中山便秘拉血块是什么原因(中山痔疮切除手术费用) (今日更新中)

Virginia (US House): Jennifer Wexton  (D) v. *Barbara Comstock (R) — PROJECTED WINNER: WEXTONDemocrat Jennifer Wexton is projected to win Virginia's 10th District from Republican incumbent Barbara Comstock, according to CNN. It marks the first time in nearly 40 years a Democrat will hold the seat. 313

We know we have a lot more left in the tank and we want to go out there and show that we're a good team. We just want to finish the right way and not leave a bad taste in our mouth. 181

when applying for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. Many say they were misled by their student loan servicing companies about whether they qualified for the program, which is designed to encourage workers with student debt to remain in jobs that may be low-paid but serve the public, including teachers, primary care doctors, public defenders and social workers.When asked by Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley what she is doing to hold loan servicers accountable to improve the process, DeVos blamed Congress for making it difficult for students to qualify."The rules that you set up, the legislation you passed, make it difficult," the secretary said.Students must have a certain kind of federal loan, work in the public sector, and pay for 10 years before qualifying for loan forgiveness.Merkley disagreed that the law was totally to blame, calling DeVos' response "unsatisfactory.""It appears that what's going on is that you are working in partnership with these for-profit servicers rather than fighting for these public servants who were promised forgiveness," he added.DeVos has proposed 1108

when every lawmaker on the 41-member committee delivered an opening statement."The President committed the highest crime against the Constitution by abusing his office," said Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat. "Cheating in an election, inviting foreign interference for a purely personal gain while jeopardizing our national security and the integrity of our elections."Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida shot back that the impeachment resolution didn't include any crimes. "They have to say abuse of power because they have no evidence for bribery or treason," he said.The impeachment debate even veered back two decades, as two lawmakers who were on the Judiciary Committee when President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 debated the merits of that case compared to the current impeachment proceedings."I would just like to note that the argument that somehow, lying about a sexual affair is an abuse of presidential power, but the misuse of presidential power to get a benefit somehow doesn't matter -- if it's lying about sex, we could put Stormy Daniels' case ahead of us," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who was also a congressional staffer during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. "We don't believe that's a high crime and misdemeanor."Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican who was an impeachment manager in 1998, argued there was a clear crime in the Clinton impeachment."The important thing is, is that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. That is a crime," Sensenbrenner said. "The article of impeachment that passed the House accused Bill Clinton of lying to a grand jury, a crime, and something that obstructs the ability of the courts to get to the truth. This is not what is happening here. Big difference."Republicans have no ability to change the text of the articles or stop them without Democratic votes. But for each amendment, every member has the opportunity to speak for five minutes -- meaning Republicans can extend the committee meeting as long as they want to keep talking.Republicans also detailed their process complaints about the impeachment proceedings. Rep. Doug Collins demanded House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler agree to hold a Republican hearing day before moving forward, but his objection was defeated along party lines."This committee has become nothing but a rubber stamp," Collins said. "This committee is amazingly now on such a clock and calendar process that they don't care -- facts be damned."Rep. Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat, responded that Republicans did get witnesses — and that the President's legal team chose not to participate."It's worth pointing out to my colleagues on the other side that we invited the President of the United States to the December 4 hearing to advocate for his views, to submit requested witnesses, but he chose not to attend, and he chose not to suggest any witnesses," Deutch said.Committee vote sets up House to impeach Trump next weekHouse Democratic leaders have not said yet when the impeachment articles will go to the floor, but a vote is expected next week, along with votes to fund the government and hand the President a significant win by approving the new US trade deal.When the impeachment resolution comes to the floor, the House will take separate votes on each article of impeachment. Two Democratic leadership sources say it's possible they could lose more than two Democrats — the number who voted against the procedural vote on the impeachment inquiry in October — when the floor vote takes place.Those two Democrats, Reps. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Colin Peterson of Minnesota, have already said they will vote against the impeachment articles. At the same time, Democrats are likely to pick up independent Justin Amash of Michigan.But the sources acknowledge they could lose a handful more from swing districts on either or both articles. Many vulnerable members are not saying what they'll do yet, as they had back to their districts this weekend and get feedback from voters.Democrats are not expecting mass defections and they expect to have more than enough votes for final passage.Two other Democratic leadership sources say they are not planning to whip their members on the floor vote on the articles, meaning they won't twist arms to keep Democrats in line. That is intended to back up what Pelosi has been saying throughout the impeachment proceedings: The vote will be a "vote of conscience." 4463

Volunteer Fire Department Chief Mike Milligan said he's known Clark for decades and has long warned he posed a danger to the community.Milligan said he was so wary of the suspect that he avoided going to the area of the remote Orange County canyon where he lives.Clark came to his home two weeks ago to return items he said he had "borrowed" from the fire department, Milligan said.When he told Clark he wanted nothing to do with him, the suspect swore at him and called him a jerk, he said.The next morning, Milligan said, he got a mysterious text from an unknown number: "911 call sheriff." Milligan called back and though the reception was poor in the canyon, he recognized Clark's voice, he said. Later came an expletive-laden text that ended with the ominous warning: "The place is going to burn just like you planned."Milligan said he did not know what he meant, adding that Clark sent emails to other people in which he talked about burning something.Clark is being held on million bail. If found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.Before his arrest, Clark told a freelance cameraman he was asleep when the fire started and had no idea how it began. 1178

来源：资阳报