梅州淋菌性尿道炎检查(梅州高中的少女怀孕怎么办) (今日更新中)

The Justice Department responded to CNN's lawsuit over the revocation of Jim Acosta's press pass on Wednesday, saying in a court filing that the White House rejects the idea that it can't pick and choose which journalists can be given a permanent pass to cover it."The President and White House possess the same broad discretion to regulate access to the White House for journalists (and other members of the public) that they possess to select which journalists receive interviews, or which journalists they acknowledge at press conferences," lawyers say in the filing.Both CNN and Acosta are plaintiffs. The suit alleges that their First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban.Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday at 3:30 p.m.CNN and Acosta are asking Kelly for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his access right away.Lawyers for CNN and Acosta are arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.They are also seeking a declaration that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."This is a very, very important case," Ted Olson said. Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN along with another prominent outside attorney, Theodore Boutrous, and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, but "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," he said in an interview with CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin.CNN's lawyers say the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights.Tuesday's lawsuit rejected the White House's claim that Acosta acted inappropriately at a press conference last week. The suit says this is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.Many media law experts, unaffiliated with CNN, believe the network has a very strong case.Judge Andrew Napolitano, the top legal analyst on Trump's favorite network, Fox News, said the same thing on Tuesday. "I think this will be resolved quickly," he said, adding "I think it will either be settled or CNN will prevail on motion."If there is no settlement, CNN is requesting a jury trial.In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Boutrous said the government officials are being sued in their "official capacity," but "there is a possibility of damages claims," which would mean suing them personally.Blitzer pointed out that the officials would have to "go out and hire their own attorneys."It is incredibly rare to see a news organization suing a president.Fox News supports CNN in lawsuit against White House, network's president saysFred Ryan, the publisher and CEO of the Washington Post, expressed his support for the action Tuesday night. "We support CNN in its effort to restore the press credentials of its White House reporter," Ryan said. "It is a journalist's role to ask hard questions, hold the powerful to account and provide readers with as much information as possible."The White House Correspondents' Association is also standing behind CNN. The group said Tuesday that the president "should not be in the business of arbitrarily picking the men and women who cover him." 3956

The New York state attorney general's civil lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, President Donald Trump and his three eldest children can proceed after a state court judge on Friday denied their motion to dismiss the case.In her decision, Justice Saliann Scarpulla ruled that a sitting president can face a civil lawsuit in state court for actions not taken in his official capacity. That ruling puts Scarpulla in agreement with another recent ruling against Trump, a decision in the defamation lawsuit brought against him by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on "The Apprentice."And, Scarpulla said, it is in line with the US Supreme Court's 1997 ruling concerning President Bill Clinton in response to Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit."Allowing this action to proceed is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Clinton v. Jones that the President of the United States is 'subject to the laws for his purely private acts,'" Scarpulla wrote.As she did in court in October, the judge noted that Trump has appealed the Zervos decision, and if the appeals court rules in his favor, the attorney general's office would likely need to amend its lawsuit to remove Trump himself as a defendant.The Trump Foundation case is being considered in the New York Supreme Court, the state's trial court.The suit, filed in June, names as defendants the foundation, Trump and his children Eric, Donald Jr. and Ivanka Trump, all of whom sat on the charity's board. It alleges that they violated federal and state charities law with a "persistent" pattern of conduct that included unlawful coordination with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.The attorney general's office, led by Barbara Underwood, is seeking to dissolve the Trump Foundation and wants .8 million in restitution, plus additional penalties. The office is also seeking to ban Trump from serving as a director of any New York nonprofit for 10 years and to prohibit the other board members, the Trump children, from serving for one year."As we detailed in our petition earlier this year, the Trump Foundation functioned as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump's business and political interests," Underwood said in a statement Friday. "There are rules that govern private foundations — and we intend to enforce them, no matter who runs the foundation."An attorney for the defendants, Alan Futerfas, said "the decision means only that the case goes forward. As we have maintained throughout, all of the money raised by the Foundation went to charitable causes to assist those most in need."He added: "As a result, we remain confident in the ultimate outcome of these proceedings."The judge gave the defendants 45 days to respond to the lawsuit. 2745

The number of US citizens seeking refuge in Canada skyrocketed last year.Exactly 2,550 Americans applied for asylum in Canada in 2017, according to data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. That's more than a sixfold increase from the 395 Americans who applied in 2016.It's believed that the hard-line immigration policies of President Donald Trump have fueled the increase in the number of Americans fleeing to Canada.The United States supplied the third-highest number of asylum-seekers to Canada in 2017, topped by Haiti (7,785 applicants) at No. 1 and Nigeria (6,005 applicants) at No. 2.There's a large number of asylum-seekers this year as well, with 1,215 Americans requesting refuge in Canada through the end of August.Canadian officials said that while Canada remains an open, welcoming country, crossing into it is not "a ticket for permanent residence.""Coming to Canada, asking for asylum in Canada is not a guarantee for permanent residence in Canada," Louis Dumas, a spokesman for the immigration ministry, said last year. 1063

The NFL is committing 0 million over 10 years to social justice initiatives, targeting what it calls “systemic racism” and supporting “the battle against the ongoing and historic injustices faced by African Americans.”The league, which has raised million in donations through its Inspire Change program, announced the additional 6 million commitment Thursday. It plans to “work collaboratively with NFL players to support programs to address criminal justice reform, police reforms, and economic and educational advancement.”Less than a week ago, Commissioner Roger Goodell denounced racism in a video prompted greatly by a players’ video seeking NFL action.“I am listening, and I will be reaching out to players who have raised their voices and others on how we can improve and go forward for a better and more united NFL family,” he said.The players want to see definitive action, of course. There has been increasing distrust of the NFL since San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick and others began kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 to protest social injustice and police brutality. The message was misconstrued by the league and many team owners as anti-military and anti-flag. Goodell admitted as much in his video, though never mentioning Kaepernick, who has not found an NFL job the last three seasons.That distrust was expressed Wednesday by 49ers star cornerback Richard Sherman.“They’ve tried their best to throw money behind it for a long time,” he said. “It takes more than that. It takes you literally calling out bigotry and being motivated. It’s not just pleading. It’s being consistent year in and year out that you’re combating this issue and that this is a problem that needs to change. And it’s not just this year, not just 2016, not just 2017, but ‘Black Lives Matter.’ They have to matter forever.”The Players Coalition was established in 2017 to work for social justice, growing out of the Kaepernick-inspired protests and pledging to improve police/community relations, champion criminal justice reform, and promote education and economic advancement in communities across the nation.Earlier this week, the coalition collected more than 1,400 signatures from active and retired athletes, coaches and executives from a variety of sports and presented them to Congress this week in support of a bill seeking to eliminate qualified immunity regarding police brutality. That bill was introduced in response to the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor while in police custody.Saints safety Malcolm Jenkins, a co-founder of the Players Coalition, spoke on CBS about the movement to defund police:“It doesn’t mean we eradicate police completely. We’ve got 10 million kids going to schools with police officers in them and no social workers. Three million that have got police in their schools and no nurses. Six million with police in their schools but no psychologists. Yet we want to invest in putting more police on the streets and over-policing that we know does not make our communities safer.“We’d rather see that money go to programs that help with entrepreneurship, that help with our schooling, that help with black people who have been disproportionately affected by COVID.”Some of the programs the NFL is targeting will deal with those issues, according to Anna Isaacson, the league’s senior vice president of social responsibility.“What this really is is a deeper and expanded commitment form the league and owners to say we are in this for the long haul,” she said. “It’s probably a deeper clarification on what we are meaning and focusing on. It has always been there, that focus, but obviously with current events and even before the last two weeks, conversations with the players have been on really focusing on this. Recent events solidified this has to be a key focus for us.”Isaacson mentions Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and Metro Peace Academy in Chicago as two organizations the league works with.“With Big Brothers and Big Sisters, we fund a program to bridge the gap in communication and understanding,” he said. “The program is pairing law enforcement officers with specific under-served youth, and those one-on-one relationships are to both the `Big’ and the `Little,′ as they call them, meant as a way to bridge whatever gaps exist. Building one-on-one relationships where trust is built and knowledge gained is essential.“In Chicago, we funded a program that does training with the community in how to work with their local police department and training with police on how to work with the community. That program is trying to reach the most at-risk youth and adults.“There are many such programs across the country that have started this work and are doing incredible work on the ground. We are looking for programs with a proven model and good track record and that has boots on the ground and treating people directly. National in scale, but that is truly the grass roots.“We’re making sure a lot of our grants are reaching down into the communities they serve, people to people and person to person.”___More AP NFL: https://apnews.com/NFL and https://twitter.com/AP_NFL 5156

The Justice Department has dropped its case against a woman who laughed out loud during the confirmation hearing for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, ending months of legal wrangling.The woman, Desiree Fairooz, was protesting with Code Pink, a progressive group whose activists are regularly seen around Washington. She was arrested by a Capitol Police officer after audibly laughing during Sessions' confirmation hearing in January.But prosecutors filed a "nolle prosequi," or notice that it would no longer pursue charges, with the DC Superior Court on Monday.She had been prosecuted by the DC US Attorney's Office and had been convicted of a misdemeanor before a judge threw out the conviction in July and ordered a new trial. The government had decided to retry the case after Fairooz rejected a plea deal, and a trial date had been set for next week.Fairooz tweeted the notice was a "relief" Monday night."Just received this, "Governments Notice of Nolle Prosequi" What a relief! Guess they've got enough "laughing" matters to deal with!" she tweeted.The US Attorney's Office declined to explain what had changed."The US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia yesterday filed a notice dismissing the case involving Desiree Ali-Fairooz," said spokesman Bill Miller. "The US Attorney's Office typically does not discuss charging decisions, and has no comment on the decision to dismiss this particular case."The original arrest happened after Fairooz laughed after Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby told senators at Sessions' confirmation hearing that his former colleague had a record of "treating all Americans equally under the law."Her laughter lasted a few seconds and Shelby continued with his speech without acknowledging the disturbance.Fairooz's attorney said in a statement his client is "relieved and happy" about the result."Yesterday the government dismissed the case for reasons I can only speculate about. And which I may never fully know (though I have various theories)," Samuel Bogash said in an email. "Though as her lawyer I would have preferred a 'not guilty' at the first trial, I'm happy for Ms. Fairooz." 2156

来源：资阳报