太原看肛肠科医院山西有什么医院能治痔疮,山西治疗痔疮的好医院,山西痔疮如何自我治疗,太原屁股胀痛是什么引起,山西治痔疮哪好,太原治疗肛肠那家医院好,太原肛门口长了个硬包

The Trump administration on Thursday imposed penalties on 17 individuals over their alleged roles in the killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.The fresh sanctions from the Treasury Department come hours after Saudi prosecutors said they would seek the death penalty for five people charged in the death of Khashoggi, who was a contributor to The Washington Post."The Saudi officials we are sanctioning were involved in the abhorrent killing of Jamal Khashoggi," said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in a statement. "These individuals who targeted and brutally killed a journalist who resided and worked in the United States must face consequences for their actions."The secretary said the US government would work "diligently" to obtain all the facts on the death of Khashoggi and hold "accountable" any individual found responsible."The Government of Saudi Arabia must take appropriate steps to end any targeting of political dissidents or journalists," he said.Mnuchin had previously told reporters it would be "premature" to discuss whether the US would impose sanctions on the Saudi government.Earlier on Thursday, the Saudi Public Prosecutor's office said a total of 11 people were charged, adding that the five people facing capital punishment were directly involved in "ordering and executing the crime."The prosecution also shared details of the journalist's murder, saying Khashoggi was killed on October 2 following "a fight and a quarrel" at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Prosecutors say Khashoggi was tied up and injected with an overdose of a sedative that killed him, then his body was chopped up and given to a local collaborator. 1668

The United Kingdom says it will be the first to conduct COVID-19 vaccine human challenge trials.It's different than other vaccine studies. People will be deliberately infected with the virus, which speeds up the research process.Pending approval, the process will start in January at a London hospital. It will require about 90 healthy young adults between the ages of 18 and 30.The group 1 Day Sooner has recruited from all over the world, including 3,000 Britons.“If the vaccine works, then ideally, people don't get infected and if people do, then they will be closely monitored and treated, but because these are young and healthy people taking part in the trial, I think, researchers feel comfortable doing so because the risks of death are on par with something like kidney donation for people who are young and healthy,” said Abie Rohrig with 1 Day Sooner.Before researchers test the vaccine, they'll do a characterization study. That's where volunteers are infected by getting a vaccine to determine the right amount of virus to give during the trial.Because of the risk, 1 Day Sooner is advocating for the entire process to be made public.Results could come in May. Even though that's likely after other COVID-19 vaccines are licensed, it's still important because we need billions of doses and because of the unique data human challenge trials provide.“Researchers can understand how the virus works in the human body. They can understand the biological markers of immunity. In fact, much of our understanding of other types of coronaviruses come from challenge studies that were conducted in the 1960s in Britain,” said Rohrig.Human challenge volunteers are paid and monitored for at least a year after. 1722

The White House on Monday backed down from its threats to revoke Jim Acosta's press pass."Having received a formal reply from your counsel to our letter of November 16, we have made a final determination in this process: your hard pass is restored," the White House said in a new letter to Acosta. "Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action in accordance with the rules set forth above. The President is aware of this decision and concurs."The letter detailed several new rules for reporter conduct at presidential press conferences, including "a single question" from each journalist. Follow-ups will only be permitted "at the discretion of the President or other White House officials."The decision reverses a Friday letter by the White House that said Acosta's press pass could be revoked again right after a temporary restraining order granted by a federal judge expires. That letter -- signed by two of the defendants in the suit, press secretary Sarah Sanders and deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine -- cited Acosta's conduct at President Trump's November 7 press conference, where he asked multiple follow-up questions and didn't give up the microphone right away."You failed to abide" by "basic, widely understood practices," the letter to Acosta claimed.CNN won the temporary restraining order earlier on Friday, forcing the White House to restore Acosta's press access for 14 days. Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled on Fifth Amendment grounds, saying Acosta's right to due process had been violated. He did not rule on CNN's argument that the revocation of Acosta's press pass was a violation of his and the network's First Amendment rights.Many journalists have challenged the administration's actions against Acosta, pointing out that aggressive questioning is a tradition that dates back decades.But Trump appeared eager to advance an argument about White House press corps "decorum," no matter how hypocritical.Since the judge criticized the government for not following due process before banning Acosta on November 7, the letter looked like an effort to establish a paper trail that could empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.The letter gave Acosta less than 48 hours to contest the "preliminary decision" and said a "final determination" would be made by Monday at 3 p.m.CNN's lawyers had signaled a willingness to settle after prevailing in court on Friday. Ted Boutrous, an attorney representing CNN and Acosta, said they would welcome "a resolution that makes the most sense so everyone can get out of court and get back to their work."But in a new court filing on Monday morning, CNN's lawyers said the defendants "did not respond to this offer to cooperate." Instead, the letter from Shine and Sanders was an "attempt to provide retroactive due process," the filing alleged.So CNN and Acosta asked the judge to set a schedule of deadlines for motions and hearings that would give the network the chance to win a preliminary injunction, a longer form of court-ordered protection to Acosta's press pass.They were seeking a hearing "for the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible," according to the court filing.A preliminary injunction could be in effect for much longer than the temporary restraining order, thereby protecting Acosta's access to the White House.In a response Monday morning, government lawyers called the CNN motion a "self-styled 'emergency'" and sought to portray the White House's moves as a lawful next step."Far from constituting an 'emergency,' the White House's initiation of a process to consider suspending Mr. Acosta's hard pass is something this Court's Order anticipated," they said.The DOJ lawyers continued to say that the White House had made "no final determination" on Acosta's access, and asked the court to extend its own deadline, set last week, for a status report due at 3 p.m. Monday, in light of the White House's separate self-imposed deadline for the Acosta decision.At lunchtime, Kelly granted the government's request and extended the status report deadline to 6 p.m. Monday.The case was assigned to Judge Kelly when CNN filed suit last Tuesday. Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate. He heard oral arguments on Wednesday and granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order on Friday."We are disappointed with the district court's decision," the Justice Department said in response at the time. "The President has broad authority to regulate access to the White House, including to ensure fair and orderly White House events and press conferences. We look forward to continuing to defend the White House's lawful actions."Trump seemed to shrug off the loss, telling Fox's Chris Wallace in an interview that "it's not a big deal."He said the White House would "create rules and regulations for conduct" so that the administration can revoke press passes in the future."If he misbehaves," Trump said, apparently referring to Acosta, "we'll throw him out or we'll stop the news conference.""This is a high-risk confrontation for both sides," Mike Allen of Axios wrote in a Monday item about Trump's new targeting of Acosta. "It turns out that press access to the White House is grounded very much in tradition rather than in plain-letter law. So a court fight could result in a precedent that curtails freedom to cover the most powerful official in the world from the literal front row."The-CNN-Wire 5546

The U.S. economy added 250,000 jobs in October, significantly exceeding expectations, the government announced Friday.The unemployment rate remained at 3.7 percent, a 49-year low. Wages grew 3.1 percent, strong growth after years of stagnant paychecks.The number will likely serve as a talking point for President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans as they make closing arguments before the midterm elections next Tuesday.The year-over-year percentage growth in average hourly earnings looks larger than it actually is because wages declined last October as low-wage workers returned to their jobs following a particularly strong hurricane season. Month to month, hourly earnings increased by only five cents, a modest increase. 744

The Senate voted Wednesday to pass a measure that would repeal changes to net neutrality rules that were recently adopted?by the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission.The measure, which was backed by all 49 Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Kennedy of Louisiana, will be sent to the GOP-led House, where it'll likely go nowhere -- and President Donald Trump is unlikely to back it.While Collins' support had been public leading up to the vote, Murkowski's and Kennedy's "yes" vote came as a surprise to some.Democrats used the Congressional Review Act to force a vote -- a law that allows Congress to repeal agency rules and regulations on a simple majority vote, instead of a 60-vote threshold needed to break procedural hurdles on most legislation, the kinds of traditional roadblocks where Senate leadership could typically hold up such a proposal.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke after the vote to begin debate earlier Wednesday, arguing that "at stake is the future of the Internet.""That fundamental equality of access is what has made the internet so dynamic," he said on the Senate floor. "Net neutrality protected everyone ... that era, the era of an open Internet, will unfortunately soon come to an end."He continued: "The Democratic position is very simple. Let's treat the internet like the public good that it is."The FCC voted in December to repeal Obama-era protections. The net neutrality rules, approved by the same organization two years earlier, prohibited Internet service providers -- such as Comcast and Verizon -- from speeding up or slowing down traffic from specific websites and apps.Democrats argued the new FCC rules give too much power to Internet service providers, which they fear will throttle down speeds for some websites and services while ramping it up for others who pay more.Schumer said in an earlier statement, "The repeal of net neutrality is not only a blow to the average consumer, but it is a blow to public schools, rural Americans, communities of color and small businesses. A vote against this resolution will be a vote to protect large corporations and special interests, leaving the American public to pay the price."While Democrats recognize they are unlikely to reverse the FCC's rule, they see the issue as a key policy desire that energizes their base voters, a top priority ahead of the midterm elections. 2456