Maybe it’s because I’ve never been in that position, but I simply do not understand why you wouldn’t ask to have an attorney present for the questioning.
I work for a civil liberties organization. Yet a few years ago two patrol officers in a train station in New York managed to interrogate me using a classic "good cop, bad cop" method -- about photographs that I was taking. I felt especially weird about this afterward because I had been reading news articles about people's legal right to take photographs in public places.
Apparently, my theoretical desire to assert my rights in an interaction with law enforcement somehow wasn't borne out in practice, and their interrogation methods are incredibly effective.
One thing I found striking when looking briefly at the linked transcript of the interview with Reality Winner is her concern for her pets. Making sure that her pets are properly taken care of is something that she needs from the agents and that's outside of her control in this situation. They don't explicitly bargain about this, but it seems like it's one big reason that she wants them to see her as cooperative.
Exactly, and she knows that pets frequently get shot in situations like the one she was in (although to be fair, that's usually with city and state police depts, not the FBI).
"Sure don't have to talk to us, but keep in mind we can arrest you, and we don't want to do it, who knows what weirdos your kids might end up with..." "-Yeah sure let's talk..."
We've also been conditioned to believe that retaining and using a lawyer should be conflated with guilt.
If I pretend to be your friend make you feel amazing then crank up the pressure before you realise what’s going on you’re being quizzed at a pace by someone who doesn’t even give you time to breath and starts making threats about your future well-being. Sure, you might forget the lawyer the first time this happens.