梅州咨询慢性盆腔炎治疗梅州做流产的时间,梅州宫腔镜人流术,梅州韩式鼻尖整形手术,梅州几个月适合做人工流产,梅州阴道炎 影响,梅州阴道炎中医如何治疗,梅州怎么治疗慢性宫颈炎好

 The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday that he does not believe critical comments from a federal judge in Virginia will ultimately stop the special counsel's case against Paul Manafort."While, you know, it's certainly within the judge's prerogative to ask these questions, I don't think it really bears on the legal issues," California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on CNN's "State of the Union."On Friday, District Judge T.S. Ellis?caught the attention of many, including President Donald Trump, when he said special counsel Robert Mueller's team was interested in going after Trump's former campaign manager in a bank fraud case in order to get at Trump. Mueller's team is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election and any potential ties between Russia and Trump campaign associates.Schiff questioned some of Ellis' statements, adding that nevertheless, Mueller's decisions on who to charge rested on firm legal ground."I'm not sure that it's germane, for example, for the judge to be asking how much Bob Mueller has spent on the investigation," Schiff said. "It's appropriate to ask about the scope of what Bob Mueller is doing, but he is well within the scope of his jurisdiction in charging Manafort and (former national security adviser Michael) Flynn and the others."Ellis' pointed comments came after Manafort asked the judge to review Mueller's authority to bring charges in an investigation that began well before the special counsel's appointment and focused on actions years before the campaign.Schiff said that although he was concerned about the judge's statements, he believed Mueller would nevertheless prevail."I think that Bob Mueller will prevail in the sense of being able to go forward with this litigation," Schiff said. "I don't think there's really any legal question about that. But yes, it is concerning that the judge would express this opinion"Pro-Trump attorney Joseph diGenova highlighted the comments from Ellis at length on "Fox News Sunday," calling it the beginning of a "national civics lesson."DiGenova, who had been considered for Trump's legal team handling the Russia probe, did not think the judge would necessarily toss the case against Manafort out. However, he said Ellis could possibly prevent the inclusion of evidence seized during a raid on Manafort's home, which diGenova called improper."Judge Ellis may very well not dismiss the case," diGenova said. "But he could also exclude from evidence anything seized in that outrageous raid of Paul Manafort's house." 2571

"A lie spreads faster than the truth," said Eric Feinberg, "Don't take it at face value.”Feinberg, Coalition for a Safer Web, works to understand the online world’s impact on our real one with the group.“Social media is about not listening to what other people are saying, but how can I attack that person about what they say?” Feinberg said.Sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have ramped up efforts to remove fake news.But some think they should be held responsible legally for misinformation. However, a law that’s been called "the most important for the internet" prevents that from happening.“This is a 1996 law that carried over from the last century that says no matter what’s posted on your platforms, you’re not responsible," Feinberg explained. "That was before social media."The law is in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and it gives sites like Facebook and Twitter the right to moderate what people post.Section 230 also protects social media companies from being held legally responsible for what is posted on their platforms, even if it's a conspiracy theory or misinformation."The argument was that AOL, Netscape, whatever those were years ago, they were the bulletin board; people had to bring their own tack and pen," Feinberg said. "Now, the social media companies, because of the algorithms, they are the bulletin, the paper tack and the pen they are giving you.”Both presidential candidates want Section 230 removed, but for different reasons.President Donald Trump feels it gives social media companies the ability to unfairly censor conservative voices.Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden says social media companies should not be exempt from being sued for misinformation that is posted on their platforms.Dr. Ryan Stanton has seen the real-world impact misinformation is having from his Kentucky hospital."The most common is this whole thing is a hoax," Dr. Stanton said. "I’ve had several people who have had to be admitted to the hospital and be intubated and those type of things, up until right before coming to the hospital felt that this virus was not a big deal."Doctors say when it comes to COVID-19, go beyond the social media post to the source.“I think the things to look for are things that are peer-reviewed," said infectious disease physician Dr. David Hirschwerk of New York's Northwell Health. "Peer-reviewed publications tend to be ones that can be trusted in addition local health departments.”Feinberg says it's important to look deeper into the accounts the information is coming from.“Check out who you are dealing with, check the name and profile see that they have. Very little social media activity look where they are from, and basically, these were created than nothing more to be distributed on newsfeeds," Feinberg explained.Feinberg’s biggest advice is to not let yourself get lost in the complicated and confusing web of social media.“Put the phone down and enjoy life,” he suggested. “Get off your phone and look around you, and don’t believe everything that you’re seeing on social media.” 3079

"I am truly sorry for my language and choice of words in a remark I made about Baker Mayfield that was captured on our live feed on TheLandOnDemand.I sincerely apologize for using a word that is a derogatory slur.There's no excuse for using that language in any context. It was said without malice but also without thought.It is well known that Baker and I have had our differences, and in the course of this experience, I've had to question my role in the erosion of the relationship. I have always endeavored to report and comment on him and the team fairly, and am shaken by these events. I will strive to be a better person and professional.I apologize to little people, Good Karma Brands, the Cleveland Browns, Baker Mayfield, to our listeners and to anyone who was offended by my remark." 802

 Spotify and Hulu are joining forces in an attempt to draw more subscribers to their platforms.The companies said Wednesday that a .99 per-month plan will get you access to Spotify's ad-free music streaming service and Hulu's basic package that allows you to stream TV shows and movies with some ad breaks.Paying for both services separately would set you back about — .99 for Spotify Premium and .99 for Hulu.The 71 million people who already have a .99-per-month Spotify Premium subscription will be able to grab the offer beginning Wednesday with an even steeper discount for the first three months. They'll be able to try out the Hulu subscription for .99 -- just one dollar more per month.The .99 offer will be extended to everyone this summer. Spotify spokesperson Alison Bonny said the deal will be available "indefinitely."Hulu and Spotify began offering a bundled subscription package to college students in September for .99 per month.Alex Norstrom, a Spotify executive, said in a statement Wednesday that the bundled package was "incredibly well received."Spotify, which made its debut on the New York Stock Exchange last week, is likely hoping the partnership will Hulu will attract new subscribers.While Spotify has roughly twice the number of paying customers as rival Apple Music, it's bound to face stiffer competition as Apple bolsters its original content as it goes "all-in" on TV.Meanwhile, Hulu has lagged behind rival Netflix, which has more than 85 million subscribers.But the platform has seen a surge in membership — growing to 17 million — thanks to popular original content, like the drama series based on Margaret Atwood's novel "The Handmaid's Tale." 1733

An Air Force veteran racked up millions more dollars on his fundraising page for President Donald Trump's U.S.-Mexico border wall, but it remained unclear Friday how the U.S. government would get the money.Brian Kolfage's GoFundMe page has raised more than million as of Friday afternoon to build the wall, whose funding was threatening a partial government shutdown. The crowdfunding page, which was launched less than a week ago, has a goal of billion.In a statement on the page, Kolfage assured contributors that the fundraiser was not a scam and that he had contacted the Trump administration about how to deliver the money.White House officials did not immediately return an email seeking comment Friday.RELATED: Counter GoFundMe wants to buy 'ladders to get over Trump's wall,' but it's not actually for laddersCitizens can mail money as "gifts to the United States," according to the U.S. Treasury Department. But it's not clear whether the Department of Homeland Security can accept gifts.Kolfage of Miramar Beach, Florida, wrote that donors would get a refund if the fundraising goal isn't met. The page has brought attention to Kolfage, a triple amputee who was wounded in the Iraq War in 2004, and his social media history. NBC News reported that Kolfage operated a Facebook page called "Right Wing News" and sites that promoted conspiracy theories. He told the news outlet that he didn't mention the page because he "didn't want it to be a distraction." "That shouldn't be the focus. My personal issues have nothing to do with building the wall," Kolfage said.He told The Associated Press in an email Thursday that he worked on "Right Wing News" but the rest of NBC's story "is not true." Kolfage did not respond Friday to multiple requests for comment from the AP. 1793