Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's longtime personal lawyer who is under investigation for his business dealings, has provided legal advice to Fox News host Sean Hannity, one of Trump's most prominent media supporters. The dramatic revelation came Monday during a court hearing in New York where lawyers for Cohen and Trump argued for permission to determine whether thousands of pages of documents FBI agents seized from Cohen last week should be subject to attorney-client privilege. U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood appeared to reject the idea, saying that a "taint team" created by prosecutors to set aside privileged documents is a "viable option," while a court-appointed outside lawyer known as a "special master" may also play a role in determining which records can and cannot be viewed by prosecutors. The disclosure about Hannity, who also hosts a nationally syndicated talk radio show, came after prosecutors indicated that Cohen performed "little to no legal work" and had just one client: Trump. In response, Cohen's lawyers said that Cohen has represented three clients in the past year Trump, GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy and a third "publicly prominent individual" who wished to remain anonymous. Cohen's lawyers identified Hannity as the third unnamed client only after Judge Wood ruled that it must be made public. In a statement, Hannity sought to minimize his relationship with Cohen, saying he had never retained him as a lawyer. "Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter," Hannity said. "I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective." "I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third-party," Hannity said. Fox News also responded to the revelation. "While Fox News was unaware of Sean Hannity's informal relationship with Michael Cohen and was surprised by the announcement in... How long has Cohen represented Trump? - one year - two years - at least a decade - not enough information
at least a decade

(Question)
Today, many academics feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. They're under huge pressure to write and publish but an ever-growing mountain of teaching and admin is stopping them doing just that. Our research finds that whilst nobody is immune to these pressures, some academics cope better than others and that's because over the years, they've developed personal "systems" to help them write. We recently carried out in-depth interviews with 23 scholars across the UK, Europe and the US. We deliberately chose a diverse group so as to not make any assumptions based on age, seniority, or research background. Academic experience ranged from six months to 27 years and subject fields ranged from social sciences, economics, business, and arts. We did this as part of our user research to inform the development of Prolifiko a digital coaching tool for writers. Whilst every academic had developed a writing productivity system personal to them, we found there were six common "habits" that the most prolific (and generally least stressed) academics tended to use. 1. They "time-block" their writing in advance Scheduling booking in time to write in advance was the single most common habit of our writers. It didn't appear to matter what type of time-blocking method a scholar chose to use or how lengthy a writing session was. Some blocked out long periods of time on sabbatical, whilst others preferred to block out short, regular times throughout the day or across a week. What seemed to matter far more was the act of planning, as this mentally prepared the individual for writing and so made the process easier and less stressful. "When I need to write I block out time. I'm lucky in that I can work from home I block out a couple of straight days to do the writing and I plan it in beforehand. I couldn't really write in any other way than blocking out that time." Where did the author get his interview scholars from? - diverse group from Europe and the US - on a sabbatical - not enough information - a writing session
(Answer)
diverse group from Europe and the US

Ques: That fall came and I went back to Michigan and the school year went by and summer came and I never really thought about it. I'm not even sure if I was officially asked, I just wound up heading back to New Jersey when school was out. I think my parents thought it was a good enough deal. They were already having some problems and without Nonna there anymore to take care of me I think my cousin's house on the coast seemed like as good a spot as any to stick me for the summer. It certainly wasn't because of any great love between me and my cousin. We weren't really very good friends at that point. I think she saw me as sort of foisted off on her and getting in the way of her summers. Which was a fair enough judgment. But she could have been nicer. It's pretty amazing that she wound up as my Maid of Honor. Time does strange things. Your lovable jack-ass of a father would mention something about magic in here. You know if you took a group of fifty strangers, had them chat with your father for half an hour then with me for half an hour, then told them that one of us was an English Professor and one of us was head of distribution in the northeast for a large soft drink manufacturing concern, I'm pretty sure all fifty would peg your father as the English Professor and me as the head of distribution. He's honestly so good at what he does that I can almost allow him to claim it's magic except that it'd be nice if he took credit for some of the things he's done with his life. Of course he has this idea that he deserves credit for all sorts of things that he had no control over. Like our first kiss. When Fall came I went back to: - not enough information - New Eden - Illinois - Michigan
Ans: Michigan

Question: WASHINGTON In 2004, Desmond Meade, while serving a 15-year prison sentence for a drug offense in Florida, got a break. An appeals court returned his conviction to the original trial bench, allowing him to plead guilty to a lesser charge and get out of prison in three years, most of which he had already served. But his freedom came with a price, something that didn't quite register with him at the time: as part of his plea agreement with prosecutors, Meade agreed to give up his civil rights: the right to vote, to serve on a jury and to run for office. "At the time, when I first accepted the plea deal, I didn't understand the consequences," Meade says. Fourteen years and a pair of college and law degrees later, Meade, now 50, still can't vote; his application to regain his civil rights was rejected in 2011. The reason: a new Florida law that requires felons like him to wait for seven years before they could apply for rights restoration. Home to nearly a quarter of the nation's disenfranchised felons, Florida has become a battleground in a national debate over felony disenfranchisement laws. With lawmakers deeply divided over the issue, Meade says he wants the state's voters to change the system when they head to the polls on Nov. 6. He's promoting a ballot initiative that would amend the state's constitution, restoring the voting rights of all felons in Florida (except those convicted of murder and sexual assault) after they've completed the terms of their sentence. The measure enjoys broad voter support. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted in February showed that 67 percent of Floridians were in favor of restoring the voting rights of felons other than those convicted of murder and sexual assault. Another poll showed support at 71 percent. "We're going to change the system," Meade says confidently. "What we're doing is taking the power out of the hands of politicians and we're allowing the citizens of the state of Florida to decide whether or not folks should have a second chance, to be able to vote." What is Meade promoting to change the situation. - an initiative on the ballot to amend the state's constitution. - not enough information - a proposal on prison reform. - a national debate.
Answer:
an initiative on the ballot to amend the state's constitution.