“It is not up to me to limit my questions, but up to the minister to provide the answers,” he said. “If at some point such an answer poses a danger or leads to espionage, then the espionage is not my fault, but the minister’s, because he has disclosed information that he should not have disclosed.”
So he’s admitting that he’s untrustworthy? Because why else would it not be his fault if not because he is well-known to be untrustworthy?
This is just lawyer-gooblytalk, and it ruins our whole democracy at the moment. “If it is not illegal, I can do whatever I want. Should I? Probably not, but it’s not illegal, so it’s your fault if something happens”.
So he’s admitting that he’s untrustworthy? Because why else would it not be his fault if not because he is well-known to be untrustworthy?
This is just lawyer-gooblytalk, and it ruins our whole democracy at the moment. “If it is not illegal, I can do whatever I want. Should I? Probably not, but it’s not illegal, so it’s your fault if something happens”.