Jason Linkins is one of my favorite wits over at Eat the Press. Kind of like reading Wolfie over here or Q anywhere. Linkins sends me over to Cleveland.com to read this segment taken from a deposition. 

What is a photocopier?

… last year, a lawyer in a public-records case being heard by the Ohio Supreme Court had a hard time getting a $64,000-a-year Cuyahoga County worker to say whether the county recorder's office had a photocopier.

The effort consumes nearly 10 pages of a court transcript.

The overall case is about whether deeds and other records at the county recorder's office -- records that were collected and are maintained with your taxes -- should be readily available at reasonable cost. …

David Marburger, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of title companies. Another attorney, Matthew Cavanagh, represents the county and raises objections.

Marburger: During your tenure in the computer department at the Recorder's office, has the Recorder's office had photocopying machines?

Cavanagh: Objection.

Marburger: Any photocopying machine?

Patterson: When you say "photocopying machine," what do you mean?

Marburger: Let me be -- let me make sure I understand your question. You don't have an understanding of what a photocopying machine is?

Patterson: No. I want to make sure that I answer your question correctly.

Cavanagh: Dave, I'll object to the tone of the question. You make it sound like it's unbelievable to you that he wouldn't know what the definition of a photocopy machine is.

Marburger: I didn't ask him to define it. I asked him if he had any.

Patterson: When you say "photocopying machine," what do you mean?

Marburger: Let me be clear. The term "photocopying machine" is so ambiguous that you can't picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?

Patterson: I just want to make sure I answer your question correctly.

Marburger: Well, we'll find out. If you can say yes or no, I can do follow-ups, but it seems -- if you really don't know in an office setting what a photocopying machine is, I'd like the Ohio Supreme Court to hear you say so. …

Marburger: I don't care what kind of technology it uses. Has your offices -- we don't have technocrats on the Ohio Supreme Court. We've got people like me, general guys --

Cavanagh: Objection.

Marburger: -- or gals. I'm not really very interested in what the technology element of it is. I want to know -- ….

Patterson: I'm sorry. I didn't know what that meant. I understand that there are photocopying machines, and there are different types of them just like --

Marburger: Are there any in the Recorder's office?

Patterson: -- there are different cars. Some of them run under gas power, some of them under electric power, and I'm asking if you could help me out by explaining what you mean by "photocopying machines" --

Marburger: That's a great point.

Patterson: -- instead of trying to make me feel stupid.

Marburger: If you feel stupid, it's not because I'm making you feel that way.

Cavanagh: Objection. …

Marburger: This isn't a patent case. There's no statute that defines -- where I'm asking him to define technology for me. I'm asking -- I want to find out from a layperson's perspective, not an engineer's perspective, not a technician's perspective, but from -- I have an idea.

Marburger: How about this: Have you ever heard the term "photocopier" or "photocopy" used in the Recorder's office by anybody?

Patterson: Photocopy? I'm sure in the time I've been there someone has used the term. ..

Marburger: Xerox. Is the machine made by the Xerox Company? Is that why it's called Xerox?

Patterson: No.

Marburger: So Xerox, in the parlance that you've described, the language that you've described, is being used generically as opposed to describing a particular brand; is that right?

Patterson: All of my life I've just known people to say Xerox. It's not commonplace to use the terminology that you're using.

Marburger: You mean it's more -- people say Xerox instead of photocopy?

Patterson: If you're referring to a type of machine where you place a piece of paper on the top and press a button and out comes copies of it, they usually refer to it as a Xerox.

Marburger: Have you ever heard it referred to as photocopying?

Patterson: Not with my generation, no. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/03/identifying_photocopy_machine.html

Now this is reminiscent of a response from a more famous witness of course:

It all depends on what your definition of is is.

These types of tete a tetes take place every hour of every day at depositions and trials all over this great land. Sometimes a judge will judiciously ask counsel to the bench, cover the microphone and whisper:

Will you guys quit fucking around!!

Now friends of mine at another site saw the witness in this example as a prick and felt that the county recorder would be taken to task by a jury for his idiocy. That same jury might just feel that the county recorder was attempting to cover something up.

Cross examination is an art as is the art of obfuscation by a witness.

The media metaphor for this type of legal dance is the pundit with his own show.

O’Reilly of course thinks he is the best but I think he faltered in his cross of our President; I mean he just over did it. At times the President could hardly get a word in edgeways. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/09/bill-maher-assails-oreillys-unpatriotic-obama-interview-becks-apocalyptic-politics/

Bill Clinton is still the best witness in this context I have ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNoN403tXU4

WIPE THAT SMIRK OFF YOUR FACE!!!

You can bet President Obama watched that Clinton interview several times prior to walking into the interview room with O’Reilly. But as a witness, Obama is no Bill Clinton!

Matthews has a similar approach to his witnesses.

ANSWER THE QUESTION DAMNIT!!!

A smarter witness takes a step back and pleads:

I’m wanting to answer the question.

I’m willing to answer the question.

I’m waiting to answer the question.

Many, many repubs are getting smarter when they take the witness stand.

Bachmann just refuses to recognize the question being posed.

Q.  Do you really think that our Founding Fathers abolished slavery?

A.  I love America and Americans and family and God. I especially love God because he provides all that is good.

Q.  Yes, but do you really think that our Founding Fathers abolished slavery?

A.   And during my years reading Gore Vidal, I discovered that there was an America that counted……

http://glibberal.com/2554/

See, there is no arbiter to whom one can make a plea for sanity. There is no judge available for the exasperated attorney to demand:

Will the court please direct the witness to answer the question!

Previous attempt at this inanity @ http://tpmaholics.blogspot.com/