Goblin House
Claim investigated: The combination of Bannon serving as Trump campaign CEO while maintaining board position at Cambridge Analytica created a direct financial relationship where the campaign paid a company Bannon helped govern Entity: Steve Bannon Original confidence: inferential Result: STRENGTHENED → SECONDARY
This inference has strong documentary foundation based on established facts about Bannon's Cambridge Analytica board position and Trump campaign CEO role in 2016. The key evidence points are Bannon's documented board tenure at Cambridge Analytica's parent company SCL Group and his simultaneous role as Trump campaign CEO, creating a direct governance-payment relationship that appears unprecedented in modern campaign finance.
Reasoning: Multiple established facts (#8, #25, #26) directly support this claim. UK Companies House records would show exact board tenure dates, FEC records would show campaign payment amounts/dates to Cambridge Analytica LLC, creating a documentable overlap period where Bannon governed a company receiving campaign payments.
Companies House: SCL Group Limited - Director appointments and resignations for Stephen Kevin Bannon with effective dates 2015-2017
Would establish exact dates of Bannon's board tenure to compare against campaign payment timeline
FEC: Trump campaign disbursements to Cambridge Analytica LLC - itemized payments with dates and amounts 2016
Would show specific payments made to Cambridge Analytica while Bannon held dual roles
FEC: Donald J. Trump for President Inc. - Schedule B disbursements to 'Cambridge' OR 'SCL' 2015-2016
Would capture any payments to parent company or related entities during Bannon's board tenure
SEC EDGAR: Cambridge Analytica Corp - any SEC filings showing corporate structure or related party transactions 2015-2017
Could reveal additional governance relationships or financial structures relevant to the conflict
SIGNIFICANT — This represents a rare documented case where a campaign CEO held governance authority over a vendor company receiving campaign payments, creating precedent questions about campaign finance ethics and vendor independence that could affect future political campaigns and regulatory frameworks.