济南早泄怎样治疗较好(济南阳痿会治不好么) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON — In an extraordinary indictment, the U.S. special counsel accused 13 Russians Friday of an elaborate plot to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, charging them with running a huge but hidden social media trolling campaign aimed in part at helping Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.The federal indictment, brought by special counsel Robert Mueller, represents the most detailed allegations to date of illegal Russian meddling during the campaign that sent Trump to the White House. It also marks the first criminal charges against Russians believed to have secretly worked to influence the outcome.The latest indictment does not focus on the hacking but instead centers on a social media propaganda effort that began in 2014 and continued past the election, with the goal of producing distrust in the American political process. Trump himself has been reluctant to acknowledge the interference and any role that it might have played in propelling him to the White House.RELATED: US Says Russia Behind 'Most Destructive And Costly Cyberattack'The indictment does not allege that any American knowingly participated in Russian meddling, or suggest that Trump campaign associates had more than "unwitting" contact with some of the defendants who posed as Americans during election season. It does lay out a vast and wide-ranging effort to sway political opinion in the United States.In a statement to 10News Congressman Scott Peters said:“Today’s indictments by the Special Counsel confirm that this is no hoax - the Russians interfered, influenced, and tampered with our 2016 election and they are seeking to hurt our democracy. This underscores that Mr. Mueller must be allowed to complete his investigation free from interference and that we must follow the facts wherever they lead us. It’s also another reason for the President must immediately impose the Russian sanctions approved by Congress.”  1963

We all know weddings are expensive. Food, drinks, hiring a DJ, and renting a venue are just among the many costs a couple are expected to pay for. But what if a couple asks for some help on wedding costs? One couple in England are asking for their guests to cover wedding expenses, according to the BBC. Ben Farina told the BBC that their wedding will be "like an all-inclusive holiday" for those attending and paying ￡150 (2 US).Nearly 60 adult guests, along with 20 of their children, have agreed to attend and chip in. In return, guests will receive a three-night stay at a venue which has a spa and pool. According to the BBC, the venue in Derbyshire, England will cost nearly ,500, which is exactly how much the couple is expecting to receive from their guests. The couple have agreed to pay ,000 for drinks, dresses and suits. The groom's mother and father are also chipping in to pay for a hog roast. Farina's stepfather is a chef, and has agreed to cook the hog roast. "People always pay a large amount of money to go to a wedding anyway, so why not have it paying towards the actual wedding rather than just to a business owner?" Farina told the BBC."I sold it to them a bit like an all-inclusive holiday, so all the food and drinks will be incorporated in that cost.Farina's fiancee is on board with the idea. "I never thought we would be able to have a wedding like this," Clare Moran told the BBC. "We had spoken about marriage because we've got a little girl together and I always said we wouldn't be able to afford to do it, or it would have to be a registry office wedding, not a big wedding.RELATED: Will it rain on my wedding day? 1728

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld a 1991 law that bars robocalls to cellphones.The case was argued by telephone in May because of the coronavirus pandemic.It only arose after Congress in 2015 created an exception in the law that allows the automated calls for collection of government debt.Political consultants and pollsters were among those asking the Supreme Court to strike down the 1991 law that bars them from making robocalls to cellphones as a violation of their free speech rights under the Constitution.The issue was whether, by allowing one kind of speech but not others, the exception made the whole law unconstitutional. 654

We are continuing to actively search the Carolina Place Mall with multiple agencies in reference to a reported active shooter. The mall is evacuated and we have NO reported injuries.— Pineville Police (@PinevillePolice) December 24, 2020 251

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642

来源：资阳报