中山看肛肠多少钱(中山如何鉴别便血鲜血) (今日更新中)

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

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's legal team has responded to the special counsel, the latest effort in ongoing negotiations over a possible interview."We have now given him an answer. Obviously, he should take a few days to consider it, but we should get this resolved," Giuliani said during an interview on the radio show of fellow Trump attorney Jay Sekulow."We do not want to run into the November elections. So back up from that, this should be over by September 1," Giuliani said.Sekulow confirmed in a statement that the legal team "responded in writing to the latest proposal" from the special counsel, but declined to comment on the substance of the response.Giuliani had previously told CNN that the team planned to send its counteroffer to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding a potential interview on Wednesday."It is a good faith attempt to reach an agreement," Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers on the Russia investigation, told CNN.The former New York City mayor similarly would not describe the contents of the counteroffer, except to say that "there is an area where we could agree, if they agree."Giuliani wouldn't say if that area has to do with collusion or obstruction.The President has previously said that he wants to speak with the special counsel and has insisted there was no collusion or obstruction, while deriding the investigation as a "witch hunt."But Trump's public attacks on the Russia probe have sparked questions over whether his actions could constitute obstruction of justice. Those questions intensified earlier this month when the President called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, an escalation that Giuliani attempted to downplay as Trump merely expressing an opinion.The President's team has sought to limit any potential interview to questions about collusion. But Giuliani told CNN they would be willing to consider questions relating to any obstruction of justice inquiry as long as they are not "perjury traps," a phrase favored by the Trump legal team as a way to raise questions about the fairness of the special counsel, though it also speaks to the risks of having the President sit down for an interview."For example: 'What did you say about Flynn?' 'Why did you fire Comey?'" They already know our answer," Giuliani said, referring to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired in May 2017. The former FBI director later testified to Congress that Trump had pressed him to drop an investigation into Flynn, a claim that Trump has denied. "If they can show us something in that area that didn't involve those direct questions, that we don't consider perjury traps, we would consider it," Giuliani said, but conceded he "can't think of what that would be."Mueller has indicated to the team that the special counsel wants to ask the President obstruction questions in an interview.The President's lawyers had previously offered the special counsel written answers to obstruction questions and limiting the interview to matters before his presidential inauguration, which are largely confined to collusion.The back and forth over an interview comes as the special counsel investigation faces its first major test in court as Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort stands trial in the Eastern District of Virginia where he is accused of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial crimes.Manafort's case isn't about the 2016 presidential campaign, but he is the first defendant Mueller's team has taken to trial. 3603

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Assembly voted Thursday to cap the interest lenders may charge on loans that can carry rates spiraling into the triple digits.Backed by civil rights groups, religious organizations and some trade associations, the proposed law would cap annual rates at around 38% for loans between ,500 and ,000.The bill comes as legislators across the country seek to reign in a storefront lending industry critics accuse of preying on low-income consumers in need of cash and trapping them under mounds of debt for years.But even as the bill advanced, some California lawmakers expressed concern that it will limit choices for consumers with bad credit or little access to banks and other financial products. And the lending industry, which wields significant influence in legislatures as well as in Washington, has launched an advertising campaign in California attacking the bill as it heads to the state Senate, where observers expect a tougher fight.Proponents of capping interest rates point to an explosion in high-interest consumer loans around the state over the last decade.The state already caps interest rates on consumer loans under ,500 but not for amounts over that threshold. In 2009, 8,468 loans for amounts between ,500 and ,000 came with interest rates over 100%, according to data from state regulators. Lenders now issue more than 350,000 loans each year with interest rates in the triple digits. A legislative analysis said at least one out of three borrowers is unable to pay their loans.But proposals to cap interest rates in recent years have faltered at California's Legislature. Several lawmakers still expressed concern about the latest proposal, suggesting it could drive lenders out of the market, pushing consumers with low incomes toward unregulated lenders or cutting off their easy access to capital."Without these alternative financial service providers, those folks would have nowhere else to go," said Democratic Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove of Los Angeles.Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon dismissed arguments the bill would ultimately harm low-income residents."Those are merely talking points of an industry that has repeatedly lied to members of this chamber," he said.Casting the bill as a moral issue, the Democrat said the legislation can be considered as important as any other lawmakers will vote on this year in the country's most populous state.The bill ended up passing with bipartisan support as one Republican legislator cited religious prohibitions on usury."I'm a free-market capitalist and I'm unashamed of it but we need to stand up and protect people who are being preyed upon," said Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo.The support of the financial industry this year, too, may also signal that the sector foresees a reckoning in the state or at least further political uncertainty if lawmakers do not approve limits for loans between ,500 and ,000.The California Supreme Court cast a legal question mark last year over the lending industry's practices, deciding in one class action lawsuit that some interest rates can be so high as to be deemed unconscionable under financial laws.Democratic Assemblywoman Monique Limon of Santa Barbara, the bill's author, also suggested that an interest rate cap could end up on the ballot if the Legislature does not act.If passed, California would join 38 states and the District of Columbia in capping interest rates for these types of loans, according to a legislative analysis. The level proposed in California would be on the higher end.Observers expect a bigger political fight when the bill heads to the state Senate, however.Opponents of the bill have launched an advertising campaign aimed at stopping it.The trade group Online Lenders Alliance has bought ads on Sacramento television stations, according to Federal Communication Commission filings.A group calling itself Don't Lock Me Out California has also bought online ads attacking the bill. 4018

ROME — Pope Francis has welcomed doctors and nurses from the coronavirus-ravaged region of Lombardy to the Vatican to thank them for their selfless work and “heroic” sacrifice. Francis dedicated one of his first post-lockdown audiences to Italy’s front-line medical personnel Saturday. He told the delegation that their example of professional competence and compassion would help Italy forge a new future of hope and solidarity.The northern region of Lombardy was the hardest-hit region in the onetime European epicenter of the pandemic. It has counted more than 92,000 of Italy’s 232,000 infections and half of Italy’s 34,500 dead. Francis also took a dig at some conservative priests who chafed at lockdown measures, calling their complaints “adolescent.” 766

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Assembly said Monday it denied a former lawmakers' appeal of an investigation that found he sexually harassed a lobbyist in 2016.Former Democratic Assemblyman Matt Dababneh had appealed the finding that he likely pushed the lobbyist into a bathroom at a Las Vegas party and masturbated in front of her while urging her to touch him. Lobbyist Pamela Lopez publicly made the accusation against Dababneh last December and submitted a complaint to the Assembly Rules Committee, which hired an outside investigator.The Assembly Rules Committee told Dababneh in a letter dated Friday that his appeal was reviewed and rejected.Dababneh denies harassing Lopez and is suing her for defamation. Representatives for Dababneh did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Lopez said she hopes the Assembly's rejection of Dababneh's appeal encourages other women to speak out about sexual harassment."This decision is an important step to uphold fairness, accountability, and equity in the workplace," she said in a statement.The lawyer hired by the Assembly to investigate the allegation interviewed more than 50 people and reviewed relevant documents, according to the letters released by the Assembly on Monday. In his appeal, Dababneh argued she did not interview some character witnesses he provided. He said he was denied due process because the Assembly didn't provide him with a copy of the investigation report.The Assembly says such reports are confidential and subject to attorney-client privilege.In his lawsuit against Lopez, Dababneh said he was forced by Assembly leadership and colleagues to resign his Los Angeles-area seat last year because of the allegations. He also said he has suffered depression and anxiety. He is seeking unspecified damages for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.Lopez's lawyer, Jean Hyams, said Dababneh's lawsuit is an act of retaliation and an attempt to silence women. 1981

来源：资阳报