Q: WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed in a financial report filed with the government's ethics watchdog Tuesday that he had reimbursed his personal lawyer more than $100,000 for unspecified expenses. In his annual financial disclosure form, which was released by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) on Wednesday, Trump acknowledged that he had "fully reimbursed" his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, in the range of $100,000 to $250,000 in 2016. Trump's lawyers have previously said the president reimbursed Cohen for $130,000 Cohen paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the final weeks of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign to keep her quiet about a sexual tryst she said she had with Trump 10 years earlier. Trump has denied the affair but recently confirmed reimbursing Cohen through a monthly retainer to stop "false and extortionist accusations" made by Daniels about an affair. Cohen has also acknowledged making the payment. The disclosure said that while the payment to Cohen was not a "reportable" liability, Trump chose to list it "in the interest of transparency." It did not say why Trump had left it out of his 2017 financial disclosure documents, though one of the president's lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, has said that Trump didn't know about the payment when he reported his finances last year. The Office of Government Ethics, in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, said it had determined that the payment to Cohen constituted a loan that should have been reported. However, it said the information Trump provided in his latest financial form met "the disclosure requirements for a reportable liability" under the Ethics in Government Act. Under the Ethics in Government Act, top government officials are required to report all debts in excess of $10,000 during the previous reporting period. "Knowingly or willfully" falsifying or failing to file reports carries civil and criminal penalties. Trump listed several hundred million dollars in liabilities in his financial report. Critics seized on... Question: How long ago did Trump probably pay Cohen 130,000? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- about 12 years ago
- not enough information
- about 1-3 years ago
- about 15 years ago

A: about 1-3 years ago

input: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- chairing another committee
- still co-chair of the committee
- not chairing any committee Now, answer this question: The Trump administration's decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census divided Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with Democrats saying the addition could skew the results and alter millions in government funding, while some Republicans praised it as a "commonsense" move. U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced late Monday the next effort to count every resident in the country will include a question about citizenship status. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the survey every 10 years, with the next set for 2020. The deadline for finalizing the questions is Saturday. In a memo late Monday, Ross said he chose to include the query at the urging of the Department of Justice, which said it needed the citizenship data to better enforce a law protecting minority voting rights. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the addition of the question, rejecting the notion that it might result in less federal aid to immigrant communities in the U.S. if immigrants are undercounted. Republicans on Capitol Hill welcomed the decision, which revives a practice that was abandoned in 1950, after being in place for more than 100 years, according to the Commerce Department. "It is imperative that the data gathered in the census is reliable, given the wide-ranging impacts it will have on U.S. policy. A question on citizenship is a reasonable, commonsense addition to the census," Senator Ted Cruz said in a statement Tuesday. But Democrats said the question would have the opposite effect discouraging undocumented immigrants and citizen family members from responding to the census, undermining the accuracy of the results. "We cannot accept an incomplete or unfair count in 2020 too much is at stake," Rep. Carolyn Maloney, co-chair of the Congressional Census Caucus, told VOA. "The census mandated by the [U.S.] Constitution affects the way that Federal and state funds are distributed and how district lines are drawn for both the city, state and Federal level." Question: After the end of this story, Maloney is probably === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: still co-chair of the committee

I end this small run of blog posts with the question posed by Professor Brian Boyd at the beginning of our evening: Do we want to close the achievement gap? We know we can close the gap. It's been done or almost been done before in Scottish education, but the answers have been ignored as they pass us by. The simple clue is this: poverty is single biggest predictor of achievement, and according to research (Hammonds sic, reference required), aged 10, a child living in poverty is 60% less likely to get to university. Boyd borrowed from his own mother's report card to ask us what kind of education we desire. Is it the academic success at all costs route, or is there another option we need to value as much, if not more? His mother's report card, one that prevented her from becoming a secondary school pupil in Glasgow, is filled with G and FG, until the last point: Character and conduct - excellent. What kind of pupils do we want to develop in Scotland? What do we value in our assessment system? Opening up opportunity for all is a tough game to play when the examination system rewards only certain types of behaviour, few of them related to what the Curriculum for Excellence says we stand for. In his own small community in East Kilbride, three secondary schools enter a period of meltdown as the local rag sets about creating its own local league table of performance, with those three 'teams' in competition for the top spot (or at least not the bottom one). Therefore, we must stop basing "the gap" largely on attainment. First of all, Boyd would like us to remove the traditional, and non-sensical academic/vocational divide. Is the law or medicine degree we value not vocational? (Are all General Practitioners not Plumbers, as Dr Murray on the panel suggests?) Question: Dr. Murray is probably a doctor in what field? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- Social anthropology
- Psychology
- Social research
- not enough information

Answer: not enough information

Problem:OPTIONS:
- The utility worker.
- not enough information
- The youngest child.
- The man in the home.

I was once distinctly unsettled by a utility man who called to read the gas meter. We were living in an old house at the time and I was home alone with the youngest child (who was around six months old), balanced on my hip as I opened the door. The visitor looked genuine, dressed in the expected uniform. He was around 6.3 and probably not the most tidily presented utility man I'd met, but I believed him to be genuine and willingly invited him in out of the foul weather. It was pouring down outside, a freezing cold winter's day. As I closed the door I remembered that I should have asked to see his company I.D. , so as I opened the meter cupboard and switched on the light, I politely said, 'Oops, I should have asked to see your I.D. if you don't mind?. He stood there in front of the door and made no move to produce his card or do anything in fact. He just glared down at me in the most menacing way and said in a very sinister voice 'Isn't it a little bit late for that now? What are you going to do if I tell you I don't have it?'. There was an embarrassed silence. He continued to stare down at me without making a move for what seemed like minutes but was probably seconds. He didn't produce his I.D., instead he almost grudgingly read the meter as I looked on and then he swiftly left without saying goodbye. I closed the door and locked it, and then took a while to get my pulse rate back to normal and to realise I'd just learned a very big lesson. Such a creepy individual, I didn't make that mistake again. Question: Who was 6 foot, 3 inches? === The answer to the above question is
****
A:
The utility worker.