Trump Reverses: “I Accept Intelligence Conclusion That Russia Meddled In 2016” [video]

In an attempt to “clarify” his remarks during yesterday’s summit with Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump made a brief closed-door address to a handful of Republican members of Congress amid mounting criticism from allies and foes alike about his failure to publicly condemn Russian election meddling.

The president said that after reviewing the clip of the summit press conference, he decided he needed to clarify and did so by saying that has “full faith” in US intelligence agencies, while noting that he also entered the Putin meeting with conviction that engagement is better than hostility, that dialog with Russia is very important and that Helsinki was his “most successful visit” yet and that he is working hard with US allies.

“Let me begin by saying that, once again, the full faith and support for America’s intelligence agencies, I have a full faith in our intelligence agencies,” Trump told reporters.

But more importantly, and as some expected, Trump appears to have folded, saying that he misspoke yesterday and that his past comment on US intel needs clarification, he said that he now “accepts the intelligence conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election“ but he denied that his campaign had colluded in the effort.

“Let me be totally clear in saying that — and I’ve said this many times, I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also.”

As for the “clarification”, Trump said the following: “I actually went out and reviewed a clip of an answer that I gave and I realize that 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,” Trump said. “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 and the sentence should have been — and I thought I would be maybe a little bit unclear on the transcript or unclear on the actual video,” he continued.“The sentence should have been, ‘I don’t see 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.”