濮阳东方医院割包皮收费合理濮阳东方医院男科治早泄很便宜,濮阳东方医院妇科做人流专业吗,濮阳东方医院线上医生,濮阳东方妇科医院好不好啊,濮阳东方男科医院割包皮收费比较低,濮阳东方医院看阳痿价格标准,濮阳市东方医院治病便宜吗

A hacker who claims to have gotten access to President Donald Trump’s personal Twitter account by guessing his password will not face charges, according to reports, because the man acted “ethically” following getting access.Dutch prosecutors say Victor Gevers did get access to the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account by guessing “MAGA2020!” as the password in late October of this year, saying that Gevers shared screenshots from inside the account, according to the BBC.At the time, the White House and Twitter denied it had been hacked.Gevers, a cyber-security researcher, said he was doing a semi-regular sweep of Twitter accounts associated with the U.S. election when he correctly guessed Trump’s password.Investigators in the Netherlands said Gevers was investigating the strength of the password based on “major interests involved if this Twitter account could be taken over so shortly before the presidential election.”“We believe the hacker has actually penetrated Trump’s Twitter account, but has met the criteria that have been developed in case law to go free as an ethical hacker,” reads a statement from the public prosecutor’s office, the Guardian reported.Investigators say Gevers met the standard for “responsible disclosure.”He has publicly shared how he guessed the password, and tweeted October 22, following the alleged hack, a warning possibly aimed at the president urging people to use two-factor authentication. This is a way to make hacking more difficult by requiring two forms of authentication when account details are changed. 1562

A day after Judge Amy Coney Barrett mostly sidestepped questions on her judicial views of politically-charged topics, Barrett returned to the Capitol on Wednesday for another marathon session of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.On Tuesday, Democrats continued their attempt to pry Barrett into sharing her judicial views on topics like abortion, public healthcare, LGBTQ+ rights and gun control — topics which Barrett is considered to take a conservative slant. However, Barrett continued to repeatedly invoke the "Ginsburg rule.""Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts," Barrett said on Tuesday.Ginsburg — whose seat Barrett seeks to fill following the longtime justice's death in September — coined the phrase during her confirmation hearings 27 years ago. While she did not set that precedent, she's credited with the concise phrasing that has been recited by many prospective justices in the decades since.But The Associated Press notes that Ginsburg was open on her views of at least one hotly-debated topic — abortion."The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity," Ginsburg said in 1993 during her confirmation hearing, according to the AP. "It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."As Democrats lobbed questions at Barrett regarding her judicial views, the judge offered few insights. Here's how she answered on the following topics:AbortionLike she did on Tuesday, Barrett attempted to avoid answering specific questions regarding her personal views on abortion. However, Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Barrett specifically about legislation he introduced that would prevent a woman from receiving an abortion after 20 weeks. When asked if Barrett would listen to both sides of that case, Barrett said she would.Graham went on to say that if Barrett were to be confirmed, it would punch through a "reinforced concrete barrier" facing conservative women, adding it would be the first time in history that a woman who is "unashamedly pro-life" would be appointed to the Supreme Court.Affordable Care ActBarrett mostly stuck to the "Ginsburg Rule" by attempting not to tip her hand when it came to sharing judicial views. However, questioning from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, forced Barrett to admit that while she had written negatively about the Affordable Care Act and some Supreme Court rulings upholding it in the past, she had not ever written favorably about the law.Cameras in the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has famously been one of the most secretive branches of government. Cameras and recording devices weren't allowed in high court hearings until this year when arguments were forced to be held via teleconference due to the COVID-19. In fact, it wasn't until 2018 that the court published case filings online.However, Barrett said Wednesday that she would "keep an open mind" about allowing cameras in the courtroom moving forward.Climate changeSen. Richard Blumenthal asked Barrett directly if she believed if humans are causing climate change. She declined to answer the question directly and added that she didn't think it was relevant to her job.Her comments come a day after she said during the first day of questioning that she has "no firm views" on climate change and added that she's "not a scientist."COVID-19 lockdownsFeinstein also asked Barrett about a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in which the court said Wisconsin could not extend mail-in voting during its primary elections. The primary took place on April 7 — in the throes of pandemic-related lockdowns.Feinstein asked Barrett specifically about her view of the case. Barrett declined to give one, again citing the fact that she did not want to provide a judicial view.PolygamyWhen asked by Graham if a group of Americans had a right to polygamous marriage, Barrett declined to give a direct answer, keeping in line with avoiding direct judicial answers.Presidential powersLeahy asked Barrett specifically if a president had a right to pardon himself for any crimes he may have committed. Barrett responded that such a hypothetical was not settled law and that she did not want to speculate lest a similar case come before the courts.ImmigrationSen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat who ran for the party's presidential nomination, question Barrett on her views on separating children at the border. "Do you think it is wrong to separate a child from their parent, not for the safety of the child or parent, but to send a message? As a human being, do you believe that that is wrong?"Booker asked. "That's been a matter of policy debate and that's a matter of hot political debate in which I can't express a view or be drawn into as a judge," Barrett responded. What's nextSenators will meet privately to review Barrett's FBI file and background check. On Thursday, witnesses for and against Barrett's confirmation will go before the committee. _____Tuesday's hearings were also beset by technical issues. During Blumenthal's questioning, the committee was forced to take a brief recess when microphones in the room stopped working. Upon the committee's return, microphones again went dead as Blumenthal was wrapping up his time, forcing another brief recess.On Tuesday, Barrett also often invoked the "Ginsburg Rule" when discussing abortion, an upcoming case that could decide the legality of the Affordable Care Act, gun control and voting rights.Barrett was also asked about comments from President Donald Trump, who has hinted in the past that Ginsburg's seat must be filled prior to the election in the event the Supreme Court needs to make a crucial ruling. Barrett did not commit to recusing herself should such a case arise, but said she would consider the case and the recommendations of other justices.Barrett's thorniest stretch on Tuesday came in a denouncement of discrimination of LGBTQ+ people when she used the term "sexual preference." The term, generally deemed to be outdated, is classified as "offensive" by GLAAD because it implies that sexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured." Barrett later apologized for using the term when confronted by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.The 22 Senators on the committee were each given 30 minutes to question Barrett on Tuesday. Senators will each be given 20 minutes for questioning on Wednesday. Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, says he hopes to wrap up the confirmation hearing Thursday, and that Barrett is on track to be confirmed later this month, about a week before the 2020 election.Several swing-vote Republicans have already indicated that they will vote to confirm Barrett, suggesting that she will likely be confirmed. 6963

A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed President Donald Trump illegally benefits from his Washington hotel and that same hotel hurts restaurants that are also near the White House.The lawsuit was brought forward in 2017 by Cork Wine Bar, a restaurant in Washington that said it suffered because lobbyists and other political-minded customers chose to host fundraisers, events and dinners at the Trump International Hotel rather than at its business.But Judge Richard Leon of the DC District Court wrote in his opinion Monday that Cork couldn't claim a competitive disadvantage simply because of a public figure's fame."Cork does not, for example, accuse (the hotel) or President Trump of acting to dissuade potential customers from patronizing Cork or somehow obstructing entry to Cork's location," Leon wrote.If he had ruled in the restaurant's favor, Leon wrote, "I would be foreclosing all manner of prominent people—from pop singers to celebrity chefs to professional athletes—from taking equity in the companies they promote. ... This I cannot do!"While the Trump International Hotel is currently run by a trust administered by the President's family members, it remains at the center of two other major lawsuits that allege Trump has accepted illegal payments through the business.Earlier this month, a federal judge denied Trump's appeal to pause discovery in a lawsuit brought by the governments of Washington, DC, and Maryland that alleges he violated the constitutional clause that prohibits gifts and advantages from foreign and domestic governments.The lawsuit raises the possibility that transactions between the Trump International Hotel and foreign dignitaries could be made public. 1755

A Las Vegas mom says her extended-stay apartment is being unfair and may even fine parents over some new rules involving children.Julie Gordon lives at the Budget Budget Suites near Wigwam and Las Vegas Boulevard with her family, including three children ages 10, 9 and 7. Gordon says the rules were handed out earlier in the year."I did not have a problem with [the rules] because my kids are always supervised, and I didn't feel as if it applied to me," said Gordon.The sheet of paper she received from a security guard outlines six rules: 564

A dispute is brewing between city officials in Denton, Texas and the parents of a 10-year-old boy with autism after body cam footage was released last week from an incident in April showing a school resource officer body slamming the boy, WFAA-TV reported.According to an account of events given to WFAA, the boy, Thomas Brown, poked other students and was ignoring his teachers when a school resource officer was called to the special needs classroom. The boy then backed into a cubby as school staff and the officer closed in. Video of the incident shows the officer picking up the boy as the boy began kicking and screaming. Moments later, the boy was brought to the ground, and placed in handcuffs. Thomas' parents said the use of force was "excessive.""I see a little boy hiding," mother Emily Brown told WFAA. "Not doing anything that's an imminent serious harm to someone else."Brown said she realized just how serious the incident was after she got home and noticed bruises on her son's body. Both the Denton school district and city of Denton both disagreed with Thomas' parents."The safety of all of our students is a top priority and we have protocols in place to ensure this," the Denton Independent School District said in a statement. "In this instance, protocol was followed, with the school resource officer making the determination, after all other efforts to deescalate the situation proved ineffective, that the student was a detriment to his own safety and that of the other students and staff."In the city's statement to WFAA, it claimed that Thomas "was posing a serious threat of injury to himself or others."According to ABC News, the Browns plan on suing the school district and city over the incident.  1791