济南痛风多吃什么好(山东痛风的尿酸) (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 Dan Ryan Expressway roars with cars that feature the power of hundreds of horses. But on Monday, a man and a lone horse disrupted traffic at rush hour.News helicopters followed a man going down the busy freeway late Monday afternoon riding the horse. Police followed the man off the freeway on the city’s south side.Footage then showed the man jumping off the horse and being detained. The Illinois State Police confirmed that Adam Hollingsworth was arrested on three criminal counts. The counts were for reckless conduct, disobeying a police officer and criminal trespass of state-supported property.He was accompanied by several others on motorcycles.Another man, Darron Luster, was arrested for obstruction and resisting arrest. Police accused Luster of trying to gain control of the horse, and disobeyed officers who asked him released the horse.The Illinois State Police confirmed the horse sustained several injuries, including bleeding from the left hoof, the right hoof was injured, and the right side of the horse’s body had sores from the saddle. The horse was taken to Animal Care and Control.The Illinois State Police said that it had met with Hollingsworth on Sept. 9 as he planned on staging a protest on the interstate. The police told Hollingsworth that “he would not be allowed on the Dan Ryan Expressway because it is dangerous and illegal for pedestrians to access the expressway in that manner.”According to CNN, Hollingsworth — also known as the "Dreadhead Cowboy" — was attempting to raise awareness for the U.S. Census so his community could receive more funding for children's services. 1622

The Department of Defense says the military parade originally scheduled for Veterans Day will be postponed."The Department of Defense and White House have been planning a parade to honor America's military veterans and commemorate the centennial of World War I," Defense Department spokesman Col. Rob Manning said in a statement Thursday. "We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019."The parade was scheduled for the day before the 100th anniversary of the armistice that ended the First World War. French President Emmanuel Macron is holding a gathering of world leaders in Paris on November 11 to celebrate the anniversaryCNN previously reported that the parade would focus on celebrating veterans and involve US troops in period uniforms as well as US military aircraft but no heavy vehicles like tanks in order to prevent damage to infrastructure.The price tag of the proposed parade has sparked criticism. On Thursday, the American Legion reacted to reports that the parade could cost tens of millions more than originally expected by saying the money would be better spent in other ways."The American Legion appreciates that our President wants to show in a dramatic fashion our nation's support for our troops," American Legion national commander Denise Rohan said in a statement. "However, until such time as we can celebrate victory in the War on Terrorism and bring our military home, we think the parade money would be better spent fully funding the Department of Veteran Affairs and giving our troops and their families the best care possible."Trump said in February that a military parade in Washington would be "great for the spirit of the country," but that it would need to come at a "reasonable cost." The President said he was inspired by the Bastille Day parade in France, which he described as "quite something" after attending in 2017.The Department of Defense says the military parade originally scheduled for Veterans Day will be postponed. 2062

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 Food and Drug Administration released updated safety standards Tuesday for makers of COVID-19 vaccines despite efforts by the White House to block them, clearing the way for requirements that are widely expected to prevent the introduction of a vaccine before Election Day.In the new guidelines posted on its website, the FDA said vaccine makers should follow trial participants for at least two months to rule out any major side effects before seeking emergency approval. That standard had been a sticking point between the FDA and White House officials, who said it could unreasonably delay the availability of COVID-19 vaccines.President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted a vaccine could be authorized before Nov. 3, even though top government scientists working on the effort have said that timeline is very unlikely. On Monday Trump said vaccines are coming “momentarily,” in a video recorded after he returned to the White House.Former FDA officials have warned that public perception that a vaccine was being rushed out for political reasons could derail efforts to vaccinate millions of Americans.A senior administration official confirmed Monday that the White House had blocked FDA’s plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the two-month data requirement, arguing there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.But on Tuesday, the FDA posted the guidance on its website, making clear that regulators plan to impose the safety standards for any vaccine seeking an expedited path to market.FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said in a statement that he hoped the guidelines would help “the public understand our science-based decision-making process that assures vaccine quality, safety and efficacy.”The requirements are aimed at companies seeking rapid approval through the FDA’s emergency authorization pathway. That accelerated process, reserved for health emergencies, allows medical products onto the market based on a lower bar than traditional FDA approval. But FDA has made clear only vaccines that are shown to be safe and effective will be authorized for coronavirus.Former FDA acting commissioner Dr. Stephen Ostroff said the requirements seem reasonable given the agency is in largely “uncharted territory” in terms of considering emergency use of a vaccine. The agency has only previously cleared one vaccine through the method — a decades-old shot that was authorized to prevent anthrax poisoning in 2005.“There really is no margin for error here,” Ostroff said. “Even when you’re talking about limited use of a vaccine there has to be some level of assurance that there isn’t a risk here that would far outweigh the benefit.”Dr. Peter Marks, the head of FDA’s vaccine division, said Tuesday that the two-month follow-up requirement was chosen to be “something reasonably aggressive, but not too conservative — right in the middle.” He spoke at a symposium organized by Johns Hopkins University.Initial doses of vaccines for emergency use would likely be reserved for medical workers and people with health conditions that make them particularly vulnerable to coronavirus. Full FDA approval for the general population will require significantly more data and is not expected until mid-2021.The White House attempt to block the guidance followed a string of instances in which the Trump administration has undercut its own medical experts working to combat the pandemic. FDA’s Hahn has been attempting to shore up public confidence in the vaccine review process for weeks, vowing that career scientists, not politicians, will decide if the shots are safe and effective.Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has stoked excitement by saying that he expects data on whether the company’s candidate works to be ready in late October. But a number of variables would still have to align for the company to submit, and the FDA to review and greenlight, a vaccine application before Nov. 3. Pfizer’s competitors Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are working on longer research timelines.Vaccine development typically takes years, but the U.S. government has invested billions in efforts to accelerate the process and help multiple drugmakers prepare multiple candidates. All the doses will be purchased by the federal government for use vaccinating the U.S. population.Beyond exposing the rift between the White House and FDA, the delay in releasing the guidelines may have had limited practical effect.FDA scientists have been discussing the guidelines publicly for weeks and have made clear that the recommendations have already been shared with each of the vaccine developers.Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Tuesday that drugmakers depend on the FDA’s science-based endorsement to vouch for the safety and effectiveness of their products.“I can’t imagine a circumstance where a sponsor would challenge or seek to undermine the FDA’s role here,” Gottlieb said at the COVID-19 symposium. “This is precisely the moment when we need an objective, neutral arbiter.”Last week, Gottlieb and six other former FDA commissioners blasted the Trump administration for “undermining the credibility” of the agency in a op-ed calling for the release of the then-stalled vaccine guidelines.“Scientists should make decisions based on data, unfettered by political pressure or the intrusions of ideology or vested interests,” the officials wrote.___AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. 5644

来源：资阳报