成都治婴幼儿血管瘤哪个医院好成都下肢动脉硬化的治疗专科医院,成都哪家医院做睾丸精索静脉曲张好,成都治疗婴儿血管瘤费用,成都有治老烂腿病的医院吗,成都诊断前列腺肥大医院,四川下肢血管炎医院,老烂腿成都哪个医院看的好

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

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's attorney general is demanding that a university journalism program return a state list that includes law enforcement officers convicted of crimes in the past decade, saying the information wasn't meant to be public and shouldn't have been given out by another agency.Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office sent reporters from the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California, Berkeley a notice that confidential information had been inadvertently released from a confidential database, the program reported Tuesday.The attorney general's office said possessing the list was a misdemeanor and asked the reporters to destroy it. They received it last month from California's police training agency through a public records request.The reporters refused, but so far have released only limited details about the list. They say the list of nearly 12,000 names includes current and former officers and those who applied to be officers. It's not clear how many are active officers and how many had never been officers.The list outlines crimes including shoplifting, child molestation, embezzlement and murder. It's not clear how many of the convicted officers remain on the job.In a statement to The Associated Press late Tuesday, Becerra's office reiterated its position that the information came from a confidential database to which the reporters should not have had access."State law protects the records of all Californians in this database by prohibiting the possession and use of this information by anyone not identified by statute," his office said.The report comes as he is also refusing to release old records of serious misconduct by his own justice department agents under a new law that requires the release. Becerra is citing conflicting court decisions on whether records should be made public for incidents that happened before the disclosure law took effect Jan. 1.In a letter to reporter Robert Lewis with the reporting program's production arm, Investigative Studios, Deputy Attorney General Michelle Mitchell said the criminal history information was taken from a confidential law enforcement database where "access to information is restricted by law.""You are hereby on notice that the unauthorized receipt or possession...is a misdemeanor," she wrote, threatening unspecified legal action.First Amendment Coalition executive director David Snyder told the reporting program that, "It's disheartening and ominous that the highest law enforcement officer in the state is threatening legal action over something the First Amendment makes clear can't give rise to criminal action against a reporter."Without providing many details, the reporting program said the list includes current, former or prospective officers who dealt drugs, stole from their departments, sexually assaulted suspects, took bribes, filed false reports and committed perjury. A large number drove drunk, and sometimes killed people while doing so.The reporting program said the list came after a law last year allowed the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to keep records of when current or former officers are convicted of felonies or other crimes that would disqualify them from law enforcement. Previously, the commission would have to wait until the officer had exhausted all appeals before deeming them unqualified, but now the initial conviction is enough.That led the attorney general's office to provide the commission with the list of current and former officers with convictions. The commission provided the reporting program with 10 years' worth of convictions.Nic Marais, an attorney representing Investigative Studios, said in a letter to Becerra's office that the records are publicly releasable because they are summaries. He added that state law exempts reporters from prosecution for receiving records.Attorney Michael Rains, who represents police officers, told the reporting program that he understands there is public interest in police officers convicted of crimes, but said the same disclosure should apply to everyone. He noted there is no broad public disclosure of crimes committed by lawyers, doctors or teachers. 4210

SACRAMENTO (KGTV) -- California's attorney general disclosed an ongoing probe into Facebook's privacy practices Wednesday, as it sued the company over its repeated refusal to turn over documents and answer questions.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said his probe has been going on for more than a year. He said he was disclosing it now because his office was making a public court filing to force the company to comply with subpoenas and requests for information."Facebook is not just continuing to drag its feet in response to the Attorney General's investigation, it is failing to comply," the lawsuit said.The lawsuit was filed in state Superior Court in San Francisco.The California probe, one of many legal and regulatory inquiries into Facebook, began as a response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and grew into an investigation into whether Facebook misrepresented its privacy practices, deceived users and broke California law.Cambridge Analytica, a data mining firm, gathered details on as many as 87 million Facebook users without their permission. The Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook billion this summer for privacy violations in an investigation that also grew out of that scandal. California officials say questions have been raised about what Facebook knew and why it didn't prevent third parties such as Cambridge Analytica from misusing user data.The court filing said Facebook hasn't given answers on 19 of the attorney general's questions and hasn't given any new documents in response to six document requests. The filing also said Facebook has refused to search the emails of top executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, as the state requested.Becerra's office said it requested additional information after Facebook took a year to respond to an initial subpoena.Investigators sought communications among executives on developers' access to user data, the relationship between ad spending and access to data and the introduction of new privacy features and privacy-related news stories. Officials also sought information on the effects of privacy settings on third-party access to data and Facebook's enforcement of policies.Facebook, which has its headquarters in Menlo Park, California, didn't respond to requests for comment.California hadn't joined a separate probe involving attorneys general from New York and other states. The New York probe is looking into Facebook's dominance and any resulting anticompetitive conduct. California is also a holdout in a separate probe into Google's market dominance.The District of Columbia and Massachusetts have also gone after Facebook on privacy. The Massachusetts attorney general's office is set to argue in a state court Thursday why Facebook should be compelled to stop resisting and turn over documents for its investigation.Facebook's various legal troubles have yet to make a significant financial dent on the company. Even the FTC's billion fine, the largest ever for a tech company, came to just under one-tenth of Facebook's revenue last year. The penalty was criticized by consumer advocates and a number of public officials as being too lenient.___AP Technology Writers Mae Anderson and Frank Bajak contributed to this report. 3248

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's Democratic governor signed a law Tuesday requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot, a move aimed squarely at Republican President Donald Trump.But even if the law withstands a likely legal challenge, Trump could avoid the requirements by choosing not to compete in California's primary. With no credible GOP challenger at this point, he likely won't need California's delegates to win the Republican nomination.While aimed at Trump, the law also applies to candidates for governor. Newsom said California's status as one of the world's largest economies gives it "a special responsibility" to require tax returns from its prospective elected officials."These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence," Newsom wrote in his signing statement.The Trump campaign called the bill "unconstitutional," saying there were good reasons why California's former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar proposal last year."What's next, five years of health records?" said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for Trump's campaign.The courts will likely have the final say. The bill's author, Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire, said lawmakers made sure the law only applies to the state's primary ballot because the state Constitution says the state Legislature does not control access to the general election ballot.Newsom's message to state lawmakers on Tuesday said the law is constitutional because "the United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen."But Murtaugh said the law violates First Amendment right of association "since California can't tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election."While states have authority over how candidates can access the ballot, the U.S. Constitution lays out a limited set of qualifications someone needs to meet to run for president, said Rick Hasen, a professor specializing in election law at the University of California-Irvine School of Law. Those qualifications include the requirement that presidential candidates be over age 35.The U.S. Supreme court has previously stopped state efforts to add requirements on congressional candidates through ballot access rules.New York has passed a law giving congressional committees access to Trump's state tax returns. But efforts to pry loose his tax returns have floundered in other states. California's first attempt to do so failed in 2017 when then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, vetoed the law, raising questions about its constitutionality and where it would lead next.The major Democratic 2020 contenders have already released tax returns for roughly the past decade. Trump has bucked decades of precedent by refusing to release his. Tax returns show income, charitable giving and business dealings, all of which Democratic state lawmakers say voters are entitled to know about.California's new law will require candidates to submit tax returns for the most recent five years to California's Secretary of State at least 98 days before the primary. They will then be posed online for the public to view, with certain personal information redacted.California is holding next year's primary on March 3, known as Super Tuesday because the high number of state's with nominating contests that day.Democratic Sen. Mike McGuire of Healdsburg said it would be "inconsistent" with past practice for Trump to forego the primary ballot and "ignore the most popular and vote-rich state in the nation."Republican Party of California chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said Newsom signing the law shows Democratic leaders in the state continue "to put partisan politics first," urging Democrats to instead join Republicans "in seeking ways to reduce the cost of living, help our schools and make our streets safer." 4061

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California lawmakers have voted to move the 2020 presidential primary to March to give the nation's most populous state more influence in choosing nominees.The bill approved early Saturday will now go to Gov. Jerry Brown for consideration. He has not said if he will sign it.California's 2016 primary fell in June after Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were already the presumptive nominees.The new bill would move the contests to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March.In the 2016 contest, that would have fallen on "Super Tuesday," the first major day of nominating contests following early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.California awards more delegates in the Democratic and Republican primaries than any other state. 789