Question: President Donald Trump often likes to point out how different he is from his White House predecessors in terms of style and substance. But it is unlikely any past president would envy the legal challenges facing Trump, from the Russia investigation to Stormy Daniels to the scrutiny law enforcement is giving his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. On Tuesday it was a night of pomp and glamor at the White House as President Donald Trump and Mrs. Trump welcomed French President Macron and his wife for a state dinner. The two presidents got along famously during their White House meetings. The only damper on the day came when both men were in the Oval Office and a reporter asked Trump about the legal difficulties facing his longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen. "Mr. President, what about Michael Cohen? Are you considering a pardon for Michael Cohen?" asked ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl. After a pause, the president responded. "Stupid question," he said dismissively. Cohen is under scrutiny for a payment to an adult film star. Stormy Daniels says it was hush money to keep her quiet about a brief affair she had with Trump in 2006, a claim the president has denied. Trump has frequently complained about the recent FBI raids on Cohen's home and office and the ongoing Russia probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller. Earlier this month Trump spoke up during a meeting with military officials at the White House. "Here we are talking about Syria, we are talking about a lot of serious things with the greatest fighting force ever, and I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now." Several legal analysts have said the increased scrutiny of Trump's long relationship with Cohen could become a serious problem for the president. "There has been no suggestions that Cohen has nothing that he could say, which suggests that they know that Cohen actually does possess information that could be damaging to Trump or the Trump organization more generally as a legal matter," said George Washington University Law... Who did President Macron bring with him to the dinner? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - His wife - His fiance - not enough information - His girlfriend
Answer: His wife

Question: I have been married twice. My wedding experiences were both very different, even though I cried at both ceremonies. At my first wedding, I had been doing a lot of manual labor in the day prior to the wedding. Unfortunately, I did not have any gloves, and I ended up getting a lot of blisters on my hands. By the evening of the wedding, these blisters were very painful to touch. My bride was wearing what I thought to be an elaborate wedding dress. It was pretty, and it had a lot of buttons on it. Little, white, cloth covered buttons. These buttons were also a part of her sleeves and gloves. During the ceremony, she was holding my hands very tightly, and it hurt. I mean, it really really hurt! I didn't want to pull my hands away, as the gesture could be misconstrued, and I might hurt her feelings. So, I stood and held hands with her, enduring the pain. Although I managed to remain silent, I couldn't keep the tears from falling down my face. The more I cried, the harder she squeezed and the more painful it was. She always thought that I was crying due to emotion on our wedding day, and I never told her any differently I didn't want to hurt her feelings. Some years after that lengthy incarceration ended, I was fortunate to wed again. I had not done any manual labor before our wedding day. My hands were fine. Also, my bride did not have a lot of intricate buttons on her dress, nor did she wear gloves or even have sleeves. We were wed on a beach, just the two of us. No one else was in attendance. We had written our own vows, in fact, our own ceremony, including our own rituals. And yes, I cried, because I was / am so in love with my bride. I still tear up every morning when I awaken and see her sleeping beside me. Peace When did the author do so much manual labor that his hands were blistered? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - The day before his second wedding - not enough information - The day before his first wedding - On his honeymoon after the first wedding
Answer: The day before his first wedding

Question: The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... Oral arguments for the case lasted Pick the correct answer from the following options: - 4 hours - 1 hour - 30 minutes - not enough information
Answer:
1 hour