昆明看妇科去哪家医院比较好昆明做打胎手术需多少钱,昆明打胎孩子便宜吗,昆明那家妇科医院做人流好,昆明做人流你们去哪个医院,昆明市妇幼产检费用,昆明人流去哪做,昆明哪家医院做人流不错

Transcripts from a 2016 deposition in which Ghislaine Maxwell answered questions about the sex-trafficking operation she allegedly ran with the late Jeffrey Epstein were released Thursday by court order.The more than 400 pages of documents were ordered unsealed earlier this week after a legal battle between Maxwell and Virginia Giuffre, who accuses Maxwell, Epstein and others of sexually abusing her when she was a minor.CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPTMaxwell is accused of recruiting young girls for Epstein to have sex with, and of allegedly ordering young girls and women to have sex with rich and powerful men.The depositions were taken as part of a lawsuit brought against Maxwell by Giuffre. The lawsuit was eventually settled.There are redactions in the transcript to remove private information of some of the people it mentions.Lawyers for Maxwell, 58, had argued the transcript, which reflects seven hours of interviews over two days, should remain sealed, in part to protect her right to a fair trial in July on charges that she helped Epstein traffic and sexually abuse teenage girls in the 1990s.They noted that portions of the transcripts relate to perjury charges in the indictment she currently faces. She has pleaded not guilty.Maxwell has been incarcerated since her arrest in early July. If convicted, she could face up to 35 years in prison.Maxwell’s arrest came a year after Epstein, 66, was arrested and charged with sex trafficking. He killed himself in August 2019 at a federal jail in Manhattan where he was awaiting trial without bail.In 2008 in Florida, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of soliciting and procuring a person under age 18 for prostitution. He spent 13 months in jail, paid settlements to victims and remained a registered sex offender. 1801

This is what's happening in the world of politics Saturday, Aug. 25, 2018.Trump fires back at Sessions— President Donald Trump fired back at U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, saying the AG doesn't understand what's happening at the Department of Justice. "Jeff Sessions said he wouldn't allow politics to influence him only because he doesn't understand what is happening underneath his command position," Trump tweeted. "Highly conflicted Bob Mueller and his gang of 17 Angry Dems are having a field day as real corruption goes untouched. No Collusion!"After previous criticisms this week by the president, Sessions said, "While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations."Read more. Juror: Pardoning Manafort would "be grave mistake"— A juror who sat on the Paul Manafort trial said to would be a "grave mistake" if a presidential pardon came for the former Trump campaign manager."I feel it would be grave mistake for President Trump to pardon Paul Manafort," Paula Duncan, one of the jurors, said during an interview with Anderson Cooper. "Justice was done, the evidence was there and that's where it should stop."Duncan was one of the 11 jurors who convicted Manafort on five tax fraud charges, one charge of hiding foreign bank accounts and two counts of bank fraud. The jury was hung 11-1 on the other 10.Manafort faces 80 years in prison.Read more. Pompeo's meeting with North Korea canceled— President Trump has asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to go to North Korea, citing insufficient progress of denuclearization and China's reluctance to help further due to trade tariffs."I have asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to go to North Korea, at this time, because I feel we are not making sufficient progress with respect to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Additionally, because of our much tougher Trading stance with China, I do not believe they are helping with the process of denuclearization as they once were," Trump wrote on Twitter.Pompeo had announced he would be in Pyongyang with his new Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun.It would have been Pompeo's fourth trip to the country following Trump's Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un.Read more. 2365

Tinder's parent company Match Group is suing competitor Bumble, accusing the female-friendly dating app of patent infringement and stealing trade secrets.The lawsuit, filed Friday in Texas, says Bumble is virtually identical to Tinder, the app that popularized the swipe right to like, swipe left to dislike functionality.Bumble copied the "world-changing, card swipe-based, mutual opt-in premise" of Tinder, the lawsuit says.The complaint also says that Bumble's co-creators are ex-Tinder employees, and the app has rolled out two new features that were "learned of and developed confidentially while at Tinder."Bumble has become a fierce competitor to Tinder since it launched in 2014. Bumble's differentiating factor is that only women can make the first move. But Match confirmed last month it plans to launch that feature in its own app.In the complaint, Match says it "applauds Bumble's efforts at empowering women, both in its app and offline" and "cares deeply both about its women users and about women's issues generally.""This case is simply about forcing Bumble to stop competing with Match and Tinder using Match's own inventions, patented designs, trademarks, and trade secrets," it says.The lawsuit is the first time that Match Group, which also owns dating sites Plenty of Fish and Match.com, has enforced the patents it secured on swiping and double opt-ins for dating matches on Tinder, according to a company spokesperson.Tinder and Bumble have had a complicated history.Bumble was launched by Whitney Wolfe Herd, an early employee at Tinder.Wolfe Herd left Tinder in 2014 after alleging sexual harassment and discrimination. The case was eventually settled. Ex-Tinder employees Chris Gulczynski and Sarah Mick joined Herd to start Bumble more than three years ago. Gulczynski and Mick, who are designers, are at the center of the stolen secret allegations in the suit.The two had knowledge of an "undo" button talked about at Tinder, according to the complaint. That feature was "nearly, if not literally, identical" to Bumble's backtrack feature, the lawsuit says. The backtrack feature allows users to go back in time to "like" someone they may have accidentally passed on.Gulczynski and Mick also helped implement photo messaging at Bumble, something Gulczynski had allegedly mocked up a design for while at Tinder.In a statement, a Match Group spokesperson said the company is "committed to protecting the intellectual property and proprietary data that defines our business,"Bumble did not immediately respond to request for comment. According to the Linkedin accounts for Gulczynski and Mick, both have left Bumble. They did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment about the lawsuit.Axios was first to report that Match Group had filed the suit.It's been widely reported that Bumble once turned down a buyout offer from Match Group. Match Group was reportedly still interested in Bumble's business as recently as November of last year.Match Group said it doesn't comment on mergers and acquisitions speculation.In an interview with journalist Gayle King at the SXSW festival last week, Wolfe Herd declined to talk about any conversations — past or present — with Match Group, the parent company of Tinder. 3251

Thursday marks exactly six months since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global health crisis connected with the disease that was then simply known as the novel coronavirus.Half a year later, the virus has infected 17 million people on every continent and killed more than 600,000 worldwide.On Jan. 31, WHO issued a statement saying that Dr. Tedros Adhanom, the director-general of the organization, had accepted a committee's recommendation to declare the outbreak of the virus in China a "public health emergency of international concern."At the time, the outbreak was mainly concentrated in China, as the country had confirmed 7,711 cases of the virus and 170 deaths linked to the disease. While the virus had been recorded in five other countries — including five cases in the U.S. — there had been no deaths recorded outside of China.In its Jan. 31 declarations, the WHO did not recommend any travel or trade restrictions, but urged countries to prepare for containment and "place emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread."The organization issued its recommendation 10 days after China reported that the virus appeared to be spreading from person-to-person, a finding that indicated the disease could have far-reaching implications. The New York Times reports that by that time, thousands had traveled out of Wuhan, the virus' place of origin, possibly spreading it around the world. China has since faced criticism for not reporting its findings sooner.That same day, President Donald Trump took action to block entry into the U.S. of any person that had been in China for the last 14 days. The order did not apply to U.S. citizens. While the move may have temporarily delayed the virus' widespread arrival, his administration's inaction for the next month would prove costly.During the next month, the CDC would face significant delays in developing a test for COVID-19, which would cause a testing backup in the months to come. The president also repeatedly downplayed the severity of the situation, declaring on Feb. 26 that the number of cases in the U.S. would go down to zero in the coming days.In the months since the WHO's declaration, 150,000 Americans have died of COVID-19, and more than 4 million have been infected. Both figures are by far the most of any other country. 2370

They’ve been fighting in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over the cutoff date for counting mailed ballots, and in North Carolina over witness requirements. Ohio is grappling with drop boxes for ballots as Texas faces a court challenge over extra days of early voting.Measuring the anxiety over the November election is as simple as tallying the hundreds of voting-related lawsuits filed across the country in recent months. The cases concern the fundamentals of the American voting process, including how ballots are cast and counted, during an election made unique by the coronavirus pandemic and by a president who refuses to commit to accepting the results.The lawsuits are all the more important because President Donald Trump has raised the prospect that the election may wind up before a Supreme Court with a decidedly Republican tilt if his latest nominee is confirmed.“This is a president who has expressed his opposition to access to mail ballots and has also seemed to almost foreshadow the inevitability that this election will be one decided by the courts,” said Kristen Clarke, executive director of the National Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.That opposition was on display Tuesday during the first presidential debate when Trump launched into an extended argument against mail voting, claiming without evidence that it is ripe for fraud and suggesting mail ballots may be “manipulated.”“This is going to be a fraud like you’ve never seen,” the president said of the massive shift to mail voting prompted by the pandemic.The lawsuits are a likely precursor for what will come afterward. Republicans say they have retained outside law firms, along with thousands of volunteer lawyers at the ready. Democrats have announced a legal war room of heavyweights, including a pair of former solicitors general.The race is already regarded as the most litigated in American history, due in large part to the massive expansion of mail and absentee voting. Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department elections official, has tallied some 260 lawsuits arising from the coronavirus. The Republication National Committee says it’s involved in more than 40 lawsuits, and a website operated by a chief Democrat lawyer lists active cases worth watching in about 15 states.Democrats are focusing their efforts on multiple core areas — securing free postage for mail ballots, reforming signature-match laws, allowing ballot collection by third-parties like community organizations and ensuring that ballots postmarked by Election Day can count. Republicans warn that those same requests open the door to voter fraud and confusion and are countering efforts to relax rules on how voters cast ballots this November.“We’re trying to prevent chaos in the process,” RNC chief counsel Justin Riemer said in an interview. “Nothing creates more chaos than rewriting a bunch of rules at the last minute.”But there have been no broad-based, sweeping examples of voter fraud during past presidential elections, including in 2016, when Trump claimed the contest would be rigged and Russians sought to meddle in the outcome.Some of the disputes are unfolding in states not traditionally thought of as election battlegrounds, such as Montana, where there is a highly competitive U.S. Senate race on the ballot. A judge Wednesday rejected an effort by Trump’s reelection campaign and Republican groups to block counties from holding the general election mostly by mail.But most of the closely watched cases are in states perceived as up-for-grabs in 2020 and probably crucial to the race.That includes Ohio, where a coalition of voting groups and Democrats have sued to force an expansion of ballot drop boxes from more than just one per county. Separately on Monday, a federal judge rejected changes to the state’s signature-matching requirement for ballots and ballot applications, handing a win to the state’s Republican election chief who has been engulfed with litigation this election season.In Arizona, a judge’s ruling that voters who forget to sign their early ballots have up to five days after the election to fix the problem is now on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a six-day extension for counting absentee ballots in Wisconsin as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. The ruling gave Democrats in the state at least a temporary victory in a case that could nonetheless by appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In neighboring Michigan, the GOP is suing to try to overturn a decision that lets the state count absentee ballots up to 14 days after the election.In battleground North Carolina, where voters are already struggling with rules requiring witness signatures on absentee ballots, the RNC and Trump’s campaign committee have sued over new election guidance that will permit ballots with incomplete witness information to be fixed without the voter having to fill out a new blank ballot.In Iowa, the Trump campaign and Republican groups have won a series of sweeping legal victories in their attempts to limit absentee voting, with judges throwing out tens of thousands of absentee ballot applications in three counties. This week, another judge upheld a new Republican-backed law that will make it harder for counties to process absentee ballot applications.Pennsylvania has been a particular hive of activity.Republican lawmakers asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to put a hold on a ruling by the state’s highest court that extends the deadline for receiving and counting mailed-in ballots. Republicans also object to a portion of the state court’s ruling that orders counties to count ballots that arrive during the three-day extension period even if they lack a postmark or legible postmark.Meanwhile in federal court, Republicans are suing to, among other things, outlaw drop boxes or other sites used to collect mail-in ballots.The Supreme Court itself has already been asked to get involved in several cases, as it did in April, when conservative justices blocked Democratic efforts to extend absentee voting in Wisconsin during the primary.There is, of course, precedent for an election that ends in the courts. In 2000, the Supreme Court settled a recount dispute in Florida, effectively handing the election to Republican George W. Bush.Barry Richard, a Florida lawyer who represented Bush during that litigation, said there’s no guarantee the Supreme Court will want to get involved again, or that any lawsuit over the election will present a compelling issue for the bench to address.One significant difference between then and now, he said, is that neither candidate raised the prospect of not accepting the results.“There was never any question, in 2000, about the essential integrity of the system. Neither candidate challenged it,” Richard said. “Nobody even talked about whether or not the losing candidate would accept the results of the election. That was just assumed.”_____Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP 7075