*Question*
Outside the White House Friday, a media frenzy. And at the center of it all, President Donald Trump. “Can we do one question at a time? Wait! One question at a time," the president scolded reporters. Trump launched a new attack on the Russia probe in the wake of a critical report on the Hillary Clinton email investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Justice. “I did nothing wrong. There was no collusion. There was no obstruction," he said. "The IG (inspector general) report yesterday went a long way to show that, and I think that the Mueller investigation has been totally discredited.” But the report in question only dealt with how the FBI handled the Clinton email controversy. It was critical of the man Trump fired as FBI director, James Comey, but rejected the notion of a politically-directed effort aimed at Trump. “This report did not find any evidence of political bias or improper considerations actually impacting the investigation under review," announced current FBI Director Christopher Wray. Democrats also took note of the report. “Anyone who is hoping to use this report to undermine the Mueller probe or prove the existence of a ‘deep state’ conspiracy against President Trump will be sorely disappointed," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said.  During his lengthy encounter with reporters Friday, Trump also defended his recent summit meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “They are doing so much for us, and now we are well on our way to get denuclearization," he said. "And the agreement says there will be total denuclearization. Nobody wants to report that. I got along with him great. We have a great chemistry together. That is a good thing, not a bad thing." Trump also lashed out at opposition Democrats and tried to blame them for recent administration actions to separate family members caught trying to come across the U.S. border. “The Democrats forced that law upon our nation. I hate it. I hate to see separation of parents and children," Trump said. Question: The investigation probably lasted: Options: - A longer time than the press conference   - Long enough time to find the evidence   - Several months to a year   - not enough information === The correct answer is
**Answer**
Several months to a year

*Question*
“Hey, Natalie! Nice sweatshirt!” I was passing through the hallways of school last year, being messenger boy for the teachers, when this girl walked up to me. I had no clue who she was, but I thought she was a year younger than me. That’s why I thought it was weird that she said my name. But the “nice sweatshirt” bit was what really got me. I wasn’t even wearing my sweatshirt. So. There was a substitute teacher in my literacy class, so my class was split. half of us did actual work, and the other half watched a documentary. Ben, Evan, Isabelle and myself were put together in the class watching the super boring documentary. We got bored, so, when Ben left the classroom for a bit and left his jacket behind, I don’t remember why, but, I put on his sweatshirt and traded it for mine. This turned into everyone swapping sweatshirts for the next hour until school was out. At one point I was called to the office to deliver a message to a different classroom. I walked out of the office with the information, and turned around at the sound of my name. “Hey, Natalie! Nice sweatshirt!” I smiled and thanked her like the nice human being I want people to think I am. Once she started down the stairs I looked down at my sweatshirt. Black and orange? Nike? But my sweatshirt’s gray and purple! Then I remembered our little game of “try not to get caught swapping sweatshirts and giggling”. I wasn’t wearing my sweatshirt. Someone else had it. I was wearing Evan’s. It’s also kind of sad because that was one of the only compliments I’ve gotten from a stranger all year. Complimented on something that wasn’t even mine… Welcome to my life, everybody! Question: How long have they been swapping sweathers? Options: - not enough information   - They've only done it this once   - It's been a thing for years.   - They've been doing it all year === The correct answer is
**Answer**
They've been doing it all year

*Question*
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may be open to new limits on the government's ability to track someone's movements by accessing data on that person's cellphone.  A case before the high court could result in a landmark decision in the ongoing debate over civil liberties protections in an era of rapid technological change.  At issue is whether law enforcement will be able to access cellphone data that can reveal a person's whereabouts without having to first obtain a court-issued search warrant.  The case stems from the conviction of Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies back in 2010 and 2011. Prosecutors were able to obtain cellphone records that indicated his location over a period of months, information that proved crucial to his conviction. On Wednesday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement should be required to obtain a court-ordered search warrant before obtaining such information.  They also argued that allowing law enforcement to access the cellphone data without a warrant would violate the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  "It is impossible to go about our daily lives without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs that reveal where we have been over time, what we have done, who we spent time with," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court following oral arguments. "It is time for the court, we think, to update Fourth Amendment doctrine to provide reasonable protections today."  Some of the justices also raised concerns about privacy in the digital age.  "Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often sides with the liberal wing of the court, said.  Chief Justice John Roberts, who often sides with conservatives on the court, said the central question was whether the cellphone information should be accessible to the government "without a warrant." Question: After the amendment, Wessler probably is Options: - indifferent   - not enough information   - in favor of the warrant   - against the warrant === The correct answer is
**Answer**

in favor of the warrant