济南哪里治疗癫痫病专业潍坊医院癫痫专病哪个好,江苏治疗癫痫病医保医院,安徽治疗癫痫病哪家好,滨州去哪里医院看癫痫,河南中医对羊羔疯病的治疗,烟台羊羔疯病到哪里治,聊城癫痫治疗的佳方法

Just spoke with President @realDonaldTrump and he sounds terrific -- very engaged and ready to get back to work! He’s also very excited about Judge Amy Coney Barrett being confirmed to the Supreme Court and focused on a good deal to help stimulate the economy.— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 5, 2020 320

Jon Lester is now a free agent in the MLB, after a million option was declined by the Chicago Cubs. If he does leave the team, he left fans a huge parting gift: ,000 in beer.On Friday, before the official word the team declined Lester’s option, the pitcher tweeted he wanted to thank his fans.“Regardless of what’s next I want to thank the fans for the past 6 years. So this weekend (10.30-11.1) Im (sic) buying y’all my favorite beer,” Lester tweeted, then added four bars in the Chicago area. “Your 1st @MillerLite is on me. Just tell em to put it on #JonsTab,” Lester continued. 596

KGTV (SAN DIEGO) - The report investigating whether President Donald Trump or his aides colluded with Russians to interfere with the 2016 election, or obstruct justice, has been handed over to the Department of Justice. So what now?"He didn't call a ball or a strike, he said you know I'm just going to let you guys do this," said former U.S. Attorney Chuck LaBella. LaBella explained Attorney Robert Mueller is leaving it up to the Department of Justice to decide."I actually think it's the right call for him to make because he is not in the Department of Justice, he's a former prosecutor, he knows what the rules are, he knows what the standard is, but this is a Department of Justice policy decision," LaBella said. LaBella worked on a similar investigation, during former President Bill Clinton's administration, regarding campaign finance abuses.When it comes to how much information can be released, LaBella said the public will probably only see 30-40% of the findings. "People calling for the public wholesale release of this need to really check the law, because the law is pretty clear,", he explained, saying grand jury materials, including interviews, are private."It could potentially hurt people who only had tangential involvement in this. They were initially suspected of bad conduct," he said. LaBella said they were exonerated by the end of the investigation and it would be embarrassing to tie them to the investigation.What does all of this mean to San Diegans?"I don't think anything's going to change the election in California, I mean California's pretty much on one side already," LaBella said.10News spoke with local Democratic Rep. Susan Davis, who adamantly wants the full report released, saying it has huge implications on future politics. "I think it raises a lot of questions for our next election, in what we're going to do, how we're going to prepare for it, and so a lot of this really informs us all to be sure this never happens again," Davis said. She said the investigation took lots of taxpayer money and two years of work and the people deserve to know what came of the investigation.As for President Trump, his response was captured in a tweet: "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!"LaBella said not so fast."I would not be doing a touchdown dance or a dance of victory quite yet because the Southern District of New York is going to come out with its results of its investigation," La Bella said.He explained the lesser known investigation is "looking at a lot of activities related to his corporate activities, his family's activities, his charitable activities, his campaign finance activities."LaBella said there is no timeline on that investigation, but they are working as fast and meticulously as they can. 2809

Judge Amy Coney Barrett remained tight-lipped on how she would rule in politically-charged Supreme Court cases in early questioning during her confirmation hearings on Tuesday morning, citing judicial precedence.Barrett is President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, and Trump has said that he would only nominate judges that would roll back abortion rights and end the public health care system set up by the Affordable Care Act. And while her judicial history indicates that Barrett fits those qualifications, she continually avoided answering specific qualifications about looming Supreme Court cases.Barrett was asked her views on several politically-charged topics which the Supreme Court could potentially influence, including:2020 ElectionWhen asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, if she would recuse herself should the upcoming election spark a Supreme Court decision, Barrett clarified that she had not made a "commitment to anyone...on how she would decide a case."Barrett later said she would consider the legal requirements of recusal from the eight other Supreme Court judges should the election spark a case.Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-MN, asked Barrett specifically about President Donald Trump's call to have "poll watchers" observe voters ahead of election day and check for fraud — an action that legal experts worry could suppress turnout.When asked if it would be illegal for those "poll watchers" to "intimidate" voters, Barrett said she would not comment on hypothetical cases.AbortionWhen asked repeatedly by Feinstein if she agrees with Justice Antonin Scalia if Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that it "can and should be overruled," Barrett attempted to sidestep the answer."If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say 'I love it or I hate it,' it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a given case," she said.She later clarified that she does not have an "agenda." She added that her agenda is to "stick to the rule of law."The Affordable Care ActCommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Barrett directly if she would recuse herself from any Affordable Care Act cases, given Trump's call to dismantle the law and her past writings critical on Supreme Court decisions upholding the law. Barrett said she would follow typical recusal procedures should she be asked by the other justices.Later, Feinstein asked Barrett if she had any "thoughts" on an upcoming ACA case, California v. Texas. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on that case on Nov. 10.Barrett said she would not share any thoughts on the case.Finally, Barrett told Sen. Chuck Grassley that she had not been directed by any politicians to strike down the law.Gun controlBarrett was asked directly by Feinstein how she would rule in the event a case regarding gun control came before the court. She said she would "look carefully at text, look...applying law as I best determine it."LGBTQ+ rightsFeinstein also asked Barrett how she would rule in cases regarding LGBTQ+ rights. During the questioning, Barrett said she found both "racism" and "discrimination on sexual preference" to be "abhorrent."According to GLAAD, the term "sexual preference" implies that a person's sexuality is a "choice," meaning it can be cured. The organization prefers the term "sexual orientation."Voting rightsSen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, spent a large amount of his time comparing recent Supreme Court decisions on voting rights to decisions on the Second Amendment, noting that some felons in America retain the right to a firearm but lose their right to vote.Durbin related that anecdote to rulings Barrett has made regarding a felon's right to firearms. Barrett accused Durbin of taking her ruling out of context. She later added that she does not have an "agenda" when it comes to certain cases, though Durbin argued that all judges are shaped by their own values and experiences._____________Questioning took place in a marathon-length session on Tuesday, with all 22 members on Senate Judiciary Committee being granted the opportunity to question Barrett for 30 minutes at a time. Members will get an additional 20 minutes of questioning on Wednesday.On Monday, lawmakers were each granted 10 minutes to deliver an opening statement, all of which fell along party lines.Democrats said Barrett's nomination would threaten healthcare for millions of Americans, citing past criticisms of previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld the Affordable Care Act that Barrett has published. They also argued that Republicans were "rushing" Barrett's nomination ahead of election day to, as Sen. Kamala Harris put it, "bypass the will of the American people."Many Democrats took issue with hearings even being held amid a pandemic, claiming Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham had taken lax measures to not require lawmakers to be tested and lambasting Republicans for putting Capitol Building staff at risk. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC, who was recently isolated due to the coronavirus, submitted a letter to Graham from his doctor claiming he was following CDC guidelines. They also argued that their time would be better spent working on stimulus legislation.Most Republicans used the time to champion Barrett's character as a working mother of nine children and argue that it was their Constitutional duty to fill the open seat because they control both the Senate and the White House.Following the committee members' opening statements, Barrett delivered her own statement, in which she paid homage to her mentors and Conservative icon, Justice Antonin Scalia, and to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying she was "forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led."Graham has said he hopes to have confirmation hearings completely wrapped up by Thursday. He added that Republicans are on track to wrap up the process by the end of the month —just a week before election day. 5909

JAMUL (CNS) - A woman was killed in Jamul late Friday by a hit-and-run driver who officers were ultimately able to track down and arrest, the California Highway Patrol said Saturday.Around 7:20 p.m. Friday, a 65-year-old woman was crossing Route 94 near Rancho Miguel Road when she was struck by a white Toyota Corolla heading west on the highway, CHP officers said.The Corolla driver at first pulled over and got out of the car, then hopped back in and fled the area, continuing west on Route 94, officials said.The victim was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries, according to the CHP.Neither the driver nor the victim were publicly named.MAP: Track crime happening in your neighborhoodInvestigators were looking for possible witnesses, and asked anyone who saw the crash to call the California Highway Patrol El Cajon office at (619) 401-2000. 887