全国哪里有治癫痫病的医院-【济南癫痫病医院】,NFauFwHg,山东济南看癫痫医院哪个好,山东省治疗咸宁哪家医院好,安徽哪儿个中医院治羊羔疯好,烟台羊角风不能吃什么,泰安有专业治疗医院羊癫疯专病吗,潍坊癫痫病医院手术
全国哪里有治癫痫病的医院全国那家治癫痫病,德州有没有冶医院羊羔疯专病,滨州治疗癫痫名医,菏泽癫痫哪里治疗的好,威海冶癫痫哪里医院会治好,山东省专治小儿羊羔疯的权威医院,枣庄治疗癫痫大概要多少钱
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 staunchly conservative political party in deep-blue California will get to keep its name after the governor vetoed a bill aimed at banning what state lawmakers say are misleading monikers.Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday he had vetoed a bill that would have banned political parties from using "no party preference," ''decline to state" or "independent" in their official names.The bill would have applied to all political parties. But it was aimed at the American Independent Party, which has been an option for California voters since 1968.More California voters are registering with no party preference, now accounting for 28.3% of all registered voters. If "no party preference" were a political party, it would be the second largest in the state behind the Democrats.Critics say the American Independent Party has benefited from this trend because its name confuses voters into believing they are registering as independents. The party makes up 2.59% of California's registered voters, making it the third largest political party in the state after the Democratic Party at 43.1% and the Republican Party at 23.6%.In 2016, the Los Angeles Times surveyed the party's registered members and found most did not know they had registered to vote with the party. But Newsom said he vetoed the bill because he worried it was unconstitutional."By requiring one existing political party to change its current name, this bill could be interpreted as a violation of the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Newsom wrote in his veto message.Representatives for the American Independent Party did not respond to an email and phone call seeking comment. The party's website says it nominated Donald Trump for president in 2016 and "God willing, 2020."Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, the bill's author, warned the mistaken registration could have electoral consequences. People registered with another political party would not be allowed to vote in the state's pivotal Democratic presidential primary in March.But Newsom signed another bill by Umberg that could help people rectify any registration mistakes. The law, signed Tuesday, allows voters to register to vote or update their registration at all polling places on election day.If people show up to vote in the Democratic presidential primary and are ineligible because they are registered with the American Independent Party, they can change their registration on the spot and cast a ballot. The ballot would be conditional, meaning it would not be counted until after the person's registration could be verified. 2676
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — The mayor of Rochester says reforms are coming to the police department as community elders seek to bring calmer minds to a fifth night of demonstrations over the March death of Daniel Prude, who lost consciousness after police held a hood over his head. Mayor Lovely Warren announced that the crisis intervention team would move from the police department to the city’s department of youth and recreation services at a news conference Sunday. Police Chief La’Ron Singletary said he supports the need for reform and is working with experts and clinicians in getting services for people with mental health issues that bring them into repeated police contact. More than 1,000 protesters gathered for a march led by community elders in Rochester Sunday night. 787
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California judge has thrown out a 2016 state law allowing the terminally ill to end their lives, ruling it was unconstitutionally approved by the Legislature.Lawyers for advocates and opponents say Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia did not rule on the legality of physician-assisted death. He issued an oral ruling Tuesday saying lawmakers acted illegally in passing the law during a special session devoted to other topics.Ottolia kept the law in place and gave the state attorney general five days to appeal.RELATED: 579
RICHMOND HEIGHTS, Mo. – Authorities are searching for a person of interest following a shooting at a St. Louis area mall that left one person dead and another injured Wednesday.The St. Louis County Police Department said on Twitter that the two people were shot at the St. Louis Galleria Mall in Richmond Heights shortly before 12:34 p.m. CT.When officers arrived at the scene, police say they located the adult male victims. One victim, a man in his early 20s, was pronounced deceased at the scene and the other was transported to an area hospital for life-saving treatment.The department said it does not consider the shooting an active shooter incident.Police believe two groups of people got into some sort of dispute inside the mall and the altercation escalated into a shooting. Several suspects were reportedly seen fleeing the scene. 849