iftttwall

A new pandemic relief bill being drafted by Senate Republicans and the White House would include a payroll tax ‘deferral’, as well as another round of direct payments to individual Americans – potentially at the same $1,200 level as the previous stimulus in the Cares Act.

According to the Washington Post, the payroll tax deferral is in lieu of an outright cut – which keeps down the technical cost of the overall bill, but could also be waived entirely by lawmakers at a later date.

“It’s been proven to be successful and it’s a big saving for the people. It’s a tremendous saving and an incentive for companies to hire their workers back and to keep their workers,” Trump said of the payroll tax relief, following a Monday meeting in the Oval Office which included Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

“The payroll tax to me is very important,” Trump added of the 7.65% tax paid by employers and employees which funds Social Security and Medicare.

Mnuchin, meanwhile, “confirmed Republicans plan to reduce the size of a $600-per-week enhanced unemployment benefit approved in March, which will begin running out for millions of Americans later this week,” according to the Post, which notes that Republicans have argued that many workers are making more thanks to the enhanced unemployment benefits than they were while employed.

“We’re going to make sure that we don’t pay people more money to stay at home than go to work, we want to make sure that people who can go to work safely can do so,” said Mnuchin. “We’ll have tax credits that incentivize businesses to bring people back to work, will have tax credits for [personal protective equipment] for safe work environments.”

On Tuesday, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows will be meeting with the full Senate GOP conference at their weekly policy lunch in order to review the proposal.

According to McConnell, the legislation will contain liability protection for businesses, healthcare providers and others per the Post.

“We don’t need an epidemic of lawsuits.”

The GOP legislation will reportedly omit funds for cities and states which Democrats have requested, and will instead allow governors and local leaders to more easily tap into $150 billion which has already been reserved, according to the Post, citing two other people familiar with the talks.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have insisted that any new stimulus include additional aid for cities and states.

Instead, in the GOP plan, states would get money for schools — but it will be explicitly tied to schools reopening, something that has been a major focus of late for Trump, according to the first person briefed on the negotiations.

It was unclear how exactly the money would be structured to prod schools to reopen — or what would constitute reopening.

People involved with the talks cautioned that negotiations were ongoing and provisions were fluid and subject to change. But the legislation taking shape appears to contain multiple provisions anathema to Democrats, who have already begun to denounce it — leaving it unclear whether Congress will be able to come together around a final deal in the three weeks before they leave Washington for their annual summer recess. –Washington Post

The GOP plan is expected to cost around $1 trillion – a far cry from the $3 trillion bill House Democrats passed in May.

Authored by Isabel van Brugen via The Epoch Times,

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said Sunday that he expects criminal charges to come out of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence Russia probe.

Meadows, who replaced Mick Mulvaney as President Donald Trump’s chief of staff in March, said during an appearance on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” that based on what he’d seen, he expects federal prosecutor Durham will file criminal charges against people involved in the investigation into supposed Trump-Russia collusion that was said to have swayed the 2016 election.

The former House representative sat on the House Oversight Committee throughout former special counsel and former FBI head Robert Mueller’s probe into the alleged collusion. Mueller ultimately didn’t establish any such collusion.

“I think the American people expect indictments,” Meadows told host Maria Bartiromo.

“I know I expect indictments based on the evidence I’ve seen. [Senate Judiciary chairman] Lindsey Graham did a good job in getting that out. We know that they not only knew that there wasn’t a case, but they continued to investigate and spy—and yes, I use the word ‘spy’—on Trump campaign officials, and actually even doing things when this president was sworn in and after that, and doing it in an inappropriate manner.”

The White House chief of staff also said that he expects other damning documents will soon be made public.

“You’re going to see a couple of other documents come out in the coming days that will suggest that not only was the campaign spied on, but the FBI did not act appropriately as they were investigating,” Meadows continued. “It’s all starting to unravel, and I tell you, it’s time that people go to jail and people are indicted.”

Attorney General William Barr assigned Durham in early 2019 to investigate the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign and to assess whether the surveillance of Trump campaign associate Carter Page was free of improper motive. The probe was designated a formal criminal investigation later in 2019.

Durham could scrutinize the conduct of several current and former senior FBI officials during his investigation, including former Director James Comey, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok. Those officials were involved in obtaining a warrant for surveillance on Page and deployed at least two spies to target Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.

Two years ago I was one of four witnesses who testified behind close doors about FISA abuse to the house oversight committee in front of Mark Meadows and John Ratcliff. Very sensitive testimony. It’s time 🇺🇸

— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) July 19, 2020

Barr had previously expressed concern over some of the information he had received so far from Durham about the probe, saying that he was “very troubled.” He said in May that he doesn’t expect Durham’s probe to result in criminal investigations into former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden, based on the information he possessed at the time.

“It is stunning, and here’s the interesting thing: it’s not only that it wasn’t true, the problem is they knew it wasn’t true, and when you know something is not true and you continue the investigation, that’s collusion, that’s the kind of thing that we must stop, and that’s where we need to hold people accountable,” Meadows said.

His remarks came as Strzok, the former FBI head of counterintelligence operations, on Sunday tore apart a 2017 New York Times article that alleged the 2016 presidential campaign of Trump had contacts with Russian intelligence. Strzok criticized the article as inaccurate in multiple regards in a recently declassified internal document.

The Feb. 14, 2017, New York Times piece titled “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence” was said to rely on information from four unnamed “current and former American officials.”

“Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election,” the article said in its opening paragraph.

“This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written,” Strzok said, annotating the article with comments on how it squared with reality as he was portraying it (pdf). “We have not seen evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with [Russian] IOs [intelligence officers].”

The document was released on July 17 by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), chair of the Senate judiciary committee.

As Portland slips further into chaos amid the seventh week of nightly protests, local and state officials have slammed the Trump administration for sending Homeland Security agents to perform crowd control and arrest what DHS Secretary Chad Wolf described last week as “lawless anarchists.”

In response to the DHS presence, Oregon’s Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum sued DHS and the Marshals Service in federal court over unidentified federal agents grabbing people off the streets of Portland “without warning or explanation, without a warrant, and without providing any way to determine who is directing this action.”

Militarized Federal Agents from a patchwork of outside agencies have begun policing Portland (in rented minivans vans) without the explicit approval of the mayor, the state, or local municipalities. This is what that looks like in practice: pic.twitter.com/losap4SsgI

— The Sparrow Project (@sparrowmedia) July 15, 2020

The state seeks a temporary restraining order to “immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians.”

“The current escalation of fear and violence in downtown Portland is being driven by federal law enforcement tactics that are entirely unnecessary,” said Rosenblum in a statement.

The administration has enlisted federal agents, including the U.S. Marshals Special Operations Group and an elite U.S. Customs and Border Protection team based on the U.S.-Mexico border, to protect federal property.

But Oregon Public Broadcasting reported this week that some agents had been driving around in unmarked vans and snatching protesters from streets not near federal property, without identifying themselves.

Tensions also escalated after an officer with the Marshals Service fired a less-lethal round at a protester’s head on July 11, critically injuring him. –AP

On Monday, President Trump described the situation in Portland as “worse than Afghanistan,” adding “we’re going to have more federal law enforcement.” Moreover, there are now plans to send law enforcement personnel to some major US cities.

“We can’t let this happen to the cities,” Trump told reporters at the White House, adding “The politicians out there are afraid of these people.”

Question: “There was a report out this morning that you’re considering sending 175 federal troops to these cities to help local law enforcement.”

President Trump: “It depends on what you’re definition of ‘troops’ is.” pic.twitter.com/3p98sj5z76

— The Hill (@thehill) July 20, 2020

Over the weekend, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (R) told Fox news that the Trump administration, AG William Barr and DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would roll out a plan this week to tamp down crime across various US cities.

“Some of the unrest that we saw, even in the last month or so, but particularly last night and in the week leading up to it in Portland, is just not acceptable when you look at communities not being safe and not upholding the rule of law,” said Meadows. “So, Attorney General Barr is weighing in on that with (DHS) Secretary Wolf and you’ll see something rolled out this week as we start to go in and make sure that the communities whether it’s Chicago, or Portland, or Milwaukee, or some place across the heartland of the country, we need to make sure their communities are safe.”

Here’s Mark Meadows making clear that part of Trump’s re-election plan is to deploy federal troops to US cities, just as he sent troops to the border just before the midterms. pic.twitter.com/pIZbEhJfOf

— Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove (@wilsonhartgrove) July 20, 2020

On Sunday, House Democrats called for immediate investigations into DHS activities in Portland.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, and Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney co-signed a letter on Sunday condemning the recent law enforcement actions authorized by the Trump administration in Portland and last month in Washington D.C. and called for the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to open investigations. –CNBC

“The Attorney General of the United States does not have unfettered authority to direct thousands of federal law enforcement personnel to arrest and detain American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. The Acting Secretary [Chad Wolf] appears to be relying on an ill-conceived executive order meant to protect historic statues and monuments as justification for arresting American citizens in the dead of night,” reads the letter.

Trump’s Monday comments come hours after the Chicago Tribune reported that DHS plans on deploying around 150 federal agents to Chicago this week.

The Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI, agents are set to assist other federal law enforcement and Chicago police in crime-fighting efforts, according to sources familiar with the matter, though a specific plan on what the agents will be doing had not been made public. –Chicago Tribune

An official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), who wished to remain anonymous, confirmed the expected deployment, though noted that Homeland Security agents would not be involved in immigration or deportation matters.

In an unrelated Monday press conference, Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) expressed concern over the possibility of Trump sending feds to Chicago based on what we’ve seen in Portland.

“We don’t need federal agents without any insignia taking people off the streets and holding them, I think, unlawfully,” said Lightfoot.

Via S&P Global Platts Insight blog,

A look at the sharp drop in EU carbon prices, and major drivers in the market, kicks off our selection of energy and commodity market trends this week. Plus, the OPEC+ rollback of production cuts, US LNG exports, and a new record for Texas peakload power demand.

1. EU carbon price rally comes to abrupt halt

What’s happening? EU carbon allowance prices fell hard July 16 after a steep rally to 14-year highs ran out of steam at over Eur30.00/mt ($33.76/mt). EU Allowance futures contracts for December 2020 delivery on the ICE Futures Europe exchange fell as low as Eur26.37/mt in late trades, down more than Eur2.00/mt on day. July 16 marked the first day of larger EU carbon auction volumes, which now include 50 million allowances from the EU’s Innovation Fund, to be spread evenly through common EU auctions until mid-December.

What’s next? EU carbon prices have rallied from below Eur15.00/mt in March in the immediate aftermath of the coronavirus lockdowns, with analysts noting the likelihood of a correction on weak near-term fundamentals and some profit-taking. However, commentators also believe the rally was linked to bullish longer-term strategies in Europe, with compliance buyers taking seriously the European Commission’s proposal to tighten greenhouse gas emission cuts to 2030. Market players will be watching closely this week to see where the next support level may be. Primary supply of allowances from government auctions will be slashed by 50% in August, but is set to rise again in September through November. Traders will also be watching in September for the European Commission’s expected proposal to tighten the EU’s 2030 emissions target.

2. OPEC+ overproducers pose risk to recent oil price gains…

What’s happening? With oil prices back above $40/b, the OPEC+ alliance plans to relax its crude oil production quotas by about 2 million b/d in August but says the new volumes will not flood the market. In fact, some of the production rise will be offset by so-called compensation cuts that countries that violated their quotas in May and June will have to implement in the next few months.

What’s next? Countries required to make compensation cuts are supposed to submit their planned schedule of cuts by the end of July. They will be closely scrutinized by the market to see if they follow through, as any discipline slippage could endanger the alliance’s hard-won price gains.

3. …. while Asia wary of overcommitting to crude imports

What’s happening? Demand for oil products in key Asian markets continues to show signs of recovery. South Korea’s domestic gasoline demand rebounded to 7.81 million barrels in May from 6.58 million barrels in April. In Japan, weekly domestic gasoline shipments were estimated to have risen above the pre-crisis level of 4.72 million barrels in recent weeks, according to Platts calculations based on Petroleum Association of Japan data. China’s crude oil imports surged 34.4% on year to a record-high 12.99 million b/d in June, customs data showed.

What’s next? Due to the easing of production cuts by the OPEC+ group, Middle Eastern sour crude supply is expected to increase from August but Northeast Asian refiners are determined not to abruptly boost crude imports and refinery run rates as fuel demand recovery remains fragile across Asia. Japanese and South Korean industry sources said refiners in both countries would be cautious about not overcommitting to crude procurement. Meanwhile, Chinese refiners are wary of tilting the supply-demand balance as expected severe floods and heavy rain could curb transportation and industrial fuel demand this month.

4. Improving spreads suggest way out of US LNG doldrums

What’s happening? LNG tankers loading on the US Gulf Coast and delivering to East Asia are continuing to slow steam to their destinations in search of better netbacks in the fall. Increases in average voyage days are generally tracking widening of contango in the price curve for future months in end-user markets, Platts Analytics data show.

What’s next? A ramp in US exports for deliveries starting in October would be a welcome rebound from the sharp drop in terminal utilization in recent months due to cargo cancellations. Improving economics in China and India could spur growth in imports, while lower nuclear output in Japan due to maintenance and terror-proofing measures would support LNG deliveries there. In South Korea, languishing power sector demand could drag down LNG consumption.

5. ERCOT set new July peakload record, but power prices hardly moved

What’s happening? Triple-digit temperatures in major metro areas caused the Electric Reliability Council of Texas to set a monthly power demand record on July 13, but strong wind output kept real-time power prices low – peaking around $26/MWh system wide. Peakload demand hit 73.96 GW around 4 pm CDT, the highest level ever in July, with the previous record peakload of 73.30 GW set July 19, 2018. Hourly wind output barely dipped below 10 GW on July 13 and remained in 10.5 GW to 14.6 GW range throughout the period when system-wide peakload exceeded 70 GW.

What’s next? With more wind and solar capacity being added in Texas, output from these resources could moderate power prices going forward. However, underestimating wind and solar forecasts could result in price spikes and volatility during extreme weather.

The 2020 US election is on course to become the most litigated in history as the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes to the way Americans will vote.

Concerns ranging from voter fraud to disenfranchising voters who don’t want to cast absentee ballots have already resulted in at least 154 lawsuits already filed across 41 states and the District of Columbia, according to Loyola Marymount University law professor Justin Levitt. And as LiveMint notes, more litigation is anticipated.

“Everybody is suing about everything,” said Levitt.

Most of the lawsuits filed so far have to do with the use of mail-in ballots, which are expected to play a large role in this year’s election due to the pandemic. President Trump has repeatedly claimed that mail-in ballots are rife with fraud, and that Democrats will rig the 2020 election. According to the report, some Republicans are working to prevent voting by mail.

CHRIS WALLACE: “Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?”

TRUMP: “I have to see. Look, you — I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say ‘yes.’ I’m not going to say ‘no,’ and I didn’t last time either.” pic.twitter.com/7KyUtd0vqj

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) July 19, 2020

Meanwhile, other lawsuits have been filed concerning other pandemic-related changes, such as consolidating polling places, easing signature requirements for adding third-party candidates or initiatives on the ballots, and allow more poll-watchers.

According to Levitt, the outcomes in these trials could end up affecting thousands of voters, perhaps enough to swing close contests.

And as Goldman’s chief equity strategist David Kostin noted, the options market is pricing in volatility surrounding election day – as the results of the election, including control over the Senate, may not be known on Election Day.

Implied volatility for the period around the November 3rd election is extremely high compared with prior cycles, primarily because of the coronavirus, but the particularly high level of implied volatility in the periods before and after the election imply an extended period of election-related uncertainty. Although the 20-Nov option expiration offers two additional weeks of cushion beyond 3-Nov, the potential for delayed results, a precedent for extended vote-counting, and a slightly inverted term structure lead us to prefer extending hedges to the 18-Dec quarterly expiration.

More on the legal front (via liveMint):

*  *  *

Consolidating polling places

What’s at stake: Elections officials say they need to reduce in-person voting, but voting-rights groups argue that could disenfranchise voters who don’t want to cast absentee ballots or can’t make it to early voting centers, the operation of which various from state to state.

The coronavirus forced many states to dramatically limit polling places during recent primaries. In Wisconsin there were just five polling places in Milwaukee, a city of about 600,000 people, down from 182 in 2016. Louisville’s residents, who also number about 600,000, had just a single polling place in Kentucky’s primary. Lawsuits have already been filed in six states and in Washington D.C. that sought to limit precinct closures, and legal experts say more are likely to be filed.

Requirements to vote by mail

What’s at stake: Some states still require an excuse to vote by mail, and a handful aren’t accepting concern about infection as a legitimate one. Voting rights groups argue that fear of coronavirus should count.

By law, 34 states plus Washington don’t require an excuse to vote by mail. Many others have temporarily relaxed their rules in response to the pandemic. Lawsuits have been filed in nine states seeking to permanently overturn those requirements or acknowledge that the coronavirus is a valid excuse. In Texas, the state Supreme Court upheld a law that allows people over 65 to vote absentee, but requires excuses from younger voters. A federal lawsuit is ongoing.

Requiring a witness

What’s at stake: Some states want absentee ballots signed in front of a witness, but voting rights groups say that would be too risky for some voters if the virus is still spreading in the fall.

A dozen states have laws requiring a mail-in ballot be either signed by a witness or notarized. Those requirements are being challenged in multiple lawsuits that argue the restriction is too high a barrier when voters are being told to stay at home or reduce social contact because of the coronavirus.

Limits on turning in ballots

What’s at stake: Some states limit so-called “ballot harvesting,” but Democratic-aligned lawyers are seeking to expand the practice in case of problems with the mail.

In 10 states, voters can let a family member drop off their ballot, while in 26 states they can give it to someone else, such as a representative of a political party. Trump has argued without evidence that this practice, sometimes called “ballot harvesting,” allows widespread fraud. Republicans have sued in California and Pennsylvania to restrict ballot collection, while Democrats have sued in multiple states to expand it. Elections experts say more lawsuits may be coming.

Ballot drop-off sites

What’s at stake: Pennsylvania allowed voters to drop off ballots at public libraries, but the Trump campaign argued that could lead to voter fraud.

Mail-in voting surged in Pennsylvania’s recent primary, overwhelming local elections officials charged with collecting ballots. In response, some areas of the state set up drop boxes where voters could securely leave ballots in schools, libraries and community centers. The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee sued, noting that state law required ballots be dropped off at elections offices and arguing that expanding drop box sites “exponentially enhanced” the risk of fraud.

Deadlines for mail-in ballots

What’s at stake: Most states require mail-in ballots be received by Election Day, which this year is Nov. 3, but Democratic-aligned lawyers say ballots postmarked by Election Day should count so voters aren’t disenfranchised by slow mail service.

Most states require mail-in ballots be received by Election Day, although a few count them if they’re postmarked by Election Day but received as many as 14 days later. Voting rights groups and Democratic-aligned lawyers are suing states to switch to postmark deadlines, with lawsuits in more than a dozen states, including Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Experts say lawsuits could multiply after the election, especially if problems crop up with slow mail service.

Fixing rejected mail-in ballots

What’s at stake: States don’t always make it easy to fix problems that lead to a mail-in ballot being rejected. Voting rights groups argue that disenfranchises voters.

Many of the lawsuits filed by Democrats have demanded that election officials give voters a chance to fix any problems with mail-in ballots, particularly issues around their signatures on absentee-ballot envelopes. Research has shown that young, Black and Hispanic voters face a much greater risk of having their ballot rejected, and voting-rights groups have long sought to reform the practice of “curing” a rejected ballot.