Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Paragraph: "Donald Trump ""seems terrified to release his taxes"" because they may reveal his net worth, his donations to liberal causes, or something even seedier, Sen. Ted Cruz suggested on Meet the Press. ""There have been multiple media reports about Donald's business dealings with the mob, with the mafia,"" Cruz said Feb. 28. ""Maybe his taxes show those business dealings are a lot more extensive than has been reported."" Pressed by host Chuck Todd to back up his claim, Cruz cited reports by ABC and CNN. ACruz spokesman forwarded us several other media reports detailing the real estate developer's alleged ties to organized crime. The Trump campaign did not get back to us. Is Cruz right that the Donald has worked with a few Dons in his career? HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRAFACT-CHECKER It's important to note that Trump hasn't been charged with any illegal activity, and it's reasonable to argue that he was unaware or even a victim in some cases. But Cruz has a point that the mogul has been linked to the mob for decades. Mob control a 'fact of life' Before we detail Trump's alleged ties, none of this proves that Trump was happy doing business with the mafia or even in cahoots with them at all. La Cosa Nostra had a virtual monopoly on concrete in New York at the time Trump was adding his name to its skyline in the 1980s. And the mafia's control over building supplies and labor unions meant that the crime families had a hand in most construction projects in Manhattan. Trump and other major developers ""had to adapt to that situation"" or build elsewhere, said James B. Jacobs, a mafia expert who was part of a state task force on organized crime. ""That was the fact of life, that was the way it was,"" he told PolitiFact. ""The contractors and developers weren't pure victims. You could bribe the mob-controlled union leaders and get relief from the more arduous conflicts. But we had no information that Trump was any different."" That being said, Trump's business dealings with the mob or mob-related characters are widely documented. Let's run through them. Mafia concrete for Trump Plaza Trump was first tied to the mafia in the 1980s, when a $7.8 million subcontract for Trump Plazawas awarded to S&A Concrete, according to Fortune. The company, as Cruz correctly says, was partially owned by Anthony ""Fat Tony"" Salerno, the boss of the Genovese crime family. Trump himself acknowledged as much in a December 2015 interview with the Wall Street Journal, admitting that S&A Concrete was ""supposedly associated with the mob."" ""Virtually every building that was built was built with these companies,"" he said, adding, ""These guys were excellent contractors. They were phenomenal. They could do three floors a week in concrete. Nobody else in the world could do three floors a week. I mean they were unbelievable. Trump Tower, other buildings."" When Salerno was indicted in 1986, the charges specifically mentioned Trump Plaza. Salerno's 1992 obituary ends with a nod to the luxury highrise and 15 other Manhattan buildings. Trump World Tower, supported by the Quadrozzi Concrete Company, is also tangentially related to La Cosa Nostra. The head of the company, John Quadrozzi Sr., was tied to the Lucchese crime family and indicted for making illegal payoffs to the mob in 1992. TIMEand Daily Beasthave speculated that Trump Tower was also built with mafia influence, though the evidence is less concrete. Atlantic City partnerships Trump's alleged mob dealings were not confined to New York. According to reports from the Huffington Post and Philadelphia Inquirer, Trump made a deal in Atlantic City with Kenneth Shapiro, an associate of mob boss Nicky Scarfo, and mob-connected labor boss Daniel Sullivan. Trump seemed aware of this, calling Shapiro ""a third-rate, local real estate mafia"" and Sullivan ""the guy who killed Jimmy Hoffa."" Nonetheless, in 1981, Trump leased a portion of the land for Trump Plaza and Casino from a company the two men controlled, according a report by New Jersey gaming regulators. The company refused to cooperate with the authorities, and Trump eventually ended the partnership and bought out their shares. Later Trump brought on Sullivan as a labor negotiator at the Grand Hyatt Hotel and introduced the man to his own banker, according to the Los Angeles Times. Through intermediariesTrump bought the property for the casino from the ""crown prince"" of the Philadelphia mob, Salvatore Testa, for $1.1 million in 1982. Multiple media reports and an unauthorized biography about Trump allege this was more than twice its market value. (Testa purchased the property in 1977 for $195,000.) According to The Federalist, two construction companies controlled by Nicky Scarfo ended up building Trump Plaza and Casino. ""You had contractors that were supposedly mob-oriented all over Atlantic City,"" Trump said when the Wall Street Journal asked him about it, adding that ""every single casino company used the same companies, just I hope you will say that."" A few years later, Trump's organized crime connections extended overseas. In 1992, a Senate subcommittee named Danny Leung, who was then the vice president for foreign marketing at Trump Taj Mahal, as an associate of the Hong Kong-based organized crime group 14K Triad. ""Leung has also given complimentary tickets for hotel rooms and Asian shows to numerous members and associates of Asian organized crime,"" reads the report, which also identified three other triad-connected business associates or former employees of Trump's gambling empire. According to gaming regulators, Leung ""flew in 16 Italian organized crime figures from Canada who stole more than $1 million from the casino in a credit scam,"" reported the New York Daily News in 1995. ""The incident was never reported because Trump never filed charges."" Leung, who had a separate contract to bring gamblers from Toronto to the casino, denied the affiliation to organized crime, and his casino and junket licenses were renewed. (The Trump Taj Mahal declared bankruptcy in 1991, and his other Atlantic City properties folded a decade later.) Mob-linked business adviser And there'sFelix Sater, ""a twice-convicted Russian emigre who served prison time and had documented mafia connections"" and the subject of the ABC story Cruz referenced. Sater pleaded guilty to a charge of money laundering in 1998 and was indicted again in 2000 for taking part in a $40 million stock scheme involving four Mafia families, according to the New York Times report. From 2003 to 2007, Sater traveled the country promoting projects for Trump, and his company was a partner in the Trump SoHo hotel. Trump told the Times he ""never knew that."" Three years later, Sater returned to the Trump Organization and had business cards that described him as Trump's ""senior advisor,"" the AP reported. Trump told the AP that he's ""not familiar"" with Sater. Our ruling Cruz said, ""There have been multiple media reports about Donald's business dealings with the mob, with the mafia."" While it's important to note that these connections were not atypical in the real estate and casino businesses in the 1980s, Cruz's statement is accurate. Media reports have linked Trump to mafia bosses and mob-connected business associates for decades." Claim: "There have been multiple media reports about (Donald Trump's) business dealings with the mob, with the mafia."
"Cruz said, ""There have been multiple media reports about Donald's business dealings with the mob, with the mafia."" While it's important to note that these connections were not atypical in the real estate and casino businesses in the 1980s, Cruz's statement is accurate. Media reports have linked Trump to mafia bosses and mob-connected business associates for decades."

Paragraph: This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called "double jeopardy clause" of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and NeilM. Gorsuch dissented. On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gamble's lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on "double jeopardy," which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitution's double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or "separate sovereigns") which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) This "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gamble's filing. The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been "long held", and "consistently endorsed" by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of "[p]recedent, experience, and reason alike," The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as "not a new question," having been "invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" Each sovereign is entitled to "exercis[e] its own sovereignty" to "determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity" and prosecute the offender "without interference by the other." Under petitioner's interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereign's efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereign's similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitution's bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: "Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause." The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. "Under the dual sovereignty doctrine," Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, "as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the 'same offense.'" The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the President's pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedy's retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the president's legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this case's having importance with regard to President Trump's pardon power: Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trump's power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldn't be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed then Trump's pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, "the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally but with some existing limits can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon," explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that "the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states' core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context." Claim: Judge Kavanaugh, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, could be a deciding vote on a case that has the potential to dramatically increase the power of the presidential pardon.
Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case.

Paragraph: That is likely the case for William and Leslie Johnson of Jackson County, since the state decided not to expand the Medicaid program for the poor under President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. As a result, nearly 300,000 adults there will fall through the cracks of healthcare reform. Many are the working poor - truckers, childcare workers, mechanics - who make too much money each month to qualify for Medicaid under Mississippi's existing criteria but not quite enough to get government help buying private health insurance on an Obamacare exchange. Nationwide, 25 states have rejected the Medicaid expansion, leaving nearly 7 million adults who would otherwise have qualified for coverage without benefits. These states, many of them Republican-led, have declined government funding for an expansion largely because they say initially generous subsidies would eventually be reduced, leaving them with an unacceptably large burden in a few years' time. Among those states, Mississippi faces one of the most dire situations. It tops the charts for poor-health indicators: highest in poverty, second-highest in obesity, highest in diabetes and highest in pre-term births. For the Johnsons, the struggle for health coverage has been a years-long battle. In the 16 years since her birth, their daughter, Mackenzie, has already had 10 major surgeries to treat her club foot, dislocated hips and malformed spine, all due to a rare form of spina bifida that causes the spinal cord to split. (The Johnsons also have an 11-year-old son, Tyler.) A major operation to insert two metal rods helped to straighten a 70-degree curve in Mackenzie's spine that was collapsing her lungs and making it difficult for her to breathe. It improved her condition to the point where she no longer qualified for a special Medicaid program for disabled children living at home. She hasn't had health insurance since last June. "At this point, we're still fighting to get her on Medicaid, but being self-employed, if I gross a certain amount of money per month, they kick her off the program," said William. In Mississippi, a two-parent working family of four earning $10,000 to $23,500 would not be eligible for assistance either through Medicaid or the exchange because the state did not expand Medicaid, said Ed Sivak, director of the nonpartisan Mississippi Economic Policy Center. Twenty percent of Mississippi's nearly 3 million residents are on the Medicaid rolls. Twelve percent are on Medicare, and 20 percent are uninsured, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In rejecting the Medicaid expansion, Republican Governor Phil Bryant is turning down an estimated $426 million in federal funds for next year. He has argued that the administrative costs borne by the state would be too high. A report by the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning estimated the cost of Medicaid expansion for the state at $8.5 million in 2014, rising to $159 million in 2025 as more people enroll in the program and federal subsidies step down from 100 percent initially to 90 percent. Mississippi is also among the states that may get the least benefit from healthcare reform in other ways. Only two health insurers are offering coverage in the state on the federally run subsidized exchange for private insurance, with premiums for a benchmark plan costing more than the national average. It was the sole state to apply to run its own exchanges and be turned down by the federal government because of concerns Bryant would not provide enough support to launch it. Instead, the federal government is running Mississippi's exchange. State House Minority Leader Bobby Moak, a Democrat whose coalition has fought hard for health reform in Mississippi, says Bryant's arguments are a cover for rejecting anything President Obama supports. "We like to say that the healthcare act was written for Mississippi, but our folks had the 'good sense' to turn it down," he said. In late June, state House Democrats staged a showdown to force a vote on Medicaid expansion, holding up reauthorization of the state's current Medicaid program, which serves one in five Mississippi residents. A last-minute legislative deal reached on June 28 saved the program but failed to expand it. Bryant declined requests to speak to Reuters, but spokesman Mick Bullock said in an email the governor will not reconsider his position on Medicaid expansion, which he said was "bad policy" and "fiscally unsustainable." "Governor Bryant will not put Mississippi taxpayers on the hook for something the state simply cannot afford," Bullock said. Without coverage, Mackenzie's family cannot afford to replace the wheelchair she has been using for the past six years. Nor can they afford $850 a month for physical therapy or the cost of replacing the brace she just got for her club foot. It doesn't fit properly, but "my ankle collapses when I walk without it," Mackenzie offers politely in an interview at the public library in the Gulf town of Pascagoula, a leading producer of ships for the U.S. Navy. The town is the seat of Jackson County, where nearly 10,000 adults aged 18 to 64 will lose out on Medicaid. Dr. Pamela Banister practices family medicine at Singing River Health System's clinic in Pascagoula. The not-for-profit hospital system offers a menu of services that all cost $49, from school physicals to treatments for sinus infections and rashes. On bigger-ticket items, the hospital offers a 40 percent discount to patients who can pay cash at the time of service. That allows many patients to have their blood pressure checked or keep track of their diabetes, but often it's not enough to tackle bigger issues. "I've got a man who's 62. I just know he's got to have Parkinson's. I made a stab at throwing a fairly affordable medicine at him, but it's not doing what he needs," Banister says. "I say, 'You need a specialist,' and he says, 'I can't afford it.'" Mackenzie's father has had a nerve tumor on his foot since 2006, and he can't afford the surgery he needs. "It's extremely painful, but the doctors want $5,000 down. The operating room at the hospital wants another $1,800 down," he said. "You live with the pain." The Johnsons have been working with a program funded through the Affordable Care Act called Health Help Mississippi that helps families negotiate the red tape of applying for Medicaid in Mississippi, a process intentionally made more daunting by former Governor Haley Barbour, who famously charged that some individuals on the state's Medicaid rolls were driving BMWs. Last year, William's trucking business made between $23,000 and $24,000, which should qualify Mackenzie for coverage under a Medicaid program that covers children in families who make up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $47,100 for a family of four. But they are just on the edge of qualifying for federal tax credits to help them buy insurance on the federal insurance marketplace, which would cover the whole family. Mackenzie's mother, Leslie, a Republican, is no fan of health reform and believes people should pay their own way. But her daughter needs treatment. "It's very hard. I need it and I don't want it," she said. Mississippi's hospitals are also in a precarious position. The 2010 health reform law was designed to reduce payments to safety-net hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of poor patients. It was based on the premise that more people would soon gain coverage through Medicaid expansion. Without Medicaid expansion, hospitals face cuts in these so-called disproportionate share payments. Forrest General Hospital in Hattiesburg projects a $2.5 million loss for the federal government's fiscal 2014, which started October 1, due to these reimbursement cuts as well as to across-the-board federal government spending cuts. In a July letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Mississippi's Bryant asked HHS to delay disproportionate share cuts to hospitals, as it had done in delaying other portions of the law. A month later, Sebelius replied, urging Bryant to expand Medicaid in the state and "take advantage of the generous federal matching funds." It costs the state $1.4 billion annually to run Medicaid, its second-highest expense after education. An additional $3.5 billion comes from the federal government in a 4-1 match that substantially props up Mississippi's entire healthcare system, from hospitals to nursing homes. Roy Mitchell, executive director of the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program, says ultimately the hospital payments issue may force the governor's hand. "The governor is standing in the tracks in front of a billion-dollar train. He's going to get run over at some point." Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, a Republican who has been friends with Bryant for decades, doubts Bryant will change his mind. "The governor has his reasons. I do not know what they are. He has told me repeatedly he just does not trust the Affordable Care Act to do what it said it would do, and he did not trust the federal government at all to do what they said they would do," Chaney said. "He's pretty well set in stone." Chaney, who dislikes a law he calls "poorly written" and "ill conceived," nevertheless says it is "the law of the land." He worked hard to develop a state-based healthcare exchange that would have given Mississippi more control over the insurance marketplace. But, citing the governor's fierce opposition to Obamacare, HHS denied Mississippi's petition - the only state HHS turned down. Moak says he and fellow Democrats will bring up the Medicaid issue again in the next legislative session. "We're not going to stop talking about it," he said. Claim: Mississippi blues: The cost of rejecting Medicaid expansion.
As Americans across the nation begin to find out what Obamacare has in store for them, many of Mississippi's most needy will find out the answer is nothing.