05-04-2017, 03:55 PM
(05-04-2017, 02:53 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I'm surprised by this statement. In his role as President, it's fair that he has to respond to relevant questions, and this topic doesn't strike me as irrelevant, considering there was an accusation made about a previous President, directly by him relating to a serious concern (spying on a Presidential candidate or President-elect by a sitting President). When you've directly accused the previous President of something, and the media is asking questions related to that, you must be able to clarify what you've said and/or resolve it with your answer. If he wasn't interested in this topic, that's too bad as it is part and parcel of his role as President. Now if Hills, in her current role as "citizen leader of resistance" dismissed a question, I suppose I could give that a pass as it doesn't relate to her duties of public office since she's currently not a public official. Still it would depend on the seriousness of whatever is the matter. Hypothetically, a few years ago, an attempt to dismiss a relevant question in her role as SoS, would not lend her a pass from this requirement, anymore than anyone else in public office. I've been critical of her private server scandal, and an answer such as "I don't stand by" my statement (or "anything"), wouldn't lend her any credence in my view and would seriously lead me to question any credibility on any statement from there on.
Surprised why? My statement that he didn't seem interested still stands. Whether it's his duty or not to answer the question is beside the point.
Personally I don't trust much of what any political figure says. I just hope they do what they say they'll do for the benefit of the country.
