山西痔疮的最佳疗法太原拉屎经常出血,太原痔疮手术出血怎么办,太原拉大便出血,山西肛周脓肿怎么开刀,山西肛肠手术大概多少钱,太原内外痔疮怎么治,山西肛瘘医院铭肛泰

Rudy Giuliani just contradicted the White House and the Justice Department on a very sensitive subject: The AT&T-Time Warner deal."The president denied the merger," Giuliani, a new member of President Trump's legal team, said in an interview with HuffPost on Friday.Giuliani was seemingly trying to defend the president against any suggestion that Michael Cohen improperly influenced the administration after the revelation that Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney, was paid large sums of money by AT&T and several other corporate clients."Whatever lobbying was done didn't reach the president," Giuliani said, repeating a claim he made to CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday.But then Giuliani went further, telling HuffPost's S.V. Date that "he did drain the swamp... The president denied the merger. They didn't get the result they wanted."In other words: If AT&T hired Cohen to win government approval of the deal, AT&T wasted its 0,000.But the assertion that "the president denied the merger" flies in the face of everything the government has previously said about the deal."If Giuliani didn't misspeak, this is major news," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted Friday night. "It is highly unusual for the president to be involved in DOJ merger decisions."It is possible that Giuliani misspoke, or that he simply does not know what he's talking about. He was not working for Trump at the time the Justice Department was reviewing the deal. Since he began representing Trump, he has had to change the story he has been telling in public about Stormy Daniels and what Trump knew or didn't know and when about the payment Cohen made to her. And he may simply have meant "the president" as a stand-in for "the administration."But this is not the first time that there have been questions about whether politics and Trump influenced the DOJ's decision.On the day AT&T announced its bid to buy Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, then-candidate Trump said he opposed the deal. So when he took office, there were concerns within AT&T and Time Warner that he or his aides would try to block the deal.AT&T said earlier this week that it hired Cohen, in part, to gain "insights" about the Trump administration's thinking about the deal.Throughout 2017, career officials at the Justice Department's antitrust division conducted a standard review of the proposed deal.The DOJ traditionally operates with a lot of independence. But there were persistent questions about possible political interference, especially in light of the president's well-publicized disdain for both CNN and attorney general Jeff Sessions.Still, AT&T and Time Warner executives believed the deal would receive DOJ approval, much like Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal did nearly a decade ago. By October, they thought the thumbs-up was right around the corner.They were wrong. In November, the DOJ went to court to block the deal, alleging that the combination of the two companies would give AT&T too much power in the marketplace.That's when questions about Trump's hidden hand really got louder. Democratic lawmakers raised alarms. So did AT&T and Time Warner. Other critics pointed out Trump's complaints about Sessions and the DOJ. Trump had recently been quoted saying "I'm not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department," adding, "I'm not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would LOVE to be doing, and I'm very frustrated by it."But White House aides like Kellyanne Conway insisted that the White House was not interfering.The DOJ's antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, said the same thing. He denied being influenced by Trump.In an affidavit, Delrahim said "all of my decisions" about suing to block the deal "have been made on the merits, without regard to political considerations."Ahead of the trial, AT&T and Time Warner sought discovery on any relevant communications between the White House and the Justice Department. But a judge denied the request, and the companies dropped any argument that the case was motivated by politics.The Justice Department and AT&T had no immediate comment Friday night.The-CNN-Wire 4182

RMH Franchise Holdings, a company that operates a number of Applebee's restaurants, announced this week that customers who used credit cards at some locations may have been subject to a data breach. "Upon learning of a potential incident, RMH promptly launched an investigation and obtained the help of leading cyber security forensics firms," the company said in a statement. "Based on the experts’ investigation, RMH believes that unauthorized software placed on the point-of-sale system at certain RMH-owned and -operated Applebee’s restaurants was designed to capture payment card information and may have affected a limited number of purchases made at those locations."The company said that customers’ names, credit or debit card numbers, expiration dates and card verification codes were subject to the breach. Customers who used Applebee's tabletop payment system, or its online ordering system were not subject to the breach.RMH said that customers should closely monitor their payment card statements, and check for any unauthorized transactions. If customers notice any unauthorized transactions, they should contact their bank.RMH said that it learned of the incident on February 13, and has since contacted law enforcement. "RMH is continuing to closely monitor its systems and review its security measures to help prevent something like this from happening again," the company said. The company did not say why it waited three weeks before notifying the public. Many of the affected transactions took place from December 6 through January 2. Not every Applebee's location was affected by the data breach. For a list of affected locations, click here.  1732

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A rookie Sacramento police officer who died during a domestic violence call was ambushed by a gunman and had no chance of surviving after she was shot, police said.The disclosure came late Friday amid criticism that it took police 45 minutes to get to 26-year-old rookie Officer Tara O'Sullivan during the armed standoff.O'Sullivan was later pronounced dead at a hospital.O'Sullivan was hit several times and one of the wounds was "non-survivable," Sgt. Vance Chandler said at a news conference where the department released police body camera video of the Wednesday night attack.Police Chief Daniel Hahn said the gunman had stashed two assault rifles , a shotgun and handgun in different rooms and opened fire as officers knocked on the door."The officers were essentially ambushed," Hahn said.He said patrol car doors and protective vests couldn't stop the high-powered rifle rounds, and if officers had tried to rescue their fallen colleague before an armored vehicle arrived, "we would have additional officers murdered.""Under the most dangerous and trying circumstances, our officers performed admirably," the chief said.Earlier in the day, suspect Adel Sambrano Ramos, 45, was charged with murder, attempted murder and possessing two illegal assault rifles.O'Sullivan was standing behind her training officer, Daniel Chip, when she was struck, police said.Footage from Chip's body camera showed him approaching a detached garage with his gun drawn, knocking and calling out: "Hey, Adel, Police Department... You're not under arrest, you're not in trouble."The officer then opens a screen door and begins to cautiously enter the open doorway, asking Adel if he is inside and repeating: "You're not in trouble, dude."At that moment, more than 20 rapid shots are heard. The officer runs for cover and radios that a high-powered rifle is being fired."Officer down! Officer down!" he says.Police said the gunman had opened fire from a house behind the officers and barricaded the front door.The charges against Ramos carry special circumstances, including that he killed O'Sullivan while lying in wait, an allegation that would allow authorities to seek the death penalty. However, that decision is months away and Gov. Gavin Newsom has imposed a moratorium on executions.Ramos is set to appear Monday for his first court appearance. Public defender Norm Dawson said he couldn't comment until he receives more details in the case.Police said the gunman strategically shot at officers for hours, using all the weapons kept in different rooms. He surrendered after an eight-hour standoff.Nine days before the officer's killing, a judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Ramos for failing to appear on a charge of battering a young woman.Police said the gunman opened fire as O'Sullivan and other officers helped an unidentified woman clear out her belongings from the garage of a North Sacramento home.Police earlier found two guns in a neighboring home associated with Ramos and learned about the warrant in the battery case. Five officers went to find him before the ambush occurred, police said.Authorities said lower-level warrants like the one Ramos faced rarely lead police to actively seek an arrest."I cannot tell you even in my (30-year) career where we had a misdemeanor bench warrant and we went out looking for somebody. That's just not practical," California Police Chiefs Association President Ronald Lawrence said. "Clearly you had a person who had a propensity for violence and wasn't held accountable for earlier crimes."Ramos has a history of domestic violence restraining orders, but most recently was charged in November with simple battery against a minor woman in September.Defense attorney and former prosecutor William Portanova, who is not associated with the case, said simple battery "means a slap or a push or a shove, but there's no bruises or stitches or bleeding and nothing is broken."Ramos failed to appear in February and a bench warrant was issued then withdrawn when he resurfaced. Another was issued June 10 and was active when O'Sullivan was shot.Sacramento County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Sgt. Tess Deterding said many times deputies won't arrest lower-level fugitives even if they discover an outstanding warrant, because the offender would simply be released again with a new order to appear in court."I think it largely depends on the scenario at the time. Is this a person that needs to go to jail right now? Is this a solution to the problem that I have?" she said.Portanova said it's a reality of understaffed police agencies that so many warrants remain outstanding."Citizens are paying the price," he said. 4696

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California affiliate of the National Rifle Association has asked a U.S. judge to block a new law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.The California Rifle & Pistol Association asked San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez to halt the checks and related restrictions on ammunition sales.Voters approved tightening California's already strict firearms laws in 2016. The restrictions took effect July 1.The gun owners' association challenged the ammunition background checks in a lawsuit filed last year and on Monday asked for an injunction, alleging it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.RELATED: New ammunition law requires background checksThe lawsuit has been joined by out-of-state ammunition sellers and California residents, including Kim Rhode, who has won six Olympic shooting medals and is trying to become the only person to win seven medals at seven consecutive Games."The scheme purports to funnel everyone seeking to exercise their Second Amendment right to acquire ammunition into a single, controlled source, an in-state licensed vendor, for the purpose of confirming purchasers' legal eligibility to possess ammunition and to keep track of all purchases," lawyer Sean Brady wrote. "While making sure dangerous people do not obtain weapons is a laudable goal for government, California's scheme goes too far and must be enjoined."The motion raised concerns about identification requirements and high rates of denials among ammunition buyers undergoing the new background checks. Moreover, the system blocks out-of-state ammunition vendors from the California market, the motion argues.RELATED: Study: Tougher gun laws lead to fewer firearm-related deaths among childrenThe judge is expected to decide in early August whether to order a halt, though any such decision is almost certain to be appealed.Benitez in October rejected the state's attempt to throw out the lawsuit. He allowed opponents to proceed on arguments that the ammunition restrictions impede interstate commerce and are pre-empted by federal law.The measure "criminalizes all of those (ammunition) transactions with merchants conducting business in other states," he wrote in a preliminary ruling that the restriction "significantly burdens interstate commerce."He also preliminarily supported the argument that the new state law conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.RELATED: Southern California town of Needles wants to be a sanctuary -- for gun ownersThe California law "criminalizes bringing ammunition into the state that was purchased or obtained outside the state," he wrote.Benitez earlier this year struck down California's nearly two-decade-old ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. That triggered a week-long buying frenzy before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling.The impending ammunition background checks sparked a surge in sales as firearm owners sought to beat new requirements, including that dealers report the brand, type and amount of ammunition to the state Department of Justice.Gun owners who already are in the state's background check database would pay a fee each time they buy ammunition, while others can buy longer-term licenses if they do not have certain criminal convictions or mental health commitments.Gov. Gavin Newsom has criticized Benitez's lifting of the state's ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets, saying he is confident it will be reinstated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Attorneys with San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence anticipated that Benitez is likely to block the ammunition restrictions, but the law would eventually be upheld on appeal."Unfortunately this may be the one judge in the country" willing to rule that "people should be able to buy unlimited quantities of ammunition without background checks," staff attorney Ari Freilich, who directs the organization's California legislative affairs, said prior to the filing.Gun owner groups have been pinning their hopes on a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court. But the center's litigation director, Hannah Shearer, said there are unlikely to be the kind of conflicting lower court opinions that would prompt the justices to weigh in.She said courts have upheld ammunition licensing laws in other states and she expects the 9th Circuit would do likewise. 4465

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law requiring California to house transgender inmates in prisons based on their gender identity. The new law says the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation must ask inmates during the intake process if they identify as transgender, nonbinary or intersex. Those inmates can then request to be placed in a facility that houses either men or women. The law says the state can deny requests if it has management or security concerns. If that happens, the state must give the inmate a written explanation and allow them an meaningful opportunity to object. 634