中山屁眼有肉中山脱肛医院排行,中山总是便血是什么原因,中山痔疮流血,中山大便后出血看什么科,中山内痔检查哪里医院好,中山产妇痔疮脱出怎么办,中山拉肚子大便有血

The E.W. Scripps Company is a partner with The Associated Press and has been following guidance from their election desk on 2020 race updates.Below is the AP's explanation as to why they have not declared a winner in Georgia and why they declared Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden the winner in Michigan and Wisconsin.WISCONSINThe AP called Wisconsin for Democrat Joe Biden after election officials in the state said all outstanding ballots had been counted, except for a few hundred in one township and an expected small number of provisional ballots. Trump’s campaign has requested a recount. Statewide recounts in Wisconsin have historically changed the vote tally by only a few hundred votes; Biden leads by .624 percentage points out of nearly 3.3 million ballots counted.“Despite ridiculous public polling used as a voter suppression tactic, Wisconsin has been a razor-thin race as we always knew that it would be," Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien said in a statement. "There have been reports of irregularities in several Wisconsin counties which raise serious doubts about the validity of the results. The President is well within the threshold to request a recount and we will immediately do so.”--MICHIGANThe Associated Press declared Biden the winner of Michigan at 5:56 p.m. EST Wednesday after conducting an analysis of votes and remaining ballots left to be counted. It showed there were not enough votes left in Republican-leaning areas for Trump to catch Biden’s lead. Biden had a 70,000-vote lead on Wednesday evening, a margin over Trump of about 1.3 percentage points.It's the third state President Donald Trump carried in 2016 that the former vice president has flipped, narrowing Trump’s path to reelection.On Thursday, a Michigan judge dismissed the Trump campaign's lawsuit over whether enough GOP challengers had access to the handling of absentee ballots, the AP reported.--GEORGIAThe Associated Press has not declared a winner in Georgia’s presidential contest because the race between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden is too early to call, with outstanding ballots left to be counted in counties where Biden has performed well. Early Wednesday, Trump prematurely claimed he carried Georgia. But the race is too early to call because an estimated 4% of the vote still remains to be counted. That includes mailed ballots from population-dense counties in the Atlanta metro region that lean Democratic. Biden is overperforming Hillary Clinton’s 2016 showing in those counties — including in their more upscale suburban reaches. 2594

The CDC could take over handling COVID-19 data coming in from states and medical facilities again, according to media reports.This week, during a briefing on a visit to Arkansas, Dr. Deborah Birx said the CDC is working "to build a revolutionary new data system so it can be moved back to the CDC" for tracking COVID-19 treatment, patients and PPE needs, according to the Wall Street Journal.The CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network site had been tracking COVID-19 cases and data since the pandemic started.Then, abruptly in mid-July, hospitals and states were asked to stop using it and send their information directly to Health and Human Services, and a new database created by private contractor TeleTracking.The request was initially made in an effort to cut down on duplicate requests and minimize the reporting burden on hospitals and facilities.However, many hospitals, state officials and journalists noted the numbers in the new system seemed incomplete and the database was slow to update.The CDC is reportedly working with the U.S. Digital Service, according to the WSJ, an agency set up during the Obama administration to help improve HealthCare.gov, the marketplace for insurance plans that are part of the Affordable Care Act.There was no timeline mentioned as part of Dr. Birx’s comments, according to NPR. 1333

The budget-priced Motel 6 chain is well known for the enduring tagline: "We'll leave the light on for you."But some Phoenix immigration attorneys said employees of the motel chain also have been shining a light on undocumented guests, providing guest information directly to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.Motel 6, in response to a report this week in the Phoenix New Times, said employees will no longer work with immigration agents.The weekly newspaper reported that federal immigration agents arrested at least 20 people at two Motel 6 locations in the Phoenix area between February and August. Motel employees told the New Times they regularly delivered guest lists to ICE."This was implemented at the local level without the knowledge of senior management," the hospitality company tweeted Wednesday night. "When we became aware of it last week, it was discontinued."A Motel 6 statement on Thursday confirmed "certain local Motel 6 properties in the Phoenix area were voluntarily providing daily guest lists to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.""To help ensure that this does not occur again, we will be issuing a directive to every one of our more than 1,400 locations nationwide, making clear that they are prohibited from voluntarily providing daily guest lists to ICE."The company was reviewing practices to "help ensure that our broader engagement with law enforcement is done in a manner that is respectful of our guests' rights," the statement said."Protecting the privacy and security of our guests are core values of our company," the statement said."Motel 6 apologizes for this incident and will continue to work to earn the trust and patronage of our millions of loyal guests."Phoenix immigration attorney Ray Ybarra Maldonado said one of his clients, Alfonso Gutierrez Tovar, was taken into custody by ICE agents at a Motel 6 in May. Gutierrez had returned to the United States illegally from Mexico after a previous deportation. He was deported again last month."One of the obvious questions to me was, 'You didn't commit a new crime, so how did ICE know you were at this Motel 6?" Ybarra said.Ybarra said ICE agents knocked on the motel room door one day after Gutierrez had checked in. They asked for him by name, handcuffed him and put him in the back of a car."Then he saw them knock on four other doors and get people as well," the attorney said. "At that point it's kind of like, OK something fishy is going on here."Another attorney, Robert McWhirter, said a client named Jose Eduardo Renteria Galaviz, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was picked up at a Phoenix Motel 6 and is awaiting deportation. He, too, had been previously deported."I won't stay at a Motel 6 again," McWhirter said. "Here's the thing -- you don't have a right of privacy on your signature on a register ... Motel 6 is in the business of renting hotel rooms. They (shouldn't) care about immigration status."Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe, a spokeswoman for ICE's Phoenix division, declined to reveal specifics about enforcement leads. She said those sources include other law enforcement agencies, relevant databases, crime victims, and leads from the public via agency tip lines."It's worth noting that hotels and motels, including those in the Phoenix area, have frequently been exploited by criminal organizations engaged in highly dangerous illegal enterprises, including human trafficking and human smuggling," she said in a statement.Phoenix Police spokesman Sgt. Jonathan Howard said the department sometimes gets hotel and motel guest lists through "informal contacts."Civil liberties groups criticized the Motel 6 practice.The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona tweeted: "Will new policy reflect this "discontinued" practice, @motel6? We look forward to reading it."Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of National ACLU, said on Twitter, "@motel6: They'll leave the light on -- for ICE and police. Turning over guest info regularly?"Tom Bodett, the longtime Motel 6 brand spokesman and the voice behind the popular slogan, said via Twitter that he believed the Phoenix motel employees acted on their own."It is troubling for sure and not at all the values that me or anybody at Motel 6 management shares," Bodett told CNN."It's just troubling as can be and I'm sorry it happened."Ybarra, the attorney, suggested a new Motel 6 tag line: "They'll shine the light on you. That's what they're doing." 4432

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 General Services Administration, a government agency that assists incoming presidents with their transitions into the Oval Office, announced Monday that it has formally recognized President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in this month’s presidential election, according to a memo sent by the GSA.The announcement comes as the Trump campaign has been failing to gain traction in its legal battle against a number of states that Biden won.With the GSA’s decision, the White House will be required to provide intelligence briefings for Biden, along with classified government documents. The Biden team can also begin conducting background checks on potential hires before taking office on January 20, 2021.Last week, Biden said that the lack of a formal transition could have set the United States’ response to the coronavirus back.“I am optimistic but we should be further along,” Biden last week said during a virtual call with first responders. “One of the problem that we are having now is the failure of the administration to recognize (the results)."Since the Associated Press projected Biden as the winner of the election on Nov. 7, President Donald Trump and his campaign has made multiple claims that the election was stolen, and accusing election officials of fraud. So far, Trump’s campaign has not been able to substantiate any evidence of fraud in court, and has had a number of lawsuits dismissed.After past presidential elections, the apparent winner is given funding and access to documents to begin the transition.Biden pointed to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which says that government services and documents be made available to the “apparent” victor of the presidential election.While Trump did not concede on Monday, he said he is recommending his team to cooperate in the transition of power. "I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country," Trump tweeted. "She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA. Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same."GSA Administrator Emily Murphy said in letter that she had received threats, and that she was no coerced into delaying the announcement of an apparent winner."To be clear, I did not receive any direction to delay my determination," Murphy said in a letter to the Biden-Harris transition. "I did, however, receive threats online, by phone, and by mail directed at my safety, my family, my staff, and even my pets in an effort to coerce me into making this determination prematurely. Even in the face of thousands of threats, I always remained committed to upholding the law."Contrary to media reports and insinuations, my decision was not made out of fear or favoritism. Instead, I strongly believe that the statute requires that the GSA Administrator ascertain, not impose, the apparent president-elect. Unfortunately, the statute provides no procedures or standards for this process, so I looked to precedent from prior elections involving legal challenges and incomplete counts. GSA does not dictate the outcome of legal disputes and recounts, nor does it determine whether such proceedings are reasonable or justified. These are issues that the Constitution, federal laws, and state laws leave to the election certification process and decisions by courts of competent jurisdiction. I do not think that an agency charged with improving federal procurement and property management should place itself above the constitutionally-based election process. I strongly urge Congress to consider amendments to the Act."The Biden transition team welcomed the news on Monday. "Today’s decision is a needed step to begin tackling the challenges facing our nation, including getting the pandemic under control and our economy back on track," Biden- Harris transition executive director Yohannes Abraham said in a statement. "This final decision is a definitive administrative action to formally begin the transition process with federal agencies. In the days ahead, transition officials will begin meeting with federal officials to discuss the pandemic response, have a full accounting of our national security interests, and gain complete understanding of the Trump administration’s efforts to hollow out government agencies." 4568