rather than having any chance to improve my question, it is closed.
Closing is a chance to improve your question before it is answered. Once a question is answered, your ability to change it goes down as edits can invalidate existing answers. So the proper procedure is to close the question first, to prevent answers. When edits occur, it goes into the review queue.
You currently have one closed question.
Title: Is it suitable that the US intelligence community can reject answering questions posed in congressional hearings?
Final question: Are the various intelligence agencies protected from politically embroiled issues, where they have direct information regarding the actions of a person or "office"?
That's two separate questions, addressing two separate issues. That's problematically broad in and of itself.
The first asks if it is suitable for the intelligence community to refuse to answer questions in general. Suitable to whom? Under what standard? That's broad because people can define their own standards under which to answer and then use different evidence.
The second asks if the intelligence agencies are protected from politically embroiled issues. Like what? Presumably there was an actual question that was refused, but you don't include that. We could either go look that up for ourselves or do the easy thing and close the question as unclear. Some also argue that this is off-topic, as it is a legal question.
From a comment:
None of these reasons were cited, so why would they apply?
At the time of the comment to which this was replying, there was no indication of what prompted this other than a link to a video and suggestions for two sections to watch. Now there are some exchanges quoted, but these exchanges don't tell us what question was refused nor how it was refused.
As best I can see, the quoted exchanges are nothing more than grandstanding. You're not answering the question? You're really not answering the question? I think you should answer the question! They don't contribute anything to your question, as there is no serious attempt to explain what their question or response was.
You are asking a general question, but you seem to be looking for an answer to something specific. That may be clear in your head, but it's not in ours.
After you edited this question, it went into the review queue. Three out of three reviewers voted not to reopen it.
Some examples of problems listed that you did not fix with your edits:
You ask different questions in the title and body, making it difficult to determine what you want to know.
Your question does not clearly specify what you want to know. What specific question do you feel should have been answered? What was unclear about the reason why it was refused?