玉溪做无痛人流医院哪里好(玉溪市做人流去哪个) (今日更新中)

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the Justice Department on Thursday seeking documents related to a trio of recent controversial decisions made by the FBI, including the decision in 2016 to not charge Hillary Clinton after the probe of her email server and the internal recommendation by an FBI office to fire former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, his office announced.The move by Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte represents a ratcheting up of his investigation, led jointly with the House Oversight Committee, into the decisions made by the Justice Department and the FBI before the 2016 election -- an investigation that has stoked mistrust of the law enforcement agency and drawn the ire of Democrats on Capitol Hill.In a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein accompanying the subpoena, Goodlatte wrote, "given the Department's ongoing delays in producing these documents, I am left with no choice but to issue the enclosed subpoena to compel production of these documents."Goodlatte had in recent weeks voiced his frustration at the Justice Department's refusal to comply with his past requests for the documents and hinted at the weighty legal maneuver.The two committees had requested 1.2 million pages of documents from the Justice Department, Goodlatte's office said. There are approximately 30,000 documents thought to be responsive to the committee's request, and agency staff are reviewing the remaining items to ensure they do not contain sensitive information or conflict with ongoing law enforcement actions, according to Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior.Prior said 3,000 documents have been delivered to the House Judiciary Committee so far.The subpoena issued Thursday covers documents related to "charging decisions in the investigation surrounding former Secretary Clinton's private email server in 2016," as well potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and "all documents and communications relied upon by FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility in reaching its decision to recommend the dismissal of former Deputy Director McCabe."In a statement, Prior said, "The Department of Justice and the FBI take the Committee's inquiry seriously and are committed to accommodating its oversight request in a manner consistent with the Department's law enforcement and national security responsibilities."More than two dozen FBI staff have been assisting the Justice Department in producing documents on a rolling basis to the committee's "broad request," Prior said. 2552

The calendar is about to flip from April to May, and normally storm chasers are flooding Tornado Alley to get a glimpse at the power of Mother Nature. But so far in 2018, there has not been much to chase. According to the National Weather Service, the state of Oklahoma, which is in the heart of Tornado Alley, has gone the entire year so far without a single confirmed tornado touchdown. Not since before 1950 has Oklahoma gone the first four months without a single tornado touchdown. By the end of April, the state would have averaged 17 tornado touchdowns. Last year, 13 tornadoes had touched down by the end of April. In 2016, there were 27 touchdowns in the month of April alone. In 2012, there were 54 confirmed touchdowns in April. The state of Kansas has also gone the entire year without a tornado. According to National Weather Service data, the state averages 12 tornadoes in the month of April alone. "On the whole, across the United States, we have seen around half the number of eyewitnessed tornado reports that we would normally expect by this time of year," Dr. Patrick Marsh, a meteorologist at the Storm Prediction Center, told CNN. Meteorologists are blaming, or crediting, a jet stream pattern that has sent big snow storms into the Upper Midwest for the decreased number of tornadoes. The pattern has prevented warm moist air from setting up in the Plains, which has cut off any fuel for potential tornadoes. According to the Storm Prediction Center, the upcoming weekend appears to void of any major severe weather outbreaks. The next potential for severe storms could setup in the Plains on Tuesday and Wednesday.  1692

The conversation around wearing different protective gear is expanding. In particular, face shields.Teachers recently asked the nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, about it and he said, “if you can get one, it’s not a bad idea.”Fauci went on to say that a shield shouldn't necessarily be worn in place of a mask, but more parents are considering the option for kids.“For some of the kids, a mask just isn't going to work. And in those cases, a face shield can be considered, but I think it needs to be understood that that’s not the default,” said Dr. Preeti Malani with the Infectious Diseases Society of America.Infectious disease experts say there just isn't enough data yet on how much protection a face shield provides.One study found it did significantly reduce the number of inhaled droplets, but cloth masks are also about protecting others. Shields were not as sure to do that as well.“If you're wearing a shield, the respiratory secretions that might be coming from your mouth or nose are not going to be as well contained,” said Malani.In the health care setting, face shields are used primarily to prevent splashing in the eyes.Malani offered this advice about finding the right shield.“It’s important that it’s long enough to really protect the whole face and that it wraps around fully and that it fits well up at the forehead,” said Malani.Companies, including Apple, Nike, General Motors, and John Deere have all started producing face shields.In a JAMA Network open viewpoint, it was pointed out that face shields have some advantages over masks. They can be reused indefinitely, they are easier to clean, they are comfortable, and they help prevent touching of the face. 1719

The first round of the NFL Draft got underway Thursday evening and Oklahoma quarterback Baker Mayfield was selected as the first overall draft pick by the Cleveland Browns. Mayfield will likely take over as Cleveland's starting quarterback in the fall after the Browns finished the 2017 season with a winless 0-16 record. Mayfield was a three-year starter at Oklahoma after starting one season for Texas Tech. He threw for 131 touchdowns over his four collegiate years, which is fourth all time in NCAA Division I history. According to most NFL Draft experts, five college quarterbacks will likely be selected in the first round on Thursday. The group includes USC's Sam Darnold, Oklahoma's Baker Mayfield, Wyoming's Josh Allen, UCLA's Josh Rosen and Louisville's Lamar Jackson.  807

来源：资阳报