和田哪医院治男科和田晚上验孕棒一定准吗,和田哪里能做阴道紧缩修补,和田包皮手术那个医院,和田男人如何性功能增强,和田带环优缺点,和田男子专科那里好,和田引产博爱诚信

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Legislature has sent a bill to Gov. Gavin Newsom that would let counties offer fewer in-person voting options as they hold the November election in the midst of the pandemic. Newsom has already signed a law requiring counties to mail ballots to voters ahead of the Nov. 3 election. County election officials are having trouble securing enough polling places because of the pandemic. California continues to have problems with missing data on virus infections throughout California. State officials have acknowledged California has been undercounting virus cases due to a technical issue with a database used to collect test information from labs. 695

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The U.S. government says California must change how it issues identification cards that comply with stricter federal requirements.The so-called Real ID cards will be needed to board airplanes or enter federal buildings by October 2020 under security enhancements following 9/11. California already has issued 2.3 million cards.Department of Motor Vehicles spokesman Marty Greenstein said Friday that those IDs will remain valid and changes will apply going forward.The DMV had required one document proving residency and counted on delivery by the post office as secondary proof of someone's address.Emails show the Department of Homeland Security approved that process last year. But it told the DMV in November that was no longer acceptable and two documents proving residency are required.The change will be implemented next spring. 869

Roger Stone associate Jerome Corsi said Monday he expects to be indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for "giving false information to the special counsel or to one of the other grand jury."Corsi made the comment during his streaming show on YouTube."And now I fully anticipate that the next few days, I will be indicted by Mueller for some form or other of giving false information to the special counsel or to one of the other grand jury or however they want to do the indictment. But I'm going to be criminally charged," Corsi said Monday.Corsi's lawyer declined to comment.Corsi could face any number of charges -- spanning from perjury to making false claims to obstruction of justice. The potential charges are related to false statements he made about his relationship with WikiLeaks and Stone.Corsi has been involved in Mueller's investigation for roughly two months and had already been subpoenaed for documents and testimony before the grand jury, and he complied with both.Corsi's role in the investigation largely revolves around the possibility that he was an intermediary between Stone and WikiLeaks.During the 2016 campaign, Stone publicly bragged about having "backchannel communications" with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and on several occasions appeared to predict the WikiLeaks releases that roiled the race in the final stretch of the campaign. But in the two years since Trump's victory, Stone has walked back those claims and said his "backchannel" was merely New York radio host Randy Credico sharing information about his interviews with Assange. Credico denies serving as an intermediary between the two.Investigators have been skeptical of Stone's explanation. CNN has reported that?Mueller's team is examining the possibility that Stone had another intermediary beyond Credico, and that Corsi might have been involved.Corsi injected himself into Stone's situation last year when he claimed that one of his own articles for InfoWars inspired Stone to predict in October 2016 that there would be trouble coming for Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Not long after that, WikiLeaks started releasing thousands of Podesta's hacked emails.Stone denies that he ever told Trump about WikiLeaks' dumps before they became public. He also denies colluding with Russia.The-CNN-Wire 2331

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A bill that would allow “bad officers” to be permanently stripped of their badges failed to pass the California Legislature.The measure was one of the year's top policing reform bills after the death of George Floyd while in police custody earlier this year.Law enforcement organizations opposed the bill because they said the proposed system is biased and lacks basic due process protections.The Legislature gave final approval to bills that would ban police officers from using choke holds and carotid holds and require independent investigations when police kill unarmed civilians.Those bills now go to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk. 666

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two major law enforcement organizations have dropped their opposition to California legislation that strengthens standards for when officers can use of deadly force, a shift that comes after supporters made changes to the measure.Spokesmen for organizations representing California police chiefs and rank-and-file officers told The Associated Press on Thursday that they won't fight the measure, which was prompted by public outrage over fatal police shootings.As originally written, the measure would bar police from using lethal force unless it is "necessary" to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or bystanders.That's a change from the current standard, which lets officers kill if they have "reasonable" fear they or others are in imminent danger. The threshold made it rare for officers to be charged following a shooting and rarer still for them to be convicted."With so many unnecessary deaths, I think everyone agrees that we need to change how deadly force is used in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber of San Diego, who wrote the measure. "We can now move a policy forward that will save lives and change the culture of policing in California."Law enforcement officials did not immediately explain their decision. But a revised version of the bill filed Thursday drops an explicit definition of "necessary" that was in the original version. The deleted language provided that officers could act when there is "no reasonable alternative."The amended measure also makes it clear that officers are not required to retreat or back down in the face of a suspect's resistance and officers don't lose their right to self-defense if they use "objectively reasonable force."Amendments also strip out a specific requirement that officers try to de-escalate confrontations before using deadly force but allows the courts to consider officers' actions leading up to fatal shootings, said Peter Bibring, police practices director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which proposed the bill and negotiated the changes."By requiring that officers use force only when necessary and examining their conduct leading up to use of force, the courts can still consider whether officers needlessly escalated a situation or failed to use de-escalation tactics that could have avoided a shooting," he said.Even with the changes, the ACLU considers the bill to have the strongest language of any in the country.Democratic leaders in the Legislature signed on to the revised version, which is set for a key Assembly vote next week. 2634