebook wrongly and
1:32:14that's Facebook to view their point it
1:32:15wrongly and the figure of 87 million is
1:32:17you know can I can i address that
1:32:21continue to address the point that I was
1:32:23making before but Chris no no I'm not
1:32:26not if it's gonna be a sort of it is
1:32:28really yours use on Christopher Wiley
1:32:30well I do not take you serious not and
1:32:32you're free to make that statement any
1:32:34way you like what I I think but that's
1:32:37not the question you were asked about I
1:32:38gave you quite a little latitude but I
1:32:40think it was quite clear we were going
1:32:41into your account for analysis crystal
1:32:45the fact that he he set up a competing
1:32:49company to undertake exactly the same
1:32:53work that Cambridge had been set up to
1:32:55do using exactly actually a much much
1:32:58much larger data set to target the same
1:33:01Republican clients that he has said that
1:33:05he's so ideologically opposed to and
1:33:08then went around America pitching his
1:33:11business my point being is you have an
1:33:13individual who's purporting to be a
1:33:16whistleblower who in fact was who was
1:33:20motivated to come forward because he
1:33:21didn't agree with the the political
1:33:23parties that we were working for when he
1:33:26was pitching exactly the same political
1:33:27parties all over America including
1:33:30Donald Trump's campaign itself who was
1:33:33purports to be a protector of data and
1:33:36data sovereignty and everything that
1:33:38goes with that who actually acquired a
1:33:41significantly larger data set than us
1:33:44materially larger data set and then went
1:33:46out to actively try and commercialize
1:33:48that data set in a very similar way or
1:33:52exactly the same way that we did and so
1:33:56therefore really doesn't care about data
1:33:58sovereignty and who is
1:34:00spent the last two or three years having
1:34:03left the company and watched the success
1:34:06of the company getting bitter and
1:34:07jealous and has now been using this to
1:34:10bombard us with a raft of allegations
1:34:12which many of which are now thought to
1:34:15be untrue up the purpose of these
1:34:17hearings is to put these questions to
1:34:18you based on subsequent evidence we've
1:34:20received since you'll forget last
1:34:22getting us to us now that your views on
1:34:23crystal Wiley I think are pretty clear
1:34:24and you're free to make those statements
1:34:26wherever you like you know the purpose
1:34:27here is to ask new questions based on
1:34:29the evidence we've subsequently received
1:34:31and that's what we intend to do
1:34:33if you finish you just if you'll put it
1:34:36would take should we take that break now
1:34:37on this point it's on it's on this point
1:34:40if you'll permit me chair so the hand
1:34:42side now has this little section in
1:34:43triplicate this time right what you said
1:34:46in with regard to the relationship with
1:34:49GSR in the in the exchange of the chair
1:34:53included the statement that they did
1:34:57some researchers back in 2014 that
1:34:59research proved to be fruitless now
1:35:03that's not a that statement is not a any
1:35:06misunderstanding and when judged by the
1:35:09evidence that has subsequently emerged
1:35:13your clarification notwithstanding that
1:35:17was simply not true well I believe
1:35:22you're familiar with dr. Cohen's
1:35:24testimony which echoes that sentiment
1:35:27which was that the data that dr. Cogan
1:35:32gave to us was um was modeled data and
1:35:35building a model on top of a model
1:35:38proved to be less statistically accurate
1:35:40and this is again echoed by what was
1:35:42said by Cogan than actually just using
1:35:45Facebook's own algorithms for posting
1:35:47advertising communications and that was
1:35:49what we found out so I stand by that
1:35:51statement I stand by that statement that
1:35:53I made you before and that was was was
1:35:57echoed and amplified in much more
1:35:59technical detail by
1:36:00dr. Kagan this it's an interesting
1:36:05exercise in semantics isn't it no it's
1:36:08not it's a fact the fact is today the
1:36:11data that we received wasn't fit for
1:36:14purpose and that's why we abandoned that
1:36:17data long before we deleted that data
1:36:20from our servers in accordance with
1:36:23Facebook's wishes they did some research
1:36:25for us back in 2014 that research proved
1:36:29to be fruitless and yet that was the
1:36:32basis on which you you are you are the
1:36:36foundation dataset as it's being called
1:36:38according to whom well I've made it
1:36:42clear that was that were those those are
1:36:43the words of mr. mr. white mr. whiney
1:36:45yes so funny how all your evidence seems
1:36:48to circle back but one individual mr.
1:36:50Farrell it doesn't actually cause it
1:36:52wasn't the foundation of data set on
1:36:54which we built our company because we
1:36:55went out and we licensed millions of
1:36:58data points on American individuals from
1:37:01very large reputable data aggregators
1:37:03and data vendors such as axiom Experian
1:37:06info group that was the cornerstone of
1:37:08our of our database together with
1:37:14political data voter file data I beg
1:37:17your pardon which again is commercially
1:37:19available in the United States and that
1:37:21was the cornerstone of our company and
1:37:22on which we continued to build the
1:37:24company after we realized that the GSR
1:37:27data was fruitless well let's not trade
1:37:30trade trade semantics you told us that
1:37:33they did some research for his back in
1:37:362014 that research proved to be
1:37:38fruitless
1:37:39but you attempted to use the the you
1:37:43attempted to use the products of that
1:37:44research in in your in your political
1:37:47activities on behalf of clients in the
1:37:49United States the fact that it's it's
1:37:52been alleged that actually it wasn't
1:37:54worth the the computer it was stored on
1:37:56later doesn't doesn't does not mean that
1:37:59what you told us was not really had any
1:38:03real relationship with the truth what
1:38:06you were trying to do was to minimize
1:38:08you
1:38:09your downplay your relationship with GSR
1:38:12and there are other in other
1:38:14relationships which you've consistently
1:38:16downplayed but have come come back here
1:38:18now to clarify in an interesting way
1:38:22when when your account has been
1:38:24challenged by the evidence that
1:38:26subsequently emerged it's not the case
1:38:27that's not the case and I urge you
1:38:30whilst I take a break briefly to revisit
1:38:33the testimony of dr. Cogan
1:38:36he was extremely articulate in
1:38:39explaining how this data was modeled and
1:38:44its application and its usefulness and
1:38:47maybe if you familiarize yourself with
1:38:48that you'll understand that coming from
1:38:50an eminent academic in this area that
1:38:54the data was ultimately fruitless I
1:38:57think what miss Farrell is getting at is
1:39:00that Lissa port says in the contract
1:39:01that you signed with with dr. Kogan is
1:39:03this when you enter into that agreement
1:39:05all parties believe that's what you're
1:39:07paying for was the Facebook Likes could
1:39:10be analyzed nor an actor accurate
1:39:12predictor of behavior and interests of
1:39:14Facebook users and the doctor Kogan's
1:39:17job was to acquire Facebook Likes from
1:39:19Facebook data by the the profiles of
1:39:21people engage the survey and of their
1:39:23friends and that that data will be
1:39:25combined with other datasets including
1:39:27us patient registration data that you
1:39:29gave to dr. Coburn's part of the
1:39:31projects that he delivered that project
1:39:33for you not just the scoping work but
1:39:35the full-scale project there was then a
1:39:36second contract so in the dr. Kogan
1:39:38where he continued to do further work
1:39:40linked to American elections of that
1:39:42year in 2014 and so whether your models
1:39:45changed or you and dr. Cogan took a
1:39:47different view at some point in the
1:39:49future that there was a better way of
1:39:51working
1:39:51you've made your views clear on that but
1:39:54I think given the substance of the work
1:39:55that was done to say that the
1:39:57relationship was fruitless and the work
1:39:59was fruitless certainly doesn't reflect
1:40:01your view on that at the time because
1:40:03this was a very substantial piece of
1:40:04work that was done and I think it's it's
1:40:06obvious if material interest to ask
1:40:08because the evidence the people have
1:40:09given to us about this and I think very
1:40:12important to our investigation and I
1:40:13think I think mr. farraday's right to
1:40:15say and we've challenged Facebook in the
1:40:16same way
1:40:17than when we asked his questions
1:40:18initially I think people sort of gloss
1:40:20over something that I think they've
1:40:22finished they should have disclosed but
1:40:25I will take that right now and resume
1:40:27thank you
1:40:37you
1:55:15works on a campaign in the UK and you
1:55:19made clear on several occasions that was
1:55:21really out of consideration for staff
1:55:23who might based here might possibly
1:55:25support different political parties and
1:55:28to reiterate he said to us and I quote
1:55:31again as far as I'm aware since I've
1:55:34been in the company we've never worked
1:55:37we don't seek to work in the UK for the
1:55:39reasons I discussed earlier we don't see
1:55:42the UK as a commercial market of
1:55:43interests but of course you did pitch to
1:55:48work on on the referendum
1:55:51notwithstanding and I don't want to
1:55:53dwell on leave Dottie you because you've
1:55:55made your position clear and clear on
1:55:56that and we went over it seven several
1:55:59times in your evidence but there has
1:56:01been some documents from your
1:56:03presentation pitch which I just want to
1:56:07fly up with you I think it was submitted
1:56:10chair by Aran banks and then the pitch
1:56:14you your your company said we will
1:56:18coordinate a programme of targeted
1:56:20donation solicitation using digital
1:56:22advertising and other metres appropriate
1:56:25to raise funds for leave dot EU in the
1:56:27UK the USA and in other countries I mean
1:56:32when that document was drawn up did you
1:56:36take any legal advice as to whether
1:56:39whether what you were proposing there
1:56:42would in fact be legal yes we did
1:56:44actually we took a considerable amount
1:56:46of legal advice and
1:56:48time it was suggested to us by our
1:56:51counsel that we could target British
1:56:54nationals living abroad for donations I
1:56:58believe and I'm not a lawyer as you well
1:57:01know that there is still some lack of
1:57:06clarity about whether this is true or
1:57:08not and in any event in the absence of a
1:57:13firm decision to proceed by legal we did
1:57:18not proceed not that we won the contract
1:57:20anyway okay so by that you you meant
1:57:24British nationals living in the USA I
1:57:27believe that was the intention obviously
1:57:29I wasn't involved as you know in any of
1:57:31these pitches but that's how it was
1:57:33explained to me at the time okay
1:57:37as I say I don't want to dwell on leave
1:57:39dot EU but I do want to talk about you
1:57:42Ken because subsequently and you'll have
1:57:46seen this this invoice it was invoice
1:57:50not to leave dot EU but for forty one
1:57:52thousand five hundred pounds to the
1:57:54United Kingdom Independence Party and in
1:57:59her evidence Brittany Kaiser who was
1:58:02involved in the pitch told us that it
1:58:07was decided that while leaved on EU
1:58:09didn't possess much data we could begin
1:58:12with an engagement for the UK
1:58:13Independence Party which we did we took
1:58:15receipt of their membership and survey
1:58:17later now to anyone in politics if you
1:58:20were going to do some work on it given
1:58:24the characters involved you you a
1:58:27starting point would indeed be a perhaps
1:58:29the the canvas stage than anything else
1:58:32that you can you keep held but but you
1:58:35keeps a political party isn't it that's
1:58:37correct so how how does that work square
1:58:41up with the statements you you made to
1:58:43us about your lack of any interest in in
1:58:47getting involved in in UK politics the
1:58:50ring scratching around here mister
1:58:53perrolli we've been working well I've
1:58:56been working this company for fifteen
1:58:57years
1:58:59we undertake 8 9 10 national elections a
1:59:03year somewhere around the world we've
1:59:06never undertaken an election in the UK
1:59:08so I stand by my statement that the UK
1:59:10was not a target country of of interest
1:59:14to us obviously the referendum was a
1:59:16unique a moment a unique moment in in
1:59:21international campaigning and for that
1:59:24reason it was more significant than
1:59:26perhaps other opportunities to work on
1:59:29politics and political campaigns in the
1:59:31UK might have been which is why we
1:59:34explored it but we didn't work on that
1:59:36came up campaign either as you will know
1:59:38well I was some I hope I wasn't
1:59:40scratching around I was really just
1:59:43comparing what you told us with the
1:59:45evidence that's subsequently emerged and
1:59:48you clearly felt that the work that
1:59:50you've done irrespective of whether you
1:59:54you were successful in because leave the
1:59:58EU was not successful was worth 41 and a
2:00:01half thousand pounds and you build the
2:00:03UK Independence Party well look I think
2:00:06this has been covered very extensively
2:00:08by the Election Commission's office and
2:00:13was covered in my previous testimony we
2:00:17undertook some scoping work to look at
2:00:20these data unfortunately whilst this
2:00:25work was being undertaken we did not
2:00:27agree on the terms of a contract as a
2:00:30consequence the deliverables from this
2:00:32work were not handed over and the the
2:00:36invoice was not paid and therefore the
2:00:39Election Commission was absolutely
2:00:42satisfied that that we did not do any
2:00:45work for for for leave dot EU and that
2:00:51includes for you kit
2:00:52well it doesn't really we talked about
2:00:54leave dot EU before but now I'm talking
2:00:57about work for for you cannot leave dot
2:01:01EU
2:01:02whom you whom you build and uh and I
2:01:05take it that this this this invoice
2:01:07wasn't wasn't paid notwithstanding any
2:01:10transfers that may have been later made
2:01:12to you kid do you know what what what
2:01:16use was made of your your work for you
2:01:19kid
2:01:20well as I just explained to you we
2:01:23didn't hand over any work continued kept
2:01:27that wasn't a question do you know what
2:01:31use was made of the work that you did
2:01:33for you kid
2:01:35no do you mean by Cambridge analytical
2:01:39no do you know what use was made of the
2:01:43work that you did for you can I'm afraid
2:01:46I don't understand the question
2:01:47okay you can you can you describe what
2:01:51work you did for you give them well I
2:01:54believe that we analyzed their
2:01:57membership database to understand the
2:02:00data that contains with a view to
2:02:03understanding how that could be
2:02:05incorporated into a wider program of
2:02:07research and data acquisition to build a
2:02:10targeting model so you could gave you
2:02:14data to to look at that's my
2:02:17understanding was any of that data that
2:02:20supplied either by you or you kept to
2:02:22leave Dottie you know it wasn't it was
2:02:25all well I can't speak for you clearly
2:02:28as far as you're aware
2:02:30none of that data went beyond your
2:02:35relationship not with me buddy you but
2:02:36but with you get that is correct
2:02:41the final question on now is Brittany
2:02:45guys have told us that you'd also made
2:02:50pitches to Eldon insurance and go Skippy
2:02:57I think as the name did any of those
2:03:00pitches come to anything so I'm I'm not
2:03:05entirely sure if that's correct
2:03:08clearly again I wasn't there
2:03:11but when I say yeah I mean we actually
2:03:15pitch Tilden insurance all go Skippy I
2:03:18think what I believe that Brittany met
2:03:21with them or representatives from those
2:03:23companies or at least that's what our
2:03:25testimony said but that's not to suggest
2:03:27that we were pitching women for services
2:03:29to become a client but again I don't
2:03:32want to mislead you you might have to
2:03:35ask miss Kaiser to clarify that I think
2:03:37she used the word pitch but as far as
2:03:39you're aware that it didn't lead to
2:03:40anything or any any further ongoing
2:03:42relationship
2:03:42I don't even record a pitch just
2:03:48speaking on the levy you think just for
2:03:50a moment and Tim you're right you were
2:03:52but you were very clear back in February
2:03:54when asked about your involvement and
2:03:57your actual words the word let me be
2:03:59absolutely crystal clear about this I do
2:04:01not know how many ways I could say this
2:04:02we did not work for levy you have not
2:04:04undertaken any paid or unpaid work for
2:04:06them okay it's you stand by those words
2:04:11exactly that fall now as you did that I
2:04:16absolutely do and I feel entirely
2:04:18vindicated by by the Electoral
2:04:22Commission's investigation report of
2:04:2411th of May which said and I quote the
2:04:27Commission is satisfied that leave
2:04:28Dottie you did not receive donations or
2:04:30paid for services from Cambridge on
2:04:32Whittaker the evidence shows that the
2:04:34relationship did not develop beyond the
2:04:36initial scoping work and that no
2:04:38contract was agreed between them the
2:04:40Commission saw no evidence that
2:04:41Cambridge analytic have had any
2:04:43important to leave Dottie use referendum
2:04:45campaign pretty well repeating what you
2:04:49indicated for which I'm grateful as you
2:04:53know the committee's published
2:04:55transcripts of tapes of lis bu
2:04:58strategies which described your workers
2:05:00to put in inverted commas served back by
2:05:03Nigel Nigel okay not great again said
2:05:05that you provided proof of concept what
2:05:08did that mean what is a proof of concept
2:05:09and what did you offer what is he
2:05:12provided that in the words Nigel Oakes
2:05:15well I loved Nigel X's a colleague and a
2:05:19friend of many years but he was not
2:05:21working in the
2:05:22company at that time why would you
2:05:25describe your work as a background I
2:05:26can't speak to that mr. Hart Nigel ran a
2:05:32different company from a different
2:05:33office in a different country working on
2:05:36different projects with different
2:05:37clients he had absolutely no involvement
2:05:39to what we were doing he had no access
2:05:41to our servers to our data to our
2:05:43personnel to all intents apart from my
2:05:47close personal relationship with him he
2:05:50could have been a stranger so he was
2:05:52obviously speaking to what he did I can
2:05:55conjecture that he may have been
2:05:56speaking to what he'd read in the
2:05:57newspapers I have no idea
2:05:59literally so we've heard as you know
2:06:04anecdotally and in indeed by people
2:06:06sitting where you're sitting people
2:06:09casting some asking some questions about
2:06:11the integrity of that denial if you like
2:06:14and as you know Andy Widmore and Aaron
2:06:17banks will be giving evidence in the
2:06:18next couple of weeks do you think that
2:06:21they will give such an unequivocal sort
2:06:25of sign up to unequivocally to your
2:06:27denial as as you are today absolutely I
2:06:30do I when I was shortly after I was last
2:06:34here I believed Aaron banks submitted a
2:06:37statement to this committee where he
2:06:40timelined and detailed our relationship
2:06:44with him and that almost exactly
2:06:46reflected the details that that you've
2:06:49heard from myself and details that we
2:06:52presented to the ICO regarding our
2:06:54relationship with various brexit
2:06:59campaigns I want to take this
2:07:02opportunity to point out that this is in
2:07:04stark contrast stark contrast to to the
2:07:10testimony that this committee received
2:07:12where Christopher Wylie stated and I
2:07:14quote Cambridge analytical played an
2:07:17absolutely pivotal role in brexit that
2:07:20is really important for people to
2:07:22understand another round list accusation
2:07:27and allegation and similarly the
2:07:29headline in The Guardian was and I quote
2:07:32a plot by a shadow
2:07:34a global operation to hijack British
2:07:37democracy it is deeply troubling that
2:07:41this conspiracy theory has gained such
2:07:43traction and cause such irreversible
2:07:46damage to our company can I just go back
2:07:51to no jokes for a minute yeah because
2:07:56you're saying that there any hint that
2:07:58he suggested that you provided work
2:08:01which could have attracted a value is
2:08:04simply not symptom oh sorry any any any
2:08:07work that the suggestion is that the
2:08:10might been work carried out only for
2:08:12levy which should have been declared to
2:08:13the local Commission because it had a
2:08:15value of either as a direct donation or
2:08:17donation in kind are you saying that is
2:08:19that that accusation is entirely or the
2:08:23observation is entirely I'm saying that
2:08:28that I stand by the findings of the
2:08:32electoral commission's report and it's
2:08:35not quite what I'm asking what you're
2:08:37asking me to do is to make a judgement
2:08:40about not Nigel Oaks his statement and I
2:08:43don't think that it's for me to try and
2:08:46second-guess what he was happy to engage
2:08:48the same conjecture just now to use your
2:08:50word about what his motives might have
2:08:53been for making these comments well I
2:08:55did preface it by saying this is
2:08:57conjecture I was trying to help you
2:08:59understand that he had no direct access
2:09:01to information or decision-making or
2:09:04documents at the company therefore I
2:09:06can't speak to to his what he made leave
2:09:11it leave at the moment just as an aside
2:09:14you were creating an impression that bit
2:09:19earlier on this afternoon that came to
2:09:21John and it was almost being
2:09:23misrepresented is a sort of shady
2:09:25organization which was capable of
2:09:27affecting the outcome of elections and
2:09:29actually what you really were sort of
2:09:31toothpaste advertisers I think this
2:09:33expression you used are you therefore
2:09:37suggesting that you were over playing
2:09:39your role as a
2:09:41as an election influencer in because we
2:09:46know you were doing around the world
2:09:47charging large sums of money for service
2:09:49which you're now saying constituted a
2:09:51rather minor part of the or a business
2:09:53and you were in fact much more
2:09:54comfortable in the in the role of an
2:09:56advertising agency in mojo which of
2:09:58these is which of these is Right seems
2:10:01to me well it was leading your potential
2:10:03there so if they're both correct
2:10:05obviously historically there was a
2:10:07greater emphasis on political business
2:10:10that was certainly the company that I
2:10:13founded in 2012 but prior to that there
2:10:18were the emphasis was on was much more
2:10:20on the government and defense space and
2:10:22more recently as we moved into 2017 late
2:10:2716 17 and early eighteen that the
2:10:29emphasis moved across towards the
2:10:30commercial and brand space so it was an
2:10:33evolution as if as the company grew we
2:10:37looked at different avenues that we
2:10:38could provide services to but you were
2:10:43an effective operator in the elections
2:10:46field well yes we had one with this
2:10:50measurements double track record of
2:10:52helping our clients succeed in elections
2:10:56clearly as everyone understands you know
2:11:00success as many fathers and failure as
2:11:03an orphan but over a twenty-seven twenty
2:11:06six year period if if you can point to a
2:11:11consistent winning pattern at some point
2:11:14you know in a humble way you couldn't
2:11:17say well maybe we're doing something
2:11:19right um thank you last question
2:11:22question really when it came to the
2:11:27final crunch a few weeks ago when you
2:11:29were suspended history particularly who
2:11:30who made the call who who rang you and
2:11:32said sorry Alexander you've got to go
2:11:34who made that call was it a face-to-face
2:11:37meeting or telefax well it was a
2:11:38decision with the board and obviously I
2:11:43was involved in that decision I mean
2:11:45I've I put it on the table and said that
2:11:47if this is what's best for the company
2:11:50you know this is what we should do my
2:11:53firm belief at that time was that that
2:12:00the company would survive the initial
2:12:05media onslaught and that an independent
2:12:09inquiry that was commissioned by the
2:12:11board to understand really the
2:12:14allegations that have been made by the
2:12:17press against the company would prove
2:12:20that they were unfounded and that that
2:12:24in due course we would get back to
2:12:27businesses as normal so it was a joint
2:12:30decision involving the board and you and
2:12:33for the reasons
2:12:35Loosli internet it was becoming a
2:12:37distraction for the business something
2:12:39like something along those lines well
2:12:40look I take a huge responsibility for my
2:12:43part in misrepresenting the company
2:12:46whether I did that intentionally or
2:12:48rather knowingly or not and I think
2:12:51we've covered this at some length you
2:12:53know that was you know it wasn't my
2:12:56finest hour and I have to accept that
2:13:00and I'm gonna have to live with that it
2:13:01was you know it was a very very well
2:13:04executed sting and you know you've got
2:13:08capo to channel for for what destroying
2:13:11and we excellent British technology
2:13:15company where you offer don't pay off
2:13:17the peg upon where you offer to pay off
2:13:27it's not relevant to this committee but
2:13:29the answer's no yes I do
2:13:37did he work for Cambridge analytical or
2:13:39STL yes he did
2:13:41when did he work for them well again I
2:13:45don't wanna mislead you but I would say
2:13:48between 2014 and 15 but I'd have to
2:13:52confirm his exact dates when did you
2:13:56last speak to mr. get Lawson early 15
2:14:03when he left the company so you haven't
2:14:05spoken to him since he left the company
2:14:07no I don't believe so
2:14:09not a word have you discussed a IQ with
2:14:12Mark Everson when he was at the company
2:14:15yes it's very possible because as you
2:14:19well know a IQ were contracted to us
2:14:23you are aware of Jeff Sylvester's
2:14:26evidence
2:14:27what specifically that's Bob nettleson
2:14:31introduced a IQ to the vote leave
2:14:35campaign
2:14:35ah yes I am aware of that that's correct
2:14:39so there is a connection between
2:14:42Cambridge analytic at the ending
2:14:47campaign well if you're trying to
2:14:53suggest that a former employee of mine
2:14:57who I hadn't spoken to for three and a
2:15:00half years who happened to move on and
2:15:04work in another line of business or
2:15:05businesses that coincidentally
2:15:09worked or were connected with a
2:15:12referendum campaign
2:15:14demonstrates that there was a connection
2:15:16I would say that that was about as
2:15:19tenuous as the connection that mr.
2:15:22Farrell is trying to make and only that
2:15:27in a very small world of political
2:15:29consultancies that there are circles
2:15:32within circles of people who work
2:15:35together and
2:15:35each other yeah it is a small world who
2:15:38introduced Henry John Whittaker to Erin
2:15:39banks
2:15:48god help you these Kaiser says it was
2:15:51Steve Ballmer that could well be
2:15:54possible again I don't want to mislead
2:15:56you it could well be both could well
2:15:57have been Steve Bannon I can I just it
2:15:59was so we were you there when the first
2:16:03in particular first meeting took place
2:16:05with Alan banks I was there that was the
2:16:07only meeting I attended was the initial
2:16:09meeting obviously mr. Bannon was not
2:16:10there so again I can't visit a bigger
2:16:15pond because the meeting took place in
2:16:17the UK and mr. Mellon was in was in the
2:16:20US and therefore I can't confirm exactly
2:16:25affects the connection but I was at the
2:16:27meeting there was certainly mr. banks I
2:16:29remember I can't with any certainty
2:16:32recall who else was there but I think
2:16:34Brittany spoke about this in her
2:16:35evidence so mr. banks and mr. baumann
2:16:38are two of the most prominent political
2:16:41campaigners in recent years who've been
2:16:45involved in to the most important
2:16:50referendum and election results and they
2:16:54they were introduced to each other it's
2:16:58freaking huge analytic oh well that's
2:17:01not what you've just said what you've
2:17:03said to me just now was that mr. Bannon
2:17:06introduced Cambridge and it occurred to
2:17:08mr. banks
2:17:10therefore what I'm saying we said not he
2:17:14the one that introduced the gentleman
2:17:16who he teller what I'm saying is this is
2:17:17a very small world in which can be
2:17:20analytic at is a very prominent player
2:17:22and your your assertion earlier wrong
2:17:26that you have had nothing to do with the
2:17:31referendum it's just complete nonsense
2:17:36look I'm sorry if members of this
2:17:38committee are unhappy with the outcome
2:17:41of the referendum I'm sorry if members
2:17:43of this committee are unhappy with
2:17:45Donald Trump being president of the
2:17:47United States but you can't simply put
2:17:52forward your prejudices on to me and
2:17:54make sweeping assumptions about our
2:17:58involved
2:17:59with a particular campaign simply
2:18:02because that's what you wanted to
2:18:03believe because that narrative suits
2:18:05your view of the facts there's no
2:18:09evidence to support your position I love
2:18:12doing now it's your buildings a
2:18:14conspiracy theory facts mr. Nixon not
2:18:18rudeness facts is what we are presenting
2:18:20to you what we are getting back from you
2:18:22is bluster and rudeness the fact is the
2:18:27ballon Steve Bannon from Cambridge
2:18:30analytical was someone who introduced
2:18:34our advanced defend it to Cambridge I
2:18:37love it again and we've had that that in
2:18:40evidence from a number of different
2:18:42sources and we also have a fact that a
2:18:45former employee of Cambridge analytical
2:18:47was the person who introduced a IQ to
2:18:53the vote leave campaign those are facts
2:18:56and that's why there's a link in this
2:18:58story so all the facts are true that's
2:19:02not what you've said what you just said
2:19:04was that you refused to believe that
2:19:05Cambridge analytic who was not involved
2:19:07in the referendum and that is not a fact
2:19:10and it's not supported by the hypothesis
2:19:13that you've just put forward it's not
2:19:15supported by the relationships that
2:19:16you've just alluded to there's
2:19:18absolutely no connection between that
2:19:20statement and what you've just said the
2:19:21connection are the individuals who are
2:19:23linked to each other in this small world
2:19:25in which you operate in which you've
2:19:27made an awful lot of money so so the
2:19:31position is there are links I think
2:19:34covers cover this ridiculous line of
2:19:38questioning if I may absolutely I think
2:19:41I mean you'd say that the claim remains
2:19:44very damaging to your company that
2:19:45you've worked or the referendum campaign
2:19:48but I mean if leave lemmi you had got
2:19:50the destination you would have worked
2:19:51and the referendum campaign willingly
2:19:52that was the any reason that shouldn't
2:19:54happen was because you didn't you didn't
2:19:56get the designation therefore the
2:19:58relationship didn't go any further and
2:19:59that's and nothing I'm not a problem
2:20:02with that is not at all but you seem to
2:20:04a great exception to even the idea that
2:20:06you know I take exception to the fact
2:20:08that Christopher Wiley can state to this
2:20:12committee
2:20:12that we played an absolutely pivotal
2:20:14role in brexit I even point-blank lie to
2:20:17you as he's lied over a great many
2:20:19issues involving Cambridge analytic as
2:20:22sorry involvement in election campaigns
2:20:24in this country in the United States and
2:20:26overseas and all sorts of allegations
2:20:28about unethical practices and illegal
2:20:30practices and yet I'm sitting here and
2:20:34being subjected to frankly ridiculous
2:20:38accusations based on on the most tenuous
2:20:43connections that are simply not
2:20:45supported by evidence well I'm gonna go
2:20:47over this again whenever this product
2:20:49last time as well as today I mean one of
2:20:51the reason these hair started running
2:20:52the first place was because of
2:20:53statements you made and Aaron banks made
2:20:55and he Whitmore made about the way you'd
2:20:56work together it's not just crystal
2:20:58while he's doing Britney Kaiser places a
2:21:00value on the work she did but working
2:21:03with leave Donahue in preparation for
2:21:04the referendum the Electoral
2:21:06Commission's position is they
2:21:07acknowledge that work took place but
2:21:08they don't believe it had any valuable
2:21:10bearing on the the work believed what
2:21:11you eventually did so I think it's not
2:21:13baseless I mean it's people have their
2:21:15say you've had your set on it but that's
2:21:17that's where it's come from Brendan this
2:21:30would be an intercession channel all of
2:21:33us should be very robust statement and
2:21:37reply said I mean absolutely disagree
2:21:41and reject the allegation that the
2:21:44heavily edited us to teach to to treat
2:21:46you as you said in the worst possible
2:21:48light and they say quite categorically
2:21:51that their comments were used in context
2:21:54specifically when pitching to the report
2:21:58I'm the it was you who said these are
2:22:02just examples of what can be done and
2:22:04you followed up by saying and what has
2:22:07been done but that's not hypothetical so
2:22:11you are on the record as saying these
2:22:13are just examples of what can be done
2:22:15and what has been done so you wish to
2:22:19modify your area statement no I don't
2:22:21wish to
2:22:22my statement there was there was a there
2:22:25was no suggestion that they'd been done
2:22:29by our company I was giving examples of
2:22:32the sort of things that could be done
2:22:35and have been done to to damage the
2:22:40reputation of politicians and that was
2:22:43the question that was put to me and I
2:22:45answered that question frankly and
2:22:47openly so you're absolutely clear that
2:22:52this was not an offer on behalf of your
2:22:55company to do these things and if it
2:22:57wasn't an offer to do them why make such
2:23:00a play of it I think what I went on to
2:23:03say let's have a quick look here was was
2:23:10to make it clear to the reporter that
2:23:17after I said that I said went on to say
2:23:19the right solution will be made for for
2:23:23the right for you for the right problem
2:23:26I didn't commit to doing anything to
2:23:29them I simply played along and listened
2:23:32to to this to this potential clients
2:23:37desires without committing or suggesting
2:23:40that we would follow through and deliver
2:23:42any of those any reasonable person
2:23:45listening to that conversation
2:23:49you've got making an offer that this was
2:23:51part of your armory should it be
2:23:54required surely any reason you don't
2:23:58need to sit there and Sully my
2:24:02reputation I've already done that and
2:24:04it's been broadcast nationally and
2:24:07possibly internationally to millions of
2:24:10people okay so I think we've covered
2:24:12this point I've apologized for my
2:24:15exaggeration and hype over the perb
2:24:17hyperbole in my interest to to win a
2:24:19client contract I alluded to services
2:24:23that we don't make we've never made as a
2:24:27company and yes it was extremely foolish
2:24:31of me and it was a very well-constructed
2:24:33entrapment
2:24:34ding whatever you want to call it and
2:24:36channel 4 got there man
2:24:38but beyond that I really can't speak to
2:24:40this any further problem that I have
2:24:44with all that says that we're not in
2:24:47setting since you've come here today you
2:24:51have attempted to paint yourself as the
2:24:53victim here no by no stretch of the
2:24:56imagination can you be seen as a victim
2:24:59surely you can see that you're not the
2:25:02victim here and come as if I was the
2:25:07victim it's just let's just run with
2:25:11this hypothesis for a moment well if I
2:25:13was the victim what happens if if as
2:25:16we've seen
2:25:17we're accused of working brexit we
2:25:19didn't work in brexit we were accused of
2:25:22disseminating videos in Kenya Kenya we
2:25:26didn't disseminate videos in Kenya we
2:25:28were accused of I think what was it that
2:25:32mr. Wiley said he said of capturing
2:25:36government's colonizing countries and
2:25:39being part of some white right-wing
2:25:42conspiracy well I was if none of that is
2:25:44actually true and that in due course as
2:25:48some of these investigations are
2:25:50concluded or more of these
2:25:51investigations to concluded people
2:25:53realize that actually we were simply the
2:25:58guys who were perceived to have
2:26:01contributed to the Trump campaign and
2:26:04were wrongly accredited with being the
2:26:08architects of brexit and as a result of
2:26:11the polarizing nature of those two
2:26:13political campaigns the global liberal
2:26:16media took umbrage and decided to put us
2:26:18in their crosshairs and launched a
2:26:21coordinated extremely well coordinated
2:26:24and effective attack on us as a company
2:26:27in order to destroy our reputations and
2:26:29our business and all of this was
2:26:32underpinned by a stream of allegations
2:26:35unfounded groundless allegations that
2:26:38came from mr. Wylie who gave the media
2:26:40the ammunition that they needed that
2:26:43they wanted to be able to attack us
2:26:45for something that that in the case of
2:26:48breaks it we simply didn't do you are
2:26:50the victim in all of this well if you're
2:26:54sitting where I am right now you
2:26:55probably feel quite victimized the
2:27:00frustration is that you know according
2:27:04to you everything that has been written
2:27:07about Cambridge analytic that was wrong
2:27:10yet the only thing we've ever heard
2:27:12directly from you
2:27:14turns out by your own admission to be a
2:27:17pack of lies so you can understand the
2:27:20frustration that you deny everything
2:27:23that's ever been better I said about you
2:27:24and then when you do about when you are
2:27:27caught going on the record seeing
2:27:29something your first reaction is that's
2:27:31always you can understand to know that
2:27:35it's a sitting position for us to be and
2:27:39to have to listen and to try and not a
2:27:42straight position as it is for me so
2:27:46questions want to come back to I didn't
2:27:48I'm not a bit we've got a few other
2:27:50things you want to do undercover officer
2:27:52we might if you don't mind might get one
2:27:53other point Jay Stevens and I just like
2:27:57to ask you mr. Nix about the work you
2:27:59know these elections you mentioned that
2:28:01any one time you might be involved in
2:28:03you know I think you said eight nine ten
2:28:05elections around the world because you
2:28:08didn't want to talk about that when you
2:28:09came and gave evidence in February other
2:28:11than the Trump and the Cruz campaign so
2:28:14the period I'm interested in is 2009 to
2:28:172011 when you were working on elections
2:28:19in st. case and nervous
2:28:22Dominika st. Vincent and the Grenadines
2:28:25referendum in st. Vincent and the
2:28:27Grenadines what was the nature of your
2:28:29business relationship with dr. Christian
2:28:32Kaelin from Hanlon Partners I was
2:28:36familiar with Christian Kaelin because
2:28:38he had work in the Caribbean islands
2:28:42some of those Islands he I believe well
2:28:45I know he used to run citizenship by
2:28:48investment program certainly incident
2:28:51kits and possibly in Dominica I don't
2:28:56know about the other countries okay so
2:28:58can you tell us a bit
2:28:59what's this citizenship program it's not
2:29:02the same thing so I believe it's the
2:29:05same or similar to a system that we have
2:29:08in the UK and other European countries
2:29:11again that you have to explore this
2:29:14yourself where an individual has a right
2:29:17to acquire citizenship through
2:29:20investment well again I don't want to
2:29:28mislead the committee but I believe that
2:29:31the citizenship can includes a passport
2:29:34so you're basically making investment
2:29:36into the country and and I don't know
2:29:41what the nuances in terms of how much
2:29:42time you have to live there and things
2:29:44like that so were you working with him
2:29:47when you were doing election work in the
2:29:51countries that I mentioned well I was
2:29:53certainly a new mr. Callen
2:29:56I've met with mr. Callen on numerous
2:29:58occasions and when I was working in the
2:30:01countries some of those countries that
2:30:03he was also involved in he was obviously
2:30:07a colleague of some of our clients when
2:30:12we were both working with
2:30:15did you undertake work together in any
2:30:17of those countries but you mean on
2:30:20citizenship for investment as part of
2:30:22the work that you were doing was he
2:30:24involved in any aspect of that work well
2:30:28he certainly had an interest in the
2:30:30outcome of the elections he definitely
2:30:33you know as a government contractor had
2:30:38an interest in how the elections but
2:30:42unfold but did he work with you he said
2:30:45you knew him did you do any work
2:30:46together ask again well it's a difficult
2:30:48question because I don't want to mislead
2:30:50you of course he didn't work on any of
2:30:52the campaign's that would be a
2:30:53ridiculous notion but he didn't but but
2:30:58he was he dipped in and out of the
2:31:00island I met with him what well he would
2:31:05ask me about the election campaign and
2:31:13we had a relationship
2:31:15so you'd meet him you talk about the
2:31:19election campaigns you presumably told
2:31:23him how things were going for your
2:31:25clients what was he he was getting a
2:31:28benefit what were you getting from that
2:31:30what's the purpose of you meeting with
2:31:33him well I don't really know what you're
2:31:40alluding to I'm asking what the purpose
2:31:43of the meetings were from your
2:31:44perspective you know you're obviously
2:31:47very busy man you travel these are time
2:31:49these are tiny countries and and the
2:31:55there are not that many people who
2:32:00certainly foreigners who come in and out
2:32:02and who have an active ongoing
2:32:04relationship with the government I think
2:32:06I met with lots of people over that
2:32:07period who had some the relationships
2:32:09with the government did he finance any
2:32:13elections
2:32:17he may well have made contributions
2:32:20towards the election campaigns but you'd
2:32:24have to talk to him about that whether
2:32:25campaigns for parties who were your
2:32:28clients I can I can't speak about his
2:32:34activities but I my understanding is
2:32:37that you may well have financed some of
2:32:39the elections or given contributions
2:32:41towards some of the elections who were
2:32:43who are did you ever discuss his
2:32:46financing in the meetings that you've
2:32:48said you have with him yes but not
2:32:53overtly can you sir I don't a stomach
2:32:58whoa did you discuss it or didn't you
2:33:00yes we did
2:33:01right
2:33:06he said he was a big contractor with
2:33:09governments in those countries so is
2:33:14that where the passports and the
2:33:15citizenship stuff comes in well I
2:33:18haven't spoken to mr. Callen for a
2:33:21number of years many years now but at
2:33:25the time I believe he ran the economic
2:33:28citizenship program in some kits
2:33:30certainly innocent kids and and we were
2:33:36involved in the elections and kids oh I
2:33:44couldn't speak to that I genuinely never
2:33:47discussed that well I mean I did people
2:33:50who wanted to have a second citizenship
2:33:51I guess people who maybe were looking
2:33:55and I'm speculating here but maybe
2:33:57looking for a more beneficial tax regime
2:34:04did you do much work in Latin America
2:34:07obviously spoke a bit about the
2:34:08Caribbean but do any work in in South
2:34:10America a little bit did you do any work
2:34:14in Argentina
2:34:14yes we've worked in Argentina and people
2:34:17and who was that for in Argentina well I
2:34:20think as I said last time we don't
2:34:22generally like to talk about specific
2:34:24clients simply because it's there's a
2:34:28client confidentiality there sure I had
2:34:31a I saw the site of a note about some of
2:34:35the work in Argentina that it was anti
2:34:39Kirchner campaign so you're working with
2:34:42one of the opposition parties or someone
2:34:44seeking to change the school leadership
2:34:46in Argentina would that be correct as
2:34:49far as I'm aware and I again could
2:34:53circle back to you on this I don't
2:34:55believe that we have ever worked on an
2:34:56anteater in a campaign okay I just
2:34:59signed this looking at a note that I
2:35:01said someone so shared with me there's a
2:35:02summary of a management meeting a seal
2:35:05group from the 27th of May where there's
2:35:08a note on Argentina and it says anti
2:35:09costa campaign
2:35:10and presented to decision maker awaiting
2:35:12feedback right so it suggests that you
2:35:17did present an educational campaign to
2:35:19someone who might be in the market for
2:35:20buying one well no that would present
2:35:23that maybe I pitched such a campaign
2:35:26yeah to catch the campaign yeah yeah but
2:35:29it's a clearly that that was the
2:35:31permitting through around that premise
2:35:33that it was an antique antiquer campaign
2:35:35so working for an opposition party or
2:35:36some some other person interested in
2:35:38influencing politics in Argentina wasn't
2:35:42supporting the government that would
2:35:45that would be the appearance of that
2:35:46yeah did them have you ever work with
2:35:48Paul singer is it was he funded any girl
2:35:50working no I never thought okay there's
2:35:53one question I'd ask as well about them
2:35:54someone showed me a copy of a notice
2:35:56that was prepared having submitted to
2:35:58the decision maker in in Argentina and
2:36:02it just talks about the nature of ICL's
2:36:05work and it said our management team
2:36:06consists of retired Intelligence and
2:36:08Security Agency officers from Israel USA
2:36:11UK Spain and Russia is that is that the
2:36:14case that you have former intelligence
2:36:16of Security Agency workers from Russia
2:36:18who work there CL no that's absolutely
2:36:21not the case
2:36:22am i able to have a look at this note or
2:36:24not I'm probably not able to share it
2:36:26but Lucas erm but if the person who gave
2:36:29it to me is happy can you charity on
2:36:30happy to circle back as you would say or
2:36:32mass do and do say well probably not a
2:36:35liberty share it but it it's Russia's
2:36:37been included in that list of list of
2:36:39countries and but I mean but have had
2:36:42people Russian nationals work for SEL
2:36:44his work or became John let's go no as
2:36:48far as I'm aware and and I think I was
2:36:50pretty adamant about this when I saw the
2:36:54committee last time we've never worked
2:36:56with the Russian individual we've never
2:36:59worked for a Russian client we've never
2:37:01worked in Russia certainly not since
2:37:04I've been in the company or have
2:37:06Russians work for you all had Russians
2:37:08work for us pop-pop malecon Cogan I
2:37:11believe he's a u.s. national okay
2:37:14from Russia but I believe he's a u.s.
2:37:17national okay okay so that's that's the
2:37:19distinction that's why I'm not not
2:37:20seeking to ascertain doesn't make your
2:37:22point did you know he went are you
2:37:25making what did you know that he was
2:37:27working when he was working did you know
2:37:29that he had links with Russian
2:37:30universities he conducted research
2:37:31workers in Petersburg University funded
2:37:33by the Russian government
2:37:34I believe I met Alexander Cohen twice
2:37:38once in January 14 and once in September
2:37:41okay I had lunch with him twice okay
2:37:45that was my relationship so just me as I
2:37:48wanted to just click on a different
2:37:49election area something we've had
2:37:51different conflicting bits of evidence
2:37:52about there's Nigeria and we touched on
2:37:54this a little bit earlier on I don't
2:37:55want to go over the issue of the the
2:37:57film I think we've covered that but
2:38:00there is this interesting of interest to
2:38:02us anyway issue of intelligence work is
2:38:06Israeli intelligence workers who were
2:38:07brought in to work alongside the SCL
2:38:10team who were delivering the project in
2:38:12Nigeria
2:38:14Brittany Keizer spoke a bit about this
2:38:15in her evidence session that there were
2:38:20people from Israel this year they came
2:38:22all to work on the project that she had
2:38:25been introduced to in Israel the
2:38:26cheapening were former intelligence
2:38:28officers are you able to tell us
2:38:31anything about that but are you aware of
2:38:32Israeli intelligence officers or former
2:38:34intelligence officers working as
2:38:36contractors on alongside sel in in
2:38:38Nigeria so again this is another
2:38:41groundless accusation that I believe was
2:38:44made by mr. Wiley unfortunately having
2:38:48read his his statement to the committee
2:38:51he he suggests that this is something
2:38:54that's been reported to the authorities
2:38:56and so whilst it would be honestly very
2:38:59tempting to try and talk this through
2:39:01with you this is another one of those
2:39:04areas that I simply can't can't discuss
2:39:08in No Child for Guinness and the
2:39:10transcript of the sessions that they
2:39:12filmed filled you in those meetings and
2:39:16I think conversations you had we
2:39:17teleports afters you said that we use
2:39:19some British companies be used to
2:39:20Israeli companies and that you'd said
2:39:22that one of the Israeli companies you'd
2:39:24use was black cube is that correct no I
2:39:27think the transcript because I did read
2:39:29this he said was it black cube have you
2:39:32worked with black cube and I replied yes
2:39:35I was totally mistaken we have never
2:39:37worked with black cube and we have been
2:39:39contacted by black cube after the
2:39:42publication of of that expose by channel
2:39:524 and we confirmed to them in writing
2:39:55that we had no relationship with them
2:39:56and we'd never work with them and that
2:39:58they obviously look keen for that
2:40:00because their name was was used okay we
2:40:04don't see that the accusation was made
2:40:06you've given you all response to that if
2:40:08you haven't worked with black cube have
2:40:10you worked with other Israeli
2:40:11intelligence officers we're former
2:40:13intelligence officers to support SDL's
2:40:15election work not knowingly no so it may
2:40:18have happened but you don't you don't
2:40:19know if it did well I mean in sorry I
2:40:24don't to be trite but you could be an
2:40:26Israeli intelligence officer and it was
2:40:28the point I'm trying to make is I've not
2:40:30knowingly contracted with any
2:40:32intelligence officers from any
2:40:34nationality to work on projects with no
2:40:38I understand that the point of thinking
2:40:39was whether other people in the company
2:40:41could have contracted them but you
2:40:42wouldn't have been aware of it oh would
2:40:44you know I'm sure I would have been
2:40:46aware if someone was making a higher
2:40:49regardless of whether they were hiring a
2:40:53Israeli intelligence officer or someone
2:40:55else I'm sure it would have been a way
2:40:57so you would have you'd have known who
2:40:58Britney Keizer hired to work on that
2:41:00campaign in Nigeria well again I can't
2:41:03speak to this but what I can say because
2:41:05I did read Brittany's evidence is that
2:41:08she was very clear in saying that the
2:41:12client had hired some third parties to
2:41:16work for them and that was nothing to do
2:41:20with Cambridge analytic oh well that's
2:41:23and that's what the that's what I really
2:41:25the the report that you see reports no I
2:41:28believe that's what Brittany Kaiser
2:41:30as well is that there was a parallel
2:41:33operation that wasn't anything do this
2:41:35here what Brittany's suggested to us was
2:41:38that she was introduced to some people
2:41:40in Israel she believed have probably
2:41:42been were former intelligence officers
2:41:44that they came to work in the team and
2:41:47she didn't say no there were she
2:41:48couldn't remember their names didn't
2:41:50know which company they come from but
2:41:52nevertheless that they've been
2:41:52introducing she brought them in and this
2:41:55may give a bit of confusion around
2:41:57exactly who these people were and
2:41:59whether a CL worked with them on other
2:42:02campaigns as well it's been suggested to
2:42:05me by former sto employers that they
2:42:06then went on to work on further
2:42:09campaigns in the Caribbean as well
2:42:11well I I can't speak to what happened to
2:42:15Nigeria because I wasn't there all I can
2:42:17say and the only thing I can say on this
2:42:19is we have never contracted with anyone
2:42:23that fits that description
2:42:24we and and we certainly did not contract
2:42:27with those individuals or in any way off
2:42:33of work
2:42:34remuneration services or have any
2:42:37relationship with them whatsoever I mean
2:42:41it's important not just because of the
2:42:42question of we know of where the Israeli
2:42:44intelligence officers and is that
2:42:45relevant but obviously as you know the
2:42:46accusation is that there they were
2:42:48brought in to work as hackers to to gain
2:42:51information act information on the
2:42:53opponent in that I can't speak to this
2:42:56but again this is another accusation
2:42:58that I believe came from mr. Wylie and
2:43:02it was the first we'd heard about him
2:43:05I'd heard about it no one in my mic
2:43:08sorry Britney Kaiser said pretty well
2:43:12and I would say that has been put to us
2:43:15by other people former SEL employees as
2:43:17well but they believe these people were
2:43:19hackers and so it's not just Christopher
2:43:21while his testimony obviously I can't
2:43:22disclose who these people are they don't
2:43:24wish to be identified but you've given
2:43:26your answer I think that's I stand by my
2:43:28answer Brendan at home
2:43:32miss Alexis who are the cycle I don't
2:43:37know I genuinely don't know other than
2:43:39the fact that I read an article in
2:43:41Bloomberg about three or three weeks ago
2:43:44about them and that article suggested a
2:43:48relationship with a sail group in the
2:43:52USA so you have no knowledge of side
2:43:57group other than what you read in
2:43:58Bloomberg that's correct
2:44:00you've never met with them do you know
2:44:04the nature of the work that they're
2:44:05involved in no I did I read in the
2:44:08article as you probably did as well that
2:44:11there was a joint pitch to the US
2:44:15government for some for some work and
2:44:20that was the first I'd heard about it
2:44:22and it's categorically not true that
2:44:26huge analytic up for a CEO of any of the
2:44:30other companies involved that you were
2:44:34involved any relationship whatsoever
2:44:36with cycling no I didn't say that I said
2:44:41I'd never heard of him before I can't
2:44:43speak as to if the first time I heard
2:44:46about them was in that article and the
2:44:49article suggests that SCL had a
2:44:50relationship with them a CL USA sorry
2:44:53break upon SL group in the USA our
2:44:55defense contractor and they joint
2:44:57pitched I cannot confirm or deny whether
2:45:00that is true I've never heard of them
2:45:02before
2:45:04Wall Street Journal on
2:45:06Mirek 23rd reported a huge analytical
2:45:10had formed a joint venture with psychic
2:45:13and they are a private intelligence firm
2:45:16in order to when US government contracts
2:45:19immediately after the 2016 presidential
2:45:21elections is that correct
2:45:24I've told you very plainly that the
2:45:28first I heard about this company was in
2:45:30this newspaper article I can't speak to
2:45:32it more than that
2:45:37so keep you're gonna like kimbridge
2:45:40analytical you have telling us
2:45:42categorically have not what what cycling
2:45:47no that's not what I'm saying and I
2:45:51didn't if you're deliberately trying to
2:45:53misinterpret ride to get to the truth
2:45:55what I'm saying is the first I've ever
2:45:57heard of the name side group was when I
2:45:59read these articles the article infers a
2:46:02relationship with SCL group and I cannot
2:46:05confirm or deny whether that
2:46:06relationship existed because I'd never
2:46:08heard of side group before reading the
2:46:10article okay what advantage defect that
2:46:15would be to SEO or Cambridge analytical
2:46:21who you said yourself for a very small
2:46:23advertising agency working with side
2:46:28group a company who are reported as
2:46:30being founded and managed by an
2:46:32experienced group of former high ranking
2:46:33officers from elite units of some of the
2:46:36world's most renowned intelligence
2:46:38agencies why would a very respected
2:46:43journal such as a Wall Street Journal
2:46:45and Bloomberg connect a very small path
2:46:49of tithing agency to a company like that
2:46:52so just for the sake of clarity because
2:46:55facts matter we're talking about SCL
2:46:58group which was the US defense
2:47:00contractor which is different to
2:47:03Cambridge analytic Oh which was a
2:47:04political and commercial communications
2:47:07agency and my kid I cannot speculate as
2:47:11to what the advantage would be of joint
2:47:13pitching on a contract other than to say
2:47:15that it's possible that whatever the
2:47:17contract was it required a range of
2:47:21skill sets some of which could be
2:47:23provided by a CL group and some of which
2:47:25could be provided by side group and
2:47:27neither agency had the requisite skill
2:47:30sets to pitch on its own the u.s.
2:47:34defense procurement process is extremely
2:47:38protracted it requires multiple levels
2:47:42of due diligence
2:47:46and proposals and oral hearings and and
2:47:53submissions and it can go on sometimes
2:47:55for months and months sometimes even
2:47:58years to win a contract and obviously
2:48:02there are extremely strict security
2:48:07measures in place regarding the use of
2:48:10contractors so the mere fact that sigh
2:48:14group were according to the article
2:48:16seeking to partner with SEL in order to
2:48:18pitch for us defense work would suggest
2:48:21that they were a recognized vendor or an
2:48:24approved vendor or had some traction or
2:48:27history of delivering the US Department
2:48:29of Defense which would imply that they'd
2:48:32been in vetted vetted for that purpose
2:48:34but I am surely speculating so the
2:48:38article it's definitely see that they
2:48:42didn't they're not seeking to the
2:48:44article is very clear that they say that
2:48:46sigh group saying the Memorandum of
2:48:49Understanding came the Gianna with each
2:48:51other
2:48:51that's not your understanding at all
2:48:55sorry can you repeat that according to
2:48:59The Wall Street Journal side group
2:49:01saying the memorandum of understanding
2:49:03with Cambridge analytically that's not
2:49:08the case as far as you presume well I
2:49:10look I can't be more strange with you
2:49:13than I have B which is I haven't seen
2:49:15any document I hadn't heard of the
2:49:17company before I read this article and
2:49:20it's and just because the Wall Street
2:49:22Journal have reported it it certainly
2:49:24doesn't mean that they've got the facts
2:49:26correct so if if Cambridge analytical
2:49:31had signed a Memorandum of Understanding
2:49:34with side group would away the two firms
2:49:38to cooperate in a case-by-case basis to
2:49:40provide intelligence and social media
2:49:42services as a CEO you would of nor
2:49:45nobuta
2:49:45and you would of st. off on it my
2:49:48suspicion and again I'm speculating
2:49:50committee my suspicion is that in their
2:49:53reporting
2:49:54Wall Street Journal have used the name
2:49:57Cambridge and lizica when they may have
2:49:59meant to use the name SEL group but in
2:50:02answer to your question I would be very
2:50:05surprised if a Memorandum of
2:50:07Understanding had been signed with
2:50:09Cambridge analytical that I was unaware
2:50:10of who they no one else have seen that
2:50:12therefore not I do know to see the
2:50:14document but certainly someone else
2:50:16possibly one of the other see stuff
2:50:18could have sign that that is true but as
2:50:20entirely feasible then that SEL could
2:50:25have seen a Memorandum of Understanding
2:50:27with side group because Maciel group had
2:50:30its own CEO and as I said to the
2:50:33committee very clearly when I was here
2:50:36last because there was quite a lot of
2:50:37confusion about the group structure I
2:50:39said SEL group is a different company as
2:50:41different offices there's different
2:50:43staff work some different contracts and
2:50:47and moreover as a defense contractor it
2:50:51has a different security status and
2:50:53therefore it's privileged to work and
2:50:54address different things to Cambridge
2:50:57only to go what Koch likes did you pitch
2:51:01for an American post November of 16
2:51:09November of 16 what political contracts
2:51:14did we pitch for yeah contracts did you
2:51:17pitch for force the government to a
2:51:19political mob I'll do both or government
2:51:22contracts well the government contracts
2:51:27that we would have pitched for in the US
2:51:28Post November 16 would have been pitched
2:51:31for by SEL group and and those would
2:51:36have been a contracts that would have
2:51:39spanned defense to homeland security to
2:51:47other other government divisions and
2:51:50mind is escaping me now a broad range
2:51:53but I couldn't speak specifically as to
2:51:56what contracts they were pitching for
2:51:57and do one well again as a general rule
2:52:04of thumb we don't speak about client
2:52:06contracts so if you can help me
2:52:08understand why this is relevant to the
2:52:10committee I just wanted to get to the
2:52:14that you're divorcing yourself entirely
2:52:17from what's going on with SCL group you
2:52:21know that you may or may not have been a
2:52:24relationship between the site and SEL
2:52:29but that's something you claim to be
2:52:31absolutely and completely unaware of or
2:52:35having anything to do with it's that
2:52:40right that is correct a couple of em a
2:52:47chair gots a copy of your digital
2:52:51overview that's a few years old this
2:52:55Stevens referred to it before though
2:52:58some of these short-term interventions
2:53:00the the it's listed in the digital on
2:53:04that overview includes a denial of
2:53:07service attacks did you ever take any so
2:53:12this was a company that we looked at
2:53:14forming and we never formed and that
2:53:17company never undertook any work
2:53:19whatsoever right and in answer to your
2:53:22question no he didn't why did you
2:53:24consider it at the time we were looking
2:53:27at different technologies expanding into
2:53:31different technological areas and this
2:53:34seemed like an interesting business but
2:53:38we didn't have the capability was
2:53:40probably the truth to be able to deliver
2:53:41meaningfully in this business area was
2:53:43it illegal at that time what was was was
2:53:45an institution it distributed denial of
2:53:47service attack was it illegal
2:53:49I really didn't know I can't speak to
2:53:51technology
2:53:51but right because it's illegal now right
2:53:55I don't know it's it's not something
2:53:57that we ever built it's not something
2:53:59that we ever undertook it's a company
2:54:01that was never realized okay the only
2:54:04reason I ask is because it would give me
2:54:07concern that you have the men's rare to
2:54:10undertake activities which are perhaps
2:54:14outside the law but if you never went
2:54:17out and did it
2:54:18fair enough can ask one at one of the
2:54:20area to take up for much more time what
2:54:24invite you to see if you can remember a
2:54:27question that I put to you at the last
2:54:30the last evidence session where you gave
2:54:33evidence which was concerning a twenty
2:54:35four point two million pound payment
2:54:37from

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Ex-Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix Testifies to U.K. Lawmakers by Bloomberg News, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 25,004 words across 3,614 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.