济南男科检查单(济南尿道感染该怎么办) (今日更新中)

Jerome Corsi is suing Robert Mueller in federal court in the District of Columbia.Previously, the Roger Stone acquaintance testified before the Mueller grand jury and publicly released a draft version of a criminal false statements plea with the Special Counsel's Office -- to which he refused to agree.Now in the lawsuit, Corsi says federal authorities have unconstitutionally searched his electronic records and his phone.The lawsuit is the latest example of pushback from individuals called upon by Mueller to provide information in the Russia probe.Corsi claims that because he investigated Hillary Clinton's missing emails in 2016 and guessed Wikileaks would leak hacked emails from Clinton's campaign chairman, Mueller has unfairly targeted him."Defendant Mueller has threatened to indict Plaintiff Corsi and effectively put him in federal prison for the rest of his life unless Plaintiff Corsi would provide the false testimony that they demanded, even after being informed that the testimony desired would be false," Corsi wrote in the lawsuit.Corsi, who has talked about his experience with the investigation to media and on his own show, also claims that Mueller has leaked grand jury secrets without providing any specific evidence beyond an article where sources are not described.As an example, Corsi cites an ABC News article detailing how he has become a "central figure" in the Mueller probe and says Mueller spokesman Peter Carr periodically meets with journalists at the Paul coffee shop at 8th and Pennsylvania Avenue to leak information at Mueller's direction. Corsi provided an email between Carr and a journalist as proof, though it did not indicate any specific topic that was discussed or include any evidence of reporting from the journalist to prove a leak."These leaks are meant to pressure Plaintiff Corsi into providing the false testimony that Defendant Mueller and his staff seek by portraying Plaintiff Corsi negatively through the media, as well as to destroy him if he does not comply," Corsi writes in the lawsuit."These leaks are also intended to send a message to other supporters of the president that they had best comply with the unlawful demands of Defendant Mueller and his prosecutorial staff or be indicted or at the least irreparably smeared and destroyed in the public domain."The lawsuit was filed Sunday night by Corsi's lawyer, the conservative freedom of information advocate Larry Klayman. Klayman previously won access to a collection of emails between the Special Counsel's Office and reporters, and attached some of these as exhibits in the case.Mueller himself, as well as the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA and National Security Agency are named as defendants.Corsi, who has connections to the far-right conspiracy theory website Infowars, is asking for more than 0 million in damages. CNN contacted the Special Counsel's Office for comment on the lawsuit Sunday, but did not immediately receive a response. 2990

Just minutes after being criticized by the president of the United States, Gov. Andrew Cuomo defended his establishment of a panel to review a federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine, and said the president's threat to hold back distribution in New York was retaliatory and personal.In interviews with MSNBC and CNN, Cuomo said New York is one of a handful of states with such panels, created due to public concerns over the safety of a shot, with fears that the race to an effective coronavirus vaccine had become politicized."An overwhelming number of Americans are worried about political interference...by the president," he said.The point of the review panel, he said, is to give New Yorkers peace of mind that the vaccine is safe.In a Rose Garden address touting the success of COVID-19 vaccine trials, President Donald Trump slammed Cuomo over a recent policy to essentially double-check federal authorization for a vaccine.Trump said the vaccine would be available in the spring for essentially the entire country, except for New York."As soon as April, the vaccine will be available to the entire general population, with the exception of places like New York state where, for political reasons, the governor decided to say, 'I don't think it's good politically.' I think it's very bad from a health standpoint, he wants to take his time with the vaccine," Trump said.Trump's last day in office is Jan. 20. (The Associated Press has previously projected Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.)"Gov. Cuomo will have to let us know when he's ready for it, otherwise we can't be delivering it to a state that won't be giving it to its people immediately."Cuomo said Friday that any review by the state panel would be done concurrently with federal review, and there would be no lag in a distribution timetable.Whenever the federal government is ready to begin shipping doses, New York will be ready to distribute, Cuomo said.“There will be no delay. Our review will be simultaneous with [FDA] delivery."And if New York is deliberately passed over, legal action is to come.In a release Friday, State Attorney General Letitia James said she'd sue if New York doesn't get vaccine doses.“This is nothing more than vindictive behavior by a lame-duck president trying to extract vengeance on those who oppose his politics," she said. "Once there is a fully-developed COVID-19 vaccine, we are confident that a Biden-Harris Administration will provide New York with the proper number of doses so that our state’s residents can achieve immunity. If dissemination of the vaccine takes place in the twilight of a Trump Administration and the president wants to play games with people’s lives, we will sue and we will win.”This article was written by Corey Crockett for WPIX. 2779

KENOSHA, Wisc. — If police spotted the teen reportedly carrying a rifle in Kenosha Tuesday night, they could have stopped him to find out if he was committing a crime before he allegedly killed two protesters and injured a third.Images of people openly carrying guns during protests in Milwaukee and Kenosha this summer may make some people feel uneasy. But they are not breaking the law.Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning anyone who gets a gun legally can carry it in most public places without a license or permit.But that's not the case for minors like 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, who is accused of shooting three protesters in Kenosha Tuesday night, killing two of them.Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis confirmed to reporters Wednesday that you have to be 18 to open carry in the state of Wisconsin.And according to a 2009 memo from the Wisconsin Department of Justice, police can stop someone openly carrying a gun to determine if a crime is being committed.The DOJ says officers can stop someone if they have "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity, adding Wisconsin's open carry law, "...is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution."In this case, police could have asked Rittenhouse how old he was and stopped him before he allegedly pulled the trigger.There are some exceptions in Wisconsin state law allowing minors to carry guns, including if they are in the military and in the line of duty, as well as if they are under adult supervision and using it for target practice or instruction. State law also allows exemptions for hunting purposes.This story originally reported by Marty Hobe on TMJ4.com. 1663

Just three weeks before facing voters, Sen. Kamala Harris questioned Judge Amy Coney Barrett for 30 minutes during Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Tuesday.Harris, Joe Biden’s running mate and Democratic candidate for vice president, largely used her allotted time to point toward President Donald Trump’s campaign goal of eliminating the Affordable Care Act.Democrats, like Harris, have zeroed in on their belief that Barrett would vote to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Barack Obama nearly a decade ago.Just one week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear another GOP-led challenge to the law. In 2012, the Affordable Care Act was “saved” in a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court as justices said that the law should stand as it levied a tax penalty for those without health care. In 2017, the individual mandate was struck down, meaning there is no longer a tax penalty component to Obamacare. Now the argument comes back to the Supreme Court, as Republicans claim the court's previous ruling is moot given there is no longer a tax penalty.Harris pointed to a previous op-ed pinned by Barrett when she was a law professor at Notre Dame to claim Barrett would rule against Obamacare. Barrett wrote that the Affordable Care Act should have been overturned in 2012."You've already opined the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. And that position satisfied the president's promise to only nominate judges who would tear down the Affordable Care Act,” Harris said.Barrett fired back, and added that she has made no commitment to the Trump administration on overturning the act.“Question would be figuring out whether Congress, assuming that the mandate is unconstitutional now, whether that consistent with your intent,” Barrett said.Harris then pressed Barrett on her views on Roe vs. Wade. Barrett said multiple times throughout the hearing that she would not offer an opinion on the 1970s-era ruling that largely has kept abortion legal throughout the US.“I would suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose,” Harris said.Harris was questioned by Mike Pence at last week’s vice presidential debate on whether her and Biden would be supportive of expanding the Supreme Court. Harris avoided the question, and Biden had largely avoided the question until last night, stating he was not supportive of expanding the Supreme Court. 2487

KENOSHA, Wis. — A Kenosha County Court Commissioner ruled there is enough evidence for Kyle Rittenhouse to stand trial for homicide charges. A preliminary hearing was held this morning in Kenosha. Rittenhouse appeared virtually from his lawyers office in Racine.Rittenhouse and his mother were dropped off in front of Mark Richards’ office. Rittenhouse is free on a million bail. Rittenhouse didn’t say anything as he walked inside.His mother said, “ Get away from me.”During the hearing, Rittenhouse sat quietly with a mask. He lowered it so his lawyer could identify him to the court.“I will stipulate my client is seated in the blue shirt, he just pulled his mask down,” said Richards.The defense first asked for two of the charges in the case to be dismissed, reckless endangering safety and possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor. The defense argued the possession of a weapon charge, in part, was a violation of Rittenhouse’s 2nd amendment rights. The prosecution disagreed.“This is a situation where a teenager went running around the streets of Kenosha with a very dangerous weapon. And this is exactly why we have this law because a teenager, in this case, killed two people and shot a third because teenagers shouldn’t be allowed to run around with dangerous weapons because bad things happen,” said Thomas Binger, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney.The court rejected the motion to dismiss the two charges. It also ruled on whether there was enough evidence to more Rittenhouse’s case to a trial.Prosecutors laid out parts of their case, calling a Kenosha Police Detective Benjamin Antaramian to testify about what happened the night of Aug. 25.“An investigation later determined Joseph Rosenbaum was shot in the parking lot later to be determined to be deceased and then Kyle Rittenhouse was the shooter on that scene he fled that incident,” said Antaramian.The detective testified Rittenhouse went on to shot and kill Anthony Huber and seriously wound Gaige Grosskreutz. The defense then cross-examined the detective, showing still photos from the night of the shooting.“Mr. Grosskreutz, in his right hand, you can clearly see a firearm, correct?” Ssked Richards.“Yes sir,” answered Antaramian.“He is pointing it at my client correct,” said Richards.“It appears so,” said Antaramian.But the prosecutor said a self-defense argument for a jury to decide, not a preliminary hearing.“All this court needs to find was that a felony was committed and probably committed with this defendant,” said Thomas Binger, the assistant district attorney of Kenosha County.The court agreed. Rittenhouse moves forward with a trial in Kenosha. He will be back in court Jan. 5, 2021 for an arraignment hearing. 2727

来源：资阳报