Bill Clinton as Trial Lawyer

I’m sitting here watching Pres. Bill Clinton speak at the Democratic Convention and one thing leaps out at me: he would be a masterful trial lawyer.

Why? Because he doesn’t just stand there and make assertions. Rather, he makes his assertions and then backs them up with facts. If you have the burden of proof, that is what you must do. I saw him speak once five years ago, and it was just the same. Everything backed by facts.

Most politicians, of course, don’t have that kind of mastery of facts. Or lack the confidence to use them. Or don’t trust the intelligence of their audience.

But Clinton does. Time and again returning to the theme of ‘Don’t take my word for it, this is what the actual facts are.’

If you want to convince people of something, you have to be prepared with your material and lay bare the facts, pure and simple. And no one does it better than Clinton.

Update: I’m obviously not the only one to come to this conclusion. Fox analyst Brit Hume said after the speech:

“I’ve always said if I were ever in trouble and if I were guilty, especially if I were guilty, I would want Bill Clinton there to defend me. Nobody does it better.”

Hat tip on the back-handed compliment from Hume to Kashmir Hill.

Tags:

3 Responses Leave a comment

  • Bubba 2012.9.7 at 14:14 | Quote

    Well he was a law professor at the University of Arkansas and then the state’s attorney general. Stands to reason he would know about the law.

  • Dianne Weiss 2012.9.13 at 17:58 | Quote

    I wouldn’t trust a guy who lost all of his students’ exam papers at one time in his early teaching life. But then again, it’s just me.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2012.9.19 at 19:10 | Quote

    Many people know about the law. But that doesn’t mean they practice it well.

Comments are closed.


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.