WASHINGTON Legal experts cast doubt Tuesday on a list of questions the special counsel purportedly wants to ask President Donald Trump, saying they would expect the veteran prosecutor to ask more and more pointed questions. The New York Times published the list of 44 questions it said special counsel Robert Mueller plans to pose to Trump as part of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The newspaper reported that the list was compiled by Trump's lawyers based on questions that were read to them by special counsel investigators. The largely open-ended questions range from queries about Trump's firing of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, to general inquiries into what Trump knew about alleged coordination between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. While the list reflects the general line of questioning the special counsel's investigation is believed to be focused on, legal experts said the questions published are not what Mueller or any prosecutor for that matter would ask an interview subject. "It doesn't sound like questions that a prosecutor would typically ask, unless it was just a very general information-gathering type of inquiry, and they'd not limit themselves to only those question and reserve the right to ask follow-up questions," said Eric Jaso, a partner at the Spiro Harrison law firm who served as an associate independent counsel during the Whitewater investigation of former President Bill Clinton. The questions, Jaso said, were likely written by Trump's own lawyers, based on a conversation with the special counsel about topics he wants to query. "If Mr. Mueller is going to interview the president, I suspect that he's going to ask rather pointed questions rather than having questions that would allow the president to basically give a narrative and potentially go far afield from the topics that they're trying to focus on," Jaso said. Paul Rosenzweig, an adjunct professor at the George Washington School of Law... Question: Why is Trump in so much Trouble? Options: - he thinks he makes the laws - not enough information - he thinks he is invincible - he doesnt watch his actions === The correct answer is
not enough information

(Question)
I woke at dawn when Digger climbed over me to get out of bed, and I woke again an hour later when Pa called, "Everyone up who wants breakfast!" Across the room, Little Bit was dressing in a T-shirt and jeans that had been mine a year before. Ma had put a stack of clean clothes at the foot of the bed for me. I dressed without caring what I put on. The only important items were my cowboy boots and my Roy Rogers belt with two holsters for cap guns, even though I only had one cap gun left, and its trigger was broken. When I used the toilet, I sat on the front edge of the seat, watching the water beneath me, and scooted off as soon as I was done. I had seen a cartoon in a book at Grandpa Abner's that showed a fish leaping out of a toilet bowl and a woman staring at it with big eyes. I thought that was funny and I knew it was impossible, but I didn't think there was any reason to take chances. Ma called, "Little Bit has to use the bathroom." I yelled, "I'm almost done." Ma called, "Are you off the toilet?" I yelled, "Yes!" Ma opened the door and brought Little Bit in. Squeezing toothpaste onto my toothbrush, I said, "I wasn't done yet." Ma said, "Your father's making breakfast in the restaurant." That meant we should hurry, so I slid the brush over my teeth while Little Bit sat next to the sink, and then I ran out of the house. Stepping into the sunlight was stepping into Florida. I didn't smell oranges -- Ma had explained that oranges grew further south -- but I smelled a humid pinelands that was not like the New Orleans suburb I had known. Question: Who said Pa was making breakfast in the restaurant? Options: - Little Bit - Digger - Ma - not enough information === The correct answer is
(Answer)
Ma

If you turned on the TV towards the end of 2002 you could have been forgiven for thinking that Britain had gone absolutely horseshit mental. Every week, it seemed, another pretty young girl from a nice family, who was happy and popular and always did well at school, was being kidnapped or murdered by what the Sun newspaper cheerfully termed 'evil paedo scum'. Naming and shaming was as popular a feature in the Murdoch press as Page Three girls and discounted holidays to Butlin's. Of course you can't blame parents for wanting to keep their children safe; that's pretty much the job description of a parent. And, on the face of it, the tabloids were doing a public service in warning us about the paedophile menace lurking in our midst. The problem came when it turned out that a huge number of these concerned tabloid-reading parents were also absolute fucking morons. For every story of an actual sex offender being driven from their house by a baying mob there was one like that of Dr Yvette Cloete, a doctor at the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport, South Wales, who returned home from work to find that a group of 'concerned parents' had daubed the word 'paedo' on her front door in bright red paint. Dr Cloete was a consultant paediatrician. Easy mistake. If you're an absolute fucking moron. And so it was that one hung-over morning, after reading yet another story about vigilantes who had threatened to stone Maxine Carr, the girlfriend of Soham killer Ian Huntley, to death during her high-profile trial for perverting the course of justice, I decided to set up a website parodying this collective national madness. The result of two or three hours of hung-over labour was thinkofthechildren.co.uk, a spoof campaign site which claimed to offer a handy online guide for crazy vigilantes of all stripes to co-ordinate their crazy vigilante efforts. Although there are a few parts of the site I'm still a bit proud of, the majority of it was, I freely admit, satire of the lowest order. Question: Who did Ian Huntley murder? Options: - a pretty young girl - a vigilante - a friend of Maxine's - not enough information === The correct answer is
not enough information