秦都区高中复读专业好吗驻马店高考提分实力怎么办,蓝田县补习靠谱的会吗,陕西全日制学校正规成绩好,灞桥区应届生复读学校效果好,驻马店高考冲刺班正规哪里好,鄠邑区学校专业会吗,陕西全日制哪里有提分快

Rudy Giuliani said Sunday that special counsel Robert Mueller is aiming to finish the probe into potential wrongdoing by President Donald Trump by Sept. 1.Giuliani, Trump's attorney, confirmed to CNN that Mueller's office shared its timeline with him about a month ago.The former New York mayor said, however, that Mueller gave him the information within the context of a discussion about whether Trump would do an interview with the special counsel. Giuliani said the impression he got was that Mueller was saying if the President did do an interview, then the investigation into Trump's actions, including any potential obstruction of justice or possible collusion with Russia's interference in the 2016 election, could be wrapped up by that date. 762

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) — A California appeals court says it's legal to have small amounts of marijuana in prison — so long as inmates don't inhale.The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that California voters legalized recreational possession of less than an ounce (28 grams) of cannabis in 2016, with no exception even for those behind bars.But the court says state law does prohibit smoking weed in prison. Prison officials can also still punish pot possession as a rules violation."According to the plain language of ... Proposition 64, possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in prison is no longer a felony," the court ruled Tuesday. "Smoking or ingesting cannabis in prison remains a felony."RELATED: City votes in favor of marijuana production site in Kearny MesaThe court overturned the Sacramento County convictions of five inmates who had been found with marijuana in their prison cells."The voters made quite clear their intention to avoid spending state and county funds prosecuting possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, and quite clear that they did not want to see adults suffer criminal convictions for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana," Sacramento County Assistant Public Defender Leonard Tauman said in an email. The appeals court "quite properly honored what the electorate passed."Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office said it is reviewing the ruling and did not say if he will appeal.RELATED: Nevada becomes first state to ban pre-employment marijuana tests"We want to be clear that drug use and sales within state prisons remains prohibited," said corrections department spokeswoman Vicky Waters. She said the department "is committed to providing a safe, accountable environment for prisoners and staff alike and we plan to evaluate this decision with an eye toward maintaining health and security within our institutions."The three-judge panel rejected the state's argument that guards will lose control over prisons if inmates are free to possess small quantities of marijuana, noting that possession can still be punished as a rules violation with longer prison terms or a reduction in privileges.While prison officials can still punish inmates for violating the rules, "this ruling will prevent inmates from having years added to their sentences for simple possession, reducing overcrowding and saving ,000-75,000 a year in unnecessary costs," said Assistant Public Defender David Lynch.RELATED: More than 100 illegal pot farms busted in Anza, tons of weed seizedThe judges scolded the attorney general's office for a counter-argument it said "uses arcane rules" and "twists the meaning of the words of the statute."Becerra's office argued that the court's reading of the law was absurd because it in effect allows controlled substances into prisons. But the court noted that it previously ruled that it's not illegal for inmates to have properly prescribed medications or medical marijuana behind bars — though it may be against the rules."The Attorney General raises the same hackneyed and losing arguments in each case involving contraband in jails or prisons," the judges wrote.Lawmakers held "an over abiding consensus" in the 1940s that drug use by inmates was "the ultimate evil," they wrote. But those old laws belie "a gradual change in attitude" first toward medical and eventually toward recreational marijuana."As a matter of public policy, his position may be sound," the judges wrote. "The fact that the Attorney General may not agree with the voters does not empower us to rewrite the initiative."They ultimately concluded that "a result is not absurd because the outcome may be unwise." 3667

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

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A proposal to make it easier for local California governments to raise taxes or issue bonds for infrastructure projects has failed in the state Assembly.The effort by Democratic Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry was a constitutional amendment. That means it also would have needed approval from voters at the ballot to become law.It would have lowered the threshold for local governments to raise taxes and issue bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent. Supporters say the higher threshold made it too difficult for local communities to raise money for schools, libraries and other projects.But opponents say the two-thirds threshold is a necessary protection for taxpayers.It failed to pass the Assembly despite Democrats holding a supermajority. Aguiar-Curry may bring it up for a vote again later this year. 841