濮阳东方评价好专业(濮阳东方网络预约) (今日更新中)

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

This combination of photos provided by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office in Minnesota on Wednesday, June 3, 2020, shows Derek Chauvin, from left, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao. Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder of George Floyd, a black man who died after being restrained by him and the other Minneapolis police officers on May 25. Kueng, Lane and Thao have been charged with aiding and abetting Chauvin. (Hennepin County Sheriff's Office via AP) 483

There has been no phone call between President-elect Joe Biden and President Donald Trump. There has been no concession from the commander-in-chief either. America is currently enduring one of the most turbulent transitions in recent memory. So what is not happening that should be during this non-traditional transition? NO SIGN-OFF ON TRANSITIONWhile Biden has held events with signs like "The Office of the President-elect" behind him, technically the office has not been activated by the General Services Administration. It may sound like an obscure government agency, but the office is responsible for unlocking funds and access for the president-elect. Without the GSA starting the transition, Biden can't telephone current members of the executive branch and receive confidential briefings from them. He doesn't have access to taxpayer funds to begin the background check process for some appointees. SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS The implications go beyond the lack of a photograph between Biden and Trump in the White House. The last time the United States experienced a delayed transition was in 2000 because of the Florida Recount. The 9/11 Commission, following the September 11th attacks, put some blame on the transition because it prevented President George W. Bush from putting some national security advisers in key positions in a timely manner. Congressional Democrats have sent a letter asking GSA administrator Emily Murphy to brief Congress on why the transition has not begun. 1503

Thousands of unwanted house guests left their mark on a Pennsylvania home. After recent heavy rains, a family noticed dark lines coming down the wall, and realized it was honey from a hidden beehive.Justin and Andrea Isabell told CNN they originally thought the drips in their mudroom were water damage after recent rains from Tropical Storm Fay. They live in Perkasie, between Allentown and Philadelphia."We've never heard any buzzing or anything," Andrea told CNN. "When we saw the stream coming down the wall, we just kind of worked our way up." 556

Thousands of pages of interview transcripts with the participants of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting shed new light on how eager Donald Trump Jr. and senior members of the Trump campaign were to obtain damaging information on Hillary Clinton — and how frustrated and angry they were that the material did not come to fruition.The nearly 2,000 pages of interviews do not appear to contain information that would change the course of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Trump's team and Russia. But the transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Committee fill in new details about how Trump Jr., President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort were expecting a bombshell from Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.Rob Goldstone, the British music publicist who arranged the Trump Tower meeting, told the committee he was anticipating a "smoking gun" from Veselnitskaya when he urged Trump Jr. to take the meeting, even though he thought it was a "bad idea and that we shouldn't do it.""I just sent somebody an email that says I'm setting up a meeting for someone that is going to bring you damaging information about somebody who was running to become the President of the United States," Goldstone said. "I thought that was worthy of the words 'smoking gun,' yes."The Senate Judiciary Committee's release Wednesday of the Trump Tower transcripts and hundreds of pages of exhibits provide the most comprehensive view yet into the circumstances surrounding the controversial meeting and the details of the roughly 20-minute encounter, in which Trump's team was expecting dirt from Veselnitskaya.The meeting -- and whether President Trump knew about it -- has become a central focus of Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, as well as the congressional Russia investigations. Trump Jr. has told House investigators that he did not communicate with his father about the meeting before it happened. The White House has said the President weighed in on a misleading statement his son issued after the meeting became publicly known, more than a year later.Trump Jr. — who had emailed Goldstone ahead of the meeting about the dirt, "if it's what you say I love it" — told congressional investigators he was interested in "listening to information" about Clinton in the June Trump Tower meeting. "I had no way of assessing where it came from, but I was willing to listen," he said.Trump Jr. also said he did not inform his father about the meeting ahead of time, because he didn't want to bring him "unsubstantiated" information.And when the damaging information didn't materialize, as Veselnitskaya focused on US sanctions on Russia under the Magnitsky Act that the US passed to punish Russian human rights abuses, the testimony gives new insight into how Trump's team reacted."Jared Kushner, who is sitting next to me, appeared somewhat agitated by this and said, 'I really have no idea what you're talking about. Could you please focus a bit more and maybe just start again?'" Goldstone said of Kushner, who was not interviewed by the committee. "And I recall that she began the presentation exactly where she had begun it last time, almost word for word, which seemed, by his body language, to infuriate him even more."But there is also discrepancy between the meeting participants about how long Kushner was present. While Kushner and Trump Jr. have said the now-White House senior adviser left in the middle of the meeting, others who were there told the committee they remembered Kushner staying the whole time.The committee on Wednesday released transcripts and hundreds of pages of related material from nine people connected to the meeting. The documents contain a record of closed-door committee interviews with five of the eight meeting attendees, including Trump Jr., Goldstone, Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, translator Anatoli Samochornov and Ike Kaveladze, a Russian with ties to oligarch Aras Agalarov.Following the documents' release, Trump Jr. said the transcripts show he "answered every question asked.""I appreciate the opportunity to have assisted the Judiciary Committee in its inquiry," Trump Jr. said in a statement, "The public can now see that for over five hours I answered every question asked and was candid and forthright with the Committee. I once again thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein, as well as other members of the Committee and their staff for their courtesy and professionalism."The committee's documents also included responses from Veselnitskaya, as well as a statement from Kushner and a page of notes from Manafort. The committee also included the formal release of the transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, who was not at the Trump Tower meeting but whose transcript was unilaterally released in January by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.In January, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said he planned to release the transcripts because the committee's interviews connected to the Trump Tower meetings had wrapped up. Democrats had pressed Grassley to subpoena Kushner for his testimony or schedule a public hearing for Trump Jr., but he chose not to do so following Feinstein's decision to release the Simpson transcript.  5357

来源：资阳报