FACTS OF THE MATTER: Trump, Russia and the 2016 U.S. presidential election

FACTS UNDER OATH

GRAHAM: OK. Do you stand by your testimony that there is an active investigation counterintelligence investigation regarding Trump campaign individuals in the Russian government as to whether not to collaborate? You said that in March...

COMEY: To see if there was any coordination between the Russian effort and peoples...

GRAHAM: Is that still going on?

COMEY: Yes.

GRAHAM: OK. So nothing's changed. You stand by those two statements?

COMEY: Correct. ……

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN.: Thanks. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Director Comey for being here and thank you to you and the men and women who work with you at the FBI for their extraordinary service to our country, much of it unappreciated as you've wrote so powerfully in your opening statement. You have confirmed, I believe, that the FBI is investigating potential ties between Trump Associates and the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, correct?

COMEY: Yes.

BLUMENTHAL: And you have not, to my knowledge, ruled out anyone in the Trump campaign as potentially a target of that criminal investigation, correct?

COMEY: Well, I haven't said anything publicly about who we've opened investigations on, I briefed the chair and ranking on who those people are. And so I can't -- I can't go beyond that in this setting. [FBI Director James B. Comey responds to a questions from Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican-South Carolina) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (Democrat-Connecticut) during the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation”, commencing 10am US EDT 3 May 2017, transcript published in The Washington Post]

With respect to the Russian investigation, we treated it like we did with the Clinton investigation. We didn't say a word about it until months into it and then the only thing we've confirmed so far about this is the same thing with the Clinton investigation. That we are investigating. And I would expect, we're not going to say another peep about it until we're done. And I don't know what will be said when we're done, but that's the way we handled the Clinton investigation as well…….

In that particular investigation, my judgment was that it — that the appearance of fairness and independence required that it be removed from the political chain of command within the Department of Justice, because as you recall, it seems like a lifetime ago. But that also involved the conduct of people who were senior-level people in the White House, and my judgment was that even I, as an independent-minded person, was a political appointee and so I ought to give it to a career person like Pat Fitzgerald.

The Russians used cyber operations against both political parties, including hacking into servers used by the Democratic National Committee and releasing stolen data to WikiLeaks and other media outlets. Russia also collected on certain Republican Party- affiliated targets, but did not release any Republican-related data. The Intelligence Community Assessment concluded first that President Putin directed and influenced campaign to erode the faith and confidence of the American people in our presidential election process. Second, that he did so to demean Secretary Clinton, and third, that he sought to advantage Mr. Trump. These conclusions were reached based on the richness of the information gathered and analyzed and were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me. [JAMES R. CLAPPER JR., former Director Of National Intelligence August 2010–January 2017, giving evidence before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election”, commencing 4.30am AEST 9 May 2017, transcript published in The Washington Post]

When the Intelligence Community obtains information suggesting that a U.S. person is acting on behalf of a foreign power, the standard procedure is to share that information with the FBI. The Bureau then decides whether to look into that information and handles any ensuing investigation, if there is one.

Given its sensitivity, even the existence of a counterintelligence investigation is closely held, including at the highest levels. During my tenure as DNI, it was my practice to defer to the FBI Director – both Director Mueller and Director Comey – on whether, when, and to what extent they would inform me about such investigations. This stems from the unique position of the FBI, which straddles both intelligence and law enforcement. As a consequence, I was not aware of the counterintelligence investigation Director Comey first referred to during his testimony before the House intelligence committee on March 20th, and that comports with my public statements. [JAMES R. CLAPPER, former Director of National Intelligence, giving evidence before the U.S. Committee On The Judiciary Subcommittee On Crime And Terrorism United States Senate investigation into “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election”, 8 May 2017, transcript]

I had two in-person meetings and one phone call with the White House Counsel about Mr. Flynn. The first meeting occurred on January 26, called Don McGahn first thing that morning and told him that I had a very sensitive matter that I needed to discuss with him, that I couldn't talk about it on the phone and that I needed to come see him. And he agreed to meet with me later that afternoon.

I took a senior member of the national security division who was overseeing this matter with me to meet with Mr. McGahn. We met in his office at the White House which is a skiff (ph) so we could discuss classified information in his office. We began our meeting telling him that there had been press accounts of statements from the vice president and others that related conduct that Mr. Flynn had been involved in that we knew not to be the truth.

And as I - as I tell you what happened here, again I'm going to be very careful not to reveal classified information…..

So I told them again that there were a number of press accounts of statements that had been made by the vice president and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn's conduct that we knew to be untrue. And we told them how we knew that this - how we had this information, how we had acquired it, and how we knew that it was untrue.

And we walked the White House Counsel who also had an associate there with him through General Flynn's underlying conduct, the contents of which I obviously cannot go through with you today because it's classified. But we took him through in a fair amount of detail of the underlying conduct, what General Flynn had done, and then we walked through the various press accounts and how it had been falsely reported.

We also told the White House Counsel that General Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI on February 24. Mr. McGahn asked me how he did and I declined to give him an answer to that. And we then walked through with Mr. McGahn essentially why we were telling them about this and the first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself.

Secondly, we told him we felt like the vice president and others were entitled to know that the information that they were conveying to the American people wasn't true. And we wanted to make it really clear right out of the gate that we were not accusing Vice President Pence of knowingly providing false information to the American people.

And, in fact, Mr. McGahn responded back to me to let me know that anything that General Flynn would've said would have been based -- excuse me -- anything that Vice President Pence would have said would have been based on what General Flynn had told him.

We told him the third reason was -- is because we were concerned that the American people had been misled about the underlying conduct and what General Flynn had done, and additionally, that we weren't the only ones that knew all of this, that the Russians also knew about what General Flynn had done.

And the Russians also knew that General Flynn had misled the vice president and others, because in the media accounts, it was clear from the vice president and others that they were repeating what General Flynn had told them, and that this was a problem because not only did we believe that the Russians knew this, but that they likely had proof of this information.

And that created a compromise situation, a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians. Finally, we told them that we were giving them all of this information so that they could take action, the action that they deemed appropriate.

I remember that Mr. McGahn asked me whether or not General Flynn should be fired, and I told him that that really wasn't our call, that was up to them, but that we were giving them this information so that they could take action, and that was the first meeting.

[SALLY C. YATES, former Deputy U.S. Attorney-General & former Acting Attorney-General January 2015-January 2017, giving evidence before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election”, commencing 4.30am AEST 9 May 2017, transcript published in The Washington Post]

‘ALTERNATIVE FACTS’

[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861712617299210240 & https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861713233786404864]

via @SeanMcElwee 

HOLT: Monday, you met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Did you ask for a recommendation?
TRUMP: What I did was, I was going to fire. My decision. I was not...
HOLT: You’d made the decision before they came into the room?
TRUMP: I was going to fire Comey. There’s no good time to do it by the way.
HOLT: In your letter, you said, ‘I accept their recommendation.’ 
TRUMP: Oh, I was going to fire, regardless of recommendation. He made a recommendation, he’s highly respected — very good guy, very smart guy. And the Democrats like him, Republicans like him. He made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. [Excerpt from NBC News Lester Holt interview with Donald Trump on 11 May 2017]

Is Pauline Hanson failing to fully comply with state and federal electoral laws - again?

It almost beggars belief. Is Pauline Hanson failing to fully comply with state and federal electoral laws – again?

ABC News PHOTO: Pauline Hanson stands in front of the plane that former One Nation members say Bill McNee funded. (Supplied: One Nation)

The Saturday Paper, 29 April-5 May 2017:

One Nation risks deregistration in Queensland following the failure of Pauline Hanson to advise the Electoral Commission of Queensland about a botched incorporation that has left it with a noncompliant constitution. The party secretly switched legal structures last November without telling members, using a draconian clause in its superseded governance rules that allowed One Nation state executive members to do whatever they chose without question. Former insiders have said a principal purpose for the incorporation was to put in place a corporate veil so the entity rather than members of the executive would be the subject of legal action.

The method of incorporation and the failure to consult is consistent with a trend of centralising all of One Nation’s power in Queensland, which has in the past been illustrated by attempts to close branches across the country through the use of proxies to forcibly remove “troublesome” state leaders, attempts to close bank accounts over which the One Nation national committee had no authority, and the initiation of complaints to police to intimidate a sub-branch in the Northern Territory.

At the same time, the party neglected to observe mandatory rules contained in Commonwealth and Queensland electoral laws, which must be included in its constitution for One Nation to be a political party with legal standing. Breaches of provisions that specify which clauses must appear for a constitution to be compliant under law are grounds for the cancellation of a party’s registration under Section 78 of Queensland’s Electoral Act.

Neither Senator Hanson nor the deputy registered officer – party treasurer and Hanson’s brother-in-law Greg Smith – informed the electoral commission of the changes in legal structure of the entity. There were two reporting deadlines missed by One Nation – notification of the changes should have been delivered seven days after December 31 and March 31. 

News of One Nation’s constitutional high jinks follows revelations over the past six months related to the party’s preselection and disendorsement processes during the West Australian election, questions about its compliance with goods and services tax legislation, and doubts about the donation and declaration of an aeroplane to Pauline Hanson for campaigning purposes.

It also follows a network-wide ban of the ABC, announced in a Facebook video posted by Hanson after the April 3 airing of a Four Corners report that highlighted a range of issues faced by One Nation. The program, criticised by Hanson and her colleagues as a media “stitch-up”, has resulted in a formal investigation by the Australian Electoral Commission, related to the donation of the two-seater plane.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is the business name of One Nation Queensland Division Incorporated, which was an unincorporated association since it registered on January 23, 2001. That changed last year when the entity was incorporated with the same ABN. 

The entity is regarded as the same for tax purposes and the name of the unincorporated body has transitioned into the incorporated form……

Crikey.com.au, 5 April 2017:

And that’s where the law comes in. The facts as we know them are that Ashby has a plane, in which he flies Hanson around the country on what is clearly One Nation business. Hanson herself has made numerous public statements, including on the party website, asserting that the plane belongs to One Nation. It is literally plastered with her name and face.

One Nation is a registered political party. The Commonwealth Electoral Act requires each party, and each of its state branches, to lodge an annual return with the Australian Electoral Commission, within 16 weeks after the end of each financial year. The annual return must include disclosure of all amounts received by, or on behalf of, the party from any single source totalling more than $13,000 (for the 2015-2016 year).

Donations are expressly defined as including the value of a gift. There is no room for doubt that, if a generous supporter gave an aeroplane to an official of the party, so that that official could fly the leader of the party around the countryside on party business, then the gift of the plane (or the cash to buy the plane, if that’s what happened) would be required to be disclosed in the party’s next annual return to the AEC.

Queensland has its own political donation disclosure laws, which are tougher than the federal regime. Returns are required to be lodged six-monthly, all gifts over $1000 must be disclosed, and any gift worth more than $100,000 has to be reported within seven business days.

One Nation’s Queensland Electoral Commission return for the relevant period in 2016 discloses nothing about the aircraft purchase or gift, but it does include an expenditure item of $1187.09 paid by the party to “Jabiru Aircraft Service”. There are numerous payments to Ashby’s companies for printing services, totalling some $17,000 in the same period. Who was paying for the running costs of the aircraft is a mystery.

But it’s pretty simple, really. Whoever paid for Hanson’s plane — however they paid for it and who legally or beneficially owns it — it was, in form and substance, a gift to the direct benefit of her eponymous political party, and she has treated it and talked about it as exactly that for the past two years…..

The Australian, 2 May 2017:

One Nation’s Senator Hanson shifted her story again on Monday night and said a $106,000 plane “came from” party donor Vicland’s Bill McNee to be used by her chief of staff James Ashby, but it was not a donation.

“So the plane came from Bill McNee, but it was not for the party it was to James for his business?” Sky News’ Andrew Bolt asked.

“Correct,” she answered……

Last night Senator Hanson said the Victorian businessman had allowed Mr Ashby to use the plane.

“He didn’t donate the plane to James Ashby. Having met James, they became friends,” Senator Hanson told Sky News.

“Bill’s a developer and he actually has a lot of business that he does in Queensland, and Bill was continually looking around for a plane.

“He found out James was a pilot (and) he thought: “Here’s a great opportunity to actually have a plane and to actually ¬use it as well.’ ”

The Australian, 3 May 2017:

Pauline Hanson’s controversial chief of staff says he has a “crossover” business relationship with the Melbourne property developer and political donor at the centre of a disclosure row over the purchase of the light plane used by the One Nation leader for election campaigning.

But James Ashby, whose iron-fisted control of Senator Hanson’s office has created ructions inside the party, insisted yesterday that he bought the $106,000 Jabiru 23-D aircraft in 2015 for recreational use and for his printing business in Queensland.

Senator Hanson raised further questions about the status of the plane on Monday when she confirmed on Sky News it had “come from” Bill McNee, but was for Mr Ashby’s firm, not her travel for One Nation.

This conflicts with the media-shy businessman’s assertion that he had no knowledge of the aircraft or how Mr Ashby acquired it. Mr McNee’s company, Vicland, is the Hanson party’s biggest donor, though in a rare interview last November he told The Australian he was stopping all political donations because “it’s something I don’t believe in any longer”.

Pressed on whether he had provided funds to Mr Ashby to buy the plane two years ago, Mr McNee said: “My God, if I am going to buy a plane, I would buy one for myself.” He hung up when contacted yesterday.

The Australian Electoral Commission is investigating whether the acquisition of the plane by Mr Ashby and its use to fly Senator Hanson to campaign events in Queensland before her re-election to federal parliament last July subverted financial disclosure laws.

BACKGROUND

The Guardian, 20 August 2003:

The fiery redhead, renowned for her garish wardrobe, had pleaded not guilty to fraudulently registering One Nation in the state of Queensland. She also denied dishonestly obtaining A$500,000 (£206,000) in electoral funds used for the campaigns of 11 politicians elected to the Queensland state parliament….

Prosecutors had accused Hanson and Ettridge of passing off a list of 500 supporters as genuine, paid-up members of One Nation in order to register the party and apply for electoral funding.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 August 2003:

Former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and party co-founder David Ettridge have been jailed for three years each after being found guilty of fraud charges by a Brisbane District Court jury.

Judge Patsy Wolfe made no recommendation for parole.

           

Hanson, 49, and Ettridge, 58, had pleaded not guilty to fraudulently registering One Nation in Queensland on December 4, 1997.

Hanson had also pleaded not guilty to dishonestly obtaining almost $500,000 in electoral reimbursements after the 1998 state election.

But a Brisbane District Court jury found the pair guilty on all counts after more than nine hours of deliberations.

ABC Radio, PM, 6 November 2003:

MARK COLVIN: But first, the freeing of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge. The One Nation co-founders have won their bid to get out of jail, after successfully overturning their convictions and their three-year sentences for electoral fraud.

Eleven weeks ago, Hanson and Ettridge were both sentenced to three years jail, after a jury found that they'd fraudulently registered the One Nation Party which they'd founded. Hanson was also found guilty of fraudulently obtaining nearly half a million dollars in electoral funding.

But they'll soon be released from jail, and family and friends were elated by the decision when it came down at Queensland's Court of Appeal this evening.

Is this the Peter Dutton version of "Children Overboard"*

Australian Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Liberal MP for Dixon and multi-millionaire Peter Craig Dutton during a Sky News interview on 20 April  2017:

“There was an alleged incident where three asylum seekers were alleged to be leading a local five-year-old boy back toward the facility”

ABC TV Insiders, excerpt, 23 April 2017:

CASSIDY: I want to ask you about the recent disturbance at Manus Island. You recently linked that to a situation where you said that a 5-year-old boy was led away by three asylum seekers and that caused the mood to elevate quite quickly. Now, that's not true, is it?

DUTTON: Of course, it is true.

CASSIDY: It's not true.

DUTTON: It is true. And the briefing that I've had is particularly succinct and clear.

CASSIDY: Who gave you this information?

DUTTON: Well Barrie, I have senior people on the island. We also have obviously, significant contacts with the governor and people of Manus.

CASSIDY: You didn't speak with the police commander, clearly?

DUTTON: I can give you the facts in relation to it or you can take the Twitter version.

CASSIDY: Well let me give you what I understand the facts to be. The boy wasn't five, he was ten. It didn't happen on the day of the disturbance, it happened a week before the disturbance and there's CCTV footage outside of tent number one that shows the boy went inside and the people are packing fruit into plastic bags. They gave him the fruit and he left.

DUTTON: So let me give you the facts. The fact is that as people would understand, Manus Island is home not only to the regional processing centre but also to the naval base there as well. The point that I was making and certainly the clear advice that I received was that there had been a ramping up in terms of the mood on the ground over a period of time which included a sexual assault, to which you've made no reference, separate to any incident that we're talking about here.

CASSIDY: The sexual assault, that you're talking about two people have been charged with sexual assault but deny the charges.

DUTTON: So as you imagine ...

CASSIDY: You're an ex-Queensland policeman. You know that you're presumed innocent don't you?

DUTTON: Of course, but you're going to the mood on the ground which is not something that you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt in court. You're talking about what the elevation of the mood was on the ground and it was elevated by these allegations around this sexual assault. Now let that go through the courts -

CASSIDY: Elevated by the incident involving the 5-year-old boy?

DUTTON: Well just let me finish. So you've got the sexual assault, which as you say, can be heard in court. Everybody deserves innocence and I don't make any judgement about that. But I'm saying that that it did elevate the mood on the ground. And second to that, there is this incident which is being investigated by the police. Now, that will run its course.

CASSIDY: The police are investigating this incident around the 5-year-old boy?

DUTTON: Yes, they are.

CASSIDY: Do they understand that he's 10 and not 5?

DUTTON: I'll leave the detail to them.

CASSIDY: The detail is important in these matters?

DUTTON: It is. But if your claim is that the mood on the ground hadn't been elevated ...

CASSIDY: It's not my claim. The police commander says that there's CCTV footage showing that the boy was waiting outside the gate, he was looking for food. Food was placed into a plastic bag and given to him. He was ten years old and it happened a week before the disturbance and he left. That's the extent of it. Now how is that relevant to anything?

DUTTON: Well Barrie, I'm not sure whether you can be the judge, jury and executioner in this matter.

CASSIDY: The police commander said this.

DUTTON: Let's allow the police investigation to be conducted.

CASSIDY: Well why didn't you do that? Why didn't you let that happen?

DUTTON: I received different advice from that.

CASSIDY: Why didn't you let the investigation happen before you pre-empted it?

DUTTON: I was asked why the mood had elevated on the ground on Manus Island. These two incidents fed directly into that. That is indisputable. So if you're asking me about why there was an elevation of the angst between those that are living, including on the naval base on Manus, this was part of it. And that was the clear advice to me.

CASSIDY: Do you accept that you got some of the information badly wrong?

DUTTON: No, I do not. And again -

CASSIDY: The age of the boy? The intentions, whether he was led into the facility? He went in and took a plastic bag of fruit and left?

DUTTON: Again Barrie, I think that there are facts that I have that you don't so why don't we let the police investigation run its course and allow them some independent analysis of it because if you're asking me why the mood elevated, these two incidents fed into it and I have that on very good authority on the island. The parents of the boy involved in the incident might have a different view to the one that you have read off tweets and that's fine.

CASSIDY: The police commander said that this happened because there was a soccer game going on beyond a six o'clock curfew and that's what caused the disturbance and he said that some of the PNG soldiers were drunk. And yet, you put all of the blame on the asylum seekers.

DUTTON: I didn't put any blame anywhere. I was asked a question as to why the mood was elevated, I've answered that question honestly and on advice. In relation to the soccer game and the incident otherwise, yes absolutely, that's part of the facts of the whole lead-up to this unfortunate incident. Now, it's being properly investigated by the chief of defence in PNG, by the police commissioner, as it should. I also make the point -- in that interview, which you don't note, I make the point that shots being fired or behaviour as it is reported is completely unacceptable and it should be investigated. I made that point, which you neglect to make reference to. And it is important that this investigation take place, that it is properly looked at and if people are charged or whatever comes out of it, as you say, let them have their fair day in court.

CASSIDY: What would clear it up and it would help to clear up any reflection on you over your version of events is the CCTV footage. Would you allow that to be released so that everybody can be clear on what happened?

DUTTON: Barrie, the police investigation will take place -

CASSIDY: And after that, do you think that it would be appropriate to release the footage?

DUTTON: - if people are charged in relation to it to allow the course to be run.

CASSIDY: But if there's no charges and nothing happened here? Are you happy to have that footage released?

DUTTON: Well we will continue to release footage as is the normal practice now. I'm not making an exception one way or the other in relation to this case. If it is appropriate for it, and that's been the practice in the past, then that will happen. But that is an issue for the PNG Government. They run Manus Island, as you know. We inherited the mess of Manus Island from the Labor Party. We've stopped the boats and we want to get people off Manus island as quickly as possible. We've done that in terms of the negotiation with the US. Kevin Rudd's deal with the PNG Government had no outcome at all for people on Manus island. We are not adding to people on Manus island. We're not repopulating through new boat arrivals because we have stopped boats. But our job now is to get people off. We're doing that as quickly as possible. But we face all of the barriers in terms of returns that we spoke about before……

Given this performance (and a previous instance) one has to wonder about the quality of any evidence given to the courts by Mr. Dutton during the 1990s when he served as a Queensland police officer in the Drug Squad, Sex Offenders Squad and with the National Crime Authority.

*"Children Overboard" – a political lie widely disseminated by the Howard Government after an incident in the early afternoon of 6 October 2001, at about 100 nautical miles north of Christmas Island, the HMAS Adelaide intercepted 'SIEV 4' (Suspected Illegal Entry Vehicle 4), a vessel carrying 223 passengers and crew…..With the news of the incident emerging during the heat of a federal election campaign, the Government was soon under political and media pressure to produce evidence to substantiate the claim that children had been thrown overboard [by asylum seekers]. At the same time, however, doubts about the veracity of the original report started to emerge….Minister for Defence, Mr Reith, follows with a radio interview where he 'officially releases' the photographs and mentions the video, claiming they verify the children overboard story…..Admiral Barrie contacts Mr Reith and tells him that he has been advised that the photographs do not represent the incident of 7 October…..a 'political solution' had been arrived at 'not to raise' the issue publicly.

One Nation: political 'sins' like chickens come home to roost

On 3 March 2017 ABC Television ran a Four Corners program titled “Please Explain”.

It opened with presenter Sarah Ferguson stating:

Welcome to Four Corners.

Nine months ago, Pauline Hanson was riding high. Elected to the Senate, along with 3 of her One Nation colleagues, she created out of thin air a powerful new block on the crossbenches of the fractious upper house.

It was an extraordinary comeback for a woman whose first venture into politics more than twenty years ago ended in ignominy, dumped from parliament, and jailed after a conviction for electoral fraud that was later overturned on appeal.

Last month, in the Western Australian State election, Hanson's One Nation Party won three upper house seats but polled far lower than predicted.

Bitter party infighting in Western Australian and Queensland has seen former One Nation powerbrokers and disgruntled candidates come forth to condemn the woman they'd supported and pinned their hopes on.

It was this kind of internal division that helped pull One Nation apart in the late 1990's.

And just like 20 years ago there are claims that a powerful advisor has too much sway over Pauline Hanson - her chief of staff James Ashby.

So are the wheels coming off the One Nation wagon?

Reporter Caro Meldrum-Hanna ventures inside One Nation for tonight's report.

Then well into the broadcast this went too air:

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Ian Nelson, a 20-year party veteran was the State President, and also the Treasurer. He resurrected Pauline Hanson in 2014 and returned her to politics.

But after her election success, both he and Saraya Beric were left without a job.

The losers of a bitter internal power struggle that's now split One Nation.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Why are you no longer working for One Nation?

IAN NELSON: Basically, James Ashby, two words, James Ashby. He couldn't have me around, I was warned, I was warned months before it happened, so James Ashby couldn't have me around and he just poisoned Pauline against me.

SARAYA BERIC: I'm very disappointed in the person he turned out to be.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: James Ashby seen here on election night, became Pauline Hanson's right hand man very quickly.

To understand his meteoric rise, you have to go back to late 2014.

When Ian Nelson says James Ashby rang him out of the blue, with an irresistible offer: Cut price professional printing for federal and state election campaigns for the entire party.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Did you run any checks or . . .

IAN NELSON: No.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: On who James Ashby was?

IAN NELSON: No. Everybody could blame me for that, no I didn't, I just thought what a kind offer, I've had you know, I have offers simular but this one was a bit funny.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: A quick online search would have revealed James Ashby is no stranger to controversy.

In 2012, he accused his then boss, speaker of the house Peter Slipper, of sexual harassment.

Ultimately James Ashby didn't pursue the case, but it was one of the ugliest political scandals in recent times.

IAN NELSON: I was there to watch Pauline's back and, when I had time I was going to vet people, before they get too close to Pauline but I absolutely failed miserably on that one.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: You failed to vet James Ashby?

IAN NELSON: Yeah. Had I have known what I know today, there was no way I would've put him in, let him anywhere near her.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: In early 2015, James Ashby was appointed to the party's executive.

SARAYA BERIC: James was looking at different ways to promote Pauline and the party and he came up with the idea of getting an aeroplane, a little plane that she could get around logistically, and you know he said the media will go for it, it was a bit of a gimmick and I actually agreed with him.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: How the party managed to pay for the extravagant purchase has remained shrouded in secrecy.

PAULINE HANSON, 19 JANUARY, 2017: We have never received huge donations from anyone in all the time. Our donations come from the small people.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: One of the party's biggest recent donors is wealthy Victorian property developer, the director of VicLand Corporation, Bill McNee.

Four Corners has obtained emails revealing how he contacted One Nation offering financial support.

One Nation's head office responded in February 2015.

EMAIL, 27th February 2015: Pauline ... would like to meet with you if you are still able to travel to QLD. May I also ask for your phone number to pass on to Pauline?'

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Bill McNee wrote back:

EMAIL, 27TH February 2015: 'I would be delighted ... I would like to become a major financial supporter of your party...Let me know when suits for me to come up and meet with you all.'

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Bill McNee followed up again two weeks later, keen to meet:

EMAIL: 16 March 2015: Sorry to be pushy...I'm so eager to offer support to a party that has the courage to stand up for ordinary Australians and give us a voice.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: They met one month later on the 11th of April 2015 at Pauline Hanson's home for a roast dinner. Ian Nelson was there.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Did James Ashby ask Bill McNee for a plane?

IAN NELSON: He just kept saying I'm a pilot, you know w- we should be flying Pauline around and and then Bill said, 'Well, we'll have to get you a plane then'. That's how that conversation went.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Two days later James Ashby wrote this text message to a party official:

TEXT MESSAGE, 13 April 2015: We need to talk to Bill about funding it.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: The official responded:

TEXT MESSAGE: 5 May 2015: 'We had a good chat with Bill. I think Pauline's going to go for the plane'

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Eight days later, donor Bill McNee sent this email to Pauline Hanson and James Ashby:

EMAIL, 13 May 2015: 'James we will sort out the plane tomorrow as well.'

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: And after that message was sent between James Ashby and Bill McNee did a plane arrive?

IAN NELSON: Yes, very shortly afterwards, brand new Jabiru.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: How was that funded- the purchase of that aeroplane?

IAN NELSON: Well, after Bill McNee said, 'Yes we'll have to get you a plane', to my understanding that means, well all right, I'll buy you a plane. But as it turns out, Bill McNee didn't buy the plane, but as I understand it, he transferred the funds to James Ashby, not the Party, not Pauline, but to James Ashby.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Bill McNee has denied funding the purchase of the plane.

He's told Four Corners: "There has been no financial support or assistance to any political party outside what is publicly disclosed and already well known."

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Ian Nelson, the party's state treasurer, says he asked Pauline Hanson to explain how the purchase of the plane had been funded.

IAN NELSON: I said where's the plane, there's no evidence of it anywhere, whose plane is it and she said it's my plane, I said fine, okay, well then, you've got to declare it and she said, 'No, don't worry about it, don't worry about it'. I said 'Well, did Bill McNee buy that plane for the party, did he buy it for you, or did he buy it for James Ashby, and she just looked at me and walked away.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Four Corners has obtained a copy of these 2015 insurance documents for the Jabiru plane.

They confirm the plane was insured in James Ashby's name. It's listed purpose? Business.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: What is the primary purpose or use of that plane?

IAN NELSON: The One Nation Party. To ferry Pauline around, to the little towns and properties.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Was that gift declared?

IAN NELSON: No.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Under the rules, should that have been disclosed?

IAN NELSON: If I did it, yes I would've. If I'd had anything to do with the transaction. I said, 'Yes disclose it for heaven's sakes, because it's been used to ferry Pauline Hanson around the state, so it's really a party matter, so it should've been disclosed.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: The acquisition of the plane wasn't the only thing to worry party Treasurer Ian Nelson.

In 2015 Bill McNee's company, VicLand Business, made donations totalling almost $70,000 to One Nation.

When it came time to declare them, Ian Nelson says James Ashby rang him, questioning the way he'd declared the donations to the Queensland Electoral Commission.

IAN NELSON: You know, he said this is confidential, all these matters are confidential and ah they they're for our business only and I said no, that's not quite right, the rules and regulations state that we have to declare any amount of money over a thousand dollars, we have to declare it, and he said well can't you just put 'anonymous donor'? And I said, no, you can't do that, I'll end up in jail.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: To be clear, James Ashby asked you to list a donor as anonymous instead of declaring the name?

IAN NELSON: Yes.

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Rather than disclosing who it is, in contravention . . .

IAN NELSON: In contravention of all the rules and regulations, yes. Later on, Pauline had a bit of a go at me about the same thing.

I said, 'You've got to declare everything', and she just kept calling me an obstructionist, you know, 'Why are you doing it like this?' They just don't understand, and now they're running a party, so God help them all.

And the chickens began flying back to the roost.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 2017:

On Tuesday, Labor Senator Murray Watt wrote to Australian Electoral Commission head Tom Rogers to investigate whether the matters raised on the program should be referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

"The program contained serious allegations that PHON, Pauline Hanson and her Chief of Staff, James Ashby, may have breached financial disclosure obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act," Senator Watt said in his letter.

"In the broadcast, former party treasurer Ian Nelson alleges that PHON failed to declare a significant donation from property developer Bill McNee, which the party used to fund the purchase of a Jabiru light aircraft. According to the manufacturer's website, the cost of a new Jabiru light aircraft can exceed $100,000."

Senator Watt said the allegations were "very serious".

"As you are aware, a breach of financial disclosure obligations under the Act may be a criminal offence," he said.

"Furthermore, any attempt to subvert these critical measures, which seek to ensure transparency and accountability in campaign financing, threatens to undermine public confidence in our system of democracy.

"I ask you to investigate these serious allegations, and refer them to the Director of Public Prosecutions, if appropriate."

A spokeswoman for Special Minister of State Scott Ryan said he had spoken to the AEC about the program but had not yet requested an investigation.

Senator Ryan will hold a follow-up conversation with AEC officials over coming days, she said. 

Activist group GetUp! has also sent a separate request to the AEC to investigate the matter.

4:02pm

Following a request on Tuesday from Labor senator Murray Watt, an AEC spokesman said: "The AEC is aware of allegations made on Monday evening's Four Corners  program and through other media outlets.

"This information is now being reviewed in the context of the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918."

The spokesman said the AEC undertakes regular compliance reviews and would consider "information placed in the public domain" as part of its inquiries.

* Cartoon by Pat Oliphant