https://order-order.com/2018/11/06/information-commissioner-...
(My source could be criticised as biased, but click through to to the actual report by the Information Commissioner's Office if you are suspicious.)
No, just the early statements from Cambridge Analytica and Leave.EU.
Was rather odd that Cambridge Analytica and Leave.EU both claimed to be working together until it started to look bad - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analyt...
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.assets.commercial....
I am not really sure we were good at anything. The company had no direction coming from upper management, so we weren't really able to become experts at anything. The salespeople used the psychographic nonsense to sell to clients, which everyone internal knew was nonsense, so we were sometimes forced to use nonsense to solve problems. We were also forced to tackle impossible challenges because of salespeople's promises. There was very high turnover.
The technical teams were nice and had a lot of smart people. Most were fresh out of uni; first job.
> except the marketing part
I don't think we were particularly good at marketing, unless you mean marketing ourselves as evil geniuses. In which case we were too good for our own good.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/10/labour-part...
https://libertystratcom.org/2018/04/30/brexit-breach-labour-...
Who exactly in the Labour party thought it was a good idea to pinch an election strategy firm from UKIP, that chooses to trade under the name EDL, is beyond me.
What about the other 100 elections in the other 30 countries that were claimed to be won by SCL Elections, CA's parent company?
edit - and what do you think of CA's effect on Brexit? Am in the UK, so have been thinking about CA in light of that, more than any involvement they had with Trump.