喀什怎样医治 阳痿早泄喀什四维预约,喀什附近泌尿专科医院,喀什妇科医院哪家好呢,喀什尿道发炎哪家医院专业治疗,喀什怀孕多长时间可以用试纸查出来,喀什验孕纸一道深一道浅,喀什做包皮手术疼不

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Governor Jerry Brown has agreed to deploy 400 National Guard troops at President Donald Trump’s request, according to the Associated Press.Brown specified that not all the troops will head to the U.S.-Mexico border and none will enforce federal immigration enforcement.The troops will focus on fighting drug crime, firearms smuggling and human tracking, a letter sent to the Trump by Brown Wednesday said.RELATED: Trump signs memo sending National Guard to secure border?"Combating these criminal threats are priorities for all Americans --Republicans and Democrats," Brown wrote. "That's why the state and the Guard have long supported this important work and agreed to similar targeted assistance in 2006 under President Bush and in 2010 under President Obama.""But let's be crystal clear on the scope of this mission," Brown wrote. "This will not be a mission to build a new wall. It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life. And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws."Governors in the border states of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico have already deployed troops to the border. Until Wednesday, California was the only state that didn’t respond to Trump’s request.RELATED: Texas Governor Greg Abbott to send additional National Guard troops to Mexico border?Trump has said he wants up to 4,000 troops to be sent to the border to combat illegal immigration and drug trafficking.Brown said the deployment will happen pending review and approval of the federal government. 1613

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California health officials have reported the state's first coronavirus death of a child.The state Department of Public Health said Friday the victim was a teenager, had other health conditions and died in the Central Valley.No other details were released.The state's death toll surpassed 9,000 on Friday, and three-quarters were 65 and older.Only about 9% of California's half-million confirmed virus cases are children, and very few have suffered conditions serious enough for hospitalization.Scientists still aren't certain why children don't seem to be as seriously affected by the virus as adults. 637

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is willing to throw a financial lifeline to the state's major utilities dealing with the results of disastrous wildfires — but only if they agree to concessions including tying executive compensation to safety performance.A proposal unveiled Friday by Newsom's office aims to stabilize California's investor-owned utilities and protect wildfire victims as the state faces increasingly destructive blazes. Regulators say some previous fires were caused by utility equipment.Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., the largest of the three investor-owned utilities, filed for bankruptcy in January as it faced tens of billions of dollars in potential costs from blazes, including the November fire that killed 85 people in the Paradise area.Newsom hopes to strike a deal with lawmakers in just three weeks, but leaders in the Legislature said they haven't been given a formal legislative proposal and would need to go through their normal review process.The plan comes as credit ratings agencies look wearily upon the utilities.Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric had their ratings downgraded earlier this year, and executives have pushed lawmakers to come up with a plan that stabilizes the industry.Newsom proposal would give Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric the power to decide which form of financial aid they want, based on whether they're willing to make their shareholders contribute.They could choose a liquidity fund to tap to quickly pay out wildfire claims or a larger insurance fund that would pay claims directly to people who lose their homes to fire.The ratings agency Moody's has said creating a sort of insurance or liquidity fund would have a positive impact on the credit of utilities in the state.The liquidity fund would be about .5 billion and paid for by a surcharge on ratepayers, said Ana Matosantos, Newsom's cabinet secretary. If utilities want the larger insurance fund, they'd have to pitch in another .5 billion. Both utilities have to agree on which option to choose. Officials at neither company immediately responded to requests for comment.PG&E would not get a say in which fund the state uses or be able to tap a fund until it resolves its claims from the 2017 and 2018 wildfire seasons and emerges from bankruptcy. Its exit plan could not harm ratepayers and it would have to continue the utility's contributions to California's clean energy goals.The utilities would have to implement a number of safety measures to tap into the fund, such as tying executive compensation to safety, forming a safety committee within its board of directors and complying with wildfire mitigation plans.State legislators voted last year to require California's electric companies to adopt those plans. Southern California Edison told legislative staff last year the company wants to spend 2 million to improve power lines and deploy new cameras in high-risk areas.PG&E has said it will inspect 5,500 additional miles of power lines and build 1,300 new weather stations to improve forecasting. Most of its inspections are done, officials said.The state would also require power companies to spend a combined billion on safety over three years. This would include upgrading utility infrastructure as well as developing new early warning and fire detection technologies.Companies would be able to pass on the actual costs of these measures to consumers but could not make a profit off the steps.The California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates utilities, would decide how that billion is split up. Newsom's plan would also create a Wildfire Safety Division and Advisory Board at the CPUC.Matosantos described the draft requirements for additional safety spending as unprecedented and argued that mandating companies meet those guidelines to tap into the fund protects electric customers from paying for the costs of a catastrophic wildfire.Still, lawmakers plan to do their own analysis of the proposal."In order for any solution to work, the Legislature and governor will have to work together," Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins, a fellow Democrat, said in a statement. 4234

SACRAMENTO (KGTV) -- California ranks 37th in the nation for DUI fatalities and some cities have a DUI fatality rate two times higher than the state average, according to a new study.According to the study by ValuePenguin.com, mid-sized cities in The Golden State pose the largest risk.The study shows that several mid-sized cities, Barstow, Desert Hot Springs and San Pablo had an average of more than 10 DUI-related fatalities per 100,000 residents in recent years, or more than 10 times the state average.The study also found that five California cities, Vista, Hemet, Delano, Murrieta and Pittsburg saw DUI fatalities increase between 140 to 700 percent between 2012 and 2017.See the chart below for the complete list of cities with the highest DUI fatalities:  783