陕西封闭学校实力好吗(阎良区高二哪里有好吗) (今日更新中)

The Department of Justice has issued a clarification after some social media users spread disinformation about the use of masks amid the coronavirus pandemic.As cases of COVID-19 spike throughout the country, several states, counties and cities have issued mandates requiring masks in public — and local media reports from across the country indicate that Facebook users in those areas may have seen a viral post containing inaccurate information.While regulations differ from state to state and city to city, many local governments have determined those with pre-existing conditions that would make wearing a mask difficult are exempt from the ordinances. But some viral Facebook posts indicate that the Department of Justice has required exemption cards for those who cannot wear masks.Many of the viral posts contain a screenshot of the "card," containing the Department of Justice seal and a reference to the "Freedom to Breathe Agency.""The Department of Justice has been made aware of postings or flyers on the internet regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the use of face masks due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many of which include the Department of Justice's seal. These postings were not issued by the Department and are not endorsed by the Department," the DOJ said on its website.The Freedom To Breathe Agency refers to a private Facebook group opposed to government restrictions related to COVID-19 with about 7,000 members. A website listed on the "card" for the agency is not currently active.The Department of Justice recommends visiting Americans with Disabilities Act website for the latest updates from the department. 1661

The bull market turns 3,453 days old on Wednesday. It's the longest period of uninterrupted gains in American history.The remarkable run began on March 9, 2009, in the ashes of the Great Recession and the scariest financial crisis since the 1930s. The slow-but-steady economic recovery, coupled with unprecedented aid from the Federal Reserve, catapulted the Dow from around 6,500 to nearly 26,000 today. The S&P 500 has quadrupled from its 2009 low of 666. And market darlings like Netflix and Amazon have skyrocketed much further.The bull market narrowly survived countless panic attacks from crisis-scarred investors along the way. There was the downgrade of America's credit rating in 2011, the feared collapse of the euro, China's alarming economic slowdown and the dramatic crash in oil prices.Yet each scare failed to derail the steady rise of the economy and corporate profits that has underpinned Wall Street's record-breaking run. There were close calls, but the S&P 500 never dropped 20%, the trigger for a new bear market. 1050

The city is opening a code enforcement investigation into an apartment complex that is made up almost entirely of short-term vacation rentals.The complex, called The Louisiana, is on University Avenue in North Park. A company called Sonder has leased each of its 13 market-rate apartments to rent to visitors (the complex has two affordable units as well). A one-bedroom apartment is listed at 0 per night for a weekend in October. The city made the call after a group called Save San Diego Neighborhoods held a press conference outside the complex Thursday.Board member Brian Curry said this type of business is contributing to the city's supply crunch that pushes up rents. He also questioned whether the complex, permitted as mixed-use apartments, is allowed to be operated more like a hotel. "It is simply wrong to steal housing from our residents to meet the visitor room night demand," said Curry. In a statement before the city announced its investigation, Sonder defended its arrangement with the developer. "Sonder San Diego strictly complies with all local laws and pays all local taxes, period. Contrary to recent false claims, our location on University Avenue is fully licensed, legal and not zoned ‘residential' but for commercial and mixed-use with visitor accommodation allowed by right," the statement said. "We look forward to continuing to grow and give back in San Diego while working with the City on real solutions for affordable housing.”Additionally, the buildings developer said the extra funds from the lease with Sonder is helping to fund other housing construction faster. Councilwoman Barbara Bry, who attended Thursday's news conference, said the city can't build its way out of its housing crisis without addressing the proliferation of short-term rentals. 10News has reached out to Sonder for comment on the city investigation. 1871

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

来源：资阳报