济南早泻的调理小窍门(济南尿道白色水泡) (今日更新中)

The man suspected of killing 20 people and injuring 26 others in El Paso on Saturday may face hate crime and capital murder charges, officials said.Police say a document they believe was written by the 21-year-old white male suspect has a "nexus to a potential hate crime."The four-page document posted online espouses white nationalist and racist views. It rails against immigrants and Hispanics, blaming immigrants and first-generation Americans for taking away jobs and for the blending of cultures in the US."Right now, we have a manifesto from this individual that indicates to some degree he has a nexus to a potential hate crime," El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen said at a press conference.FBI El Paso Special Agent in Charge Emmerson Buie said more investigation is needed before determining that the mass shooting was a hate crime."Right now, it is a murder investigation," Buie said. "There is potential for a number of different other violations, and we're reviewing all the evidence to make a determination as to what potentially else is out there, in addition to the violations that have been stated that the local authorities are pursuing."The suspect has been identified as Patrick Crusius of Allen, just outside Dallas, three sources told CNN. Two federal law enforcement sources and one state government source confirmed the suspect's identity.The suspect surrendered to police "without incident," police spokesman Sgt. Robert Gomez told reporters.The document police believe the suspect wrote was posted on 8chan, an online messaging board full of racist, bigoted and anti-Semitic content. A CNN analysis of the document reveals it was posted less than 20 minutes before police received the first calls about the shootings."This is disgusting, intolerable. It's not Texan," Abbott told reporters who asked about the document. "We are going to aggressively prosecute it both as capital murder, but also as a hate crime, which is what it appears to be, without having seen all the evidence yet."The FBI has opened a domestic terrorism investigation, to be worked concurrently to the state investigation into the shooting, with Texas authorities taking the lead, a source familiar with the investigative process told CNN.The FBI, the source indicated, is bringing resources from neighboring satellite offices and assets are on standby to assist should the state request.President Donald Trump called the mass shooting an "act of cowardice," and said there "are no reasons or excuses that will ever justify killing people."In his messages on Twitter, Trump said he and the first lady sent "heartfelt thoughts and prayers to the great people of Texas." 2677

The man who authorities say opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, had a ''stone cold look'' when he surrendered, a police official who came face-to-face with him told CNN."It was a look I'd never seen before, and I've been on this force for 31 years," the official said. "I've seen murderers, robbers, nothing like this."Patrick Crusius, 21, of Allen, Texas, has been charged with capital murder in the mass shooting that left 22 people dead and more than two dozen wounded, according to court records. He is being held without bond.Crusuis was arrested Saturday in the Walmart parking lot, where he was sitting in his vehicle after the attack and saw police units responding, a law enforcement official told CNN. He then got out of his vehicle unarmed and walked over to the police vehicles where he was arrested without incident, the official said.While in custody, Crusius has been "cold" in his interactions with police, police officials told CNN.Police Chief Greg Allen told reporters Monday that Crusius has been cooperative, though he's shown no remorse and "appears to be in a state of shock and confusion."Criminal defense attorney Mark Stephens has been appointed by the court to represent Crusius, according to court records. Stephens did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment.Suspect wrote a 'manifesto,' police sayCrusius is believed to have authored a racist, anti-immigrant document that laid out a dark vision of America overrun by Hispanic immigrants.With the hate-filled writing, which authorities called a 'manifesto,' were the words: "I'm probably going to die today."The four-page document, titled "The Inconvenient Truth," was published on the online message board 8chan about 20 minutes before the shooting. The writing is filled with white supremacist language and racist hatred aimed at immigrants and Latinos, and the author says he opposes "race mixing" and encourages immigrants to return to their home countries.Some of the language of the manifesto reflects ideas from President Trump, Fox News and the modern Republican party. For example, the document warns of a " 2129

The Federal Trade Commission announced a billion settlement with Facebook on Wednesday, resolving a sweeping investigation by regulators into how the company lost control over massive troves of personal data and mishandled its communications with users. It is the largest fine in FTC history — and yet still only about a month's worth of revenue for Facebook.The deal comes amid growing calls in Washington for greater transparency and accountability for technology companies, whose power over social movements as well as personal information has increasingly come to be seen as dangerous by politicians, users, and even one of Facebook's co-founders.Facebook agreed to the deal following years of damaging admissions about the company's privacy practices, such as the inadvertent exposure of up to 87 million users' information to the political analysis firm Cambridge Analytica.The settlement resolves a formal complaint by the FTC alleging that Facebook "used deceptive disclosures and settings" that eroded user privacy, violating a prior agreement Facebook signed with the commission in 2012. Facebook also broke the law, the FTC alleged, by misusing phone numbers obtained for account security purposes to also target advertisements to its users. And the company allegedly deceived "tens of millions of users" by implying that a facial recognition feature on the service had not been enabled by default, when in fact it had."The magnitude of the billion penalty and sweeping conduct relief are unprecedented in the history of the FTC," said Chairman Joseph Simons in a statement. "The relief is designed not only to punish future violations but, more importantly, to change Facebook's entire privacy culture to decrease the likelihood of continued violations."Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The FTC settlement — which also covers Facebook subsidiaries Instagram and WhatsApp — could set the tone for a wave of further action by policymakers worldwide as they seek to rein in the most powerful players in Silicon Valley.The billion fine is nearly 30 times the FTC's largest-ever civil penalty to date — 8 million, which was levied on Dish Network in 2017 — reflecting the tremendous scale of Facebook's operations, as well as the enormity of its self-admitted mistakes.In addition to the record civil penalty, Facebook also agreed to accept greater oversight of its privacy practices. Under the FTC deal, Facebook's board will form a privacy oversight committee made up of independent members who cannot be fired by CEO Mark Zuckerberg alone. That committee will be charged with appointing still other officials who must periodically and truthfully certify that Facebook is complying with the FTC agreement, or risk being held personally liable. Zuckerberg will also be required to make those same certifications, the FTC said."False certifications would subject Mr. Zuckerberg and the [designated compliance officers] to personal liability, including civil and criminal penalties," Simons said in a statement written jointly with the Commission's two other Republican members, Christine Wilson and Noah Phillips.The FTC also required that regular third-party assessments of Facebook's privacy practices not rely on company materials but instead on the auditor's own fact-finding.The FTC voted 3-2 to approve the settlement, with the agency's two Democrats dissenting because they believed the measure did not go far enough. In dissents, Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Slaughter said they believed the fines were far too small, and that the FTC wrongfully gave Zuckerberg and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg a pass."Failing to hold them accountable only encourages other officers to be similarly neglectful in discharging their legal obligations," wrote Chopra. "In my view, it is appropriate to charge officers and directors personally when there is reason to believe that they have meaningfully participated in unlawful conduct, or negligently turned a blind eye toward their subordinates doing the same."Other prominent tech critics, including Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, have said a billion fine would be "a bargain" for Facebook. In an earnings report earlier this year, Facebook said it was setting aside billion to help cover expenses related to the expected penalty. It reported quarterly revenues of billion at the time and its stock rose after it announced the charge, signaling investors were relieved by the probable outcome.For more than a year, Facebook — once the darling of policymakers and a celebrated example of American ingenuity — has lurched from crisis to crisis.This past October, for example, Facebook disclosed that hackers had compromised tens of millions of accounts by exploiting a series of software flaws, culminating in their ability to impersonate users and take over their profiles.The following month, Facebook 4985

The California state assembly has passed a bill banning employers from discriminating against people with natural hair. It now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk to be signed into law, making it the first statewide ban on natural hair discrimination.The Crown Act, introduced by Los Angeles Democrat Sen. Holly Mitchell, is aimed at creating a respectful and open workplace for those with natural hair. 413

The House on Wednesday easily defeated an effort from a Texas Democrat to impeach President Donald Trump in the first vote that Congress has taken related to impeachment since Democrats took control of the chamber.Only 95 of the 435 members voted against the motion to table the impeachment vote.Rep. Al Green was able to force the vote under House rules, in what amounted to the most direct challenge yet to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's handling of impeachment.The vote showcased the stark divide among Democrats, who split over the vote to kill the impeachment measure.His decision to bring up his impeachment resolution presented a dilemma for impeachment supporters and moderate Democrats alike, as they're now on the record on a vote related to impeachment, even if Green's resolution was only focused on one issue — what he says is the President's "bigotry and racism" — of many where Democrats are wrestling with whether to move forward on impeachment. .Green was able to force the House to take up his impeachment articles because it's considered a privileged resolution under the House rules. While any House member can introduce a privileged resolution on the floor — and Green introduced similar resolutions twice while Republicans were control — Pelosi has until now held her party back from doing so since Democrats took control of chamber, despite more than 80 members pushing for the start of an impeachment inquiry.Republicans helped Democrats table the resolution to show bipartisan opposition to impeaching the President on the grounds laid out in the Green resolution, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. The White House wanted a strong vote to kill the resolution, a source familiar with White House thinking said.Ahead of the vote, Green dismissed calls from within his party to hold off on the resolution, which he introduced Tuesday evening, arguing that impeachment should follow Tuesday's House vote that condemned the President's racist tweets."I should not hold off, we should go forward as expeditiously as possible and we should do so because on yesterday we convicted the President ... The condemnation was a conviction. Today we have the opportunity to punish," Green said a reference to the resolution that passed Tuesday condemning racist language used by the President. "As a result of what we did yesterday, the President suffers no harm, he doesn't have to pay any fine, he's not going to lose his job. But today we have the opportunity to punish."Democrats have been wrestling with the question of impeachment since taking control of the House, and now more than a third of House Democrats publicly support opening an impeachment inquiry. But Pelosi has resisted those efforts, saying they should not move forward with impeachment unless the public is on their side."With all the respect in the world for him, we have six committees that are working on following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the rest that the President may have engaged in," Pelosi said. "That is the serious path that we are on, not that Mr. Green is not serious, but we'll deal with that on the floor."Green is bringing up the impeachment resolution a week before special counsel Robert Mueller testifies publicly before the House, an event that many impeachment backers say will be key to sway the public — and skeptical lawmakers — on impeachment."Our focus should be on making sure that the Mueller hearing goes well," said House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York.Other House Democrats who support beginning an impeachment inquiry — and in some cases moving forward with articles of impeachment — said they would support Green's measure, even if they didn't agree with his decision to bring it up now."If I thought it was a really good idea I'd have done it myself," said Rep. Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat who will support Green's resolution."I don't think this is the wisest moment," said Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Texas Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "I mean, believe me, this is something that I wrestle with myself and I think that the president is unfit for office and so I need to think through it, but ... we have an important process ahead that we really need to follow."But Green said he chose to move forward with his resolution because he thinks Congress should send Trump "a powerful message that this country will not tolerate bigotry, racism, hate, xenophobia, Islamophobia."He noted that his impeachment resolution is not connected to Mueller or the findings of his investigation."You don't delay justice. The Mueller hearing has nothing to do with what we're doing now. The Mueller hearing is all about obstruction, this is about bigotry and racism and that racism that's been infused into policy," Green said.In December 2017 and January 2018, Green also introduced privileged impeachment resolutions, which were both tabbed by the Republican-led House. The resolutions were killed in votes of 364-58 and 355-66, respectively, with a majority of Democrats joining Republicans to defeat them in both cases. 5118

来源：资阳报