濮阳东方男科好挂号吗怎么去濮阳东方男科,濮阳东方妇科医院看病不贵,濮阳东方男科医院挂号电话,濮阳东方医院看妇科病非常专业,濮阳东方医院做人流手术好不好,濮阳东方妇科医院价格不高,濮阳东方医院男科治早泄收费合理

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-controlled state Legislature have agreed on a budget deal that would to cover the state's estimated .3 billion deficit. Newsom and legislative leaders announced the agreement Monday. Sources with knowledge of the plan said it avoids permanent cuts to public schools and health care programs. But it also imposes .8 billion in salary cuts to state workers. In a joint statement, Newsom and the leaders of the Senate and Assembly say the agreement protects core services including education, health care and the social safety net. California's revenue has tanked during the coronavirus pandemic because of a statewide stay-at-home order. 722

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The billionaire behind a measure to split California in three said he's giving up on the effort to reimagine the nation's most populous state after the state Supreme Court knocked it off the November ballot."The political environment for radical change is right now," venture capitalist Tim Draper wrote in a letter to the court dated Aug. 2 and made public by his opponents Thursday. "The removal of Proposition 9 from the November ballot has effectively put an end to this movement."The court struck Draper's measure in July in response to a lawsuit but didn't rule on the merits of the case, allowing Draper the opportunity to fight to put it on future ballots. He's not moving forward with the case.RELATED: State Supreme Court blocks proposal to split California into 3 states from November ballotDraper spent more than .7 million to qualify his initiative for the ballot, which requires gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures.It's not his first effort to break up California — his plan to split the state into six didn't qualify for past ballots. He's argued California has become ungovernable due to its size and diversity, politically and geographically.The latest plan would have divided California into three pieces. One would comprise the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, Sacramento and the rest of Northern California; the second would be a strip of land from Los Angeles to Monterey; and the third would include San Diego, the Central Valley and Orange County.RELATED: Proposal to split California into three states makes November ballotThe Planning and Conservation League sued to keep Draper's initiative off the ballot, arguing that such a massive change to the state's governance couldn't be done through a ballot initiative."At the end of the day, this was a billionaire's massive and illegal use of the initiative process, and the court was correct in stopping this folly," Carlyle Hall, an attorney who worked on the suit with the environmental group.Draper, meanwhile, said he had "no idea" if his initiative would have passed or if Congress would have given the necessary approval for the split but that the ballot measure would have spurred debate over government failings.RELATED: Calexit: New plan to split California aims to create 'autonomous Native American nation'"I wanted to let the voters debate, discuss and think about a different way forward — essentially a reboot. And, I wanted the political class to hear and witness the frustration of California's voters with decades of inaction and decay," he wrote. "I believed there was significant benefit to our democracy in that." 2650

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to cap annual rent increases statewide for most tenants as a limited housing supply in the country's most populous state continues to drive up the cost of living while pushing more people to the streets.The California Senate voted 25-10 to cap rent increases at 5% each year plus inflation for the next decade while banning landlords from evicting tenants without just cause. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom says he will sign the bill into law, but first it must survive a final vote in the state Assembly where the California Association of Realtors is pushing to defeat it. Lawmakers must act by Friday.California's largest cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco, have some form of rent control, but a state law passed in 1995 has restricted new rent control laws since that year. In most places, landlords can raise rents at any time and for any reason, as long as they give advance notice.In Pomona, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) east of Los Angeles, Yesenia Miranda Meza says her rent has jumped 20% in the past two years. Monday, she marched with other tenants through the halls of the state Capitol chanting: "Once I've paid my rent, all my money's spent.""I'm a rent increase away from eviction, and that's with me having two jobs," she said "So if this (bill) doesn't go through and I get another rent increase, I really don't know what I'm going to do. I'm either going to be homeless or I'll have to cram into a room with a whole bunch of other people."Opponents have likened the proposal to rent control — a more restrictive set of limitations on landlords. California voters overwhelmingly rejected in a statewide ballot initiative to overturn the 1995 law last year.California Association of Realtors President Jared Martin said the group's 200,000 members strongly oppose the bill because it will "reduce the supply and quality of rental housing." It's an argument echoed by Republican Sen. Jeff Stone, who said developers would have no reason to build new housing if they can't make money off their investment."We'll see even a greater housing crisis because of the low supply of housing," Stone said. "Either this will force our constituents to join a 60,000 homeless population that we see in the LA area, or they will simply just move to another state."But supporters say the bill includes lots safeguards to prevent that from happening. The rent caps don't apply to new construction built within the last 15 years — a provision that prompted the California Building Industry Association to drop its opposition.Plus, the caps don't apply to single family homes, except those owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts. And duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units are also exempt."We all desperately want to build more housing. It was a very important aspect of this bill," Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu said.But even some Democrats who voted for the bill on Tuesday signaled they didn't like it, a sign the bill is not guaranteed to pass. Sen. Steve Glazer, a Democrat representing a district in the San Francisco Bay area, cited a 2018 study by Sanford University showing landlords under rent control are more likely to nudge tenants out by spending less on maintenance."Any time you reduce rate of return on an investment, you make that investment less attractive, and this is true even if new investment is exempted for 15 years as this bill does," he said.But Carolyn Wilson, a 71-year-old Sacramento resident, said she needs help now. She said her rent has increased about 0 each year and her landlord just gave her a 60-day notice to move out for on reason."All I do is get up on the computer looking for some place to go," she said. "With my income, I can't afford anything." 3819

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom cracked down on oil producers Tuesday, halting approval of hundreds of fracking permits until independent scientists can review them and temporarily banning new wells using another drilling method that regulators believe is linked to one of the largest spills in state history.The state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources announced it will not approve new wells that use high-pressure steam to extract oil from underground. It’s the type of process Chevron uses at an oil field in the Central Valley that leaked more than 1.3 million gallons (4.9 million liters) of oil and water this summer.That process is different from fracking, which uses water and other chemicals at high pressure to extract oil. California has 263 pending fracking permits but has not approved any of them since July. That’s when Newsom fired California’s top oil and gas regulator after learning the state had increased fracking permits by 35% since he took office in January, angering environmental groups.Newsom, a Democrat, called the crackdown necessary to strengthen the state’s oversight of oil and gas extraction “as we phase out our dependence on fossil fuels and focus on clean energy sources.”“This transition cannot happen overnight; it must advance in a deliberate way to protect people, our environment and our economy,” Newsom said.California has been a leader on environmental issues, with Newsom's Democratic predecessor, Jerry Brown, making climate change his signature effort. Brown was criticized for failing to ban fracking or oil drilling, arguing that the state needed to tackle demand before moving on to supply.The oil industry called Newsom’s changes “disappointing,” with the Western States Petroleum Association saying California’s environmental regulations already lead the world.“Every barrel delayed or not produced in this state will only increase imports from more costly foreign sources that do not share our environmental safety standards,” group president Catherine Reheis-Boyd.California is one of the top five states for oil production, producing more than 161 million barrels last year. Fracking occurs in some of the state’s largest oil fields, mostly in the Central Valley.The steam method is less prevalent but accounted for 8 million barrels of the state’s oil production in 2018, according to the Department of Conservation. But regulators believe it is linked to the oil spill at a Chevron well that began in May.It was the largest oil spill in California since 1990, when a tanker unleashed more than 400,000 gallons (1.5 million liters) of crude oil off the coast of Huntington Beach.But despite its size, the Chevron spill has had minimal effects on the environment.The oil spilled into a dry creek bed, and the company cleaned it up before rains could wash it into fresh water. It also did not significantly harm wildlife, with just a “handful of birds” needing to be euthanized, according to Jason Marshall, chief deputy director of the California Department of Conservation.A second well at the oil field about 35 miles (55 kilometers) west of Bakersfield has been leaking intermittently since 2003. State officials ordered Chevron to stop the leak in April, and the company has been making progress, Marshall said.Regulators have fined the energy giant .7 million for the leaks. A Chevron spokeswoman referred comment to the Western States Petroleum Association, whose leader said, “There is nothing more important than the health and safety of the communities where the women and men of our industry work, live and raise their families."The moratorium will be in place while two national laboratories — Lawrence Livermore and Sandia — study the high-pressure steam process to see what regulations, if any, can make it safer. Other wells in California use the steam method and have not had any spills.“These oil leaks cannot be the cost of doing business,” California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said. “There needs to be a clear trajectory to eliminate them. Not reduce them in number, but fully eliminate them.”The moratorium will not affect existing wells, which will be assessed individually. Some existing wells have been using high-pressure steam for so long that stopping it could weaken the geology and cause more spills, Crowfoot said.Officials said they would seek an independent audit of California’s permitting process for fracking and other types of oil extraction.In July, advocacy groups Consumer Watchdog and FracTracker revealed the state’s fracking permits had doubled during the first six months of Newsom’s administration. The groups said that of those permits, 45% benefited companies where state officials owned stock.Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, called Newsom’s new orders “an important step toward reining in the most high risk extraction techniques.”“The ultimate test of his tenure for climate change and the public will be simple math about how many fewer permits are issued and how many existing wells are closed,” Court said. “Net zero wells should be his goal.” 5122