白癜风梅州那个医生好(汕尾治疗白癜风哪里便宜) (今日更新中)

The dead gunman in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting was a former airman who was discharged from the military for bad conduct and may have been conducting target practice on his property last week, sources say.Details continue to trickle out Monday about the man police say is responsible for the worst mass shooting in Texas history.Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, was killed after the shooting, either by his own hand or by a gunshot from a local resident who engaged and chased Kelley, police say. 515

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 CDC is recommending Americans not travel for Thanksgiving during the current spike in coronavirus cases nationwide.“As cases continue to increase rapidly across the United States, the safest way to celebrate Thanksgiving is to celebrate at home with the people you live with,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website reads. “Travel may increase your chance of getting and spreading COVID-19. Postponing travel and staying home is the best way to protect yourself and others this year.”This is the strongest urging from the health agency, which is part of the Health and Human Services Department, asking Americans to take stricter precautions to slow the spread of the coronavirus.There are more than 11 million reported cases of COVID-19 in this country since the pandemic started, and more than 250,000 Americans have died."We're seeing exponential growth in cases," CDC COVID-19 incident manager Dr. Henry Walke said during a press briefing. "The opportunity to translocate disease or infection from one part of the country to another leads to our recommendation to avoid travel at this time."If people are still planning to travel for the Thanksgiving holiday, the CDC has a series of questions on their website for travelers and family members to consider before going ahead with travel plans.Questions include: Are you, someone in your household, or someone you will be visiting at increased risk for getting very sick from COVID-19? Are cases high or increasing in your community or your destination? Are hospitals in your community or your destination overwhelmed with patients who have COVID-19? Do your plans include traveling by bus, train, or air which might make staying 6 feet apart difficult?“We understand that people want to see their family and relatives and do it as they’ve always done it. But this year we’re asking them to limit their travel," Dr. Walke said. The CDC also recommends those who travel to follow all of their guidance for slowing the spread of coronavirus: wear a mask, wash hands, social distance, get the flu shot, and bring extra masks and hand sanitizer.Whether or not there is travel involved, the CDC also recommends some safety precautions when celebrating Thanksgiving with a group of people.These include bringing individual utensils, plates and cups to reduce sharing, wear a mask when around people not in your household - even indoors, use single-use options when possible to reduce sharing.Consider eating outside and limit the number of guests, the CDC says. Also, clean and disinfect touched surfaces between use. If indoors, open windows and doors to allow ventilation.“Celebrating virtually or with the people you live with is the safest choice this Thanksgiving,” the CDC states. 2761

The death toll in a series of wildfires in California, Oregon and Washington rose to 36 as officials warn that an already-historic fire season is "far from over."As of Tuesday morning, wildfires have killed 25 people in California, 10 people in Oregon and one person in Washington dating back to mid-August.Fifteen people alone have died in California's North Complex Fire, which is currently burning in the Sierra Nevada mountains north of Sacramento. According to Cal Fire, the fire which has been burning for nearly a month, is currently 39% contained.In Oregon, the Beachie Creek fire and the Alameda Fire have each killed four people in recent days. The Beachie Creek fire, currently burning in the northern part of the state since Aug. 16, is 15% contained. The Alameda Fire is 100% contained, according to the Oregon wildfire dashboard.Though 2020 has already marked a record-setting year for wildfires in the western U.S., officials are bracing for more damage in the coming weeks. Wildfire season typically lasts through the end of October on the West Coast."We've had major destruction and, even sadly, two dozen fatalities already and we still have several months to go in our fire season here. Unfortunately, this record-setting year is far from over," Cal Fire spokesperson Daniel Berlant told Fox News on Monday night.The wildfires garnered the focus of both President Donald Trump and his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Monday. After receiving a briefing from officials in California, Trump placed the blame for the fires on "forest management," and seemed to downplay the effect of climate change during a conversation with California Gov. Gavin Newsome. In a speech from Delaware, Biden promised to address climate change should be elected president, and slammed Trump for ignoring the facts on the changing climate. 1872

The defense rested its case Tuesday morning in the trial against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort without calling any witnesses, setting the stage for closing arguments Wednesday morning.Manafort spoke for the first time in court during the trial, saying he will not testify.Manafort told Judge T.S. Ellis that he would not testify during a brief questioning at the podium before the jury was brought in the room. Manafort is not required to testify because of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Ellis made this clear during his brief conversation with Manafort."You have an absolute right to testify before this jury," Ellis said. "You have an absolute right to remain silent before this jury." 735

来源：资阳报