郑州郑州做近视手术哪家好郑州准分子激光手术林顺潮眼科教授,郑州飞秒激光近视手术费用,郑州近视手术的眼科医院,郑州近视飞秒治疗,郑州治疗假性近视,郑州近视眼做手术的条件,郑州眼睛全飞秒手术多少钱

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

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens believes the students and demonstrators who protested this past weekend for gun control should seek a repeal of the Second Amendment."A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment," Stevens wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, "today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."A lifelong Republican but considered liberal in his judicial rulings, Stevens pointed to his dissent in the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within his home. 722

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California’s attorney general has dropped a lawsuit seeking the names and contact information of every person who used one of the state Republican Party’s unofficial ballot drop boxes. The party used the boxes to collect ballots in some counties with closely contested U.S. House races. It’s legal in California to collect completed ballots and turn them in on behalf of voters. But state law says only county election officials are allowed to deploy ballot drop boxes. Friday, the attorney general’s office announced it was able to ensure that voters’ ballots were counted. California Republican Party officials say the lawsuit was a political ploy. 684

RIO LINDA, Calif. (AP) -- Santa found himself a little more tied up than usual this time of year.A Northern California man impersonating Santa Claus and flying on a powered parachute was rescued after he became entangled in power lines.The incident happened Sunday shortly after the man took off near a school in Rio Linda to deliver candy canes to children.KCRA-TV reports the man flew into a maze of power lines and wound up suspended in them.Officials say power was shut off to about 200 customers in the Rio Linda area during the rescue.The man, who wasn't identified, was not injured. 597

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) - A San Diego plan to let houses of worship build affordable housing on land they already own could expand across the entire state.Tuesday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee will debate Senate Bill 899, also known as the "YIGBY" bill. YIGBY stands for "Yes In God's Back Yard."People behind the concept in San Diego say it's one way to help solve California's housing crisis."It's a potential solution," says YIGBY Project Coordinator Mary Lydon. "We need all solutions on deck right now for this housing crisis. It's not going to solve the problem. But it is a very interesting solution."RELATED: Churches trying to build affordable housing to help with homeless problemThe San Diego City Council passed a law in 2019 to ease zoning restrictions and parking requirements on churches and other houses of worship that would allow them to build affordable housing in their parking lots.RELATED: City Council allows churches to build hosing in parking lotsChurch leaders say that land is under-utilized because they only need parking for the whole congregation once a week.Senate Bill 899 goes a little further, letting houses of worship and other private colleges build affordable housing on any land they own, as long as it is in a residentially zoned area.In San Diego, Bethel AME is the first congregation to get a housing project underway as part of the YIGBY movement. They own a duplex in Logan Heights. The church plans to demolish the duplex and replace it with a three-story, 16-unit apartment complex."This falls right into our great commission," says Senior Pastor Harvey Vaughn. "Clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and house the homeless... To provide safe, affordable affordale housing to people - that's a no brainer to me."San Diego's YIGBY group got some push-back from people who say apartment complexes, even small ones managed by churches, don't belong in neighborhoods full of single-family homes.Lydon says that's a luxury the state can no longer afford."We've had people saying, 'No,' in our city, in our region, in this state for decades. And it just put us in a place of great challenge," she says."We need housing for all incomes. And we have to work on this together. We are going to have to agree that some compromises are going to need to be made."A recent study from UC Berkeley says San Diego has nearly 4,700 acres of land that would qualify for YIGBY housing. The coalition hopes to build 3,000 units within the next five years.But first, the bill has to pass through the legislature.The State Senate approved SB 899 earlier this summer. If the Assembly Appropriations Committee approves it, the bill will need to pass a full vote of the Assembly and then get Governor Newsom's signature before it can go into effect. 2785