Latest news with #ReconciliationBill
Business Insider
17-07-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
‘Time to Trust the Long-Term?' Analysts Maintain Buy on UnitedHealth Stock (UNH) Despite Price Target Cuts
UnitedHealth Group (UNH) is once again under scrutiny by Wall Street. Two analysts, David MacDonald from Truist Securities and Whit Mayo from Leerink Partners, lowered their price targets ahead of the company's Q2 earnings report, scheduled for July 29. This reflects growing concerns about near-term margin pressures and sector-wide volatility. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week. Nevertheless, both analysts maintain a Buy rating on UNH stock, citing confidence in long-term prospects. Truist Lowers Target but Sees Stability Ahead MacDonald lowered his price target on UnitedHealth to $345 from $360. The analyst expects Q2 results to show a mixed picture across the Healthcare sector, with some companies doing better than others depending on how they manage patient usage and costs. Despite these short-term pressures, he is optimistic about the long-term outlook due to strong demand for healthcare services. Also, the Reconciliation Bill has made the rules and regulations clearer, which could help stabilize the company's business going forward. Leerink Cuts Target but Projects Recovery by 2027 Leerink Partners' Mayo lowered the price target from $355 to $340, citing fading investor expectations as people wait for the company to update its 2025 financial guidance. He believes earnings in the $18–$19 per share range could ease concerns about shrinking margins. On the positive side, the analyst sees this as the start of a long-term recovery. He expects profit margins to improve gradually over the next few years, with stronger growth likely starting in 2027, once the company finishes switching out of its current Medicare risk model. Is UNH a Good Buy Right Now? Turning to Wall Street, UNH stock has a Moderate Buy consensus rating based on 18 Buys, seven Holds, and one Sell assigned in the last three months. At $357.14, the average UnitedHealth stock price target implies a 21.75% upside potential.
Scoop
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Plebeian Council As An Example For Modern Citizen Empowerment
The political fight over America's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) intensified in May 2025 with the passage of the House's Reconciliation Bill. The program, rooted in a Depression-era initiative to help the poor access food, has long drawn both praise for easing hunger and criticism for encouraging dependency and fraud. Though the Food Stamp Act permanently authorized the program in 1964 during the Civil Rights era, it now faces its most serious rollback yet. This moment invites comparison with the Roman Republic's enduring grain subsidies, formalized through the plebeian council by 123 BC. Like SNAP, these subsidies aimed to prevent hunger and unrest but were similarly attacked for creating dependency and political manipulation. Yet even after the republic gave way to the empire and the council lost its authority, the subsidies pushed through by the democratic citizen assembly remained, testament to the institution's lasting influence on Roman society. Of the republic's four core citizen assemblies, the plebeian council stood out for empowering non-elite citizens through direct lawmaking. Unlike Athenian citizens, who adopted direct democracy early around the birth of the Roman Republic in 509 BC, Roman citizens used the plebeian council to push gradually and persistently for greater political participation over centuries. The plebeian council's democratic characteristics contrast with the mostly representative political bodies of modern republics. Though the U.S. borrowed plenty from Roman republican ideas in shaping its political institutions, the U.S. never seriously considered the Roman tradition of direct citizen assemblies. Founding Fathers like James Madison framed representation, not participation, as the foundation of a republic. Yet the role of Rome's plebeian council suggests otherwise. Its arc provides a lens for today's debates over democracy and political representation, with its rise and decline showing the promise and pitfalls of citizen-led power. Formation As Harriet I. Flower argues in her book Roman Republics (2010), the republic was not a single, static regime but a series of evolving constitutional arrangements. Among its earliest innovations was the plebeian council, emerging in 494 BC during the First Secession of the Plebs. This was the first of five major secessions of the plebs, which saw plebeians, or commoners, withdraw from Rome in protest. In 494 BC, facing debt bondage and exclusion from political power and the judicial process, they marched out of Rome to the Sacred Mount and refused to fight, while enemy tribes threatened the city. Their actions brought the Roman economy to a halt and left it defenseless, forcing the patricians to negotiate. Amid the standoff, the plebeians formed their own tribal assembly as both a protest and a platform for negotiation, which would evolve into the plebeian council. As a citizen assembly rather than a representative one, plebeians could propose, debate, and vote on laws directly. Rare even by today's standards, this participatory model gave plebeians real political power and helped build early democratic concepts. Though initially unrecognized by the state and limited to passing laws (plebiscita) only binding on plebeians, the council gave Rome's lower classes a means to organize and push for reform. It would become a central force in the Conflict of the Orders social struggle between commoners and the aristocracy. To lead this body, plebeians created two 'anti-magistrate' positions: tribunes of the plebs. Though lacking formal recognition, the tribunes could convene assemblies, propose laws, and veto patrician actions. Their political influence was enforced by a collective plebeian oath, the lex sacrata, which bound plebeians to defend their tribunes, forcing patricians to tolerate them for the sake of stability. Tribune elections were briefly moved to the patrician-controlled assembly, Comitia Curiata, but returned to plebeian control when the council approved the Lex Publilia Voleronis law in 471 BC, which also expanded the number of tribunes to five. This marked an early assertion of plebeian autonomy that emphasized elected leadership, and by 457 BC, the number of tribunes was fixed at 10. Early Roman assemblies met within the Roman Forum, the political heart of the city, but elections in the late republic, including those of the plebeian council's, were held in the Campus Martius outside the city to accommodate larger gatherings. The plebeian council voted by tribe, with each tribe casting one vote. Originally, there were four urban tribes before increasing to 35 as Rome expanded. Early votes were by voice or show of hands, later replaced by secret ballots, and the council served three main purposes. The first was electing tribunes to represent plebeian interests, and aediles, who were responsible for public order and festivals. The second was passing laws by vote. The third involved handling judicial matters, mainly imposing fines in minor cases. In effect, the Roman plebeians created a powerful direct citizen assembly. Eligible plebeian males gathered in person to propose, debate, and vote on laws and officials, instead of handing those decisions to elected representatives. Despite the growing political power of the plebeians, the plebeian council, tribunes, and other political bodies and magistrates suspended their powers in 451 BC. A 10-man board, the decemvirate, was tasked with drafting Rome's first written laws, the Twelve Tables. When the decemvirs became tyrannical, plebeians launched a Second Secession in 449 BC, helping compel the decemvirs to resign and restoring the tribunes and plebeian council, which remained central to Roman politics until dictator Sulla's reforms in the early 1st century BC. Legal Empowerment and Peak Authority While it's never been clear whether the plebeian council and the tribal assembly were distinct bodies or the same institution convened with or without patricians present, plebeian institutional power had grown remarkably. Having seen the effectiveness of mass strikes, a third plebeian secession in 445 BC protested bans on intermarriage between patricians and plebeians, as well as the patrician monopoly on the consulship. The resulting compromise, mediated through the council, legalized intermarriage through the Lex Canuleia law and introduced military tribunes with consular power. The power of the tribunes played a crucial role in chipping away at elite control over executive authority. Centuries later, Niccolò Machiavelli, writing in his Discourses on Livy, praised them as vital checks on aristocratic power, which helped effectively mediate between the rich and poor to maintain balance over hierarchy, reflecting the tensions he saw in the Italian city-states. Major plebeian council reforms followed in the 4th century BC. The Leges Liciane Sextiae in 367 BC capped public land ownership to combat growing elite accumulation of land, and mandated that at least one consul be plebeian, breaking the patrician monopoly on Rome's highest office. Enforcement was uneven, and the Lex Genucia of 342 BC, passed amid a fourth plebeian secession, reaffirmed the rules regarding a plebeian consul. It also banned interest charges and imposed term limits on magistrates, and though inconsistently applied, these laws signaled growing recognition of plebeian rights. These reforms were not abstract ideals but direct responses to mounting economic inequality, widespread debt, and the concentration of power among the elite. By targeting landholding, lending practices, and political access, the plebeian council began to assert itself as an entity capable of shaping the republic's institutions through social pressure. While earlier plebiscita required Senate approval after voting, the Leges Publilia of 339 BC changed the process by requiring Senate approval (auctoritas partum) to be granted before the vote. This meant plebeian laws could no longer be blocked after passage. In addition, the laws also reinforced that at least one consul should be plebeian. Building on these changes, laws like the Lex Poetelia Papira of 326 BC abolished debt bondage and expanded legal protections, while the Lex Ogulnia (300 BC) opened key priesthoods to plebeians, weakening patrician religious control. The council's greatest legislative victory came in 287 BC, during the fifth and final secession of the plebs. Public discontent had swelled when land seized in the Third Samnite War—fought largely by plebeian soldiers—was handed out to patricians. As foreign threats continued to mount, the plebs withdrew to Janiculum Hill and refused to fight. Understanding how essential they were to Rome's defense and prosperity, the plebs used the crisis to demand lasting change. To resolve the standoff, the plebeian Quintus Hortensius, a lawyer and statesman, was appointed dictator. He passed the Lex Hortensia, which made plebiscita binding on all Roman citizens, without requiring Senate approval. The law affirmed the legislative equality of the plebeian council and opened the way for plebeians to attain Rome's highest honors and offices. It effectively ended the Conflict of the Orders and the long struggle for legal equality, and demonstrated how the Romans, through nonviolent protest and structured political action, were able to enact legal change from within the system they were helping to build. Integration into Populism As Rome expanded, efforts to curb financial inequality and elite dominance continued. The Lex Flaminia (232 BC) redistributed public land to poor Roman citizens, while the Lex Claudia (218 BC)restricted senators from owning large merchant ships, attempting to separate wealth from political power. Expansion also brought population growth and the rise of a new middle class. As historian Guglielmo Ferrero notes, patricians sought to retain power by absorbing wealthy newcomers by 'intermarrying with their families and allowing them a share in the government.' A new elite class, the nobiles, emerged, defined by ancestry in high office, regardless of patrician or plebeian origin. The equestrian order, a wealthy non-senatorial class that included both patricians and plebeians, also gained influence. As wealthy plebeians joined the elite, their interests began to diverge from the broader plebeian masses. Economic inequality deepened, military burdens grew, and public unrest increased. Small family farms declined in favor of large plantations worked by an influx of slaves from conquest, disrupting the labor market. Rome's swelling urban population became increasingly reliant on imported foods from across the expanding republic, reshaping society and the economy. The plebeian council, once a radical institution, became partially captured by the establishment and increasingly unable to respond to plebeian needs. In the 100s BC, however, the council's influence saw a revival through populist tribunes and the rise of the populares, a political movement that mobilized plebeian support to challenge the senate. The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, gained strong public support for reform. Tiberius, elected tribune in 133 BC, passed the Lex Sempronia Agraria to redistribute land and limit aristocratic holdings. Gaius continued the effort during his tribunate, introducing the Lex Frumentaria in 123 BC to subsidize grain for the urban poor, and the Lex Sempronia Judiciaria, shifting jury control from senators to the equestrian class. Faced with growing inequality and social strain, the plebeian council increasingly directed its energy toward social relief for ordinary citizens. Though no longer revolutionary, its institutional power was vital for enacting reforms that responded to the economic and political pressures of a rapidly changing republic. Decline and Political Violence Despite praising Tiberius for expanding protections for enslaved people, Machiavelli criticized Tiberius for destabilizing constitutional norms (particularly by removing a fellow tribune) and upending the republic. The Gracchi brothers' popular reforms provoked fierce aristocratic backlash, and Tiberius was killed by a senatorial mob in 133 BC, while Gaius also met a violent death during political turmoil in 121 BC. Their murders ushered in an era of open political violence in Rome. Political reforms proposed by tribune Saturninus saw his assassination in 100 BC, and the murder of tribune Drusus in 91 BC helped spark the Social War with Rome's Italian allies, who were seeking citizenship. In 88 BC, the plebeian council voted to strip consul Sulla of his military command, but he responded by marching on Rome, the first time a Roman general seized power by force. After his popular rival Marius briefly regained control and died, Sulla returned in 82 BC and declared himself dictator. He stripped tribunes of their veto power, legislative authority, and access to higher office. Though some powers were later restored, the higher office was permanently weakened. Rome's expanding empire further diminished the plebeian council's influence. Long military campaigns kept plebeians abroad, reducing assembly participation and weakening popular institutions. By the late republic, tribunes and the council increasingly became tools for ambitious power brokers. In 58 BC, the Lex Clodia de capite civis Romani outlawed the execution of Roman citizens without trial. While it strengthened civic protections, its main aim was to punish consul Cicero for executing conspirators during the Catiline crisis, highlighting the council's shift toward personal and factional retribution. Political and social lines also blurred. Plebeians like Sulla upheld the aristocracy, while patricians like Julius Caesar allied with the plebeian council and populares. After Caesar's assassination, Augustus consolidated power, was named 'Tribune for Life,' and became Rome's first emperor in 27 BC. Though the council formally remained, it became politically irrelevant like the rest of the republican bodies. Conclusion The plebeian council was far from perfect. Patricians often circumvented the council's laws, relying on taxation and foreign conquest to replace profits lost from banned commercial activity. Some reforms, like the Lex Frumentaria, were criticized for draining the treasury and disproportionately benefiting urban citizens. Voting rights excluded women and slaves, as well as many inhabitants of the republic who were not citizens. Corruption grew over time, especially as wealthier plebeians gained influence. Yet for centuries, the lower classes stood by their tribunes and took revenge against elites who harmed them. The plebeian council embodied collective power, challenging patrician political dominance and providing a rare example of mass politics within a formal institution. Its embrace of tribal politics contrasts with today's discomfort with the concept, outside the two-party system. The U.S. has no direct equivalent to the plebeian council, but it has consistently passed laws aiming at protecting citizens. The Homestead Act of 1862 expanded land access, though at the cost of Indigenous dispossession and exclusion of Black Americans. The 14th Amendment (1868) guaranteed birthright citizenship, and the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 protected debtors from imprisonment. During the Great Depression, the New Deal gave substantial economic relief to citizens, while the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s secured landmark legal equality. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (1977) reinforced debt protections, and immigration reform in 1986 and 2012 granted limited rights to undocumented people, expanding citizenship-adjacent privileges. But since the 1960s, broad public victories have become rarer, and no institution exists solely to defend the public's interest. Union membership has declined over the last few decades, weakening mass strike power. Reforms in the 2020s have seen significant setbacks. The expanded Child Tax Credit, which in 2021 increased benefits, expired at the end of that year and returned to its earlier structure. Student debt relief was scaled back, and SNAP benefits, housing assistance, and minimum wage protections have also been cut. Rights themselves, such as marriage equality, have become partisan tools, shaped not only by political alignment but by changing interpretations in the Supreme Court. While ballot initiatives may give some direct power at the state level, they are fragmented and often face legal or political obstruction. The plebeian council, while imperfect, showed how to empower the larger population. Mass politics carries risks of populism and demagoguery, but when structured properly, it can stabilize a society rather than accelerate its decline. The plebeian council shows how organized, citizen-led institutions can respond to inequality and shape reform by building collective pressure and becoming a significant force that cannot be dismissed. Author Bio: John P. Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, D.C., and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas', was published in December 2022.
Forbes
24-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Litigation Funders & Lawyers Face 40.8% Tax In Big Beautiful Tax Bill
An image focused on the legal side of monetary gains using a gavel and an abundance of American cash ... More as a background. The litigation funding industry—and many lawyers and law firms—are worried about a provision inserted in the pending tax bill. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act in the Senate, you can read the text here. A companion bill was introduced in the House by Kevin Hern (R-OK). The litigation funding tax was not in the House passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but the Senate's Reconciliation Bill includes it. Its ostensible goal as described by Senator Tillis when he introduced it is to prevent foreign influence in the US court system and stem frivolous lawsuits. Some insurers and trade groups support it, you can see a list here. Investors (both foreign and domestic) often help fund lawsuits, and the U.S. is full of lawsuits. But given the elephant gun approach, domestic funders are equally worried, as are lawyers and law firms. Lawsuits on contingency are the norm, so the plaintiff pays nothing, no legal fees and no costs, until the case settles. Meantime, litigation is expensive, with experts, court reporters, travel, consultants, and lawyer time. Law firms must pay their staff, rent and other expenses, and keep funding case costs until they win. Bank loans may be possible, but many banks won't lend big dollars, especially not on a non-recourse basis. Litigation funders make nonrecourse bets on cases or on a law firm's case portfolio. If the case pays off, the funders do well. If the case craters, the funders collect nothing. How do taxes fit in, when and how is it taxed? Funding deals can be loans, purchases, or prepaid forward purchases, a kind of hybrid you can read about here. Loans sound simplest, but most funders don't like them because the 'interest' may be huge, and it is all taxed as ordinary income. Domestic and foreign funders, as well as domestic funders with foreign investors, usually feel the same way. After all, capital gain taxed at lower rates is better than interest for everyone. Foreign funds, and domestic funds with foreign investors, especially dislike interest, since it is taxed by the U.S., even if they have no other U.S. income. Foreign funds with just capital gain income don't even have to file U.S. tax returns. Apart from litigation funding, they like buying U.S. stocks for the same reason—clean capital gain income. Although this is long-standing U.S. tax policy, supporters of the Tillis bill claim it is closing a loophole that unfairly subsidizes foreign investment in litigation funding. However, rather than just targeting non-U.S. funders and non-U.S. investors, it adds a new, big special tax that also applies to U.S. funders and their U.S. investors. It's an excise tax, not an income tax. 40.8% Excise Tax The bill imposes a steep 40.8% excise tax on 'qualified litigation proceeds' received by 'covered parties' under a 'litigation financing agreement.' Qualified litigation proceeds include all realized gains, net income or other profits derived from any litigation financing agreement. So, it would be more accurate to describe the excise as a tax on qualified litigation income. Pretty much everyone, any kind of person or entity, whether U.S. or foreign, is subject to the tax. It doesn't matter how the deal is set up, or what kind of entities are involved. Flow-through entities like partnerships and S corporations pay 40.8% tax too—at the entity level—even though they are ordinarily supposed to receive flow-through tax treatment. The tax applies to all litigation financing agreements and virtually any agreement creating an interest in the outcome of litigation. Plus, the law allows the Treasury Department to expand this definition as needed. Unlike typical taxable income, you can't offset this tax with losses of any kind. Qualified litigation proceeds cannot be offset by other ordinary or capital losses, even those generated by other litigation financing arrangements. The new law also trumps key tax exclusions, exemptions and preferences. Forget special tax exclusion, such as that for foreign governments, the capital gain rules, U.S. tax treaties with foreign countries, etc. The 40.8% tax is an excise tax, but its enforcement key is withholding. Any party in the litigation or law firm involved with a litigation financing agreement that receives any case proceeds must withhold 20.4% of any payment it makes to the funder. This is 50% of the tax that would apply if the payment consisted entirely of gain or other income to the funder. However, whether the funder is actually realizing a profit or loss is irrelevant—withholding applies to the gross payment. Many existing funding agreements include provisions addressing tax withholding, although these are rarely in the term sheet or actually discussed by the parties. A typical provision states that all payments to the funder will made 'without withholding,' unless withholding is required by law. If withholding is mandatory, the provisions will frequently specify that the lawyer must 'gross up' any payments to the funder to ensure that the funder receives the same amount, after withholding, that it would have received if no withholding were requires. Even in the absence of a gross-up provision, the lawyer may find that increasing the payments to the funder is the only way to avoid an event of default under the funding agreement. These provisions are intended to shift the economic burden of the withholding tax from the funder to the lawyer. To insulate a funder from a 20.4% withholding tax, the lawyer will need to increase all payments to the funder to cover it. The new tax exempts loans with interest capped at the greater of 7% or two times the average annual yield on 30-year Treasury securities. Funding below $10,000 and certain related-party transactions are also excluded. This new tax would apply to all tax years starting after December 31, 2025,. That means payments in 2026 and beyond will be subject to the new tax and withholding requirement, even if the payments are under funding contracts that have been in place since before the bill was enacted. Existing funding deals are not grandfathered.
Forbes
09-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Big Budget Bill Triple Whammy: Energy Prices, Economy, And Environment
The Reconciliation Bill (also known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill') was passed by the US House of Representatives by one vote. It proposes to eliminate tax credits and other funding for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy. According to a Princeton University energy policy report, the House-passed version of the Bill, currently under consideration in the Senate, raises three red flags: for our household energy bills, our economy, and our environment. The House bill would raise US household and business energy expenditures by 25 billion USD annually in 2030 and over 50 billion USD in 2035. An average household will see a rise in energy costs of $100-$160 per year in 2030, and between $270 and $415 per year in 2035. This amounts to a 9% average rise in energy prices across the 2030 — but as much as 17% in TX, OK and PA. The energy price increases come at a time when more than a third of Americans are struggling to afford their power bill. The situation is worse for renters and those making under $50,000 per year, nearly one-half of whom struggle to pay their electric bills (compared to about a third in 2023), according to the electric utility industry group Energy Central. The increase in household energy expenditures is because the Reconciliation Bill would repeal most financial incentives for building renewable electricity sources like solar, wind, and battery storage, which now generate electricity cheaper than do fossil fuels. Older folks may remember when the Japanese beat out American auto manufacturers because the US companies refused to recognize the burgeoning demand for smaller vehicles. The House version of the Reconciliation Bill will help America repeat this mistake. While Chinese manufacturer BYD is moving ahead with inexpensive, high quality EVs, the Reconciliation Bill could reduce annual US sales of electric vehicles by roughly 40% in 2030 and end America's battery manufacturing boom. This despite a recent 15% growth in EV sales in the U.S., a near quadrupling in Brazil, sevenfold increase in Viet Nam, and 50% increase in sales in India during the first quarter of 2024. According to the International Energy Agency, the maturing EV market has shown robust growth, with 2024 sales to surpass those of 2023 by more than 20% and EVs to reach a share in total car sales of more than one-fifth. If the US is to remain competitive in a global market, it needs to expand its EV manufacturing capacity. The solar industry faces similar threats. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, Texas, home to the fastest-growing solar market in the country, will lose 34,100 jobs by 2030. Florida, a state that has already installed enough solar capacity to power 2 million homes, stands to lose nearly 22,000 jobs. Were the incentives included under the Biden administration for renewables like solar and wind be maintained, we would reduce American dependence on foreign oil, and thus boost our national security. The result of proposed tax policy changes in the House-passed Reconciliation Bill would significantly slow US progress towards renewable energy and a healthier environment. According to Energy Innovation, a non-partisan think tank, repealing federal clean energy funding and tax credits would increase air pollution, particularly impacting those who live near power plants. Climate emissions would also rise, an outcome that impacts all of us regardless of where we live. Interestingly, the new field of attribution science makes it possible to determine the contribution of climate change to a single extreme weather event, like a particular heat wave or flood, and to calculate the proportional responsibility for that event of a specific source of emissions, like a fossil fuel company. This ability to follow disasters to their source is being used in an increasing number of lawsuits around the world. Getting back to the House version of the Reconciliation Bill, its impact will be to increase US greenhouse gas emissions by roughly a half billion metric tons per year by 2030 and more than 1 billion metric tons per year by 2035 – the equivalent of adding 219 million cars to the road. The House-passed bill would also kill the nascent clean hydrogen, CO2 management, and nuclear power sectors. Rob Orvis, senior director at Energy Innovation, captured the three clean energy-related impacts of the current Reconciliation Bill in comments to The Guardian: 'This bill is worse than what people envisioned – it pulls the rug out from facilities banking on [EV and clean energy] Government incentives for EV and solar power have been an unusual coming together of our household finance, economic, and environmental interests. They have contributed to economic growth and declining climate emissions. Let's try to keep it that way in the future.
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Capitol View: Sen. Tom Cotton, Jeremy Hutchinson pardon
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – With the U.S. House passing President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' attention now turns to the U.S. Senate. Capitol View host Roby Brock met with Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton for his take on the Reconciliation Bill and where he could see the Senate taking it. Roby then gave a closer look at President Donald Trump's recent pardon of former State Senator Jeremy Hutchinson. Capitol View airs on Sundays at 8:30 a.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
