issue, only this time her answer was different. she said that she had been asked the question a million times and the answer, quote, remains the same. but, in fact, the first time, instead of saying the president had never spoken to hunter about his business dealings, she said this. the president was never in business with his son. so on wednesday, phil wegman from real clear politics pointed out the inconsistency, but john pierr pierre insisted it was the same. i just want to clear this up once for all. the president has said he s never discussed overseas business dealings with his son, but the white house now says that the president has never been in business with his son. so why the updated language? which statement is true? or is it semantics and they are both true? as i stated on monday, when i was asked this question multiple times, nothing has changed. nothing has changed. nothing has changed on this. and so you can ask me a million different ways on this quest
Recent data from gal up on shows that confidence in american institutions on the whole is in decline. small siness is the u.s. institution in which we have the most faith, followed by the american military. but even faith in the military is on the wane. today 60% of americans say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. that s down 4% in the last year. a new book argues that even that level of support is actually hollow. peter fever is a political science professor at duke university. he s the author of thanks for your service, the causes and consequences of public confidence in the u.s. military . peter, welcome back. if public confidence in the military is high, but it s hollow, does that suggest that some don t mean it when they say thank you for your service? i think that s the case. it s what political psychologists call social desirability bias, where you give the answer you think is the politically correct answer, but