Regarding the Trump case, Arnold once again displays his nice-guy naivete. There was never any doubt that this New York jury would reach a verdict for the plaintiff. The case lacked all credibility; the complainant conveniently couldn't remember the day, the month, or the year of the long ago alleged assault. Just couldn't remember anything that might allow the allegations to be disproven. How likely is that? The complaint resembles that made against Justice Kavanaugh in the effort to derail his confirmation; a story of a long ago sexual assault carefully tailored to be impervious to disproof.
The case was brought pursuant to a specially enacted (to get Trump) extension of the expired statute of limitations for which the complainant lobbied. What sort of legal ethics are implied by representation of such a client in such a case?
It is part of the lavishly financed politically driven "lawfare" against Trump; abuse of legal process with the cooperation of partisan media to affect the outcome of the coming presidential election.
President Trump treated the complainant and her lawyer with the disdain they deserved in a case whose verdict was a foregone conclusion.
At what age are kids able to better understand instructions?
I still have very young children and I’m mostly in the “don’t do that thing that will hurt you or break something, I don’t have the time nor the obligation to explain just stop immediately” stage. The older one is starting to get better at understanding reasoning and being able to apply it without direct instruction, in some cases.
Father of 3 (with #4 on the way). Oldest is 13, youngest is 8. Upon reflection, I find my answer is simultaneously "almost right away" and "probably never." Context is everything in my experience. When you're down on the ground playing a fun, quasi-made up game with your toddler, you can be shocked to see how well they can "understand instructions." When your 13 year old son is screaming at you about the injustice of having to wash the dishes in the morning after having forgotten to do them the night before, you can be convinced that successful interpersonal communication is a more farcical myth than what's found in any fairy tale.
In all sincerity, the best advice I've come across comes from Dr. Ross Greene: "Kids do well if they can." The corollary is that if your kids (or really anyone) finds themselves in a situation in which they are required to perform but don't have the skills to do so successfully, they (all of use) are going to look terrible.
Patience and foresight are the friends of every parent. They are also the skills that I've discovered were lagging in my own development, and my children are the blessing that has shown me that and motivated me to work on it religiously.
If you read the polls (and trust them to some extent), one can see the Carroll/Trump trial and outcome has helped Trump rather than damaged him politically. I don't think it was Trump's plan for this to happen, but the truth is that nothing was going to win that trial for him, and nothing was going to prevent the lawsuit from being filed. He treated it, in my opinion, with the appropriate amount of derision.
Regarding the Trump case, Arnold once again displays his nice-guy naivete. There was never any doubt that this New York jury would reach a verdict for the plaintiff. The case lacked all credibility; the complainant conveniently couldn't remember the day, the month, or the year of the long ago alleged assault. Just couldn't remember anything that might allow the allegations to be disproven. How likely is that? The complaint resembles that made against Justice Kavanaugh in the effort to derail his confirmation; a story of a long ago sexual assault carefully tailored to be impervious to disproof.
The case was brought pursuant to a specially enacted (to get Trump) extension of the expired statute of limitations for which the complainant lobbied. What sort of legal ethics are implied by representation of such a client in such a case?
It is part of the lavishly financed politically driven "lawfare" against Trump; abuse of legal process with the cooperation of partisan media to affect the outcome of the coming presidential election.
President Trump treated the complainant and her lawyer with the disdain they deserved in a case whose verdict was a foregone conclusion.
So you don't believe Trump, either?
That sounds like lazy misdirection.
At what age are kids able to better understand instructions?
I still have very young children and I’m mostly in the “don’t do that thing that will hurt you or break something, I don’t have the time nor the obligation to explain just stop immediately” stage. The older one is starting to get better at understanding reasoning and being able to apply it without direct instruction, in some cases.
Father of 3 (with #4 on the way). Oldest is 13, youngest is 8. Upon reflection, I find my answer is simultaneously "almost right away" and "probably never." Context is everything in my experience. When you're down on the ground playing a fun, quasi-made up game with your toddler, you can be shocked to see how well they can "understand instructions." When your 13 year old son is screaming at you about the injustice of having to wash the dishes in the morning after having forgotten to do them the night before, you can be convinced that successful interpersonal communication is a more farcical myth than what's found in any fairy tale.
In all sincerity, the best advice I've come across comes from Dr. Ross Greene: "Kids do well if they can." The corollary is that if your kids (or really anyone) finds themselves in a situation in which they are required to perform but don't have the skills to do so successfully, they (all of use) are going to look terrible.
Patience and foresight are the friends of every parent. They are also the skills that I've discovered were lagging in my own development, and my children are the blessing that has shown me that and motivated me to work on it religiously.
thanks
The U.S. jury system is completely politicized. NY/DC could indict him for a murder of a fictitious person who never existed.
If you read the polls (and trust them to some extent), one can see the Carroll/Trump trial and outcome has helped Trump rather than damaged him politically. I don't think it was Trump's plan for this to happen, but the truth is that nothing was going to win that trial for him, and nothing was going to prevent the lawsuit from being filed. He treated it, in my opinion, with the appropriate amount of derision.