武隆区98元自助美甲加盟电话多少钱威海市古啦啦美甲加盟电话多少钱,汉中市优米一站美甲加盟电话多少钱,南岸区加盟哪个品牌美甲店好电话多少钱,邵阳市希妹美甲加盟店电话多少钱,桂林市奈杜美甲加盟电话多少钱,奉节县悦色美甲加盟电话多少钱,运城市咖啡遇见美甲加盟电话多少钱

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 Mississippi Senate moved one step closer Tuesday to passing a law that would prevent women from getting abortions after they are 15 weeks pregnant. If the law passes, it would be the earliest abortion limit measured in weeks of pregnancy to become law in the US.The Senate passed a version of House Bill 1510, known as the gestational age act, with minor changes regarding the penalty to providers who break the law. In its current form, doctors would lose their license to practice medicine and face civil penalties. The bill was sent back to the House for another vote, which is considered procedural. If this version passes the House vote, the bill would move to the governor's desk.Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant will sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk, his spokesperson told CNN.After the bill's vote, Bryant tweeted, "As I have repeatedly said, I want Mississippi to be the safest place in America for an unborn child. House Bill 1510 will help us achieve that goal."Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement, "Mississippians are committed to protecting the lives of unborn children, and this law will be a major step in accomplishing that goal."Mississippi currently prohibits an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless "the woman's life is endangered, her physical health is severely compromised or there is a lethal fetal anomaly," according to the Guttmacher Institute.In all, 24 states have laws that ban abortions after a designated duration of pregnancy. Seventeen states, including Mississippi, ban abortions at about 20 weeks post-fertilization, according to Guttmacher.Planned Parenthood Director of State Policy Media, Danielle Wells, said she believes the law is unconstitutional. She cited a similar law in Arkansas that banned abortions at 12 weeks of pregnancy if a heartbeat was detected, which was struck down by a federal appeals court."Already, far too many women cannot access safe, legal abortions in Mississippi because of existing barriers and restrictions. If this measure passes, it would make a bad situation even worse for women," Wells told CNN.The bill was held on a procedural motion before returning to the House. The next House vote on the bill has not been scheduled yet. 2254

The NFLPA announced that it has reached an agreement with players on moving forward with the 2020 season.The NFLPA said that its board approved the deal by a 29-3 margin.NFL Network reported that the agreement will allow high-risk players to opt out from the upcoming season due to coronavirus concerns. The league will also spread out the financial impact from the upcoming year over the next four seasons. The league projects lower revenue due to the coronavirus.The NFLPA said earlier this week that it was pushing for enhanced testing, treatment and contact tracing protocols amid the coronavirus pandemic as part of the deal. 638

The holiday season started early for fans of "Wonder Woman." On Wednesday, "Wonder Woman 1984" director Patty Jenkins announced on her Twitter account that the movie would be released on HBO Max and at U.S. theaters.The film will debut on Dec. 25, HBO Max said in a tweet. 280