三门峡狐臭怎么去除最有效三门峡哪里腋臭医院好,在三门峡哪里做腋臭手术最安全,三门峡哪里做腋臭手术最好,三门峡哪个医院痤疮治疗的比较著名,三门峡孤臭和腋臭有区分吗,三门峡哪个医院治狐臭效果不错,三门峡哪里治灰指甲好

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

Clinging to notions of widespread vote rigging that his own attorney general has disputed, President Donald Trump repeated a litany of baseless assertions Wednesday of political corruption, machine tampering and mysterious votes appearing out of nowhere that allowed Joe Biden to steal the election.“This election is about great voter fraud, fraud that has never been seen like this before,” Trump said in a 46-minute address posted on social media.“It’s about poll watchers who were not allowed to watch. So illegal. It’s about ballots that poured in and nobody but a few knew where they came from. ... It’s about machinery that was defective, machinery that was stopped.”None of those assertions are true.A look at the claims and reality:VOTER FRAUDTRUMP: “You can’t let another person steal that election from you.”THE FACTS: To be clear, no election was stolen from Trump.One month after the Nov. 3 election and as states begin certifying their votes, Trump is clinging to false notions of voter fraud. But others in his administration have already said the election was secure. Attorney General William Barr said the Justice Department had seen no evidence of widespread fraud to overturn Biden’s margin of victory.Biden earned 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232, the same margin that Trump had when he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, which he repeatedly described as a “landslide.” (Trump ended up with 304 electoral votes because two electors defected.) Biden achieved victory by prevailing in key states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia.Trump’s allegations of massive voting fraud have been refuted by a variety of judges, state election officials and an arm of his own administration’s Homeland Security Department. Many of his campaign’s lawsuits across the country have been thrown out of court. And his administration has already agreed to allow the formal transition of power to Biden to begin.On Tuesday, Barr told The Associated Press that no proof of widespread voter fraud has been uncovered. “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” he said.No case has established irregularities of a scale that would change the outcome. Lawsuits that remain do not contain evidence that would flip the result.___BALLOT ‘DUMPING’TRUMP: “I go from winning by a lot to losing a tight race. It’s corrupt.”TRUMP: “It’s about big leads on election night, tremendous leads, leads where I was being congratulated for a decisive, easy victory, and all of a sudden by morning or a couple of days later, those leads rapidly evaporated.”THE FACTS: No mass corruption happened. Trump is actually describing a legitimate vote counting process, not a sudden surge of malfeasance that no one has seen before.Indeed, news organizations and officials had warned in the days and weeks leading up to the election that the results would likely come in just as they did: In-person votes, which tend to be counted more quickly, would likely favor the president, who had spent months warning his supporters to avoid mail-in voting and to vote in person either early or on Election Day.And mail-in ballots, which take longer to count since they must be removed from envelopes and verified before they are counted, would favor Biden. That pattern was exacerbated by the fact that many states prohibited early counting of mail-in votes that arrived before Election Day.In addition, big cities are often slower to report their numbers, and those votes tend to skew Democratic. Likewise, many states tend to count mail-in ballots at the end of the process.___TRUMP: “In Wisconsin, as an example, where we were way up on election night, they ultimately had us miraculously losing by 20,000 votes. And I can show you right here that Wisconsin, we’re leading by a lot, and then at 3:42 in the morning, there was this. It was a massive dump of votes. Mostly Biden.”THE FACTS: No, there wasn’t a “massive dump of votes” in the middle of the night. Milwaukee election officials finished counting the city’s roughly 169,000 absentee ballots around 3 a.m.Wisconsin law requires the results of those absentee ballots be reported all at once. The count of the absentee ballots was livestreamed on YouTube for anyone to watch. When it was finished, Milwaukee police escorted the city’s elections director from a central counting location to the county courthouse to deliver thumb drives with the ballot data.___DOMINIONTRUMP, on Dominion Voting Systems electoral software used in many states: “When you look at who’s running the company, who’s in charge, who owns it — which we don’t know — where are the votes counted — which we think are counted in foreign countries, not in the United States — Dominion is a disaster.”THE FACTS: Servers that run Dominion software are in local election offices, not in foreign countries. Claims that the company has foreign servers or ties to Germany or Venezuela are false.It’s true that the company is privately held and does not disclose its financials, but the New York-based private equity firm Staple Street Capital has owned a majority stake in Dominion since 2018. Fictional claims that Dianne Feinstein, the Clinton family, Nancy Pelosi and Hugo Chavez are owners of Dominion have been debunked.“There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised” in the 2020 election, according to a joint statement released by the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.___TRUMP: “In one Michigan county, as an example, that used Dominion systems, they found that nearly 6,000 votes had been wrongly switched from Trump to Biden. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is what we caught. How many didn’t we catch?”THE FACTS: That’s a misrepresentation.It’s true that a tabulation problem in the 2020 election involved a few thousand votes in Antrim County, Michigan. But that was the result of human error.When the Republican-leaning county initially reported a landslide win for Biden, social media users grew suspicious about the Dominion election management system used to tabulate the data.It turned out Dominion was not to blame, according to the Michigan Department of State. “There was no malice, no fraud here, just human error,” County Clerk Sheryl Guy told the AP. The tabulation error was corrected.Eddie Perez, a voting technology expert at the OSET Institute, a nonpartisan election technology research and development nonprofit, agreed that the Michigan case was the result of human error involving voting technology, not the software itself.___‘DEAD’ VOTERSTRUMP: “Dead people — and we have many examples — filled out ballots, made applications and then voted.”THE FACTS: He’s repeating a false claim of dead people voting, particularly in Pennsylvania and Michigan. But there’s no evidence that this occurred, and officials in both states say the claims are unfounded.The false claim that deceased voters cast ballots “comes up every election,” said Jason Roberts, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Experts told the AP that it is common for state voter rolls to include voters with birthdates that make them appear impossibly old, but these are usually explained by human error, software quirks or voter confidentiality issues.“A similar complaint was brought before a PA court — and soundly rejected,” the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General said in a statement. “The court found no deficiency in how PA maintains its voter rolls, and there is currently no proof provided that any deceased person has voted in the 2020 election.”Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Michigan’s secretary of state’s office, told the AP that on rare occasions a ballot received from a voter may be recorded as though that person is too old to be alive. This can occur when an incorrect birth year is entered on voter rolls.Some of the claims about dead voters appear to stem from a federal lawsuit that alleges Pennsylvania failed to “maintain accurate and current voter rolls” that include 21,000 apparently deceased registrants. But that is not the same as votes from dead people being cast and counted. The Public Interest Legal Foundation, a conservative group based in Indiana, amended the lawsuit on Nov. 5 against Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar.The group has taken legal action in a handful of places to try to force voter roll pruning. In December 2019, the group filed a lawsuit against Detroit election officials alleging that the city had over 2,500 dead people on the voter rolls — including one born in 1823. The lawsuit was dropped in June 2020 after election officials updated voter rolls.___POLL WATCHERSTRUMP: “In Pennsylvania, large amounts of mail-in and absentee ballots were processed illegally and in secret in Philadelphia and Allegheny counties without our observers present. They were not allowed to be present. ... They were thrown out of the building.”THE FACTS: He’s incorrect.Trump is wholly misrepresenting a court case in the state and what happened at voting places. No one tried to ban poll watchers representing each side in the election. Democrats did not try to stop Republican representatives from being able to observe the process.The main issue in the case was how close observers representing the parties could get to election workers who were processing mail-in ballots in Philadelphia. Trump’s representatives sued to allow the observers to get closer than the guidelines had allowed. A court ruled in favor of that request.The counting in Philadelphia was being livestreamed, and Trump’s lawyers admitted in court that their campaign had observers in the room — “a nonzero” number of them, as they put it. Poll watchers have no role in counting votes.___Associated Press writers Arijeta Lajka, Michael Balsamo and Colleen Long contributed to this report. 9943

CORONADO, Calif. (KGTV) - Its been almost six months since a drunk driver destroyed an iconic flower shop, the Coronado Flower Lady.Shanel Albert had only taken over as owner a year before the accident happened. She's continued to operate despite many challenges along the way.The business took a financial hit, forced to sell their van and take out a loan.But from the wreckage came kindness and love from the community.Shanel's husband Steve worked tirelessly to build a new flower shop.His friends at WeldTec Designs let him use their shop and tools, all while helping him along the way. The business also received donations from a Go Fund Me page.The Coronado Flower Lady will first have a soft launch in the next week and then a grand re-opening with city leaders.  783

CVS hears the Amazon footsteps -- and the pharmacy giant is wasting no time trying to get ahead of any Jeff Bezos plan to disrupt the drug store business the way that he has the rest of retail.CVS said Monday that it plans to offer next day delivery of prescription drugs nationwide in 2018. In some urban markets, CVS will even deliver on the same day.A program to deliver both medications and a select offering of other CVS products from the front of the store will begin in Manhattan on December 4.CVS CEO Larry Merlo made the announcements during the company's earnings conference call with analysts.The news comes just a few weeks after reports surfaced that Amazon had received wholesale pharmacy licenses in a dozen states.That move would potentially allow Amazon to sell prescription medications online.The speculation caused the shares of CVS and rival Walgreens to fall, as did pharmacy benefits manager company Express Scripts, a competitor of the CVS-owned PBM Caremark.The stocks of drug distributors Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen and McKesson all fell too.This is because investors are worried that Amazon, which is already changing the dynamics of the grocery business thanks to its acquisition of Whole Foods, may look to do the same for drug stores.But Merlo said during the call with analysts Monday that he still sees Amazon as more of a potential ally than threat."You would never close the door on any type of partnership," Merlo said, when asked by an analyst about possibly working with Amazon.Still, CVS seems to recognize that the health care landscape is changing rapidly, and it needs to adjust. There have even been recent rumors that CVS may look to buy health insurer Aetna.Aetna scrapped plans to merge with rival Humana earlier this year due to intense regulatory scrutiny. Another insurer merger proposed by Anthem and Cigna died as well.Since then, the lines between health insurers and the pharmacy giants have grown increasingly blurred and incestuous.Anthem recently started up its own PBM, called IngenioRX, and has partnered with CVS.And Walgreens has partnered with a Blue Cross-backed PBM Prime Therapeutics to form a new mail order pharmacy company.Merlo and other CVS executives did not address any of the Aetna chatter on the conference call.But if the rumors are true -- and if an Aetna deal passed antitrust scrutiny -- then CVS appears to be on its way towards building a formidable health care/retail giant that may avoid getting Amazon-ed.  2507

College campuses across the country have largely sat empty for months, but as schools consider whether to bring students back, they're also considering their legal obligations.“They are a business that needs revenue to function,” explained Chris Feudo, an attorney with Foley Hoag in Boston, Massachusetts.As an attorney, Feudo has been advising folks about COVID-19 waivers, which gained national notoriety leading up to President Donald Trump’s rally in Tulsa last month. Businesses have also been turning to these forms in hopes of freeing themselves from legal responsibility if someone catches the virus.The next round of waivers could be coming from colleges and universities, and many have already mandated student-athletes to start signing the forms in order to start practicing. Students returning to empty campuses could be next.“It sends a really dangerous message,” Feudo said. “If you’re saying to your employees, faculty, students, it’s sending a message that the college or university is bringing people back when there’s still a substantial risk.”A COVID-19 waiver could mean a family loses any right to seek compensation if a student gets sick at school.But Feudo is skeptical any of these waivers will hold up in court.“You’re not going to find out whether it’s enforceable until somebody gets sick and sues,” he said. 1344