焦作中考补习正规哪里好莲湖初三学校哪里有好吗,碑林封闭冲刺正规地方,西安文化补习学校,碑林初三升学率,渭城区初三补习学校多少钱,莲湖提分学校正规好吗,河南封闭学校实力成绩好

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom eased the sentences or criminal histories of nearly three dozen current or former felons on Tuesday.They include 10 pardons intended to aid immigrants who face the possibility of deportation.One of the 10 is currently in a federal immigration detention facility. The 10 were among 22 pardons, 13 commutations and four medical reprieves, the last a category prompted by the coronavirus pandemic.The state corrections secretary and a federal court-appointed official recommended the medical risk clemency review.They are in addition to thousands of other earlier releases intended to free space within the state's prison system to slow the virus' spread. 715

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) — Officials say California's unemployment rate fell to a new record low of 4% in September.The state Employment Development Department said Friday that employers added 21,300 nonfarm payroll jobs. That extended California's record job expansion to 115 months.The unemployment rate in August was 4.1%, matching the previous record low first set in 2018.The state's current period of job expansion tied the 1960s' expansion when it reached 113 months.California has gained 3,348,900 jobs since the expansion began in February 2010. 561

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The first data from an experiment in a California city where needy people get 0 a month from the government shows they spend most of it on things such as food, clothing and utility bills.The 18-month, privately funded program started in February and involves 125 people in Stockton. It is one of the few experiments testing the concept of “universal basic income,” an old idea getting new attention from Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination.Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs has committed to publicly releasing data throughout the experiment to win over skeptics and, he hopes, convince state lawmakers to implement the program statewide.“In this country we have an issue with associating people who are struggling economically and people of color with vices like drug use, alcohol use, gambling,” he said. “I thought it was important to illustrate folks aren’t using this money for things like that. They are using it for literal necessities.”But critics say the experiment likely won’t provide useful information from a social science perspective given its limited size and duration.Matt Zwolinski, director of the Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at the University of San Diego, said people aren’t likely to change their behavior if they know the money they are getting will stop after a year and a half. That’s one reason why he says the experiment is “really more about story telling than it is about social science.”Plus, he said previous studies have shown people don’t spend the money on frivolous things.“What you get out of a program like this is some fairly compelling anecdotes from people,” he said. “That makes for good public relations if you are trying to drum up interest in a basic income program, but it doesn’t really tell you much about what a basic income program would do if implemented on a long-term and large-scale basis.”The researchers overseeing the program, Stacia Martin-West at the University of Tennessee and Amy Castro Baker at the University of Pennsylvania, said their goal is not to see if people change their behavior, but to measure how the money impacts their physical and mental health. That data will be released later.People in the program get 0 each month on a debit card, which helps researchers track their spending. But 40% of the money has been withdrawn as cash, making it harder for researchers to know how it was used. They fill in the gaps by asking people how they spent it.Since February, when the program began, people receiving the money have on average spent nearly 40% of it on food. About 24% went to sales and merchandise, which include places like Walmart and discount dollar stores that also sell groceries. Just over 11% went to utility bills, while more than 9% went to auto repairs and fuel.The rest of the money went to services, medical expenses, insurance, self-care and recreation, transportation, education and donations.Of the participants, 43% are working full or part time while 2% are unemployed and not looking for work. Another 8% are retired, while 20% are disabled and 10% stay home to care for children or an aging parent.“People are using the money in ways that give them dignity or that gives their kids dignity,” Castro-Baker said, noting participants have reported spending the money to send their children to prom, pay for dental work and buy birthday cakes.Zhona Everett, 48, and her husband are among the recipients. When the experiment started she was unemployed and her husband was making 0 a day as a truck driver. They were always late paying their bills, and the pressure caused problems with their marriage.Once she got the money, Everett set it up to automatically pay bills for her electricity, car insurance and TV. She’s also paid off her wedding ring, donates a month to her church and still has some left over for an occasional date night with her husband.She said she and her husband now both have jobs working at the Tesla plant in Fremont.“I think people should have more of an open mind about what the program is about and shouldn’t be so critical about it,” she said. 4140

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California may join many other states in allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections, if they will turn 18 before the following general election, under a proposed amendment to the state constitution approved Thursday by the state Assembly.If two-thirds of senators agree, the measure would to go to voters for their consideration in California's March primary election, but it would not affect next year's elections.The measure passed, 57-13, over objections from Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher of Nicolaus that it's a ploy to lure more Democratic-leaning young voters.RELATED: California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs bill on presidential tax returnsThe measure "is being veiled as something that helps expand the franchise" but "has mostly a more political ulterior motive in the long term," Gallagher said. "That's what is really going on here."Democratic Assemblyman Kevin Mullin of San Francisco said the practice has been adopted in other states that lean Republican, and the goal of his measure is to "empower California's youngest voters" and encourage a habit of life-long voting."The time has come for California to join in pursuing what so many other states have done," Mullin said.The National Conference of State Legislatures says the practice is permitted in at least 17 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. Some states that use caucuses also allow 17-year-olds to participate, though the rules are generally set by each political party."It's not driven by a Democratic idea in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego, listing some of the more conservative states. "To suggest that there's some political play going on I think is disingenuous. ... It's good for the process, it's good for them, and it's our way to develop lifelong voters."The measure is supported by groups including the League of Women Voters of California. It's opposed by the Election Integrity Project California Inc., which noted that 17-year-olds are still considered children, mostly in high school, who may be easily influenced by their parents and teachers.The measure is separate from another proposed amendment to the California constitution that would lower the voting age from 18 to 17 even in general elections. That measure is awaiting an Assembly vote.California is among 14 states that allow 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote, but they can't currently vote until they turn 18. Nine other states set different pre-registration ages.Berkeley voters in 2016 allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local school board elections, but a similar measure failed in nearby San Francisco. 2861