濮阳东方医院咨询免费(濮阳东方医院看妇科病技术值得信任) (今日更新中)

The White House said Thursday that new national security adviser John Bolton met with Russian ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov."Bolton reiterated that it is in the interest of both the United States and Russia to have better relations, but that this will require addressing our concerns regarding Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the reckless use of a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom, and the situations in Ukraine and Syria," the White House statement said.This was the first meeting between the two in their current roles. Bolton officially stepped into the role of White House national security adviser earlier this month after President Donald Trump announced his appointment in March.The meeting came amid heightened tensions between the two nations over Syria, the poisoning in the UK of a former Russian spy and the ongoing special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.Last year, Trump?met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kisylak, who was Russia's ambassador to the US at the time. Russian state media posted photos of that Oval Office meeting. 1160

The U.S. Postal Service on Tuesday said it could not meet a federal judge’s order to sweep processing centers for undelivered mail-in ballots, arguing that doing so would disrupt its Election Day operations. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington, D.C., gave the agency until Tuesday afternoon to search 27 facilities in several battleground areas for outstanding ballots and send out those votes immediately. In its response, the Postal Service said it had already conducted rounds of morning checks at all its processing hubs. Further, the agency said it has been performing daily reviews of all 220 facilities handling election mail and planned another sweep hours before polling places closed Tuesday. 726

The victims' families and survivors of the Florida high school shooting have not held back, calling out the National Rifle Association in the days since the massacre.On Wednesday, Dana Loesch, the organization's national spokeswoman faced them for the first time.Loesch said the organization feels the process for buying firearms is flawed and ensured the audience that the NRA is fighting for them. But the crowd booed as she left the event.  456

The Weinstein Company, the studio co-founded by disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, has filed for bankruptcy and torn up legal contracts that kept sexual harassment victims from speaking out.The company said late Monday that it will release victims of, and witnesses to, Weinstein's alleged misconduct from any non-disclosure agreements."Effective immediately, those 'agreements' end," the company said in a statement. "No one should be afraid to speak out or coerced to stay quiet," it added.The Weinstein Company was crippled by the sexual harassment and assault allegations first made against Weinstein last year.Now the studio has reached a deal with the private equity firm Lantern Capital Partners. Lantern is looking to acquire Weinstein Co. through the bankruptcy process.The initial bankruptcy paperwork was filed on Monday night."While we had hoped to reach a sale out of court, the Board is pleased to have a plan for maximizing the value of its assets, preserving as many jobs as possible and pursuing justice for any victims," Bob Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein's brother and chairman of the company, said in a statement provided to CNNMoney.Other bidders could come forward and try to top Lantern's bid for the Weinstein Co. assets.The filing estimates the Weinstein Co. businesses are valued between 0 million and billion.New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman had been pushing for this outcome for several months."This is a watershed moment for efforts to address the corrosive effects of sexual misconduct in the workplace," Schneiderman said Monday night. "The Weinstein Company's agreement to release victims of and witnesses to sexual misconduct from non-disclosure agreements -- which my office has sought throughout this investigation and litigation -- will finally enable voices that have for too long been muzzled to be heard."To date, dozens of women have accused Weinstein of abuse, following reports in the New York Times and the New Yorker last year about his treatment of women, including some of those with whom he's worked. Weinstein has been accused of rape, assault and other forms of sexual misconduct.He sought treatment after the allegations were made public. Through a representative he has repeatedly denied allegations of "non-consensual sex."Monday night's press release from the company said Weinstein Co. "regrets that it cannot undo the damage Harvey Weinstein caused, but hopes that today's events will mark a new beginning."The bankruptcy filing came after a deal to sell the studio's assets fell apart earlier this month.An investment group led by Maria Contreras-Sweet, the former head of the U.S. Small Business Administration, had been close to acquiring all of the company's assets for 0 million but negotiations fell apart at the last minute.Schneiderman's office had been helping to mediate the deal talks.Schneiderman's civil suit against Weinstein Co., Bob Weinstein, and Harvey Weinstein remains active and the investigation is ongoing, his office said Monday.The bankruptcy was announced on the same day New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo directed Schneiderman to review the Manhattan district attorney's handling of a 2015 sexual abuse case involving Weinstein.This week's New York magazine features a story questioning why D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr. hasn't prosecuted Weinstein.Time's Up, the female-led organization formed in the aftermath of the Weinstein scandal, responded to the story by calling for a probe into Vance and his office "to determine the facts related to the decision not to prosecute Harvey Weinstein for sexual abuse crimes against one of his accusers, Ambra Battilana."Back in October, The New Yorker?released an audio recording of Weinstein speaking with young model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez as part of a 2015 sting operation. The NYPD set up the sting after Gutierrez told authorities that Weinstein groped her the day before.In the recording, Weinstein makes potentially incriminating comments to Gutierrez, but he was not arrested or charged with a crime at the time.After the tape's release, the New York Police Department and the Manhattan DA's office traded public finger-pointing. But on Monday, Vance and the NYPD released a joint statement reiterating their shared commitment to investigate and prosecute sexual assault cases.Vance has also faced criticism for accepting a ,000 donation from David Boies, an attorney who has represented Weinstein, in August 2015, according to campaign financial disclosure forms from the New York State Board of Elections.Vance's office said Monday that "our investigation of Mr. Weinstein is active and ongoing."That response didn't seem to satisfy Cuomo. He answered Time's Up's call and referred the matter to Schneiderman's office, instructing the A.G. to review Vance's handling of the Battilana case "in a way that does not interfere with the current investigation..."Schneiderman welcomed the opportunity, saying, "We are committed to pursuing a full, fair, and independent review of this matter."The-CNN-Wire 5076

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

来源：资阳报