everyone for your testimony. we will go to questions now. five-minute rounds for each individual. i will start with mr. wylie. i think these will be easy questions, but listen while i lead up to them. you joined cambridge analytica group companies in june of 2013, in may of 2014 the group received facebook data from aleksandr kogan. you stopped working for the group in july 2014. in early 2016, facebook contacted the group and yourself and asked that facebook data received from mr. kogan be deleted. in march of 2017 following an internal audit, the group certified it had purged all of mr. kogan's facebook data from its servers. the group was retained by the trump campaign in the summer of 2016, so i think these three questions will be easy.

cambridge had not been retained by the trump campaign during your employment? mr. wylie: when i worked at cambridge analytica, the trump campaign was not, no. sen. grassley: and you did not work for the trump campaign while at cambridge? mr. wylie: i have never worked for the trump campaign. sen. grassley: and you were not there with the company made its certification to facebook? mr. wylie: i was not in the company or engaged at the company when they had that dealing with facebook, no. sen. grassley: thank you. dr. hirsch, there has been a lot of media attention around allegations that cambridge analytica helped president trump improperly influence the 2016 election by utilizing data received from facebook. him cambridge claims the facebook data was ineffective, was deleted upon request, and was not used in the work for the trump campaign. if cambridge had utilized the data, what impact do you think the organization impacted and strategies with mr. wylie described as military style

information warfare can have on influencing the outcome of an election given the kind of data it receives from facebook? >> as i said in my testimony, it is hard to move people. it is easier to mobilize or potentially demobilized people and persuade people, but there has not been evidence presented from facebook or cambridge analytica, data that does exist, that could answer this question. when facebook or cambridge analytica runs ads, they have a control group and treatment group, and they could know the answer to this. if these things were effective, cambridge analytica would know and facebook would know. based on what we've seen from this history of targeting about why it's hard to move people, i'm skeptical of this data and adds moving people in a substantial way. sen. grassley: dr. jamison, the

media has portrayed the trump use of data and firms like cambridge analytica as nefarious actions to manipulate the public. are these strategies and use of data something new in the political world, and how about advertising generally? >> thank you, mr. chairman. no, this is not new in the political world. it has been around for a long time. it feels new because it's never got into the public press before, at least not in this volume. it's understandable people feel this is violating a norm, but it's been a norm for a long time. sen. grassley: i will reserve my time and go to senator feinstein. sen. feinstein: thank you. mr. wylie, and february 2018, special counsel mueller invited indicted 13 russian nationals and three companies for their part in a well-funded coordinated campaign of information warfare using social

media. this information warfare campaign spearheaded through the russian backed research agency, as early as 2040. -- as 2014. what can you tell us about possible connections between the fcl group, or cambridge analytical, and russia? mr. wylie: thank you for your question. one of my concerns is the level of engagement the company has with the company being cambridge analytica, with lukoil, and executives from lukoil, russia's second-largest company. the firm cambridge analytica made presentations and send -- sent documents to lukoil that made reference to its experience in this information, that made reference in its experience to informational campaigns, attitudinal.

alexander nix emailed me a white paper. that white paper discussed the data assets the company had in the u.s. and strategies it was employing. the lead researcher that cambridge analytica used to harvest the facebook data, dr. kogan, was also working on projects in russia on psychological profiling at the university of st. petersburg. the company had also engaged contractors who had previously worked in eastern europe for progression parties, and indeed, the company decided to test american views on the leadership style of vladimir putin, and american views on eastern european issues relating to russian expansionism in the region.

to be clear, the only foreign leader that was tested when i was there was vladimir putin, and the bulk of the foreign issues being tested focused on russian expansionism in 2014. one of the concerns that i have is that there were a lot of contacts with both russian companies and also via dr. kogan's research, presentations made in russia, that made it known these researches were being done. i can't say definitively this has connections to the research agency, but i can say a lot of noise is being made to companies and individuals who are connected to the russian government, and for me, that is of substantial concern. sen. feinstein: do you think it's possible or even likely

that the facebook data harvested by cambridge analytica ended up in russia? mr. wylie: what i can say is that the lead researcher, dr. kogan, who was managing the facebook harvesting project for cambridge analytica, was, at the time, working on projects that related to psychological profiling in russia with a russian team as that was going on. i also know he was traveling to russia. i also know based on conversations i had at the time with him that he was making it known to his colleagues in russia about the project. i can't say definitively one way or the other if these data sets did end up in russia, but what i can say is it would have been very easy to facilitate that. sen. feinstein: you told the u.k. house of commons that cambridge analytica pitched the russian oil company lukoil and its services. you have also said that alexander nix gave lukoil a white paper that explained

cambridge analytical's data collection and online targeting of americans. lukoil is on the united states sanctions list and is said to be tied to the russian federal security service. that is also known as the former kgb. when and where were these meetings taking place? mr. wylie: in london, in the united kingdom, and also on the phone. sen. feinstein: what did cambridge analytical towel luke oil about its data on americans? did it share any of that data or is it possible russia acquired any of its data on americans? mr. wylie: in sending the white paper and discussions that i had with alexander nix about why he was speaking to the company, i know that the scale of the data and the location of the data was made known.

also, that dr. kogan was involved in that data collection project. the concern that i have is, if you were intending on acquiring the data, even if you are not intending to acquire the data with the willing participation of cambridge analytica, but what is that this could be easily acquired by something as easy as a key logging on dr. kogan's computer while visiting russia. sen. grassley: senator kennedy. sen. kennedy: thank you, mr. chairman. h, i don't really have a question. i will come back to you if i have time. if what you are saying is that people in america are not persuadable or persuaded by advertising, i think that's rubbish. i think really smart people spent $200 billion last year on

advertising. and i hear kids all the time walking around saying dilly dilly. they didn't dream that up. [laughter] but mr. wylie, i'm not interested in innuendo or speculation or rumor. other than facebook, list for me the sources of all of the data that you know cambridge analytica used while you worked for them. mr. wylie: there were several different consumer data vendors that were used. sen. kennedy: can you name them? i would like you to be specific. mr. wylie: i believe experience data was used. i think acting data was used. i'm not sure, but i can get back to you on whether they contacted directly -- sen. kennedy: who else?

mr. wylie: state voter firms and regulations. kennedy: who else? mr. wylie: smaller firms with specialized niche data. in terms of online data, there were experiments done on collecting other social media data like twitter that was also used. but the basis of the modeling at the time i was there was primarily using facebook data. -- putnnedy: did facebook aside for a second. the justice department, i will get to the bottom of that. did cambridge analytica obtain any of this information unlawfully while you were there? mr. wylie: i'm not a lawyer in the u.s., so i could not comment on whether it was lawful or unlawful. sen. kennedy: did they do it

improperly? you have been making normative judgments quite often. don't get religion now on me. mr. wylie: the facebook data -- sen. kennedy: other than facebook. mr. wylie: other than facebook, the consumer data lists were acquired via contracts signed and paid for. kennedy: did cambridge analytica hack anybody? that you know of? mr. wylie: i have seen documents that make reference to special intelligence services and information gathering networks. sen. kennedy: do you have copies of those? mr. wylie: not with me. kennedy: did cambridge analytica get money from wikileaks? mr. wylie: not while i was there. sen. kennedy: do you know if

they got it after? mr. wylie: about money? sen. kennedy: data. i'm sorry. i'm still worked up over dilly dilly. mr. wylie: i was not there when the request was made. sen. kennedy: when you are at cambridge analytica, give me the names of the clients, whether it was issue or candidate. mr. wylie: at risk of misspeaking, i am happy to give you a complete list of the clients that were being used at the time. sen. kennedy: who were they? mr. wylie: there were various candidates -- sen. kennedy: what issues and candidates? mr. wylie: there were a network of pacs primarily financed by robert mercer. sen. kennedy: who else? mr. wylie: several senatorial and congressional candidates i believe. sen. kennedy: any issues?

mr. wylie: john bolton's pac, if you consider that an issue -- sen. kennedy: did cambridge analytica work for russia or anyone working with russia while you were there? mr. wylie: we did not have a russian client at the time that i was there. sen. kennedy: ok. i yield back my nine seconds. thank you. sen. grassley: senator lee. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm looking back to early 2014. under the leadership of steve bannon, cambridge analytic a -- cambridge analytic up began testing slogans like "build the wall," "drain the swamp."

then later on in the trump campaign. testing these things before there was a trunk campaign. -- trump campaign. is that correct? mr. wylie: yes. the company was testing slogans like "drain the swamp," paranoia about the deep state before the trump campaign was in existence. sen. leahy: what did they learn from this test? what did they do with it? learnede: the company that there were segments of the population that responded to messages like "drain the swamp" or images of walls, or paranoia about the deep state that were not necessarily always reflected in mainstream polling or political discourse.

that steve bannon was interested in in using to build his movement. sen. leahy: you noted cambridge analytic a didn't actually have employee stuff. it was a front group for the u.k. group. and rebecca mercer, steve bannon, among others on the board of directors. am i correct with all of that? mr. wylie: yes. sen. leahy: our laws prohibit non-americans from working on u.s. campaigns to protect our elections from foreign interference. in 2014, a memo from cambridge analytica made these restrictions very clear. did cambridge analytica follow these legal requirements?

mr. wylie: yes. i am the source that provided the media with that memo. i saw at the tail end of my engagement at cambridge analytica. to my understanding, that memo was disregarded because the ceo continued to be the ceo and they continued to send people to the united states were not american citizens. one thing i would say is many of the people who were sent to the united states who were not american citizens were not privy to that memo and were not made aware that there were potential files -- violations of u.s. law. sen. leahy: facebook has been used in election advertising for some time. if somebody lives in a particular state they can target ads that reflect the interests of that state. cambridge analytica -- correct

me if i am wrong on this, obtained the unauthorized facebook data of 87 million people and then targeted them with manipulative misinformation. is that a correct statement? mr. wylie: that was not everything they did, but yes, that is something they did do. sen. leahy: how does traditional online americans compare with how cambridge analytica used the information? mr. wylie: when you are looking at traditional marketing, it does not misappropriate tens of millions of people's data. if they are performing their duties legally. it is not or should not be targeted at people's mental vulnerabilities, such as paranoia.

or racial biases, traditional marketing does not exacerbate and coerceejudices them and make them believe things that are not necessarily true. sen. leahy: you also said that they were a full-service propaganda machine that discouraged voters are voting -- who are more prone for voting for democratic or liberal candidates. some of their u.s. clients prevailed extremely close races. why did cambridge analytica's american clients investors like the mercer family invest $20 million that these tactics might be helpful? mr. wylie: steve bannon is a follower of something called the breitbart doctrine, which posits that politics is downstream from culture. if you want to have any enduring changes in politics, you have to focus on the culture. when steve bannon uses the term

culture war uses that term pointedly. they were seeking out companies that could build an arsenal of informational weapons to fight that war. that is why they went through a british military contractor that specialized in information operations. i have some questions on the record especially state security services. sen. grassley: let me announce that the record stays open for a week. if you folks get written questions from people that are here, for people that don't come, we would appreciate if you would answer them and get them back to us as soon as you can. senator leahy? -- lee? >> thank you. while you fault cambridge analytica for using its data that it obtained without authorization, at the same time you took that same data with you upon leaving the company.

isn't that right? mr. wylie: because there were no staff at cambridge analytica, most people were contractors or had companies. i received a copy of the data. sen. lee: you had that data and you started your own company. mr. wylie: my company was in existence before i left cambridge analytica because i was a contractor. sen. lee: after leaving the company you had a meeting with a major campaign to discuss some micro-targeting techniques. mr. wylie: that is not true. i did not meet another campaign to discuss that. in reference to that data. sen. lee: it appears that you tried to use some of the same market as your former company.

you were going to use that data for something, right? you were not just going to leave it idle? mr. wylie: to be clear, the data was never used on any commercial. sen. lee: why did you take it with you? mr. wylie: it is not that i took the data with me. it was still in existence at the time that i left. to be clear, i didn't take any data from cambridge analytica. sen. lee: you didn't take it in the sense that it was already with you? mr. wylie: yes. sen. lee: type of work did you anticipate your company would perform? mr. wylie: i work mostly in data analytics looking at different kinds of social trends. after i left cambridge analytica, i continued working on independent projects. to be clear, i did use that data -- did not use that data on any commercial contract. sen. lee: couldn't that data

have proven useful in some of your work? mr. wylie: it could have but i did not sell it. sen. lee: but you could have an had you been successful at that and had you gone on and had you gone on in your business become successful, couldn't you have been at the receiving end of some of these same questions going to cambridge analytica? mr. wylie: yes, but it didn't happen. sen. lee: understood. i want to go over some statements that you have made. in paragraph 15 of your testimony, you say, when i was there, i was made aware of the firm's black ops capacity, which i understood involved having hackers. the firm referred to these operations as special intelligence operations. how did you learn about these capacities? mr. wylie: alexander makes told me. sen. lee: who was involved in these black ops? mr. wylie: my understanding was

that in some of the projects the fcl group had in different parts of the world, misappropriated information was used as compromise in elections against opposition candidates. sen. lee: ok. in paragraph 30, you say, the russian project undertaken by dr. corgan had a particular focus on the dark triad traits of narcissism, murky belly is, josh machiavellianism and sociopathy. they also conducted behavioral research on online trolling. how did you learn all of this and can you describe those projects in more detail? mr. wylie: at the time, the -- dr. cogan told me about some of the research he was doing. he also told the company about

some of the research that was being done. by that team in russia. his email correspondence from the firm that referenced the work he was doing for the russians. it was initially through conversations i had with the -- with dr. cogan and later through the investigative reporting that has been done for the past year, more details have emerged as well. sen. lee: ok. professor hersh, the use of social media to micro-target is a fairly new practice. it's my understanding that to micro-targeting itself is not. sadly, the use of provocative information to either divide the electorate or to mobilize portions of the electorate has a long history in our country's political campaigns. is the use of social media to micro-target different than it -- what it has been done in the

past? mr. hersh: there is a lot we don't know. it often looks the same. responding to senator kennedy, just because the campaign spends a lot of money on a particular ad kind doesn't mean it works. for a long time campaigns were running money on robo calls. countless experiments have shown they do nothing. in an environment where there is a lot going on in the campaign, a lot of campaign ads don't work. nobody in this room changes their mind as a result of the campaign ads of the 2016 election. for someone who was a director of research for cambridge analytical, they should know the actual effect and estimate of which campaign ads do what. part of my skepticism comes because there has been a -- there has been no presentation of any evidence in environments in which someone shows, here is the effect. this ad targeting neuroticism has no effect. it is hard to sort this out as

technology changes from 2004. lots of things are new. one point to come back to is that in a presidential election, when there so much going on, the effect of one kind of ad is usually zero. >> thank you. hello, mr. wylie. you have said that cambridge analytica and the scl group are effectively the same thing and that cambridge analytica was a front facing company. is that correct? mr. wylie: yes. >> what is scl elections? mr. wylie: there is a company in the u.k. called scl group which had several different divisions. the largest division when i first joins was defense. -- joined was defense. defense, scl elections was one of the other divisions. they all handled different

markets for the company. sen. whitehouse: what are scl canada and aggregate iq? mr. wylie: those were subcontractors that were set up during the time i was there to build out software infrastructure. they played a significant role in building the infrastructure. sen. whitehouse: are they the same entity? mr. wylie: you could think of them like a franchise. sen. whitehouse: the ribbon program was a program that developed the software to use the facebook data? mr. wylie: yes. once you have algorithms and a target, you need something to connect those targets with an online display network. that is the role we are going to play. sen. whitehouse: what is global science research? mr. wylie: it was the company that was set up by dr. cogan. sen. whitehouse: you said it became a company to serve as cambridge analytica.

-- service cambridge analytica. mr. wylie: it became a company so that it can sign a contract with cambridge analytica. or rather, technically scl. sen. whitehouse: is it fair to describe the entities that i have just described as a coordinated network? mr. wylie: yes. sen. whitehouse: what was the role of robert mercer in funding the network? mr. wylie: he was the primary funder who put in tens of millions of u.s. dollars in two -- into cambridge analytica, which then distributed that money to that network. sen. whitehouse: did that cambridge analytica network have a reoccurring contract with black cube? mr. wylie: when i was there we did not have a contract with them. sen. whitehouse: have you since become aware of the connection between scl group and black cube and working together on projects? mr. wylie: i have become aware of relationships that the company had with former members

of israeli security. sen. whitehouse: how about asi data science? you have said that company worked on scl projects, that it was a subcontractor to cambridge and linda, -- cambridge analytica and there was a revolving cast of data scientists between that organization and cambridge and let it up. they are frequent contractor? mr. wylie: when i was there, their role was as a supplier as the company was growing. there was an increased demand for more data scientists and they were -- i believe the contract they had was to provide data scientists. do you consider them part of the cambridge analytic a network? if your definition of network is anybody who has an ongoing relationship, then sure. sen. whitehouse: you said the

company palantir had staff that was working with the data at cambridge analytica, that they re were meetings with palantir at palantir offices and that palantir staff helped build the models for the rippon program. is that correct? mr. wylie: to clarify, palantir said that all the work that was antir staffby pal was done in a volunteer capacity. sen. whitehouse:. let's take a quick look at brexit. some of the forces behind brexit leave,vote to leave, be and veterans from britain, correct? mr. wylie: yes. sen. whitehouse: all of them had contracts with aggregate iq? was anything peculiar about their contracts with aggregate iq? mr. wylie: it is highly suggestive of coordination and data sharing. that is currently being investigated by the electoral commission in the u.k. sen. whitehouse: aggregate iq would have been hard to find at the time. it did not even have a website. do we know that they funneled

money into veterans for britain that then went to fund aggregate iq contracts? mr. wylie: we do. sen. whitehouse: do we also have connections between leave.eu and elton insurance related to the q's brexit efforts? brexitie: not aiq's efforts, but that side of the campaign engaged with cambridge analytica. sen. whitehouse:. my time is expired. if there is a second round, i would love to have one. >> i'm going to step out for a few minutes, select the end of his five minutes, you take over. >> mr. wylie, let me start with you, please. the sort of data mining you have been describing and the targeting of messages has multiple applications, correct? it could be a commercial application? for example, when i buy something on amazon or a movie on netflix, they can send the

about something else i might like. the can be used to persuade people in a political campaign for or against a candidate or for or against a particular issue. it also can be used for covert information operations by governments, correct? mr. wylie: all of that is correct. data is like any kind of tool. you can use it for various means. some very beneficial and legal and others not. sen. cornyn: did scl or cambridge analytica serve all comers? in other words, were you open for business to whoever wanted to purchase the services? mr. wylie: that was the impression that i got. nix was quite keen on selling contracts. however, after robert mercer put his investment into cambridge analytica, i do know that the only restriction we had was not to work with democrats. sen. cornyn:.

ok. for example, fusion gps is much in the news. they provided opposition research to the dnc against the trump campaign. the data itself and the means by which you analyze and use it is pretty much agnostic, correct? you can use it for or against a political candidate, product, or for them to information campaign, like we said? mr. wylie: yes. said mr.yn: zuckerberg, when he was here the other day, he kept saying we don't sell data. i responded to him, you clearly rent it. i don't know whether that is a fair characterization or not. how would you characterize social media platforms like facebook's use of personal data? they say they don't sell it. how would you characterize it? mr. wylie: