cnbc--2020-07-08--Bolsonaro's positive coronavirus test marks 'beginning of the end' for his administration, analyst s

Bolsonaro's positive coronavirus test marks 'beginning of the end' for his administration, analyst says

A file photo dated March 01 , 2020 shows President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro ( L ) along with his wife Michelle Bolsonaro ( R ) arriving at the inauguration ceremony of Uruguay 's new President Luis Lacalle Pou , at the Plaza Independencia in Montevideo , Uruguay .
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro 's positive diagnosis for the coronavirus marks the `` beginning of the end '' of his administration , one analyst told CNBC , while others expect the right-wing leader to double down on his highly-criticized pandemic response .
Bolsonaro told reporters in a television interview on Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after experiencing symptoms for the disease over the weekend .
He claimed he now felt `` very well , '' saying the high temperature he had experienced on Sunday had since gone down .
The president also said he was taking hydroxychloroquine — an anti-malaria drug championed by his ideological ally , President Donald Trump — and azithromycin , an antibiotic , to treat the virus .
Neither of the drugs have been proven to be an effective prophylactic or treatment for Covid-19 .
The diagnosis comes after Brazil 's president consistently dismissed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He has previously described the disease as nothing more than `` a little flu '' and claimed his past as an athlete would make him immune to the worst symptoms .
`` Despite publicly shrugging off his positive test for Covid-19 , it marks the beginning of the end of his administration , '' Robert Muggah , director of the Igarape Institute , a think tank based in Rio de Janeiro , told CNBC via email .
`` It is yet another visible expression of his recklessness and ineptitude , '' Muggah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still without a coordinated national strategy to tackle the outbreak .
A government spokesperson was not immediately available to comment when contacted by CNBC on Wednesday .

A file photo dated March 01, 2020 shows President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro (L) along with his wife Michelle Bolsonaro (R) arriving at the inauguration ceremony of Uruguay's new President Luis Lacalle Pou, at the Plaza Independencia in Montevideo, Uruguay.
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's positive diagnosis for the coronavirus marks the "beginning of the end" of his administration, one analyst told CNBC, while others expect the right-wing leader to double down on his highly-criticized pandemic response.
Bolsonaro told reporters in a television interview on Tuesday that he had tested positive for Covid-19 after experiencing symptoms for the disease over the weekend.
He claimed he now felt "very well," saying the high temperature he had experienced on Sunday had since gone down.
The president also said he was taking hydroxychloroquine — an anti-malaria drug championed by his ideological ally, President Donald Trump — and azithromycin, an antibiotic, to treat the virus.
Neither of the drugs have been proven to be an effective prophylactic or treatment for Covid-19.
The diagnosis comes after Brazil's president consistently dismissed the threat of the virus for months. He has previously described the disease as nothing more than "a little flu" and claimed his past as an athlete would make him immune to the worst symptoms.
"Despite publicly shrugging off his positive test for Covid-19, it marks the beginning of the end of his administration," Robert Muggah, director of the Igarape Institute, a think tank based in Rio de Janeiro, told CNBC via email.
"It is yet another visible expression of his recklessness and ineptitude," Muggah said, before adding the country was still without a coordinated national strategy to tackle the outbreak.
A government spokesperson was not immediately available to comment when contacted by CNBC on Wednesday.


cnbc--2020-07-08--Former Fox News anchor Shepard Smith joins CNBC as chief general news anchor with new evening show

CNBC announced on Wednesday that former Fox News anchor Shepard Smith is joining the network to host a one-hour evening news program on weekdays at 7 p.m .
ET .
The newscast , which will be called `` The News with Shepard Smith , '' is set to launch in the fall .
Smith 's title will be chief general news anchor and chief breaking general news anchor .
Smith joins CNBC after spending 23 years at Fox News Channel , where he anchored `` Shepard Smith Reporting , '' `` The Fox Report '' and `` Studio B .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anchor of the network and managing editor of the breaking news division .
`` I am honored to continue to pursue the truth , both for CNBC 's loyal viewers and for those who have been following my reporting for decades in good times and in bad , '' Smith said in a press release .
Smith left Fox News abruptly in October after establishing himself as a vocal critic of President Donald Trump , who had repeatedly attacked Smith .
Before announcing his departure , Smith was reportedly warned by Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president and executive editor , to stop criticizing evening anchor Tucker Carlson .
Fox denied those reports .
CNBC Chairman Mark Hoffman said Smith has a track record of fact-driven storytelling .
`` We aim to deliver a nightly program that , in some small way , looks for the signal in all the noise , '' Hoffman said in the press release .
`` We 're thrilled that Shep , who 's built a career on an honest fight to find and report the facts , will continue his pursuit of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , CNBC 's senior vice president of business news , said Smith 's program aims to go beyond financial markets , `` to tell rich , deeply reported stories across the entire landscape of global news . ''
CNBC had been running a 7 p.m. show focused on Covid-19 and the economic crisis .
It ended the program last Thursday .
Smith will appear on CNBC in the 10 a.m .
ET on Thursday to discuss his upcoming show .

CNBC announced on Wednesday that former Fox News anchor Shepard Smith is joining the network to host a one-hour evening news program on weekdays at 7 p.m. ET.
The newscast, which will be called "The News with Shepard Smith," is set to launch in the fall. Smith's title will be chief general news anchor and chief breaking general news anchor.
Smith joins CNBC after spending 23 years at Fox News Channel, where he anchored "Shepard Smith Reporting," "The Fox Report" and "Studio B." He also served as chief news anchor of the network and managing editor of the breaking news division.
"I am honored to continue to pursue the truth, both for CNBC's loyal viewers and for those who have been following my reporting for decades in good times and in bad," Smith said in a press release.
Smith left Fox News abruptly in October after establishing himself as a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, who had repeatedly attacked Smith. Before announcing his departure, Smith was reportedly warned by Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and Jay Wallace, president and executive editor, to stop criticizing evening anchor Tucker Carlson. Fox denied those reports.
CNBC Chairman Mark Hoffman said Smith has a track record of fact-driven storytelling.
"We aim to deliver a nightly program that, in some small way, looks for the signal in all the noise," Hoffman said in the press release. "We're thrilled that Shep, who's built a career on an honest fight to find and report the facts, will continue his pursuit of the truth at CNBC."
Dan Colarusso, CNBC's senior vice president of business news, said Smith's program aims to go beyond financial markets, "to tell rich, deeply reported stories across the entire landscape of global news." CNBC had been running a 7 p.m. show focused on Covid-19 and the economic crisis. It ended the program last Thursday.
Smith will appear on CNBC in the 10 a.m. ET on Thursday to discuss his upcoming show.


cnbc--2020-07-09--Biden uses progressive message to roll out his moderate economic plan

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks about the U.S. economy during a campaign event at McGregor Industries , a metal works plant that manufactures stairs and stair railings , in Dunmore , Pennsylvania , July 9 , 2020 .
Joe Biden took to the podium Thursday in Dunmore , Pennsylvania , to unveil his economic platform as a candidate running for president of a country facing simultaneous economic , health and racial crises .
The presumptive Democratic nominee 's message was different than the one he laid out previously in the swing state in 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 % and he had to remind the country there was a `` forgotten America '' struggling even as the U.S. economy soared .
With unemployment at 11 % and unemployment claims surpassing 1 million weekly , he sought not to remind Americans there was pain , but to promise he could ease it .
`` This is our moment to imagine and to build a new American economy for our families and for our communities , an economy for every American , '' Biden said .
`` Every American has a chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work they put in , an equal chance to get ahead . ''
The message Biden laid out in opening remarks echoes ideas from progressive Democrats , who have pushed behind the scenes for Biden to use this historic moment to rewrite the rules with drastically wider social safety nets and higher taxes on the wealthy .
The policies themselves were not starkly different from those that Biden had previously outlined , though .
He echoed his call for Amazon to pay income taxes .
He said he would raise the U.S. corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current 21 % , just as he did previously .
He also again pushed for a $ 15 an hour federal minimum wage .
But his rhetoric reflected America in 2020 , which is rife with anger from many on Main Street who believe that Wall Street is getting bailed out ahead of them .
`` [ In this ] crisis , Donald Trump has been almost singularly focused on the stock market , the Dow and Nasdaq .
Not you , not your families , '' he said .
`` If I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I 'll be laser-focused on working families , the middle-class families ... we must reward work as much as we rewarded wealth . ''
He spoke to racial inequality that the coronavirus pandemic has laid bare , having promised earlier in the day he would invest $ 70 billion in minority-led colleges and universities .
He chastised the principle of `` shareholder capitalism '' and told the audience that `` Wall Street bankers and CEOs did n't build America . ''
It was built , instead , by labor and unions who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Pennsylvania , home to thousands of manufacturing jobs and working-class voters , he had an audience keen to hear of the importance of labor and unions .
The state voted for Trump in 2016 , on hopes he would restore the U.S. manufacturing industry that he said had been outsourced away to China .
The U.S. manufacturing industry subtracted 0.53 percentage point from real GDP in the first quarter , helping the economy shrink by 5 % at the annual rate .
Biden , who often speaks of his youth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gaining momentum in the state .
A RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Biden ahead of Trump in the state .
Biden earlier in the day rolled out a $ 700 billion manufacturing and innovation plan that reflects a coronavirus America .
The large price tag shows how big of a gap he believes there is to fill .
Its focus on U.S.-made products reflects a country even more unnerved by the country 's dependency on China , as its supply chains have been threatened by the global health crisis .
That dependency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
`` Let 's use this opportunity to make bold investments in American industry and innovation so the future is Made In America — and in all of America , '' Biden said .
His plan includes $ 400 billion to invest in products and materials the U.S. needs .
It will offer a tax credit to companies that renovate or revive their facilities .
Biden is also pledging a $ 300 billion investment in research and development in technologies spanning electric cars to 5G .
`` The Chinese are spending billions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the future while we sit with our thumb in our ear , '' he said .
Biden did not outline Thursday how he would pay for the plan .
For smaller companies , now facing even more pressure during the pandemic , Biden earlier in the day said he would create a credit facility for financing .
He said he would increase funding for manufacturing extension partnerships , meaning private-public partnerships designed to help smaller companies .
He said his manufacturing plan would add 5 million jobs .
As Biden completed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industries particularly hit by the pandemic , calling out working parents , teachers and first responders '' It 's time not only to clap for them , it 's time to pay them , '' he said , before touting his health-care plan , which does not embrace the progressive-backed `` Medicare for All '' idea .
Rather , Biden proposed a public health insurance option , as he had before .
`` And let 's finish the job of Obamacare by ensuring everyone has access to quality affordable health care . ''

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks about the U.S. economy during a campaign event at McGregor Industries, a metal works plant that manufactures stairs and stair railings, in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, July 9, 2020.
Joe Biden took to the podium Thursday in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, to unveil his economic platform as a candidate running for president of a country facing simultaneous economic, health and racial crises.
The presumptive Democratic nominee's message was different than the one he laid out previously in the swing state in 2019, when the unemployment rate was around 3% and he had to remind the country there was a "forgotten America" struggling even as the U.S. economy soared.
With unemployment at 11% and unemployment claims surpassing 1 million weekly, he sought not to remind Americans there was pain, but to promise he could ease it.
"This is our moment to imagine and to build a new American economy for our families and for our communities, an economy for every American," Biden said. "Every American has a chance to get a fair return for the work they put in, an equal chance to get ahead."
The message Biden laid out in opening remarks echoes ideas from progressive Democrats, who have pushed behind the scenes for Biden to use this historic moment to rewrite the rules with drastically wider social safety nets and higher taxes on the wealthy.
The policies themselves were not starkly different from those that Biden had previously outlined, though. He echoed his call for Amazon to pay income taxes. He said he would raise the U.S. corporate tax rate to 28% from the current 21%, just as he did previously. He also again pushed for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage.
But his rhetoric reflected America in 2020, which is rife with anger from many on Main Street who believe that Wall Street is getting bailed out ahead of them.
"[In this] crisis, Donald Trump has been almost singularly focused on the stock market, the Dow and Nasdaq. Not you, not your families," he said. "If I'm fortunate enough to be elected president, I'll be laser-focused on working families, the middle-class families ... we must reward work as much as we rewarded wealth."
He spoke to racial inequality that the coronavirus pandemic has laid bare, having promised earlier in the day he would invest $70 billion in minority-led colleges and universities.
He chastised the principle of "shareholder capitalism" and told the audience that "Wall Street bankers and CEOs didn't build America." It was built, instead, by labor and unions who made the middle class, he said.
In Pennsylvania, home to thousands of manufacturing jobs and working-class voters, he had an audience keen to hear of the importance of labor and unions. The state voted for Trump in 2016, on hopes he would restore the U.S. manufacturing industry that he said had been outsourced away to China. The U.S. manufacturing industry subtracted 0.53 percentage point from real GDP in the first quarter, helping the economy shrink by 5% at the annual rate.
Biden, who often speaks of his youth in nearby Scranton, Pennsylvania, has been gaining momentum in the state. A RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Biden ahead of Trump in the state.
Biden earlier in the day rolled out a $700 billion manufacturing and innovation plan that reflects a coronavirus America. The large price tag shows how big of a gap he believes there is to fill. Its focus on U.S.-made products reflects a country even more unnerved by the country's dependency on China, as its supply chains have been threatened by the global health crisis.
That dependency has also been a battle cry for Trump.
"Let's use this opportunity to make bold investments in American industry and innovation so the future is Made In America — and in all of America," Biden said.
His plan includes $400 billion to invest in products and materials the U.S. needs. It will offer a tax credit to companies that renovate or revive their facilities.
Biden is also pledging a $300 billion investment in research and development in technologies spanning electric cars to 5G.
"The Chinese are spending billions of dollars trying to own the technology of the future while we sit with our thumb in our ear," he said.
Biden did not outline Thursday how he would pay for the plan.
For smaller companies, now facing even more pressure during the pandemic, Biden earlier in the day said he would create a credit facility for financing. He said he would increase funding for manufacturing extension partnerships, meaning private-public partnerships designed to help smaller companies.
He said his manufacturing plan would add 5 million jobs.
As Biden completed his speech, he addressed those workers and industries particularly hit by the pandemic, calling out working parents, teachers and first responders
"It's time not only to clap for them, it's time to pay them," he said, before touting his health-care plan, which does not embrace the progressive-backed "Medicare for All" idea. Rather, Biden proposed a public health insurance option, as he had before.
"And let's finish the job of Obamacare by ensuring everyone has access to quality affordable health care."
-- CNBC's Christina Wilkie contributed to this report.


cnbc--2020-07-09--Supreme Court says Manhattan DA can get Trump's tax records, but rejects bid by House Democrats

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered split opinions in two cases over whether President Donald Trump can shield his tax records from investigators , handing a win to the Manhattan district attorney but rejecting efforts by House Democrats .
Both cases were decided 7-2 , with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the court 's opinions and joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch .
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in both cases .
Both cases are subject to further review by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president 's claims that he was immune from state criminal subpoenas in the New York case .
In the congressional case , they wiped away rulings in favor of House Democrats , ordering lower courts to more carefully consider concerns about the separation of powers .
The mixed rulings mean the American public is unlikely to learn about Trump 's financial records or tax information before November 's election .
It is not clear when the lower courts may ultimately resolve the matter .
The decisions mark the first time that the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a matter involving Trump 's personal dealings .
Trump has been more secretive with his finances than any president in decades , refusing to release his tax records to the public even as he mounts a bid for reelection .
The cases were decided on the final day of the Supreme Court 's term , which began last October and was extended past its typical end-of-June conclusion as a result of precautions taken against the spreading coronavirus .
`` In our judicial system , 'the public has a right to every man 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Republic , 'every man ' has included the President of the United States , '' Roberts wrote in the New York case .
The New York case stems from an investigation being pursued by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. Vance issued a subpoena to Trump 's longtime accounting firm , Mazars , for a wide variety of Trump 's personal and business records , including tax returns , dating to 2011 .
Vance 's office is investigating the hush money payments that Trump allegedly facilitated to two women ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his subpoenas is relatively opaque .
The women have claimed to have had sexual relationships with the president that he has denied .
Vance has n't said whether Trump is a suspect in his investigation , and he has not indicated any potential charges .
Trump 's attorneys had pushed for an expansive view of presidential immunity in the case .
In one lower court hearing in New York , an attorney for the president said Trump would theoretically be immune from investigation even if he shot someone on New York 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump claimed that he could `` stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I would n't lose any voters . ''
In a statement , Vance called Thursday 's decision `` a tremendous victory for our nation 's system of justice and its founding principle that no one – not even a president – is above the law . ''
`` Our investigation , which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit , will resume , guided as always by the grand jury 's solemn obligation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wherever they may lead , '' Vance said .
Jay Sekulow , an attorney for Trump , said in a statement that `` we are pleased that in the decisions issued today , the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President 's financial records . ''
`` We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts , '' Sekulow said .
Despite Sekulow 's guarded optimism , it was clear from Trump 's response that the president did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Now the Supreme Court gives a delay ruling that they would never have given for another President .
This is about PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT .
We catch the other side SPYING on my campaign , the biggest political crime and scandal in U.S. history , and NOTHING HAPPENS .
But despite this , I have done more than any President in history in first 3 1/2 years ! ''
Trump wrote in a series of posts on Twitter .
`` Courts in the past have given 'broad deference ' .
BUT NOT ME @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spokesperson Ian Duncan said in a statement that the firm was `` reviewing the decision in its entirety to fully understand our obligations . ''
`` As previously noted , Mazars USA fully intends to comply with its legal obligations , '' Duncan said .
In his dissent , Alito wrote that the majority 's decision `` threatens to impair the functioning of the Presidency and provides no real protection against the use of the subpoena power by the Nation 's 2,300+ local prosecutors . ''
Thomas wrote in dissent that he agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have absolute immunity from criminal subpoenas , but that he would have erased the lower court win for Vance and instructed the lower court to determine whether the subpoena should be blocked on the basis that it would interfere with Trump 's duties .
The congressional cases involved subpoenas issued by Democratic-led committees of the House of Representatives , which sought financial records from Mazars as well as his banks , Capital One and Deutsche Bank .
The committees said they needed the information to inform potential legislation , and as part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different , '' Roberts wrote in the opinion , which was handed down shortly after the one in the New York case .
`` Here the President 's information is sought not by prosecutors or private parties in connection with a particular judicial proceeding , but by committees of Congress that have set forth broad legislative objectives . ''
`` Congress and the President—the two political branches established by the Constitution—have an ongoing relationship that the Framers intended to feature both rivalry and reciprocity , '' Roberts wrote .
The House Oversight Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into claims made by the president 's former lawyer Michael Cohen that Trump inflated and deflated his assets to suit his needs .
The oversight panel is also investigating Trump 's failure to list on his 2017 disclosure form $ 130,000 that he owed to Cohen to reimburse him for a hush money payment to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels .
The Office of Government Ethics has said Trump should have listed the debt as a liability .
The financial services and intelligence committees issued two separate subpoenas to Deutsche Bank seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his family , including his children Donald Trump Jr. , Eric Trump , and Ivanka Trump .
A third subpoena , from the financial services committee , asked Capital One for a wide variety of information on 15 Trump businesses .
The financial services committee is investigating potential foreign money laundering .
Rep. Adam Schiff , the chairman of the intelligence committee , has said his committee 's investigation entails uncovering whether `` any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage , financial or otherwise , over Donald Trump , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associates . ''
Roberts wrote that the subpoenas raised grave concerns about the Constitution 's separation of powers that the lower courts did not fully consider when they handed victories to Congress .
`` Without limits on its subpoena powers , Congress could 'exert an imperious control ' over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President 's expense , just as the Framers feared , '' Roberts wrote .
`` And a limitless subpoena power would transform the `` established practice '' of the political branches . ''
Roberts wrote that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to third parties , rather than the president himself , and asked for personal documents , did not significantly diminish the constitutional hurdles .
`` Congressional demands for the President 's information present an interbranch conflict no matter where the information is held — it is , after all , the President 's information , '' Roberts wrote .
`` Were it otherwise , Congress could sidestep constitutional requirements any time a President 's information is entrusted to a third party — as occurs with rapidly increasing frequency . ''
He added that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person who alone composes a branch of government , '' there is not always `` a clear line between his personal and official affairs . ''
Thomas dissented , saying he would hold that Congress has no power to issue a subpoena related to potential legislation `` for private , nonofficial documents — whether they belong to the President or not . ''
`` Congress may be able to obtain these documents as part of an investigation of the President , but to do so , it must proceed under the impeachment power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would n't assume that such subpoenas are always unlawful , but that that they are `` inherently suspicious . ''
He said he agreed that lower courts should have to more carefully weigh separation of powers concerns , but argued that the majority did not go far enough .
`` Specifically , the House should provide a description of the type of legislation being considered , and while great specificity is not necessary , the description should be sufficient to permit a court to assess whether the particular records sought are of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Schiff said in a statement that the Supreme Court 's ruling `` will serve to delay the Committee 's investigation — and , given the risk of foreign influence over this President , such delay is dangerous . ''
`` But we remain confident that we will ultimately prevail .
And in light of the President 's tweets this morning , he appears to believe the same , '' Schiff said .
Erwin Chemerinsky , a leading legal scholar and the dean of Berkeley Law , said the immediate effect of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that either will be resolved soon or provide access to President Trump 's tax returns before the November election . ''
`` The longer term impact is to help provide accountability for the president , '' Chemerinsky said .
`` If the Court had accepted President Trump 's claim of broad immunity from subpoenas , it truly would have put the president above the law . ''
The consolidated congressional cases are Trump v. Mazars , No .
19-715 and Trump v. Deutsche Bank , No .
19-760 .
The New York case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19-635 .

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered split opinions in two cases over whether President Donald Trump can shield his tax records from investigators, handing a win to the Manhattan district attorney but rejecting efforts by House Democrats.
Both cases were decided 7-2, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the court's opinions and joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in both cases.
Both cases are subject to further review by lower courts. The justices rejected the president's claims that he was immune from state criminal subpoenas in the New York case. In the congressional case, they wiped away rulings in favor of House Democrats, ordering lower courts to more carefully consider concerns about the separation of powers.
The mixed rulings mean the American public is unlikely to learn about Trump's financial records or tax information before November's election. It is not clear when the lower courts may ultimately resolve the matter.
The decisions mark the first time that the nation's highest court has directly ruled on a matter involving Trump's personal dealings. Trump has been more secretive with his finances than any president in decades, refusing to release his tax records to the public even as he mounts a bid for reelection.
The cases were decided on the final day of the Supreme Court's term, which began last October and was extended past its typical end-of-June conclusion as a result of precautions taken against the spreading coronavirus.
"In our judicial system, 'the public has a right to every man's evidence.' Since the earliest days of the Republic, 'every man' has included the President of the United States," Roberts wrote in the New York case.
The New York case stems from an investigation being pursued by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. Vance issued a subpoena to Trump's longtime accounting firm, Mazars, for a wide variety of Trump's personal and business records, including tax returns, dating to 2011.
Vance's office is investigating the hush money payments that Trump allegedly facilitated to two women ahead of the 2016 election, though the purpose for his subpoenas is relatively opaque.
The women have claimed to have had sexual relationships with the president that he has denied. Vance hasn't said whether Trump is a suspect in his investigation, and he has not indicated any potential charges.
Trump's attorneys had pushed for an expansive view of presidential immunity in the case.
In one lower court hearing in New York, an attorney for the president said Trump would theoretically be immune from investigation even if he shot someone on New York's Fifth Avenue. During the 2016 campaign, Trump claimed that he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters."
In a statement, Vance called Thursday's decision "a tremendous victory for our nation's system of justice and its founding principle that no one – not even a president – is above the law."
"Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury's solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead," Vance said.
Jay Sekulow, an attorney for Trump, said in a statement that "we are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President's financial records."
"We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts," Sekulow said.
Despite Sekulow's guarded optimism, it was clear from Trump's response that the president did not see the rulings as victories.
"Now the Supreme Court gives a delay ruling that they would never have given for another President. This is about PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. We catch the other side SPYING on my campaign, the biggest political crime and scandal in U.S. history, and NOTHING HAPPENS. But despite this, I have done more than any President in history in first 3 1/2 years!" Trump wrote in a series of posts on Twitter.
"Courts in the past have given 'broad deference'. BUT NOT ME!" Trump added.
trump tweet
Mazars USA spokesperson Ian Duncan said in a statement that the firm was "reviewing the decision in its entirety to fully understand our obligations."
"As previously noted, Mazars USA fully intends to comply with its legal obligations," Duncan said.
In his dissent, Alito wrote that the majority's decision "threatens to impair the functioning of the Presidency and provides no real protection against the use of the subpoena power by the Nation's 2,300+ local prosecutors."
Thomas wrote in dissent that he agreed with the majority that presidents do not have absolute immunity from criminal subpoenas, but that he would have erased the lower court win for Vance and instructed the lower court to determine whether the subpoena should be blocked on the basis that it would interfere with Trump's duties.
The congressional cases involved subpoenas issued by Democratic-led committees of the House of Representatives, which sought financial records from Mazars as well as his banks, Capital One and Deutsche Bank. The committees said they needed the information to inform potential legislation, and as part of ongoing investigations.
"This case is different," Roberts wrote in the opinion, which was handed down shortly after the one in the New York case. "Here the President's information is sought not by prosecutors or private parties in connection with a particular judicial proceeding, but by committees of Congress that have set forth broad legislative objectives."
"Congress and the President—the two political branches established by the Constitution—have an ongoing relationship that the Framers intended to feature both rivalry and reciprocity," Roberts wrote.
The House Oversight Committee sought the information in connection with investigations into claims made by the president's former lawyer Michael Cohen that Trump inflated and deflated his assets to suit his needs.
The oversight panel is also investigating Trump's failure to list on his 2017 disclosure form $130,000 that he owed to Cohen to reimburse him for a hush money payment to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The Office of Government Ethics has said Trump should have listed the debt as a liability.
The financial services and intelligence committees issued two separate subpoenas to Deutsche Bank seeking information on the president and members of his family, including his children Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump. A third subpoena, from the financial services committee, asked Capital One for a wide variety of information on 15 Trump businesses.
The financial services committee is investigating potential foreign money laundering. Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee, has said his committee's investigation entails uncovering whether "any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Donald Trump, his family, his business, or his associates."
Roberts wrote that the subpoenas raised grave concerns about the Constitution's separation of powers that the lower courts did not fully consider when they handed victories to Congress.
"Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could 'exert an imperious control' over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President's expense, just as the Framers feared," Roberts wrote. "And a limitless subpoena power would transform the "established practice" of the political branches."
Roberts wrote that the fact that the subpoenas were issued to third parties, rather than the president himself, and asked for personal documents, did not significantly diminish the constitutional hurdles.
"Congressional demands for the President's information present an interbranch conflict no matter where the information is held — it is, after all, the President's information," Roberts wrote. "Were it otherwise, Congress could sidestep constitutional requirements any time a President's information is entrusted to a third party — as occurs with rapidly increasing frequency."
He added that because the president "is the only person who alone composes a branch of government," there is not always "a clear line between his personal and official affairs."
Thomas dissented, saying he would hold that Congress has no power to issue a subpoena related to potential legislation "for private, nonofficial documents — whether they belong to the President or not."
"Congress may be able to obtain these documents as part of an investigation of the President, but to do so, it must proceed under the impeachment power," Thomas wrote.
Alito said he wouldn't assume that such subpoenas are always unlawful, but that that they are "inherently suspicious."
He said he agreed that lower courts should have to more carefully weigh separation of powers concerns, but argued that the majority did not go far enough.
"Specifically, the House should provide a description of the type of legislation being considered, and while great specificity is not necessary, the description should be sufficient to permit a court to assess whether the particular records sought are of any special importance," Alito wrote.
Schiff said in a statement that the Supreme Court's ruling "will serve to delay the Committee's investigation — and, given the risk of foreign influence over this President, such delay is dangerous."
"But we remain confident that we will ultimately prevail. And in light of the President's tweets this morning, he appears to believe the same," Schiff said.
Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading legal scholar and the dean of Berkeley Law, said the immediate effect of the rulings was that it was "unlikely that either will be resolved soon or provide access to President Trump's tax returns before the November election."
"The longer term impact is to help provide accountability for the president," Chemerinsky said. "If the Court had accepted President Trump's claim of broad immunity from subpoenas, it truly would have put the president above the law."
The consolidated congressional cases are Trump v. Mazars, No. 19-715 and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, No. 19-760. The New York case is Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635.
-- CNBC's Christina Wilkie contributed to this report.


cnbc--2020-07-09--Judge asks full federal appeals court to reconsider decision forcing him to drop Michael Flynn case

Michael Flynn , former U.S. national security advisor , arrives for a status hearing at federal court in Washington , D.C. , U.S. , on Tuesday , July 10 , 2018 .
The judge in Michael Flynn 's criminal case asked a federal appeals court Thursday to reconsider its ruling ordering him to dismiss the criminal case against the former national security advisor to President Donald Trump .
Judge Emmet Sullivan 's lawyer asked for a so-called en banc review of the 2-1 decision of the three-judge appeals court panel .
If the review is granted , all active judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's argument that the case needs to be dismissed by Sullivan , without any delay or input from outside parties , as Sullivan has allowed .
A lawyer for Sullivan argued in a lengthy court filing that the appeals panel 's order to quickly grant the Department of Justice 's request to drop its prosecution of Flynn `` threatens to turn ordinary judicial process upside down . ''
`` It is the district court 's job to consider and rule on pending motions , even ones that seem straightforward , '' wrote Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that filing .
`` This Court , if called upon , reviews those decisions—it does not preempt them . ''
Wilkinson also wrote that while the appeals panel 's decision `` is couched as a fact-bound ruling , '' it `` in fact marks a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice . ''
The Justice Department and Flynn 's lawyer , Sidney Powell , did not immediately respond to requests for comment .
In its decision ordering that the case be dismissed , the appeals panel had said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , which includes the Justice Department , has `` primacy over charging decisions . ''
Appeals Judge Neomi Rao wrote in that panel 's decision that it was appropriate to order Sullivan to dismiss the case after he slow-walked his decision in order `` to prevent the judicial usurpation of executive power . ''
En banc reviews are rarely granted .
But Flynn 's case has been unusual for years , and such a move would not be the oddest thing to happen in the case .
Flynn , 61 , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FBI about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak , the then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. , in the weeks before Trump 's inauguration the prior January .
The charge was brought as part of then-special counsel Robert Mueller 's probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election .
Flynn was nearly sentenced in December 2018 .
But his sentencing hearing was aborted when he accepted Sullivan 's offer to postpone it until he had finished cooperating with law enforcement officials as part of his plea agreement .
In 2019 , however , Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who began laying the groundwork for what became Flynn 's request to withdraw his guilty plea .
The Justice Department had opposed Powell 's efforts until May , when , in a stunning reversal , the department told Sullivan it wanted to drop the prosecution .
The department argued to Sullivan that a review of the investigation found that Flynn should not have been questioned by the FBI , much less charged with lying to federal agents .
The department also said that potentially exculpatory evidence had been withheld from Flynn 's lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request to dismiss the charge .
Instead , the judge appointed a lawyer , former federal judge John Gleeson , to make arguments to him about why the case should not be tossed out .
Sullivan also said he would consider arguments for or against the dismissal request from third parties not involved in the case .
Gleeson later told Sullivan in a court filing the Justice Department engaged in `` a gross abuse of prosecutorial power '' in seeking to drop the case against Flynn and `` has engaged in highly irregular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President . ''
Flynn 's lawyers then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , requesting that it force the lower court to grant the DOJ 's request to dismiss the charge .
The appeals panel ruled in Flynn 's and the Justice Department 's favor last month .

Michael Flynn, former U.S. national security advisor, arrives for a status hearing at federal court in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, July 10, 2018.
The judge in Michael Flynn's criminal case asked a federal appeals court Thursday to reconsider its ruling ordering him to dismiss the criminal case against the former national security advisor to President Donald Trump.
Judge Emmet Sullivan's lawyer asked for a so-called en banc review of the 2-1 decision of the three-judge appeals court panel.
If the review is granted, all active judges on the appeals court would rehear Flynn's argument that the case needs to be dismissed by Sullivan, without any delay or input from outside parties, as Sullivan has allowed.
A lawyer for Sullivan argued in a lengthy court filing that the appeals panel's order to quickly grant the Department of Justice's request to drop its prosecution of Flynn "threatens to turn ordinary judicial process upside down."
"It is the district court's job to consider and rule on pending motions, even ones that seem straightforward," wrote Sullivan's lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, in that filing.
"This Court, if called upon, reviews those decisions—it does not preempt them."
Wilkinson also wrote that while the appeals panel's decision "is couched as a fact-bound ruling," it "in fact marks a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice."
The Justice Department and Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In its decision ordering that the case be dismissed, the appeals panel had said that the executive branch of the federal government, which includes the Justice Department, has "primacy over charging decisions."
Appeals Judge Neomi Rao wrote in that panel's decision that it was appropriate to order Sullivan to dismiss the case after he slow-walked his decision in order "to prevent the judicial usurpation of executive power."
En banc reviews are rarely granted. But Flynn's case has been unusual for years, and such a move would not be the oddest thing to happen in the case.
Flynn, 61, in December 2017 pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, the then-Russian ambassador to the U.S., in the weeks before Trump's inauguration the prior January.
The charge was brought as part of then-special counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Flynn was nearly sentenced in December 2018. But his sentencing hearing was aborted when he accepted Sullivan's offer to postpone it until he had finished cooperating with law enforcement officials as part of his plea agreement.
In 2019, however, Flynn replaced his legal team with Powell, who began laying the groundwork for what became Flynn's request to withdraw his guilty plea.
The Justice Department had opposed Powell's efforts until May, when, in a stunning reversal, the department told Sullivan it wanted to drop the prosecution.
The department argued to Sullivan that a review of the investigation found that Flynn should not have been questioned by the FBI, much less charged with lying to federal agents.
The department also said that potentially exculpatory evidence had been withheld from Flynn's lawyers.
Sullivan did not immediately grant the request to dismiss the charge. Instead, the judge appointed a lawyer, former federal judge John Gleeson, to make arguments to him about why the case should not be tossed out.
Sullivan also said he would consider arguments for or against the dismissal request from third parties not involved in the case.
Gleeson later told Sullivan in a court filing the Justice Department engaged in "a gross abuse of prosecutorial power" in seeking to drop the case against Flynn and "has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President."
Flynn's lawyers then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, requesting that it force the lower court to grant the DOJ's request to dismiss the charge. The appeals panel ruled in Flynn's and the Justice Department's favor last month.


cnbc--2020-07-09--Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen taken into custody after he balks at media gag

Michael Cohen , President Donald Trumps former personal attorney , arrives at his Park Avenue apartment on May 21 , 2020 , in New York City .
Michael Cohen , former personal lawyer for President Donald Trump , was taken into custody Thursday by U.S .
Marshals in New York and sent to jail after balking at a demand that he not to talk to the media or write a book while serving the rest of his criminal sentence in home confinement , his attorney said .
`` It 's totally unnecessary , it 's totally outrageous , '' Cohen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters after his client was detained in federal court in Manhattan , where they had been meeting with probation officials to discuss Cohen 's home confinement .
He said that Cohen was `` so shaken '' by being taken into custody .
Cohen , who is writing a book about his time working for Trump , was taken by marshals to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn , New York , a federal jail .
Levine said that Cohen , who is `` not well , '' is at risk of Covid-19 from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was in the midst of serving a three-year criminal sentence , was furloughed May 21 from federal prison in Westchester County , New York , due to concerns about him catching the coronavirus .
He had pleaded guilty in 2018 in federal court in Manhattan to multiple financial crimes , lying to Congress , and to campaign finance violations related to hush money payments to two women who claim they had affairs with Trump .
The president has denied the allegations .
Cohen , who entered prison in May 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after years of ardently defending him .
A week ago , he was photographed by a New York newspaper eating at a Manhattan restaurant , raising questions about whether he was complying with his furlough from prison .
The federal Bureau of Prisons in a statement said that , `` Michael Cohen refused the conditions of his home confinement and as a result , has been returned to a BOP facility . ''
Levine said that he and the 53-year-old Cohen met with probation officials expecting that Cohen would be fitted with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his home confinement .
During the meeting , Levine said , they were presented with an agreement that would require Cohen to not speak with any reporters , refrain from participating in any film or book project , and avoid posting on social media while serving out the remainder of his three-year criminal sentence .
The agreement also would require Cohen to tell relatives and friends not to post on social media on his behalf .
`` I 've never seen any language like this in my life that would strip a person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the media , '' Levine told reporters waiting outside the courthouse .
He noted that federal prison inmates can communicate with journalists while locked up , as Cohen himself had done .
When Levine objected to the language in the agreement , and asked if it could be modified , he and Cohen were asked to wait in the probation office , the attorney said .
`` They never came out to reengage , '' Levine said .
Instead , U.S .
Marshals returned with shackles , and took Cohen into custody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prisons under an order for failing to agree to a location monitoring agreement , Levine said .
The lawyer said that claim was `` false . ''
Levine also said he told officials he was willing to agree to the terms presented by probation officials in order to get Cohen released , but was told it was too late .
`` He did n't actually refuse to do anything , we were just in the course of trying to resolve this , and BOP just did n't have anything to do with working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While speaking to reporters , Levine displayed Cohen 's jacket and belt , which were removed from him when he was taken into custody .

Michael Cohen, President Donald Trumps former personal attorney, arrives at his Park Avenue apartment on May 21, 2020, in New York City.
Michael Cohen, former personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, was taken into custody Thursday by U.S. Marshals in New York and sent to jail after balking at a demand that he not talk to the media or write a book while serving the rest of his criminal sentence in home confinement, his attorney said.
"It's totally unnecessary, it's totally outrageous," Cohen's lawyer, Jeffrey Levine, told reporters after his client was detained in federal court in Manhattan, where they had been meeting with probation officials to discuss Cohen's home confinement.
He said that Cohen was "so shaken" by being taken into custody.
Cohen, who is writing a book about his time working for Trump, was taken by marshals to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, a federal jail.
Levine said that Cohen, who is "not well," is at risk of Covid-19 from being held in that facility.
Cohen, who was in the midst of serving a three-year criminal sentence, was furloughed May 21 from federal prison in Orange County, New York, due to concerns about him catching the coronavirus.
He had pleaded guilty in 2018 in federal court in Manhattan to multiple financial crimes, lying to Congress, and to campaign finance violations related to hush-money payments to two women who claim they had affairs with Trump. The president has denied the allegations. Cohen, who entered prison in May 2019, has become a fierce critic of Trump, after years of ardently defending him.
A week ago, he was photographed by a New York newspaper eating at a Manhattan restaurant, raising questions about whether he was complying with his furlough from prison.
The federal Bureau of Prisons in a statement said that, "Michael Cohen refused the conditions of his home confinement and as a result, has been returned to a BOP facility."
Levine said that he and the 53-year-old Cohen met with probation officials expecting that Cohen would be fitted with an ankle monitoring device as part of his home confinement.
During the meeting, Levine said, they were presented with an agreement that would require Cohen to not speak with any reporters, refrain from participating in any film or book project, and avoid posting on social media while serving out the remainder of his three-year criminal sentence.
The agreement also would require Cohen to tell relatives and friends not to post on social media on his behalf.
"I've never seen any language like this in my life that would strip a person of their First Amendment rights to communicate with the media," Levine told reporters waiting outside the courthouse. He noted that federal prison inmates can communicate with journalists while locked up, as Cohen himself had done.
When Levine objected to the language in the agreement, and asked if it could be modified, he and Cohen were asked to wait in the probation office, the attorney said.
"They never came out to reengage," Levine said.
Instead, U.S. Marshals returned with shackles, and took Cohen into custody at the direction of the Bureau of Prisons under an order for failing to agree to a location monitoring agreement, Levine said.
The lawyer said that claim was "false."
Levine also said he told officials he was willing to agree to the terms presented by probation officials in order to get Cohen released, but was told it was too late.
"He didn't actually refuse to do anything, we were just in the course of trying to resolve this, and BOP just didn't have anything to do with working anything out," Levine said.
While speaking to reporters, Levine displayed Cohen's jacket and belt, which were removed from him when he was taken into custody.


cnbc--2020-07-09--Treasury's Mnuchin backs narrower coronavirus aid package as talks with Congress resume

Officials in Washington could find themselves at an impasse over how to handle an ongoing economic and health crisis that President Donald Trump has largely downplayed following two strong months of jobs growth .
While the Trump administration backs direct payments to individuals in the next bill , it has not embraced broad aid proposed by Democrats including hazard pay for essential workers , a longer extension of strengthened unemployment benefits , mortgage and rent relief and support for state and local governments .
Congress plans to return from a Fourth of July break later this month for two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lawmakers aim to craft another relief package before the end of the month , but Republicans and Democrats appear at odds over how much aid to send a country still in the thick of fighting an outbreak that has killed more than 132,000 Americans .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated Thursday that the White House will not back the kind of sweeping coronavirus relief it supported in earlier bills , instead opting for narrower aid even as the pandemic ravages the United States .
Steven Mnuchin , U.S. Treasury secretary , takes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington , D.C. , U.S. on Thursday , July 2 , 2020 .
Speaking to CNBC on Thursday , Mnuchin said `` we do support another round '' of stimulus checks to individuals , after most Americans received a $ 1,200 sum as part of the $ 2 trillion rescue legislation passed in March .
But he did not say whether he backed a potential $ 40,000 income cap floated by GOP lawmakers — lower than the $ 75,000 where the previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that he spoke to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , on Wednesday and would discuss the `` level and criteria '' for checks with senators when they return to Washington .
The Treasury secretary also addressed one of the most urgent issues Congress faces in the talks : an income cliff millions of people will face at the end of July when the $ 600 per week enhanced federal unemployment benefit expires .
Even though the economy gained nearly 5 million jobs in June , the unemployment rate dropped to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the White House wants to change rather than extend the enhanced unemployment provision .
He did not give details on how it would want to structure aid to unemployed workers .
`` You can assume that it will be no more than 100 % '' of a worker 's usual pay , Mnuchin said .
He echoed Republicans who argue the generous insurance deters some people from resuming work because they make more at home than they otherwise would at their jobs .
On other fronts , Mnuchin said the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Program loans for small businesses but wants new relief to be `` much , much more targeted '' than past rounds of funding .
Congress has put $ 670 billion into the loan program , and it had about $ 130 billion remaining as of Monday .
He also downplayed the need for more relief money for states and municipalities , as lost revenue and higher costs due to the outbreak force some governments to consider trimming essential services .
He said the administration does not want to `` bail out '' states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus hit .
Democrats put nearly $ 1 trillion in aid for state and local governments in a $ 3 trillion relief bill the House passed in May .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , considers the funds a priority .
McConnell has repeatedly said he wants to see liability protections for doctors and businesses in any new relief legislation .
Mnuchin spoke days after the Trump administration released details about who got approved for many of the PPP loans designed to keep small business employees on payrolls during the coronavirus .

Officials in Washington could find themselves at an impasse over how to handle an ongoing economic and health crisis that President Donald Trump has largely downplayed following two strong months of jobs growth.
While the Trump administration backs direct payments to individuals in the next bill, it has not embraced broad aid proposed by Democrats including hazard pay for essential workers, a longer extension of strengthened unemployment benefits, mortgage and rent relief and support for state and local governments.
Congress plans to return from a Fourth of July break later this month for two weeks of work before its August recess. Lawmakers aim to craft another relief package before the end of the month, but Republicans and Democrats appear at odds over how much aid to send a country still in the thick of fighting an outbreak that has killed more than 132,000 Americans.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated Thursday that the White House will not back the kind of sweeping coronavirus relief it supported in earlier bills, instead opting for narrower aid even as the pandemic ravages the United States.
Steven Mnuchin, U.S. Treasury secretary, takes a question during a press briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. on Thursday, July 2, 2020.
Speaking to CNBC on Thursday, Mnuchin said "we do support another round" of stimulus checks to individuals, after most Americans received a $1,200 sum as part of the $2 trillion rescue legislation passed in March.
But he did not say whether he backed a potential $40,000 income cap floated by GOP lawmakers — lower than the $75,000 where the previous payment started to phase out. Mnuchin noted that he spoke to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Wednesday and would discuss the "level and criteria" for checks with senators when they return to Washington.
The Treasury secretary also addressed one of the most urgent issues Congress faces in the talks: an income cliff millions of people will face at the end of July when the $600 per week enhanced federal unemployment benefit expires. Even though the economy gained nearly 5 million jobs in June, the unemployment rate dropped to a still staggering 11.1%.
Mnuchin said the White House wants to change rather than extend the enhanced unemployment provision. He did not give details on how it would want to structure aid to unemployed workers.
"You can assume that it will be no more than 100%" of a worker's usual pay, Mnuchin said. He echoed Republicans who argue the generous insurance deters some people from resuming work because they make more at home than they otherwise would at their jobs.
On other fronts, Mnuchin said the White House supports an extension of the Paycheck Protection Program loans for small businesses but wants new relief to be "much, much more targeted" than past rounds of funding. Congress has put $670 billion into the loan program, and it had about $130 billion remaining as of Monday.
He also downplayed the need for more relief money for states and municipalities, as lost revenue and higher costs due to the outbreak force some governments to consider trimming essential services. He said the administration does not want to "bail out" states that were "mismanaged" before the virus hit.
Democrats put nearly $1 trillion in aid for state and local governments in a $3 trillion relief bill the House passed in May. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., considers the funds a priority.
McConnell has repeatedly said he wants to see liability protections for doctors and businesses in any new relief legislation.
Mnuchin spoke days after the Trump administration released details about who got approved for many of the PPP loans designed to keep small business employees on payrolls during the coronavirus.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.


cnbc--2020-07-09--Pentagon leaders say they're evaluating whether to remove Confederate symbols from military bases

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testifies before the House Armed Services Committee hearing on 'Department of Defense Authorities and Roles Related to Civilian Law Enforcement ' in Washington , DC , July 9 , 2020 .
WASHINGTON — Pentagon leadership said Thursday that a process is underway to evaluate the potential removal of Confederate symbols from U.S. military installations , a move that falls out of step with President Donald Trump , who said last month that his administration would `` not even consider '' such an action .
`` There is a process underway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of flags are authorized on U.S. military bases , '' Secretary of Defense Mark Esper explained before the House Armed Services Committee when asked about the potential removal of the Confederate battle flag as well as other associated symbols of the Confederacy .
`` I want to make sure that we have an approach that is enduring and that could withstand legal challenge but that unites us and most importantly helps build cohesion and readiness , '' Esper added .
A push to take the names of Confederate leaders off U.S. military bases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day killing of George Floyd , a black man , after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly eight minutes .
When asked whether U.S. Army bases named after Confederate generals harmed morale or unit cohesion in the military , the nation 's highest-ranking officer offered a personal story .
`` For those young soldiers that go on to a base , Fort Hood or Fort Bragg or wherever , named after a Confederate general , they can be reminded that that general fought for an institution of slavery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ancestors , '' Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley explained .
`` I had a staff sergeant when I was a young officer who actually told me that at Fort Bragg .
He said he went to work every day on a base that represented a guy who had enslaved his grandparents , '' he added .

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testifies before the House Armed Services Committee hearing on 'Department of Defense Authorities and Roles Related to Civilian Law Enforcement' in Washington, DC, July 9, 2020.
WASHINGTON — Pentagon leadership said Thursday that a process is underway to evaluate the potential removal of Confederate symbols from U.S. military installations, a move that falls out of step with President Donald Trump, who said last month that his administration would "not even consider" such an action.
"There is a process underway, by which we affirm what types of flags are authorized on U.S. military bases," Secretary of Defense Mark Esper explained before the House Armed Services Committee when asked about the potential removal of the Confederate battle flag as well as other associated symbols of the Confederacy.
"I want to make sure that we have an approach that is enduring and that could withstand legal challenge but that unites us and most importantly helps build cohesion and readiness," Esper added.
A push to take the names of Confederate leaders off U.S. military bases has gained renewed force after the Memorial Day killing of George Floyd, a black man, after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly eight minutes.
When asked whether U.S. Army bases named after Confederate generals harmed morale or unit cohesion in the military, the nation's highest-ranking officer offered a personal story.
"For those young soldiers that go on to a base, Fort Hood or Fort Bragg or wherever, named after a Confederate general, they can be reminded that that general fought for an institution of slavery that may have enslaved one of their ancestors," Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley explained.
"I had a staff sergeant when I was a young officer who actually told me that at Fort Bragg. He said he went to work every day on a base that represented a guy who had enslaved his grandparents," he added.


cnbc--2020-07-09--Why police pay nothing for military equipment

Why police pay nothing for military equipment The defense industry has become a major player in the domestic homeland security @ @ @ @ @ worth more than $ 20 billion in goods and services .
Their contributions play a @ @ @ @ @ steady flow of militarized equipment to local law enforcement agencies .
However , lack of @ @ @ @ @ consequences .

Share Share Article via Facebook Share Article via Twitter Share Article via LinkedIn Share Article via Email
Why police pay nothing for military equipment
The defense industry has become a major player in the domestic homeland security market, estimated to be worth more than $20 billion in goods and services. Their contributions play a major role in maintaining a steady flow of militarized equipment to local law enforcement agencies. However, lack of oversight has created some deadly consequences.


cnbc--2020-07-09--Supreme Court says eastern half of Oklahoma is Native American land

Crowds line up outside the Supreme Court as it resumes oral arguments at the start of its new term in Washington , U.S. , October 7 , 2019 .
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a huge swath of Oklahoma is Native American land for certain purposes , siding with a Native American man who had challenged his rape conviction by state authorities in the territory .
The 5-4 decision , with an opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch , endorsed the claim of the Muscogee ( Creek ) Nation to the land , which encompasses 3 million acres @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city of Tulsa .
The decision means that only federal authorities , no longer state prosecutors , can lodge charges against Native Americans who commit serious alleged crimes on that land , which is home to 1.8 million people .
Of those people , 15 % or fewer are Native Americans .
`` Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law , '' Gorsuch wrote .
`` Because Congress has not said otherwise , we hold the government to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling in the case of convicted child rapist Jimcy McGirt , and in a related one Thursday by the Supreme Court involving another Muscogee Nation member , convicted murderer Patrick Murphy , overturns their convictions on state charges .
Murphy was sentenced to death .
However , both men can now be prosecuted for the crimes by federal authorities , according to a lawyer for the tribe .
The cases hinged on application of the Major Crimes Act , which gives federal authorities , rather than state prosecutors , jurisdiction over serious crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Native American territory .
`` For MCA purposes , land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains 'Indian country , ' '' Gorsuch wrote in the opinion in McGirt 's case .
Gorsuch , a conservative justice , was joined in the majority by the court 's four liberal justices , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan .
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the ruling , as did his fellow conservatives , Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh .
In his dissent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vast area '' now deemed to be Native American land , `` the State 's ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out . ''
`` On top of that , the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma , '' Roberts wrote .
`` The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State 's continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs , ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law . ''
`` None of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` What has gone unquestioned for a century remains true today : A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation .
Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century .
The Court reaches the opposite conclusion only by disregarding the 'well settled ' approach required by our precedents . ''
Republican Oklahoma Gov .
Kevin Stitt said , `` I am aware the ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma was handed down this morning by the U.S. Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been following the case closely and is reviewing the decision carefully .
They will advise our team on the case 's impact and what action , if any , is needed from our office , '' Stitt said .
McGirt is serving a life sentence after being convicted in Oklahoma state court of raping a 4-year-old child in 1997 .
McGirt had argued in state courts that Oklahoma lacked the jurisdiction to review his case because the crime took place within the boundaries of the Creek Nation 's historic territory .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state courts rejected his appeals .
The state of Oklahoma in turn argued to the Supreme Court that the Creek Nation 's claimed territory was not a reservation at all .
The state said that if the Supreme Court accepted McGirt 's reasoning it would `` cause the largest judicial abrogation of state sovereignty in American history , cleaving Oklahoma in half . ''
In court filings to support McGirt 's claim , the Muscogee ( Creek ) Nation noted that although the tribe had `` no role in the genesis of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reservation under direct attack . ''
Riyaz Kanji , an attorney for the tribe , wrote in a filing that Oklahoma was `` exaggerating '' the jurisdictional problems that would ensue if the state lost its case .
`` To the extent they hold any water , the State 's posited consequences stem from the fact that both executive branch and state officials actively sought to undermine Congress 's determination that the Nation 's government and territory would endure , '' Kanji wrote .
Gorsuch endorsed that argument in Thursday 's decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` No one disputes that Mr. McGirt 's crimes were committed on lands described as the Creek Reservation in an 1866 treaty and federal statute . ''
`` But , in seeking to defend the state court judgment below , Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today . ''
Gorsuch flatly rejected that request by the state .
`` Under our Constitution , States have no authority to reduce federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine if they did , '' he wrote .
`` A State could encroach on the tribal boundaries or legal rights Congress provided , and , with enough time and patience , nullify the promises made in the name of the United States .
That would be at odds with the Constitution , which entrusts Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans , and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the 'supreme Law of the Land , ' '' he wrote .
Gorsuch added that if that happened , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hands of the very neighbors who might be least inclined to respect them . ''
Kanji , in an interview after the decision , said that despite the arguments by the state and in Roberts ' dissent , `` I do n't think this case is going to have earth-shattering consequences '' on the residents of the land , be they Native American or not .
`` It just does n't change anything with respect to non-Indians '' in terms of criminal cases , Kanji said .
He said the tribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulatory authority over the affected land , but noted that in areas that were already acknowledged by the state to be tribal land there already is `` a tremendous amount of cooperation '' between the state and the tribe on laws and regulation .
`` We would fully expect that cooperation to continue , '' Kanji said .
He also noted that `` the court itself has placed a lot of limitations on Indian tribes with respect to non-Indians '' who live on tribal land .
McGirt 's lawyer , Ian Heath Gershengorn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that when the United States makes promises , the courts will keep those promises . ''
`` Congress persuaded the Creek Nation to walk the Trail of Tears with promises of a reservation — and the Court today correctly recognized that this reservation endures , '' said Gershengorn , a partner at the firm Jenner & Block .
`` We — along with our co-counsel Patti Palmer Ghezzi and the Federal Public Defender of the Western District of Oklahoma — are immensely pleased for Jimcy McGirt and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for alleged crimes within the Creek reservation . ''
In the related case decided Thursday , the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the 10th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals that tossed out the murder conviction of the other Muscogee Nation member , Murphy , who was charged with killing a man on the tribal land in question .
In Murphy 's case , Gorsuch did not participate in the vote , because he had heard the case while serving on the lower appeals court .
The Supreme Court had heard arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term , but declined to issue a ruling at the time .
In the interim , it heard McGirt 's case , which made the same claims .
The cases decided Thursday are formally known as McGirt v. Oklahoma , No .
18-9526 , and Sharp v. Murphy , No .
17–1107 .

Crowds line up outside the Supreme Court as it resumes oral arguments at the start of its new term in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2019.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a huge swath of Oklahoma is Native American land for certain purposes, siding with a Native American man who had challenged his rape conviction by state authorities in the territory.
The 5-4 decision, with an opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, endorsed the claim of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation to the land, which encompasses 3 million acres in eastern Oklahoma, including most of the city of Tulsa.
The decision means that only federal authorities, no longer state prosecutors, can lodge charges against Native Americans who commit serious alleged crimes on that land, which is home to 1.8 million people. Of those people, 15% or fewer are Native Americans.
"Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law," Gorsuch wrote.
"Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word," he wrote.
The ruling in the case of convicted child rapist Jimcy McGirt, and in a related one Thursday by the Supreme Court involving another Muscogee Nation member, convicted murderer Patrick Murphy, overturns their convictions on state charges. Murphy was sentenced to death.
However, both men can now be prosecuted for the crimes by federal authorities, according to a lawyer for the tribe.
The cases hinged on application of the Major Crimes Act, which gives federal authorities, rather than state prosecutors, jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by or against Native Americans in Native American territory.
"For MCA purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains 'Indian country,'" Gorsuch wrote in the opinion in McGirt's case.
Gorsuch, a conservative justice, was joined in the majority by the court's four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the ruling, as did his fellow conservatives, Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh.
In his dissent, Roberts warned that "across this vast area" now deemed to be Native American land, "the State's ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out."
"On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma," Roberts wrote. "The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State's continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law."
"None of this is warranted," Roberts added. "What has gone unquestioned for a century remains true today: A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation. Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century. The Court reaches the opposite conclusion only by disregarding the 'well settled' approach required by our precedents."
Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt said, "I am aware the ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma was handed down this morning by the U.S. Supreme Court."
"My legal team has been following the case closely and is reviewing the decision carefully. They will advise our team on the case's impact and what action, if any, is needed from our office," Stitt said.
McGirt is serving a life sentence after being convicted in Oklahoma state court of raping a 4-year-old child in 1997.
McGirt had argued in state courts that Oklahoma lacked the jurisdiction to review his case because the crime took place within the boundaries of the Creek Nation's historic territory. He had appealed to the Supreme Court after state courts rejected his appeals.
The state of Oklahoma in turn argued to the Supreme Court that the Creek Nation's claimed territory was not a reservation at all.
The state said that if the Supreme Court accepted McGirt's reasoning it would "cause the largest judicial abrogation of state sovereignty in American history, cleaving Oklahoma in half."
In court filings to support McGirt's claim, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation noted that although the tribe had "no role in the genesis of this litigation" it "now finds its Reservation under direct attack."
Riyaz Kanji, an attorney for the tribe, wrote in a filing that Oklahoma was "exaggerating" the jurisdictional problems that would ensue if the state lost its case.
"To the extent they hold any water, the State's posited consequences stem from the fact that both executive branch and state officials actively sought to undermine Congress's determination that the Nation's government and territory would endure," Kanji wrote.
Gorsuch endorsed that argument in Thursday's decision.
He noted in the majority opinion that, "No one disputes that Mr. McGirt's crimes were committed on lands described as the Creek Reservation in an 1866 treaty and federal statute."
"But, in seeking to defend the state court judgment below, Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today."
Gorsuch flatly rejected that request by the state.
"Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. Just imagine if they did," he wrote.
"A State could encroach on the tribal boundaries or legal rights Congress provided, and, with enough time and patience, nullify the promises made in the name of the United States. That would be at odds with the Constitution, which entrusts Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans, and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the 'supreme Law of the Land,'" he wrote.
Gorsuch added that if that happened, "It would also leave tribal rights in the hands of the very neighbors who might be least inclined to respect them."
Kanji, in an interview after the decision, said that despite the arguments by the state and in Roberts' dissent, "I don't think this case is going to have earth-shattering consequences" on the residents of the land, be they Native American or not.
"It just doesn't change anything with respect to non-Indians" in terms of criminal cases, Kanji said.
He said the tribe will be able to exercise civil and regulatory authority over the affected land, but noted that in areas that were already acknowledged by the state to be tribal land there already is "a tremendous amount of cooperation" between the state and the tribe on laws and regulation.
"We would fully expect that cooperation to continue," Kanji said.
He also noted that "the court itself has placed a lot of limitations on Indian tribes with respect to non-Indians" who live on tribal land.
McGirt's lawyer, Ian Heath Gershengorn, in an emailed statement said, "The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that when the United States makes promises, the courts will keep those promises."
"Congress persuaded the Creek Nation to walk the Trail of Tears with promises of a reservation — and the Court today correctly recognized that this reservation endures," said Gershengorn, a partner at the firm Jenner & Block.
"We — along with our co-counsel Patti Palmer Ghezzi and the Federal Public Defender of the Western District of Oklahoma — are immensely pleased for Jimcy McGirt and Patrick Murphy, whom Oklahoma unlawfully prosecuted for alleged crimes within the Creek reservation."
In the related case decided Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that tossed out the murder conviction of the other Muscogee Nation member, Murphy, who was charged with killing a man on the tribal land in question.
In Murphy's case, Gorsuch did not participate in the vote, because he had heard the case while serving on the lower appeals court.
The Supreme Court had heard arguments in Murphy's case during its prior term, but declined to issue a ruling at the time. In the interim, it heard McGirt's case, which made the same claims.
The cases decided Thursday are formally known as McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526, and Sharp v. Murphy, No. 17–1107.


cnbc--2020-07-09--Trump ally Roger Stone should go to prison next week, prosecutors tell court

Roger Stone , former campaign adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump , arrives for his criminal trial on charges of lying to Congress , obstructing justice and witness tampering at U.S. District Court in Washington , November 6 , 2019 .
Prosecutors urged a federal appeals court Thursday to reject Republican operative Roger Stone 's bid to postpone the start of his 40-month prison sentence , which is currently set to begin next week .
Stone , 67 , a longtime ally of President Donald Trump , has asked the appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sept. 3 .
Stone 's lawyers have cited `` the COVID-19 pandemic and the medically documented life-threatening health risks that Stone would face if incarcerated at this time . ''
Federal prosecutors , however , said Thursday that Washington , D.C. , federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson was right when she denied Stone 's request for a lengthy extension of his surrender date .
Instead , Jackson in late June had pushed Stone 's prison start date back by two weeks , to next Tuesday from June 30 .
Michael Sherwin , acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeals court that Jackson 's ruling was `` a reasonable exercise of that court 's discretion based on the totality of the factual and legal circumstances , particularly given [ Stone 's ] failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for his continued release pending appeal . ''
`` Accordingly , the government supports the district court 's ruling , and this Court should affirm it , '' Sherwin said .
Stone 's attorney , David Schoen , torched the prosecutors in an email to CNBC .
`` The government 's response is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in places downright dishonest , '' Schoen said .
He noted that prosecutors had not opposed Stone 's initial request to Jackson for a more than two-month extension of his prison surrender date .
The lawyer also said that the prosecutors are well aware `` that there are now at least 10 inmates with COVID-19 at the facility to which Mr. Stone is designated . ''
Schoen noted that Jackson 's prior ruling was made `` on the government 's representation that there were zero positive cases at the facility '' Supporting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , without disputing Stone 's doctor 's contention that doing so poses a `` life-threatening '' risk , `` is outrageous , reckless , and despicable , '' Schoen said .
Stone has until Friday at noon to submit a formal response to the Justice Department .
Stone was convicted last fall on seven criminal counts including lying to Congress and witness tampering .
Since then , he has openly beseeched Trump for a pardon or a commutation of his sentence , and The New York Times reported sources saying that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely . ''
Trump has bashed Stone 's prosecution as a politically motivated `` witch hunt '' and has hinted on multiple occasions that he is considering clemency for his former campaign advisor .
`` Roger was a victim of a corrupt and illegal Witch Hunt , one which will go down as the greatest political crime in history .
He can sleep well at night ! ''
Trump tweeted last month .
Stone 's crimes were related to attempts made during the 2016 presidential campaign to get information from WikiLeaks about emails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Democratic National Committee .
Stone was also convicted of pressuring his former friend , comedian Randy Credico , to back up his lies .

Roger Stone, former campaign adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, arrives for his criminal trial on charges of lying to Congress, obstructing justice and witness tampering at U.S. District Court in Washington, November 6, 2019.
Prosecutors urged a federal appeals court Thursday to reject Republican operative Roger Stone's bid to postpone the start of his 40-month prison sentence, which is currently set to begin next week.
Stone, 67, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, has asked the appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay his scheduled surrender date until at least Sept. 3.
Stone's lawyers have cited "the COVID-19 pandemic and the medically documented life-threatening health risks that Stone would face if incarcerated at this time."
Federal prosecutors, however, said Thursday that Washington, D.C., federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson was right when she denied Stone's request for a lengthy extension of his surrender date. Instead, Jackson in late June had pushed Stone's prison start date back by two weeks, to next Tuesday from June 30.
Michael Sherwin, acting U.S. attorney for D.C., told the appeals court that Jackson's ruling was "a reasonable exercise of that court's discretion based on the totality of the factual and legal circumstances, particularly given [Stone's] failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for his continued release pending appeal."
"Accordingly, the government supports the district court's ruling, and this Court should affirm it," Sherwin said.
Stone's attorney, David Schoen, torched the prosecutors in an email to CNBC.
"The government's response is an absolute disgrace. It is disingenuous and in places downright dishonest," Schoen said. He noted that prosecutors had not opposed Stone's initial request to Jackson for a more than two-month extension of his prison surrender date.
The lawyer also said that the prosecutors are well aware "that there are now at least 10 inmates with COVID-19 at the facility to which Mr. Stone is designated." Schoen noted that Jackson's prior ruling was made "on the government's representation that there were zero positive cases at the facility"
Supporting the order to send Stone to prison next week, without disputing Stone's doctor's contention that doing so poses a "life-threatening" risk, "is outrageous, reckless, and despicable," Schoen said.
Stone has until Friday at noon to submit a formal response to the Justice Department.
Stone was convicted last fall on seven criminal counts including lying to Congress and witness tampering. Since then, he has openly beseeched Trump for a pardon or a commutation of his sentence, and The New York Times reported sources saying that some form of clemency for Stone is "likely."
Haberman TWEET
Trump has bashed Stone's prosecution as a politically motivated "witch hunt" and has hinted on multiple occasions that he is considering clemency for his former campaign advisor.
"Roger was a victim of a corrupt and illegal Witch Hunt, one which will go down as the greatest political crime in history. He can sleep well at night!" Trump tweeted last month.
Trump TWEET
Stone's crimes were related to attempts made during the 2016 presidential campaign to get information from WikiLeaks about emails stolen by Russian agents from Democratic officials and the Democratic National Committee. Stone was also convicted of pressuring his former friend, comedian Randy Credico, to back up his lies.