宜宾哪家医院开双眼皮开的好宜宾伊婉玻尿酸,宜宾怎么才能让鼻子变小,宜宾双眼皮手术哪家好,宜宾玻尿酸注射隆胸专家,宜宾哪家医院丰胸效果好,宜宾双眼皮切开恢复,宜宾垫鼻梁的方法和价格表

Roger Stone associate Jerome Corsi said Monday he expects to be indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for "giving false information to the special counsel or to one of the other grand jury."Corsi made the comment during his streaming show on YouTube."And now I fully anticipate that the next few days, I will be indicted by Mueller for some form or other of giving false information to the special counsel or to one of the other grand jury or however they want to do the indictment. But I'm going to be criminally charged," Corsi said Monday.Corsi's lawyer declined to comment.Corsi could face any number of charges -- spanning from perjury to making false claims to obstruction of justice. The potential charges are related to false statements he made about his relationship with WikiLeaks and Stone.Corsi has been involved in Mueller's investigation for roughly two months and had already been subpoenaed for documents and testimony before the grand jury, and he complied with both.Corsi's role in the investigation largely revolves around the possibility that he was an intermediary between Stone and WikiLeaks.During the 2016 campaign, Stone publicly bragged about having "backchannel communications" with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and on several occasions appeared to predict the WikiLeaks releases that roiled the race in the final stretch of the campaign. But in the two years since Trump's victory, Stone has walked back those claims and said his "backchannel" was merely New York radio host Randy Credico sharing information about his interviews with Assange. Credico denies serving as an intermediary between the two.Investigators have been skeptical of Stone's explanation. CNN has reported that?Mueller's team is examining the possibility that Stone had another intermediary beyond Credico, and that Corsi might have been involved.Corsi injected himself into Stone's situation last year when he claimed that one of his own articles for InfoWars inspired Stone to predict in October 2016 that there would be trouble coming for Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Not long after that, WikiLeaks started releasing thousands of Podesta's hacked emails.Stone denies that he ever told Trump about WikiLeaks' dumps before they became public. He also denies colluding with Russia.The-CNN-Wire 2331

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) — The 737 inmates on California's largest-in-the-nation death row are getting a reprieve.Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to sign an executive order Wednesday placing a moratorium on executions.He's also withdrawing the lethal injection regulations that death penalty opponents already have tied up in court. And he's shuttering the execution chamber at San Quentin State Prison that has never been used since it was modernized following the last execution in 2006.Newsom says the order won't alter any convictions or allow any condemned inmate a chance at an early release.A prosecutor says Newsom is usurping voters' will.California voters have supported the death penalty, most recently in 2016 when they narrowly voted to speed up the process. How to do that also has been tied up in litigation. 822

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will limit rent increases for some people over the next decade after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday aimed at combating a housing crisis in the nation's most populous state.Newsom signed the bill at an event in Oakland, an area where a recent report documented a 43% increase in homelessness over two years. Sudden rent increases are a contributing cause of the state's homeless problem, which has drawn national attention and the ire of Republican President Donald Trump."He wasn't wrong to highlight a vulnerability," Newsom said of Trump's criticisms to an audience of housing advocates in Oakland. "He's exploiting it. You're trying to solve it. That's the difference between you and the president of the United States."The law limits rent increases to 5% each year plus inflation until Jan. 1, 2030. It bans landlords from evicting people for no reason, meaning they could not kick people out so they can raise the rent for a new tenant. And while the law doesn't take effect until Jan. 1, it would apply to rent increases on or after March 15, 2019, to prevent landlords from raising rents just before the caps go into place.RELATED: San Diego's top neighborhoods to get more rental space for the moneyCalifornia and Oregon are now the only places that cap rent increases statewide. Oregon capped rents at 7% plus inflation earlier this year.California's rent cap is noteworthy because of its scale. The state has 17 million renters, and more than half of them spend at least 30% of their income on rent, according to a legislative analysis of the proposal.But California's new law has so many exceptions that it is estimated it will apply to 8 million of those 17 million renters, according to the office of Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu, who authored the bill Newsom signed.It would not apply to housing built within the last 15 years, a provision advocates hope will encourage developers to build more in a state that desperately needs it. It does not apply to single family homes, except those owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts. It does not cover duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units.RELATED: Making It In San Diego: How housing got so expensiveAnd it does not cover the 2 million people in California who already have rent control, which is a more restrictive set of limitations for landlords. Most of the state's largest cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco, have some form of rent control. But a state law passed in 1995 bans any new rent control policies since that year.Last year, voters rejected a statewide ballot initiative that would have expanded rent control statewide. For most places in California, landlords can raise rent at any time and or any reason if they give notice in advance.That's what happened to Sasha Graham in 2014. She said her rent went up 150%. She found the money to pay it on time and in full, but her landlord evicted her anyway without giving a reason. She was homeless for the next three years, staying with friends, then friends of friends and then strangers."Sometimes I lived with no lights, sometimes I lived with no water, depending on who I was living with (because) they were also struggling," she said. "Sometimes I just had to use my money to go to a hotel room so I could finish my homework."Graham, who is now board president for the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, now lives in family housing at the University of California, Berkeley, where she is scheduled to graduate in May. She said the law, had it been in place, would have helped her.But Russell Lowery, executive director of the California Rental Housing Association, says the law adds an expensive eviction process that did not previously exist. He said that will encourage landlords to increase rents when they otherwise wouldn't."It adds unnecessary expenses to all rental home providers and makes it more difficult to sever a relationship with a problem tenant," he said. 4034

RICHMOND, Va. — There has been a major drop in the number of people behind bars in the U.S. An analysis by The Marshall Project and The Associated Press found that between March and June, more than 100,000 people were released from state and federal prisons. That's a drop of 8%. By comparison, the Vera Institute of Justice found that for all of 2019, the state and federal prison population fell by 2.2%. As the U.S. struggles with the coronavirus, prison reform advocates are urging releases to halt its spread in correctional facilities. But their release, and how they behave when they’re out, is likely to affect the larger criminal justice reform movement. 671