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... After the end of her testimony, it is very likely that Hope Hicks: - is not cooperating with the investigation - is facing legal trouble for refusing to answer some questions - not enough information - has had experience in executive stonewalling
is not cooperating with the investigation

The classic Key West-style house just off Fleming looked much like the rest of the residences on the block - two-story wooden frame walls and peaked roofs with shallow porches nearly butting up against the sidewalk. Chloe's rusting blue Vespa was tucked away beside the house, in the narrow space separating it from the neighbors. To anyone walking by outside, everything looked quiet and peaceful. Inside, Chloe was pissed. Everything had been going great and then those stupid fuckers had decided to show up a week early, forcing her to scramble to pack a week's work into a single day. She wore a black bandana wrapped around her head, covering her buzz cut pink hair. Numerous smudges of dirt on her cheeks and the tip of her nose testified to the heavy-duty cleaning she'd been doing for the past five hours. She wore loose fitting shorts and a tight-fitting tank top that had once been white. In her bare feet she pushed a mop across the hardwood floors, grumbling to herself. She heard the door open and looked up to see Paul standing in the doorway. Even though it wasn't his fault, she glared at him as he came in. As much as Chloe liked a clean house, she hated housework, and this wasn't even her house. This particular space was sparsely decorated with just a few worn pieces of furniture and some bad condo art on the walls. After six months of being sealed up tight with the air conditioner off, it smelled of dust and mildew and needed a good airing out. "What are you doing?" asked Paul, closing the door behind him. "Mopping," she said, her voice flat. "Right. But why are you mopping here? Whose house is this anyway?" "It's one we just added to the roster last week. The cleaning service hasn't had a chance to get in here yet." "I see that," said Paul. "So why're you cleaning it tonight?" "We're cleaning it tonight because the Guidarizzi's decided to make a surprise visit to their winter home in Key West. They're coming in tomorrow afternoon. Every other decent place is filled up, so we have to use this one instead." Paul is Chloe's: - Romantic interest - not enough information - Boss - Sibling
not enough information

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." Why were democrats worried about the question? - not enough information - Because immigrants will answer the question. - Because immigrants might not answer skewing results. - Because the question existed for 100 years.
Because immigrants might not answer skewing results.