In recent weeks, the investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia has intensified, raising the prospect that the probe could become an issue in advance of the November midterm congressional elections. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort made another appearance in federal court in Washington Wednesday, where he pleaded not guilty to the latest round of charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. Last week, Rick Gates, Manafort's former deputy, pleaded guilty to lying to prosecutors and is now cooperating with the investigation. In mid-February, 13 Russians were indicted in connection with election meddling, which deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein described as an effort to "promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." Congressional inquiries also continue. Hope Hicks, the White House communications director and a longtime Trump aide, was the latest figure to testify before a congressional committee on the Russia probe. Hicks declined to answer some questions before a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee, frustrating several Democrats. "This is not executive privilege. This is executive stonewalling," said ranking committee Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff. But there was more pushback from the White House this week. President Trump fired off a series of tweets dismissing the probe as a "WITCH HUNT." "They have had this phony cloud over this administration, over our government," Trump told reporters at the White House last month. "And it has hurt our government, it does hurt our government. It is a Democrat hoax." Democrats reject that view, including Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "I continue to believe that this is the most important thing that I will work on in my whole public career, and getting the whole truth out is extraordinarily important," he said. Warner's committee is also investigating possible... When did an investigation about Trump's relationship with Russia begin? - after the November midterm congressional elections - before Trump was elected president - before the November midterm congressional elections - not enough information
before the November midterm congressional elections

I am currently waiting for peer reviews of two books I've worked on: one sole-authored, one co-authored. We don't talk much about the experience of waiting for reviews, and it's not something that appears to have been researched. Yet it's something everyone doing academic work has to go through and it may be bad for our mental health. I'm finding it particularly difficult at the moment because a lot rides on these reviews. The sole-authored book, which is on a contentious topic, has already had one set of reviews. Reviewer 1 was utterly damning, saying "I couldn't find anything to praise". Luckily, Reviewers 2 and 3 were more measured, offering both praise and constructive criticism, and their input helped me to revise and strengthen the typescript. However, in the process, my editor and I realised that we needed further reviews from people with a particular kind of specialist knowledge. My editor approached around ten potential reviewers, but only one agreed to do the job. So I'm gibbering what if that person agrees with Reviewer 1? The co-authored book is in a contentious format. My co-authors and I decided that I would be the person to liaise with publishers, as I have form in this process. The last time I liaised with academic publishers for a co-authored book was in the early 2000s, and I'd forgotten how heavily responsible it makes me feel. Fortunately, I've found a publisher that is interested and has sent the book out for reviews, to two professional academics and two students. This is great and terrifying but at least there are four reviewers. Even so, what if they all think it's rubbish? In many ways I love the peer review system. I welcome feedback on my writing, and I'm not at all averse to constructive criticism. I am by no means arrogant enough to think I can write a good book without input from others. Yet peer review, as a process, is fraught with uncertainty. Comments may not be constructive, or may not come at all. They may be positive, or negative, or in between, or a mixture. After the end of this story, the narrator probably is - Getting great reviews - Getting bad reviews - not enough information - Still annoyed with the peer review system
Still annoyed with the peer review system

GoDaddy has pulled the plug on another online peddler of violence. The popular internet registration service last week shut down altright.com, a website created by white nationalist leader Richard Spencer and popular with many in the so-called alt-right movement. The takedown is the latest example of how companies like GoDaddy are increasingly responding to growing public pressure to clamp down on violent sites in the wake of the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last summer. GoDaddy, which registers domains for more than 75 million websites around the world, said it generally does not delist sites that promote hate, racism and bigotry on the ground that such content is protected as free speech. But it said altright.com had "crossed the line and encouraged and promoted violence in a direct and threatening manner." "In instances where a site goes beyond the mere exercise of these freedoms, however, and crosses over to promoting, encouraging or otherwise engaging in specific acts of violence against any person, we will take action," GoDaddy said in a statement emailed to VOA. The company would not say whether it canceled altright.com's domain registration in response to pressure but it stressed that "we take all complaints about content on websites very seriously, and have a team dedicated to investigate each complaint." The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington-based civil rights organization, said it filed such a complaint with GoDaddy last month, citing several instances in which altright.com carried content that advocated violence. In one example, a January 26, 2018, article encouraged "use of live ammunition at the border, in order to create a substantial chance that they [immigrants crossing the border] lose their life in the process," according to the organization's complaint. Kristen Clarke, the group's president and executive director, said the shutdown of altright.com was part of her organization's campaign to combat a recent "hate crime crisis" in the... What organization filed a complaint with GoDaddy last month? - not enough information - altright.com - The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - NAACP
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law