中山微创痔疮手术多少钱(中山痔疮息肉症状) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Twenty-three states have sued to stop the Trump administration from revoking California's authority to set emission standards for cars and trucks.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is leading the lawsuit filed Friday, along with Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board.The Trump administration on Thursday revoked California's authority to set its own auto emission standards. The state has had that power for decades under a waiver from the federal Clean Air Act.The lawsuit argues that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have the authority to revoke California's waiver.Becerra says the Trump administration's action fails to respect states' authority to protect public health.Four automakers have said they would voluntarily follow California's standards. 842

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- Amid mounting frustration over wait times at the California DMV, the department has redesigned portions of its website to make access to services easier. The redesigned portions include the website’s homepage and real ID page.“We are constantly modernizing our website with the customer in mind,” DMV Director Jean Shiomoto said.The changes come on the heels of news that California lawmakers can avoid the long lines at the DMV by visiting a private office near the Capitol not open to the public.RELATED: Private DMV office provides services to California lawmakersThe Sacramento Bee reported that the special DMV office in the legislative office building provides services for current and retired lawmakers as well as their staff and some other state employees.The redesign also comes amid mounting frustrations over longer and longer lines at statewide DMV offices and increased fees for vehicle registration.RELATED: California lawmakers ask DMV officials about long lines 1034

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California state prison officials say as many as 17,600 inmates may be released early due to the coronavirus. That's 70% more than previously estimated and a total that victims and police say includes dangerous criminals who should stay locked up. The earlier releases also are causing consternation as probation officers and community organizations scramble to provide housing, transportation and other services for inmates who may pose a public health risk because several hundred have been paroled while still contagious. Officials have been under intense pressure to free more inmates, though officials say Corrections Secretary Ralph Diaz is likely to block some of the earlier releases. 726

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California and 16 other states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its plans to scrap gas mileage standards and how much greenhouse gases vehicles can emit, Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced Tuesday.The suit takes aim at a plan by the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate standards for vehicles manufactured between 2022 and 2025. The standards would have required vehicles to get 36 miles per gallon (58 kilometers per gallon) by 2025, about 10 miles (16 kilometers) over the existing standard.EPA administrator Scott Pruitt says the standards are not appropriate and need revision. They were set in 2012 when California and the Obama administration agreed to single nationwide fuel economy standard.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issuesCalifornia officials say the standards are achievable and the EPA's effort to roll them back is not based on any new research. They argue the plan violates the Clean Air Act and didn't follow the agency's own regulations.California has a unique waiver that allows it to set its own tailpipe emissions standards for vehicles, which it has used to combat smog and more recently global warming. Twelve other states have adopted the California standards as their own.Automakers have argued that the current requirements would have cost the industry billions of dollars and raised vehicle prices due to the cost of developing the necessary technology.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalThe lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Joining California are Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. 1905

来源：资阳报