濮阳东方看男科口碑很高(濮阳东方医院看妇科病评价高专业) (今日更新中)

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday issued subpoenas to former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and a former White House official as it ramps up its investigation to determine whether to impeach President Donald Trump.The committee issued the subpoenas Thursday to Lewandowski and former White House aide Rick Dearborn, requesting they testify publicly before the committee. Both Trump aides were cited extensively in the obstruction of justice section of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.The subpoenas don't come as a surprise — the duo was included when the committee authorized subpoenas to 12 individuals last month — but they signal the direction the committee is taking as it looks to quickly gather evidence that could lead to pursuing impeachment.The House has not voted on a formal impeachment inquiry, but House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler says his committee's investigation constitutes "formal impeachment proceedings" and the committee has a goal of deciding whether to recommend articles of impeachment by the end of the year."It is clear that any other American would have been prosecuted based on the evidence Special Counsel Mueller uncovered in his report," Nadler said in a statement. "Corey Lewandowski and Rick Dearborn were prominently featured in the Special Counsel's description of President Trump's efforts to obstruct justice by directing then-White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire the Special Counsel, and then by ordering him to lie about it."So far, the committee's subpoenas have not yielded much of value beyond dozens of objections to questions about anything that happened in the Trump administration and a pair of lawsuits to try to obtain former special counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury information and testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn.The subpoena to Lewandowski comes as he is considering a Senate bid in New Hampshire. He's attending the President's rally Thursday night in the state, and White House aides say to expect Trump to bring up Lewandowski's potential Senate run.By subpoenaing Lewandowski, the committee hopes it can avoid the executive privilege fight with the White House, which has directed McGahn, former White House communications director Hope Hicks and former deputy White House counsel Annie Donaldson not to answer questions beyond the 2016 election. Unlike those officials, Lewandowski never served in the Trump administration.But it's unclear if Lewandowski will be forthcoming about the key episodes referenced in the Mueller report that will want to press him on, such as when the President instructed him to tell then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to curtail the Mueller investigation and Lewandowski did not act on it.Lewandowski testified before the House Intelligence Committee last year behind closed doors, and he did not answer questions about anything that occurred beyond the 2016 election.The committee last week filed a lawsuit to force McGahn to comply with its subpoena after he did not appear under subpoena for a hearing in May. The outcome of that case is likely to determine whether other former Trump officials can refuse to answer questions about the Trump White House. But it's likely to take months, if not longer, before the case is decided.The Judiciary Committee has pointed to two episodes involving Lewandowski from the Mueller report as clear cases of obstruction of justice.The first was when Trump told Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the Mueller investigation not to investigate the Trump campaign but to "move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." Lewandowski tried to set up an in person meeting with Sessions, but did not do so, according to the special counsel.That led to the second episode the committee cited, which also involved Dearborn. A month after making the request to Lewandowski about Sessions, the President followed up with Lewandowski and told him that if Sessions did not meet with him, he would be fired.Lewandowski did not deliver the intended message to Sessions. Instead, he asked Dearborn to speak to Sessions, believing he would be a better messenger, the special counsel wrote.Lewandowski gave Dearborn a typewritten version of the President's message, which "definitely raised an eyebrow" for Dearborn and made him uncomfortable, according to Mueller's team. Dearborn told Mueller he did not recall if he knew the message was from the President. Dearborn later told Lewandowski he had handled the situation but he did not follow through. 4555

The crush of an anxious crowd pressed Matt Wergers and his girlfriend through a glass door on the Riverfront Coliseum plaza in Cincinnati. Then, Wergers remembers, the duo ran through the turnstiles into the arena, where they thought 246

The House of Representatives voted by 230-195 on Tuesday to approve .5 billion in aid for the growing crisis at the US southern border -- a vote that followed Democratic infighting over the package and a White House veto threat.House Democratic leaders had worked to quell a progressive rebellion and secured passage after making several updates to the measure in response to concerns within the caucus, but the White House has already said it "strongly opposes" the legislation and it is not clear whether the House and Senate will be able to reach an agreement the President will sign off on.The Senate has a bipartisan bill that would allocate .59 billion for the border crisis and advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on a 30-1 vote last week. But the proposal has significant differences with the House bill, adding to the uncertainty over whether a deal can be reached.The progressive pushback against the bill was an unexpected wrinkle in the race to get the legislation passed and signed into law before a key agency -- the Office of Refugee Resettlement -- runs out of money at the end of the month.That's not the only agency in desperate need of funding to stem the crisis at the border. The funding would also go to help other agencies and help manage the crisis.The Senate still faces uncertainty on when it will pass its own border supplemental bill, which doesn't include some of the policy riders the House bill has and includes money for? the Department of Defense, something that the House doesn't do.In a possible sign that the House and Senate may be able to find common ground, however, Pelosi referred to the Senate legislation as a "good bill," in a House Democratic caucus meeting on Tuesday, according to a senior Democratic aide."The Senate has a good bill," Pelosi said at the meeting, according to the aide, though she then said, "Our bill is much better. But if we are going to prevail we have to have a good, strong vote."But even if the House and Senate can come to an agreement, it's still an open question whether the President will sign off.Sen. Dick Shelby, the Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said on Tuesday that he does not have assurances from the White House that the President will definitely support the Senate bill and sign it into law if it's the proposal that passes. "We don't," Shelby said.In a more than two-hour meeting on Monday night, House Democratic leaders and appropriators faced tough questions from rank-and-file members frustrated by House leadership's strategy and the underlying border spending bill.House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey, a Democrat from New York, unveiled proposed changes on Tuesday morning to the border aid bill, including strengthening requirements for the care of migrants in government custody and setting a time limit of 90 days for unaccompanied children to stay in temporary shelters.Late Tuesday afternoon, the proposed changes were updated to include additional provisions, including requiring the secretary of Health and Human Services to replace contractors who do not meet "enhanced standards required under the Flores settlement" -- which limits the length of time and conditions under which US officials can detain immigrant children.The White House veto threat, however, made clear that the administration "strongly opposes" the bill and 3396

The brand and intellectual property of Sports Illustrated have been sold to marketing company Authentic Brands Group for 0 million.Meredith Corporation, the current owner of the iconic magazine, announced the sale on Tuesday. In an unusual arrangement, Meredith will continue to publish the Sports Illustrated magazine and website.The structure of the deal suggests that the Sports Illustrated brand is much more valuable than the storied magazine.Authentic Brands Group, which owns the brands of celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley, will assume the marketing, business development and licensing of Sports Illustrated's intellectual property.Jamie Salter, CEO of Authentic Brands Group, said in a statement that Sports Illustrated's "trusted name and fiercely devoted following set the stage for the brand to become a leader in lifestyle and entertainment."According to the companies, potential new business opportunities include events, conferences, gambling and gaming products as well as video and television.Meredith, which is paying Authentic Brands Group an undisclosed fee to publish the Sports Illustrated magazine and website, said it would maintain the publication's editorial independence.Sports Illustrated was put up for sale last year along with Time, Fortune and Money magazines, which Meredith acquired via its purchase of Time Inc. Meredith also owns People, InStyle and Better Homes & Gardens.Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff and his wife Lynne Benioff purchased Time in September.Meredith sold Fortune to Thai billionaire Chatchaval Jiaravanon in November, and decided to take Money magazine off the market in April, turning it instead into a digital-only publication. 1715

Teacher pay is a small part of a giant puzzle of how to keep public schools running smoothly and effectively. Funding a school receives, however, can have an impact on a student’s experience. This elementary school in Chesterfield, South Carolina knows all about it. In the eyes of a kindergartener, school is just school, and they believe it's the same for everyone. However, their teacher, Natalie Melton, knows that's anything but true."It’s absolutely not fair,” she says. “All children deserve the same opportunity. All teachers deserve the same opportunity to use the same things to teach them.”But the way schools get their funds is part of a system that’s been in place since the mid-1970s.It’s a system superintendent Harrison Goodwin says needs to change.“It’s never going to be equal, because the resources that children are born into are never gonna be equal,” Goodwin says. “What we have to find is some way to make up for the equity of it.”Schools get their money from a mix of federal state and local sources, but nearly half their funds come from local property taxes. Chesterfield is a high-poverty, rural community. It's a problem faced by educators in states across the U.S.“At this school, we're probably about 70 to 72 percent high poverty,” Goodwin says.In South Carolina, he says there is a direct correlation between poverty and test scores.It means schools feel the need to do more with less. If Melton could send one message to the nation’s politicians, it’s this.“I would implore them to rethink some of the decisions they made to allocate things for education,” she says. “Every child deserves an opportunity to learn just like everyone else, no matter where you’re from, no matter where your parents are from or how much money your parents make. Any of that, all that, should be the same.” 1830

来源：资阳报