debut: 2/16/17
38,725 runs
"The Art of Evasion: How Legal Professionals Like Kash Patel Reinforce Public Cynicism"
Watching Kash Patel answer questions does more than give insight into his legal or investigative acumen—it puts on full display the traits that often fuel the public's skepticism, if not outright disdain, for lawyers
The way he manoeuvres through inquiries—carefully choosing words, sidestepping direct answers, or framing responses in ways that appear more self-serving than genuinely clarifying—feeds into that "eerie visualization," where lawyers are seen as less about truth-seekers and more about truth-benders.
This isn’t unique to Patel, of course. Lawyers often operate in a space where precision is prioritized over transparency and where intellectual dexterity can easily look like manipulation.
For the average person watching, this calculated, almost mechanical approach to communication can feel alienating.
It’s as if lawyers speak a different language entirely—a dialect of obfuscation that makes the truth feel slippery and inaccessible.
And when this plays out on a public stage, especially in politically or legally charged arenas, it’s no surprise the profession as a whole becomes synonymous with distrust.
What’s especially concerning is how this perception isn’t just about lawyers as individuals but about the broader systems they represent.
When someone like Patel embodies this archetype, it reinforces the idea that the legal system isn’t designed to serve the public equitably but rather to protect those who know how to game it.
It’s a cycle—figures like him validate public cynicism, and that cynicism, in turn, undermines faith in the rule of law altogether.
I am not surprised that such imagery is pervasive among MAGA supporters, like a cheap perfume.
What’s more surprising is how little effort seems to be made by those in these positions to challenge it.
Sarge...
Watching Kash Patel answer questions does more than give insight into his legal or investigative acumen—it puts on full display the traits that often fuel the public's skepticism, if not outright disdain, for lawyers
The way he manoeuvres through inquiries—carefully choosing words, sidestepping direct answers, or framing responses in ways that appear more self-serving than genuinely clarifying—feeds into that "eerie visualization," where lawyers are seen as less about truth-seekers and more about truth-benders.
This isn’t unique to Patel, of course. Lawyers often operate in a space where precision is prioritized over transparency and where intellectual dexterity can easily look like manipulation.
For the average person watching, this calculated, almost mechanical approach to communication can feel alienating.
It’s as if lawyers speak a different language entirely—a dialect of obfuscation that makes the truth feel slippery and inaccessible.
And when this plays out on a public stage, especially in politically or legally charged arenas, it’s no surprise the profession as a whole becomes synonymous with distrust.
What’s especially concerning is how this perception isn’t just about lawyers as individuals but about the broader systems they represent.
When someone like Patel embodies this archetype, it reinforces the idea that the legal system isn’t designed to serve the public equitably but rather to protect those who know how to game it.
It’s a cycle—figures like him validate public cynicism, and that cynicism, in turn, undermines faith in the rule of law altogether.
I am not surprised that such imagery is pervasive among MAGA supporters, like a cheap perfume.
What’s more surprising is how little effort seems to be made by those in these positions to challenge it.
Sarge...
- edited -
