宜宾丰胸针(宜宾玻尿酸填充丰太阳穴) (今日更新中)

CNN is filing a lawsuit against President Trump and several of his aides, seeking the immediate restoration of chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's access to the White House.The lawsuit is a response to the White House's suspension of Acosta's press pass, known as a Secret Service "hard pass," last week. The suit alleges that Acosta and CNN's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban.The suit is being filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday morning, a CNN spokeswoman confirmed.Both CNN and Acosta are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. There are six defendants: Trump, chief of staff John Kelly, press secretary Sarah Sanders, deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine, Secret Service director Joseph Clancy, and the Secret Service officer who took Acosta's hard pass away last Wednesday. The officer is identified as John Doe in the suit, pending his identification.The six defendants are all named because of their roles in enforcing and announcing Acosta's suspension.Last Wednesday, shortly after Acosta was denied entry to the White House grounds, Sanders defended the unprecedented step by claiming that he had behaved inappropriately at a presidential news conference. CNN and numerous journalism advocacy groups rejected that assertion and said his pass should be reinstated.On Friday, CNN sent a letter to the White House formally requesting the immediate reinstatement of Acosta's pass and warning of a possible lawsuit, the network confirmed.In a statement on Tuesday morning, CNN said it is seeking a preliminary injunction as soon as possible so that Acosta can return to the White House right away, and a ruling from the court preventing the White House from revoking Acosta's pass in the future."CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration this morning in DC District Court," the statement read. "It demands the return of the White House credentials of CNN's Chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. The wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta's First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. We have asked this court for an immediate restraining order requiring the pass be returned to Jim, and will seek permanent relief as part of this process."CNN also asserted that other news organizations could have been targeted by the Trump administration this way, and could be in the future."While the suit is specific to CNN and Acosta, this could have happened to anyone," the network said. "If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials."During his presidential campaign, Trump told CNN that, if elected, he would not kick reporters out of the White House. But since moving into the White House, he has mused privately about taking away credentials, CNN reported earlier this year. He brought it up publicly on Twitter in May, tweeting "take away credentials?" as a question.And he said it again on Friday, two days after blacklisting Acosta. "It could be others also," he said, suggesting he may strip press passes from other reporters. Unprompted, he then named and insulted April Ryan, a CNN analyst and veteran radio correspondent.Trump's threats fly in the face of decades of tradition and precedent. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had a permissive approach toward press passes, erring on the side of greater access, even for obscure, partisan or fringe outlets.That is one of the reasons why First Amendment attorneys say CNN and Acosta have a strong case.As the prospect of a lawsuit loomed on Sunday, attorney Floyd Abrams, one of the country's most respected First Amendment lawyers, said the relevant precedent is a 1977 ruling in favor of Robert Sherrill, a muckraking journalist who was denied access to the White House in 1966.Eleven years later, a D.C. Court of Appeals judge ruled that the Secret Service had to establish "narrow and specific" standards for judging applicants. In practice, the key question is whether the applicant would pose a threat to the president.The code of federal regulations states that "in granting or denying a request for a security clearance made in response to an application for a White House press pass, officials of the Secret Service will be guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or the family of the President so serious as to justify his or her exclusion from White House press privileges."There are other guidelines as well. Abrams said the case law specifies that before a press pass is denied, "you have to have notice, you have to have a chance to respond, and you have to have a written opinion by the White House as to what it's doing and why, so the courts can examine it.""We've had none of those things here," Abrams said.That's why the lawsuit is alleging a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process.Acosta found out about his suspension when he walked up to the northwest gate of the White House, as usual, for a Wednesday night live shot. He was abruptly told to turn in his "hard pass," which speeds up entry and exit from the grounds."I was just told to do it," the Secret Service officer said.Other CNN reporters and producers continue to work from the White House grounds, but not Acosta."Relevant precedent says that a journalist has a First Amendment right of access to places closed to the public but open generally to the press. That includes press rooms and news conferences," Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia, told CNN last week. "In those places, if access is generally inclusive of the press, then access can't be denied arbitrarily or absent compelling reasons. And the reasons that the White House gave were wholly unconvincing and uncompelling."The White House accused Acosta of placing his hands on an intern who was trying to take a microphone away from him during a press conference. Sanders shared a distorted video clip of the press conference as evidence. The White House's rationale has been widely mocked and dismissed by journalists across the political spectrum as an excuse to blacklist an aggressive reporter. And Trump himself has cast doubt on the rationale: He said on Friday that Acosta was "not nice to that young woman," but then he said, "I don't hold him for that because it wasn't overly, you know, horrible."Acosta has continued to do part of his job, contacting sources and filing stories, but he has been unable to attend White House events or ask questions in person -- a basic part of any White House correspondent's role.Acosta is on a previously scheduled vacation this week. He declined to comment on the lawsuit.On CNN's side, CNN Worldwide chief counsel David Vigilante is joined by two prominent attorneys, Ted Boutrous and Theodore Olson. Both men are partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.Last week, before he was retained by CNN, Boutrous tweeted that the action against Acosta "clearly violates the First Amendment." He cited the Sherrill case."This sort of angry, irrational, false, arbitrary, capricious content-based discrimination regarding a White House press credential against a journalist quite clearly violates the First Amendment," he wrote.David McCraw, the top newsroom lawyer at The New York Times, said instances of news organizations suing a president are extremely rare.Past examples are The New York Times v. U.S., the famous Supreme Court case involving the Pentagon Papers in 1971; and CNN's 1981 case against the White House and the broadcast networks, when CNN sued to be included in the White House press pool.The backdrop to this new suit, of course, is Trump's antipathy for CNN and other news outlets. He regularly derides reporters from CNN and the network as a whole.Abrams posited on "Reliable Sources" on Sunday that CNN might be reluctant to sue because the president already likes to portray the network as his enemy. Now there will be a legal case titled CNN Inc. versus President Trump.But, Abrams said, "this is going to happen again," meaning other reporters may be banned too."Whether it's CNN suing or the next company suing, someone's going to have to bring a lawsuit," he said, "and whoever does is going to win unless there's some sort of reason."The-CNN-Wire 8437

CINCINNATI -- You've read these stories. We've even run some of them. They go like this: A police officer or paramedic touches a mysterious, powder-like substance during a drug arrest or attempted overdose revival, and their heart begins to hammer. Their sweat glands kick into overdrive. Their breath turns thick inside their lungs.After they're rushed to the hospital or dosed with naloxone on-scene, they recover. Their department usually invokes opioids such as fentanyl in explaining the possible incident; the phrase "accidental overdose" comes up.There's just one problem: According to the American College of Medical Toxicology and other medical sources, including Slate contributor Dr. Jeremy Faust, it's essentially impossible to overdose on fentanyl through skin contact alone."These drugs are not absorbed well enough through the skin to cause sickness from incidental contact," the ACMT wrote in a 2017 news release shortly after East Liverpool, Ohio police reported an officer had overdosed after brushing white powder from an earlier drug arrest off his shirt bare-handed. "Toxicity cannot occur from simply being in proximity of the drug. In the event drug powder gets on skin, ACMT recommends simply washing it off."Despite that statement, similar stories surfaced in Ohio during August and November 2017. More recently, news outlets in Texas reported a Houston officer had become ill and received a dose of naloxone after a drug bust in July. Days later, Harris County authorities announced there hadn't actually been any fentanyl at the scene.So what's the truth? According to Chad Sabora, a recovering drug user who founded the Missouri Network for Opiate Reform and Recovery, and neuroscience-pharmacology PhD Sarah Sottile, most of these officers are probably experiencing psychosomatic symptoms — maybe even panic attacks. It's highly unlikely they're actually overdosing on small amounts of fentanyl through skin contact.To illustrate this, Sabora and Sottile posted a video to Facebook in which Sabora safely holds a small amount of powder fentanyl in his bare hand while Sottile explains fear, not fentanyl, is the likely causes of police officers' symptoms. (Dr. Faust put it somewhat more bluntly in an opinion piece about the video, describing the incidents as "local authorities peddling what amount to ghost stories masquerading as true tales from the front lines.")"What scares me is that, if we don't dispel these rumors, kids will be left to die because an officer or first responder will show up on the scene, they'll believe that it's fentanyl there, and they will not attempt to save the person's life because of these fears," Sabora says in the video. "At the end of the day, we need to save these kids' lives, and we can't not go resuscitate out of fear."Newtown Police Chief Tom Synan had spoken to Scripps station WCPO in Cincinnati before in incidents of unconfirmed police exposure to opioids. He said Friday night he could not argue with the stances taken by doctors but still wanted to stress extreme caution among first responders dealing with potential opiates."I'm not one to dispute science," he said. "How do you dispute science? … I think the best way to look at this is that this issue is difficult. There are no easy answers with this. We have to err on the side of caution, not on the side of panic."It's not so dangerous that everyone that gets near it will be overdosing and dying," he added. "(But) continue to be careful. Continue to be cautious." 3523

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - The pandemic has put a major strain on the job market this year, but in the Pikes Peak region, job opportunities are starting to come back. KOAA spoke with employment experts who say if you're looking to land a job you'll want to be careful with your social media profiles.Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn. These are just some of the social media platforms employers are looking at to try to find out more about you during your job search. Employment experts say what you choose to do on these platforms can either help you or hurt you."Companies are going to Google you. They are going to look at you. They're going to Facebook stalk you, or they're going to look at Twitter accounts. They're going to look at Instagram if they can get in," said Pikes Peak Workforce Center Executive Director and CEO Traci Marques. "Obviously LinkedIn is a great platform to be on the professional side, but at the same time you really have to be careful with your social media."The experts say the first step in understanding what employers are seeing is to do the search yourself."Google yourself. If someone is going to Google you Google yourself so you know what's out there," said Marques "Lockdown your social media. Make sure everything is private so that you don't have people that could social media stalk you to get information on you for the job."Once you're comfortable with what the public can see on your digital platforms, employment experts urge job seekers to keep profiles and resume updated for the jobs they want."That's going to show the employer, one, the skillset that you have that relates to this position and also that you took the time to research it and change it to adapt to their company," said Marques.Here's your Rebound Rundown:- Be aware that employers will likely search for you and browse your social media as part of the hiring process- Search your own name and profiles to see what employers are seeing- Lockdown profiles and manage privacy settings- Keep your resume and professional profiles updated and specific to the jobs you desire.If you need help taking steps to prepare yourself for your next job opportunity, want to talk with experts, or need find other employment resources you can visit the Pikes Peak Workforce Center.This story was first reported by Patrick Nelson at KOAA in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 2385

CLOSE CALL! A bridge in Alexander County collapsed live on-air. Flooding rains have brought dangerous conditions across the western Carolinas. Please stay safe, everyone! @AmberFOX46MORE: https://t.co/2T6IQRzMqnPHOTO GALLERY: https://t.co/vntMgmQkIk pic.twitter.com/J9HO7hjXiM— FOX 46 Charlotte (@FOX46News) November 12, 2020 333

CORONADO, CALIF. (KGTV) - The Mayor of Coronado is turning heads for an op-ed he recently penned.Mayor Richard Bailey wrote a several hundred word submission for the Voice of San Diego this week titled, ‘It's Time to Put Roads Over Transit.’Citing SANDAG’s figures, Bailey says more than 50 percent of local transportation dollars are spent to move just 3.5 percent of commuters while roughly 13.5 percent of funs are spent on roads and highways.He also points to relatively stagnant public transportation ridership rates while traffic congestion balloons in San Diego County.“I can't foresee us moving people around on fixed routes on large empty buses and also really expensive trolley lines,” said Bailey, “I think people are going to be looking for more nimble solutions such as a autonomous vehicles and ride share options.”Transit advocates say shifting funds from public transportation as Bailey suggests would have a negative impact on those who already use it.“About 64,000 households in the San Diego County area don't have a car and it’s just absurd to think that we're going to take away their primary means of transportation,” said Colin Parent, executive director of Circulate San Diego.Parent agrees with Bailey that the ridership figure is small but says the answer is growing that figure, not stifling it by shrinking its budget.SANDAG will vote later this on its multi-decade regional transit plan. 1429

来源：资阳报