中山微创手术治疗痔疮费用中山每天拉屎都出血,中山内痔去哪家医院治疗好,中山混合痔医院哪家最便宜,中山痔疮通便,中山为什么 会有 痔疮,中山那里有肛肠科医院,中山治便秘最有效的方法

New charges were filed late Friday against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in the special counsel investigation.Prosecutors allege that Manafort, with the assistance of longtime business partner Rick Gates, "secretly retained a group of former senior European politicians to take positions favorable to Ukraine, including by lobbying in the United States."The new indictment came less than two hours after Gates pleaded guilty to two criminal charges in federal court and pledged to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia and the 2016 presidential election.Prosecutors say Manafort orchestrated a group of former European politicians, called the "Hapsburg group," to pose as independent voices. Yet they covertly pushed positions favorable to Ukraine as paid lobbyists. Manafort used offshore accounts to pay the former politicians 2 million euros.Manafort also allegedly used million from an offshore account to fund a report on the trial of a political opponent jailed by his clients. A lawyer involved in the report -- Alex van der Zwaan -- pleaded guilty to lying to investigators earlier this week.The new charges, which sweep up some information Gates has conceded to investigators and other information in charges filed Thursday in Virginia federal court, include money laundering, foreign lobbying violations and making false statements.Manafort has pleaded not guilty and maintains his innocence.Gates admitted in a guilty plea Friday that he and Manafort had sent letters to the Justice Department in November 2016 and last February that falsely asserted they hadn't lobbied on behalf of Ukraine in the United States. The federal investigation into their lobbying work began in September 2016, about a month after Manafort left Trump's campaign.The new indictment also removes Gates from the charges, and also removes several counts from the original October indictment.In total, Manafort now faces five federal criminal charges in Washington, including money laundering and foreign lobbying violations, and 18 federal charges in Virginia, largely related to alleged bank fraud.The-CNN-Wire? & ? 2018 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. 2241

Nebraska just became the first state to execute an inmate using a powerful opioid called fentanyl. The synthetic painkiller has helped drive the national opioid crisis.The execution is attracting big attention, because executions across the country have been delayed as drug companies file lawsuits to stop states from using their drugs in executions.However, Nebraska found a way to get around the issue—by using fentanyl in a mixture."Drug companies don't want to be associated with state executions,” explains Adam Graves, a college professor and ethics expert. “They don't want their products to be used for death."More and more states might start using fentanyl in the deadly cocktail used to put inmates to death. And that means states that have had to put executions on hold, might be able to resume.So why fentanyl? The drug is easy to get."In this particular case, you have to ask yourself by using that, are we not also opening up scars and rubbing salt in the wounds of families who have lost members to the opioid crisis?" says Graves.Fentanyl is also a major part of the opioid epidemic, and has been linked to 30,000 overdose deaths last year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1226

Next week, the U.S. House and Senate will take up police reform bills.The House will address qualified immunity on a national level. It's a doctrine implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court that makes it difficult to sue police, even if one's constitutional rights are violated.The doctrine protects officers who can defend their actions because they didn't know their conduct was unconstitutional. That's because it wasn't “clearly established” in a prior court ruling.In practice, courts have dismissed civil rights lawsuits because there wasn't a previous case in the same location with the same circumstances. So, there's also no precedent for future cases. That's why the doctrine is criticized as a "catch 22."“That kind of ‘does this officer get the benefit of the doubt?’ type of inquiry gives judges just lots of room based on their interpretation, their view of whether this seems like a bad case or not, and it means that the judge is taking cases away from the jury based on their own views of the facts,” said Brandon Garrett, professor of law at Duke University.“The way to truly understand it is to look at in the context, as a lot of people are suddenly looking at it when police uses force, and particularly when it's deadly force,” said Aderson Francois, professor of law at Georgetown UniversityThe officers involved in a wrongful death lawsuit in Washington D.C. are expected to claim qualified immunity. In 2018, Marqueese Alston was shot and killed by police while running away. The court will only look at it from the perspective of police and if they reasonably feared for their lives.“What the court will not do is to ask did my client, a 22-year-old black man in DC have a reasonable fear for the police that caused him to run away in the first place,” said Francois.It's important to point out that officers do not personally foot the bill in these cases.“It's about the municipality, the county, the city,” said Garrett. “They're the ones who are paying. They're the ones who should be held accountable. After all, if this officer was poorly trained or didn't have the right support from colleagues, it's not the officer's fault necessarily.”Qualified immunity makes it so the constitutional issue is never addressed. Even if the doctrine disappears, it's still difficult to win a constitutional claim. 2335

NEW YORK – New York’s attorney general is suing the National Rifle Association, seeking to put the powerful gun advocacy organization out of business over allegations that high-ranking executives diverted millions of dollars for personal benefit.The lawsuit filed Thursday by Attorney General Letitia James followed an 18-month investigation into the NRA, which is a nonprofit group originally chartered in New York.Watch the announcement below:The attorney general is accusing the NRA's top leaders of using the association's funds for lavish personal trips, contracts for associates and other questionable expenditures.James says the leadership’s failure to manage the NRA’s funds and failure to follow state and federal laws led the organization to lose more than million in just three years.In addition to shuttering the NRA’s doors, James is seeking to recoup millions in lost assets and to stop the four defendants in the case from serving on the board of any nonprofit in the state of New York again.Along with the NRA, the defendants in the suit are Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, former Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Wilson “Woody” Phillips, former Chief of Staff and the Executive Director of General Operations Joshua Powell, and Corporate Secretary and General Counsel John Frazer.The lawsuit alleges that the four men instituted a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement, and negligent oversight at the NRA that was illegal, oppressive, and fraudulent.“The NRA’s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets,” said James. “The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law.” We are seeking to dissolve the NRA for years of self-dealing and illegal conduct that violate New York’s charities laws and undermine its own mission.The NRA diverted millions of dollars away from its charitable mission for personal use by senior leadership.— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) August 6, 2020 In a statement, the president of the NRA called the lawsuit a "baseless" attack on the organization and the Second Amendment. 2232

NEW YORK (AP) — A scientist who collected DNA from Scotland's Loch Ness suggests the lake's fabled monster might be a giant eel.Neil Gemmell from the University of Otago in New Zealand says the project found a surprisingly high amount of eel DNA in the water. He cautioned that it's not clear whether that indicates a gigantic eel or just a lot of little ones.But he said at a news conference in Scotland on Thursday that the idea of a giant eel is at least plausible.The DNA project found no evidence to support the notion that the monster is a long-necked ancient reptile called a plesiosaur (PLEE'-see-uh-sawr).Loch Ness is the largest and second deepest body of fresh water in the British Isles. 707