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? Options: - about 12 years ago - not enough information - about 1-3 years ago - about 15 years ago === The correct answer is
about 1-3 years ago

When she's in the mood to push my buttons, my significant other, the delightful and charming Ms. D, frequently alludes to the questionable timeline concerning my birth date. She derives much mirth from the fact that I was born something less than nine or ten months after my parents wed and hints that this indicates a certain amount of premarital hanky-panky. Standing on my dignity ('cause it's higher than the coffee table), my reply is that I have it on good authority that I owe my early entry into the world to Tabusintac Hill. Said hill was once considered to be an abomination of the first water. The Tabusintac, like all hills, had an up and a down. In this case, the up and down were distinguished from each other by a sharp curve at the bottom. The main North/South New Brunswick highway slavishly followed the hill's contours. If you were heading north, the road led you into a ravine and you were faced with a steep uphill incline that, in winter presented a challenge to at least half the vehicles trying to climb it. In true snow country fashion, steep, icy hills were conquered by getting a running start, building up a lot of speed and praying that Mr. Newton's rules concerning inertia would work in your favour. Headed south, the problem became keeping your car under control so that you didn't go shooting into the trees when the road curved to the left. My parents were taking a trip to the Miramachi in December of '56 and were driving a Pontiac borrowed from one of my father's friends. My mother was pregnant with a bundle of bad attitude and misery that would turn out to be me. I assume that my father was driving with that mix of panache and insouciance that my mother tended to describe as reckless behaviour. In any case, as he rounded the corner at the top of the hill, the road was apparently free of snow and ice and there was no reason to slowdown. Until the moose stepped out onto the road just ahead of them. Question: I was born Options: - 9 month before the wedding - not enough information - 10 month before the weding - 9-10 month after the wedding === The correct answer is
9-10 month after the wedding

Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. Question: Who challenges the author on their views? Options: - readers - community members - other blog authors - not enough information === The correct answer is
readers