许昌民办高中正规怎么样泾阳县高考提分靠谱的好吗,碑林高考复读学校哪家好,漯河封闭冲刺靠谱的联系电话,漯河回流生哪里有有哪些,许昌回流生实力地方,许昌中考冲刺专业专业,莲湖高考复习班实力联系方式

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 go-to comfort food for Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be chocolate. Sales of chocolate have been on the rise since mid-March.During the second quarter of 2020, roughly March through June, people bought .7B worth of chocolate. That’s a 6.3 percent increase from the same time period last year, according to Nielsen.Mars Wrigley, which owns brands like M&M’s and Snickers, told CNN online sales have been stronger in recent months.Research firm NPD recently said Americans were increasing their snacking while stay-at-home orders were in place.During the first few weeks of April, between meal snacking was up 4 percent, according to NPD’s research. They also found 37 percent of consumers were stocking up on salty snacks and frozen treats. 776

The charges against one of the three men in connection to a viral video of a shark being dragged behind a boat from July 2017 have been dropped.A Hillsborough County (Florida) judge dropped two felony counts of aggravated animal cruelty (third-degree felony) against Spencer Heintz Tuesday morning.According to the judge, the state dropped the charges because no evidence showed that Heintz, 23, broke the law and because he agreed to testify as a witness.Heintz, 21-year-old Michael Wenzel and 28-year-old Robert Lee Benac were all charged after a four-month-long investigation into the graphic video of a shark being dragged behind a boat.At this time, it is unknown if the charges against Wenzel and Benac will also be dropped.Wentzel and Benac still face the following charges: 824

The country is heading into a COVID-19 winter without fully deploying widespread testing of sewage for traces of coronavirus, a Newsy investigation has found.Wastewater surveillance is one of the few proven tools able to track community spread of the disease, with the potential to help monitor immunity rates from new vaccines."It is frustrating," said David Larsen, an associate professor of public health at Syracuse University's Falk College. "We're going to see a huge amount of sadness over the next few months. And it's not too late to scale up wastewater surveillance at this time to help us with that."Early on, scientists realized infected people shed the virus in stool.The federal government began a big effort for analyzing the concentration of the virus in community wastewater."It's something I think from a national level we need to pursue," Assistant Secretary for Health ADM Dr. Brett Giroir said during a July webinar.Months later, the government has left it to state and local authorities to launch their own programs.For some, that's been a challenge.Newsy learned New York State, for example, suspended its sewage surveillance pilot after a month in part because of an equipment shortage.As a result, testing stopped in four places including Albany and Erie County, home of Buffalo.The University of Buffalo helped lead the project."UB is in the process of acquiring enough materials to continue the monitoring effort moving forward," university spokesman Cory Nealon said in an emailed statement.As with PPE, there is a global shortage of supplies needed to test sewage for COVID.Other places are struggling with how to pay for sewage analysis, with coronavirus aid from Washington running dry."The biggest factor, the limiting factor, is finances," Larsen said.The result is a patchwork of places examining wastewater across the country, mainly big cities and college campuses."It's not really a unified strategy, unfortunately," said Colleen Naughton, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California Merced.She and her team plot testing sites on a map."When you zoom out of course the bubbles are big, so it looks like all U.S. is covered," Naughton said. "But when you zoom in you see it's a bit more spread out."Three states, Iowa, Rhode Island and South Dakota, don't have any surveillance sites at all, she said.Biobot Analytics looks for COVID in wastewater for about 200 cities and counties but has the capacity to do much more, said company president and cofounder Newsha Ghaeli."We're at the beginning, let's say that," Ghaeli said. "There hasn't really been a strong coming together yet around a specific approach or even standards."The CDC is still putting together a national wastewater surveillance system, building out a database not available to the public yet."It is, I think, valuable for the public to see that data and take action as a deciding factor for what activities and what risks am I going to take?" Naughton said. 3019

The captain of a duck boat that capsized in July on a Missouri lake, killing 17 people, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the wreck.Kenneth Scott McKee, 51, faces 17 counts related to "acts of misconduct, negligence or inattention to duty," one for each victim, according to the indictment, which was announced Thursday by the US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Tim Garrison.The violations are colloquially known as "seaman's manslaughter," Garrison said.A federal grand jury found that McKee failed to properly assess incoming weather before and while he put the vessel in the water, entered the vessel on the water as severe weather approached, failed to instruct passengers to put on personal flotation devices and operated the duck boat in violation of its conditions and limitations, among other acts, according to the indictment.The federal criminal investigation into the deadly wreck on Table Rock Lake, near the tourist hub of Branson, Missouri, began after the US Coast Guard in July determined the deaths resulted from the captain's actions. The investigation is ongoing, Garrison told reporters Thursday.Ripley Entertainment, which runs the duck boat tours called Ride the Ducks Branson, did not immediately respond Thursday CNN's requests for comment. McKee's attorney, J.R. Hobbs, confirmed to CNN he is reviewing the indictment against his client but is not making any additional comment regarding the allegations.McKee is not in custody, Garrison said, adding that the charges announced Thursday are the first criminal indictments related to the incident. The US attorney would not say whether McKee has been cooperating with the probe. Hobbs said he is in the process of scheduling an initial court appearance by McKee.Survivor Tia Coleman, whose husband, three children and five other relatives were killed in the duck boat wreck, commended Garrison as the indictments were announced."While nothing can ever ease the grief in my heart, I am grateful that the US Attorney's Office is fighting for justice for my family, and the other victims, and is committed to holding fully accountable all those responsible for this tragedy," she said in a statement.In case of a conviction, each count against McKee carries possible prison time of up to 10 years and a fine of as much as 0,000. 2352