濮阳东方看男科病技术很专业(濮阳东方医院评价高) (今日更新中)

The White House National Security Council is ending the role of cyber coordinator, according to an internal announcement obtained by CNN on Tuesday.The internal announcement said the elimination of the cyber role, just weeks into the tenure of national security adviser John Bolton, was part of an effort to "streamline authority for National Security Council Senior Directors."The announcement said the cyber coordinator job would end as Rob Joyce, the latest to hold the post, returned to the National Security Agency."With our two Senior Directors for Cybersecurity, cyber coordination is already a core capability," the announcement read. "Eliminating another layer of bureaucracy delivers greater 'decision, activity, secrecy and despatch (sic)' as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist Number 70."The elimination of the cyber coordinator job marked the latest of several changes to the National Security Council since President Donald Trump named Bolton his national security adviser.CNN reported last month Bolton pushed out Tom Bossert as homeland security adviser to make room for his own team, as several other officials left the National Security Council, including deputy national security adviser Nadia Schadlow and Joyce, who served as Bossert's deputy.Politico?first reported?on the elimination of the post.Asked about the position at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said she had not discussed the decision with Bolton."I have not had a conversation with Ambassador Bolton about that particular issue," Nielsen told Michigan Democratic Sen. Gary Peters.Nielsen said DHS has "strengthened all of our relationships with the silos" in government that Peters mentioned in his question, and said she is in regular contact with Bolton on cybersecurity, the previous statement notwithstanding."Since Ambassador Bolton has come onto the job, he and I speak regularly," she said, describing cybersecurity strategy work between herself and Bolton as "hand in glove."She added the cybersecurity strategy released by her department on Tuesday was done in "close coordination" with NSC.During his first year in office, then-President Barack Obama?announced he was establishing the role of cybersecurity coordinator and warned at the time the nation needed to bolster its online security efforts.Mississippi Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, issued a statement responding to the news and accusing Bolton of "wreaking havoc" on the NSC."With cyber threats ever-changing and growing more sophisticated by the day, there is no logical reason to eliminate this senior position and reduce the already degraded level of cyber expertise at the White House," the statement read.Democratic Rep. Jim Langevin, of Rhode Island, said Tuesday he feels the decision was the "first major step backward" on cybersecurity by the Trump administration. He added the Trump administration had mostly followed in the footsteps of the Obama administration before this move."Bad move, big mistake, and just shows how out of touch and uninformed John Bolton is," Langevin said. 3227

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to take up a case concerning the government's decision to phase out an Obama-era initiative that protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.In doing so, government lawyers sought to bypass federal appeals courts that have yet to rule definitively on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.In court papers, Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the justices to take up the case this term and argued that district judges who had issued opinions against the administration were "wrong" to do so. Francisco pointed out that back in 2012 the Obama administration allowed some "700,000 aliens to remain in the United States even though existing laws provided them no ability to do so."Francisco said that "after a change in administrations" the Department of Homeland Security ended the policy "based on serious doubts about its legality and the practical implications of maintaining it."The filing came the night before the midterm elections as President Donald Trump has repeatedly brought up immigration to rally his base in the final hours before the vote.In September 2017, the government announced plans to phase out the program, but lower court judges blocked the administration from doing so and ordered that renewals of protections for recipients continue until the appeals are resolved.The legality of the program is not at issue in the case. Instead, lower courts are examining how the government chose to wind it down.Supporters of the roughly 700,000 young immigrants who could be affected by the end of DACA say the administration's actions were arbitrary and in violation of federal law. 1736

The Time Warner building in New York City, where CNN has a studio, is one of several places to receive a potentially explosive device this week. It is being investigated as an act of terrorism.The package was located in the building's mailroom, CNN reported on air today. Employees said authorities told them it looked like a pipe bomb and had wires attached.Police believe it is a very serious incident and a real explosive that was delivered. The Time Warner building's other businesses were evacuated and folks moved farther away from the location at what is a busy time of day in metro New York City. 617

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

The star of the Netflix documentary "Tiger King" Joe Exotic sued the United States Justice Department Wednesday because they rejected his request for a presidential pardon.According to court documents obtained by CBS11 and Courthouse News, lawyers for Exotic, whose real name Joseph Maldonado-Passage, argued that the rejection isn't valid because Acting Pardon Attorney Rosalind Sargent-Burns didn't give his official request to President Donald Trump himself.According to the six-page complaint filed in federal court in Fort Worth, Exotic's legal team named Sargent-Burns because she allegedly never gave President Trump a formal recommendation, which according to the lawsuit, she's required to do.Currently, Maldonado-Passage is serving a 22-year prison sentence in Fort Worth after he was found guilty in April 2019 for animal cruelty and trying to hire someone to murder Carole Baskin, who's a big-cat rights activist.The complaint also names Donald Trump Jr. as a supporter, CBS11 reported. 1006

来源：资阳报