I respectfully disagree with you (that Obama is merely trying to avoid conceding there had been a problem under his watch). I think Obama would argue in his defense that HRC lied to everyone, which isn’t the same as ordinary screwing up, which means it wasn’t really his fault. His earlier defense of her wasn’t really a defense, in that he used the word “carelessnessâ€, even asserting that HRC herself had characterized her actions as “carelessâ€, which she very deliberately had not! Obama can say now that he simply had believed HRC when she said what she had done was allowed and that she was fully cooperating with the investigation, and that he now knows she was lying. By refusing to answer any questions, he implies exactly that, which is why, although I think it was obnoxious of Obama to refuse to answer the question, I was delighted he so refused.
I can see that point of view too, absolutely.