济南强制性脊柱炎前期症状北京强直脊柱炎止痛,北京有强直性脊椎炎怎么治,济南强直性脊椎炎症状及治疗,北京好的治强直性脊柱炎的医院有哪些,济南强直行脊柱炎的症状,山东强直脊柱炎临床症状,济南强直脊椎炎的医院好

The FBI seized recordings President Donald Trump's attorney made of his conversations with a lawyer representing two women who had alleged affairs with Trump, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN.The recordings could prove valuable to the government's criminal investigation of Michael Cohen. The President's personal attorney is under scrutiny in part for his role in seeking to suppress the alleged affair through a hush deal with porn star Stormy Daniels. The warrant sought information about that payment along with any information that connected Cohen with efforts to suppress disclosure of Trump's alleged affair with Playboy model Karen McDougal.The warrant for the raids also specified that Cohen was being investigated for bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign finance issues, CNN reported earlier this week.While Cohen has admitted to no wrongdoing, the intensity of the government's investigation will put significant pressure on one of the President's closest confidants. If Cohen chooses to cooperate rather than fight a potential case against him, then his knowledge about the President's activities could create serious problems for Trump as special counsel Robert Mueller continues his investigation.The source said Cohen recorded some calls he had with attorney Keith Davidson, who at the time represented both Daniels and McDougal. Davidson no longer represents either woman. Their deals to keep their stories about alleged affairs quiet are now the subject of litigation, with each seeking to be released from their agreements.Another source tells CNN that in at least one conversation between the two men, "Cohen was being unusually simplistic, like he had bullet points that he was reading from to try and make himself look good. He was trying to clarify the timeline of the agreements made with Davidson in his (Cohen's) favor.""Attorney Davidson never consented to any recordings of his conversations with Mr. Cohen. If they in fact do exist, Attorney Davidson will pursue all his legal rights under the law," Dave Wedge, a spokesman for Davidson, said. Recording phone conversations without the consent of both parties could be a legal issue if Davidson was in a state that has such laws, like California.Cohen's attorney and a spokesman for Cohen's attorney did not reply to requests for comment.Prosecutors are "going to be very excited at the prospect of having an independent means of corroborating what was said between the two parties," CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said. "If all that stuff gets recorded, then they are in deep hurt because if it was just oral between them, it could be a conspiracy of liars but the tapes undermine that."Zeldin said a conversation between attorneys for different clients would most likely not be considered covered by attorney-client privilege.McDougal alleges in a lawsuit that Cohen has a cozy relationship with Davidson. She argues Davidson was part of a "broad effort to silence and intimidate her and others." Davidson denies that claim.In an exclusive interview with CNN last month, Davidson described several calls he had with Cohen about striking a deal for Daniels to keep her story quiet.Davidson also said he was contacted in recent weeks by Cohen, who encouraged him to go out and reveal what he knew about his clients and their agreements. Davidson said Cohen argued that the women had waived attorney-client privilege by going public with their stories."He suggested that it would be appropriate for me to go out into the media and spill my guts," Davidson said.There was no discussion of recordings during a court hearing on Friday to argue over Cohen's filing of a temporary restraining order that seeks to suppress the evidence gathered in the raid.The Davidson recordings may not be the only conversations the FBI gathered in the raid. Cohen often recorded telephone conversations both before and during the 2016 presidential campaign that also could have been scooped up in the FBI raid on his apartment, office and hotel room, sources told CNN.One source said Cohen played to Trump and some associates conversations that he had with political and media figures during the exploratory part of the campaign.The-CNN-Wire 4249

The check-in experience of the future just landed at @fly2ohare! Using industry-leading technology, we’re limiting face-to-face interaction and streamlining the check-in process for our Guests. Now that’s #MoreGo! pic.twitter.com/e6i3v7aa6s— Spirit Airlines (@SpiritAirlines) September 3, 2020 301

The classified ads website Backpage.com has been seized by federal law enforcement agencies, according to a banner that popped up on the site Friday.The banner says, "backpage.com and affiliated websites have been seized as part of an enforcement action" by the FBI, US Postal Inspection Service and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.Lawmakers on Capitol Hill and advocacy groups have long called for an investigation into Backpage.com for allegedly facilitating prostitution and sex trafficking.A spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed to CNN that the website has been seized and that additional information would be made available Friday evening. However, a judge decided that the federal case should remain sealed on Friday night. No other additional information was provided.A two-year Senate investigation into online sex trafficking found that found that Backpage.com knowingly aided criminal sex trafficking of women and young girls, simply scrubbing terms from ads such as "Lolita," "teenage," "rape," "amber alert," and publishing them on its site. After the investigation was published in January 2017, Backpage.com shut down its adult ads section.The company has been targeted with several lawsuits over the years, but has been largely protected by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a legal protection that gives a broad layer of immunity to online companies from being held liable for user-generated content. Companies are supposed to act in good faith to protect users, but critics argue the law can be used as a shield. The law, however, does not, protect sites from federal liability against criminal law, like child-pornography laws.Last month, however, the Senate approved bipartisan legislation called the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. The legislation would create an exception to Section 230, which would pave the way for victims of sex trafficking to hold websites accountable for facilitating abuse.Two days after the Senate approval, Backpage competitor Craigslist removed its personal ads section.The-CNN-Wire 2080

The CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google are facing a grilling by Republican senators making unfounded allegations that the tech giants show anti-conservative bias.The Senate Commerce Committee has summoned Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai to testify for a hearing Wednesday. The executives agreed to appear remotely after being threatened with subpoenas.With the presidential election looming, Republicans led by President Donald Trump have thrown a barrage of grievances at Big Tech’s social media platforms, which they accuse without evidence of deliberately suppressing conservative, religious and anti-abortion views.The chorus of protest rose this month after Facebook and Twitter acted to limit dissemination of an unverified political story from the conservative-leaning New York Post about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, an unprecedented action against a major media outlet. The story, which was not confirmed by other publications, cited unverified emails from Biden’s son Hunter that were reportedly disclosed by Trump allies.Beyond questioning the CEOs, senators are expected to examine proposals to revise long-held legal protections for online speech, an immunity that critics in both parties say enables the companies to abdicate their responsibility to impartially moderate content.The Justice Department has asked Congress to strip some of the bedrock protections that have generally shielded the tech companies from legal responsibility for what people post on their platforms. Trump signed an executive order challenging the protections from lawsuits under the 1996 telecommunications law.“For too long, social media platforms have hidden behind Section 230 protections to censor content that deviates from their beliefs,” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Commerce Committee chairman, said recently.In their opening statements prepared for the hearing, Dorsey, Zuckerberg and Pichai addressed the proposals for changes to so-called Section 230, a provision of a 1996 law that has served as the foundation for unfettered speech on the internet. Zuckerberg said Congress “should update the law to make sure it’s working as intended.”“We don’t think tech companies should be making so many decisions about these important issues alone,” he said, approving an active role for government regulators.Dorsey and Pichai, however, urged caution in making any changes. “Undermining Section 230 will result in far more removal of online speech and impose severe limitations on our collective ability to address harmful content and protect people online,” Dorsey said.Pichai urged lawmakers “to be very thoughtful about any changes to Section 230 and to be very aware of the consequences those changes might have on businesses and consumers.”Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told congressional leaders in a letter Tuesday that recent events have made the changes more urgent. He cited the action by Twitter and Facebook regarding the New York Post story, calling the companies’ limitations “quite concerning.”The head of the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency, recently announced plans to reexamine the legal protections, potentially putting meat on the bones of Trump’s order by opening the way to new rules. The move by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Trump appointee, marked an about-face from the agency’s previous position.Social media giants are also under heavy scrutiny for their efforts to police misinformation about the election. Twitter and Facebook have slapped a misinformation label on content from the president, who has around 80 million followers. Trump has raised the baseless prospect of mass fraud in the vote-by-mail process.Starting Tuesday, Facebook was not accepting any new political advertising. Previously booked political ads will be able to run until the polls close next Tuesday, when all political advertising will temporarily be banned. Google, which owns YouTube, also is halting political ads after the polls close. Twitter banned all political ads last year.Democrats have focused their criticism of social media mainly on hate speech, misinformation and other content that can incite violence or keep people from voting. They have criticized Big Tech CEOs for failing to police content, homing in on the platforms’ role in hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism in the U.S.Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have scrambled to stem the tide of material that incites violence and spreads lies and baseless conspiracy theories.The companies reject accusations of bias but have wrestled with how strongly they should intervene. They have often gone out of their way not to appear biased against conservative views — a posture that some say effectively tilts them toward those viewpoints. The effort has been especially strained for Facebook, which was caught off-guard in 2016, when it was used as a conduit by Russian agents to spread misinformation benefiting Trump’s presidential campaign.The unwelcome attention to the three companies piles onto the anxieties in the tech industry, which also faces scrutiny from the Justice Department, federal regulators, Congress and state attorneys general around the country.Last week, the Justice Department sued Google for abusing its dominance in online search and advertising — the government’s most significant attempt to protect competition since its groundbreaking case against Microsoft more than 20 years ago.With antitrust in the spotlight, Facebook, Apple and Amazon also are under investigation at the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.___Follow Gordon at https://twitter.com/mgordonap. 5687

The Flores family has been farming dates for three generations.For the past few years, Marco Flores, owner of San Marcos Date Farm, says he’s seen major changes in temperature and weather patterns.“It’s drier than it used to be,” he said of the land his father bought in California’s Coachella Valley more than 55 years ago. “It used to be a lot more moist before.”These are conditions his 300 fruit-producing palm trees don’t like.“Sometimes there’s no rain,” Flores said. “The impact of climate change is definitely doing something to them.”Similar concerns are being expressed across the planet.“Climate change is impacting agriculture and farmers abilities,” said Paul Minehart of the Syngenta Group, a global agricultural innovation company.Minehart’s team recently published a study showing 72% of farmers they interviewed from around the world are worried about climate changes impacting crop yields.“It’s coming down to, especially in the United States, is the unpredictable weather patterns that are beginning to emerge,” he said.Minehart says those unpredictable weather patterns include unusual droughts and flooding in America and extremely arid conditions in other countries. Conditions that could impact farmers production and profits.“If you have fewer crops than the price could go up,” he said. “That could impact the overall cost of producing food and then at the consumer level buying the food.”Marco Juarez is the third generation of Flores farmers at San Marcos Date Farm.He says while using more water could cause his family to raise their prices from a pound for dates, there’s another growing concern: getting skilled workers to take a job in this heat.“I don’t think anyone really wants to work in this,” he said. “It slowly drives people away. I mean, who wants to be here in 120 degrees?” 1826