Quote

We all resort to the ad hominem from time to time: in human affairs, it is difficult to avoid it, and probably not desirable. After all, our opponents are human. The proper use of an ad hominem argument, however, still requires evidence to back it up.

Today, lawyers are attacking more; they're attacking everything. A good example is the O.J. Simpson case.

I'm not an angry person. When I write, the lawyer in me tries to make it as easy to read as possible.

When they write about real stuff like my custody battle, that's no fun. Some things have leaked out about accusations that have gone back and forth and that's just mean. It's a tactic.

In both law and politics, I think the essential battle is the meta-battle of framing the narrative.

I was a defense attorney before I was a prosecutor, and so knowing what the defense is going to try to do is something that you have to do constantly when you're in trial. I always went to trial knowing what they were doing. So I was always in both mindsets anyway. 'Oh, they're going to do this, then I'm going to do that.'

But if you know that something has been really vicious, you don't read it, you don't let it into your head. What's damaging is when sentences go through your head and you burn with the injustice of it.

I'm real bent on dialogue. I'm just a little bit crazy and when you put that along with 20 years as a criminal lawyer, it's pretty easy to come up with some interesting plots.

To pull off successful attacks in debates, you have to execute with nuance and subtlety. It has to be artful.

I'm not a person who defends myself very often. I kind of let my actions speak for me.