沈阳狐臭的手术去除费用沈阳中医治疗日光性荨麻疹,沈阳看痘痘到什么医院好,治扁平疣到沈阳哪家医院比较好,沈阳看皮肤病的医院哪个好,沈阳市皮肤科医院专家门诊,沈阳肤康皮肤病医院治疗皮肤科专不专业口碑怎样,沈阳市什么皮肤科医院 好

A bus and car crashed on a Los Angeles freeway Sunday, causing collisions on both sides of the freeway and at least two dozen injuries, according to the Los Angeles Fire Department.The fire department evaluated about 40 patients and transported 25 people to hospitals, the department said in a news release. Five people were in serious condition and 20 were in fair condition with minor injuries, the release said. 422

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that the state must give voters whose mismatched signatures disqualified their provisional and mail-in ballots until Saturday at 5 p.m. ET to correct those signature problems -- extending the deadline by two days.The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker comes in a suit brought by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's campaign and Democratic Party officials, who are looking to the courts to help them find votes to narrow the margin in the race with Republican challenger Gov. Rick Scott.The order affects approximately 5,000 voters who sent in ballots by mail or were forced to sign provisional ballots, but whose signatures did not match those on file with the state."There are dozens of reasons a signature mismatch may occur, even when the individual signing is in fact the voter. Disenfranchisement of approximately 5,000 voters based on signature mismatch is a substantial burden," Walker wrote in the order.It is not yet clear exactly how this ruling impacts the timetable to meet Thursday's 3 p.m. recount deadline, or whether there are enough ballots in question to potentially change the outcome of race.The ruling is narrower than the wider relief that Democrats were seeking -- to invalidate the signature-match requirement entirely. Florida law requires signatures on vote-by-mail and provisional ballots match the signatures on file for each voter. Attorneys for Nelson's re-election campaign argued that the signature-match rules violate the US Constitution and called for the judge to invalidate the law. Lawyers representing the state of Florida and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, along with others, argued that the law was valid and constitutional.The number of ballots in question is less than the margin of votes separating the closest race undergoing a recount. Scott led Nelson in the unofficial, pre-recount tally by more than 12,500 votes.The gubernatorial contest between Republican former Rep. Ron DeSantis and Democratic Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum is also being recounted, but the margin is wider -- nearly 34,000 votes. Florida Democrats are aware that margin will probably not be overcome in a recount. Still, Gillum withdrew his election night concession over the weekend with a message that every vote should be counted.The-CNN-Wire 2327

A CNN analysis has found that embattled Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt paid himself nearly ,000 in reimbursements from his two campaigns for Oklahoma attorney general, a move at least one election watchdog has sharply criticized as being recorded so vaguely that there was no way to tell if such payments were lawful.The reimbursement method, which Pruitt used in his 2010 and 2014 campaigns, effectively scuttled two key pillars of campaign finance: transparency about how campaign funds are spent and ensuring campaign funds are not used for personal purchases, according to a former top elections attorney and a CNN review of the documents.Some of the reporting may also violate Oklahoma campaign finance rules, according to research done by the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group.At EPA, Pruitt is under scrutiny for questionable spending and ethical decisions that have landed him in hot water with investigators and on Capitol Hill. Ethics watchdogs, federal auditors and congressional committees are conducting nearly a dozen inquiries into Pruitt's actions at the agency.During his attorney general bids, records show Pruitt made purchases and then received reimbursement from his campaign -- sometimes thousands of dollars apiece -- rather than having the campaign pay directly for expenses like renting a vehicle or purchasing a meal. When purchases are made directly, the campaign filings would show more details about who received the payments.Instead, dozens of entries on Pruitt's 2010 and 2014 campaign finance filings show payments to him but don't have the same level of detail, making it difficult to tell if the purchases were legitimate.The reimbursements are vaguely stated as being for meals, travel, office supplies, phone service, internet access and office decorations, and in some cases do not list the the vendors.A spokesman for Pruitt, Jahan Wilcox, described the payments to CNN as "standard reimbursements.""This is useless reporting," said Larry Noble, the former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission. He is now at the Campaign Legal Center and is a CNN contributor. "There's no way of telling if this is a personal expense. ... You couldn't do this on the federal (level) -- it's illegal."Noble said Oklahoma rules require campaigns to "show the ultimate vendor and an adequate description so you know what the item was for." Because some of the payments to Pruitt do not do that, "It was not at all clear that these were all lawful," Noble said.Noble noted that the campaigns, however, still made direct payments of more than .6 million."So he's not running the campaign through his credit card," Noble said.All of the payments were made when Pruitt was a candidate for attorney general or after he had been first elected to the office in 2010. The records do not show any payments since Pruitt became administrator of the EPA last year.As EPA chief, Pruitt has faced allegations he took advantage of increased security and made travel arrangements for his own benefit -- demanding to fly Delta in order to get frequent-flyer points and staying at posh hotels more expensive than government limits for reimbursement (which also placed an undue burden on his staff who have to pay out of pocket). He's also been accused of excessive spending on his office, like an ornate restored desk and a soundproof booth. In some cases, he blamed the expenditures on his staff.The reimbursements to Pruitt when he was AG totaled ,204.87 from the 2010 campaign account and ,665.73 from his 2014 re-election account, according to the filings.The filings show Pruitt was frequently reimbursed for dining expenses at The Beacon Club, which was described by a local newspaper as "Oklahoma City's oldest private downtown dining" establishment when it closed last year. "The Beacon Club was where deals got done," The Oklahoman newspaper reported.Some of Pruitt's reimbursements were for "officeholder expenses" -- meaning items needed for his role as attorney general -- after he was elected in 2010 and re-elected in 2014.More than ,000 is for items that appear to be office supplies and decorations. Around ,600 is described as "Artwork/Decorations" from retailers like Pier 1 Imports, an Oklahoma florist and a local picture framing shop. Records also show Pruitt purchased a ,400 Apple computer.Because of the limited information and lack of transparency, it's impossible to determine whether the purchases were appropriate and for official purposes, Noble said."Do we know how the campaign spent its money? No," Noble said. "How do you enforce a personal use prohibition unless you know how the money is being used? ... This is not any way you want to have a campaign finance log."The office purchases were made a mere 10 days after the Bank of America skyscraper in downtown Tulsa agreed to lease office space to the attorney general's office, headed by Pruitt. The move expanded the Tulsa AG's offices and placed them in the same building as Pruitt's campaign offices, raising the rent from about ,000 per month to ,000 per month.The office of current Attorney General Mike Hunter told CNN that around the same time, the AG's office was required to expand and hire more staff.One Republican source said Pruitt would sometimes leave the AG's office to work from the campaign office in the same building.His move to Tulsa was seen publicly as a convenience, since he lived in Tulsa and not Oklahoma City, where the AG is headquartered.Wilcox, the Pruitt spokesman, did not address detailed questions from CNN about the expenditures and decision to relocate his government offices to the same building as his campaign office.This week, Democratic lawmakers requested more information about a similar request Pruitt made of the EPA. A letter from three members of the House alleged that Pruitt, through his chief of staff, asked the agency to find a secure facility in Tulsa, where Pruitt lives when not in Washington, where he could work and make phone calls. The EPA says that didn't end up happening.  6121

A lawsuit against Harvard brought on behalf of Asian-American students who failed to gain admission goes to trial on Monday in one of the most consequential race cases in decades, with affirmative action policies across the country at stake.The lawsuit was crafted by conservative advocates who have long fought racial admissions practices that traditionally benefited African-American and Latino students. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the 1978 Supreme Court case that upheld admissions policies that consider the race of students for campus diversity.Parties on both sides expect the Supreme Court to eventually resolve the issue. And with President Donald Trump's two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the high court now has five conservative justices who may be inclined to reverse the landmark ruling.The challengers are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has devised a series of claims against racial policies, including an earlier affirmative action lawsuit on behalf of Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas and several challenges to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key vote in 2016 when the court last endorsed race-based admissions in the University of Texas case, was replaced by Kavanaugh earlier this month. Gorsuch succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who had opposed all affirmative action and criticized the University of Texas program, but died before that case was completed.The Students for Fair Admissions group Blum founded when he filed the Harvard case in November 2014 contends the university engages in unlawful "racial balancing" as it boosts the chances of admissions for blacks and Hispanics and lowers the chances for Asian Americans.Harvard's practices, the group says, are "the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s."That assertion has deeply resonated with some Asian Americans who fear they are held to a higher standard than other applicants to prestigious universities. Yet Asian-American advocates, representing a wide swath of backgrounds and educational experiences, have come in on both sides of the case.Some who back the lawsuit seek to end all consideration of race in admissions, while others, siding with Harvard, argue that universities should be able to consider race for campus diversity and that some Asian Americans, particularly those with ties to Southeast Asian countries, may have had fewer educational opportunities before applying to college.The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a brief on behalf of 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations comprising blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and whites. The Legal Defense Fund calls the lawsuit an effort "to sow racial division" and emphasizes the Supreme Court's repeated endorsement of the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.Those subsequent rulings, however, turned on a single vote, either that of Kennedy or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006.The Trump administration, which is separately scrutinizing of race-based admissions practices at Harvard through its Education and Justice departments based on a complaint from more than 60 Asian American groups, has backed Students for Fair Admissions.Harvard, the country's oldest institution of higher education, denies that it engages in racial balancing or limits Asian-American admissions. It defends its longstanding effort for racial diversity as part of the education mission and says admissions officers undertake a "whole-person evaluation" that includes academics, extracurricular activities, talents and personal qualities, as well as socioeconomic background and race.Since the case was first filed, both sides have mined similar statistical evidence and testimony but with sharply contrasting conclusions -- all of which will now be presented before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs."Each party relies on its own expert reports to show the presence or absence of a negative effect of being Asian American on the likelihood of admission ... and claims that there is substantial -- or zero -- documentary and testimonial evidence of discriminatory intent," Burroughs said in an order last month rejecting requests from both sides to rule for each, respectively, before trial.The case was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting racial discrimination at private institutions that receive federal funds.Burroughs, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, has said she expects the trial to last about three weeks. Both sides will offer opening statements on Monday. 4719

A father accused of killing his three children during a domestic dispute near Sacramento, California was arrested on Thursday, ABC News reports. Robert Hodges is in a California jail while he awaits formal charges. ABC reports that he is being held without bail until he faces a judge on Monday. The Yolo County Coroner told ABC News the children were 11 years old, 9 years old and 8 months old when they were allegedly killed by Hodges Wednesday evening. Police said that the children's mother was injured during the domestic assualt. Her injuries are unknown. Neighbors reported to dispatchers a domestic incident to police around 9 p.m. local time Wednesday. Several people who knew Hodges and the victims said they were unaware of any domestic violence in the family. "The kids seemed jolly most of the time, seemed happy. I never saw any child abuse or parents fighting or anything like that," neighbor William Crawford told ABC. "I never heard them fight, never heard the parents argue, ever....I got the impression he loved his kids, got the impression the kids loved their dad."To read ABC's full report, click here.  1198