喀什哪家看勃起障碍好喀什男人割包皮医院,喀什治男科病花多少钱,喀什妇科不要孩子医院好吗,喀什人流疾病医院,喀什男科很好的医院,喀什哪个医院做处女膜修复,喀什看专科男科哪个医院较好

The nor'easter whipped New England with snow early Thursday, a day after it brought another round of blackouts, treacherous roads and canceled flights to the East Coast.The storm dumped snow in several states Wednesday, including New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It started winding down as it shifted its focus to New England overnight, where it'll linger for a day, unleashing a messy mix of rain and snow.About 19 million people, from Connecticut to Maine, remained under winter storm warnings and watches after a deadly "bomb cyclone" hit the area last week. But this storm is less severe than the previous one on March 2, which left at least six people dead. Snow and rain remain a concern, along with the aftermath of fallen trees, knocked out power lines and slippery roads.Here's what to expect: Focus is on New England 845

The polls close at 8 p.m. and the first election results should be in shortly after. Follow the election results from the state of California below: 156

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 political ramifications of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday will likely ripple into November and beyond.Her death coming in the final two months of the 2020 presidential election will bring up considerable questions on who will replace her, especially given the divided nature of the Supreme Court.The court, which has seen its share of 5-4 decisions in recent years, could become a reliably conservative court for years to come if President Donald Trump is able to push through a nominee leading up to the election.Currently the court holds five Republican-appointed justices and three Democratic-appointed justice, but Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, has sometimes been a swing vote, siding with the liberals.But one person who is opposing a last-minute appointment to the bench was apparently Ginsburg herself.Dictating a statement to family that was released to NPR, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”In 2016, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's death came nine months before the presidential election, and became a focal point of that year's election. President Barack Obama attempted to fill the seat, but Republicans in the Senate blocked the appointment.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reminded Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday of that fact.“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” Schumer tweeted, which were the exact words used by McConnell in 2016.On Friday, McConnell confirmed that a potential nominee would get a vote in the Senate, but there are questions on whether a potential nominee would have enough support to be confirmed. "President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate," McConnell said. McConnell said this situation is different because Republicans control the White House. "Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise," McConnell said.Just last week, Trump released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees. That list can be seen here.Joe Biden agreed with Schumer. "The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg," Biden said. "This was the position that the Republican Senate took in 2016, when there were nearly nine months before the election. That is the position the United States Senate must take now, when the election is less than two months away. We are talking about the Constitution and the Supreme Court. That institution should not be subject to politics."HOW A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IS CONFIRMED- The president nominates a replacement to be vetted by the Supreme Court.- After vetting the nominee, the Senate may take a vote to accept the nomination. The vote nomination must have 51 votes in order to pass. If there is a tie, the vice president can vote to break a tie.- There are 53 Republicans in the US Senate. It would take four Republicans to vote in opposition in order for a potential nominee not to be approved. 3322

The Iran nuclear deal may be doomed, at least if you believe the global oil market.Oil prices have surged?partly because of mounting expectations that President Trump will kill the 2015 agreement, which allowed Iran to export more crude. Trump must decide by May 12 whether to re-impose sanctions on the OPEC nation.Brent crude, the global benchmark, briefly soared above a barrel on Monday after Israel leveled new nuclear allegations against Iran.Bringing back sanctions on Iran could knock out as much as 1 million barrels per day of crude supply, dealing a blow to increasingly fragile energy markets."There will be a significant disruption," said Michael Wittner, global head of oil research at Societe Generale."The market is assuming that oil sanctions will snap back onto Iran," he said.Trump said on Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech on Iran helps show he's "100% right" about the Iranian nuclear agreement, which was signed by former President Barack Obama."We'll see what happens," Trump said about his decision on the Iran deal. "I'm not telling you what I'm doing, but a lot of people think they know."The oil market certainly thinks it knows. The price of Brent crude has soared 7% this year, and the US benchmark has soared 8% to nearly a barrel for the first time since late 2014. Oil prices have been lifted by concerns about the fate of the Iran deal as well as strong demand and supply cuts by OPEC and Russia."The Iranian nuclear deal is dead in the water and a Trump torpedo is fast approaching," Stephen Brennock, oil analyst at brokerage firm PVM Oil Associates, wrote to clients late last week.Under the deal, Iran agreed to limits on its nuclear activities, including bans on enrichment at key facilities. In exchange, sanctions were lifted in early 2016, freeing Iran to quickly boost its oil production by about 1 million barrels per day. Iran found eager customers for its crude in Europe, Japan, India and South Korea.It's "now looking increasingly likely" that Trump will not renew the waiver on Iranian sanctions by May 12, according to energy research firm FGE. 2153