濮阳东方医院看妇科评价好很专业(濮阳市东方医院治病专业吗) (今日更新中)

The White House said Thursday that new national security adviser John Bolton met with Russian ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov."Bolton reiterated that it is in the interest of both the United States and Russia to have better relations, but that this will require addressing our concerns regarding Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the reckless use of a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom, and the situations in Ukraine and Syria," the White House statement said.This was the first meeting between the two in their current roles. Bolton officially stepped into the role of White House national security adviser earlier this month after President Donald Trump announced his appointment in March.The meeting came amid heightened tensions between the two nations over Syria, the poisoning in the UK of a former Russian spy and the ongoing special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.Last year, Trump?met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kisylak, who was Russia's ambassador to the US at the time. Russian state media posted photos of that Oval Office meeting. 1160

The way lawyers for Kyle Rittenhouse tell it, he wasn’t just a scared teenager acting in self-defense when he shot to death two Kenosha, Wisconsin, protesters. He was a courageous defender of liberty, a patriot exercising his right to bear arms amid rioting in the streets.The dramatic rhetoric has helped raise nearly million to pay for the 17-year-old’s defense against homicide charges in the killing of two protesters, and wounding of a third. The shootings happened on the third night of demonstrations following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. “A 17-year-old citizen is being sacrificed by politicians, but it’s not Kyle Rittenhouse they are after. Their end game is to strip away the constitutional right of all citizens to defend our communities,” says the voice-over at the end of a video released this week by a group tied to Rittenhouse’s legal team.But some legal experts say there are risks in turning a fairly straightforward self-defense case into a sweeping political argument that could play into a stereotype that he is a gun-crazed militia member out to start a revolution.“They’re playing to his most negative characteristics and stereotypes, what his critics want to perceive him as — a crazy militia member out to cause harm and start a revolution,” said Robert Barnes, a prominent Los Angeles defense attorney.Rittenhouse’s high-profile defense and fund-raising teams, led by Los Angeles-based Pierce and Atlanta attorney Lin Wood, respectively, refused to speak to The Associated Press about their strategy ahead of the teen’s next court appearance Friday, a hearing in Illinois on whether to return him to Wisconsin.Earlier this week, a new lawsuit claims Facebook promoted conspiracy theories among the members of militia groups and is responsible for a series of shootings in Kenosha that left protesters dead in the days following the shooting of Jacob Blake. 1902

The Trump administration plans to announce the long-anticipated federal rule officially banning bump stocks in the coming days, according to US officials familiar with the matter.Bump stocks gained national attention last year after a gunman in Las Vegas rigged his weapons with the devices to fire on concertgoers, killing 58 people. President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw the devices soon after the tragedy, and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged him to back a permanent legislative fix.But opposition from lawmakers and the National Rifle Association ultimately made a regulatory change the only realistic path forward to accomplishing the President's goal.The devices make it easier to fire rounds from a semi-automatic weapon by harnessing the gun's recoil to "bump" the trigger faster -- an operation that caused officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during the Obama administration to conclude that it's merely a gun accessory or firearm part, not subject to federal regulation.At Trump's direction, however, the Justice Department submitted a proposed final rule earlier this year that upended the Obama-era interpretation, and concluded that bump-fire stocks, "slide-fire" devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics all fall within the prohibition on machine guns by allowing a "shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law.Under the new rule, bump stock owners would be required to destroy or surrender the devices to authorities. Members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks, according to a source familiar with the final rule."Bump stocks turn semiautomatic guns into illegal machine guns. This final rule sends a clear message: Illegal guns have no place in a law-and-order society, and we will continue to vigorously enforce the law to keep these illegal weapons off the street," a senior Justice Department official told CNN Wednesday.Republican lawmakers, who are typically opposed to federal agencies writing regulations to accomplish what Congress hasn't directly legislated, had insisted that the Justice Department and ATF write a new regulation. Whereas some Democrats, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, have repeatedly cautioned that such a ban would likely result in lawsuits given ATF's earlier interpretation.ATF Acting Director Thomas Brandon acknowledged in a Senate hearing this summer that he has been advised that banning bump fire stocks through executive regulation could lead to court challenges that would delay the implementation of a ban.Trump said last month he told the NRA "bump stocks are gone," but how the group responds to the final rule remains to be seen. A spokesperson for the NRA said in October 2017 that the ATF "should review bump-fire stocks to ensure they comply with federal law," but made clear it opposed the broader gun-control legislation raised by some in Congress.In June, Slide Fire Solutions, the Texas company that invented the bump-fire stock device and was its lead manufacturer, announced on its website that it would stop taking orders for its products and would shut down its website.The company, however, directs buyers to RW Arms, an arms dealer also based in Texas, which appears to be selling the remainder of Slide Fire's inventory. RW Arms was advertising for bump fire stocks made by Slide Fire as recently as this week, when they offered a Cyber Monday sale on the product. Slide Fire has not responded to repeated requests for comment about any potential litigation over a federal rule banning bump stocks.The-CNN-Wire 3725

The Senate has passed a defense spending bill that President Donald Trump has said he plans to veto, according to the Associated Press.The National Defense Authorization Act passed the Senate with a 84 to 13 Friday. The annual bill affirms a 3% pay raise to U.S. troops and unlocks billions in military spending.The bill passed despite an attempt from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, to filibuster the bill and delay its passage. Paul said Thursday he opposed the bill because it limited Trump's ability to withdraw troops from the Middle East before he leaves office.Trump has threatened to veto the bill unless lawmakers include a provision that would remove Section 230 from the 1996 Communications Decency Act. That section protects tech companies from being sued for content that other people post on their website.Conservative lawmakers have attacked the provision in recent years, saying that the protections have led social media conglomerates to develop a liberal bias on the social media sites. Proponents of the provision say it upholds free-market values in the marketplace of information.Congress is expected to override a potential veto from Trump. The House of Representatives easily passed the bill earlier this month with a vote of 335-78. 1260

The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on several major cases next week impacting everything from abortion rights to the presidential election. Traditionally, the court issues all of it's rulings by the end of June to go on recess by early July. It's unclear this year however if the Supreme Court will extend its rulings if they are behind because of the pandemic. The Supreme Court said in advance what days justices will issue opinions, but would not announce which specific opinions will be announced on those days. Rulings typically come down around 10 a.m. ET.EXPECTED CASE #1 SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CHANGES?In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the ruling could allow students in religious schools the ability to seek private scholarships funded through state income-tax credits. For years such programs were thought to be incompatible with Montana's constitutional ban on public aid to religious schools, however the Supreme Court could allow the program to exist. Because similar bans exist in 38 states, the ruling could change the definition of the separation of church and state. EXPECTED CASE #2CHANGE TO ABORTION RIGHTS?In June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, the ruling could impact the future of abortion rights across the country. The ruling examines whether a Louisiana law, which requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals, is constitutional. Abortion-rights activists say it will lead to clinics being shut down because most providers don't work with hospitals. More importantly, the ruling could tell anti-abortion leaders across the country that the High Court may be open to changes to Roe v Wade in the future. EXPECTED CASE #3ELECTORAL COLLEGE CONFUSION?In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the ruling could result in major confusion in the 2020 election. The case is out of Colorado where in 2016, state electors to the electoral college attempted to vote for someone other than the winner of Colorado, Hillary Clinton. The electors were removed and replaced with someone to deliver the actual result, however it raised questions over how much power do these electors really have. EXPECTED CASE #4PRESIDENT TRUMP TAX RETURNS?In Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, the question is whether the president has to comply with subpoenas for personal records. Does the power of the presidency allow President Donald Trump to say "no" when it comes to revealing his tax returns? If the Supreme Court rules against President Trump, it could create a new controversy for the President ahead of the election. 2615

来源：资阳报