Thousands of Miles From Putin, Trump Now Tries to Claim He Believes Russian Interference

“I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.'”

Nearly 4,000 miles away from Helsinki and out of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s company, President Donald Trump on Tuesday attempted to clarify his stunning remarks from the day before, in which he openly sided with Russia over the universal assessment of United States intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

“What’s the big deal?” Trump said he wondered when he returned from Helsinki and saw the swift and overwhelming criticism over his remarks. He then said he referred back to his controversial remarks and discovered the problem: “I realized there is need for some clarification. It should have been obvious. I thought it would be obvious, but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn’t.”

The president then carefully read from a prepared statement: “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, just to repeat it, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t,” Trump added.

It’s unclear who crafted the president’s new explanation. The facts remain, however, that Trump on Monday accepted Putin’s denial of interference while attacking Hillary Clinton and the ongoing special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference.



Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend