FIRST AIRED: July 17, 2018

Nice work! Enjoy the show!


You’re busy. We get it.

Stay on top of the news with our Editor’s Picks newsletter.

US Edition
Intl. Edition
Unsubscribe at any time. One click, it’s gone.

Thanks for signing up!

We've got more news

Get our editor’s daily email summary of what’s going on in the world.

US Edition
Intl. Edition
Replay Program
More Info

COMING UP:Share Opener Variant 1



I have a full faith in our intelligence agencies. Whoops, they just turned off the lights, that must be the intelligence agencies.>>
And I have felt very strongly that while Russia's actions had no impact at all on the outcome of election. Let me be totally clear in saying that, and I've said this many times, I accept our intelligence communities' conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place.
Could be other people also, a lot of people out there. There was no collusion at all. Now, I have to say I came back, and I said, what is going on? What's the big deal? So I got a transcript, I reviewed it. I actually went out and reviewed a clip of an answer that I gave, and I realized that there is a need for some clarification.
It should be obvious, I thought it would be obvious, but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn't. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word would instead of wouldn't. The sentence should have been I don't see any reason why I wouldn't or why it wouldn't be Russia.
So the sentence should of been, I don't seen any reason why it wouldn't be Russia. Sort of a double negative. So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.