蚌埠市欢喜美美美甲加盟电话多少钱(秀山梵沙美甲加盟电话多少钱) (今日更新中)

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's legal team has responded to the special counsel, the latest effort in ongoing negotiations over a possible interview."We have now given him an answer. Obviously, he should take a few days to consider it, but we should get this resolved," Giuliani said during an interview on the radio show of fellow Trump attorney Jay Sekulow."We do not want to run into the November elections. So back up from that, this should be over by September 1," Giuliani said.Sekulow confirmed in a statement that the legal team "responded in writing to the latest proposal" from the special counsel, but declined to comment on the substance of the response.Giuliani had previously told CNN that the team planned to send its counteroffer to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding a potential interview on Wednesday."It is a good faith attempt to reach an agreement," Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers on the Russia investigation, told CNN.The former New York City mayor similarly would not describe the contents of the counteroffer, except to say that "there is an area where we could agree, if they agree."Giuliani wouldn't say if that area has to do with collusion or obstruction.The President has previously said that he wants to speak with the special counsel and has insisted there was no collusion or obstruction, while deriding the investigation as a "witch hunt."But Trump's public attacks on the Russia probe have sparked questions over whether his actions could constitute obstruction of justice. Those questions intensified earlier this month when the President called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, an escalation that Giuliani attempted to downplay as Trump merely expressing an opinion.The President's team has sought to limit any potential interview to questions about collusion. But Giuliani told CNN they would be willing to consider questions relating to any obstruction of justice inquiry as long as they are not "perjury traps," a phrase favored by the Trump legal team as a way to raise questions about the fairness of the special counsel, though it also speaks to the risks of having the President sit down for an interview."For example: 'What did you say about Flynn?' 'Why did you fire Comey?'" They already know our answer," Giuliani said, referring to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired in May 2017. The former FBI director later testified to Congress that Trump had pressed him to drop an investigation into Flynn, a claim that Trump has denied. "If they can show us something in that area that didn't involve those direct questions, that we don't consider perjury traps, we would consider it," Giuliani said, but conceded he "can't think of what that would be."Mueller has indicated to the team that the special counsel wants to ask the President obstruction questions in an interview.The President's lawyers had previously offered the special counsel written answers to obstruction questions and limiting the interview to matters before his presidential inauguration, which are largely confined to collusion.The back and forth over an interview comes as the special counsel investigation faces its first major test in court as Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort stands trial in the Eastern District of Virginia where he is accused of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial crimes.Manafort's case isn't about the 2016 presidential campaign, but he is the first defendant Mueller's team has taken to trial. 3603

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A judge preliminarily ordered California Gov. Gavin Newsom to stop issuing directives related to the coronavirus that might interfere with state law.Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman tentatively ruled Monday that one of the dozens of executive orders Newsom has issued overstepped his authority. She more broadly barred him from infringing on the state Legislature.The judge said Newsom overstepped his authority with an executive order that directed counties to send all registered California voters mail-in ballots and regulated the number of polling stations.The lawsuit stems from an executive order that was issued before the state's Legislature passed a similar law related to mail-in ballots.It's the second time a judge in the same county has reached the conclusion, which runs counter to other state and federal court decisions backing the governor's emergency powers.Heckman's decision will become final in 10 days.Newsom's administration says it disagrees and is evaluating its next steps. 1050

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Twenty-three states have sued to stop the Trump administration from revoking California's authority to set emission standards for cars and trucks.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is leading the lawsuit filed Friday, along with Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board.The Trump administration on Thursday revoked California's authority to set its own auto emission standards. The state has had that power for decades under a waiver from the federal Clean Air Act.The lawsuit argues that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have the authority to revoke California's waiver.Becerra says the Trump administration's action fails to respect states' authority to protect public health.Four automakers have said they would voluntarily follow California's standards. 842

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Pacific Gas & Electric's key lenders on Tuesday offered a billion plan to pull the utility out of bankruptcy and give the tarnished company a new name.The proposal filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court would set aside up to billion of that billion to pay claims on the 2017 and 2018 wildfires caused by PG&E equipment, the Sacramento Bee reported.The plan offered by PG&E's leading bondholders would compete with an alternative that the newspaper says is being drafted by PG&E. Normally the company in bankruptcy has first crack at proposing an exit plan, but the bondholders said in a court filing that they filed their plan because PG&E has "wasted crucial time needlessly."The bondholders also want to rebrand PG&E as Golden State Power Light & Gas Company.Asked about the bondholders' plan, the utility said in a statement that it was considering all options as it navigates the bankruptcy process.The new proposal came four days after Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, floated the idea of a billion package to deal with the costs of future wildfires, paid for by ratepayers and shareholders of PG&E and the other two big electric utilities in California.Newsom's plan does not offer any cash for PG&E's existing liabilities but would revise state law to give utilities more certainty about recovering costs from ratepayers — enough stability that Newsom believes will allow PG&E to borrow the money it needs to pay existing claims, according to the Bee.The bondholders include some of the biggest investors on Wall Street, including Elliott Management, Pimco and Apollo Global Management. They have been quietly promoting a PG&E restructuring plan for weeks in conversations with legislators, Newsom's aides and others. Tuesday's court filing marks the first time they have taken the proposal public."Substantial new capital must be infused into the company," the bondholders said in their court filing.The governor's office had no immediate comment on the bondholders' proposal.Like Newsom's plan, the proposal is "ratepayer neutral" — meaning, customer rates would not go up to pay the costs of getting PG&E out of bankruptcy.But ratepayers would pay: The plan calls for a .50 monthly charge, a feature of PG&E bills since the 2001 energy crisis, to be extended for several years to help raise dollars for a wildfire insurance fund proposed by Newsom last week. That fund would help pay claims for future fires.___Information from: The Sacramento Bee, http://www.sacbee.com 2574

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A ballot initiative led by business giants Uber, Lyft and Doordash is now set to go before California voters in November. It is a multimillion-dollar attempt to shield app-based drivers in the state from a labor law, known as AB5, that makes companies give more benefits and wage protections to their workers. California approved the labor law last year, the strictest in the country on when employers can classify workers as independent contractors. The law, while praised by many labor groups, set off lawsuits from independent contractors who said it put them out of work.All three companies plan to spend at least million each promoting the measure to keep their drivers as independent contractors. “At a time when California’s economy is in crisis with 4 million people out of work, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to quickly start earning,” a statement from Uber said.The result could set a national precedent if successful. 986

来源：资阳报