和田治疗男科去那好(和田怀孕不到两个月不想要怎么办) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California movie theaters can begin opening later this week if they limit theater capacity to 25% or no more than 100 attendees. State guidance released Monday adds movie theaters to a long list of entertainment and other businesses that can start reopening as the nation’s most populous state relaxes its stay-at-home order. Counties that meet certain metrics can start reopening movie theaters, bowling alleys, gyms, day camps, and a handful of other businesses starting Friday. RELATED:San Diego County announces reopening of day camps, campgrounds, and RV parksCalifornia officials releases guidelines on safely reopening schoolsGyms, other businesses begin preparing for California's June 12 reopening dateThe state recommends movie theaters implement reservation systems and limit seating and suggests moviegoers wear masks. Film and TV production may also resume subject to labor agreements. 932

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Gavin Newsom has approved legislation prompted by the helicopter crash that killed Kobe Bryant and eight others.The bill signed Monday makes it a crime for first responders to take unauthorized photos of deceased people at the scene of an accident or crime.Reports surfaced after the January 26 crash that graphic photos of the victims were being shared. Eight deputies were accused of taking or sharing graphic photos of the scene, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said then, adding that he had ordered the images deleted.Sheriff Villanueva said the department has a policy against taking and sharing crime scene photos, but it does not apply to accident scenes.The measure that will take effect Jan. 1 makes it a misdemeanor with fines up to ,000 per offense to take such photos for anything other than an official law enforcement purpose.Bryant’s widow, Vanessa Bryant, has sued the department over the photos. In her lawsuit, Bryant alleges that eight deputies took "gratuitous images" with their cell phones after responding to the scene.Bryant's suit also alleges that one of those deputies showed images from the scene to someone outside the department. According to Yahoo, that deputy showed photos from the scene to a person at a bar and bragged "about how he had been at the crash site." A bartender who overheard the conversation later notified the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department about the conversation. 1474

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law requiring California to house transgender inmates in prisons based on their gender identity. The new law says the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation must ask inmates during the intake process if they identify as transgender, nonbinary or intersex. Those inmates can then request to be placed in a facility that houses either men or women. The law says the state can deny requests if it has management or security concerns. If that happens, the state must give the inmate a written explanation and allow them an meaningful opportunity to object. 634

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 lawmakers are abandoning a proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown to shield electrical utilities from some financial liability for wildfires. For now.There's not enough time to settle the contentious and complex issues involved before the legislative session ends Aug. 31, Napa Democratic Sen. Bill Dodd told the San Francisco Chronicle on Saturday."It was a tough fight ... so we are pivoting," said Dodd, co-chairman of the legislative conference committee on wildfire preparedness and response.Brown's proposal would have let judges decide how much utilities pay when their equipment causes wildfires. It would have softened a legal standard that generally holds them entirely responsible for the costs of fires triggered by their power lines or other infrastructure.Current California law holds utilities responsible for damage from fires ignited by their equipment even if they have followed safety rules.Those who want to change the law fear utilities could go bankrupt or significantly raise prices for California residents as climate change makes wildfires even more severe.Lawmakers raised concerns about Brown's plan at an Aug. 9 hearing on the proposal. They said it would give utility companies too much protection without ensuring they safely maintain equipment.The issue was raised last fall when Pacific Gas and Electric Co. launched a lobbying campaign with other big utility companies to change the system.It's unlikely they'll drop their fight but they will lose a key ally in Brown, whose term ends in January. 1574

来源：资阳报