Palmer for five minutes. I thank the chairman. I want to welcome the whistleblowers and thank you for your courage. More than, that for your fidelity to your duty to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States. Mr. Shabbily, the statute of limitations has run out on a number of possible felony charges for 2014 in 2015. Is that correct . Thats correct. There are huge liabilities for that texture. Correct . They were taxi at liabilities, yes. You didnt have access to all the evidence related to those sources of income, did you . Based on the limitations placed on us by delawares attorneys office, its very likely. The Oversight Committee recently reviewed the classified documents from the fbi. Its a form used by the fbi to memorialize information related to confidential human sources. Left the 10 23. It was created in june of 2020. This is not a tip sheet. Its not a hotline. Its not a suggestion box. Its a legitimate source used by the fbi mr. Shabbily did you ever review the june 20 20th forums with the information about hunter biden and President Biden . No, i did not. I reviews the form. And there is startling allegations and it. What would you have done if presented with this piece of evidence regarding this potential stream of income. It has constituted an area of investigation. So, since ive never seen the document, its been reported. I can say that there were investigative steps that involve President Biden that were not allowed to be taken. Information like this would have been really helpful to have from investigators by investigators when we received pushback. When we were asked to take names out of document requests and search warrants. It wouldve been nice to have information that showed why. It helped prove why those names need to be in them. I think its material to your investigation. All information led to it. Liberal later to the wanting of investigations. Was there other evidence in this investigation that you are denied access to . Yes, there was. Do you want to elaborate . One piece was the hunter biden laptop. There is a memorandum that documented it contemporaneously. It was a testimony that states that what the United States attorney leslie wolf told us on that today. I think it was september 3rd for 2020. Thats that they had information from the laptop that they were not providing to the investigators. Can i add something . So, when it came to questions, as a part of the, investigation reinterviewed a lot of people. As part of the investigation, you want to ask questions. It should be an open environments. Theres information in that. There was an environment when we are interviewing witnesses. You are free to ask questions questions that could lead to the president ial campaign. This is after the campaign is over. Questions like that was restricted. It was limited. It appears to me the Public Domain sources another piece of relevant information, i think its important the committee understands that you are trying to do due diligence. They were denied evidence relevant to your investigation. I think the 10 23 form is an important piece mister chairman, i want to ask mr. Ziegler, is that correct . From the variants of the investigation, yes. There are two different scenarios from where d. C. Is involved. When we first started initiating investigation, and then when he was referred to prosecution. Which time period. As far as venue for the tax case goes the menu for this case we saw that when we did our analysis that benny was either in california or in d. C. I guess, at the time, in the beginning it was d. C. That was where we wanted to see our investigation was indeed. You are told that attorneys were in charge of this, was that your understanding . Okay, fast forward to march 2022. I had a phone call with prosecutors assigned to the case. They said that our prosecution report went to low level people at the d. C. U. S. Attorneys office. Those low level people reviewed, said hey, were gonna give you this. Heres what were gonna do to help you work and finish the case here in d. C. A few days later, i get another phone call. Its from the same assigned attorney. They tell me that now that the u. S. Attorney has reviewed it. Not only is it a no, it and know you should not work this investigation in the district of columbia. Mister chairman, it appears to me that mr. Ziegler was misled. And that his instincts were right, it shouldve been moved to the district of columbia. Again, i want to thank you for your courage and your fidelity to the law. I yield back. The chair recognizes mr. Khanna from california, for five minutes. Thank you mister chairman, thank you mr. Chapely for being here. I understand that your duty to have the strict enforcement of tax law, is it true that you have often disagreed with charging decisions before . I agree with charging decisions. Im saying, is it that youve all true that youve often disagreed that your recommendations have often been disregarded before when it comes to charging decisions, is that true . I dont think disregard is accurate representation. People in your own irs have disagreed with your decisions often before, is that accurate . Thats not accurate. Is it not true that the facts council, in the criminal department, has disagreed often with your decisions in the past . Criminal tax attorneys, yes. As i stated how often have they disagreed in your opinion, with your recommendation decisions . Very often. Can you give us a percentage of how often you said we ought to charge someone and they said no, that may not be a good idea . Yeah, i would say, i mean, just ball parking a vast majority of what we do. Thats why theyre advisory. Do you have respect for them . Theyre advisory. Do you have respect for them . Most prosecutors its a simple question, sir. The respect of colleagues or not . Often their opinion is not respected by me. So, do you have more respect for them or mr. White . I think because you have a history of wanting to charge people. And then people pushing back. Youre by your own testimony, under oath, you said 90 of the time, people are pushing back on what you want to do. I am not questioning, you want to stick for the law, it reminds me of les mis, the famous person wanted to get the person who had the sandwich. All this time, people kept pushing back on you. You said, theyre not very well respected. Do you respect mr. White . The criminal tax attorneys, ive never had a case that they declined, that they did not concur with we didnt ignore their request and move forward. If its 90 , they have disagreed with, correct . Byron testimony. Yeah, yes i established that. Let me ask you on the media, given testimony under oath, you have never spoken to the Washington Post, and reported on this matter, correct . Thats correct. Do you know, have you spoken to any Media Outlets on this matter . I have spoken after the house ways and Means Committee. Before that, have you spoken to any media, journalists on this matter . Absolutely not. Do you know of any colleague of yours, that the irs wouldve spoken to any journalists on this matter . Absolutely not. Do you know any investigation into the leaks from this matter . So, the october 6th leak, i was the person who referred it to our inspector general. Do you know any of your colleagues were under on the ninth of 2020, around the day of action. Do you know if youre any of your colleagues were sorry, if i could just do you know if i have any of your colleagues were under investigation for that leak . No. I know of no colleague uninvestigated that leak. Youve never spoken any media person i testimony about this matter . Not only my testimony under oath today, ive provided affidavits to the house ways and Means Committee saying the same, have said it to our Inspector Generals Office as well. I appreciate. That i dont want to make a final point on this, one, i think with mr. Chairman, do you mind if i can the gentleman answer the question you asked . I dont want my time to be. Getting him to the time, i want to minute to wrap up. You have a minute. Okay. Heres the point, i think this whole thing, the Ranking Member raskin summarized it, i dont disrespect, you sir. I think of a tough view on what you think the law should be. This is why we have a prosecutor toilsome, where you dont get to decide, i dont get to decide. We have a whole system. It turns out, often your recommendations on who should be charged differ from some of the other folks. And thats what happened in this case. As your testimony here, you yourself said, you think mr. Weiss should come and explain his decision. You dont question him, and i think on the optics issue, thats what my colleagues have brought up, obviously attorney general barr is gonna be concerned of the optics when you have a donald trump appointed u. S. Attorney, potentially bringing charges against his rival son. Thats a legitimate thing to do. I guess my view here is, were spending hours on a disagreement about whether to charge someone, we have a whole democratic process that does. That you dont get, my final question mr. Shapley, do you think you should get decide who gets charged . Do you think that should be the charging office . Each time you say this is a disagreement, you can say it multiple times, it doesnt make a true. Weve testified under oath here about the prosecutors agreeing with charging felony charges on multiple occasions. Just to say this is a disagreement would be a misrepresentation. My last question though, who do you think gets . It should you have that final decision or prosecutors have the final decision . No, i am a special agent for irs criminal investigation, i do not make those final decisions. On whether to charge or not. Appreciate that. Mister chairman, may i have a second . In terms of a criminal statute. Point of order, mister chairman, we have a new real in the committee, let it happen before. I know if it was to answer, you finished. That him followup. Youre correct. Gentlemans times expired, we recognize miss green for five minutes. Thank you, mister chairman. Before we begin, id would like to let the committee and everyone watching at home that parental discretion is advised. I dont like to remind everyone that on the Oversight Committee, we provide oversight into all parts of federal government. Including their department of justice and their willingness to prosecute and their unwillingness to prosecute. And whether its politically motivated. I would also like to say, when evidence and proof of a crime is presented, no prosecution can be denied. No matter who the person is. To the whistleblowers today, i think both of you for your courage to come to the committee today. Your commitment to truth, i have Great Respect for it. Thank you. I would like to talk with you both about hunter biden and his tax writeoff with his law firm, owasco. I would like to ask mr. Ziegler, when did you start your investigation in your testimony, it was november 2018, is that correct . Yes or no . Yes, thats correct. Thank you. During your testimony with the house ways and Means Committee, you stated that through bank records, you identified hunter biden paying prostitutes related to a potential prostitution ring, is that correct . Yes or no . Yes, thats correct. Ive also reviewed that those same bank reports, commonly referred to as suspicious activity reports, and im very troubled by them. We read thousands of them in the treasury. This particular excerpt from the report called talks about human trafficking. And in regards to hunter biden and owasco, and payment he was making. Whats even more troubling to me is that the department of justice has brought no charges against hunter biden that will vindicate the rights of these women who are clearly victims under the law. I would like to talk about your prior testimony, you stated that the Prosecutorial Team was investigating violations of the men act, is that correct, mr. Ziegler . That is correct. Regarding the mann act, if a person is transported across state lines for sexual activity, such as prostitution, that could be a violation of a federal law, is that correct . I recently looked at the federal law regarding the man act, i believe that that is correct. I would refer you to the doj manual. Thank you. I would like to present this to the committee. This is showing hunter biden paying for a victim united flight from l. A. To dulles. This was, i believe, a violation of the man act. Hunter biden this is proof that he bought the ticket. He bought it for this woman right here. He flew her from los angeles to washington on june 14th. Flew her back to los angeles, california, on june 15th of 2018. I would like to point out that if he was purchasing her a plane ticket for sex and traveling across state lines, do you believe that to be a violation of the mann act, mr. Ziegler . I can talk specifically about whats in my transcript, regarding the mann act, i know we were compiling the information together. Yes, mr. Ziegler, as the law states, by the code of the law it states that traveling, paying summer to go across state lines is prostitution, its a violation of the mann act. Let me move on to one more second here, when hunter biden paid for this woman to do this with him, to travel across state lines from california to washington, d. C. , on june 15th, this is a violation of the mann act, this is prostitution. Let me continue. Did hunter biden also use this company owasco d. C. To pay prostitutes . Hold on one second. Well give you the additional time back. Regarding the mann act violations, regarding the statute, be return to the house ways and Means Committee, they can decide to vote to turn them over to you. Regarding the mann act. Thank, you mr. Ziegler. I talking about hunter biden, using his company pc to pay prostitutes, this is also spur suspicious activity reports, showing that victim one, the woman that was paid for prostitution, that traveled from california to washington, d. C. , paid for by hunter biden, this is an excerpt from a stars report that we read in the treasury. I think you all have looked at these two. Showing that victim one was supposedly an employee of owasco. I would like to point out, this is not really what most paralegals do. For law firms. And its very serious that hunter biden was paying this woman, through his law firm, and then writing it off as business tax exemptions. Most people writeoff things for their taxes through their businesses like a meal, or say, office supplies. Can you confirm for me that hunter biden had written off payments for prostitutes through his law firm, owasco . I appreciate the question given by the statute, and limited in my testimony today. I respectfully would need to turn those records over to the house ways and Means Committee. Okay, thank you mister ziegler, one last question. You referred to one of the assistants as west coast assistant. I believe this is the west coast assistant. Could you agree with that . I can tell you that there were deductions for, what we believe to be, escorts. And that 10,000 Dollar Golf Club membership, yes, that was not a golf club membership. That was for a six club payment. That was for a sex club payment. Payment such as this through from hunter biden to prostitutes. Also, mr. Shapley mister chairman, or one minute 63 seconds. Over as long as we get equal time. I will let miss green wrap up, in five seconds. Ill give additional time. Thank, you mister chairman. Mr. Shapley, you use your investigation into hunter biden code named horsemen, which opened in november of 2018. It was an offshoot of an investigation the irs was conducting into a foreign based amateur online pornography platform. This is evidence. Chairman of hunter biden making sex tapes. Excuse me, this is my time. Making pornography. Should we be displaying this, mister chairman . In the committee . The gentleladys time has expired. With two have minutes over. She can have it if you want to yield some to miss ocasiocortez, will make it right. You are next to have minutes. Chair recognize that mr. Debate. Point of order. Mister chairman . My understanding is that this committee was provided this activity reports on the condition that it not publicize them. For the reason that they are not actually, even allegations, much less evidence of anything. My colleague from georgia has now just revealed it publicly. That is a good point, however, that suspicious activity report has been public for years. Thats a superstitious activity report was on the internet long before i became chairman of this committee. That particularly a suspicious activity report is already been publicized. Thank you for that clarification. She said as part of the thousands that you reviewed, i appreciate a clarification. Public and able, we all review. Treasury click reclaim time. We recognized for five minutes, and will go over time, well work with you. Thank you very much, mister chair. Im going to claim my five minutes and yield the two and a half additional minutes which have given me to my colleague from new york, miss ocasiocortez. Im glad somebody brought up this in the words suspicious activity, because thats just whats taking place in this view this room. Make no mistake about it. I want to congratulate my colleagues from across the aisle for gathering us here today, almost distracting us from the biggest investigation that has gone on right now in our country and in our nations history, involving the former president. And the front runner for the republican nomination. Who is currently facing a 37 count indictment this week. And maybe two weeks from now, more, and maybe to four weeks then, more. But were spending our time talking about hunter biden, someone whos already pleaded guilty to not filing his taxes, having a gun charge, and now i hear also, paying for prostitution. Lets just remember, there was a case in new york not too long ago where our former president also got into trouble regarding payments and regarding a stripper. And was found guilty of a violation in civil court. There seems to be a lot of hemming and hawing about special treatment, special treatments, when the president , just a couple of days ago, try to delay his federal documents trial and requested the u. S. District judge, aileen cannon, who he appointed, to somehow or another consider the fact that he was a candidate, and therefore, maybe, maybe, maybe his trial should be put off, until after the election. That seems to be like special treatment, if ive ever heard of it before. But im grateful that my colleague on the other side of the aisle is taking at these tax evasion very seriously. I would welcome also hearing on the former president s history of tax evasion . And how long it took to see