Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Not to beat a dead horse, but . . .

Seems about right, the TSA does security/background checks on the prospective agents, right?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Seems about right, the TSA does security/background checks on the prospective agents, right?

Their track record is better than the military, no?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Do you own stock in the TSA?

No, I just think people whine too much.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've met a couple USAs on power trips. And I'm sure all of us litigators have met a few judges who make up for congenital insignificance by lording over everyone in their midst.

Thank you for posting that. When I read Ty's comment -- "I would suggest that the assholishness of government agents is in inverse relationship to the prestige and importance of their agency" -- I had to wonder just how many federal judges he's been in front of. (Not that I've ever met any I consider to be assholes, of course, but I've heard stories from lawyers at other firms.)

OTOH, in a spirit of bipartisanship, I was pleased to learn that he doesn't think Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Ashcroft were assholes.

I have, however, found most FBI agents fit the description you've offered. They tend to be very pleasant and businesslike. Except when in court. They seem to get annoyed when they're taken to trial. I wonder if they view it as a failing on their part - that had they made out a better case initially, the USA would have been armed with enough evidence to convince the defendant to take a deal.

Concur on the observation. The conclusion I reach is a little different -- I think FBI agents tend to be the ones asking the questions, and they like that role, and they don't like it when the table is turned. I've also seen (and I suspect most of us who try cases have as well) highly-successful businessmen, who are very charming when you talk with them and also on direct, turn into complete douchebags on cross, for the similar reason that they just don't like being hit with question after question.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The conclusion I reach is a little different -- I think FBI agents tend to be the ones asking the questions, and they like that role, and they don't like it when the table is turned.

The conclusion I reach is more differenter still -- that FBI agents are the smartest and most sophisticated people in our society who are regularly allowed to lie in order to accomplish a Very Noble Goal, and the regular, quotidian lies they tell over the course of a day investigating crime stack up like some kind of river of ooze underneath them, and when they are placed on a stand and have to behave under rules we mere mortals would consider part of every man's moral compass -- "No lying, now, hear?" -- they panic. It's like asking an improv comic to make it through the sketch without using the word "and" or the letter "e."

I don't think they're bad people, but I think being allowed to lie as a central component of your job withers the soul. See also, anyone who sells cars and/or real estate.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Their track record is better than the military, no?

On the number of gross incidents, npi, of immoral turpitude, or per capita? The military is probably slightly bigger, no?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

No, I just think people whine too much.

Eh, maybe your sensitivities are muted. no offence.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Eh, maybe your sensitivities are muted. no offence.

I wear my nerves thin to my skin. I must say you and the other snubbers have caused me some great pain these past months

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by hank chinaski

i wear my nerves thin to my skin. I must say you and the other snubbers have caused me some great pain these past months

2!

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

No, I just think people whine too much.

I had the occassion to speak with my first wife tonight. she agrees with you. go figure.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I had the occassion to speak with my first wife tonight. she agrees with you. go figure.

He said whine not wine. Does that change your wife's opinion?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

He said whine not wine. Does that change your wife's opinion?

Unfortunately no, thus, perhaps, explaining the "first" wife qualification.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I've also seen (and I suspect most of us who try cases have as well) highly-successful businessmen, who are very charming when you talk with them and also on direct, turn into complete douchebags on cross, for the similar reason that they just don't like being hit with question after question.

Concur. They're used to being in control and getting positive results from ramping up their aggression.

The Jekyll-and-Hyde thing (on direct vs. cross) is a pet peeve of many judges, going by their comments at bench and bar conferences.

CDF

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Concur on the observation. The conclusion I reach is a little different -- I think FBI agents tend to be the ones asking the questions, and they like that role, and they don't like it when the table is turned. I've also seen (and I suspect most of us who try cases have as well) highly-successful businessmen, who are very charming when you talk with them and also on direct, turn into complete douchebags on cross, for the similar reason that they just don't like being hit with question after question.

I agree with that as well. And I can add personal experience to it.

I have been a witness in court twice, once in federal court, once in state. I found cross to be highly annoying, and it was exceptionally hard not to snap back at the lawyer. The only reason I didn't was because, having legal training, I knew that would hurt the case of the lawyers who'd called me to support their cases (both involved clients I'd represented on matters peripherally connected to the case being tried... in one the other side subpoenaed my billing records). You don't realize how easily cross can used to warp truth until you're on the receiving end. Sitting there, all you can think is, "You cock. You're going to try to limit what I say so you can make my words stand for the exact opposite of what I'd intended to say." I can't imagine how infuriating that must be for a businessman who doesn't understand the process.

FBI agents, however, have no excuse. They are skilled liars and manipulators, and they should know better. Local cops can sit on the stand and lie with a smile, fully aware even the judge knows they're committing perjury. How those folks can be smooth, while so many FBI agents become angry on the stand, confounds me. Perhaps it's that they're not as smart as the average FBI agent and don't apprehend the risks involved in lying or shading truth on the stand.

I saw an FBI agent have a mild cardiac event on the stand years ago. He'd submitted bogus spreadsheets as proof of an economic crime and the defense shredded his numbers. As he struggled to explain the calculations, he locked up, told the judge that he had heart trouble and asked for medical assistance. I'd have felt bad for the guy had his shoddy investigative technique not been the basis for a frivolous prosecution the USA ultimately lost, quite embarrasingly.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

Concur. They're used to being in control and getting positive results from ramping up their aggression.

The Jekyll-and-Hyde thing (on direct vs. cross) is a pet peeve of many judges, going by their comments at bench and bar conferences.

CDF

Easy cure: Ativan. Nothing smooths a witness out better.