成都静脉管炎治疗成都右下肢静脉血栓,成都哪个糖足医院好,成都中医怎么治疗{静脉炎},四川下肢血管炎专业医院,成都腿血栓要花多少钱,成都粥样下肢动脉硬化哪家医院好,成都婴儿血管瘤哪家医院比较好

The White House on Monday backed down from its threats to revoke Jim Acosta's press pass."Having received a formal reply from your counsel to our letter of November 16, we have made a final determination in this process: your hard pass is restored," the White House said in a new letter to Acosta. "Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action in accordance with the rules set forth above. The President is aware of this decision and concurs."The letter detailed several new rules for reporter conduct at presidential press conferences, including "a single question" from each journalist. Follow-ups will only be permitted "at the discretion of the President or other White House officials."The decision reverses a Friday letter by the White House that said Acosta's press pass could be revoked again right after a temporary restraining order granted by a federal judge expires. That letter -- signed by two of the defendants in the suit, press secretary Sarah Sanders and deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine -- cited Acosta's conduct at President Trump's November 7 press conference, where he asked multiple follow-up questions and didn't give up the microphone right away."You failed to abide" by "basic, widely understood practices," the letter to Acosta claimed.CNN won the temporary restraining order earlier on Friday, forcing the White House to restore Acosta's press access for 14 days. Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled on Fifth Amendment grounds, saying Acosta's right to due process had been violated. He did not rule on CNN's argument that the revocation of Acosta's press pass was a violation of his and the network's First Amendment rights.Many journalists have challenged the administration's actions against Acosta, pointing out that aggressive questioning is a tradition that dates back decades.But Trump appeared eager to advance an argument about White House press corps "decorum," no matter how hypocritical.Since the judge criticized the government for not following due process before banning Acosta on November 7, the letter looked like an effort to establish a paper trail that could empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.The letter gave Acosta less than 48 hours to contest the "preliminary decision" and said a "final determination" would be made by Monday at 3 p.m.CNN's lawyers had signaled a willingness to settle after prevailing in court on Friday. Ted Boutrous, an attorney representing CNN and Acosta, said they would welcome "a resolution that makes the most sense so everyone can get out of court and get back to their work."But in a new court filing on Monday morning, CNN's lawyers said the defendants "did not respond to this offer to cooperate." Instead, the letter from Shine and Sanders was an "attempt to provide retroactive due process," the filing alleged.So CNN and Acosta asked the judge to set a schedule of deadlines for motions and hearings that would give the network the chance to win a preliminary injunction, a longer form of court-ordered protection to Acosta's press pass.They were seeking a hearing "for the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible," according to the court filing.A preliminary injunction could be in effect for much longer than the temporary restraining order, thereby protecting Acosta's access to the White House.In a response Monday morning, government lawyers called the CNN motion a "self-styled 'emergency'" and sought to portray the White House's moves as a lawful next step."Far from constituting an 'emergency,' the White House's initiation of a process to consider suspending Mr. Acosta's hard pass is something this Court's Order anticipated," they said.The DOJ lawyers continued to say that the White House had made "no final determination" on Acosta's access, and asked the court to extend its own deadline, set last week, for a status report due at 3 p.m. Monday, in light of the White House's separate self-imposed deadline for the Acosta decision.At lunchtime, Kelly granted the government's request and extended the status report deadline to 6 p.m. Monday.The case was assigned to Judge Kelly when CNN filed suit last Tuesday. Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate. He heard oral arguments on Wednesday and granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order on Friday."We are disappointed with the district court's decision," the Justice Department said in response at the time. "The President has broad authority to regulate access to the White House, including to ensure fair and orderly White House events and press conferences. We look forward to continuing to defend the White House's lawful actions."Trump seemed to shrug off the loss, telling Fox's Chris Wallace in an interview that "it's not a big deal."He said the White House would "create rules and regulations for conduct" so that the administration can revoke press passes in the future."If he misbehaves," Trump said, apparently referring to Acosta, "we'll throw him out or we'll stop the news conference.""This is a high-risk confrontation for both sides," Mike Allen of Axios wrote in a Monday item about Trump's new targeting of Acosta. "It turns out that press access to the White House is grounded very much in tradition rather than in plain-letter law. So a court fight could result in a precedent that curtails freedom to cover the most powerful official in the world from the literal front row."The-CNN-Wire 5546

The World Health Organization announced Wednesday that a coalition of nations and organizations are contributing billion to assist poorer nations fight the coronavirus.The two biggest contributors were the United Kingdom and Canada.The WHO says the “ACT-Accelerator, which was launched just five months ago, is an unprecedented global collaboration of the world’s top international health organizations working together to accelerate the development, production, and equitable delivery of COVID-19 tests, treatments, and vaccines.”The WHO said an additional billion is needed to realize its goals of producing 2 billion vaccine doses, 245 million treatments and 500 million tests. The WHO is working with the World Bank to secure billion in funding, which has to be first ratified by its shareholders.The United States government did not contribute to the fund as the government stopped funding the WHO in April. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, however, were among the organizations to contribute to the fund.“One thing I've learned studying the history of pandemics is that they create a surprising dynamic when it comes to self-interest and altruism,” Bill Gates said. “Pandemics are rare cases where a country’s instinct to help itself is tightly aligned with its instinct to help others. The self-interested thing and the altruistic thing–making sure poor nations have access to vaccines–are one and the same.”The UK contributed 1 million to help poorer nations in providing support to battle the virus.“We have a duty to ensure vaccines, treatments and tests for COVID-19 are available to all—stopping the global spread of the pandemic protects the British people and will put humanity on the road to recovery. Collaboration through the ACT-Accelerator is critical to promoting development, production and access for all countries,” said UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab. 1906

The U.S. House of Representatives voted in a bipartisan manner to remove statues honoring Confederate leaders from the Capitol. The bill was approved by a 305-113 vote on Wednesday, with 72 Republicans joining Democrats in support of the bill.The bill also would remove the bust of Roger Brooke Taney and replace it with Thurgood Marshall’s bust. Taney’s bust is located in the Old Supreme Court Chamber inside the Capitol complex.Taney infamous;y ruled in 1857 that Blacks could not be full US citizens in the Dred Scott v Sandford case. Taney wrote the Supreme Court opinion which upheld slavery in the United States.Previously, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi targeted 11 statues for removal.The statues are held in Statuary Hall, and is a prominent spot for visitors of the US Capitol. The hall is frequently seen in the background of media interviews with members of Congress.Each state sends two statues to be viewed in Statuary Hall. States largely decide on the statues to be displayed in the hall. Among the statues in Statuary Hall include Confederacy president Jefferson Davis and Confederate commander Robert E. Lee.Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland sponsored the bill.“I believe that most Americans are deeply distressed by racial injustice and want to see the progress of the Civil Rights Movement continue,” Hoyer said. They want our nation and our democracy to grow, mature, and become more perfect. Part of that process is making it clear, through our symbols and public displays of honor, what our country stands for and, as importantly, what it must never stand for again."Republican Paul Mitchell, R-Mich., joined Hoyer in calling for the removal of the statues.“The history of this nation is so fraught with racial division, with hatred, and the only way to overcome that is to recognize that, acknowledge it for what it is. So I support this resolution,” Mitchell said.Mitchell added that the statues should be returned to the states and be used for appropriate historical context.“Tearing it down does not do justice for the history of this nation and what our young people must understand,” Mitchell added.Whether the bill gets heard in the Senate remains doubtful, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last month the removal of the statues is a “bridge too far.” 2306

The San Francisco Fire Department released a dramatic video of its rescue swimmers braving choppy waters to save a man on Wednesday. 140

The stars have aligned. New Season of #BB22 August 5th: https://t.co/9aJHMKZMCl. pic.twitter.com/uZ0ex6rwTP— Big Brother (@CBSBigBrother) July 23, 2020 159