濮阳东方医院口碑评价高濮阳东方医院看妇科评价高专业,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮非常可靠,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮手术很不错,濮阳东方医院看男科非常可靠,濮阳东方医院妇科怎么预约,濮阳东方看男科靠谱吗,濮阳东方医院男科治疗阳痿评价高专业

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee panel has endorsed a second COVID-19 vaccine in the United States.Now the FDA is expected to act quickly to authorize the Moderna vaccine for emergency use and keep it on schedule to be distributed to patients across the country as early next week.The panel voted 20 yeses and one abstain.WATCH RECAP:With the panel recommending EUA, the FDA as a whole would then need to file its own EUA approval. The final step would be a formal recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Americans should receive the vaccine.Last Thursday, the committee voted in favor of granting EUA to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. By Monday, it was being administered across the country.The panel's meeting comes days after a key FDA report upheld the safety and efficacy results of the Moderna vaccine's Phase III trials. Those statistics showed that the vaccine was 95% effective with no severe side-effects."FDA has determined that the Sponsor has provided adequate information to ensure the vaccine's quality and consistency for authorization of the product under an EUA," the report said.An approval of Moderna's vaccine would immediately boost the supply levels of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. Millions of doses are ready to be shipped across the country as soon as approval is granted.The arrival of COVID-19 vaccines comes amid the bleakest stretch to date in the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. is currently seeing the highest level of new cases (213.000) and deaths (2,500) each day, according to seven-day rolling averages totaled by the COVID Tracking Project. More Americans than ever are also battling the virus in a hospital (113,000). 1725

The Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) is facing a huge undertaking as COVID-19 vaccines roll out to the general public.More than 418,000 healthcare workers and 10 million patients will eventually get the COVID-19 vaccine through the VA.The department received 73,000 doses of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine this week, and residents and staff at long term communities run by the department are first in line to be inoculated.There are about 17,500 veterans living in VA long-term care facilities across the country, and several thousand more work in those centers.The vaccine could not have arrived sooner for those staff members and patients."I know a lot of VA medical centers are going through COVID surges right now, alongside with their communities," said Dr. Jane Kim, the Chief Consultant for Preventive Medicine at the VA.Most vaccines are mandatory for military members. For now, the COVID-19 vaccine is still voluntary. That's likely due to the limited supply of the vaccine and because it's only under Emergency Use Authorization right now.Still, veteran doctors want to reassure their patients."I got the vaccine yesterday," Kim said. "I had a sore arm yesterday, but my arm feels good today. I feel fine today. I would recommend this vaccine to my family and also my patients when it's available for them and it's their turn."More than 5,500 veteran patients and 87 VA staff members have died of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. That doesn't include state-run veteran's homes.The VA is not responsible for providing COVID-19 vaccines to those state-run veteran's homes. 1596

The COVID-19 pandemic has been forcing millions of Americans to work and learn from home for several months at this point.But while working and learning from home may be routine, that hasn't made it any easier — meetings are still being sabotaged with rambunctious pets, unreliable WiFi signals and barely-clothed family members.Then, there's the dreaded mute button. Failing to click it (or mistakenly turning it off) has sunk many a meeting in the last five months.And apparently, U.S. senators aren't immune to mute-button woes.During the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' questioning of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy on Friday, Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) recognized Sen. Tom Carper (D-Delware) for questioning. After a few moments, Carper didn't respond, and Johnson moved on to Sen. James Lankford (D-Michigan).Apparently, Carper was at his computer but muted. And when audio was restored to his microphone, it caught the senator frustratingly releasing a series of expletives.Johnson asked if Carper was able to unmute his laptop, adding "we don't want to be on TV again," with a laugh.Following the snafu, Carper was able to conduct his questioning.Later, Carper joked about the incident on Twitter."Those who know me know that there are few things that get me more fired up than protecting the Postal Service! #DontMessWithUSPS," he tweeted. 1396

The COVID-19 pandemic is putting vacations on hold across the country. Luckily, Airbnb Experiences is offering a getaway that doesn't require leaving the house.The new program offers worldly activities with chefs, fitness trainers and other experts from various fields.Like coffee? Take a coffee lesson from a national judge. Need to relax? Try meditation, "guided with sleepy sheep." Or, learn how to meditate with a Buddhist Monk.There's yoga, wine tasting and cooking classes — but the dogs of Chernobyl experience is getting the most attention. The experience, guided by a Ukrainian native, introduces users to the dogs of Chernobyl — the second- and third-generation of wild dogs who were in the region when the nuclear disaster took place.It's been a rough year for Airbnb. In a business reliant on travel, COVID-19 was a huge hit for the company."When you're in travel and tourism and you get hit with a global pandemic there is no necessary playbook for that," said Chris Lehane, the Senior Vice President for Policy and Communications at Airbnb.But Airbnb has adapted. They've realized that people still need a way to escape while stuck at home.Airbnb has also seen a rise in customers traveling to rural areas within driving distance."Sixty percent of traveling in Airbnb is within 300 miles of where someone lives," Lehane said. "I say this as a father of two teenage boys — people are looking to get in their car and drive without stopping."Airbnb says one of its top "trending" destinations is southwest Michigan. Hannah Heyn and her family rent out four different places in Sawyer, Michigan on Airbnb."It's very special in the sense that there's a lot of breweries, wineries, beaches, trails," Heyn said, "It's a little treasure in our Midwest area, and when you love your area, you want to share it with others. And we love doing that."Airbnb is their primary source of income, and they're just now coming back from the rough stay-at-home spring. Now Heyn is booked through August, and the "Superhost" is learning new things about the place she calls home."We had a guy coming to learn how to make better and fancier chocolates, and I didn't know we had that," she said. "He was meeting with a top chef here to learn how to make delicate designs on chocolate."Airbnb has also introduced an "Enhanced Clean" option, which Lehane says gives hosts more control over their environments and allows vacationers to feel more comfortable."The protocol includes the types of equipment to use when cleaning, the type of chemicals you should use...really explaining and educating and providing protocol about the difference between cleaning, picking up clutter and dust-and-sanitizing," Lehane said. 2711