梅州处女膜修复手术后注意什么(梅州怀孕人流药流时间) (今日更新中)

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said 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. The lawsuit asserts that this ban 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.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine 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."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The colors of an autumn afternoon can be serene, brilliant and breathtaking.“As the days start getting shorter and the nights get longer, that's the cue that the trees get to change the foliage,” said climate scientist Astrid Caldas.That foliage requires a delicate dance of temperature and moisture to produce fall colors. It’s a dance potentially now in jeopardy due to climate change.“Because these things -- temperature and precipitation, rainfall -- are being affected, changed by climate, then the fall foliage can really get affected,” said Caldas, who is a senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science organization.She said long-term shifting temperature trends and more rain will be disruptive to fall foliage in certain parts of the country.“We are seeing extreme precipitation increase, particularly in the Northeast and the Midwest,” Caldas said.That precipitation was evident in Minnesota, where people found themselves caught off-guard this year by an unusually early snowfall."I had to completely disassemble my fall leaf clean-up box and make sure my plow is still working,” said Greg Futchi, who is a landscape contractor. “We usually get all the leaves down before we see some snow, but not this year."All of that added moisture can lead to a shorter fall foliage season, Caldas said. Yet, repeated and ongoing droughts, like those seen in the western U.S., also bring their own set of problems to autumn leaves.“When it’s very dry, the colors get a little more muted also,” Caldas said. “So, drought can really kind of change completely the setup.”Scientists add that climate change isn’t just going to affect the ways leaves change their colors during the fall. It’s also going to potentially affect where those trees grow in the first place.“When the conditions start changing --like it's starting to get warmer further and further north--well, that's also a possibility that species are going to start migrating farther north,” Caldas said. “So, as different trees start moving to different areas, then the colors may change because the color depends on the tree.”That may mean having to travel farther north to see stunning red maples. It is a change that will be hard to stop unless action is taken on a global scale.“In the long run, if the countries and the whole world is not committed to really reducing emissions and changing to renewables and making that complete change, then it's going to be very hard for us not to see very drastic changes, because small changes are already happening,” Caldas said.Those changes are now encroaching on a time-honored spectacle, courtesy of Mother Nature. 2667

The Emmy Awards will be held live, and socially distanced, Sunday night to celebrate excellence in the television industry. It will be the first big Hollywood event broadcasted live amid the pandemic.Jimmy Kimmel will host from the Staples Center in Los Angeles. Other celebrities taking part include Morgan Freeman, Lin-Manuel Miranda, D-Nice, Patrick Stewart, Jason Bateman, Laverne Cox, Abbi Jacobson, RuPaul and Oprah Winfrey.Rather than using taped segments or elements like other awards shows this year, the Emmys will be using 130 cameras in 20 cities in ten countries to achieve a live show.Some of the nominees will be participating from home, surrounded by friends and family.Show producers are not expecting things to go smoothly, telling CNN Kimmel will be available throughout the night to “jump in as soon as anything goes wrong," producer Reginald Hudlin said.And what will Kimmel do? “If something happens technically, I will be touching upon all the skills I’ve acquired over the course of my life. I know one magic trick. I can kind of juggle. I guess I could draw caricatures of the crew,” Kimmel told The Hollywood Reporter.The 72nd Emmy Awards will air Sunday at 8 p.m. ET on ABC. 1209

The Department of Justice announced Thursday that 57 people have been arrested across the country for fraud related to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).In a press conference Thursday, officials with the Department of Justice said that the suspects attempted to steal millions of dollars of taxpayer money.The PPP was established in the CARES Act, a stimulus package signed into law in March amid the coronavirus pandemic. The funds were meant to be used by small businesses to keep their businesses afloat.Officials said some of those arrested used the funds to buy "flashy or expensive" luxury items for themselves, rather than use the funds for their businesses. The DOJ also described that some of the suspects were part of "coordinated criminal rings" meant to obtain the funds through fraud.While officials did not put a specific dollar amount on the amount of funds stolen, officials called the number "significant." The DOJ says that it was able to seize or freeze million in funds provided through the PPP.This story is breaking and will be updated. 1074

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is warning holiday shoppers to be aware of increasingly aggressive and unorthodox scams designed to steal money and personal information.Online shopping scamsIf a deal looks too good to be true, officials say it probably is.FBI Pittsburgh said Monday that consumers should steer clear of unfamiliar websites that offer unrealistic discounts on brand name merchandise. Scammers frequently prey on holiday bargain hunters by advertising “one-day only” promotions from recognized brands.“Without a skeptical eye, consumers may end up paying for an item, giving away personal information, and receive nothing in return except a compromised identity,” the FBI wrote in a press release.Payment red flagsThe FBI says to be cautious of sellers and websites that demand payment solely through gift cards.“Scammers sometimes encourage shoppers to conduct wire transfers, allowing criminals to quickly receive illicit funds,” the bureau wrote.It’s best to use credit cards, because they provide several layers of security against fraud and are typically the safest way to conduct online shopping.Charity scamsWhile others are focused on giving during the holiday season, others are ready to take advantage of that generosity.“Charity-related frauds increase during the holidays as individuals seek to donate money to those less fortunate,” said the FBI.Criminals have been known to use phone calls, email campaigns, and fake websites to solicit on behalf of fraudulent charities. These scammers target people who want to donate to charity, then hoard their well-intentioned donations while those most in need never see a dime.FBI tips to avoid holiday fraud schemes:Before shopping online, secure all financial accounts with strong passwords or passphrases. Additionally, the FBI recommends using different passwords for each financial account.Check bank and credit card statements routinely, including after making online purchases and in the weeks following the holiday season.Never give personal information— such as your date of birth, Social Security number, or billing addresses— to anyone you do not know.Be wary of promotions and giveaways that request your personal information.Prior to donating to any charity, verify that they have a valid Taxpayer Identification number by visiting their website or calling the charity directly. 2373

来源：资阳报