zaterdag 18 februari 2023

Revealed: the US adviser who tried to swing Nigeria’s 2015 election




Revealed: the US adviser who tried to swing Nigeria’s 2015 election

Sam Patten, an American consultant later mired in controversy, exploited emails obtained by Tal Hanan’s team

Composite of Sam Patten, Tal Hanan and Alexander Nix
From left: Sam Patten, Tal Hanan and Alexander Nix. Composite: Guardian Design/Getty Images/AP/Haaretz/The Marker/Radio France

I

n late December 2014, a team from Cambridge Analytica flew to Madrid for meetings with a handful of old and new contacts. A member of the former Libyan royal family referred to as “His Royal Highness” was there. So, too, was the son of a US billionaire, a Nigerian businessman and a private Israeli intelligence operative.

For Alexander Nix, the Etonian chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, and his new employee Brittany Kaiser, who networked like most other people breathed, there may have been nothing unusual about such a gathering.

But, by any other measure, it was an unlikely ensemble, not least because last week the identity of the intelligence operative was revealed to be Tal Hanan: an Israeli “black ops” mercenary who, it is now known, claims to have manipulated elections around the world.

Hanan, who operates using the alias “Jorge”, has boasted of meddling in more than 30 elections. His connection to the now defunct Cambridge Analytica offers a revealing insight into what appears to have been a decades-long global election subversion industry.

Hanan’s group, “Team Jorge”, was unmasked by an international consortium of media, including the Guardian and Observer, which revealed the hacking and disinformation tactics it uses to try to sway elections.

Three reporters in Israel went undercover, pretending to be consultants trying to delay an election in a politically unstable African country. They secretly filmed more than six hours of Team Jorge’s pitches, including a live demonstration by Hanan showing how he could use hacking techniques to access the Telegram and Gmail accounts of senior political figures in Kenya. Hanan did not respond to detailed requests for comment but said: “To be clear, I deny any wrongdoing.”

Previously unpublished emails leaked to the Observer and Guardian proved that Hanan had interfered in the 2015 Nigerian presidential election, in an attempt to bolster the electoral prospects of then incumbent president Goodluck Jonathan – and discredit Muhammadu Buhari, his main rival. And he did it in coordination with Cambridge Analytica.

There is no suggestion that Jonathan knew of either Cambridge Analytica or Team Jorge’s ultimately failed attempts to get him re-elected. And the campaign had nothing to do with the hack of Facebook data that propelled the company into the headlines in 2018.

Instead, its most salient feature was a classic dirty tricks campaign. Team Jorge obtained documents from inside the opposition campaign of Buhari that could later be leaked to the media. Cambridge Analytica did the leaking.

That episode has been drawn sharply into focus in recent days. But one name so far not mentioned has been that of Sam Patten, the consultant who managed Cambridge Analytica’s campaign on the ground in Nigeria. Three years later, Patten would come to be known as a cooperating witness in Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

A former state department official, Patten was ultimately charged and pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered foreign agent to a Ukrainian oligarch. And among a memorable cast of characters who wound up as part of Mueller’s investigation, Patten’s business partner, Konstantin Kilimnik, stood out: he was a Russian spy.

A spy who allegedly passed polling data – processed by Cambridge Analytica – from the Trump campaign to Russian intelligence in 2016 and planted false narratives about Ukraine in the 2020 election. Kilimnik was later subjected to sanctions by the US Treasury, which described him as a “known Russian intelligence services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf”. He has denied that he worked for Russian intelligence.

Sam Patten
Sam Patten managed Cambridge Analytica’s campaign on the ground in Nigeria. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images

A campaign so dirty it panicked staff

Close readers of the Observer may fuzzily recall some elements of this story from our coverage of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018. In the news frenzy that followed the Observer and New York Times revelations about the illicit (and now known to be illegal) heist of millions of people’s Facebook data, one story got lost in the mix.

Four days after the original report in the Observer, we published a series of follow-up stories in the Guardian about a campaign so dirty that, even at the time, employees worried that they were implicated in illegal activity. This was the Nigeria campaign that resurfaced this week, with the unmasking of Hanan finally solving the mystery of the identity of the “Israeli consultants” referenced in the story.

In 2018, some employees knew Hanan as “Jorge” but his true identity was unknown. Kaiser, grilled by MPs in parliament, said she could not “recall” his name, and she did not know about his activities until after the event.

Emails leaked to the Guardian and Observer reveal when Nix asked her the real name of “Jorge” from “the Israel black ops co” in May 2015, she replied: “Tal Hanan is CEO of Demoman International.”

Kaiser told the Observer that her parliamentary testimony had been a “daunting experience”, adding: “I didn’t remember the name of the Demoman company when asked.” She said she had no prior knowledge of the methods Team Jorge would end up using in Nigeria, and downplayed her role in the campaign.

Cambridge Analytica and Team Jorge were, she said, working “separately but in parallel” for the same client – the Nigerian businessman both sides had met during the gathering in Madrid. “Alexander flew in for this one to pitch the Nigerians and separately so did Jorge,” Kaiser recalled.

After the Madrid meeting, Kaiser said, she was not involved in any “operational matters with Jorge” in relation to the Nigeria campaign, which was led by a team on the ground. “I sent some emails to put everyone in contact with each other and sort out who was doing what as time was short,” she added.

The emails suggest that Patten would, as part of his role at Cambridge Analytica, take responsibility for exploiting the material that Hanan obtained from the Nigerian opposition. Despite anxiety over the material, which panicked staff had assumed had been “hacked”, someone at Cambridge Analytica combed through the documents, looking for dirt on the opposition candidates.

And it was Patten who appears to have leaked select documents to BuzzFeed and the Washington Free Beacon.

‘Ghost’ campaign in Nigeria

In January 2015, Patten found himself parachuted into Abuja, Nigeria, to lead a last-minute $1.8m “ghost” campaign for SCL (Cambridge Analytica) in support of President Jonathan and against Buhari. Kaiser had helped land the contract in her first weeks with the company.

In her memoir, Targeted, she writes that it was her friend, a former Libyan prince, who introduced her to “wealthy Nigerian oil industry billionaires” who wanted a last-minute anonymous campaign to help get Jonathan re-elected.

Emails obtained by the Observer show that Kaiser’s travel schedule in December 2014, when she was helping seal the contract, was a whirlwind of meetings across three continents with highly placed contacts and a complicated web of different, though often overlapping, projects.

One was the last-minute attempt to affect the outcome of the west African election. While the wealthy Nigerian client hired Cambridge Analytica and Team Jorge on separate contracts, the expectation was that both sides would coordinate.

Within a fortnight of the Madrid meeting, Patten flew into Abuja. He is understood to have coordinated with others in the country against Buhari – among them Hanan, who sources say he met in a hotel in Abuja. Another Team Jorge operative working in Nigeria did so under the alias “Joel”.

Hanan claimed in emails that they had entered the country on a “special visa”. A highly placed source told the Observer in 2017 that the Israeli contractors travelled on Ukrainian passports and that their fee for work in Nigeria – $500,000 – was transmitted via Switzerland into a Ukrainian bank account.

A busy time for Sam Patten

In press reports, Patten has said he was not involved in Cambridge Analytica’s controversial data-targeting practices. The work he performed for the now defunct firm, he told New York magazine in 2019, was more “standard”, described as analysis, speechwriting, ads and “attempts to sway the media”.

But the consortium’s investigation and previous reporting by the Observer suggest a different story. It was a busy time for Patten, whose work in Nigeria took place days before he founded a new company – Begemot Ventures – with Konstantin Kilimnik, the Ukrainian-born political consultant alleged to be a Russian intelligence agent by the US government.

According to the emails, Patten flew to London at the end of January. That was where, according to the subject line of one email, a “final sweep” of the material that Team Jorge had obtained using deceptive measures was undertaken. There is no evidence that Patten knew about the nefarious methods through which that material had been obtained by the Israelis

But others at the firm were alarmed. Cambridge Analytica employees who worked in the company’s office in Mayfair, central London, told the Observer in 2018 how they had been given a thumb drive by two Israeli operatives, one of whom is now known to be Hanan. Employees described their panic when they realised they were looking at private emails that they assumed had been illegally hacked, with one said to have “freaked out”.

Tal Hanan.
Tal Hanan was exposed this week as the leader of Team Jorge, a hacking and disinformation unit. Photograph: Source: Haaretz/TheMarker/Radio France

Kaiser told parliament that episode was “concerning”. But she said she did not believe the emails had been “hacked” in the classic sense, via computer, but by a person hired by the Israeli team to physically infiltrate the Buhari campaign and illicitly download them there.

Whatever the case, it was Cambridge Analytica’s job to search for dirt. We “continue to analyse the information that we received from Jorge to see if there is anything that would ignite the international press”, an employee told a representative of the client. “If we find something, then we will push it.”

Patten, it would appear, was focused on exactly that. The problem was that the data dump was disappointing. Referring to “the matter that brought us back to London”, Patten asked colleagues: “Did anyone come up with anything that could be of interest? My overall read is that, while a good insight into campaign thinking, there are few silver bullets or smoking guns.”

He added that he would “use the AKPD bits”. That was a reference to emails revealing that AKPD Message and Media, the political consultancy founded by David Axelrod, a former chief strategist to Barack Obama, had briefly been hired by the Buhari campaign.

“What are our media pitch angles?” Patten asked the next day, in an email enumerating three points, including that “B’s [Buhari’s] actual positions are obscured by a slick ‘change’ campaign steered by well-heeled American consultants”.

Hours later, he sent another email: “Boom. Story 1 in progress, background sources needed, off the record, who other than me can do?” He then sent another email to clarify that he needed someone on the team to speak to a journalist to tell them Buhari, the leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was “running a tight, American-style campaign with discipline and a scripted message”.

Five days later, an article appeared in BuzzFeed headlined “Firm founded by David Axelrod worked in Nigerian election as recently as December”. It referenced “emails between top APC officials obtained by BuzzFeed News”, which echoed Patten’s talking points.

On the same day, another article appeared in the Washington Free Beacon that also referenced the leaked emails. It cited “a series of emails” obtained by the conservative news website “between senior APC party members and advisers”.

BuzzFeed declined to comment. The Washington Free Beacon did not respond to a request for comment. When reached by phone, Patten said he had no recollection of a man named Tal Hanan or Jorge, and was “not involved” in anything having to do with the “Israeli hackers” who were previously the subject of media attention.

When asked whether he had ever contacted reporters to discuss AKPD working for Buhari, he paused. “I’m not going to get into that,” he said, before ending the conversation. He did not respond to further requests for comment. Nix did not respond to questions, other than to say this newspaper’s “purported understanding is disputed”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/18/cambridge-analytica-staff-leaked-emails-team-jorge-nigeria-election-sam-patten-tal-hanan

The Search for Dirt on the Twitter Whistle-Blower




The Search for Dirt on the Twitter Whistle-Blower

Many of Peiter (Mudge) Zatko’s former colleagues have received offers of payment for information about him.

On August 23rd, a Slack chat for former employees of the payments company Stripe began filling with accounts of strange queries about an ex-colleague. “I’m getting inundated with paid interview requests,” one of the former employees, Dan Foster, wrote. Another, Marty Wasserman, later posted that he’d received a similar message via e-mail. “Hi Marty, Hope you’re having a great week!” the message read. “I’m currently working on a project regarding leadership in tech, and my client is hoping to speak to an experienced professional about a particular individual you may have worked with.” The message requested a “45-60 minute compensated phone consultation.” Wasserman was suspicious of the timing. “Preeeettyy sure this is regarding Mudge,” he wrote, pasting it in the Slack chat with his former colleagues. “Hard pass.”

Hours earlier, CNN and the Washington Post had reported that Twitter’s former head of security, Peiter (Mudge) Zatko, had filed a whistle-blower disclosure to federal agencies, accusing the social-media platform of reckless security practices. Zatko’s sweeping claims, if proven, could aid Elon Musk in his attempt to terminate his forty-four-billion-dollar agreement to acquire Twitter, a legal fight with implications of billions of dollars for investors. The dozens of e-mails and LinkedIn messages received by people in Zatko’s professional orbit appeared to be mostly from research-and-advisory companies, part of a burgeoning industry whose clients include investment firms and individuals jockeying for financial advantage through information. At least six research outfits—Gerson Lehrman Group (G.L.G.), AlphaSights, Mosaic Research Management, Ridgetop Research, Coleman Research Group, and Guidepoint—approached former colleagues of Zatko’s at Stripe, Google, and the Pentagon research agency darpa. All offered to pay for information, sometimes noting that the compensation would be high or apparently unrestricted. At least two investment firms, Farallon Capital Management L.L.C. and Pentwater Capital Management L.P., also sought information from individuals close to Zatko.

An associate at AlphaSights reached out to Wasserman via e-mail. She did not identify her firm’s client, but she wrote that they wanted to understand Zatko’s “personality, leadership style, validity and history.” She added, “We compensate well because we know this is a difficult and confusing ask at first.” Another Stripe veteran, Jaclyn Schoof, wrote to the Slack group that she had received the same offer from AlphaSights. “They said they didn’t care how much it would cost them… seems really weird,” she said. A fourth member of the group, Niels Provos, who had worked with Zatko at Google and was later persuaded by him to fill his role at Stripe, received offers of payment from AlphaSights, as well as from two other firms, Farallon and Mosaic. “They were happy to pay $1000/hr when I was fishing for more information,” he wrote, of Farallon’s consultant. (A spokesperson for Farallon said that payment was discussed only after Provos broached the subject.)

The consultant told Provos that its analysts were assessing Zatko’s “personality professionally and socially,” his “strengths and weaknesses,” “motives for his whistle-blower complaint and any similar past complaints,” his “need for attention,” and whether he was a “zealot or ideologue,” “conspiratorial,” or “vengeful.” She also said they were interested in Zatko’s “view of Elon Musk and Musk’s bid for Twitter.” G.L.G. included links to detailed sets of questions discussing Zatko and Twitter’s C.E.O., Parag Agrawal. “In regards to Peiter Zatko, can you discuss thoughts on recent news with Peiter, what he did, why he was fired from TWTR?” read one of G.L.G.’s questions.

The firms cast a wide net. Some of the recipients, such as Wasserman, knew Zatko well, but others, including Foster, had never met him. More than a dozen of the people who received the messages told me that they found them unusual, compared with other research inquiries, because of their aggressiveness, persistence, or focus on an individual, as opposed to a product or a technology. One of the messages from G.L.G. suggested that the information was intended for an investment firm, Davidson Kempner Capital Management L.P. (A source close to G.L.G. told me that it represents multiple clients with an interest in Zatko but has no connection to Twitter and added that compensation for experts is standard.) Farallon, an investment firm rather than an expert network, identified itself in its inquiries. The other companies declined to identify their clients, though at least one told recipients that they were working on behalf of an unnamed hedge fund.

As the inquiries proliferated, the group of ex-Stripe employees began to believe, Wasserman told me, “that multiple different sources, multiple different people, multiple different companies, were all basically trying to dig up dirt on Mudge, all seemingly at the same time.” The firms, Provos surmised, were “trying to get information that could further discredit Mudge,” an effort that “seemed incredibly shady.” Jonathan Kaltwasser, Stripe’s former chief information security officer and a member of the Slack group, quickly alerted Zatko.

“My family and I are disturbed by what appears to be a campaign to approach our friends and former colleagues under apparently false pretenses with offers of money in exchange for information about us,” Zatko told me. “These tactics should be beneath whoever is behind them.” On Tuesday, Zatko is expected to testify before Congress and may reveal new details about what he has said are glaring data-security lapses by Twitter. He is also expected to play a key role in a trial set to begin next month in a Delaware courtroom, during which Musk will seek to be released from his agreement to acquire Twitter. Musk’s attorneys have subpoenaed Zatko, and a judge ruled last week that Musk could amend his countersuit to include Zatko’s allegations. A Twitter spokesperson, Rebecca Hahn, told me, “We look forward to presenting our case in Court beginning on October 17th and intend to close the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon with Mr. Musk.”

Sources close to three of the firms—Farallon, Mosaic, and G.L.G.—suggested that they were simply trying to obtain information about Zatko to guide stock trades involving Twitter and maximize profits. A person familiar with G.L.G.’s business said the outreach was “an attempt to assess the credibility of the allegations” and meant “to better inform investment decisions.” A spokesperson for AlphaSights said that, “as a matter of policy and contractual obligations, we do not disclose the identity of our clients.” Hahn, the Twitter spokesperson, told me, “We have no role in nor did we commission expert networks research regarding Mr. Zatko.” Two members of Musk’s team, who asked not to be named, owing to the sensitivity of the ongoing litigation, said that they also had no connection to the inquiries. “There’s a lot of hedge funds currently betting that the deal flows. And so they’re doing everything they possibly can to undermine that not happening,” one of them told me. “It’s obviously wrong. You can’t discredit a witness, as opposed to listening to what he has to say and taking seriously these security threats. . . . That should be the priority, not making a buck.”

Almost all of the inquiries that The New Yorker was able to document came from “expert networks,” enterprises that recruit specialists from various fields, like Zatko’s former colleagues, to share their knowledge with Wall Street investment firms and other companies. The firms deployed to uncover information about Zatko span the globe. According to its Web site, AlphaSights employs more than a thousand people, in nine cities around the world. Ridgetop, Mosaic, and Guidepoint are all New York-based firms of varying sizes. Coleman Research, a subsidiary of a Japanese company, maintains a network of four hundred and sixty thousand experts, while G.L.G.’s Web site claims a network of a million experts. The investment firm Farallon was founded in 1986 by the businessman and liberal activist Tom Steyer, who sought the Democratic nomination for President in 2020, and now maintains offices worldwide. Pentwater, another investment firm, which contacted one of Zatko’s attorneys seeking information, is one of Twitter’s ten largest shareholders.

The value of the sprawling expert-network industry surpassed $1.9 billion in 2021. The legality of the investigations conducted by such firms depends on the specific tactics used. They must strike a delicate balance, providing useful information to clients without running afoul of laws related to fraud, harassment, privacy, and insider trading. (In 2012, a G.L.G. expert was implicated in an elaborate insider-trading scheme uncovered by the S.E.C. He settled out of court. The firm was not accused of wrongdoing.) In 2016, a judge ruled that Uber’s hiring of a research firm called Ergo to interview, under false pretenses, people connected to the plaintiff in a lawsuit constituted “a reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration of fraud.” (The case later resulted in a settlement.) Michael Volkov, of the Volkov Law Group and an expert in ethics and compliance issues, told me that the inquiries received by Zatko’s associates were “definitely not something that is normal.” He added, “Seeking such information from former employees, without full disclosure of the interested party and without complete understanding of what confidentiality restrictions may be applicable to that party is beyond risky. . . . potentially illegal and could result easily in civil litigation.”

The apparent urgency and aggressiveness of the inquiries around Zatko underscore the enormous financial stakes bound up in Twitter’s dispute with Musk. If the judge rules that Musk must complete the acquisition, it will greatly enhance Twitter’s stock value; if he is permitted to walk away, the stock may crater. A spokesperson for Farallon told me that the moment reports of the whistle-blower claim broke, Zatko’s reputation became tied to billions of dollars of market value. “The value of Twitter stock depends on the outcome of the litigation and what happens with the buyout. The announcement that there even was a whistle-blower case impacted the stock price right off the bat,” the spokesperson said. “Investors have been trying to get their bearings, assessing the whistle-blower’s credibility, and to decide whether to buy or sell.”

One of Zatko’s attorneys, John Tye, of Whistleblower Aid, said that the inquiries highlight the many barriers whistle-blowers face in coming forward. “There’s a lot of people with a lot of interest in attacking his credibility,” he told me. “Campaigns to source disparaging information under apparently false pretenses is something we’ve seen when the facts of the disclosure are beyond dispute.”

Twitter hired Zatko, a prominent hacker and a respected network-security expert, in 2020, several months after the platform sustained a grievous breach, during which teen-agers hacked the accounts of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Kanye West, and used them to solicit Bitcoin payments. This January, Zatko was fired by Agrawal, Twitter’s C.E.O. Hahn, the Twitter spokesperson, said that Zatko was fired because of “poor performance and ineffective leadership.” Zatko disputes that. His legal team wrote in a statement that Zatko was removed after he “repeatedly raised concerns about Twitter’s grossly inadequate information security systems.”

Twitter later agreed to pay Zatko a seven-million-dollar settlement for lost compensation, the Wall Street Journal reported last week. A source with knowledge of the settlement, who asked not to be named, told me that the company hoped that nondisclosure provisions in the agreement would prevent Zatko from airing criticism of the company but left open the possibility that he could do so as a whistle-blower to federal agencies. In July, Zatko filed his disclosure to the S.E.C., the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice—an eighty-four-page document arguing that Twitter was replete with “egregious” security vulnerabilities and susceptible to foreign influence, which could pose a threat to national security. He also said that the company was led by executives willing to cover up the platform’s security issues, including by discouraging Zatko from informing its board of directors about them. (Hahn, the Twitter spokesperson, told me that Zatko’s portrayal of the company was “riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies, and lacks important context.”)


None of the members of the Stripe chat who spoke with me said that they accepted payment or agreed to speak to the firms about Zatko, and all said they wished to defend his credibility. For Zatko, the inquiries have been another source of anxiety in a dizzying period that has thrust him into an intense spotlight. He has been simultaneously preparing for his upcoming Congressional testimony—to which he has devoted long hours of preparation in recent days—and for a deposition in the Musk trial. “When I decided to become a lawful whistle-blower, I knew my claims would be aggressively scrutinized, and I welcome that,” he told me.

“What I didn’t expect and find so disappointing are the anonymously sourced ad-hominem attacks—and especially the harassment of our friends, to find new ways to disparage and undermine us.”