Datasets:

arianhosseini

/

quail_with_tree_depth

like 0

n105_2

n105

2

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

Who tweeted that Trump should apologize to Judge Curiel?

Character_identity

n105_3

n105

3

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

Who is the Florida Senator that agreed with Kasich's tweets on Trump's comments toward a judge?

Factual

n105_4

n105

4

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

When did Trump's rival Kasich tweet that Trump's offensive comments on the judge were wrong?

Temporal_order

n105_5

n105

5

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

The writer probably thinks that:

Belief_states

n105_6

n105

6

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

What is probably true about Curiel?

Entity_properties

n105_7

n105

7

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

What is probably true about Trump

Entity_properties

n105_8

n105

8

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

This back and forth of remarks and condemnation probably lasted:

Event_duration

n105_9

n105

9

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

Why did Trump think Judge Gonzalo Curiel would not be fair?

Causality

n105_10

n105

10

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

What did Democrats probably do with Trump's comments on Judge Curiel?

Unanswerable

n105_11

n105

11

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

Who is it that Marco Rubio is referring to when Rubio says that he hopes he stops?

Character_identity

n105_12

n105

12

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

When did Gingrich condemn Trumps remarks?

Temporal_order

n105_13

n105

13

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

After the end of the story Trump probably:

Subsequent_state

n105_14

n105

14

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

Who is the Speaker of the House?

Factual

n105_15

n105

15

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

Why did Kasich tweet commenting Trump should apologize?

Causality

n105_16

n105

16

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

How long did it probably take Kasich to tweet about Trump regarding the Judge Curiel comment?

Event_duration

n105_17

n105

17

news

In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump’s two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 — well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it…." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who all condemned Trump's remarks on Sunday.

Trump probably believes his comments toward Judge Curiel:

Belief_states

n106_0

n106

0

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

What is probably true about Obama?

Entity_properties

n106_1

n106

1

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

What does Obama believe probably about non-violent drug offenders?

Belief_states

n106_2

n106

2

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

After 42 convicted nonviolent offenders were granted commutations probably:

Subsequent_state

n106_3

n106

3

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

Who pushed for lighter sentences for non-violent drug offenders?

Character_identity

n106_4

n106

4

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

When did Obama push to commute sentences for non-violent drug offenders in the US?

Temporal_order

n106_5

n106

5

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

Why did Obama fight for lower sentences for drug crimes?

Causality

n106_6

n106

6

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

HOw long has obama been working on this

Event_duration

n106_7

n106

7

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

How long did the vote take for the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015?

Event_duration

n106_8

n106

8

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

What did Congress intend if the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 was passed?

Unanswerable

n106_9

n106

9

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

What does trump think about this reform

Unanswerable

n106_10

n106

10

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

What country has the highest incarceration rate in the world?

Factual

n106_11

n106

11

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

What issue did Bush grant?

Character_identity

n106_12

n106

12

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

What is probably true about the bar association

Entity_properties

n106_13

n106

13

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

How does obama feel with the non support

Belief_states

n106_14

n106

14

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

why did the Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 fail to pass

Causality

n106_15

n106

15

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

when did Obama grant commutations for non violent offenders?

Temporal_order

n106_16

n106

16

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

What was obamas position during this ordeal

Factual

n106_17

n106

17

news

As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country’s criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases. It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014. However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs. Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction. The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations.

After the story, Obama probably is

Subsequent_state

n107_0

n107

0

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

What do many Americans believe?

Entity_properties

n107_1

n107

1

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

What is probably true about Trump?

Entity_properties

n107_2

n107

2

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

The election campaign probably lasted:

Event_duration

n107_3

n107

3

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

when will immigration policy change?

Unanswerable

n107_4

n107

4

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

What did Trump's anti-terrorism position tell Muslims?

Unanswerable

n107_5

n107

5

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

Why was Clinton bad mouthing Trump?

Causality

n107_6

n107

6

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

What foreign policy is Trump responsible for?

Factual

n107_7

n107

7

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

Why did Trump attack Hillary

Causality

n107_8

n107

8

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

After the end of this story, Trump probably is:

Subsequent_state

n107_9

n107

9

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

Clinton may think that:

Belief_states

n107_10

n107

10

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

Who will be gone soon?

Character_identity

n107_11

n107

11

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

When would Trump block Muslim immigration?

Temporal_order

n107_12

n107

12

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

When did Trump deliver his foreign policy speech?

Temporal_order

n107_13

n107

13

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

Hillary Clinton probably believes that:

Belief_states

n107_14

n107

14

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

After the story Trump might have

Subsequent_state

n107_15

n107

15

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

The campaigns will probably last for:

Event_duration

n107_16

n107

16

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

Who's interests will be pursued?

Character_identity

n107_17

n107

17

news

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But Clinton said Trump's presidency would have the opposite effect. “A Trump presidency would embolden ISIS,” she said referring to the group also known as Islamic State. The two presidential candidates have presented very different approaches to terrorism, which experts like Goodman believe would likely produce different results.

What is a large topic of consternation among American?

Factual

n108_0

n108

0

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

Why did the group pick the color orange?

Causality

n108_1

n108

1

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

The group Wear Orange probably feels:

Belief_states

n108_2

n108

2

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

Why did the NRA criticize the Wear Orange movement?

Causality

n108_3

n108

3

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

After the events of the story, the NRA still:

Subsequent_state

n108_4

n108

4

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

What is probably true about Hadiya Pendleton?

Entity_properties

n108_5

n108

5

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

When did the Wear Orange movement occur?

Temporal_order

n108_6

n108

6

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

Where was Hidaya Pendleton killed

Factual

n108_7

n108

7

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

Who is the group that honors the life of Hadiya Pendleton?

Character_identity

n108_8

n108

8

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

After the end of this story, the NRA is probably

Subsequent_state

n108_9

n108

9

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

The shooting at UCLA probably lasted:

Event_duration

n108_10

n108

10

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

The Wear Orange movement likely lasts:

Event_duration

n108_11

n108

11

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

What was the second Amendment of the US constitution partially based on?

Factual

n108_12

n108

12

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

Who inspired the Wear Orange movement?

Character_identity

n108_13

n108

13

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

What is likely true about the Wear Orange political movement?

Entity_properties

n108_14

n108

14

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

Participants of the Wear Orange movement likely believe that:

Belief_states

n108_15

n108

15

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

When was Hadiya Pendleton killed?

Temporal_order

n108_16

n108

16

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

What is likely true about the politics regarding gun rights in the US?

Unanswerable

n108_17

n108

17

news

Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange — the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it.

The president of the NRA's favorite animal is probably:

Unanswerable

n109_0

n109

0

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

What did the U.S. think about the promises made in the past about denuclearization from North Korea?

Unanswerable

n109_1

n109

1

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

When was the dismantling process set to begin?

Temporal_order

n109_2

n109

2

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

How long did the news conference in Seoul alongside the Korean Foreign Minister probably last with the US?

Event_duration

n109_3

n109

3

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

When will the US take back some of the sanctions on North Korea?

Temporal_order

n109_4

n109

4

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

Trump probably believes:

Belief_states

n109_5

n109

5

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

After the end of this story, North Korea probably:

Subsequent_state

n109_6

n109

6

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

Who said Trump offered to lift sanctions against North Korea as relations improve?

Character_identity

n109_7

n109

7

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

What did Trump call joint military exercises in South Korea?

Factual

n109_8

n109

8

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

How does Trump feel about Kim?

Belief_states

n109_9

n109

9

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

Who is the administrative spokesman?

Factual

n109_10

n109

10

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

Why did the US have sanctions on North Korea?

Causality

n109_11

n109

11

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

What is probably true about Trump?

Entity_properties

n109_12

n109

12

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

Why were past negotiations unsuccessful

Causality

n109_13

n109

13

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

Who did Trump meet with representing North Korea?

Character_identity

n109_14

n109

14

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

How long have North Korea and US presidents continued to meet?

Event_duration

n109_15

n109

15

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

Why were Japan and South Korea represented in the meeting?

Entity_properties

n109_16

n109

16

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

After the meeting, how would Kim describe the meeting with Trump?

Subsequent_state

n109_17

n109

17

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. “When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear,” Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program. After the summit, President Trump surprised allies in the region by calling the joint military exercises with South Korea “provocative” and saying they will no longer be held, as long as North Korea continues to make progress toward denuclearization.

What will it take to end the Korean conflict?

Unanswerable

n110_0

n110

0

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

What action does the US insist must be carried out before it will follow through and lift the existing sanctions against North Korea?

Factual

n110_1

n110

1

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

Who commended Trump for his ongoing commitment to continuing peace keeping efforts with North Korea?

Character_identity

n110_2

n110

2

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

Which of the following is likely true about North Korea?

Unanswerable

n110_3

n110

3

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

The summit between the US and North Korea likely lasted:

Event_duration

n110_4

n110

4

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

What is likely true about President Trump?

Entity_properties

n110_5

n110

5

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

When did Pyongyang start to focus primarily on utilizing diplomatic tactics?

Temporal_order

n110_6

n110

6

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

Kim Jong Un likely believes that meeting with the US:

Belief_states

n110_7

n110

7

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

Why would people be skeptical of the meeting between North Korea and the US?

Causality

n110_8

n110

8

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

Where would nuclear disarmament primarily occur for any agreement made in the summit?

Factual

n110_9

n110

9

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

How long did the summit between the two leaders last?

Event_duration

n110_10

n110

10

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

When, according to the text, did North Korea carry out missile test-firing activities that proved successful?

Temporal_order

n110_11

n110

11

news

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others however offered praise for President Trump for keeping the diplomatic momentum moving forward, despite the lack of details in the agreement.

Why are some people in South Korea somewhat skeptical that the US-North Korea summit will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program?

Causality