濮阳市东方医院治病不贵濮阳东方医院做人流手术费用多少,濮阳东方男科医院上班到几点,濮阳东方看妇科病值得选择,濮阳东方看妇科病收费透明,濮阳市东方医院收费高不,濮阳东方妇科医院价格不高,濮阳东方男科医院割包皮手术安全不

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's legal team has responded to the special counsel, the latest effort in ongoing negotiations over a possible interview."We have now given him an answer. Obviously, he should take a few days to consider it, but we should get this resolved," Giuliani said during an interview on the radio show of fellow Trump attorney Jay Sekulow."We do not want to run into the November elections. So back up from that, this should be over by September 1," Giuliani said.Sekulow confirmed in a statement that the legal team "responded in writing to the latest proposal" from the special counsel, but declined to comment on the substance of the response.Giuliani had previously told CNN that the team planned to send its counteroffer to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding a potential interview on Wednesday."It is a good faith attempt to reach an agreement," Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers on the Russia investigation, told CNN.The former New York City mayor similarly would not describe the contents of the counteroffer, except to say that "there is an area where we could agree, if they agree."Giuliani wouldn't say if that area has to do with collusion or obstruction.The President has previously said that he wants to speak with the special counsel and has insisted there was no collusion or obstruction, while deriding the investigation as a "witch hunt."But Trump's public attacks on the Russia probe have sparked questions over whether his actions could constitute obstruction of justice. Those questions intensified earlier this month when the President called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, an escalation that Giuliani attempted to downplay as Trump merely expressing an opinion.The President's team has sought to limit any potential interview to questions about collusion. But Giuliani told CNN they would be willing to consider questions relating to any obstruction of justice inquiry as long as they are not "perjury traps," a phrase favored by the Trump legal team as a way to raise questions about the fairness of the special counsel, though it also speaks to the risks of having the President sit down for an interview."For example: 'What did you say about Flynn?' 'Why did you fire Comey?'" They already know our answer," Giuliani said, referring to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired in May 2017. The former FBI director later testified to Congress that Trump had pressed him to drop an investigation into Flynn, a claim that Trump has denied. "If they can show us something in that area that didn't involve those direct questions, that we don't consider perjury traps, we would consider it," Giuliani said, but conceded he "can't think of what that would be."Mueller has indicated to the team that the special counsel wants to ask the President obstruction questions in an interview.The President's lawyers had previously offered the special counsel written answers to obstruction questions and limiting the interview to matters before his presidential inauguration, which are largely confined to collusion.The back and forth over an interview comes as the special counsel investigation faces its first major test in court as Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort stands trial in the Eastern District of Virginia where he is accused of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial crimes.Manafort's case isn't about the 2016 presidential campaign, but he is the first defendant Mueller's team has taken to trial. 3603

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) - A California Assemblymember wants to make horse racing safer and prevent deaths on the track.Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-27) says it's the only way to ensure the sport's survival in the state."I think whether you're a race fan or not, everything we can do to protect the horses, while protecting the sanctity of the sport as well, is important," says Kalra.His proposal, Assembly Bill 2177, would create sweeping changes to the way horses are cared for at the tracks. Among the most notable changes, all large tracks would be required to have CT Scans on site. Kalra says this will help get more accurate diagnoses of injuries.The bill would also require tracks to have on-site pharmacies, and trainers could only give medicine from those pharmacies to the horses. Veterinarians would also be prohibited from carrying medicine to the tracks."If you mask injuries, you risk greater injury," he says. "So we want to make sure that medications are being prescribed that actually deal with specific injuries, they're not performance enhancing and they're not being used to mask an injury just to get a horse out on a track when it's not ready."The bill requires the immediate suspension of any trainer who has a horse die on the track, pending an investigation. It also gives the California Horse Racing Board the authority to suspend or revoke a trainer's license for repeat violations of medication regulations.The bill is sponsored by PETA and the animal rights group Social Compassion in Legislation. In a statement, PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo says "Horse racing shouldn't come with a death toll, and this legislation can help to make sure it doesn't."Judie Mancuso, the President of Social Compassion in Legislation told 10News that this bill can be a good compromise between the industry and people who want to see the sport eliminated."A lot of it is just common sense," says Mancuso. "If horse racing is to exist in California, there has to be zero tolerance for fatalities."Horse deaths were a major problem in California in 2019. Santa Anita saw 44 horses die at the track since December of 2018. The Del Mar race track had a handful of deaths during its Bing Crosby fall season.Kalra says Del Mar has been a leader in horse safety and the rest of the state should look to them for best practices."Del Mar is actually one of the safer tracks and that's something we want to look at," he says. "Why is it safer? We can learn a lot by what's happening at your local track and hopefully these rules and regulations will be able to encapsulate some of the good things happening in the industry as well."Officials from Del Mar declined to go on camera, but released a statement to 10News about Assembly Bill 2177. In it, they say:"The Del Mar Thoroughbred Club (DMTC) is committed to working with the legislature and equine experts to ensure the safest possible environment for California's horses and riders. In 2017, DMTC began a series of industry-leading reforms which resulted in Del Mar being ranked as the safest racetrack in North American in both 2018 and 2019. As a founding member of the national Thoroughbred Safety Coalition, DMTC continues to work with industry stakeholders to advocate for and implement the highest standards of safety and welfare for our equine and human athletes."Critics of the bill say it will ruin the industry in California, as trainers and owners who don't want to abide by the new rules will choose to race in other states instead. Kalra believes that if California adopts the new rules, the rest of the country will follow."California needs to do what's in the best interest of Californians," he says. "I think once we do that and other states see how we're doing it, they'll want to work with us and really create a standard that can be used nationally."The bill is scheduled for a hearing in the House Government Oversight Committee on March 13th. 3943

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California's confirmed coronavirus cases have topped 409,000, surpassing New York for most in the nation.John's Hopkins University data showed Wednesday that California now has about 1,200 more cases than New York.However, New York's 72,302 deaths are by far the highest total in the country and nine times more than California's tally.RELATED: SD County COVID-19 TrackerNew York's rate of confirmed infections of about 2,100 per 100,000 people is twice California's rate.U.S. government data published Tuesday found that reported and confirmed coronavirus cases vastly underestimate the true number of infections. 649

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California affiliate of the National Rifle Association has asked a U.S. judge to block a new law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.The California Rifle & Pistol Association asked San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez to halt the checks and related restrictions on ammunition sales.Voters approved tightening California's already strict firearms laws in 2016. The restrictions took effect July 1.The gun owners' association challenged the ammunition background checks in a lawsuit filed last year and on Monday asked for an injunction, alleging it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.RELATED: New ammunition law requires background checksThe lawsuit has been joined by out-of-state ammunition sellers and California residents, including Kim Rhode, who has won six Olympic shooting medals and is trying to become the only person to win seven medals at seven consecutive Games."The scheme purports to funnel everyone seeking to exercise their Second Amendment right to acquire ammunition into a single, controlled source, an in-state licensed vendor, for the purpose of confirming purchasers' legal eligibility to possess ammunition and to keep track of all purchases," lawyer Sean Brady wrote. "While making sure dangerous people do not obtain weapons is a laudable goal for government, California's scheme goes too far and must be enjoined."The motion raised concerns about identification requirements and high rates of denials among ammunition buyers undergoing the new background checks. Moreover, the system blocks out-of-state ammunition vendors from the California market, the motion argues.RELATED: Study: Tougher gun laws lead to fewer firearm-related deaths among childrenThe judge is expected to decide in early August whether to order a halt, though any such decision is almost certain to be appealed.Benitez in October rejected the state's attempt to throw out the lawsuit. He allowed opponents to proceed on arguments that the ammunition restrictions impede interstate commerce and are pre-empted by federal law.The measure "criminalizes all of those (ammunition) transactions with merchants conducting business in other states," he wrote in a preliminary ruling that the restriction "significantly burdens interstate commerce."He also preliminarily supported the argument that the new state law conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.RELATED: Southern California town of Needles wants to be a sanctuary -- for gun ownersThe California law "criminalizes bringing ammunition into the state that was purchased or obtained outside the state," he wrote.Benitez earlier this year struck down California's nearly two-decade-old ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. That triggered a week-long buying frenzy before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling.The impending ammunition background checks sparked a surge in sales as firearm owners sought to beat new requirements, including that dealers report the brand, type and amount of ammunition to the state Department of Justice.Gun owners who already are in the state's background check database would pay a fee each time they buy ammunition, while others can buy longer-term licenses if they do not have certain criminal convictions or mental health commitments.Gov. Gavin Newsom has criticized Benitez's lifting of the state's ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets, saying he is confident it will be reinstated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Attorneys with San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence anticipated that Benitez is likely to block the ammunition restrictions, but the law would eventually be upheld on appeal."Unfortunately this may be the one judge in the country" willing to rule that "people should be able to buy unlimited quantities of ammunition without background checks," staff attorney Ari Freilich, who directs the organization's California legislative affairs, said prior to the filing.Gun owner groups have been pinning their hopes on a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court. But the center's litigation director, Hannah Shearer, said there are unlikely to be the kind of conflicting lower court opinions that would prompt the justices to weigh in.She said courts have upheld ammunition licensing laws in other states and she expects the 9th Circuit would do likewise. 4465