高陵区补习补习班好吗碑林高考应届补习班专业提分快,高陵区全日制冲刺实力效果好,郑州中考冲刺正规效果好,秦都区高一学校专业有哪些,碑林高考民办高中哪里好,西安高考补习专业成绩好,陕西高考冲刺班哪里有排名

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's legal team has responded to the special counsel, the latest effort in ongoing negotiations over a possible interview."We have now given him an answer. Obviously, he should take a few days to consider it, but we should get this resolved," Giuliani said during an interview on the radio show of fellow Trump attorney Jay Sekulow."We do not want to run into the November elections. So back up from that, this should be over by September 1," Giuliani said.Sekulow confirmed in a statement that the legal team "responded in writing to the latest proposal" from the special counsel, but declined to comment on the substance of the response.Giuliani had previously told CNN that the team planned to send its counteroffer to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding a potential interview on Wednesday."It is a good faith attempt to reach an agreement," Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers on the Russia investigation, told CNN.The former New York City mayor similarly would not describe the contents of the counteroffer, except to say that "there is an area where we could agree, if they agree."Giuliani wouldn't say if that area has to do with collusion or obstruction.The President has previously said that he wants to speak with the special counsel and has insisted there was no collusion or obstruction, while deriding the investigation as a "witch hunt."But Trump's public attacks on the Russia probe have sparked questions over whether his actions could constitute obstruction of justice. Those questions intensified earlier this month when the President called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation, an escalation that Giuliani attempted to downplay as Trump merely expressing an opinion.The President's team has sought to limit any potential interview to questions about collusion. But Giuliani told CNN they would be willing to consider questions relating to any obstruction of justice inquiry as long as they are not "perjury traps," a phrase favored by the Trump legal team as a way to raise questions about the fairness of the special counsel, though it also speaks to the risks of having the President sit down for an interview."For example: 'What did you say about Flynn?' 'Why did you fire Comey?'" They already know our answer," Giuliani said, referring to former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, whom Trump abruptly fired in May 2017. The former FBI director later testified to Congress that Trump had pressed him to drop an investigation into Flynn, a claim that Trump has denied. "If they can show us something in that area that didn't involve those direct questions, that we don't consider perjury traps, we would consider it," Giuliani said, but conceded he "can't think of what that would be."Mueller has indicated to the team that the special counsel wants to ask the President obstruction questions in an interview.The President's lawyers had previously offered the special counsel written answers to obstruction questions and limiting the interview to matters before his presidential inauguration, which are largely confined to collusion.The back and forth over an interview comes as the special counsel investigation faces its first major test in court as Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort stands trial in the Eastern District of Virginia where he is accused of bank fraud, tax evasion and other financial crimes.Manafort's case isn't about the 2016 presidential campaign, but he is the first defendant Mueller's team has taken to trial. 3603

SACRAMENTO -- State water regulators met in Sacramento Tuesday to consider making water wasting rules permanent state law, according to The Mercury News.The State Water Resources Control Board held the public hearing, but it’s unclear whether a final vote would come Tuesday, or at a later date.The talks come amid one of the driest winters in modern California history. The rules being discussed were originally enacted during the last drought.RELATED: San Diego County moves a step up in drought severityIf the rules were made into state law, offenders could be fined up to 0 per violation.The rules were originally put into place between 2014 and 2017 under orders from Governor Jerry Brown but expired November 25.Environmentalists supported the rules and asked that they be made even stricter. The groups supported a rule that would have prohibited restaurants from serving water to customers who didn’t ask for it.Cities have also thrown their support behind the rules, but say they object to the way they’re legally framed.RELATED: Plan to replace dead, drought-stricken trees in Balboa Park speeds upThe board has the authority to pass water rules in power granted to them by voters in 1928. According to The Mercury News, cities and farmers have feared that the authority could be used to limit water rights.The rules that could be made into state law are: 1386

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Those body-length receipts from retail stores are here to stay.The California Legislature had been considering banning paper receipts unless requested by a customer. But a legislative committee voted Friday not to send the legislation to the Senate floor for a vote.The move means the bill is unlikely to pass this year.RELATED: Solana Beach moves closer to banning single-use plastic items within city limitsDemocratic Assemblyman Phil Ting had criticized the receipts for harming the environment. An aide dressed as a giant receipt stood beside Ting as he announced the bill at a news conference earlier this year, emphasizing the often absurd lengths of modern receipts.Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Anthony Portantino said the bill did not get out of committee because it had some problems. He said paper receipts have other uses, such as offering coupons to consumers. 918

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to cap annual rent increases statewide for most tenants as a limited housing supply in the country's most populous state continues to drive up the cost of living while pushing more people to the streets.The California Senate voted 25-10 to cap rent increases at 5% each year plus inflation for the next decade while banning landlords from evicting tenants without just cause. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom says he will sign the bill into law, but first it must survive a final vote in the state Assembly where the California Association of Realtors is pushing to defeat it. Lawmakers must act by Friday.California's largest cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco, have some form of rent control, but a state law passed in 1995 has restricted new rent control laws since that year. In most places, landlords can raise rents at any time and for any reason, as long as they give advance notice.In Pomona, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) east of Los Angeles, Yesenia Miranda Meza says her rent has jumped 20% in the past two years. Monday, she marched with other tenants through the halls of the state Capitol chanting: "Once I've paid my rent, all my money's spent.""I'm a rent increase away from eviction, and that's with me having two jobs," she said "So if this (bill) doesn't go through and I get another rent increase, I really don't know what I'm going to do. I'm either going to be homeless or I'll have to cram into a room with a whole bunch of other people."Opponents have likened the proposal to rent control — a more restrictive set of limitations on landlords. California voters overwhelmingly rejected in a statewide ballot initiative to overturn the 1995 law last year.California Association of Realtors President Jared Martin said the group's 200,000 members strongly oppose the bill because it will "reduce the supply and quality of rental housing." It's an argument echoed by Republican Sen. Jeff Stone, who said developers would have no reason to build new housing if they can't make money off their investment."We'll see even a greater housing crisis because of the low supply of housing," Stone said. "Either this will force our constituents to join a 60,000 homeless population that we see in the LA area, or they will simply just move to another state."But supporters say the bill includes lots safeguards to prevent that from happening. The rent caps don't apply to new construction built within the last 15 years — a provision that prompted the California Building Industry Association to drop its opposition.Plus, the caps don't apply to single family homes, except those owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts. And duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units are also exempt."We all desperately want to build more housing. It was a very important aspect of this bill," Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu said.But even some Democrats who voted for the bill on Tuesday signaled they didn't like it, a sign the bill is not guaranteed to pass. Sen. Steve Glazer, a Democrat representing a district in the San Francisco Bay area, cited a 2018 study by Sanford University showing landlords under rent control are more likely to nudge tenants out by spending less on maintenance."Any time you reduce rate of return on an investment, you make that investment less attractive, and this is true even if new investment is exempted for 15 years as this bill does," he said.But Carolyn Wilson, a 71-year-old Sacramento resident, said she needs help now. She said her rent has increased about 0 each year and her landlord just gave her a 60-day notice to move out for on reason."All I do is get up on the computer looking for some place to go," she said. "With my income, I can't afford anything." 3819

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