吉林治疗早泄要多久才康复(吉林那家看男科好) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The billionaire behind a measure to split California in three said he's giving up on the effort to reimagine the nation's most populous state after the state Supreme Court knocked it off the November ballot."The political environment for radical change is right now," venture capitalist Tim Draper wrote in a letter to the court dated Aug. 2 and made public by his opponents Thursday. "The removal of Proposition 9 from the November ballot has effectively put an end to this movement."The court struck Draper's measure in July in response to a lawsuit but didn't rule on the merits of the case, allowing Draper the opportunity to fight to put it on future ballots. He's not moving forward with the case.RELATED: State Supreme Court blocks proposal to split California into 3 states from November ballotDraper spent more than .7 million to qualify his initiative for the ballot, which requires gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures.It's not his first effort to break up California — his plan to split the state into six didn't qualify for past ballots. He's argued California has become ungovernable due to its size and diversity, politically and geographically.The latest plan would have divided California into three pieces. One would comprise the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, Sacramento and the rest of Northern California; the second would be a strip of land from Los Angeles to Monterey; and the third would include San Diego, the Central Valley and Orange County.RELATED: Proposal to split California into three states makes November ballotThe Planning and Conservation League sued to keep Draper's initiative off the ballot, arguing that such a massive change to the state's governance couldn't be done through a ballot initiative."At the end of the day, this was a billionaire's massive and illegal use of the initiative process, and the court was correct in stopping this folly," Carlyle Hall, an attorney who worked on the suit with the environmental group.Draper, meanwhile, said he had "no idea" if his initiative would have passed or if Congress would have given the necessary approval for the split but that the ballot measure would have spurred debate over government failings.RELATED: Calexit: New plan to split California aims to create 'autonomous Native American nation'"I wanted to let the voters debate, discuss and think about a different way forward — essentially a reboot. And, I wanted the political class to hear and witness the frustration of California's voters with decades of inaction and decay," he wrote. "I believed there was significant benefit to our democracy in that." 2650

Russian hackers are at it again. They’re already targeting this year’s midterm elections.“One, to try to infiltrate our election infrastructure, and second, to try to infiltrate our minds with misinformation,” says David Becker, executive director and founder of The Center for Election Innovation & Research, of the Russian meddling.In 2016, Russian hackers targeted voting systems in at least 21 states, according to Homeland Security officials. While no votes were changed, states are now trying to prepare for what could happen this year.“States are going to need the federal government to step up, because states can’t defend against a nation state as big as Russia,” says Becker.Congress approved 0 million in election security funding for states. Becker said the money will go toward things like new voting machines that are more secure, updating computer software to protect voter information and hiring and training staff on cyber threats. House and Senate Republicans blocked millions in additional funding to bolster election security efforts, saying it’s too soon to allocate additional money and want to see how states use the 0 million already given out. While state and local governments are working to protect our elections, Becker said voters can also do something to help out.“Register to vote; check your registration and then go vote – earlier by mail if possible,” Becker says. “If there has been some kind of incident, if the Russian’s have infiltrated a voter list for instance, we will discover that early thanks to people voting and when we discover it early we can fix it early and make sure it has no impact on the election.” 1690

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

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- Amid mounting frustration over wait times at the California DMV, the department has redesigned portions of its website to make access to services easier. The redesigned portions include the website’s homepage and real ID page.“We are constantly modernizing our website with the customer in mind,” DMV Director Jean Shiomoto said.The changes come on the heels of news that California lawmakers can avoid the long lines at the DMV by visiting a private office near the Capitol not open to the public.RELATED: Private DMV office provides services to California lawmakersThe Sacramento Bee reported that the special DMV office in the legislative office building provides services for current and retired lawmakers as well as their staff and some other state employees.The redesign also comes amid mounting frustrations over longer and longer lines at statewide DMV offices and increased fees for vehicle registration.RELATED: California lawmakers ask DMV officials about long lines 1034

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Sacramento State University has accidentally accepted 3,500 wait-listed students for fall admission.The Sacramento Bee reports that the students were mistakenly invited to Admitted Students Day after an email was sent in March welcoming them to the event.Officials say the school never rescinded the invitation, which implied the students were accepted.University officials say the error resulted in an additional 500 students who began classes this semester.Officials say there would be space to admit them, because the school initially admitted a conservative number of students and it noted a record number of graduates last year.Officials say they don't believe that the additional students would have an effect on students' ability to take classes in their department.University officials estimate a 1% enrollment increase. 862

来源：资阳报