吉林包皮包茎手术哪家好吉林韩式割包皮长手术多少钱,吉林割包皮包茎需要多少钱,吉林什么样是包皮过长,吉林哪个医院看早泄比较正规,吉林在做阳痿早泄需要多少钱,吉林前列腺白细胞怎么做检查,吉林在线男科病医院咨询

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-controlled state Legislature agreed on a budget deal that would to cover the state's estimated .3 billion budget deficit.Newsom and legislative leaders announced the agreement Monday. No details were immediately available about what's in the agreement.But in a joint statement, Newsom and the leaders of the Senate and Assembly say the agreement protects core services including education, health care and the social safety net.The full statement:“The COVID-19 global pandemic has caused a sudden and dramatic change in our nation’s and state’s economic outlook – and has had a cascading effect on our state budget. California was better positioned for this sudden change than at almost any time in its history, building out record reserves following years of responsible budgeting. Even still, the size and scope of the pandemic and the accompanying economic crisis have been unprecedented – leaving California to make hard choices and figure out how to sustain critical services with much less.“In the face of these challenges, we have agreed on a budget that is balanced, responsible and protects core services – education, health care, social safety net and emergency preparedness and response. This budget also invests in California small businesses harmed by the pandemic.“This agreement reflects our shared commitment to supporting schools, and is built on a foundation of equity – allocating billions of dollars for students most affected by learning loss and continuing our state’s leadership toward reforming the criminal justice system.“To be clear, this budget required some tough decisions and more work remains ahead. But they were necessary steps for keeping California on firm fiscal footing while we continue to meet the COVID-19 challenge, protect vital services and our most vulnerable communities, and build a strong fiscal bridge to a safe, speedy economic resurgence. Californians are doing their part – now it’s imperative for our federal partners to pass a responsible and comprehensive relief plan so states and local communities can continue to keep Americans safe while leading our national economic recovery.”California's revenue has tanked during the coronavirus pandemic as a statewide stay-at-home order forced many businesses to close and caused millions of people to lose their jobs. 2402

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. (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) — Law enforcement agencies in California must release police misconduct records even if the behavior occurred before a new transparency law took effect, a state court of appeals has ruled.The 1st District Court of Appeal's decision released Friday settles for now a debate over whether records created before Jan. 1, when the law took effect, were subject to disclosure. Many police unions have sued to block the records release, while public information advocates argued the records should be disclosed.The ruling applies to police agencies statewide, including the attorney general's office, unless another appellate court steps in and rules differently, said David Snyder of the First Amendment Coalition."These records are absolutely essential for the public to be able to see what the police departments are doing with respect to police misdoubt," said Snyder, whose group intervened in the case. "These agencies have enormous power over Californians and so transparency of those agencies is absolutely essential in order to be able to hold them accountable."At least one agency reversed its prior decision to deny access to old records after the ruling came in. Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones said he would release records dating back five years after reading the court of appeal's decision, the Sacramento Bee reported.Mike Rains, an attorney for the Walnut Creek Police Officers Association and other police agencies seeking to block the disclosure, said he doesn't see the decision as setting precedent on the merits of the case but that agencies are likely to take guidance from it unless another court rules differently.His clients do not have an issue with releasing records of misconduct produced after Jan. 1, Rains said, but see the release of old records as a privacy violation."Police officers used to have a privacy right," he said. "We don't believe it changes the rights of privacy to those records that were created prior to Jan. 1."California lawmakers voted last year to require police agencies to release records on police shootings and officer misconduct to the public. Police unions had sought to block old records, with some law enforcement agencies even destroying them. Attorney General Xavier Becerra also declined to release records from his office, saying the intent of the law need to be clarified by the courts.The appeals court ruled on March 12 but only made the opinion public Friday.The rulings by a panel of three justices said the old records can be released because the action triggering their release — a request for public information by reporters or others — occurs after Jan. 1. The justices also noted the release of the records does not change the legal consequences for officers already found to have engaged in misconduct."The new law changes only the public's right to access peace officer records," the justices wrote. 2908

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's incoming governor said Tuesday his transition started with a "reality check" as the state contended with a mass shooting and two deadly wildfires.Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom appeared alongside fellow Democrat and outgoing Gov. Jerry Brown for the first time since he was elected California's 40th governor last week."That puts everything in perspective," Newsom said of the tragedies, standing behind a large brass bear that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger installed in front of the governor's office during his tenure.Newsom said he's focused for now on staffing his administration. The governor appoints hundreds of people who serve at top levels of state agencies and departments. He announced last week that he'd picked former Hillary Clinton aide Ann O'Leary to be his chief of staff and Ana Matosantos, a former chief of finance for the state, to be his cabinet secretary.He and Brown did not offer details of their discussions."Pick an issue. We've had a chance to dialogue at least broadly about it," Newsom said.With fires raging on both ends of California, one of them the deadliest and most destructive in the state's history, Newsom sidestepped questions about what action should be taken against utilities if their equipment is found to be responsible. The fires started near the time and place where Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric reported equipment irregularities, but no cause has been determined."I'm going to assess the facts first before I opine," he said.Newsom called legislation enacted last year to improve forest management and protect utilities from financial ruin "a good first step, obviously a work in progress." The measure included money to clear dead trees from fire-prone areas and made it easier for utilities to pass along the costs of wildfire lawsuits to their customers. California is one of two states with a legal standard that holds utilities entirely liable if their equipment causes a wildfire.Brown said California is "pretty well maxed out" from fighting several deadly wildfires and he's grateful for the help from surrounding states and the federal government.He said the state is doing everything possible to prevent fires, but "some things only God can do.""This is unprecedented, or what I call the new abnormal," Brown said. "The winds are faster, the temperatures are hotter. The soil and vegetation is dryer. This is unprecedented. And it's a tragedy, and we as human beings have to be humble in the face of it, but also resolute and determined." 2568