he said the same thing every time and expanded the answer to be perfectly clear. in his june 7 letter, he says "i have been granted ultimate authority over this matter including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution consistent with federal law, the principles of federal prosecution." it's up to u.s. attorney. letter to chairman jordan. he said in my june 7 letter, i statuted i have been granted ultimate authority over this matter including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges, et cetera. he said i stand by what i wrote. i wish to expand on what this means. this gets to the heart of what we're doing here today. as the u.s. attorney for the district of delaware, my charging authority is geographically limited to my home district. if venue lies elsewhere, common

departmental practice is to contact the u.s. attorney's office for the district in question to whether or not whether they want to partner on the case. if not, i may request special attorney status from the attorney general. here i administer that if necessary, i would be granted sex shun five 15 authority in the district of columbia, the central district of california or any other district where charges could be brought in this matter. okay? it is the difference as mrs. ocasio-cortez said between special counsel and special attorney, which might explain the confusion or the disagreement here. in any event, the u.s. attorney for delaware had all of the authority he needed to bring whatever charges he wanted wherever he wanted and he is the witness for that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'd like to be clear that he was assured that authority. he was -- >> he was. he said he was assured the authority. >> and he is limited within delaware. >> right. but that's the rules. just restating what the rules are. that's what he explained.

you're not a lawyer, right? you don't work at the department of justice, correct? he's explaining what the rules -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes dr. fox from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. shapley, many zeigler. thank you for being here today. blowing the whistle against a man as well-connected as hunter biden is truly courageous. i hope that all of my colleagues can appreciate that as well mr mrchlt. mr. shapley, when did you start your career with the irs? >> in july of 2009. >> that's 14 years of service at the irs with five years in a senior leadership position,

correct? >> that's correct. >> did you ever in your 14 years of experience see an investigation be handled in the same manner as the one we're here to discuss today, the one in hunter biden's taxes? >> i have not, no. >> and when were you made supervisor of the investigation in mr. biden's operation sportsman? >> in january of 2020. >> by your estimate, at that time, when did you initially believe that the evidence was sufficient to request physical search warrants in california, arkansas and new york and washington d.c. >> special agent zeigler drafted an affidavit in april or may. that was when -- for the search warrant. >> of 2020. >> of 2020, yes. i'm sorry. >> it was a short time after that you began to suspect that career officials at doj were dragging their feet regarding the next steps in the

investigation. is that >> yes. that's correct. >> and two months later, in june of 2020, you came to the belief expressing as such and communications with the irs senior leadership that if normal procedures had been followed, these search warrants would have already been executed. is that correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> is this in the typical time frame for the self-imposed ininvestigative pause that doj historically tends too implement in cases preceding elections? >> it was not. the official department of justice public integrity stand down came on september 4 of 2020. >> after the initial steps with inexplicably denied, prosecutors continued to decline to advance on promises leads.

there were in problematic texts and e-mails on the laptop in august of 2020. when were you informed by assistant u.s. attorney wolf that the doj would not a physical search warrant on hunter biden? >> i don't recall the exact date. do you? >> i don't think that that's in the confines of our testimony. we can provide that information so the house ways and means committee a clarification to that. that can clarify that issue. >> my understanding is that it was october 2020. we appreciate your clarification of that. did assistant u.s. secretary wolf's decision not to execute a search warrant on hunter biden strike you as a typical, mr. shapley? >> generally any other investigation, if we have probable cause and we believe there's evidence in that location that could help prove our violations, we would executed that search warrant.

>> so it was an unusual action. >> yes, congress woman. >> thank you. is it fair to conclude that this pattern of atypical and bewildering actions taken by the district attorney's office happen over the course of the entire investigation and not just one or two occurrences? >> that's correct. it was the pattern that drove me to come forward. that deviation from a normal process. >> if your opinion, did these odd atypical and bewilders actions bolster or harm the investigation? >> i believe they hurt the investigation. >> to our chairman. i would say that there's something rotten in the state of delaware. what has happened here with hunter biden would not have happened to other americans.

this is totally unfair and i think it's very important that we get to the bottom of this investigation and find out who has been obstructing this sense of justice. the american people demand justice. this committee demands justice along with the other committees inv involved. i thank you for your hearing. >> chair recognizes mrs. stansbury from new mexico. >> thank you. i'd like to get right in to some basic vetting questions. unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle with some of the previous witnesses that they called. so mr. zeigler, mr. shapley, i'm hoping that these are very simple, very straightforward questions. so i'd like to ask that you answer them with a yes or no answer. mr. shapley, are you now or have you ever acted as an unregistered foreign agent for the chinese government or for any other government?

>> no. >> and mr. zeigler, are you now or have you ever acted as an unregistered or registered foreign agent? >> no. >> mr. shapley, have you ever participated in illegal arms trafficking? >> no, i have not. >> mr. zeigler, how about yourself? >> i have not. >> finally, mr. shapley, have you ever been indicted of a crime, lied to investigators while under oath or run from the law? >> no, i have not. >> mr. zeigler, same question to you. have you ever been indicted, lied to investigators or run from the law? >> i have not. >> thank you for answering those questions. obviously it would seem strange to have to ask these clarifying questions, but given the majority's track record in calling witnesses on this matter not to mention their own presidential candidate, it seem necessary to clarify for our american folks that are listening today. so let's get into the kinds of crimes that the majority claims

that they're interested in investigating here in the oversight committee, namely political influence, abuse of power and other alleged crimes by a president and their relations. again, because our time is limited, i'd like to ask our witnesses to stick with simple straight forward yes and no answers. mr. zeigler, you are aware that mr. jared kushner received a $2 billion investment from the saudi government after working for his father-in-law at the white house, correct? >> congressman, i thank you for the question. i'm here to talk about the hunter biden investigation. >> it is a widely known fact and i appreciate your response. >> mr. zeigler, you're aware while serving as a senior adviser to her father, ivanka trump had a number of trade marks fast tracked by the chinese government. >> i have to stick to the confines of my transcript. >> i appreciate that. >> i want to remind everyone

that the person who appointed u.s. attorney general david weiss to handle the matter that we're here to discuss today was donald trump. but this would be the same president, donald trump, that the man twice impeach for abuses of power and of course recently indicted for 37 counts of criminal activity. now one would think that here in oversight committee, we would want to investigate such blatant acts of criminal activity. i could not agree more with our witness, mr. shapley, that there should not be a two tiered system of justice for those that are powerful and those wealthy and those that are not. that is not actually what the the hearing is about here today. it's clear that this is yet another attempt by the majority to turn this committee in to another inkind donation to the trump campaign. this follows on an earlier attempt this past month to

undermine the fbi with a controversial markup, which thankfully did not occur, the very same day that donald trump was indicted under those 37 counts. in fact, if you look across the aisle, we have 13 members that have already endorsed donald trump. now here we are trying to distract the american people once more even though it was a political appointee appointed by donald trump who was at the helm of this effort when the issues we are discussing today occurred and yet we're using the committee's resources to advance this agenda. i think it's important that the american people actually understand the real criminal and the actual threat to our democratic institutions is donald trump. the man found legally liable for sexual abuse, the man that refused to return classified documents to the government, the

man who was inciting an insurrection that led to the deaths of five people and threatened the lives of people in this very room and who threatened the very foundation of our democracy. so i find it hard to believe that members that witnessed the insurrection, who have witnessed these criminal indictments continue to stand here today with donald trump and prop him up, using committee resources and i urge my colleagues to take a hard look in the mirror and to really reflect on what our oath of office means. with that i yield back. >> the gentle lady yield. the chair recognizes mr. higgins from louisiana. >> thank you. we're going to be moving fast here. let me make a statement to begin. let's clarify for america, republicans are only interests in hunter biden's deceptions regarding his irs confirmed receipt of 17.3 million from

shady sources in ukraine and romania and china while his father was vice president because hunter biden had nothing to sell. he had no product, no service, no skill. all hunter biden had to sell was corrupted access to his father. the big guy. how dare congressman higgins called the president of the united states, let's go. december 30th, 2020. this investigator shapley and zeigler, irs criminal investigation team, at a 12-hour long meeting in delaware, the prosecution time, wolf and weiss are in attendance. shapley share as plan to interview rob walker, wolf objects at his play to the dismay of those in the room. but she said that we do not want to ask about the big guy. stated that she did not want to

ask about dad. december 8, 2020. investigator shapley and zeigler, meeting with special agent joe gordon. received a call from hunter biden's attorneys stating that they would accept service for document requests but declined requests for the interview. the irs investigators were only able to conduct one meaningful interview, that with biden associate rob walker. that date, investigations revealed to the press. december 9, 2020. wolf gets involved again. to interrupt the investigation. december 14, 2020. assistant u.s. attorney wolf tips off biden counsel about an irs plan had reached a threshold of probable cause to executed a search warrant on a storage facility northern virginia.

u.s. attorney wolf calls hunter biden's attorney. alerts him to the pending search warrant being executed. you stated investigator shapley that at every stage during your investigation, decisions were made that benefitted the subject of the investigation. who was the subject of the investigation, good sir? >> hunter biden. >> thank you very much. i think i clarified for america why we were interested in hunter biden? because he sold access to his father, the big guy. you americans out there may have a compromised president in your white house. you should certainly be concerned. mr. zeigler, how did the irs investigation regarding hunter biden begin? tell us briefly, sir. >> it was a review of bank records regarding another investigation i was working. >> so it was ancillary to another criminal investigation? is that correct, sir? >> yes.

>> you're a criminal investigator, correct? >> yes. >> not civil? >> that's correct. >> investigator shapley, assistant u.s. attorney leslie wolf told your team there was more than enough probable cause for the physical search warrant of the guest house at then former vice president's delaware residence where hunter biden stayed for a time. did u.s. attorney leslie wolf confirmed your investigative effort that you had sufficient probable cause for search? >> yes, she did. >> thanks very much. she told congress that assistant u.s. attorney wolf also said that the question was whether the juice was worth the squeeze. that's a quote. optics were driving factor in the decision on whether to execute a search warrant. optics? have you ever run into that, mr. shapley? >> i have not, no. >> have you, mr. zeigler?

>> i have not. >> why you think the department of justice might be concerned about optics in a search of the president's son's residence during the course of a criminal investigation? mr. shapley? >> the sensitivities involved with that search warrant and it would -- >> pretty clear, isn't it? >> yes. >> another search warrant that i'm going to touch on in my remaining section. i'm going to have my time expired here. let me ask you, did your job begin with an oath? >> it did. >> have you uphold that oath? >> yes, i have. >> is it your core principles that have driven you to reveal the corruptions that you witnessed in your criminal investigations coming before congress today? >> yes, it was. >> yes, it was. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield. >> chair recognizes mr. gomez

for five minutes. garcia for five minutes. sorry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so let's first zero in on the bottom line. what we have is two irs investigators that clearly worked very hard on the hunter biden investigation. thanks for being here today. you both gave recommendations to prosecutors based on your work, which you have described today. and then donald trump's hand picked prosecutor then made recommendations to charge hunter. he acted independently, he himself has confirmed this. you did your job making recommendations. the prosecutor did his job. you continue have to agree with his conclusions. but that's the bottom line of what we have today at this hearing. but today's hearing is like most of the majorities investigations and hearings. a lot of allegations, zero proof. no receipts. but apparently some dick picks.

at a certain point, americans need evidence. actual evidence. but we've seen absolutely none. so let's go back and review what has gone over the course of the last seven months of this smear campaign against this white house. first, the committee is clearly obsessed with hunter biden. massively. there's no evidence of any wrong doing or transactions of the person that is actually in government. joe biden. a lot about hunter, not a lot about joe biden. hunter biden, i want to remind the majority, is not the president of the united states. i want to point out that no biden family members hold government positions of any kind. this is of course in stark contrast to the trump crime family. the majority convenient glazes over trump's family foreign dealings. the trump family of course were

a actually appointed to government jobs. so where is that investigation? they were in the white house. and i think chris christie, one of the republicans running for president, said it best. this is his quote, not mine. the grift from the family is breathtaking. it's breathtaking. jared kushner and ivanka kushner walked out of the white house and months later get two billion from the saudis. you think it's investing genius or because it was he was sitting next to the president for four years and doing favors for the saudis. these are quotes from a man that has none trump and the kushners for year. they were making policy under like hunter biden. the biden family attacks went nowhere. so they tried to create a new storm a new conspiracy theory with a so called fbi ukraine document.

it had a lot of hype, scary headlines from the chairman. a lot of us read the document. when you read it, it was clear this is all hype. just a wild accusation being passed along to the fbi with zero proof. where did this come from? rudy guliani. just another rudy guliani conspiracy theory that went nowhere. guliani -- rudy guliani, whose law license is being recommended to be removed. rudy guliani's long-time associate said hose prepared to testify under oath there's no evidence that his son has committed any crime. members of this committee even today repeat this narrative over and over again. more accusations, no proof, no receipts. what is next? this man. the republicans were so

desperate last week to find someone that can tell them what they wanted to hear that they collaborated with a chinese spy trying to influence u.s. policy while selling weapons to iran and libya. so why is this so-called whistle-blower missing? we don't know. skipped his bail. being searched upon. no so desperate. we have questions. is he a fugitive? do we know where he is? what are we doing to make sure there's not targets on this committee? these are the -- >> if you're willing to yield, i'll answer that question. i have never met him in my life. he was getting money from the same company that the bidens were getting money from. i yield back. >> thank you. i'm looking forward if anyone from the committee or any staff had any contact with who is now a chinese spy, which you and the committee have been hyping up for weeks. >> is the president's son a

chinese spy? they took money -- the only difference -- he's made more money than he did. >> mr. chairman, you were the one hyping up a chinese spy and arms dealer for weeks, this is another -- >> who cares if they had money from the same company? >> just to finish up my time. let me say it's clear to me this majority will stop at nothing to i'm preach president biden, the attorney general, secretary mayorkas. the list goes on and on. this is another witch hunt that the majority continues to do week after week. the majority is trying to interfere in john going legal proceedings to cause chaos and trying to re-elect donald trump who obviously is pulling this extremist agenda. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. sessions from texas for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thanks very much. gentlemen, welcome. thanks very much for taking time. we've been sitting here listening strongly that both of you have chosen to do this as strong people that have an

ethical and morale idea about your service to this country. we want to thank you. today we have examples of the department of justice and the irs that have not just given special treatment to those that committed tax evasion and financial fraud, but the president's family. there's another point that we would want to make today. that is that i believe that a tax payer system where the agency is tasked with enforcing the laws fairly on regular citizens is also seeking the chance to shield those well-connected to the president of the united states from consequences of illegal behavior and direct opposition to our nation's founding principles. we've established that. that's pretty clear what you've said today. i have a question for both of you. i believe today's hearing goes beyond that.

that is that there are strong whistle-blower protections under 5 cusc section 2302, the whistle-blower protection act that afford you and any other person that works in this government the protection from retaliation after making a legalry protected disclosure in doing your job you felt like there were something wrong, you said something about it, and you filed for whistle-blower status because you believe that something was being held against you. in fact, both of you have made several legally protected disclosures during this time for the record. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> that is correct. >> so after making this disclosure to the committee, did the irs comply with the statutory required whistle-blower protections? how were you treated in this endeavor? >> so i'll start. so since i made these protected

disclosures, that are legally protected, the irs has chosen to retaliate me in multiple ways. even now there's a major case initiatives, special agent zeigler started as well that are now being put on the back burner and just being slow-walked again. there's -- the immediate -- my immediate superintendent and two levels above him haven't spoken to me since june 1 of 2023. even though i'm sending them e-mails and trying to conduct my business on a daily basis, they literally have not spoken to me. you know -- >> would that be normal? >> no. absolutely not. we're running undercover operations, doing interviews across the world. really becomes when senior leadership really cuts off communication like that it increases the chance of some officer safety-type issue when we can't communicate those

issues with senior leadership and we have no support from them. >> mr. zeigler? >> to be completely honest with you, this is going to make me emotional. >> i'm sorry because i know this is personal. you speak about that in your opening statement. >> never have i thought that -- it's essentially like being left out on on island. i made disclosures to the commissioner of the irs. i said what happened. and the response i got a few days later was i may have broken the law and don't ever do this again. your e-mails need to go through your leadership. so to have that come to me was chilling. it was -- i can't put words to it. what i can say is there are some people within my agencies, some people in leadership that have been a person that i can go to for support, but the vast majority of it has just -- the

impact on the person. it's awful. >> retaliation is many times seen by people who know it when they see it. that is why the law exists. i want both of you to know as chairman of operations, government accountability, i will be coming to the irs and i will be going to other agencies specifically about their retaliation under the law within their agencies that we should take as a committee, a whole committee and a subcommittee very seriously. because this could be a number of matters that are taking place where people have chilling impact against the laws of the united states of america. gentlemen, i've been taking notes. i want to thank you for being here today. i yield back my time.

>> chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thanks for your service from working at the irs. very important work. mr. shapley, your blowing the whistle today because you feel like the department of justice provided preferential treatment to hunter biden, that's correct? >> that's correct. >> you believe that hunter biden received that treatment because his father is the democratic president, joe biden. is that correct? >> i can't conclude why he's receiving the treatment but that's one conclusion you can come to. >> it's ever dent in your deposition you believe that. did any of your advisers say you're not allowed to investigate hunter biden because he's the president's son? >> i was never told that. >> thank you. nowhere in your deposition did you suggest there's some larger conspiracy at play here, which is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have us believe, there's a two tiered justice system that privileges democrats over republicans? that's what my colleagues are doing.

they're using you and using your story and using your work to make this argument for them 70s. since january 6, these republicans and trump have complained about a two tiered justice system co-oping the language of the civil rights language that they're looking to eliminate. there's a two tiered justice system, this language has a real history. a real history of emmitt till. a real history with breonna taylor. it has a real history with george floyd, the central park five. derek diaz, an unarmed yong man just killed in central florida about a week ago. and it has a rile history with the grove land four. four black boys from central florida who were falsely accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a white woman when they pulled over to help her when the car was broken. the fourth boy who was not

pictured here, ernest thomas was shot to death in his sleep. a 100-person mob wanted to get their hands on the remaining three black boys and couldn't so they took it out on the black town shooting residents, looting, setting fire to their homes. charles greenly was sentenced to prison for life. he was 16 years old. now, just a quick trigger warning here for black death and trauma. it's an important story to tell when we talk about the two tiered justice system. the sheriff took it upon himself to shoot the two remaining individuals, walter irvin and samuel shepherd. ervin played death. the other i was shot and killed, samuel shepherd. they were both handcuffed as you can see in the photo and shot to death. they died in prison or on parole

as convicted criminals. 72 years later a judge exonerated them and the trial was considered a fraud. in closing, there is a two tiered justice system. it does exist. it's not what my republican colleagues want to say it is using your story for that it's black, brown and poor people versus everyone else. i won't accept when republican politicians look to appropriate the language of the movement for blacks lives and civil rights to fit a political agenda to defend donald trump. this is the two tiered justice system. this is the two-tiered justice system. we have to continue to fight for a world where this doesn't happen. this case about hunter biden is a case closed. you know, i'll close with a question with the chairman. considering the quoted falsehood, abuses and misrep 16tations of sensitive information. are you expecting to be censured by the house when this is over with?

the reason i ask is because it's in line with the logic and actions of the republican party here in the 118th congress. thank you. i yield back. i yield to the ranking member. >> thanks very kindly. mr. zeigler, you referred to an fbi supervisor special agent that went with you to try to interview hunter biden. is that someone that you respect? >> that wasn't me. that would have been my supervisor. >> okay. mr. shapley, you went with this ssa. was that someone that you respect? >> yes, i respect the fbi ssa. >> because he came and did an interview with us. he said that he testified that over a decade of experience with the delaware u.s. attorney's office, the fbi agent never knew the assistant attorneys or attorney weiss to allow any political affiliations to influence their prosecutorial

decisions about that. >> the fbi ssa i respect. you know, as a matter of timing, he retired in june of 2022. at that time i haven't even overcome the burden that it took me to say that this has been political and been politicized. it wasn't until october 7, 2022. so you know, the fbi ssa made -- he came to his conclusions and he wasn't there for that october -- >> i can mention -- >> i respect very much your service and i respect very much your testimony today. but i think it's completely within the realm of prosecutorial discretion and subjective differences of opinion that people have. those of us have been in prosecution understand that happens all the time with prosecutors. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. bigs

for five minutes. >> thank you. good to have you here. i appreciate your courage and your willingness to testify. mr. shapley, i'm going to go to pages 18-20 of your testimony. mr. zeigler, i'm going to go to page 104 to 105 of yours to start with. while i'm going there, i'm going to ask this question. we heard about the 2014, 15, 16 tax things, trump, you know -- heard a lot about trump. in 2014 and 15 and 16 those tax years, donald trump wasn't elected. who was the vice president of the united states, if you know? >> joe biden was the vice president. >> i think that's right. when the statute of limitation ran on those 14 and 15 years, who was the president of the united states? when the statute expired.

>> that was president biden. >> under president biden. there's someindicia in the statements that you made that i want to go over. mr. shapley, why did you want to interview rob walker? >> so i think special agent zeigler would be better to answer that question. >> i'm looking at page 18 of your testimony, mr. shapley. >> repeat the question. >> can you repeat the question? >> i'll rephrase the question. on the day of action, you guys were intending to interview 12 people. one of whom was rob walker, a business associate of hunter biden. in particular, you wanted to talk about -- i think the quote is ten held by h for the big guy. so who is -- who did you infer

the big guy may be? >> so all i can do is speak to the evidence there. what i can say is i think i know what you're referring to. when we're preparing for that, we're preparing for that interview and referencing that e-mail. 10 held by h for the big guy. and from what i understand, that to be president, his dad, president biden. >> okay. i'm sorry. i want to ask mr. shapley. similar questions. the ausa wolf interjected and i'm reading from your transcript now. she said she didn't want to ask about the big guy. stated she didn't want to ask questions about dad in quotes. who did you take dad to be? when she refers to dad. >> the father of the subject is president biden. >> president biden. so even by her response, she's inferring that joe biden may be involved in hunter biden's

transactions. and then you get to the fbi agent. you give some detail about his -- mr. shapley, you give some detail about what he is saying in the transcript, if you will, of his interview. in particular, the fbi agent asks mr. walker. so you got the feeling that that was orchestrated by hunter biden to have like an appearance by his dad at that meeting just to kind of bolster your chances of making a teal work out. walker answered sure. the fbi agent continues. any time he was in the office or did you hear hunter biden said that he was setting up a meeting with his dad while his dad i was still in office? walker answered yes. that's the question that you gave to us in your transcript. so the question there is, what did you infer that the -- then you said the fbi agentceases that line of questioning. i want to know what you thought the fbi agent was inferring.

what did you think? what do you think when you heard that? of relationship with joe biden and hunter biden and his business transactions when he's still in office. >> yes. i can't go beyond what you have quoted me and saying in my testimony. so i'll just leave it there. >> thank you. mr. zeigler, on page 104 of yours, you mentioned that mr. biden, hunter biden, attempted to obtain a business tax deduction on his return for hotel rooms that were used by his father, joe biden. tell us about that, please. >> so yeah, on his tax return, he deduct add hotel room for his dad, so joe biden. and we got the invoice from the hotel that showed the dad's name on it. >> so for that to be a valid business deduction, you -- he

would have to be doing business with hunter biden. is that not true? >> we would typically, a typical part of the process would be to interview that person to find out what might have happened, why did you go to that hotel room. based on statements he made in his book, i mean, you can correlate to what was kind of going on around that time. >> how does it become a valid business deduction if joe biden's just there on vacation? >> generally speaking, to be a valid business deduction, would have to be some type of business activity being conducted at that time. >> the last one is the whatsapp. i won't get into it. we're about out of time. the whatsapp where he said my dad is sitting next to me and that's on page 105, that's where you talk about it, mr. zeigler and page 105 of your transcript. the question there is how would

you determine whether those rooms -- whether he was actually next to hunter biden? how would you determine that? >> the gentleman's time has expired but please answer the question. >> typically in that situation you'd want to get location data. contemporaneous data that would show where that person is at. that's what we would look to. >> thank you so much. >> very good. chair now recognizes mrs. lee from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. republicans have been invoking this term two tiered system of justice a lot. i want to talk about what the real two-tier justice system is. black and brown people are overincarcerated. chairman comer claimed that the department of justice has charges against president biden's son, hunter revealed a two-tiered system of justice. as you see or have seen from the

site, former president trump has used this phrase. i'd like to address the way my republican colleagues are attempting to co opt the phrase two-tiered justice system to make it sounds like trump and his cronies are the victims here when the reality is that the two-tiered system of justice is meant to refer to black and brown folks, not their political allies. the real two-tiered system of justice, the impry prisonment rate for black males is more than white males. the imprisonment rate for native american rates is 1. 9 times more. the two-tiered system is according to a may 2018 evidence

brief and i quoted, black men comprise about 13% of the male population, but about 35% of those incarcerated. one in three black men born today can expect to be incarcerated in his lifetime. compared to one in six latino men and one in 17 white men. the two-tiered justice system is one in which an analysis of 100 million traffic stops across this country found that black drivers were about 20% more likely to be stopped than white drivers. my republican colleagues seem to think that using criminal law as a weapon or a political tool is objectionable only when directed against someone who should be out of reach of the criminal system. someone too powerful or too white to be charged. that same system has been used as a why upon against black people since the emancipation

proclamation. these racial disparities are rooted in a two-tiered view on race. the belief that black people are inferior. was created to enjustify the en enslif -- enslavement of black people. white people defended the torture and murder of black people as necessary to protect property, families and a way of life from black criminals. in 1980s, nixon's war on crime evolved into reagan's war on drugs and we saw more frequent punishments and the start of mass incarceration. it was black people that were targeted and suffered under those policies. there's a reason that crack cocaine which carries a stereotype of being used by black people was punished more harshly than powder cocaine. that ratio was 100 to 1. meaning something convicted of

crack cocaine would receive the same sentence. the practices impacted people of color and most specifically black people that made up less than 11% of the population in pennsylvania but more than 65% of those serving life without parole and 58% of those serving nonlife sentences 020 years or longer. how many times have our officials ran on the promise of tough on crime approach? even now republicans tout they're in a party of law and orbeder while in the same breath claiming that donald trump should not be prosecuted. don't get it twists. republican efforts to use the term two tier justice is to distract from those that are truly the victims of a desperate treatment in a criminal justice system. whether we saw it out loud or not, we know who those people are. i yield the remainder of my time

to the ranking member. >> thank you for the eloquent statement. i wonder if you remember, there was this horrific assault, gang rape in central park, donald trump ran ads in "the new york times" saying the suspect how old the be given the death penalty. they turned out to be innocent of the offense. that's just to reinforce your point. there's a history of profound racism in the criminal justice system and the rhetoric around it. something disappointing about our colleagues co opting as you say and prostituting the system. i yield back to you. >> i field it interesting the 12 witnesses that the fbi wanted to interview in december 8,

including hunter biden, they got one interview. rob walker a friend of the biden family and his company, robinson and walker sent millions to the bidens. president biden said his family didn't receive money from china. that isn't true. according to your testimony before ways and means on page 18 on december 3, 2020, did you have a long meeting with the prosecution team at the u.s. attorney's office in delaware? >> that's correct. december 3, 2020. >> is it true that u.s. attorney weiss was in an out of that meet something. >> yes, it's true. >> did you share your plan to interview hunter biden's associate rob walker? >> all the interview outlines for the witnesses were discussed that day, yes. >> okay. you wanted to question walker about the e-mail that said ten held by h for the big guy. is that correct? >> that was included in the interview outline, yes.

>> u.s. attorney wolf said she didn't want to ask questions about dad, meaning joe biden. is that corrected? >> that's correct. >> so assistant u.s. attorney general wolf you felt was conceding that the big guy was joe biden. that's accurate? >> i don't want to conclude what she was thinking. >> okay. you did have an interview with rob walker in arkansas, correct? >> i did not. agents did, yes. >> okay. did rob walker tell you that president biden had ever showed up to a meeting with his son's business associates? >> he told us that he had shown up at the meetings, yes. >> can you elaborate on that at all? >> i can only stick to what is in the transcript and the witness described an instance where cefc executives were people involved in the cefc were meeting at the four seasons and

president biden showed up. >> so president biden was there physically? >> that's what this witness said. >> mr. zeigler, maybe i'm going back further. earlier today you wanted to elaborate on one of your questions that you were cut off by the democratic congressmen. anything you wanted to say that you can remember that you weren't able to say? >> i appreciate that. i want today say that wynn thing that was mentioned regarding the retired fbi supervisory special agent, i have actually recently reached out to some of my former colleagues that i worked this investigation with at the fbi. i have asked them was there anything i misstated in my transcript. they said no. i want to be clear on that. they have read my transcript or referenced that they did. that they have said that they didn't see any issues with what i said in my transcript. >> okay. thank you. mr. shapley, anything else from

you? >> yeah, i wanted to speak briefly about our criminal tax attorneys. first, they're only advisory. you know, i can't recall an instance where they nonconcurred with any of my actions and within the group. we didn't send it forward in any way through our senior leadership approval. the issue here is the manner in which it became a nonconcur. the line ct attorney that took more than 50 days to review all the evidence, she concurred with all of the charges in that prosecution report, exhibit 2. when she sent it forward, a panel of five lawyers at the national office of criminal tax concerns, they concurred with the line attorney's assessment, they concurred on all charges.

i wendt to the senior leadership at ct counsel. the top said that you need to change this to a nonconcur. even something like that could happen in practice. the issue here is that we -- i contacted the line attorneys manager, the area counsel. i said that, you know, this is going -- we didn't know this is a noon concur. she saying it's a concur. she said it was always a n nonconcur. the panel agreed with the law and that key oh recommending concurring those charges. i don't know why c.t. counsel would lie to us or provide false information about it being a nonconcur the whole time. special agent zeigler had some communication with that line attorney and said, down that

they're saying it's always been a nonconcur? she said what? no. i sent a yellow light, which is a concur. so that was the issue with ct counsel that really perplexed me. that's something that i wanted to add to the congressman back there. thanks for the extra time. >> thank you. i just wanted to -- with regard to what happened in central park years ago. the mischaracterization of what happened there is i'm sure very hurtful and harmful to the central park jogger. i wouldn't you have -- there's more to that story. thank you. >> very good. at the request of the witnesses, we're going to take two more questions and then we'll have another ten minute recess. so recognize mr. kosar for five minutes. >> it's clear from this hearing

that democrats are pro accountability, equal treatment under the law and for paying your taxes. in the hunter biden case, we've heard that trump appointed u.s. attorney took the extensive work of the irs investigation and got the most severe penalty that he thought was possible. he was held accountable. there's so many millionaires and billionaires and big corporations that are never held accountable for tax evasion. in fact, they are shielded by this gop majority. republicans are not interested in that accountability. instead, they're interested in their hardest to embarrass the president. if republicans were interested in holding the powerful accountable, we would be holding hearings on making sure the irs has the resources to investigate every billionaire and every big corporation that cheats on their taxes. instead, the first bill that i

voted on, the first bill brought forward by this republican majority was to slash funding dedicated to the irs in order to chase down billionaire tax cheats. that would have brought us more revenue for us -- if we spend some money on the irs that would have brought more money to the irs and improved programs for the american people. a 2021 paper found that the wealthiest 1% may owe more than $160 billion in incollected taxes. according to "the new york times," tax compliant rates for high and low -- are high. tax compliants rates are high for low and middle income workers that have their taxes deducted automatically from their paychecks. the rich, however, are able to use accounting loop holes to shield their account abilities. low and middle incomes americans have high tax compliance rates. they pay their taxes. it's the very wealthiest and the

biggest corporations that refuse to pay their fair share and rig the system here in d.c. in their favor. so mr. chairman, i'm interested in you can commit to holding a hearing about holding billionaires and big corporations accountable for evading taxes? this could be a bipartisan hearing. could result in reductions to the deficit. if we have interest in holding folks accountable, we should be looking at the biggest fish we can across the board. >> we're starting here today. >> and we can have -- we're having a hearing about accountability. why folks have voted for cutting billions of dollars in order to let folks off the hook. i'd be interested. if we could have a hearing on the fact that the irs has lost to attrition thousands of employees with sophisticated skills. used to be that 41,000 audits happen a year for millionaires.

that was ten years ago. in fiscal year 2020, the irs only audited 11,000 millionaire returns. only about 7,100 of those returns were audited by new agents that are the most highly qualified auditors. can we have a hearing? i think this is something that we can all get behind. have a hearing about billionaires and big corporations at large scale, potentially getting away from the latest reports, we're talking about 160 billion in incollected taxes. i'd like to see whether there might be interest from anybody on the other side of the aisle on us having that kind of a hearing. any interest? really, i have over a minute of time. mr. sessions, that would be great. that would be a good hearing for us to. we want everybody to follow the law. i agree. with that i yield back my time to the ranking member. >> yield to the gentleman from new york.

>> thank you. i appreciate the gentleman from texas yielding. i want to bring up that october 7 meeting real quick in just the minute we have. you're familiar with an october 6 "washington post" story entitled federal agency charged with tax, gun cases against hunter biden. is that right? >> yes, i'm familiar. >> this meeting occurred october 7, the day after this, right? >> that's correct. >> was this argument discussed at that meeting? >> it was. >> what was the nature of the discussion? >> it's in that document, that e-mail that basically says that we got to keep it small and clear -- >> you'd agree it was clear that this was a leak to "the washington post" by law enforcement agents since it describe what's federal agents believe, right? >> it wasn't clear that it was. usually they'll say it's a law enforcement source that provided it. if you see in the bottom, it

says that they corroborated independently. >> you don't think it's the federal agents that leaked this when the headline says federal agents see tax case against hunter biden. >> time has expired. feel agree to answer the question. >> prior to that, if you go back to december 2020, there was another leak to "the washington post" that got -- i mean, that we had to get department of justice involved. other leaks that happened prior to this to "the washington post" that i think are important for us to understand as well. in that situation. >> had similar information >> it had similar information as the october 6th? >> of the chair now recognizes mr. donald's from florida. >> thank you mr. chairman. to the witnesses, thank you for being here today. want to get right to it as we have a lot to cover. mr. siegler, you are the agent

that opened up this investigation. from your transcript, page 17, what it says is is that you were investigating a social media company and through the process of that investigation, you found out paying potentially for prostitutes and a potential prostitution ring, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> evidence he was living lavishly through his corporate bank accounts -- when i say "him," i mean hunter biden, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> question for you and also mr. shapely. is it a clear line of potential investigation if somebody is charging a massive living expenses through a corporate account and not doing that through their own personal accounts, not accounting for that on their tax returns, is that the basis of a criminal

investigation? >> generally speaking that would spur a criminal investigation, yes. >> let me ask you this question real quick. there was reference to the whatsapp text message referring to come everybody knows it now, i'm sitting here with my dad, tell the chairman to give me my money because we remember and we are not going to forget because we are the bidens and we have all of these questions, yada, yada, yada. we all know that text message now. >> the irs whistle-blower hearing is still underway on capitol hill, we will continue to monitor it. welcome to "the five," everyone peered i'm greg gutfeld come along with judge jeanine pirro, jessica tarlov, jesse watters, and kennedy. it's called "the five." ♪ ♪ the hunter headache getting worse for the white house. a second irs whistle-blower coming forward and testifying before congress right now. justin ziegler revealing his identity for the first time an