中山大便呈球状大便中带血(中山哪家医院治肛肠) (今日更新中)

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The captain of a duck boat that capsized in July on a Missouri lake, killing 17 people, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the wreck.Kenneth Scott McKee, 51, faces 17 counts related to "acts of misconduct, negligence or inattention to duty," one for each victim, according to the indictment, which was announced Thursday by the US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Tim Garrison.The violations are colloquially known as "seaman's manslaughter," Garrison said.A federal grand jury found that McKee failed to properly assess incoming weather before and while he put the vessel in the water, entered the vessel on the water as severe weather approached, failed to instruct passengers to put on personal flotation devices and operated the duck boat in violation of its conditions and limitations, among other acts, according to the indictment.The federal criminal investigation into the deadly wreck on Table Rock Lake, near the tourist hub of Branson, Missouri, began after the US Coast Guard in July determined the deaths resulted from the captain's actions. The investigation is ongoing, Garrison told reporters Thursday.Ripley Entertainment, which runs the duck boat tours called Ride the Ducks Branson, did not immediately respond Thursday CNN's requests for comment. McKee's attorney, J.R. Hobbs, confirmed to CNN he is reviewing the indictment against his client but is not making any additional comment regarding the allegations.McKee is not in custody, Garrison said, adding that the charges announced Thursday are the first criminal indictments related to the incident. The US attorney would not say whether McKee has been cooperating with the probe. Hobbs said he is in the process of scheduling an initial court appearance by McKee.Survivor Tia Coleman, whose husband, three children and five other relatives were killed in the duck boat wreck, commended Garrison as the indictments were announced."While nothing can ever ease the grief in my heart, I am grateful that the US Attorney's Office is fighting for justice for my family, and the other victims, and is committed to holding fully accountable all those responsible for this tragedy," she said in a statement.In case of a conviction, each count against McKee carries possible prison time of up to 10 years and a fine of as much as 0,000. 2352

The Cheektowaga, New York mother whose battle with breast cancer captured the hearts of many Western New Yorkers has died. Libby Gaymon, 43, passed away Tuesday. She had faced breast cancer twice in less than two years.In May, Libby's daughter Alexis asked her mom to be her date to the senior prom at McKinley High School in Buffalo. The surprise promposal was a well-coordinated effort between Alexis, her family and McKinley administrators. Alexis wanted to bring her mother because Libby didn't get to go to the prom when she was in school.On prom night, dozens of supporters of Libby packed the Gaymons' front lawn, some spilling onto the sidewalk and neighboring lawns to cheer on the mother-daughter duo.McKinley High School donated a limousine, while other community members offered free wig services, makeup application and corsage supply to make the night even more special.Most recently, Gaymon tried an experimental immunotherapy treatment at Roswell Park. Immunotherapy helps the body’s immune system attack cancer cells. It is still being studied nationwide to see if it can play a role in treating metastatic breast cancer.   Her message she shared with Buffalo-based WKBW anchor Ashley Rowe in September was clear: slow down and take time to appreciate the world around you, or else you’ll miss everything.“You’re walking down the street on the phone, either you’re on the phone or you’re texting and you’re not even seeing your surroundings," Libby said. "You’re not seeing if you walk past flowers, or if you walk past somebody smiling back at you, but you’re too busy on your phone.  You guys are letting life pass you by.”  1681

The coronavirus pandemic has already caused depleted toilet paper shelves and concerns about meat shortages, but now it’s also to blame for some other, maybe more surprising shortages across the country.Coca-Cola announced at the beginning of July that it was stopping production on Odwalla Juice at the end of the month. On a call with investors, James Quincey, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of The Coca-Cola Co. said of Odwalla, “In the case of a brand like Odwalla and its chilled direct store delivery, which has struggled over the last several years, we started to stop operations effective July 31. This gives us the flexibility to support our investments in brands like Minute Maid and Simply.”And if you thought you were imagining fewer types of Coke products on store shelves, there’s a good chance you weren’t. A representative from the soft drink giant said in an email, “We continue to see high demand for products consumed at home. We are implementing contingency plans as best we can to get the products people want to store shelves. We appreciate everyone’s patience as we work through these unprecedented times,” going on to say, “we are focusing on the availability of our most popular brands.”“Coke is facing is a different sort of thing right now; it's something that's a shift in demand, which is temporary, and they're not in position to respond to it other than to…put all of their eggs into the baskets that are going out the door fastest,” said William Dickens, University Distinguished Professor and chair of the economics department at Northeastern University.Another issue for Coke likely ties into another shortage – aluminum cans.According to Robert Budway, the president of the Can Manufacturers Institute, the aluminium can industry was seeing demand increase even before the pandemic began because cans are more environmentally friendly than plastic bottles, and the demand has only gone up.“Can manufacturers are fully focused on filling the extraordinary demand from all sectors of the industry’s customer base,” said Budway in a statement. He also said that although there is enough aluminum, can makers have announced the construction of several new plants in the United States and Canada, but they will take between 12 and 18 months to build.Chains like Taco Bell announced they’re trimming the menu too, removing things like the 7-Layer Burrito and Nachos Supreme. And Red Robin Gourmet Burgers ditched a third of its menu.The national burger chain cut 55 items, and a representative pointed to what they told their investors about the changes saying the cuts have resulted in “faster cook times, higher quality food” and say it’s reduced waste.“Sure,” said Dickens. “But why wouldn't they have done it before this, if it made such a big difference? The best explanation is that now they're in a different circumstance, and they just can't afford to produce the type of variety that they did before because they aren't having as many people coming in.”Dickens said everything, each menu item and each flavor of soda, has a specific cost to make. For a business to be profitable, it has to sell a certain number of each offering.So it makes sense that less popular items might hit the road right now.“As for menus and shortages…I think we may very well see more firms follow suit. I know my favorite restaurant is only offering a couple of items compared to what it used to. So I know it's a phenomenon that's out there,” said Dickens. “It's more profitable for [restaurants] to focus on a couple of items that they know that they're going to sell a lot of.”He went on to say what we can expect to see in the next month or year largely depends on how things go with COVID-19 and the subsequent handling of the economy.“I guess my biggest fear is that we're mishandling the economy,” said Dickens.He said that the United States’ economy hasn’t shrunk as much as it might have since the pandemic hit because Congress authorized an extra 0 per week for unemployment benefits. He said that the people who are getting those benefits are also then spending that money on things like food and drink.With the final unemployment supplements already distributed, Dickens predicts people will have less money to spend, which in turn will mean less money in the economy overall, more job layoffs – and a deeper recession. He said that could ultimately mean more shortages – and more businesses closing for good.“We should not let the smart things that were done fade away too early, and this is clearly too early since a large part of the country is still seeing growing numbers of cases,” said Dickens. “They're probably going to have to take action to pull back from re-opening and people are gonna need economic support.” 4769

The Department of Justice on Monday identified New York City, Portland and Seattle as cities that have allowed "violence and destruction of property to persist," as outlined in a presidential memorandum that could restrict access to federal funding.Earlier in September, President Donald Trump issued the Memorandum on Reviewing Funding to State and Local Government Recipients That Are Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction in American Cities.The measure allows the DOJ to target city governments that the agency believes has not taken steps to mitigate widespread criminal activity.So-called "anarchist jurisdictions" that meet the DOJ's criteria are subject to a 30-day review by the director of the Office of Management and Budget, who will issue guidance on restricting eligibility for federal grants, according to the presidential memorandum."When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest," Attorney General William Barr said Monday in a statement. "We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance. It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens."In New York City, the DOJ cited a monthslong spike in gun violence in conjunction with the City Council's approval of a fiscal budget that reallocated billion from the NYPD toward community and youth programming. The funding changes will begin in 2021."The budget resulted in the cancellation of the new police recruiting class, cuts to overtime spending, and the transfer of certain police functions, including school safety, out of the NYPD," the DOJ said in its statement.The Justice Department also cited the refusal of city district attorneys to prosecute certain charges related to Black Lives Matter protests that have been ongoing since the May 25 death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody."Both [New York City] Mayor [Bill] de Blasio and Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo have forcefully rejected federal law enforcement support," the DOJ concluded in its statement.The loss of federal funding would be a crippling blow to cash-strapped New York City, which lost billion in revenue amid the coronavirus pandemic. The city is currently facing a billion budget deficit that could result in as many as 22,000 municipal layoffs and furloughs in October.Requests for comment from the offices of de Blasio and Cuomo were not immediately returned.Seattle and Portland have also seen significant unrest in recent months since the death of George Floyd. In June, protesters in Seattle occupried a small area of the city of several weeks and vandalized an abandoned police precinct. Portland saw more than 100 consecutive days of protests against systemic racism and police brutality, some of which grew violent.For a full list of the Justice Department's criteria for "anarchist jurisdictions," click here.This story was originally published by Lauren Cook on WPIX in New York. 3257

来源：资阳报