山东判断强直的依据(山东强直性脊柱炎是怎么办) (今日更新中)

KENOSHA — In his first time speaking publicly since his arrest, Kyle Rittenhouse told the Washington Post that he "would have died that night" if he hadn't brought a gun to a Kenosha protest where law enforcement officials say he shot and killed two men.Unrest broke out in Kenosha following the Aug. 23 police shooting of Jacob Blake. Police said Rittenhouse, 17, is charged with the homicides of two men during the night of Aug. 25. FILE - In this Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2020, file photo, Kyle Rittenhouse carries a weapon as he walks along Sheridan Road in Kenosha, Wis., during a night of unrest following the weekend police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse's defense team has called him a member of a militia. Rittenhouse is accused of killing two people and seriously wounding a third.(Adam Rogan/The Journal Times via AP, File) Rittenhouse had told police that he and another friend were "hired" to provide security for businesses during the unrest. Later that evening, police said Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two of the protesters. Rittenhouse was charged with first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide for the shooting deaths of Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum. He was also charged with shooting and injuring a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, in the arm.In an interview with the Post, Rittenhouse said he did not regret having a gun that night, stating that he "had to protect" himself and "would have died that night" if he hadn't.The Post reported that one of his sisters said that Rittenhouse supported peaceful protests, but called "rioters" in Kenosha "monsters."Rittenhouse told the Post that he used his stimulus check for money to give to his friend Dominick Black in order to purchase the rifle used on Aug. 25. Rittenhouse was not old enough to purchase the gun himself. Dominick Black Black, who is currently facing charges for giving the gun to Rittenhouse, kept the gun at his father's house in Kenosha. On the evening of Aug. 25, Black alleged that Rittenhouse took the rifle from the house and went with him into Kenosha to "protect businesses" during the unrest.Rittenhouse went back to Antioch after the deadly shooting but was extradited to Kenosha on Oct. 30, where he is currently being held on a million bond.To watch or read the full Washington Post story, click here.This story originally reported on TMJ4.com. 2422

Jerome Corsi is suing Robert Mueller in federal court in the District of Columbia.Previously, the Roger Stone acquaintance testified before the Mueller grand jury and publicly released a draft version of a criminal false statements plea with the Special Counsel's Office -- to which he refused to agree.Now in the lawsuit, Corsi says federal authorities have unconstitutionally searched his electronic records and his phone.The lawsuit is the latest example of pushback from individuals called upon by Mueller to provide information in the Russia probe.Corsi claims that because he investigated Hillary Clinton's missing emails in 2016 and guessed Wikileaks would leak hacked emails from Clinton's campaign chairman, Mueller has unfairly targeted him."Defendant Mueller has threatened to indict Plaintiff Corsi and effectively put him in federal prison for the rest of his life unless Plaintiff Corsi would provide the false testimony that they demanded, even after being informed that the testimony desired would be false," Corsi wrote in the lawsuit.Corsi, who has talked about his experience with the investigation to media and on his own show, also claims that Mueller has leaked grand jury secrets without providing any specific evidence beyond an article where sources are not described.As an example, Corsi cites an ABC News article detailing how he has become a "central figure" in the Mueller probe and says Mueller spokesman Peter Carr periodically meets with journalists at the Paul coffee shop at 8th and Pennsylvania Avenue to leak information at Mueller's direction. Corsi provided an email between Carr and a journalist as proof, though it did not indicate any specific topic that was discussed or include any evidence of reporting from the journalist to prove a leak."These leaks are meant to pressure Plaintiff Corsi into providing the false testimony that Defendant Mueller and his staff seek by portraying Plaintiff Corsi negatively through the media, as well as to destroy him if he does not comply," Corsi writes in the lawsuit."These leaks are also intended to send a message to other supporters of the president that they had best comply with the unlawful demands of Defendant Mueller and his prosecutorial staff or be indicted or at the least irreparably smeared and destroyed in the public domain."The lawsuit was filed Sunday night by Corsi's lawyer, the conservative freedom of information advocate Larry Klayman. Klayman previously won access to a collection of emails between the Special Counsel's Office and reporters, and attached some of these as exhibits in the case.Mueller himself, as well as the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA and National Security Agency are named as defendants.Corsi, who has connections to the far-right conspiracy theory website Infowars, is asking for more than 0 million in damages. CNN contacted the Special Counsel's Office for comment on the lawsuit Sunday, but did not immediately receive a response. 2990

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - When you think of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a polling place probably doesn't come to mind.However, maintaining the security of our elections is a major function of the agency."One of the most important things we do is to protect citizens' constitutional right to vote," C.J. Sanders, an FBI Supervisory Special Agent, said.The FBI accomplishes this by working with the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Postal Inspection Service, secretaries of state and local election officials.According to Sanders, the FBI will set up command posts in Kansas City, Jefferson City, and Topeka to respond to any allegations of voter fraud.It's the same set up the agency has utilized in previous elections, and Sanders emphasized voters should have confidence in the system, even if more people are voting by mail this time around."There's not much different this year than we've had in years past," he said, "We've always had mail-in ballots and voting in person with the machines."According to experts at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy group at New York University, 25 percent of all votes were cast by mail in the last two federal elections."Mail ballots are paper ballots. That means we do have an opportunity to audit all of those ballots," Lawrence Norden, Director of the Brennan Center's Election Reform Program, said.As always, the FBI will investigate reports of voter fraud, like multiple voting, false registration and stolen mail-in ballots.Sanders said there were some fraud reports in 2016 and 2018, but none were prosecuted federally.One of the biggest election concerns for the FBI actually originates outside our country."In years past obviously we've seen other countries try to influence voters through misinformation, trying to sow discord and undermine confidence in government," Sanders said.About a year ago the agency created an internal task force comprised of counter-terrorism, counter-intelligence, criminal and cyber experts who routinely meet to share information about foreign influence.The agency notifies Twitter and Facebook when threats, like bots spreading misinformation, are identified.Examples of the misinformation include telling voters they can vote online or by text, which are not options for casting a ballot.It's important to note that the following are not instances that should be reported to the FBI:Candidates campaigning too close to the polls. This is not a federal crime.Providing someone with a stamp for a ballot, which is legalOffering rides to the polls, which is also legal and encouragedYou can find out more about the FBI's Protected Voices initiative, which focuses on online cybersecurity and foreign influence threats, here.This story was first reported by Cat Reid at KSHB in Kansas City, Missouri. 2825

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

KATOWICE, Poland (AP) — Arnold Schwarzenegger says he wishes he could travel back in time like the cyborg he played in "The Terminator" so he could stop fossil fuels from being used."If we would've never started in that direction and used other technology, we'd be much better off," the actor and former California governor said Monday at the start of a U.N. climate conference in Poland."The biggest evil is fossil fuels: it's coal, it's gasoline, it's the natural gas," he told conference delegates.Schwarzenegger also insisted that the United States was "still in" an international accord to curb global warming despite U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to walk away from the agreement.Calling Trump "meshugge" - Yiddish for "crazy" - for abandoning the accord, Schwarzenegger said the 2015 agreement has widespread support at the local and state levels even if the federal government isn't on board.American states, cities, businesses and citizens can do a lot to curb global warming, and representatives from those arenas should be invited to next year's climate conference, he told the audience in Poland."And if you do that, I promise you: I'll be back," he said in another reference to "The Terminator."Schwarzenegger later told The Associated Press he has converted his signature Humvee trucks to run on hydrogen, electricity and biofuel and only allows himself to eat meat three days a week."I mean, maybe it tastes delicious, but I think we should think then and there before we eat about the world and about the pollution," he said. "So I discontinued eating meat four days a week. And eventually, maybe we'll go to seven days" 1652

来源：资阳报