中山华都肛肠医院属于什么级别(中山做痔疮pph多少钱) (今日更新中)

The Defense Department has temporarily grounded all of its 245 F-35 fighter jets for inspection of a potentially faulty engine part in the wake of last month's crash in South Carolina.Initial data from the ongoing investigation into the September 28 crash indicates a fuel tube may have been faulty. In response, all US military F-35s will be inspected as well as F-35s operated by US allies."If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status," the Defense Department said in a statement.Inspections are expected to be completed within the next two days, the statement said, and a defense official told CNN some aircraft have already been returned to flight status.The initial assessment is the faulty tube may be on older models of the aircraft, but all are being inspected. 911

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 full program for Aretha Franklin's funeral service has been released. The Queen of Soul will be laid to rest following a four-day "homegoing" celebration. View the full program below: FINAL Program for Service by WXYZ-TV Channel 7 Detroit on Scribd 275

The future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program got murkier Tuesday when the Texas attorney general made good on a threat to challenge it in court.The lawsuit throws a wrench in an already-complicated legal morass for the DACA program, which protects young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children and which President Donald Trump has been blocked from ending, for the time being, by other federal courts.The lawsuit has the potential to create a headache for the Justice Department and courts as it could potentially conflict with rulings from judges in three separate judicial regions of the country who have blocked the end of DACA and could force the government to take an awkward position in the case.It may also potentially seal the issue's path to the Supreme Court.Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and six other states on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of DACA, arguing that former President Barack Obama's initial creation of DACA in 2012 violated the Constitution and federal law.The case was also re-assigned late Tuesday to District Judge Andrew Hanen, the judge who initially issued the nationwide ruling preventing DACA from being expanded through a similar program in 2014. Hanen was seen as particularly unfriendly to DACA based on his ruling in the related case, and advocates feared a DACA challenge before him would likely be decided the same way. His ruling ended up remaining in place after a Supreme Court challenge deadlocked 4-4 while awaiting a new justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.The move follows through on a threat from Paxton and what was originally nine other states to challenge DACA in court as part of a lawsuit regarding a similar but broader program that expanded upon DACA to include parents. Paxton issued an ultimatum to Trump: End DACA himself or defend it in court and face the prospect it is overturned by a judge that had already rejected the program's expansion in that other lawsuit.Under Paxton's threat, Trump and his administration decided to end the program in September, with a wind-down period ostensibly to allow Congress to act to save it legislatively. After the administration said they would rescind the program, Paxton backed off and allowed the other lawsuit to be dispensed with.But multiple lawsuits were filed challenging the way Trump ended the program -- resulting in multiple federal judges putting the brakes on the move and ordering the Department of Homeland Security to resume processing renewals for the roughly 700,000 participants in the program. A federal judge in DC last week went a step further, saying the department had to resume accepting new applications unless it issued a new legal justification for ending the program that passed muster within 90 days.The Trump administration had used the possibility of a court immediately terminating DACA in response to such a lawsuit from Paxton as the justification for ending the program altogether -- a justification the federal judge in DC found flimsy.Congress, meanwhile, has failed to reach consensus on how to preserve the program with legislation, and the court rulings preserving the program only served to further take the pressure off lawmakers.The states challenging DACA are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia.Tuesday's move leaves plenty of questions going forward -- including whether the Justice Department will defend DACA in court in Texas or allow another entity to argue in its favor. The ruling could also have implications for the DC case and whether the administration's legal reasoning gains credence.If the Texas court were to also issue a nationwide ruling in favor of the termination of DACA, it could set up dueling nationwide decisions that would likely end up at the nation's highest court."The first three courts have ruled in favor of DACA recipients," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell Law School professor and attorney with Miller Mayer. "If this lawsuit goes the other way, the Supreme Court may have to decide the issue." 4126

来源：资阳报