It sounded less like being interrupted with questions, more so with accusations that what the lawyer intended to argue was unrealistic, because the agency (that has been shown to work outside of the bounds of their intended mission spying on personal interests/lying to congress/etc) would only do what was morally right, and within the intended (but unwritten) letter of the law.

But you are right in that he probably should have been prepared for this as well. Its not unthinkable that judges would be adversarial to this sort of defense/line of thinking.