赛罕区肛肠医院在线(赛罕区肛肠医院医院位置) (今日更新中)

William "Bill" Barr, a former attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, is emerging as a consensus candidate to succeed Jeff Sessions as attorney general, two sources familiar with President Donald Trump's thinking tell CNN.A third source familiar with the process said if Trump offered the position to Barr, he would be willing to accept.Trump's consideration of a new attorney general comes during a critical time for special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, of which the next Justice Department chief will inherit oversight. Barr, 68, has previously offered mixed opinions about the investigation, having praised Mueller but also publicly criticizing political donations made by several members of his team.The Washington Post first reported that Barr is the leading candidate. Sources cautioned to CNN, however, that Trump makes the final decision.Barr served as Mueller's boss when he was attorney general in the early 1990s and Mueller led the criminal division at the Justice Department.The former attorney general hasn't shied away from weighing in on Mueller's investigation. He expressed confidence in Mueller early on and suggested the investigation wouldn't devolve into a "witch hunt," but he also has shared some disappointment when asked by The Washington Post last year about the donations that some of Mueller's team members made to Democrats."In my view, prosecutors who make political contributions are identifying fairly strongly with a political party ... I would have liked to see him have more balance on this group," he said in July 2017.Barr also defended Trump's decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey, who was criticized for flouting Justice Department protocols when he announced in July 2016 that he wouldn't recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified info during her time as secretary of state."I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers," Barr wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in May 2017. "It is telling that none of the president's critics are challenging the decision on the merits."The prospect of Barr taking over the Justice Department was well-received by some leading members of Congress in both parties Thursday.Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee, called Barr an "interesting pick.""I think getting the next nominee confirmed is going to be a little bit of a challenge," he said. "(Barr) may be the kind of person who would be easier to confirm."Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said she was unfamiliar with Barr's views but encouraged by a suggestion that he was an "establishment" Republican."I would hope (Trump) would pick someone who would be by the book and not by the politics," Feinstein said.CNN reported late last month that Barr was among several potential candidates to succeed Sessions.At the time, CNN reported that Trump was considering tapping the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, Makan Delrahim, to succeed acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. At the time, White House officials said Trump was in no rush to nominate a permanent successor to Sessions, whom he fired November 7. Instead, Trump was telling confidantes he was happy to leave Whitaker in place while he mulled his choices.Other names that have been floated as possible replacements for Sessions include Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas, a former federal prosecutor, as well John Michael Luttig, a former US Court of Appeals judge, Justice Department official and current general counsel at Boeing. One former White House official said late last month that Luttig was a strong possibility, though he had not met with the President. A second source close to Luttig told CNN he was considered for the role of FBI director after Comey was fired in spring 2017.The-CNN-Wire 3983

What does defunding the police really mean?From Los Angeles to Minneapolis to New York City advocates are pushing for widespread police reform in the form of reduced police budgets. HOW MUCH WILL BE CUT?So far, American cities are taking a slow approach to the demands of advocates. Leaders in Minneapolis, the site of George Floyd's death, have called for the most significant changes with City Council agreeing to dismantle its police department. Los Angeles' Mayor is calling for 0 million budget cut. Minneapolis' City Council is exploring a 0 million cut. New York City's Comptroller has called on the Mayor to cut the NYPD by .1 billion over the next four years. Depending on the number, cuts to police departments could mean fewer officers and most likely fewer programs offered by police departments. WHERE DO ADVOCATES WANT THE MONEY TO GO?In short, leaders in the Black Lives Matter movement want the money currently allocated to police to be re-invested in communities instead. That could take the shape of city development in an often forgotten part of town or in mental health awareness campaigns. Homeless outreach and improved educational opportunities have also been mentioned. NPR recently profiled an effort in Eugene, Oregon, that dispatches social workers to certain emergency calls instead of officers. Advocates support measures like that as well. WILL CRIME INCREASE?You can't have a discussion on defunding police without exploring the possibility that crime could increase. But there is evidence that crime can actually go down with fewer police officers. A 2017 study found that when NYPD reduced its proactive policing polices in 2015 and 20`14, the number of criminal complaints filed actually decreased in New York City. The Fraternal Order of Police though disagrees. Sgt. Robert Pride, who met with President Trump at the White House this week, said he believes more officers would want to leave law enforcement if major programs were defunded. "That's not a profession I want to be apart of," Pride said. WILL THIS ACTUALLY HAPPEN?Police reform has been talked about before but never on this scale. It will also depend on whether the political pressure on city councils and mayors across the country continue. The "defund" movement is likely in its very early stages. 2316

While public health experts have acknowledged the risk for healthy athletes when becoming infected with the coronavirus has been rather low, lingering questions have remained on if the virus causes long-term cardiac damage.Doctors from the Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section of the American College of Cardiology released some of their preliminary findings on the effect the coronavirus has on athletes’ hearts.With college football fully resuming this week with the return of the Pac-12, and college basketball slated to get underway next month, sports are beginning to return to normal amid the pandemic. While some athletes are being frequently tested for the virus, testing alone has not stopped team-wide outbreaks from occurring.Despite there being some limited evidence that the virus causes cardiac injury to athletes, researchers wrote in JAMA that heart damage alone should not be the primary reason to postpone athletic competitions amid the pandemic.“While concerns about the implications of cardiac injury attributable to COVID-19 infection deserve further study, they should not constitute a primary justification for the cancellation or postponement of sports,” the researchers wrote.“Rather than canceling sports because of unsubstantiated concerns about cardiac safety based on limited data of unestablished clinical relevance, this decision should be driven by the need to limit viral spread,” researchers added. “With uncontrolled community transmission, we share concerns with public health officials about risks of increased disease transmission attributable to the resumption of organized sports. Accordingly, the decision to proceed with or delay organized sports should be based on community disease prevalence, coupled with the availability of resources that can be responsibly allocated to identify and prevent new infections among athletes.”The researchers said that initial findings have produced only a handful of cases of cardiac injury, but stressed that more research is needed.“Reports of presumptive myocarditis among several athletes with high profiles have magnified concerns about COVID-19 CV sequelae in athletes,” the researchers wrote. “Our combined experience suggests that most athletes with COVID-19 are asymptomatic to mildly ill, and to date, (return to play) risk stratification has yielded few cases of relevant cardiac pathology. However, we underscore that these observations may not reflect the true prevalence and attendant prognosis of COVID-19 CV involvement in athletes.”As far as what players should do following their 10-day isolation period, assuming they minimal coronavirus symptoms?“We do not advocate for (cardiovascular) risk stratification among athletes who remain completely asymptomatic with prior COVID-19 infection, following completion of US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guided self-isolation,” the researchers wrote. “Given the current lack of published data, consideration of comprehensive screening for this population could be reasonable if it is based on research and data collection.”The Big Ten, which was among several leagues that held out on playing at the start of the football season, requires athletes to undergo cardiovascular screening following a positive coronavirus test. Part of what concerned the Big Ten initially was reports that a number of its athletes who tested positive for the virus had shown myocarditis symptoms.According to the National Institutes of Health, myocarditis is an acute injury that “leads to myocyte damage, which in turn activates the innate and humeral immune system, leading to severe inflammation.”“All COVID-19 positive student-athletes will have to undergo comprehensive cardiac testing to include labs and biomarkers, ECG, Echocardiogram and a Cardiac MRI,” the Big Ten said in a statement. “Following cardiac evaluation, student-athletes must receive clearance from a cardiologist designated by the university for the primary purpose of cardiac clearance for COVID-19 positive student-athletes. The earliest a student-athlete can return to game competition is 21 days following a COVID-19 positive diagnosis. “In addition to the medical protocols approved, the 14 Big Ten institutions will establish a cardiac registry in an effort to examine the effects on COVID-19 positive student-athletes. The registry and associated data will attempt to answer many of the unknowns regarding the cardiac manifestations in COVID-19 positive elite athletes.”To read an abstract of the research, click here. 4546

While many Americans do it, taking a selfie with a completed ballot is considered a crime in many states.For much of American history, ballots were intended to be secret. But as social media usage has exploded, more and more Americans are taking pictures with their ballots, and or at polling places. Most of these photos are harmless, but that doesn’t mean they’re fully legal in some states.In response, seveal states have changed their laws regarding ballot selfies.According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah have made changes to their laws in the last five years which allow some form of ballot selfies.Other states, however, have tried to curtail ballot selfies. For instance, Alabama passed a law last year that prohibits taking a photograph of a ballot, or otherwise revealing the contents of a completed ballot.Another state, New Hampshire, attempted to pass a law to restrict ballot selfies.However, a federal appeals court ruled 3-0 that the state had not shown that it was using the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest of prohibiting voting fraud. According to the ruling, New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner was unable to show examples of how ballot photography led to voting fraud."The restriction affects voters who are engaged in core political speech, an area highly protected by the First Amendment," the ruling states. "There is an increased use of social media and ballot selfies in particular in service of political speech by voters. A ban on ballot selfies would suppress a large swath of political speech."Indiana also had a law passed in 2015 that would have made ballot selfies a felony struck down by a federal judge.In Colorado, the state made it legal in 2017 to take ballot pictures.Nationally, laws vary from state to state. While some states may permit photography of a completed mail-in ballot, the state might prohibit photography at a voting site.CNN has compiled a state-by-state list of what is permitted and not permitted in each state. 2104

We've all experienced someone speeding through our neighborhood. But would drivers actually slow down if the city were to lower the speed limit?According to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, it would. The study was done on the streets of Boston, and it found that lowering the default speed limit from 30 to 25 reduced the odds of a vehicle going over 35 miles per hour by about 30 percent.The study also found the odds of exceeding 30 mph fell by over 8 percent, and the odds someone would exceed 25 mph fell by almost 3 percent.The study did not examine how the lower speed limits affected crashes, but the institute plans to study that in their next phase.The authors of the study also say that the number of deaths related to speeding were actually higher on roads where the speed limit is 35 mph or lower, than it is on roadways where cars are going much faster. 900

来源：资阳报