WHAT
Fox anchor begins reading what she says is Trump's statement that he accepts the intel community's finding about Russia - then stumbles, with evident frustration, when she gets to the part where he apparently said it could "also" have been non-Russia countries.
Remember the Charlottesville saga: Trump expressed his true views, there was an outcry, he dutifully read a staff-written walk-back statement, then soon after he abandoned the walk-back and even more forcefully expressed his true views.
We now have video. Trump said: "Once again, full faith and support for America's intelligence agencies. I have a faith full faith in our intelligence agencies...I have full faith and support for America's great intelligence agencies, always have."
Trump: "I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. A lot of people out there."
Trump: "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 it WOULDN'T be Russia.' Sort of a double negative. So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things."
This is bonkers. Spot the part Trump's staff wrote and the part that he added himself.
Trump: Obama didn't think Russian meddling was a big deal until I got elected; Brennan and Clapper and others probably making a lotta money on TV networks "totally buried it."
In summary: 1) Trump is attempting one of the most implausible political clarifications in recent American history. 2) Midway through the ludicrous clarification, Trump reiterated much of the original point he was theoretically clarifying.
Trump's statement continued for several minutes - at length, he discussed things he says he talked about with Putin. He concluded by repeating his "respect" for U.S. intelligence, "headed by MY people...tremendous people, tremendous talent." pscp.tv/w/1YqKDQlPNPAGV
These are the kinds of Trump stories where the traditional News Article Voice - "here's what the president said today" - seems insufficient to me. The only good way to write about a claim this transparently ridiculous is to write about how ridiculous it is.
