濮阳东方看妇科值得选择濮阳东方男科医院割包皮手术很专业,濮阳东方医院看阳痿技术可靠,濮阳东方医院男科治早泄评价很高,濮阳东方医院地址,濮阳东方妇科收费高不,濮阳东方妇科非常的专业,濮阳东方男科医院治病贵不

Rudy Giuliani just contradicted the White House and the Justice Department on a very sensitive subject: The AT&T-Time Warner deal."The president denied the merger," Giuliani, a new member of President Trump's legal team, said in an interview with HuffPost on Friday.Giuliani was seemingly trying to defend the president against any suggestion that Michael Cohen improperly influenced the administration after the revelation that Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney, was paid large sums of money by AT&T and several other corporate clients."Whatever lobbying was done didn't reach the president," Giuliani said, repeating a claim he made to CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday.But then Giuliani went further, telling HuffPost's S.V. Date that "he did drain the swamp... The president denied the merger. They didn't get the result they wanted."In other words: If AT&T hired Cohen to win government approval of the deal, AT&T wasted its 0,000.But the assertion that "the president denied the merger" flies in the face of everything the government has previously said about the deal."If Giuliani didn't misspeak, this is major news," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted Friday night. "It is highly unusual for the president to be involved in DOJ merger decisions."It is possible that Giuliani misspoke, or that he simply does not know what he's talking about. He was not working for Trump at the time the Justice Department was reviewing the deal. Since he began representing Trump, he has had to change the story he has been telling in public about Stormy Daniels and what Trump knew or didn't know and when about the payment Cohen made to her. And he may simply have meant "the president" as a stand-in for "the administration."But this is not the first time that there have been questions about whether politics and Trump influenced the DOJ's decision.On the day AT&T announced its bid to buy Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, then-candidate Trump said he opposed the deal. So when he took office, there were concerns within AT&T and Time Warner that he or his aides would try to block the deal.AT&T said earlier this week that it hired Cohen, in part, to gain "insights" about the Trump administration's thinking about the deal.Throughout 2017, career officials at the Justice Department's antitrust division conducted a standard review of the proposed deal.The DOJ traditionally operates with a lot of independence. But there were persistent questions about possible political interference, especially in light of the president's well-publicized disdain for both CNN and attorney general Jeff Sessions.Still, AT&T and Time Warner executives believed the deal would receive DOJ approval, much like Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal did nearly a decade ago. By October, they thought the thumbs-up was right around the corner.They were wrong. In November, the DOJ went to court to block the deal, alleging that the combination of the two companies would give AT&T too much power in the marketplace.That's when questions about Trump's hidden hand really got louder. Democratic lawmakers raised alarms. So did AT&T and Time Warner. Other critics pointed out Trump's complaints about Sessions and the DOJ. Trump had recently been quoted saying "I'm not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department," adding, "I'm not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would LOVE to be doing, and I'm very frustrated by it."But White House aides like Kellyanne Conway insisted that the White House was not interfering.The DOJ's antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, said the same thing. He denied being influenced by Trump.In an affidavit, Delrahim said "all of my decisions" about suing to block the deal "have been made on the merits, without regard to political considerations."Ahead of the trial, AT&T and Time Warner sought discovery on any relevant communications between the White House and the Justice Department. But a judge denied the request, and the companies dropped any argument that the case was motivated by politics.The Justice Department and AT&T had no immediate comment Friday night.The-CNN-Wire 4182

RICHLAND, Texas (AP) — A U.S. Marine believed to have left Arizona for California's Camp Pendleton never arrived, but was found days later at a Texas rest area, unharmed.Lance Cpl. Job Wallace was taken into custody Saturday night by Naval Criminal Investigative Service and other law enforcement officers at a rest area in Navarro County, according to a NCIS statement cited by The San Diego Union-Tribune.The 20-year-old had last been seen leaving a friend's house in Surprise, Arizona, on Monday night, his mother, Stacy Wallace, said. He was due back at Camp Pendleton after a three-day leave that took him home to the suburbs west of Phoenix and a camping trip.About an hour south of Dallas, Navarro County is more than 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) east of Surprise and in the opposite direction from Camp Pendleton in Southern California.RELATED: Family searches for answers after Marine bound for Camp Pendleton disappearsThe statement from Kurt Thomas, the special agent in charge of the NCIS Marine Corps West field office, did not include details about how Wallace was found or what he was doing.Stacy Wallace had said her son loved the Marines and was excited to get back to Camp Pendleton, having been recently promoted."He got into several colleges and missed scholarship opportunities just so that he could be a Marine, because he felt it was his duty to serve his country," Wallace said.Wallace's mother had said law enforcement officials told her that her son's phone was last pinged Monday night in Arizona. But a Border Patrol camera spotted his truck the next morning traveling eastbound on Interstate 10 near Fort Hancock, Texas, southeast of El Paso.A Surprise police spokesman had said officers took a report and turned the matter over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Thomas' Saturday night statement thanked law enforcement partners in Texas, Arizona and on the federal level "for their aid in bringing this to a safe resolution." 1976

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Californians soundly rejected a costly ballot measure Tuesday that would have allowed more rent control as a way to alleviate the state's housing crisis.Proposition 10 trailed by a roughly 30-point margin with nearly 4 million votes counted.It was one of the most expensive and contentious items on the ballot, attracting more than 0 million in campaign contributions.Opponents said the measure would have lowered real estate values and further decreased the state's already limited housing supply by discouraging building. Supporters argued more rent control would protect low-income people from being priced out of their homes.The failure of the measure preserves restrictions on rent control on apartments built after 1995, single-family homes and condominiums. It also preserves rules preventing cities and counties from telling landlords what they can charge new tenants.California has a disproportionately high rate of homelessness, and nearly a third of California renters spend more than half their income on rent, according to the state's housing agency.In light of their defeat, supporters called on Gov.-Elect Gavin Newsom to freeze rent increases and pressure lawmakers to repeal the restrictions Proposition 10 sought to end."The burden to act returns to the governor and the Legislature, who should work to represent Californians, not Wall Street landlords," said Christina Livingston, one of the leaders of the Proposition 10 campaign.Newsom opposed the measure, but said he would work to address the housing crisis.The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office predicted the initiative would have lowered the value of rental properties. Economic research generally shows that rent control benefits some individual renters but it limits supply overall and raises rents because it decreases incentives to build.RELATED CONTENT 1876

RICHMOND, Va - An EMT with the Richmond Ambulance Authority (RAA) is a one-of-a-kind essential worker to her family, and now she has the doll to prove it.April O'Quinn was one of five national winners in the "Heroes with Heart" contest, run by American Girl.Families were asked to nominate a hero fighting COVID-19 who risked their lives to help others during the pandemic.O'Quinn was nominated by her niece, Lacey, who lives in Texas. Lacey nominated her aunt after the EMT worker returned to work after recovering from COVID-19."The lung problems were probably the worst part for me. I couldn't lay down. I had to sit up. I slept sitting up," O'Quinn said.Emergency Medical Services seemed like the perfect fit for O'Quinn, and she didn't hesitate to return once doctors gave her the OK."She didn't hesitate for a moment," Lacey wrote on her contest submission, which was published by American Girl."I feel very fortunate that I only have the minor problems that I have and I can be back to work," O'Quinn said. "I like to get in there, help people, and then step back into the dark."O'Quinn got a phone call last month from Lacey with the exciting news."Lacey was on the other side screaming that we had won — I was in shock," O'Quinn said. "I had no words. I ended up crying because I couldn't say anything.""The excitement and smiles as she opened her hero doll were all worth it," she said.April is now one of five essential workers nationwide celebrated by American Girl."We at the Richmond Ambulance Authority are so excited for April and her niece Lacey. We're thankful American Girl held a contest to recognize our frontline heroes and are thrilled to have one of our employees represent EMS," RAA CEO Chip Decker said.The winners received a custom American Girl Doll and outfit in their hero's likeness and a 0 gift card."The stars and brightness in her face and eyes was amazing. It was all worth the pictures, even though I hate pictures," O'Quinn said.The review she cares about most is holding onto her doll thousands of miles away in Texas."It'll be something that neither one of us will ever forget. It's a bond that I'll hold with her forever," O'Quinn said.This story was originally published by Jake Burns on WTVR in Richmond, Virginia. 2267

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's skyrocketing gas prices could be driven by "possible market manipulation" by a handful of well-known retailers, according to a new government analysis.In a memo to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Energy Commission said at the end of April the difference between the state's gas prices and the national average increased by more than a dollar — "the highest increase ever seen." After accounting for the state's additional taxes and other program costs, the increase has ranged between 17 cents and 34 cents per gallon since 2015.The agency noted the price jump "roughly matches" the period in 2015 when an explosion at Exxon Mobil's refinery in Torrance crippled production in the state for more than a year. But the refinery has restored normal operations, suggesting other factors are driving up the price of fuel.One possible explanation the commission identified is some retailers are charging higher prices than others "for essentially the same product." The commission noted Chevron, Shell, Exxon, Mobil and 76 have doubled their prices compared to ARCO, unbranded retailers and hypermart locations, which include stations associated with supermarkets or big-box retail stores."While this practice is not necessarily illegal, it may be an effort of a segment of the market to artificially inflate prices to the detriment of California consumers," the commission noted in its report.Agency officials said this type of price increase would normally drive customers to lower-priced competitors. From 2010 to 2017, the commission said the percentage of gasoline sold by Chevron, Shell and 76 retail stores dropped by about 3 percentage points combined.However, the commission noted its preliminary estimates are "imprecise." Agency officials have proposed studying the issue for the next five months and then presenting the governor with a full report.Western States Petroleum Association President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said lots of factors can explain why California's gas prices are higher than the national average, including the state's mandated fuel blend requirements, increasingly high state taxes and regulations that include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program."This report provides further evidence of what market experts and government agencies have maintained for years: there are many factors that influence movement in the price of gasoline and diesel, but the primary driver is the dynamics of supply and demand of crude oil," Reheis-Boyd said. 2523