济南痛风石手术费用大概多少钱济南治好痛风多少钱,山东快速治疗痛风方法有哪些,山东尿酸360算高吗,济南成都痛风医院排名,济南痛风降尿酸喝什么茶好,济南痛风性关节炎怎么缓解,济南痛风有什么表现如何治疗

Rick Harrison, owner of the Gold & Silver Pawn store and star fo "Pawn Stars" on A&E, is opening a new store in Las Vegas.The store will be located in the multicolored strip mall next to the pawn store. The name of the store will be Rick's Picks and it will feature some of the more interesting items from the pawn store.The new store was first reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. A spokesperson for the family has confirmed the details. 459

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

Rudy Giuliani just contradicted the White House and the Justice Department on a very sensitive subject: The AT&T-Time Warner deal."The president denied the merger," Giuliani, a new member of President Trump's legal team, said in an interview with HuffPost on Friday.Giuliani was seemingly trying to defend the president against any suggestion that Michael Cohen improperly influenced the administration after the revelation that Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney, was paid large sums of money by AT&T and several other corporate clients."Whatever lobbying was done didn't reach the president," Giuliani said, repeating a claim he made to CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday.But then Giuliani went further, telling HuffPost's S.V. Date that "he did drain the swamp... The president denied the merger. They didn't get the result they wanted."In other words: If AT&T hired Cohen to win government approval of the deal, AT&T wasted its 0,000.But the assertion that "the president denied the merger" flies in the face of everything the government has previously said about the deal."If Giuliani didn't misspeak, this is major news," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted Friday night. "It is highly unusual for the president to be involved in DOJ merger decisions."It is possible that Giuliani misspoke, or that he simply does not know what he's talking about. He was not working for Trump at the time the Justice Department was reviewing the deal. Since he began representing Trump, he has had to change the story he has been telling in public about Stormy Daniels and what Trump knew or didn't know and when about the payment Cohen made to her. And he may simply have meant "the president" as a stand-in for "the administration."But this is not the first time that there have been questions about whether politics and Trump influenced the DOJ's decision.On the day AT&T announced its bid to buy Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, then-candidate Trump said he opposed the deal. So when he took office, there were concerns within AT&T and Time Warner that he or his aides would try to block the deal.AT&T said earlier this week that it hired Cohen, in part, to gain "insights" about the Trump administration's thinking about the deal.Throughout 2017, career officials at the Justice Department's antitrust division conducted a standard review of the proposed deal.The DOJ traditionally operates with a lot of independence. But there were persistent questions about possible political interference, especially in light of the president's well-publicized disdain for both CNN and attorney general Jeff Sessions.Still, AT&T and Time Warner executives believed the deal would receive DOJ approval, much like Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal did nearly a decade ago. By October, they thought the thumbs-up was right around the corner.They were wrong. In November, the DOJ went to court to block the deal, alleging that the combination of the two companies would give AT&T too much power in the marketplace.That's when questions about Trump's hidden hand really got louder. Democratic lawmakers raised alarms. So did AT&T and Time Warner. Other critics pointed out Trump's complaints about Sessions and the DOJ. Trump had recently been quoted saying "I'm not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department," adding, "I'm not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would LOVE to be doing, and I'm very frustrated by it."But White House aides like Kellyanne Conway insisted that the White House was not interfering.The DOJ's antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, said the same thing. He denied being influenced by Trump.In an affidavit, Delrahim said "all of my decisions" about suing to block the deal "have been made on the merits, without regard to political considerations."Ahead of the trial, AT&T and Time Warner sought discovery on any relevant communications between the White House and the Justice Department. But a judge denied the request, and the companies dropped any argument that the case was motivated by politics.The Justice Department and AT&T had no immediate comment Friday night.The-CNN-Wire 4182

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Faced with a crippling housing shortage that is driving prices up while putting more people on the streets, California's governor and legislative leaders agreed Thursday on a plan to reward local governments that make it easier to build more housing faster and punish those that don't.The proposed law, which still needs approval by both houses of the Legislature, would let state officials reward "pro-housing" jurisdictions with more grant money for housing and transportation.It also calls for the state to sue local governments that do not comply, possibly bringing court-imposed fines of up to 0,000 a month.The agreement removes one of the final barriers to Newsom signing the state's 4.8 billion operating budget. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier this month, and Newsom has until midnight Thursday to sign it. He has delayed his signature while negotiating the housing package with state lawmakers.The housing plan does not define what local governments must do to be declared "pro-housing," other than passing ordinances involving actions to be determined later.In a joint statement, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins — all Democrats — said the agreement "creates strong incentives — both sticks and carrots — to help spur housing production across this state."RELATED: Newsom proposes plan to withhold gas tax funds from cities that don't meet housing requirementsCalifornia's population is closing in on 40 million people and requires about 180,000 new homes each year to meet demand. But the state has averaged just 80,000 new homes in each of the past 10 years, according to a report from the California Department of Housing and Community Development.Home ownership rates are the lowest since the 1940s while an estimate 3 million households pay more than 30% of their annual income toward rent.State officials often blame local zoning laws for slowing the pace of construction.In January, Newsom proposed withholding state transportation dollars from local governments that do not take steps to increase housing. Local governments pushed back hard, resulting in Thursday's compromise.The court fines could be difficult to collect. A court would have to rule local officials are out of compliance. And once that happens, jurisdictions would have a year to comply before they would have to pay a fine.If they refuse, the state controller could intercept state funding to make the payment. In some cases, the court could appoint an agent to make a local government comply. That would include the ability to approve, deny or modify housing permits."This bill puts teeth into existing state laws, to ensure cities and counties actually follow those laws," said state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco who is chairman of the Senate Housing Committee. "At the same time, we need to be clear that California's existing housing laws, even with better and more effective enforcement, are inadequate to solve our state's massive housing shortage."Lawmakers have already agreed on most major items in the state budget. They voted to expand taxpayer-funded health insurance to adults younger than 26 who are living in the country illegally.They also agreed to tax people who refuse to purchase private health insurance and use the money to help families of four who earn as much as 0,000 a year to pay their monthly health insurance premiums.Lawmakers have not yet voted on details of a plan to spend 0 million from the state's cap and trade program to help improve drinking water for about a million people. 3635

RTW Retailwinds, the parent company of retail chain New York & Co., announced Monday that is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy — the latest blow to an industry whose struggles were taken to new heights by the coronavirus pandemic.The company said in a press release Monday that filed for bankruptcy relief in New Jersey. In the statement, the company hinted that all of its more than 400 brick-and-mortar stores could close for good.In recent months, sales have fallen at New York & Co. as the pandemic forced shutdowns at non-essential retail stores across the country. In addition, massive layoffs and a large increase in employees working from home shrunk demand for professional attire. Other purveyors of businesswear have also fallen on hard times — Brooks Brothers filed for bankruptcy last week.CNN reports that New York & Co. furloughed a "significant portion" of store employees in March and that last week, the company was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.New York and Co. joins an exponentially growing list of retailers who have filed for bankruptcy in recent weeks, including Sur La Table, JC Penney, Pier 1 Imports J. Crew and Niemen Marcus. 1184