和田女人上环注意什么和田怀孕了多少天能测出来,和田阴茎勃起不能持久,和田做阴道紧缩术怎么样,和田专业治阳痿的医院,和田做包皮手术需要多少,和田检查包皮包茎要多钱,和田怀孕66天不想要孩子怎么办

The person who stabbed five people in Paris on Saturday night, killing one, yelled the Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar," meaning "God is great," during the attack, city prosecutor Fran?ois Molins told reporters at the scene.Authorities have opened a terrorism investigation, he said.Four people were wounded during the knife attack in the touristy 2nd arrondissement, or district, of Paris. It happened around 9 p.m. (3 p.m. Eastern), a time when streets and sidewalks were filled with people. 497

The man at the center of an election fraud investigation in a North Carolina congressional race turned in nearly half of the requests for absentee ballots in a single county, records released Tuesday by the state's elections board show.Leslie McCrae Dowless, a veteran political operative in Bladen County who was convicted of insurance fraud in 1992 and was connected to questionable absentee ballot activity in another election, is at the center of a probe into unusual activity in the county.Dowless worked for Republican candidate Mark Harris, a Baptist minister who tallied 905 more votes than Democratic businessman and retired Marine Dan McCready.Dowless personally turned in 592 of the 1,341 total absentee ballots requested in Bladen County. Only 684 absentee ballots were ultimately cast in the county. Dowless did not return CNN's request for comment. Dowless has denied any wrongdoing to The Charlotte Observer. The state's Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement last week refused to certify Harris as the winner as it investigates potential misconduct. If the nine-member board determines the election was tainted enough to cast doubt on its outcome, it can order another election.The probe appears to focus on Bladen and Robeson counties, which each had unusually high rates of absentee ballot requests and unreturned absentee ballots.In Bladen County, officials kept records of who turned in absentee ballot requests in person. Those records were made public by the state elections board late Tuesday afternoon.The board also released envelopes of 184 absentee ballots in Bladen County they received back as return to sender mail because it was undeliverable. These ballots were requested in some form but the addresses designated were undeliverable.Both Bladen County and Dowless have been at the center of controversy over absentee ballots before. In 2014, Dowless worked for Jim McVicker, who was narrowly elected sheriff amid allegations of absentee ballot misconduct. McVicker did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday and his office said he was unavailable.In 2016, Dowless -- this time as a winning candidate in a race for the Bladen Soil and Water Conservation District -- claimed absentee ballot irregularities. The state board of elections dismissed his complaint.In recent 9th Congressional District elections, absentee ballots have tipped in favor of the candidates employing Dowless.In 2016, Todd Johnson, a Republican who had hired Dowless as he opposed Rep. Robert Pittenger in a primary, won 221 of the 226 absentee ballots cast in the district -- even as Johnson finished third in the primary. Johnson did not respond to requests for comment Monday and Tuesday.This year, Harris won 437 absentee ballots in Bladen County to Pittenger's 17, though there was no allegation of ballot tampering in that race. Harris won 420 absentee votes in the general election in Bladen County to McCready's 258.Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman said her office and the State Bureau of Investigation have launched criminal investigations into what appear to be voting irregularities in Bladen County in 2016.Freeman told CNN she opened the investigation this February based on information forwarded by the state elections board. The same information was sent to Bladen County District Attorney Jon David, she said, but he requested that Freeman take the lead in the probe."That investigation is ongoing and encompasses now those 2016 and 2018 election cycles and focuses on what appear to be absentee ballot irregularities," Freeman said.She said the probe, which includes reviewing documents and interviewing witnesses, currently focuses on Bladen County but may expand beyond it. She also said she is in communication with federal authorities, but did not offer more details.Dowless is also at the center of allegations that absentee ballots were tampered with. A set of 161 ballots obtained by CNN showed that nine people individually signed as "witnesses" on at least 10 absentee ballots. Many of those nine are loosely connected to Dowless, a review of social media accounts and public records showed.North Carolina requires witnesses to sign absentee ballots. Usually, those witnesses are family members or friends. But a CNN review found three witnesses signed more than 40 ballots each, another signed 30 and three other people signed more than 10 apiece.One of those people, Ginger Eason, told CNN affiliate WSOC that Dowless paid her between and 0 per week to pick up finished absentee ballots. She said she handed them to Dowless and isn't sure what happened after that.Lacy Allison, a voter in Bladenboro, told CNN on Tuesday that Lisa Britt, a Dowless associate, had filled out an application for an absentee ballot for him. Allison said Britt had told him she'd bring it back for him to sign -- but he never saw her again.He shared Britt's phone number with CNN, but when reached, Britt said she had no comment.Emma Shipman, a Bladen County resident who filed an affidavit with the state elections board, said Tuesday that she'd had no interest in voting and wasn't sure why an absentee ballot had arrived -- but that she gave it to a woman who came to her door offering to help fill it out and turn it in.Shipman said she doesn't know who she voted for."I don't know what happened," she said.In a sworn affidavit submitted to the elections board by North Carolina Democrats, one man says he spoke to Dowless in April and that Dowless told him he was working on absentee ballots for Harris and McVicker this year and had more than 80 people working for him.Harris' campaign acknowledged it had received a subpoena for documents from the state elections board."I want to emphasize -- again -- that the campaign was not aware of any illegal conduct in connection with the 9th District race; however, the campaign intends to cooperate with all lawful investigations of the conduct of the election and, like everyone else, is awaiting the outcome of the investigation by the State Board," said John Branch, an attorney for the Harris campaign, in a statement.The-CNN-Wire 6131

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

The parent company of both Applebee's and IHOP stated that several of the restaurants' locations would close permanently after a financial review the company stated Wednesday in a press release.In the news release, Dine Brands stated that 15 Applebee's locations would close for good sometime in the fourth quarter of 2020.The company added that nearly 100 IHOP locations would be closing in the next six months."Given the impact of the pandemic on individual restaurant-level economics, the company is evaluating the viability of greatly underperforming domestic IHOP restaurants," Dine Brands stated in the release.Dine Brands has not released information on which locations will close or how closures would impact employees. 735

The Justice Department responded to CNN's lawsuit over the revocation of Jim Acosta's press pass on Wednesday, saying in a court filing that the White House rejects the idea that it can't pick and choose which journalists can be given a permanent pass to cover it."The President and White House possess the same broad discretion to regulate access to the White House for journalists (and other members of the public) that they possess to select which journalists receive interviews, or which journalists they acknowledge at press conferences," lawyers say in the filing.Both CNN and Acosta are plaintiffs. The suit alleges that their First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban.Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday at 3:30 p.m.CNN and Acosta are asking Kelly for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his access right away.Lawyers for CNN and Acosta are arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.They are also seeking a declaration 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."This is a very, very important case," Ted Olson said. Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN along with another prominent outside attorney, Theodore Boutrous, and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, but "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," he said in an interview with CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin.CNN's lawyers say 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.Tuesday's lawsuit rejected the White House's claim that Acosta acted inappropriately at a press conference last week. The suit says this 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.Many media law experts, unaffiliated with CNN, believe the network has a very strong case.Judge Andrew Napolitano, the top legal analyst on Trump's favorite network, Fox News, said the same thing on Tuesday. "I think this will be resolved quickly," he said, adding "I think it will either be settled or CNN will prevail on motion."If there is no settlement, CNN is requesting a jury trial.In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Boutrous said the government officials are being sued in their "official capacity," but "there is a possibility of damages claims," which would mean suing them personally.Blitzer pointed out that the officials would have to "go out and hire their own attorneys."It is incredibly rare to see a news organization suing a president.Fox News supports CNN in lawsuit against White House, network's president saysFred Ryan, the publisher and CEO of the Washington Post, expressed his support for the action Tuesday night. "We support CNN in its effort to restore the press credentials of its White House reporter," Ryan said. "It is a journalist's role to ask hard questions, hold the powerful to account and provide readers with as much information as possible."The White House Correspondents' Association is also standing behind CNN. The group said Tuesday that the president "should not be in the business of arbitrarily picking the men and women who cover him." 3956