Many years ago there was an organization in which I was involved that was not related to “Law Enforcement” (though it could and did ‘Aid the Public’ etc.) and one or two of the members were employed as police officers. All well, no issue. But I recall once someone asked about ticket quotas (which were something of an issue at that time.. or at least a seemingly new issue.. or maybe it had just come ’round again). The fellow replied, “No, we can write as many as we like.” which, while admittedly humorous, is a deflection and needs to get a followup question – or should have had he said it in court.
And that question? “But can one write as FEW as he likes, too?” Yes, it turns it around, but not really. The initial response did the actual turning around from “Is there a minimum” to “there is no maximum” (which means the deflection-of-an-answer fails to fit the question) and the followup simply puts the initial, still unanswered question actual query BACK into play.
That is but one example. But every time someone “official” says something, think about if they are truly answering the question, or just deflecting it – even if humorously. All too many ‘answers’ are nothing of the sort. Some are transparent, as when a Talking Point is robotically repeated as if the actual question hadn’t even been asked. The Talking Point is not important – that it demand robot-repetition tells you that it’s nothing more than utter craptacular propaganda. The deflection away from any actual answer is the important thing.
There ARE humorous responses that thwart an an assumption while actually answering the question. The ultimate example of this is Reagan’s response to the criticism of his age in one of the 1984 debates. He so thoroughly countered the accusation of his being too old that you could almost see Mondale realizing the issue he had meant to exploit had, at absolute best, evaporated.