The post that was quoted here has been removedDuchess, please accept my apology. Up until this point, you were simply engaging in a civil exchange. There was no need for me to use "dishonest". Maybe logically flawed; but not a word as incendiary as the one I used instead.
Watching how politicians speak, they are often so careful in how they present information, it didn't seem like your example was realistic. To answer your question: yes, the response in your example would of course raise suspicion. I just don't see any government officials responding in that manner. A more tactful way of not answering the question would be chosen.
Your overall point is that there may be a need to lie to the public in order to protect classified operations or data. That's a valid point. But the OP is not about such matters. Lying about classified data is an issue of protecting the government; the OP is abut lying for political gain. Maybe a middle ground could in the language of a law that bans lying for *personal* political gain, of which could include for one's self, party or constituents.
Again, on this thread, I was the one who stepped over the line. I was wrong for doing so. It's possible to sharply disagree or even criticize viewpoints without stepping over boundaries. I apologize for my actions here toward you.