Redact Sign Word Secure
Make the most out of your eSignature workflows with airSlate SignNow
Extensive suite of eSignature tools
Robust integration and API capabilities
Advanced security and compliance
Various collaboration tools
Enjoyable and stress-free signing experience
Extensive support
Rapidredact keyword form
Keep your eSignature workflows on track
Our user reviews speak for themselves
Redact Sign Word Secure. Discover the most user-pleasant experience with airSlate SignNow. Handle your complete file processing and expressing system electronically. Change from handheld, document-structured and erroneous workflows to programmed, electronic and flawless. It is possible to produce, produce and indication any files on any system everywhere. Be sure that your crucial enterprise instances don't slip over the top.
Learn how to Redact Sign Word Secure. Adhere to the easy manual to start:
- Make your airSlate SignNow accounts in click throughs or log on together with your Facebook or Google profile.
- Take advantage of the 30-working day free trial or select a rates prepare that's perfect for you.
- Get any lawful format, develop on-line fillable varieties and share them tightly.
- Use superior capabilities to Redact Sign Word Secure.
- Indication, personalize signing get and gather in-man or woman signatures ten times speedier.
- Established intelligent reminders and receive notices at each phase.
Transferring your tasks into airSlate SignNow is straightforward. What adheres to is a straightforward approach to Redact Sign Word Secure, as well as ideas to help keep your co-workers and lovers for much better partnership. Inspire the employees together with the best equipment to remain along with business operations. Improve efficiency and scale your organization faster.
How it works
Rate your experience
-
Best ROI. Our customers achieve an average 7x ROI within the first six months.
-
Scales with your use cases. From SMBs to mid-market, airSlate SignNow delivers results for businesses of all sizes.
-
Intuitive UI and API. Sign and send documents from your apps in minutes.
A smarter way to work: —how to industry sign banking integrate
FAQs
-
Did the September 27 hearing for Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford affect your opinion about the sexual assault allegations?
Yes, the hearing absolutely affected my opinion about the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.I have been deeply concerned about the Supreme Court since the Republican majority blocked President Obama from even having his choice of appointee be heard. It pointed out to me that we have a problem, a loophole, in the Constitution, where a sitting American President can be blocked from acting in their Constitutionally mandated role.That means I have absolutely not been an unbiased citizen regarding the question of the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh. His positions and evasions that were reported widely, confirmed my biases and I was well aware this was the case.Until today, I have therefore avoided stating my position on Kavanaugh, because I knew my position was entirely based on snippets and emotion, not on spending any time reviewing the facts.Today, September 27, 2018, I spent many hours watching and listening to Kavanaugh and to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. As a therapist and as an artist, I have built up strong skills in recognizing how people present themselves, both visually and auditorily. As the daughter of an attorney, who worked in a few law offices, and was sometimes brought to court by my father to give him feedback on the judge(s) or jury when he had tricky cases, I have some experience understanding how hearings go, and how people look and sound when they are telling the truth or lying.Blasey Ford’s story was much more nuanced and extensive than I had previously realized. Most importantly, I did not know that she had been trying to make her story known before Kavanaugh was identified as the nominee. I had believed the limited news bits I had heard, that made it sound like she jumped out at the eleventh hour.Because I believed the presentation that she had timed her revelation at the last minute, I was skeptical about what the real story was.Today I found out—and no one on the Republican side disagrees with this—that she actually began trying to get her story out while Kavanaugh was only one of a few on the short list for SCOTUS. While Ford is clearly an intelligent person, with an excellent education, and who is a professor of psychology, she is also not a particularly polished speaker, nor is she in any way knowledgeable or capable in the areas of law or politics.What I did see, was a scared person who had some trouble understanding the questions on occasion, and whose answers to those questions were sometimes slightly unclear or even slightly lacking cohesion to other answers.As a biased observer, I was frustrated, and hoping that she would be much clearer in her presentation.But as I watched for hours, I started to realize that her stumbles and very slight inconsistencies helped make it clear that she did not present a polished set of lies. She had trouble with dates, and never represented herself as someone who is good at tracking dates.I was impressed that she took a polygraph test at the suggestion of her attorneys, that the test was many hours long, and that the report said it found her entirely credible.Her concerns about not recalling dates lead her to request an FBI investigation because she does remember that she encountered one of the witnesses she claims, 6–8 weeks after the incident in 1982. She is asking to know when that boy worked at a very specific grocery store so she can narrow down the actual date the event she is reporting took place.Also, as she was told, or when she realized that there was some inconsistency in something she said, she apologized, and did her best to clarify. She never got defensive.This is to say, I found her accusation credible.I also found her trouble noting where the event occurred, how she got there, or how she got home, represents a serious gap in her accusation. But instead of this leading me to think she is lying about everything (or anything), I found her clarity of what happened in the attack itself, compared to her lack of clarity in the time and location around her central accusation, reasonable, and that kind of memory pattern is consistent with psychological science that has evaluated memory patterns around traumatic events.This means, I believe it is possible that she has the location of the event wrong, without being concerned that this possible inaccuracy reflects any inaccuracy with her central accusation.I do not believe anything in her presentation suggested that she lied or hedged about her description of the traumatic event she is accusing Kavanaugh of. To the contrary, she said all kinds of things that had internal consistency, and a few small peripheral inconsistencies that together, lead me to find her imperfections to be more compelling that she is a credible witness.Then I began listening to Brett Kavanaugh.Fascinatingly, in his initial statement, I saw in front of me a person who I found far more decent than I had expected. When he described himself as a virtuous human being with integrity and respect, I believed that he believed that about himself.For the first few minutes of his initial statement, he held himself together, and when he said things that were obviously true, he was believable. But when he said things that were potential lies (assertions that he did not do anything to Ford) he swallowed. Now, I know that swallowing is something some people do when lying, but it is by no means a slam dunk.I chided myself on oversimplifying the situation, and did my best to continue watching without making conclusions without anything conclusive. People also swallow because they have anxiety about being believed, when they are telling the truth.As he continued, he started to lose his composure. When he began speaking about his father—a man he clearly has extreme respect for—he began to cry and shake. Not terribly, but noticeably.I was surprised when I saw Kavanaugh have to turn the page of his initial statement to complete the name of the location he spent a lot of time in when he was growing up. That is, he knew that location extremely well, but could not say the next word without turning the page and seeing it. I thought that was interesting, and made me wonder why he was extremely distracted.Again, being distracted didn’t confirm that he was lying.As he continued, he did start carefully, saying things that required careful wording to make his points.For example, he spoke about his calendar pages from that summer of 1982. He avoided saying that he wrote everything down in that calendar, but said careful words that leave it open to the possibility that he did not write everything down in that calendar.By the end of his opening statement, I was convinced that he fully believed he is a good person, and that anything he did as a teen should not ruin his career at this point in his life. There is some compelling logic to that, but it is not acceptable to lie about his history, so I felt bad for him, but wasn’t impressed.Still, I listened with an open mind, looking for specific proof of prevarication.After his initial statement, he began answering questions by the Senate Hearing Committee.That was when he immediately began avoiding answering questions straight.His absolute refusal to respond to the question (asked in multiple ways by multiple Senators) if he would call for, or even want an FBI investigation so that he could have the opportunity to have his name cleared, he kept answering with words that were slippery, not directly answering the questions as posed.Senator Harris directly asked him again about whether or not he would be willing to ask the president for an FBI investigation into this specific allegation. He simply would not answer. She clarified beyond any shadow of a doubt that the question was due a yes or no, or at least a maybe. He would not, and she said, “I’ll take that as a no, then,” and he did not argue with her.Plenty of Senators pointed out that he was not answering straight. They also pointed out that the accuser is the one calling for a proper FBI investigation, while the accused is not, and that seems backwards if the accused isn’t guilty, and the accuser is lying.The other compelling thing he prevaricated on was the calendar. He actually did manage to state that he added names and locations of certain impromptu get-togethers after the fact. That is, after the events he would write a note about its location and attendees in his calendar.In other words, there were plenty of events that were not written in advance.What I did not understand, is why no one asked him the obvious question: Does it seem reasonable that someone would not write down the event and witnesses to an event where someone absolutely broke the law?Assuming he did not attack Ford, any good judge (oh, I should mention, one of my brothers is a judge) will absolutely recognize the expectation that an intelligent person who has broken the law and wants to avoid getting caught, would be very odd indeed to include the illegal event and witness list in their calendar.This is easy to say, if he indeed did not do anything wrong.When I was a girl, I kept a diary. I wrote a lot of things in it, and plenty of things that I was embarrassed by. But the night I pulled out of someone’s driveway, and in the dark did not see the metal trash cans in the street behind me, and hit them, and then drove away without leaving a note, well, that was not something I wrote in my diary.Looking back on it, I’m guessing the owners of the trashcans probably just pounded them back into shape. I was pulling out of a driveway, not going faster than five miles per hour, the damage was probably minor. But I was massively embarrassed because I was a very ethical person, and I knew that damaging property and leaving the scene was illegal and unethical.Anyone understands that.Kavanaugh described his keeping of the calendar as if he wrote everything in there, without actually saying he did. Thus avoiding lying, but trying to suggest that if there is no event matching Ford’s accusation, that there was no event.When Senator Hirono began questioning Kavanaugh, she began by saying the Republicans were using certain statements as diversionary tactics, not as honestly helpful statements and questions. When she said that, Kavanaugh found that to be a good time to look down at his papers, and shuffle them.As she began asking him questions, he continued to have a great deal of difficulty meeting her eyes. She asked excellent questions, and he would not give a straight answer. At one point she directly asked him if his college freshman roommate lied when he wrote that Kavanaugh did drink too much, more than most there, got belligerent sometimes when he drank too much, and had trouble remembering things in days following a night of drinking.Kavanaugh told her to refer to the redacted, private pages on record where he answered that question. She reasonably responded by saying that he therefore is agreeing that the roommate lied in those accusations. And Kavanaugh still would not give a straight response.There were many questions and answers where Kavanaugh would not answer straight forward questions. Like Senator Booker asking him if he ever drank during the week (not just on weekends) in the summer of the event being discussed. Kavanaugh tried to avoid answering straight, Booker clarified it was a yes or no answer that he was asking for. Eventually Booker managed to get Kavanaugh to admit he did drink during the week at some point, to which Booker pointed out that his meant his answer was yes. Kavanaugh still defended himself.Booker asked Kavanaugh if he was upset with Ford, or if he thought Ford should not have come forward. Again, a yes/no question, and again, Kavanaugh simply could not respond clearly.Kavanaugh kept harping on the idea that if the witnesses Ford listed do not corroborate what Ford said happened, then it didn’t happen. He also kept talking about his great reputation and accomplishments,.As a lawyer and a judge, he knows these rhetorical devices have logic that is entirely faulty. He knows that.Therefore, his consistent avoidance of answering questions straight, his clear prevarications that hint at him being innocent without actually proving him innocent, and his general refusal to agree to ask for an FBI investigation, lead me to the conclusion that he is lying.Kavanaugh often repeated about his reputation, and the 65 women who knew him in high school who signed a petition to claim his good character, and that he’d never do anything like he was accused of.When I was in high school, senior year I had my first real boyfriend. And I decided it was time to get a prescription for birth control pills. I went to the doctor, got the prescription, brought the prescription to the pharmacy to have it filled, and then picked it up.At that time, prescriptions were picked up at the pharmacy counter, but paid for at the main checkout counter.The pharmacist put my pills in a little paper bag, with a receipt for more money than I had anticipated it would cost. As I walked toward the front of the store, I saw a friend of mine, another girl in my high school, working the cash register. I had a flash of a thought that maybe my insurance paid for my pills. I knew that was unlikely. I didn’t want to spend the money, and I didn’t want to be embarrassed to buy birth control pills in front of that classmate.So I walked out of the store without paying.And was promptly stopped by security. At that point, my classmate came to my defense, as I claimed that I thought the insurance paid for it, and I didn’t realize I was supposed to.The adults were unimpressed, but their employee stood her ground, defended me, and I of course paid for the pills.You know why she defended me? Because no one, not anyone at that school, had ever known me to be untrustworthy. I had a reputation as a bit of a weirdo, but my reputation as an honest person was absolute.I know first hand that people can come to your defense even when you are guilty.I know first hand that people can do illegal things and lie about them, when they were a teenager, and firmly believe those things should not negatively impact their career when they are in their fifties.The difference between me and Kavanaugh is that I actually never did drink with friends in high school, and I am willing to admit I did something illegal as a teen.Kavanaugh tried to pretend he drank only legally, and never to serious excess (only minor excess), and that he never did anything illegal, and never forgot anything because of drinking. These extreme assertions in the face of how unlikely they all are, makes him not a credible witness to his own history.I believe he believes he is a good person, and belongs on the Supreme Court. I believe Ford has made some kind of mistake about the location of the event she accuses Kavanaugh of, but I believe she is a credible witness that Kavanaugh did do what she says he did, that he did try to get her clothes off but was stopped by her one-piece bathing suit she had on under her clothes, and that he did put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming, and that she was terrified that he was so drunk he would inadvertently kill her from stopping her from breathing.I am incredibly relieved to have seen responses that proved to me that Kavanaugh is actually not credible, and that the accusation is credible. I am relieved because it suggests the press has been reasonable to have been saying Kavanaugh has not been credible several time in these hearings.Meanwhile, I am nervous that his obvious prevarications and lies may not be enough to stop him from getting confirmed.I sincerely hope that the well-being of the republic will be more important to enough Republicans to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation.I also believe that if he is confirmed, he may well spend the rest of his days working so hard to prove he is a decent man, that he might be not as terrible a judge as I fear he would be.No matter what happens, I also am of the opinion that this hearing is a tipping point, quite like Nixon and Watergate. No matter which way things go, civil trust in the political process will be damaged.
-
What do I include in an email to an interested angel investor?
[Name of investor],[Explain when and how the angel communicated interest in your startup, e.g., "I cold emailed you 2 days ago and you said you might be interested"].I am [your name and title, e.g., cofounder & CEO] of [name of company]. We do [x -explain why you think the angel investor is interested in your company - Did they say so? Did they seem excited? Did they say to email them? Etc.]Include one or two short, impressive things about the team, idea, market, product, etc. You're just asking them to respond so you can send a deck or answer some questions they might have at this point. Since they don't know you, they will be wary of getting on a call or meeting you quickly. And they have lots of warm intros they need to focus on for their friends.They'll probably want you to prove yourself each step of the way and make you jump through a lot more hoops than if you had a warm intro. That can be great for you. Because you're getting free feedback.Their questions will almost always be things you should start dumping into a diligence packet or guide you on how to improve your pitch and deck. If I were you, I'd ask for a meeting later.Here's a cold, non-customized email that got me to respond and ask for more info. I redacted details. "We don't have any mutual contacts so I figured this was the best way to signNow out. I am a second time entrepreneur with a previous exit and ran biz dev at a company called [X] in [Y] city. Over the past year my team and I launched [Z] (www.ABC.com) , a [describe your business briefly - no jargon] in the [xyz] industry. Anyways if its ok with you I would love to send you my deck and get your thoughts. We have traction (customers), very low attrition, good CAC and LTV. We have a very similar model to [something I can relate to] etc... and very scalable. Looking forward to connecting and sending the deck over. Thanks,[Jane Doe]"Here's a cold, customized email that got me to respond and agree to a meeting, after a couple emails making sure what they said seemed to check out a bit."Hi Terrence,Would love to connect at [conference we were both at] today or tomorrow and introduce you to [her company]. Based on your passion for mentoring and your investment in [x portfolio company], I think you'd be a great investor who can provide constructive feedback on the technology we're building and a clear understanding of the magnitude of this global market opportunity. I've attached our deck and executive summary for more info and you can see further background on our AngelList profile. Based on your description on AngelList of what you're looking for-we're a perfect match. see below:1 coachable customer-focused founder CEO: Myself, [short bio]1 technical team member paid lots of equity + below market cash: My Co-Founder, [x], Full Stack developer, [etc.]. x% equity. Previously at [brief bio]She and I are taking salary on an as add needed basis to keep our overhead costs as low as possible and have invested a signNow amount of our own savings into our company. Close, small team: Yup! Co-founders, [names 2 other team members]Test quickly, cheaply: Currently ux testing prototype with [x] in our target audience ([describes target audience)] as well as a control group of [x] women from [##-##] age range from a partnership with [x]. All testing at no cost as [the cofounders] both have strong market research and UX testing experience.Users who return & refer: [x] have already signed up for beta purely via word of mouth in # months since putting up our landing page. High retention, engagement:[Shows and explains #'s]Big boring markets with flawed competitors: [Describes problem with supposedly formidable incumbent concisely from her vantage point. Then names and destroys a startup competitor.]Expertise: [xxx] is a well respected feminist. Her [relative] was one of the founders of [xxx], etc. She has a profound expertise on [xxx] and the historical, social and economical dialogue of [xxx] in the work force. [####] is a rock star creative software engineer who has worked on [details]Grit, focus, GSD: We're natural born hustlers, hyper efficient colleagues and between [###] coding her face off these past few months and my ability to secure a dozen partnerships before we even had a prototype- we get shit done.Low burn We bootstrapped the company for ##months and have recently gone full time on it with a tiny amount of initial funding. [other stories of resourcefulness and frugality]Would love to show you our prototype, explain the product & revenue vision and tell you more about our amazing beta user group of women which includes [#####] software engineers. Let me know if you have any windows of availability at scale from [abc times] today or [alternate time/date]. I know you'll love what we're building. As an FYI- we're raising this initial seed round on an early investor friendly convertible note structure (legal guidance provided by [xyz law firm]) with minimum [xx]k investments.Looking forward to connecting!Best,[name of founder]
-
What do you think of the just released memorandum of the conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian President?
I have a very clear philosophy on life, but am largely an apolitical person. I try to steer clear of most of the opinion pieces, because they inevitably distort the facts by imparting an altogether too convenient narrative. With that said, when I have access to primary sources, (this is the one I read on CNN.com: Read Trump's phone conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky), I’ll read them and then maybe venture to have an opinion.I wanted to be a citizen who is well-informed of the actual details of our President’s potential transgressions. I didn’t want to be like most others who are just going to either (a.) do nothing and go on their merry way, or (b.) watch or listen to their favorite comedians and political commentators talk about it and mindlessly believe what these jokers have to say rather than reading for themselves. That’s why I’m copy/pasting it here and commenting on it bit by bit. If you don’t want to read it, I’m sure Rush Limbaugh or Conan O’Brien will put something together for you!UNCLASSIFIEDDeclassified by order of the PresidentSeptember 24, 2019MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONSUBJECT: Telephone Conversation with President Zelenskyy of UkraineParticipants: President Zelenskyy of UkraineNotetakers: The White House Situation RoomDate, Time July 25, 2019, 9:03-9:33 am EDTand Place: ResidenceThere is no reason for Trump not to order this transcript to be declassified, especially given that predictably, those on the far Right are going to say, “Trump can do no wrong,” and those on the far Left are going to say, “Trump can do no right.” Since both of these types of people are full of bovine feces, and are largely going to believe whatever they believe regardless of the facts, we’ll just ignore them as the idiotic ideologues they are, and go on with our analysis like the literate, sane, well-informed human beings that we (hopefully) are. We can assume that this transcript doesn’t contain anything that should be classified for the purpose of national security.The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It's a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I'm able to tell you the following; the first time you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.So far, this is a normal conversation between two presidents, one with more influence, and one with less. Nothing interesting yet.The President: (laughter) That's a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.Trump gives approbation, and Zelenskyy gives acknowledgment. Aside from the nature of the conversation being further indicative of their respective positions, there’s still nothing interesting yet.The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.Okay. Finally we get to an action item: discussing Ukraine’s readiness to purchase more Javelins (infrared-guided anti-tank missiles) from the USA.The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.So, Trump basically wants Ukrainian help in figuring out the whole Russian hacking incident. Here’s a link to the famous Full Mueller Report (on CNN) if you want to read more about that: Read and search the full Mueller report. Interestingly, he didn’t even go to the point of using the Javelins as a bargaining chip. So far, everything seems above-table, and I’d guess that anyone with benign motives from either party should be happy to get down to the truth. So, I don’t see why Republicans or Democrats would take issue with this.President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.Zelenskyy hums and haws a bit, but eventually gets to the point where he says, “all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.” This means that either they are already helping to investigate, or that he intends for Ukraine to help with Trump’s request.The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.Let’s wait until we hear Zelenskyy’s response because that helps to contextualize what Trump’s saying here. Without Zelenskyy’s context, it’s unclear what the whole point is.President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.So, Zelenskyy is going to replace the Ukrainian ambassador to the USA, and is going to look and see if there’s any veracity to the idea that Biden or his son was somehow interfering with the prosecution. Also, this is supposed to be a private call. It’s not like any attention would have been brought to this issue at all was this whole issue not thrust into the spotlight to begin with. I can see how this might appear sketchy, but if the issue involves Ukraine, then I see no reason why this wouldn’t come up in a conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy. Also, Trump is a very straightforward speaker. I’m pretty sure he would have simply asked for dirt on Biden if that were his objective, but it seems that he’s merely asking whether there is any veracity to rumors and Biden’s own alleged claims.The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you've done. The whole world was watching. I'm not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.- - End of conversation - -And the rest of the conversation is full of planning and pleasantries…Yeah, I don’t see much here unless you’re looking to read things in a very crooked fashion. Of course, if you adopt a postmodern deconstructionist viewpoint that everything in this world revolves around power, and that there are virtually infinite valid interpretations of any given text, it’s inevitable that you put whatever construction you can on it in order to advance your political agenda. Truth be damned. Many intellectuals have figured out how to read things in that fashion, but I’m convinced that obfuscation of the truth, or fabrication of a narrative for political expediency is a bad long-term plan.With that said, I really don’t see anything in the transcript worth having a fuss about, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum.
-
How can I make a Pdf file?
The simplest way to create a pdf file is to print one out (print to file). The latest operating systems and some writing/publishing programs usually have a pdf printer available. The second easiest way is to export to one using the features within the application you are using. Most programs now have this feature, so it’s a breeze. If you don’t have a program with this feature built in or your operating system didn’t come with a pdf printer, then you have to use a pdf printing program. There are a lot of programs you can download but I’m a fan of opensource and my favorite is Ghostscript. And an adware free tool that uses that engine is FreePDF Download [ http://freepdfxp.de/download_de.html ]. It installs a PDF printer in your printers list. When you print to this printer from any application, it will create a pdf from that file. If you like to buy software, then you can buy signNow (Not Acrobat Reader), which installs a PDF printer also.
-
If Quora started asking every user to provide a Social Security Number or other means of verifying that a user's profile only us
Q: If Quora started asking every user to provide a Social Security Number or other means of verifying that a user's profile only uses his/her real name according to official sources, would you continue using this site?No way in hell.Quora is, as far as I am concerned, a random company with a faceless management team, and they have never given me the impression that they would be competent and trustworthy enough to hold any vital data. I don’t give my Social Insurance Number, address, or phone number to social media websites. They are too easily hacked.I think the Real Name Policy is complete bunk anyway — people can post anonymously here without even having an account; that right there does away with any pretense that real names are somehow necessary for this site to function. Using their real names also doesn’t keep people from acting badly — everybody knows Trump’s name, and look what spews out of his mouth daily. What’s necessary for people to behave reasonably well is enforcement of a decent discourse policy — BNBR is a good start, but there needs to be more proactive enforcement.Even if there were no anonymous option, just because a name sounds “real” doesn’t mean somebody didn’t just pick it out of the phone book. I never check up on anyone’s credentials anyway; I judge other Quorans by what they write over time, just like I have always judged people’s writings on the internet. I also wouldn’t take information I see here at face value if I were somehow risking something; I’d always research it separately elsewhere. So it doesn’t matter to me whether you are who you claim you are; I consider Quora’s RN policy to be completely illusory once we go beyond clearly famous people, and I don’t need Quora to get more serious about verifying people.If they did that, I’d be outta here.
-
What do the Trump supporters think about him not allowing the Democrats rebuttal to Nunes memo to be released?
What do [I] think about [President Trump] not allowing the Democrats[‘] rebuttal memo [as submitted] to be released?To be honest, I'm a little disappointed. I'd hoped that the President would release their memo as submitted, full of classified information and all. I'll also acknowledge that this is the first sign of intelligence from the Democratic Party since Trump has been elected.The Democrats put Trump in a no-win situation on this one. If he releases but redacts the memo, the Democrats and their propaganda arm, corporate media, get to cry foul. If he outright refuses to release it, Democrats and corporate media get to cry foul. If he releases it unaltered, Democrats and corporate media get to cry foul, plus some Republicans would join them. All those options are losing propositions that lend credence to either: a) censorship implying that the President is “afraid” of the memo and wants to hide what's in it, or b) that he's reckless with national security and has threatened our “safety” by compromising FBI “methods and sources”.That being said, President Trump comes away with a draw, at worst, by punting the memo back to the Democrats in the House Intel Committee. He returned it to the committee and gave them the option to amend it in a manner that does not, or minimally, reveals those “methods and sources” our intelligence agencies are so protective of. They still have the opportunity to present a rebuttal, but it must meet the same standards of the Republican sponsored memo.In reality, the Democrats on the House Intel Committee have no interest in having their say; they merely wished to take an opportunity to deflect from the previously released memo, posture as if there’s some (unknown) justification for the information contained therein, and portray the President as threatened by that (unknown) justification. The Republican (“Nunes”) memo contained nothing that revealed “methods and sources” other than mentioning Christopher Steele as a prior asset, which compromises Steele rather than FBI practices external to the case and individual in question.It’s a clever, if obvious and predictable, political ploy by the Democrats on the committee to fill their rebuttal with details concerning “methods and sources” that they know would prevent its release. It is in this sense that I personally would’ve preferred that Trump raise, rather than just call, their bluff but doing so would’ve been a bit extreme, and leaves the administration open to the previously mentioned criticism.But… why would the Democrat memo necessarily be a bluff? Why couldn’t it be an adequate response, as represented? Unfortunately, there’s nothing the memo could contain that would justify or mitigate what is contained in the previous memo. Specifically, FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that the “Steele dossier” was essential to obtaining FISA warrants for surveillance of an American citizen (and indirectly a presidential campaign then incoming administration), former FBI director James Comey testified that the “Steele dossier” was known to be unverifiable prior to obtaining several of those warrants, the wife of DOJ official Jonathan Ohr was hired by Fusion GPS, and there is clear concrete financial evidence that the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign were the employers of Christopher Steele through Fusion GPS through the Law Firm Perkins-Cole and this fact (though known to the FBI at the time) was withheld from the FISC. This information was confirmed in a subsequent memo released by Senators Grassley and Graham, which further revealed that Clinton surrogates acted as additional sources for Steele.No facts contained in either memo have been disputed by the FBI.The Democrats and corporate media have tried to spin the revelations as much as possible, but not convincingly (except to those who already take their word for Gospel and committed to a zealous hatred of President Trump). Indeed, the information confirmed by the “Nunes” (and subsequent “Grassley-Graham”) memo is damning and cannot be rationally excused.I’ll make a prediction: the Democrats on the House Intel Committee are not going to revise and resubmit a rebuttal memo. As mentioned, I do not believe they ever intended to. The rebuttal they submitted was nothing but sleight-of-hand. Their hope is to play up the “he’s censoring our memo because he has something to hide, and it’s not fair” angle for a week or so, then the whole thing will blow over once they find something else “controversial” to, with the enthusiastic aid of corporate media, distract the public with. (Note: as I write this, I see CNN is faithfully holding up their end of the bargain…)In conclusion: the Democrats did the logical thing, loaded up the memo with details that can’t “responsibly” be released, as it was really their only move. President Trump responded well, not falling for the bait, and did the smart thing by making it clear that he still would like the Democrats to submit a rebuttal that can be released to the public. The Democrats now find themselves back in a tough spot, as they were before submitting their rebuttal, but overall nothing much has really changed.I hope I’m wrong and that the Democrats do submit a rebuttal that can be released. I’m interested in what they have to say. The American public could certainly benefit from greater Federal transparency, but suffers from governmental obfuscation far too often.
-
What are some good electronic discovery firms and litigation support technology firms?
This field is in constant flux, but as of January 2016 here's some basic information. It's a little tricky to assess the competitive landscape because there is lot of vertical integration going on -- in particular, legal staffing companies keep buying legal review software (or e-discovery) companies so the former can use the latter's platforms in an efficient manner during the course of the projects the staffing companies do for their clients (who are usually law firms or companies). So, for example, FTI Consulting recently purchased Ringtail, which is one of the better e-discovery platforms, and now develops it in-house; likewise, Epiq Systems has bought at least one platform recently.The major players today are likely Kroll Ontrack, kCura (developer of the market-crushing platform called Relativity), Recommind and Catalyst.If you're doing in-depth market research on this, be aware that most software developers do not do the marketing and servicing for their own products -- typically if you're, say, a customer in New York City, you'll call a local licensed vendor that will be the middleman between you and the developer, and you might never actually speak with the developer in the course of the relationship. (As an aside, that's one of the frustrating things about working as a customer in the e-discovery market -- if you have a good or bad experience with a product, it's not always clear whether the problem was the product or the particular vendor you hired to run it for you).For a deep dive that requires paid access, you could try this Gartner Magic Quadrant analysis of the market as of June 2015:Gartner Magic Quadrant for e-Discovery Software 2015
-
What are Donald Trump’s top five accomplishments as president? Do you think Trump’s accomplishments outweigh his shortcomings?
In what ways has Trump been successful so far as the American President? Good question. Here’s an answer from a Conservative website, which includes things the main stream media would rather be kept out of sight:1) He got conservative judge Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.2) The stock market is at an all-time high.3) Consumer confidence is at an all-time high.4) He created more than a million jobs by undoing Obama’s regulations.5) Mortgage applications for new homes is at a 7 year high.6) Unemployment rate is at a 16 year low.7) Signed the promoting women in entrepreneurship act.8) Gutted 800 Obama era regulations thus freeing up companies to hire again and ge...
-
Was hacking of the academic journal “JSTOR” by Aaron Swartz justified?
No. The benefit has been zero, and the cost immeasurable.We do not know what Aaron intended or planned to do with the copyrighted and public-domain articles he downloaded. He never said. So it is hard to evaluate what vision he had in mind. In practice, he accomplished nothing, and the world did not benefit. The ultimate cost of this whole project, which undoubtedly contributed to his death, has been horrific.If Aaron intended an academic study of funding relationships in the JSTOR papers like his earlier work, there were slower ways to get the same information from JSTOR. Maybe he was impatient, or maybe he intended something else. If he wanted to sift through the downloads to find the public-domain articles and publish them for free, that too is likely to happen in coming months or years, definitely more slowly than Aaron would have liked.If he intended to publish the whole cache, including copyrighted articles, that was always going to end badly, but Aaron would not have done that. Publishing copyrighted material illegally wasn't his thing. Aaron was about finding clever legal hacks. So I doubt he ever intended something that would have actually made a dent in the cost of access to scientific research, contrary to Franck Dernoncourt.But if Aaron had come to any of his friends or advisors to talk this through, anybody would have told him that doing it in secret and working to evade MIT's attempts to block him was not justified, ethically or practically, and not a good idea. Everybody would expect that MIT would take issue with an outsider (or worse, Harvard fellow) coming to MIT, where he was a guest, to exploit its relative openness while harming actual MIT students and faculty trying to use JSTOR. Even if MIT was fine with what Aaron was doing, JSTOR was bound to freak out and block all of MIT, which is what happened, hurting innocent bystanders. When Aaron repeatedly tried to evade MIT's ban on his MAC address and hid his computer in the basement network closet, that was bound to enrage any network admin.What's unfortunate is that MIT's openness and tolerance of anonymity is something Aaron supported. I don't believe he really viewed it as something to be exploited as a loophole, and I think he did care about the collateral consequences of his actions on others. That's not how he acted in this one project, but I believe Aaron's decision to become the worst guest MIT has ever had was a lapse in judgment that does not really characterize his full views. It's unfortunate that people are holding him up as a hero for this.Aaron's beef was with JSTOR and its method of paying its scanning and hosting bills by charging for access. MIT and Harvard are victims of those bills as much as anybody. Aaron probably had no right to exploit MIT's generosity by making MIT and its community unwitting allies (and victims, when their access was cut off and they had to keep chasing him) in his quest to... what exactly, I don't know.I don't think the Aaron I knew would have agreed with what Aaron did in secret. He never defended himself and I suspect felt ashamed.Of course I don't think Aaron deserved the possibility of 30 years in jail for what he did. But he took an extraordinary risk that paid off terribly and the consequences are, I would say unimaginably horrific, but they actually happened. I wish I could go back in time and tell him: don't do it. That's what I mean by saying it was absolutely not worth it and unjustified.
Trusted esignature solution— what our customers are saying
Get legally-binding signatures now!
Related searches to Redact Sign Word Secure
Frequently asked questions
How do i add an electronic signature to a word document?
How do you do an electronic signature in good docs?
Who can sign certified documents?
Get more for Redact Sign Word Secure
- Help Me With Electronic signature Mississippi Orthodontists Presentation
- How Can I Electronic signature Mississippi Orthodontists Presentation
- How Can I Electronic signature Mississippi Orthodontists Presentation
- Help Me With Electronic signature Mississippi Orthodontists Presentation
- Can I Electronic signature Mississippi Orthodontists Presentation
- Can I Electronic signature Mississippi Orthodontists Presentation
- How Can I Electronic signature Mississippi Orthodontists Presentation
- How To Electronic signature Mississippi Orthodontists Presentation
Find out other Redact Sign Word Secure
- Blank landlord and tenant complaint 2008 form
- Rnmfoc39 2011 form
- Verified statement and application for iv d services michigan 2012 form
- Appointment of representative form mc 306 1997
- Form 577 inventory 2011
- Pc 674 inventory 2010 form
- Dc 84 2012 form
- Michigannoticetoquit 2007 form
- Pc 558 michigan courts state of michigan courts mi form
- Michigan child order 2012 form
- Should you mail the state of michigan demand for possesion non payment 2010 form
- Mc11 form 2004
- Div1702 mn electronic form 2011
- Hennepin county icmc 2008 form
- Civil cover sheet mississippi 2001 form
- Sample completed form of aoc e 506 2012
- Dss 1802 nc dhhs online publications home info dhhs state nc form
- Dss 5163 form
- Aoc 405 form
- Form secured leave