梅州怎么整容脸(梅州哪个医院看妇科病好) (今日更新中)

RICHMOND, Va - An EMT with the Richmond Ambulance Authority (RAA) is a one-of-a-kind essential worker to her family, and now she has the doll to prove it.April O'Quinn was one of five national winners in the "Heroes with Heart" contest, run by American Girl.Families were asked to nominate a hero fighting COVID-19 who risked their lives to help others during the pandemic.O'Quinn was nominated by her niece, Lacey, who lives in Texas. Lacey nominated her aunt after the EMT worker returned to work after recovering from COVID-19."The lung problems were probably the worst part for me. I couldn't lay down. I had to sit up. I slept sitting up," O'Quinn said.Emergency Medical Services seemed like the perfect fit for O'Quinn, and she didn't hesitate to return once doctors gave her the OK."She didn't hesitate for a moment," Lacey wrote on her contest submission, which was published by American Girl."I feel very fortunate that I only have the minor problems that I have and I can be back to work," O'Quinn said. "I like to get in there, help people, and then step back into the dark."O'Quinn got a phone call last month from Lacey with the exciting news."Lacey was on the other side screaming that we had won — I was in shock," O'Quinn said. "I had no words. I ended up crying because I couldn't say anything.""The excitement and smiles as she opened her hero doll were all worth it," she said.April is now one of five essential workers nationwide celebrated by American Girl."We at the Richmond Ambulance Authority are so excited for April and her niece Lacey. We're thankful American Girl held a contest to recognize our frontline heroes and are thrilled to have one of our employees represent EMS," RAA CEO Chip Decker said.The winners received a custom American Girl Doll and outfit in their hero's likeness and a 0 gift card."The stars and brightness in her face and eyes was amazing. It was all worth the pictures, even though I hate pictures," O'Quinn said.The review she cares about most is holding onto her doll thousands of miles away in Texas."It'll be something that neither one of us will ever forget. It's a bond that I'll hold with her forever," O'Quinn said.This story was originally published by Jake Burns on WTVR in Richmond, Virginia. 2267

Roger Stone associate Jerome Corsi said Monday he expects to be indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for "giving false information to the special counsel or to one of the other grand jury."Corsi made the comment during his streaming show on YouTube."And now I fully anticipate that the next few days, I will be indicted by Mueller for some form or other of giving false information to the special counsel or to one of the other grand jury or however they want to do the indictment. But I'm going to be criminally charged," Corsi said Monday.Corsi's lawyer declined to comment.Corsi could face any number of charges -- spanning from perjury to making false claims to obstruction of justice. The potential charges are related to false statements he made about his relationship with WikiLeaks and Stone.Corsi has been involved in Mueller's investigation for roughly two months and had already been subpoenaed for documents and testimony before the grand jury, and he complied with both.Corsi's role in the investigation largely revolves around the possibility that he was an intermediary between Stone and WikiLeaks.During the 2016 campaign, Stone publicly bragged about having "backchannel communications" with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and on several occasions appeared to predict the WikiLeaks releases that roiled the race in the final stretch of the campaign. But in the two years since Trump's victory, Stone has walked back those claims and said his "backchannel" was merely New York radio host Randy Credico sharing information about his interviews with Assange. Credico denies serving as an intermediary between the two.Investigators have been skeptical of Stone's explanation. CNN has reported that?Mueller's team is examining the possibility that Stone had another intermediary beyond Credico, and that Corsi might have been involved.Corsi injected himself into Stone's situation last year when he claimed that one of his own articles for InfoWars inspired Stone to predict in October 2016 that there would be trouble coming for Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Not long after that, WikiLeaks started releasing thousands of Podesta's hacked emails.Stone denies that he ever told Trump about WikiLeaks' dumps before they became public. He also denies colluding with Russia.The-CNN-Wire 2331

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. (AP) — California is looking to tighten the rules about children under 13 using social media.The state Senate voted 31-4 on Thursday to require social media companies to first get the consent of a parent or guardian before creating an account for a child the company knows is under 13.Federal law already requires social media companies to get parental consent before collecting or selling data of children under 13. That's why most social media companies, including Facebook, already ban children under 13 from creating accounts.Democratic Sen. Henry Stern says the bill will protect children. But Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener says the bill would harm LGBT youth who live in abusive households by isolating them from others like them.The bill now heads to the state Assembly. 803

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom overruled a parole board's decision to free Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten on Monday, marking the third time a governor has stopped the release of the youngest member of Manson's murderous cult.Van Houten, 69, is still a threat, Newsom said, though she has spent nearly half a century behind bars and received reports of good behavior and testimonials about her rehabilitation."While I commend Ms. Van Houten for her efforts at rehabilitation and acknowledge her youth at the time of the crimes, I am concerned about her role in these killings and her potential for future violence," he wrote in his decision. "Ms. Van Houten was an eager participant in the killing of the LaBiancas and played a significant role."Van Houten was 19 when she and other cult members stabbed to death wealthy Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, in August 1969. She said they carved up Leno LaBianca's body and smeared the couple's blood on the walls.The slayings came the day after other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others in violence that spread fear throughout Los Angeles and riveted the nation.No one who took part in the Tate-LaBianca murders has been released from prison. It was the first time Newsom rejected parole for Van Houten, while former Gov. Jerry Brown denied her release twice."Nobody wants to put their name on her release, but when they're speaking honestly or off the record, everyone wants her to go home," said Van Houten's attorney, Rich Pfeiffer.Newsom is "going to have more political aspirations that go well beyond the state of California, and he doesn't want this tagging behind him," he added. "Not a surprise. I would have been shocked if he would have said 'Go home.'"Earlier this year, Newsom reversed a parole recommendation to free Manson follower Robert Beausoleil for an unrelated murder. Beausoleil was convicted of killing musician Gary Hinman.Newsom's decision on Van Houten outlined her participation in graphic detail, noting that after the killings, she "drank chocolate milk from the LaBiancas' refrigerator" before fleeing."The gruesome crimes perpetuated by Ms. Van Houten and other Manson Family members in an attempt to incite social chaos continue to inspire fear to this day," Newsom wrote.Van Houten is still minimizing her responsibility and Manson's "violent and controlling actions," he said, and she continues to lack insight into her reasons for participating.Van Houten's lawyer said in January after her latest release recommendation that the parole board found she had taken full responsibility for her role in the killings."She chose to go with Manson," Pfeiffer said. "She chose to listen to him. And she acknowledges that."Van Houten has described a troubled childhood that led her to use drugs and hang around with outcasts. When she was 17, she and a boyfriend ran away to San Francisco during the so-called Summer of Love in 1967.She later encountered Manson while traveling the coast. Manson had holed up with his "family" at an abandoned movie ranch on the outskirts of Los Angeles when he launched a plan to spark a race war by committing a series of random, terrifying murders.Brown rejected parole for Van Houten in 2017 because he said she still blamed the cult leader too much for the murders. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge upheld Brown's decision last year, finding that Van Houten posed "an unreasonable risk of danger to society."An appeals court will decide whether to uphold or reject that ruling by the end of July."No governor's ever going to let her out," said Pfeiffer, Van Houten's attorney who's pinning his hopes on the appeals court. "They are bound by law to enforce the law independently. They have to do it whether or not it's popular with the public ... and the law is that she should be released."Manson and his followers were sentenced to death in 1971, though those punishments were commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972. Van Houten's case was overturned on appeal and she was later convicted and sentenced to seven years to life in prison.Tate's sister, Debra Tate, has routinely shown up to parole and court hearings to oppose the release of any Manson follower. Even though Van Houten didn't take part in her sister's murder, Tate said she didn't deserve release under any circumstances.Supporters of Van Houten said she had been a model prisoner who mentored dozens of inmates and helped them come to terms with their crimes.Manson died in 2017 of natural causes at a California hospital while serving a life sentence. 4729

来源：资阳报