青海头中部和前部断层面模型(青海头颅骨模型附肌肉标记) (今日更新中)

The man taking over the Justice Department following Jeff Sessions' firing as attorney general has argued that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation went too far.Matthew Whitaker, who was Sessions' chief of staff, is expected to take over oversight of Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia. A source close to the President told CNN that the idea of Whitaker ending or suppressing the Russia probe is not an option as of now.In a CNN op-ed written last year, Whitaker argued that Mueller is "dangerously close to crossing" a red line following reports?that Mueller was looking into Trump's finances.He argued that Mueller does not have "broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation," but that the investigation's limits are clearly defined by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's?May 2017 letter appointing Mueller."It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel," he wrote then. "If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition."Back in 2017, Whitaker also told CNN's Don Lemon that he could see a scenario where Sessions is replaced with an attorney general who "reduces (Mueller's) budget so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt."Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday that Whitaker would fill the role of attorney general while he finds a permanent replacement to be "nominated at a later date."Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation after it emerged that he had failed at his Senate confirmation hearing to disclose two pre-election meetings with Russia's ambassador to Washington at a time when Moscow was accused of interfering in the presidential race. The recusal was harshly criticized by Trump and led to the deterioration of their relationship.Whitaker was a CNN legal commentator and former US attorney who directed the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a conservative ethics watchdog group. He ran in the Republican primary for Iowa Senate in 2014.--This opinion article was originally published on August 6, 2017, and authored by now acting AG Matthew Whitaker:Last month, when President Donald Trump was asked by The New York Times if special counsel Robert Mueller would be crossing a line if he started investigating the finances of Trump and his family, the President said, "I think that's a violation. Look, this is about Russia."The President is absolutely correct. Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.According to a CNN article, Mueller's investigators could be looking into financial records relating to the Trump Organization that are unrelated to the 2016 election. According to these reports, "sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 election." The piece goes on to cite law enforcement sources who say non-Russia-related leads that "involve Trump associates" are being referred to the special counsel "to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate."This information is deeply concerning to me. It does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trump's finances or his family's finances falls completely outside of the realm of his 2016 campaign and allegations that the campaign coordinated with the Russian government or anyone else. That goes beyond the scope of the appointment of the special counsel.In fact, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's letter?appointing special counsel Robert Mueller does not give Mueller broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation. He is only authorized to investigate matters that involved any potential links to and coordination between two entities -- the Trump campaign and the Russian government. People are wrongly pointing to, and taking out of context, the phrase "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" to characterize special counsel's authority as broad.The word "investigation" is clearly defined directly preceding it in the same sentence specifically as coordination between individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and Russia. The Trump Organization's business dealings are plainly not within the scope of the investigation, nor should they be.Indeed, Sunday on Fox News, Rod Rosenstein acknowledged Mueller had limited authority and would need to seek his permission to expand the investigation.Beyond the legal reading, the broad authority argument defies plain logic: If the special counsel could investigate anything he wants, why would there even need to be a letter spelling out the specific limits of the investigation?One of the dynamics at play here is that people are conflating this investigation and Kenneth Starr's 1994 investigation into President Bill Clinton. While partly understandable at first glance, the two investigations are not comparable -- not only have more than two decades passed since then, but a completely new law and legal framework governing separate investigations has also passed. Starr was an independent counsel and Mueller is a special counsel, the two words are different for a reason.Any investigation into President Trump's finances or the finances of his family?would require Mueller to return to Rod Rosenstein for additional authority under Mueller's appointment as special counsel.If he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel's investigation was a mere witch hunt. If Mueller is indeed going down this path, Rosenstein should act to ensure the investigation is within its jurisdiction and within the authority of the original directive.I've prosecuted several financial crimes at the federal level and I've also defended plenty in my private practice. From this unique vantage point, I can understand how a motivated prosecutor, in a broad investigation into the financial affairs of high-profile individuals, can become overzealous toward the targets of such probes -- with calamitous results. While no one is above the law, in situations such as this, any seasoned prosecutor must use discretion both judiciously and expertly.It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel.If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition. This would not only be out of character for a respected figure like Mueller, but also could be damaging to the President of the United States and his family -- and by extension, to the country. 7167

The lengthy National Climate Assessment released on Friday includes detailed information about how specific regions of the US will be impacted.Below is a guide to what this report says about each region of the country in regards to climate change and its impacts. 276

The head of United States Customs and Border Protection said border agents "prevented a dangerous situation getting worse" when they fired tear gas at a group of migrants who rushed the US-Mexico border Sunday.CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan told reporters Monday that as many as 1,000 people that were part of a migrant caravan traveling through Central America and Mexico sought to enter the US illegally.He said that according to CBP's initial report, 69 people were apprehended entering the US. McAleenan said he was not aware of any successful illegal entries by caravan members into the US."[CBP] effectively managed an extremely dangerous situation involving over 1,000 individuals who sought to enter the US unlawfully in large groups. They did so safely and without any reported serious injuries on either side of the border," McAleenan said.Sunday's incident marked an escalation of tensions that have been mounting since groups of Central American migrants began arriving in Tijuana a few weeks ago on their journey to attempt to gain entry to the US. The incident began with a march to the border that organizers said would be peaceful. In response, CBP deployed additional personnel to San Ysidro, California, on Sunday in expectation of demonstrations on both sides of the border.McAleenan said individuals breached the border fence to the east of San Ysidro and some went west and sought to enter through the Tijuana River channel. He described "assaultive behavior" by some migrants in both locations. Border Patrol agents countered using "less lethal devices," which included tear gas and "other projectiles," but not rubber bullets. He said CBP does not have rubber bullets in its inventory on the border.McAleenan said, per protocol, the decision to fire was made by agents on the scene using their professional judgment, and also per protocol the incident will be reviewed. He also described CBP as having responded with use of force to primarily adult males throwing rocks.However, video of the scene also showed a cloud of tear gas that sent people running and screaming, including families with young children.Four agents were hit with rocks, but because of their protective gear they were not seriously injured, McAleenan said.Sunday's melee closed one of the world's busiest international crossings, San Ysidro Port of Entry, near San Diego, to vehicle and pedestrian traffic for several hours. By Sunday afternoon, CBP reopened crossing lanes in both directions to pedestrians and vehicles.On the other side of the border in Mexico, Tijuana police had arrested 39 people by Sunday night, the agency said on Facebook. 2651

The investigation into social media misconduct in the United State Marine Corps. has resulted in at least 55 Marines being punished, including seven courts-martial.USMC said Friday the cases stemming from a massive scandal into online misconduct "proved to be a symptom of a larger problem of bias and exclusion."The 55 Marines punished include seven special and summary courts-martial, six administrative separations, 15 non-judicial punishments, and 27 adverse administrative actions. At least 123 individuals have been investigated for incidents of misconduct involving the non-consensual distribution of explicit images, according to officials. Of those cases, 22 were of civilians outside Department of Defense jurisdiction and 101 were active-duty or reserve Marines.USMC said 82 cases concerning active-duty or reserve Marines have been ruled on while 19 await a decision.The Marine's investigation of the "Marines United" Facebook page prompted a full-scale look into misconduct across social media. Naval Criminal Investigative Service scanned nearly 131,000 images across 168 social media sites.Last year, nude photographs of female Marines and veterans from various military branches and other women were shared on the "Marines United" page. The accompanying posts were found to include obscene and threatening comments and showed women in various stages of undress. Some women were identified and others were not. The site was touted as being for men only. 1536

The growing list of sexual harassment allegations against well-known powerful men has Congress taking steps to protect against misconduct in its own offices.Both the House and Senate have now agreed to require anti-harassment training for lawmakers and staff. That’s in addition to legislation just introduced that aims to provide more protections and resources for congressional staff members who file complaints."I think we're at a tipping point culturally in this country," said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif. "I want to make sure Congress turns over a new leaf."The new effort to combat sexual abuse on Capitol Hill responds to staffers who say Congress has long been a breeding ground for misconduct.Aides have reported being sexually harassed by at least two unnamed sitting members of Congress, according to Speier, who recently revealed she was sexually assaulted in the 1970s when she was a Capitol Hill staffer.More than 1,500 former Capitol Hill staffers signed a petition this week urging the House and Senate to update decades-old sexual harassment policies they called “inadequate and in need of reform.”Speier introduced a bill Wednesday that would dramatically overhaul procedures for how sexual harassment claims are handled at the Office of Compliance, which is responsible for carrying out the unique procedures lawmakers established in 1995 to resolve sexual misconduct claims.Unlike most workplaces, employees in Congress who file harassment claims must first go through a months-long process. It includes up to 30 days of counseling, then a month of mediation where workers discuss their complaints with their employers, sometimes the same people accused of wrongdoing. Much of the system is blanketed in secrecy, with victims signing non-disclosure agreements and no reporting of which congressional offices eventually pay out settlements.The Office of Compliance won’t even say how many sexual harassment complaints it receives. The most recent numbers from the office showed only eight claims filed relating to any workplace issue last year out of 15,000 House and Senate employees. Speier said it's a sign employees are not comfortable reporting sexual misconduct."It's really no wonder staffers don't use this system," Speier said.Her bill would shorten how long employees must wait for resolution, allowing them to waive the requirement for counseling and mediation and go straight to court or to an administrative hearing at the Office of Compliance. It also would eliminate the requirement of a non-disclosure agreement up front and identify which lawmaker offices have complaints and settlements.The legislation would set up a victims’ counsel office to represent people who file claims. Right now, lawmakers have their own in-house lawyers able to represent them with staffers left to find their own advocates.Employees who file claims also would be allowed to work remotely, if requested, during the complaint process, rather than having to work in the offices where they allege wrongdoing occurred.It also would require a report every two years looking at sexual harassment on Capitol Hill.The protections would for the first time extend to interns, fellows and congressional pages.Similar legislation is being introduced in the Senate. Republican leaders who control the fate of legislation have not yet commented on Speier’s bill.House Administration Committee Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss., held a hearing Tuesday on sexual harassment in Congress. He called it a first step toward making sure staffers are protected from misconduct."We're talking thousands and thousands of staffers that are impacted by this, so we're going to do whatever we've got to do to make sure this doesn't happen," Harper said.On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training would become mandatory for all House members and staff.The Senate passed its own bill to require similar in-person training last week. 3981

来源：资阳报