呼市肛门内痔是怎么回事呼和浩特痔疮怎么治疗比较好,呼市较专业的肛肠医院,呼和浩特肛门医院怎么样,清水河县极好的胃肠医院是哪间,呼市肛门长个肉疙瘩怎么办,呼市肛旁脓肿怎么回事,呼和浩特哪些医院治痔疮好

The Minneapolis City Council votes Friday on a proposal to change the city charter to allow elimination of the city’s police department, a radical move supported by a majority of the council after George Floyd’s death but far from assured.The vote is one step in a process that faces significant bureaucratic obstacles to make the November ballot, where the city’s voters would have the final say. And it comes amid a spate of recent shootings in Minnesota’s largest city that have heightened many citizens’ concerns about talk of dismantling the department.The Minneapolis force has come under heavy pressure since Floyd, a Black man in handcuffs, died May 25 after a police officer pressed his knee on Floyd’s neck for nearly eight minutes. Activists had long accused the department of being unable to change a racist and brutal culture, and earlier this month, a majority of the council proclaimed support for dismantling the department.Doing so would first require amending the city charter. Draft language of the amendment posted online would replace the department with a Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention, “which will have responsibility for public safety services prioritizing a holistic, public health-oriented approach.”The amendment goes on to say the director of the new agency would have “non-law-enforcement experience in community safety services, including but not limited to public health and/or restorative justice approaches.” It also provides for a division of licensed peace officers, who would answer to the department’s director.Council members who support the change are looking to seize on a groundswell of support for significant policing changes following Floyd’s death. If they don’t get the charter change on the November ballot, their next chance won’t come until November 2021, they say.“It is time to make structural change,” Council Member Steve Fletcher said. “It is time to start from scratch and reinvent what public safety looks like.”The proposed amendment is expected to be approved Friday, but that’s just a first step. It goes then to a policy committee and to the city’s Charter Commission for formal review. The commission’s recommendation doesn’t bind the council, but it takes time.Barry Clegg, chairman of the Charter Commission, said the process feels rushed.“As I understand it, they are saying, ‘We are going to have this new department. We don’t know what it’s going to look like yet. We won’t implement this for a year, we’ll figure it out,’” Clegg said. “For myself anyway, I would prefer that we figured it out first, and then voted on it.”Clegg said that to get the proposed amendment question on the November ballot, it has to be finalized by Aug. 21. He said if the Charter Commission took its final action at its Aug. 5 meeting, there would likely be enough time for it to get passed by the full council, go through a veto period, and then, if vetoed, have time to spare for a possible mayoral veto override. Once on the ballot, the measure would go to voters.Mayor Jacob Frey doesn’t support abolishing the department, a stance that got him booed off the street by activists who demonstrated outside his house following Floyd’s death and demanded to know where he stood.Frey expressed concerns about the proposed amendment as currently drafted, including whether the change would eliminate police altogether or allow for a police presence going forward. He also said that when something currently goes wrong, the chief and the mayor are accountable — but under the new plan, accountability would be dispersed among 14 people. Frey also questioned whether policing practices would vary, based on ward or other factors.“There is a significant lack of clarity. And if I’m seeing a lack of clarity, so are our constituents,” said Frey, who has said he supports deep structural change in the existing department.Fletcher said under the new agency when someone calls 911, there will always be a response that’s appropriate, including the option for a response by employees authorized to use force. But he said the vast majority of calls that police officers currently take will be answered by employees with different expertise.Miski Noor, an organizer with Black Visions, criticized the proposed amendment for creating a division of licensed peace officers at all. She said it “would give current and former police way too much power to shape public safety in Minneapolis.”Steven Belton, president and chief executive of Urban League Twin Cities, said the way some council members went forward without a concrete plan is “irresponsible.”“The problem that needs to be stated up front, from my perspective, is racism. … I’m not sure what they are trying to fix here,” he said.Don Blyly, whose beloved science fiction and mystery bookstores were destroyed by arson in the unrest that followed Floyd’s death, said if local leaders do something “sufficiently stupid” when it comes to policing, he won’t reopen in Minneapolis.“There are legitimate problems with the Minneapolis police, but the way the politicians are going about it is just ridiculous,” Blyly said. “They are pandering to a certain segment of the electorate.” 5202

The jury in the trial of former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort did not reach a verdict after its first full day of deliberations.Just before 5 p.m. ET, jurors sent a note to Judge T.S. Ellis with four questions, including one asking him if he could "redefine" for them the meaning of "reasonable doubt," the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant. Ellis responded that the prosecutors had to prove their case not "beyond possible doubt," but beyond "doubt based on reason."Jurors also asked questions related to Manafort's tax filing and foreign bank account disclosure charges, including when a person is required to file a foreign banking disclosure, and the definition of "shelf" companies. Ellis instructed them to rely on their "collective recollection" and gave no additional explanation.Jurors began deliberations Thursday morning. Manafort is facing 18 counts of tax evasion, bank fraud and hiding foreign bank accounts brought by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.The jury will return at 9:30 a.m. ET Friday.For the first time, the jurors are seeing pictures of the ,000 ostrich jacket, ,000 python jacket, and other high-end clothes Manafort purchased using foreign wire transfers. They are also debating the testimony of Rick Gates, Manafort's former deputy who admitted to embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars. And they can pore over reams of emails, tax forms and financial documents that prosecutors say are the "star witness" in their case.The courtroom drama will be nothing compared to the political earthquake the verdict will bring, regardless of which way it comes down.The President has repeatedly called Mueller's investigation a "witch hunt" that hasn't found evidence of Russian collusion with his campaign, and Trump's allies in and out of the White House say the special counsel should wrap things up."If he doesn't get it done in the next two or three weeks we will just unload on him like a ton of bricks," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told Bloomberg News."Looking back on history, who was treated worse, Alfonse Capone, legendary mob boss, killer and "Public Enemy Number One," or Paul Manafort, political operative & Reagan/Dole darling, now serving solitary confinement - although convicted of nothing? Where is the Russian Collusion?" Trump tweeted earlier this month about Manafort.An acquittal would only add to criticism that Mueller's investigation hasn't been worth the time and expense.A conviction, meanwhile, would allow Democrats and Mueller's supporters to say ending the investigation would be premature given the special counsel's results, having previously collected several guilty pleas.It could also boost Mueller's position as he negotiates with Trump's lawyers over a potential interview. 2876

The list of people who are unaccounted for after the Camp Fire in Northern California has 1,011 entries, Butte County Sheriff and Coroner Kory Honea said Friday evening.The sheriff said the list is imperfect and will fluctuate in number because it is raw data that needs to be refined.The death toll from the fire is now 71 after eight sets of remains were found Friday, Honea said. Three other deaths occurred in the Woolsey Fire in Southern California, making the statewide death toll from wildfires 74.With more personnel able to take reports from phone calls and emails and add names from 911 calls on the day the fire broke out, the number of names on the missing list swelled for the second consecutive day.The Camp Fire -- the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in state history -- has destroyed about 9,700 homes and scorched 146,000 acres (an increase of 5,000 acres Friday).Hundreds of deputies, National Guard troops, anthropologists and coroners are sifting through leveled homes and mangled cars for remains."They are going to be searching vehicles that have been burned. They'll be searching residences that have been burned. Checking around the residences ... our mission is to find the victims from this fire, recover them and get them identified and notify the families to give them some answers," Butte County Sheriff's Investigations Sgt. Steve Collins said Thursday.President Donald Trump is expected to visit the region Saturday. Gov. Jerry Brown and Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom plan to accompany him.Smoke from the large wildfire has prompted several universities to cancel or postpone sporting events. That includes the University of California, Berkeley men's basketball game Thursday night, which was called off, and its football game, which was rescheduled for December 1. 1827

The legacy of singer Selena Quintanilla has lived on for more than two decades. Now the "Queen of Tejano music" has joined a constellation of stars in the Hollywood Walk of Fame.The singer simply known as Selena was honored Friday with a posthumous star in one of showbiz's most visible landmarks."While she was taken from us way too early, we now have something permanent that generation after generation can see in the most famous neighborhood anywhere in the world," Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said. 515

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