广州C语言培训机构介绍(沈阳Cocos2d-x软件开发学什么) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) — A staff member of Gov. Gavin Newsom's office has tested positive for the coronavirus this week, according to the governor's office.The staff member, who was not named, had not interacted with Newsom or staff that routinely interacts with the governor, a statement read.Another state employee who also works in a shared space with some of Newsom's staff also tested positive for COVID-19, but that person also has not interacted with the governor or close staff.Newsom's office requires mask wearing, minimal staff in the office, and most meetings have been converted to video conferencing, the statement said.The governor said Wednesday that he's been tested multiple times and has never been positive, “and I look forward to getting tested again."The Associated Press contributed to this report. 832

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens believes the students and demonstrators who protested this past weekend for gun control should seek a repeal of the Second Amendment."A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment," Stevens wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, "today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."A lifelong Republican but considered liberal in his judicial rulings, Stevens pointed to his dissent in the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within his home. 722

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California is moving to eliminate what state legislators call an outdated Wild West law requiring that citizens help police upon demand.Lawmakers on Thursday sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a measure eliminating the California Posse Comitatus Act of 1872.The nearly 150-year-old law makes it a misdemeanor with a fine of up to ,000 for failing to help police make an arrest or catch a fleeing suspect.Democratic Sen. Bob Hertzberg of Van Nuys says his interns initially proposed eliminating a law that he says "belongs in the history books, not the law books."Democratic Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove of Los Angeles says it was also used to help apprehend runaway slaves.She calls it "a visage of a bygone era" now that California has plenty of professionals to catch criminals. 810

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Legislature has sent a bill to Gov. Gavin Newsom that would let counties offer fewer in-person voting options as they hold the November election in the midst of the pandemic. Newsom has already signed a law requiring counties to mail ballots to voters ahead of the Nov. 3 election. County election officials are having trouble securing enough polling places because of the pandemic. California continues to have problems with missing data on virus infections throughout California. State officials have acknowledged California has been undercounting virus cases due to a technical issue with a database used to collect test information from labs. 695

来源：资阳报