Donald Trump

Trump Claims He Misspoke During Putin Presser, Meant to Say Russia Was Involved in Election Interference

"The sentence should've been: 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia.'"


Screenshot via NBC News

After enduring 24 hours of criticism from all corners of the political spectrum, President Trump is now running away from remarks he made during a joint presser with Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday.

On Monday, Trump suggested Putin had persuaded him that the Russian government did not interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election—despite U.S. intelligence officials' near certainty that Russia was responsible for the hack of the Democratic National Committee. But on Tuesday, Trump claimed to have misspoke when he said, "I don't see any reason why it would be Russia."

"I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't,'" said Trump, according to NBC News. "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."

As Trump himself notes, the corrected sentence is ungrammatical, since it contains two negatives. Whether this is truly what the president intended to say is anyone's guess. But the president was right to change course: Even if no one within the Trump campaign colluded with Russian hackers, and even if Russia's efforts didn't actually change the outcome of the election (both reasonable assertions, based on what he know right now), it's still overwhelmingly likely that Russia was involved.

Trump shouldn't go to war with Putin over this, and diplomacy is the best course of action. But diplomacy does not and should not require Trump to peddle falsehoods to the American people as an authoritarian Russian government watches approvingly.

NEXT: Starbucks Wants to Send More Plastic to a Recycling Industry in Crisis

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It doesn’t matter what Trump says.
    It doesn’t matter what Putin says.
    It matters what they do.

    1. Actions speak louder than words.

      Unless you’re a progressive, then it’s the other way around.

    2. You realize this is a parody site now, right?

      1. You realize you’re doing more backflips to defend Trump than Fox and fucking Friends, right?

        1. I realize that you have no principle beyond tribal loyalty. And that’s too bad, Tony. I really hoped progressives would at least revert to a non-interventionist foreign policy once they were out of power.

          1. I just told you even Trumps own tribe couldn’t defend his behavior.

            And nontinerventionist meaning Russia gets to invade whomever it wants and we lick their nutsack in exchange?

            1. “I just told you even Trumps own tribe couldn’t defend his behavior.”

              So you admitted they are more honest than you, that’s big for you man.

              1. No I’m saying he fucked up that bad. And that Just Say’n is thus making an embarrassment of himself.

                1. And his supporters agree. Which makes them more honest than you.

                  Which you inadvertently admitted.

            2. Good thing I’m not in Trump’s tribe.

              If Russia were a big threat to its neighbors then why are its neighbors in Western Europe so unwilling to defend themselves (with the exception of Poland and Eastern Europe)?

              1. Hell, Germany just set their energy policy to make themselves dependent on Russia for 75% of their energy within a few years.

            3. Tony, it’s not the Obama years anymore so the nutsack licking and new invasions seems to have ended.

            4. And nontinerventionist meaning Russia gets to invade whomever it wants and we lick their nutsack in exchange?

              Who have they invaded since the end of 2016?

              I mean, BEFORE that, yes, we licked his nutsack while he did so.

            5. What exactly (beyond tough talk) are you willing to do the Ukraine that isn’t already being done?

  2. Trump is always lying. Except then. Or now. Or, whatever makes him look the worst.

    1. I find it works best to think that President Trump always believed whatever he says… while he is saying it. He is the king of “strong beliefs weakly held”.

      1. Remember: it’s not a lie if you believe it.

        1. Trump did NOT “misspeak”. He LIED through his teeth to the American public (and the world) and got caught at it. Unfortunately, the trumpettes will be out in force defending that he read his notes wrong.

          1. Man, if the Trumpist position is diplomacy over war then they’re a hell of a lot more libertarian than Reason and a lot of the commentators here.

        2. What if you say something true while believing it to be false? Is that a lie?

          Mind blown, right?

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

    Watch liberals call BS on this as if they don’t think Trump is too stupid to confuse words.

    1. Does it usually take you 24 hours to realize you said the opposite of what you meant, even while people are criticizing you?

      1. Do you always put greater importance on words over actions?

        1. Me: If anything, Trump should be criticized for arming Ukraine, putting missiles back in Eastern Europe, and Congress instituting more sanctions. These are needless provocations over someone’s e-mails being hacked.

          Cathy: But, he wasn’t mean to Putin

          Me: Are you serious right now?

          Cathy: Sadly, yes.

          1. Wouldn’t the provocation be invading a sovereign nation and shooting down a commercial airliner?

            1. (A) Was it our nation or our airliner? In what way does that impact the US? And maybe we should have considered that before we overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine

              (B) What would you contend be done besides what has already been done?

            2. Not that I disagree, but I think the US wore out the idea that invading a sovereign nation is a provocation.

            3. “shooting down a commercial airliner”

              What does Iran Air Flight 655 have to do with any of this?

            4. Ukraine inherited approximately 5,000 nuclear weapons when it became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, making its nuclear arsenal the third-largest in the world.
              By 1996, Ukraine had agreed to dispose of all nuclear weapons within its territory, with the condition that its borders were respected, as part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.
              The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland, and the United States Of America.

              1. According to the memorandum, Russia, the US, and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:
                1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and the existing borders.
                2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
                3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
                4. Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, “if Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
                5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
                6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

                So yeah, we own it.

                1. Another important bit of context missing from the discussion.

        2. Do you always put greater importance on words over actions?

          I’d ask if you always speak in non sequiturs, but I already know the answer.

          1. Why is your default speech response mode “make myself punchworthy?”

            You would never speak to people like this in person, but damn it if you can show any decorum.

            1. That’s not fair. I hope you’re referring to me. Cathy, I don’t think ever makes her responses seem “punchworthy”. She’s cheeky

              1. It’s perfectly fair, and why do you always weirdly jump to her defense? Are you really running her just so you can talk to yourself?

                1. Yes, it’s his sock puppet.

                2. That would be weird if true.

                  I’m not as hateful as I appear

                  1. It is true, and obvious.

                    1. This is what happens when I try to be nice

                    2. Whatever, I’m not judging.

                    3. Of course you’re not- you’re literally a sock puppet

                    4. How ironic.

                      And, literally? I thought you were above misusing that.

      2. Trump is now a politician so I expect his opinion to change with the wind. And to use the “misspoke” concept as needed.

        I will not hold trump to a higher standard than any other that was in the Whitehouse or wanted to be in the Whitehouse.

        I suppose he just answer most questions with “I don’t recall”.

        1. ..Suppose he could answer most questions with “I don’t recall”

          1. he could answer most questions with “I don’t recall”

            Worked for Reagan.

            1. Works for many in office.

            2. Unless your name is Scooter.

              1. That’s what he gets for having a stupid name.

        2. “I will not hold trump to a higher standard than any other that was in the Whitehouse or wanted to be in the Whitehouse.”

          So…I mean, why not just vote for Hillary then?

          1. Because I’m from Arkansas and the Clinton’s have been a part of my life since the 70s. I’ve been done with them for a long time.

            Also, I couldn’t never vote for someone who thinks they are above people while pretending to be their champion. Nor could I vote for a woman who aggressively tried to discredit the victims of her husband’s sexual harassment.

            1. And most likely serial rapes. Probably since college.

          2. Fair point. Hillary would have us deeper in bedded in war right now in Syria. And watching pro-war libertarians like yourself make excuses for her would have been an even more clarifying experience.

            1. *embedded

            2. pro-war libertarians

              I don’t think this person is a libertarian, pro war or otherwise.

              1. You got me. Libertarianism is about realizing that diplomacy is bad and we should trust the intelligence community blindly.

            3. The slaughter in Syria doesn’t disappear because America turns a blind eye. Sometimes there is no nonviolent option. And even you should know Trump is not letting Putin get away with whatever he wants because Trump is staking out a noninterventionist foreign policy. All the families he’s blown up could attest to that were they still in one piece.

              1. The slaughter in Syria has been needlessly created by American and Saudi foreign policy in the region. It didn’t help that the US was arming and funding ISIS to oust Assad. The government can’t solve every problem in the world. But, it can make the problem worse

              2. The slaughter in Syria doesn’t disappear because America turns a blind eye.

                It also doesn’t disappear because America supports a murderous insurgency against the sitting government. Neither party has supported a positive tactic regarding Syria, so I’d sooner they luck their way into the “doing nothing” choice than proceed with any of the solutions being offered by American politicians.

              3. The slaughter in Syria doesn’t disappear because America turns a blind eye.

                And while it is quite tragic AND sad…how, precisely, is it our concern?

                All the families he’s blown up could attest to that were they still in one piece.

                Trump has taken a far more interventionist policy than his predecessor.

                What was Obama’s excuse for that?

              4. Yeah Tony, Trump is the one blowing up families. Something his predecessor never did, right?

              5. So do you now retroactively support the Iraq war for the sake of the Kurds?

                You could t be more plainly partisan.

      3. Trump so rarely has time for TV news.

        1. It would interfere with his Twitter time.

        2. Why would Trump go on TV with a biased Left media outlet. They would twist what he says like they do now.

          He uses Twitter to speak directly to people.

    2. Trumps knob polisher polishes Trumps knob!

  4. How exactly did the Russians allegedly “interfere” with the election? Seriously.

    1. They exposed the deep corruption and unethical behavior of high-ranking DNC officials and the Clinton campaign directed against their own supporters.

      1. I thought that was Seth Rich and their Paki Administrators?

      2. The problem is that it brought light to the corruption of their own team. If it was republican unethical behavior exposed, they would be defending it.

    2. They exposed John Podesta’s e-mails which is terrible because reasons that mainly involve Georgetown cocktail party invites

      1. One email exposed was Podesta discussing inflating the poll number for Hillary by over sampling the demographic where she does well.

        1. I thought everybody knows they do that anyway.

        2. You do not know what oversampling means do you?

          1. In this context it’s when you call more people in a particular demographic than other demographics when asking the poll questions.

          2. Feel free to do a web search for

            podesta email oversampling demographics

            1. Feel free to do a web search for podesta email oversampling demographics

              Funny thing happens when you do that. There are lots of sites debunking the very line you’re trying to spin here about it. They describe why this “oversampling” made sense for the sorts of information they were trying to gather on the “oversampled” groups. They explained how the context suggested that they weren’t trying to sway poll numbers or otherwise make Hillary look unduly appealing. They note how the e-mails were from fucking 2008.

              It’s exhausting having to doublecheck the Trump trolls’ every last utterance, but without fail they come out to lies when you do.

    3. They posted on Facebook! We all know that Facebook has magical powers!

      1. I would have never voted for someone like Trump, until I saw on facebook that Hillary was the devil. Then I knew what the lord wanted me to do.

        1. For me it was when I saw the devil and Jesus arm-wrestling over who would win that convinced me! That and the buff shirtless Bernie riding a unicorn one. /sarc

          1. What I find funny is when you say what suppose to be the Russian influence out loud, it sounds too stupid for anyone to believe.

            1. Yes! My point exactly. I can’t take any of the hysteria seriously because it’s all based on nonsense.

              1. And I think it says something about the people who actually believe it.

            2. Sure, but that’s true of advertising and propaganda in general. “Why would I buy a Coke just because I saw a thirty second spot of a bunch of smiling hipsters drinking Coke?”

              The best trick advertisers and propagandists ever pulled was convincing everyone that only idiots fall for it.

              1. Yeah, but that Coke example in the realm of believability since while it probably won’t happen, it’s something mundane and possibly could. Seeing Jesus armwrestle Satan makes you wonder what the fuck your looking at or chuckle at the absurdity of the fucking ad and ignore everything else about that post. Good propaganda is always subtle, not so obvious that only people on the fringes of society fall for it.

            3. Better than that, it reveals how and why it’s always referred to as ‘Russian influence’ instead of ‘DNC incompetence’.

              It’s propaganda-as-news. Which, in fairness, the news has always been exactly that.

        2. Are you trying to be sarcastic? Because you’re mindlessly re-posting lies about Hillary you only half-remember having read about somewhere like they’re factual. Dude, the propaganda worked. On you.

          1. No propaganda was needed to want to see that dessicated bitch lose yet again.

  5. It’s strange how a writer who criticizes college students who seek a “safe space” from words puts such a high value on “words” rather than actions.

    This makes sense if we just accept that this is a parody site at this point

    1. I do chuckle at the fact that not even a week ago commentators here were getting upset when I stated the obvious that Reason represents the more “pro-intervention” brand of libertarianism. Yup, I’m definitely wrong there

      1. That’s because your definition of “pro-intervention” is essentially anyone who criticizes Russia or criticizes trump for praising Putin (could throw Kim Kong-un in there too) and repeating kremlin propaganda.

        If Obama had said the things trump has about putin or Kim the commentariat here would have universally crucified him.

        1. Yup, that’s me to a tee. Do note that I criticized Trump for pulling out of the Iran deal and I was accused of suffering from TDS. Amazingly, some of us oppose intervention as a principle, not based on principal. You should try it some time.

          1. But nobody is advocating for the US to militarily intervene anywhere.

            That’s the Kremlin propaganda you’re regurgitating.

            1. Again, Tony, that is a nonsense talking point. Tell me what you contend be done. Right now, the Trump administration is making very provocative actions toward Russia (missiles in eastern Europe, arming Ukraine, and new sanctions). Not to mention that NATO continues to expand at its borders.

              What is next? What needs to happen in order for you to be satisfied?

              1. You to join the rest of the civilized world AND Fox & Friends and say Trump really fucked up by siding with Putin over the United States.

                1. And before you say something wishy-washy and anti-patriotic, remember that he is the president. He can go back to being pals with all the Russian oligarchs he wants when he’s not president anymore.

                  1. See this is why I know that the objective here is some kind of military confrontation, because people like you have no answer for what you want to see. Probably because everything, short of military conflict, that can be done has been done and more.

                    Also, trying to shame me for not agreeing with Fox and Friends…..does not effect me. I have no idea why you think that this is suppose to make me feel shame.

                    One more note, I don’t insult you Tony, so I’d appreciate if you did the same with me. I’m not a Putin apologist. I could care less about Russia or Putin, but I refuse to make common cause with warmongers.

                    1. Are you suggesting I advocate the military forcibly remove Trump from office? Don’t give me any ideas.

                      This is warmed-over “Hillary’s gonna start WWIII! That’s why we have to elect a Putin toady!” It’s grade-A Kremlin horseshit. I heard it from Bernie bros too. Nobody is calling for any military action. Just for the president to side with the country he is president of.

                    2. Tony, your dishonest bullshit is breathtaking to behold. You also showcase a large number of the reasons that progressive in large numbers are not compatible with the continued existence of our constitutional republic.

                      You really are a horrible shitty person.

                  2. >It’s a “Tony becomes a neocuck episode because he doesn’t like Drumpf”

                    It’s kinda funny how the Iraq War youth became fodder for new age the Russia paranoia based on the fact they have no actual principles about non-intervention and a semi-washed up faggot from New York being their President. To the point that they actually side with John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and both of the George Bushes along with the hyper-interventionist fringe of US politics to the point they even spout the same dumb bullshit about how endless war is patriotism and how the intel agencies are credible and useful despite the multiple fuckups over the years like the WMD debacle, the fact they couldn’t see ISIS coming when they pillaged Iraq and left, the Boston Bombing suspects not being kept under wraps despite evidence from GRU about them planing an attack and recently, the same thing with the Stoneman Douglas shooter. They are also spouting the dumb conspiracy theories Birthers used to spout all the time about their President being illegitimate. I may be young, but by God, I’m just glad I’m not as dumb as them.
                    Like, I really wonder if these people are just that dumb to believe this without any critical thought or they’re just towing the party line because DRUMPFFFFF!

                2. siding with Putin over the United States.

                  The Derp State is the US now?

          2. I’m usually incredulous that anyone could support the Iran deal the first place. It was worse than nothing. Especially when you firm out about Obama’s side deals. Like enabling Hezbollah to smuggle heroin.

  6. Ungrammatical… maybe.

    But, “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia” has a distinct and different meaning from “I see a reason why it would be Russia.”

    The double-negative conveys a level of uncertainty that is probably appropriate for the situation.

    1. Do you know what they do to traitors?

    2. Worth noting that the “wouldn’t” correction from Trump seems to conflict with the context of what he was saying.

      1. No, actually, it doesn’t.

    3. No maybe. It’s perfectly grammatical. Ungainly, but grammatical.

    4. It’s not ungrammatical anyway. You know what he meant, and you correctly say that it implies something different from its contrapositive. What a weird jab to get in there. Fucking prescriptivists.

      That being said, I don’t really buy what Trump is saying here.

      1. “ungrammatical” was from Soave.

  7. Well at least he was smart enough to admit he misspoke (or realized his beliefs aren’t even held by his own base).. Remember when Gerald Ford refused to walk back his stupid remarks about Eastern Europe not being under the control of the Soviet Union?

    1. (or realized his beliefs aren’t even held by his own base).

      They are, Trump knows they’ll forgive him for the dissembling “correction”.

  8. U.S. intelligence officials’ near certainty …

    it’s still overwhelmingly likely that Russia was involved….

    So you take it on faith alone.

    1. It’s not libertarian to question the intelligence community

      1. I used to have an ounce of respect for Robby, but lately he just wants to double down on the conspiracy theory.

        You know the anatomy of a conspiracy theory? A whole lot of connected dots, inferred motives, and no smoking gun.

        Then you consider the track record of honesty from US intelligence, and it’s “overwhelmingly likely” that Robby has fallen to delusion. I guess that’s what happens when your job is basically reading the news.

        1. “Dots” like emails, searches, and server logs, all laid out in an indictment?

          There’s dates, times, people involved, their words, their actions, and their movements online. All documented, for your reference.

          There’s a trail. Unless you think that the government can pull together a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people, all fabricating evidence (that can be checked by those in the private sector, ie google’s logs,’s logs, etc) without one person leaking or whistleblowing, you’ve just got your head in the sand.

          If this was a fabrication, there would be a Snowden or a Reality Winner out there sending to wikileaks.

        2. “Dots” like emails, searches, and server logs, all laid out in an indictment?

          There’s dates, times, people involved, their words, their actions, and their movements online. All documented, for your reference.

          There’s a trail. Unless you think that the government can pull together a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people, all fabricating evidence (that can be checked by those in the private sector, ie google’s logs,’s logs, etc) without one person leaking or whistleblowing, you’ve just got your head in the sand.

          If this was a fabrication, there would be a Snowden or a Reality Winner out there sending to wikileaks.

          1. These are indictments that will never be brought to trial. This is getting farcical.

            1. If Trump truly were a Russian asset then they’d gladly send one or two of the indicted parties to appear, and request an evidentiary hearing.

              Because absent an actual examination of the server (not by DNC hired hands, that is) nobody would go to trial.

              1. Following the standard procedure, the FBI received a forensic image of all of the affected drives. There was no reason to bring a disconnected server.

            2. The evidence, however, is there. In detail. Server logs, chat messages, etc.

              1. Yeah, they said that about Saddam’s WMDs, too.

        3. Hey! Don’t forget the virtue signalling!

      2. That’s what I don’t get.

        The Intel agencies were POSITIVE — fucking positive — Saddam had WMD ready to go.

        Also, quite sure the USSR wasn’t going to collapse.

        9/11 — they were shocked by that also.

        1. Or so they want you to believe……..

    2. Of course they tried to interfere in our elections. And lots of other country’s elections no doubt. Does anyone really believe America hasn’t tried to interfere in other countries’ elections? This goes on all over the world, all the time. The idea that trying to influence other countries’ politics is something shocking and sinister is the only thing that’s new.

  9. “He denies it. So the idea that somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn’t read the thought process in Russia very well.”

    Who said this a mere year ago?

  10. ‘I don’t see any reason why Mueller’s investigation wouldn’t lead to indictments.’

    But THAT sentence is “grammatical”, right? RIGHT?!

  11. Two negatives in a sentence are not necessarily ungrammatical. The sentence is perfectly fine.

  12. Reason’s really priming the pump for the Weld nomination. It’s gonna be sweet when the party that ostensibly believes in less government nominates the guy who has supported every single American overseas intervention for the past twenty years.

    Vote Green- at least they don’t want to murder people overseas

    1. Nothing says “LIBERTARIAN!!” like “long-time MA politician”

    2. No, they want to murder everyone in the name of Mother Gaia.

  13. I would have preferred that the President answered completely differently. He should have told the world that our Republican form of government is stronger than any potential hacking threats and we’re doing all that we can to make sure that this can’t happen in the future…. End of story.

    There’s no reason to poke anybody in the eye on either side (the Russians or our intelligence agencies). There’s no reason to fall into a trap posed by an obviously biased media. Sometimes the President has to rise above all this stupid bickering back and forth.

    1. While there’s no reason to poke there’s also no reason to fawn over Putin the way he does.

      1. The same could be said for his (and past presidents) fawning over the Saudis or the Iranians or the Chinese? What makes the Russians ultra baddies?

        No dispute that Trump sounds like an ass, literally all the time, though

        1. Yes. This is the problem. Does he not realize that his over the top Putin brown nosing was going to play right into the hands of the hysterical left? He’s so inept and clueless, it’s embarrassing.

          1. Agreed. What worries me more, though, is that the hysterical reactions will make him pivot to the bellicose position. He has no concrete positions on these issues.

            1. It’s what they secretly hope for.

      2. I agree. My point is there’s no reason to do either. The question was always intended to be a trap. The media knows the answer is either the intelligence community is lying or Putin is. Who cares what Trump thinks? He needs to learn to keep his mouth shut and be Presidential.

        1. I mostly agree with you, however I think there’s every reason to poke our “intel” community in the eye. Their f-ing seditious goons trying to cover our own (ruling class) corruption by provoking conflict with the only nuclear power capable of really hurting us. This country would be an incredibly valuable ally against both Europe and China… but that is precisely what the Brits and One World Europhiles dont want.

          Ever notice how the leaders who prioritize their own nations are the ‘bad guys?

          1. You might could throw al sisi and Assad in there too

          2. “I think there’s every reason to poke our “intel” community in the eye. ”

            The President should try to affect reform, not bemoan them in a diplomatic press conference in front of the international community.

    2. Excellent points Leo. That is a major character flaw of Trump’s – he simply cannot resist getting into it.

      I’d have liked an answer along the lines of ‘the world is full of bad actors who would love nothing better than to disrupt our elections, and our confidence in their outcomes.”

      Because some of them are right here in our own country.

  14. I guess we’re just forgetting that he also went on in glowing terms about Putin’s “strong and powerful” denial?

    The incompetent emperor has no clothes, the problem is he’s still much better than the alternative.

    1. he’s still much better than the alternative

      He’s doing his best to prove this wrong.

    2. MAGA!

  15. Trump shouldn’t go to war with Putin over this

    Tell that to the Democrats.

    1. It’s much better to take the Republicans’ route, which is to explain how it’s a perfectly normal thing for governments to try to throw one another’s elections. What’s a little regime change between fellow sovereigns, amirite?

      1. By Republicans, I assume you meant McCain and Obama?

        and (unsuccessfully) Israel and Russia

  16. Whether this is truly what the president intended to say is anyone’s guess

    But the educated guess is that he meant what he said and is backtracking now.

  17. As Trump himself notes, the corrected sentence is ungrammatical, since it contains two negatives.

    It’s not ungrammatical to use a double negative.

    1. I don’t not hate you, BUCS

      1. You need to be more assertive. I’m not afraid to say that I hate myself, and you should feel no such fear either.

  18. A double negative sentence is not necessarily incorrect.

  19. “As Trump himself notes, the corrected sentence is ungrammatical, since it contains two negatives.”

    That’s not ungrammatical.

  20. –“The sentence should’ve been: ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.'”–

    But that seems wrong too. We’re talking about the clandestine operations of the intelligence agencies the world over. I remember reading about how Russian coders generally share certain conventions in their code and by mimicking that convention is one potential step of many in covering your trail or nefariously sparking tensions between world actors.

    There is nothing remotely civil about the intelligence community and we should assume that they are often engaged in q

    1. uestionable acts, both legally and ethically.

    2. The sentence should have been: “The servers were destroyed before any law enforcement could examine them – so who the fuck knows if they were hacked or it was just a leak.”

      1. No, it should say that the FBI was provided with a forensic image of the servers, which was plenty enough for them to track down the Russian rented servers in Arizona and Illinois, which led them to the financial trail, domain registrations, and IP traces back to Moscow. But, other than that, nothing.

    3. The CIA developed programs to do literally this.
      But wikileaks vault 7 release was soooo long ago

  21. “I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t,'” said Trump, according to NBC News.

    Wow. That’s just absolutely pathetic. It’s so … Clintonian.

    1. I came in here to say the same thing, but in a joke form.

      It depends on what the definition of “would” would be in this context.

      1. How defined is your would?

        1. He said wood.

  22. “Trump Claims he Misspoke…”

    Trump “claims” he misspoke.

    Does anyone truly doubt that Trump misspoke? Even if he meant every word he thought he was saying he still probably misspoke.

    Once again, Trump truly is the anti-Obama. Whereas Obama was verbally both smooth and slick – often saying things he didn’t truly mean, but saying them in a very clear and rhetorically concise way; conversely Trump isn’t even clear with himself.

    1. You can tell when he’s totally scripted (like today) because he actually makes sense. As soon as he tries to ad lib it all goes to hell.

      1. His speeches at rallies are unbearable

    2. You had me with “anti-Obama”, as in anti-no economic growth, as in anti- open borders as in anti- daily race card bullshit.

      Yea its been great.

  23. So, this makes everything better in your mind? To everyone who is not at least 90% convinced at this point that Trump is totally beholden to Putin and his oligarchs (probably due to 100’s of millions of $ in money laundering over the years, about the only explanation for his recent cash buying spree when no real banks will lend him money), and yet somehow believe there is a vast “deep state” conspiracy to frame Trump, you are such tools. To those who also believe this, you are pathetic tools.

    1. Calling “deep state” a conspiracy, does not make your “Tump is totally beholden to Putin” conspiracy theory any less a conspiracy theory.

  24. What a lot of Libertarians are missing is that this can and should be the year we start putting Libertarians into Congress. At the moment, Republicans are placated by a series of victories and Democrats are lost in the weeds.

    To every Libertarian: Please make sure you donate to Libertarians across the country. There are a lot of candidates this year in states/districts that are sympathetic to Libertarianism, where Democrats are persona non grata, and RINO Republicans are largely regarded as the lesser of two evils.

    You want to start winning and REALLY shaking things up? Donations to any and all of these candidates will help:

    Mark Jay Tippetts – TX
    Jared Lord – NV
    Jeff Caldwell – KS
    Bev Boeck – ID

    Tim Hagan – NV
    Neal Dikeman – TX
    Rick Breckenridge – MT
    Lucy Brenton – IN
    Aubrey Dunn – NM
    Craig Bowden – UT
    Rusty Hollen – WV
    Doug Marks – AZ

    There are others, but these are the ones that are either in states with a strong Libertarian mindset (like Montana and Texas) or states that are unpredictable but seem to be in transition (like West Virginia). Enough liberty-minded citizens giving $10 (or even $20) to these candidates, and we could even surprise ourselves this year.

    1. Hahahahahah. *breathe* Bwa-hahahahaha.

      1. If you think that’s funny, why are you even a Libertarian? I’d rather see us win a few statewide elections than waste our time on another failed Presidential run any day.

        1. Leo has said that he is not a Libertarian.

          1. I see. I just LOVE overconfidence! LOL

          2. When?

            1. Every time you post.

              1. Not this time. Nor the previous post in this thread.

                Neener neener neener

        2. Baby steps are required, on that I agree. Senate and Gubernatorial elections are hardly baby steps.

          My $10 into a Senate race will go about as far as my money went for Gary Johnson.

          1. I think if we started helping out local elections, maybe even state mayoral elections. Maybe by donating to someone in a red state election, where a well known libertarian genius is running for mayor of the capital city of one of the greatest Republican states in the union.

            Anyone know of one that meets this requirement?

            1. Sure, if Sarwark became Mayor of Phoenix, it certainly couldn’t hurt. To win bigger elections, you need boots on the ground and people who can endorse you.

              I can’t vote for him, unfortunately, but I’ll give him $20 if you will.

              1. The LP has won every election since 1972–except the ones in which antichoice Republican bigots infiltrated their way into the nomination. By win I mean force the repeal of shitty laws, NOT get on the gubmint payroll with the parasites.

            2. F that.
              I’m not sending you money, Sarwa- I mean, BUCS

          2. While it’s true that a Senate race is more difficult than, say, a race for a House seat (which Libertarians should ALSO be donating to, but there are far too many to list here), a Senate seat is far, FAR more obtainable than the Oval Office.

            In 2012, it cost Barack Obama’s campaign about $750 million dollars to get reelected. The average Senate seat was $10 million. The average House seat was $1.7 million.

            So really, every dollar you donate to a Senate candidate will go about 75 times further than it would go if you donated it to a POTUS candidate. In a state with a strong Libertarian mindset, it could go even further.

            I’m just tired of Libertarians helplessly chasing the White House every four years, when the real power lies in taking just a few seats of Congress.

            Really, the best option for Libertarians (and any third party/independent) is to get Congress to repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which limits the number of Representatives to 435.
            More districts = smaller districts = less money to campaign = less money in politics

            I won’t hold my breath for that to happen, though.

            1. Riiiight, let’s just send money in to the L.P. (I think that stands for Lite Progressive).
              Yup, the party is super well run – they got a whole 4+%!

              Libertarians need to start from the bottom up. Municipal, County, State legislatures. And fuck a national party/platform – organize local ‘cells’ if you will.

              1. I didn’t say send money to the party. That’s why I listed candidates by name.

                I’m not interested in flushing my money down the toilet for some candidate in Massachusetts whose chances of winning are slim and none. I’m also not interested in having my money go to another sure-loser POTUS candidate. I can manage my money better than the party can, so I’m being very specific about who I donate to.

                1. Fair enough.

            2. And keep the 1971 Nixon subsidies for looter kleptocracy parties?

    2. Of the 13 states for which the LP earned more votes than the difference between the two looter parties, only NM and AZ are on the sockpuppet’s list. Far better to press the advantage in MN, ME, MI, CO, NV, NH, WI, PA, FL and GA. Much effort is going into trying to smuggle girl-bulliers and doctor-shooters as “LP” candidates. The antichoice Amendment the Go-Pee and Prohi parties began pushing right after the Libertarian Roe v. Wade decision failed miserably, but the fanaticism is still there despite a pispoor actuarial outlook. Can anyone identify antichoice sleepers on that list?

  25. It’s amazing. The whole time Trumpanov was reading from that sheet I didn’t even see Putin’s lips move.

    1. How did it feel watching Hillary get tossed in that van like a sack of potatoes?

      1. I chuckled, actually.
        How did you feel, Trumpanzee?

    2. Election 2018 will be another bloodbath for Democrats like election 2016.

      Are you ready?

      1. Why do you hate America?


  27. There is nothing remotely ungrammatical about the corrected sentence, in fact. You can’t show that I’m not right.

    1. I can’t not show you aren’t right.

  28. The press were saying boo-urns.

  29. Perjury? I meant I “did” have sexual relations with that woman.

  30. who cares it really is a non issue. the only thing you can do about Russian interference is try to block it.

  31. But see a very hard-hitting piece by a liberal:

    “Five Things That Would Make The CIA/CNN Russia Narrative More Believable”, July 14, 2018

    “I do not believe the establishment Russia narrative. I do not believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to rig the 2016 election. I do not believe the Russian government did any election rigging for Trump to collude with.

    “The first step to getting a heretic like myself aboard the Russia hysteria train would be the existence of publicly available evidence of the claims made about election meddling in 2016, which rises to the level required in a post-Iraq invasion world. So far, that burden of proof for Russian hacking allegations has not come anywhere remotely close to being met.”

  32. Terming what the Russians did to the Democrats as hacking is a stretch. It was more like stealing candy from a brain-dead baby.

    And, as Putin pointed out in defense of his agents, his hackers did not make anything up. Don’t shoot the messenger when it comes to Democrat dirty undies appearing in public.

    Now other Russians (you know, it may be not all Russian gangs are as coordinated as Fake News networks assume) WERE making stuff up with which to smear Donald Trump and eventually send some of his associates to prison, but those bad Russkies were paid by the Hillary campaign, The fact that Manafort, Page, and the others have been prosecuted so mercilessly is just a comment on the bitter extremism of today’s Democrat Party.

    Which brings me to this. If Dems keep convincing Hillary she was cheated out of what is rightfully hers in 2016, she just might feel entitled to one more go at it. She will chug down a jug of Napoleon brandy, throw the dead soldier right up at that glass ceiling with all her might, roar like a lioness, and 2020 here we come!

    1. So it was the Rooshians who planted that suicidal Dem plank about a tax on breathing? And also inserted into the Dem platform those pledges to ban every kind of power plant found guilty of generating electricity? Those non-communist scoundrels!

  33. “Whether this is truly what the president intended to say is anyone’s guess.”

    That’s a derogatory sentiment. If you think Trump is lying — which you probably do since you are part of the Trump Derangement syndrome cursing the nation as well as the socialist countries of Europe — why don’t you have the nerve to say that?

    Where were you with your epithets and phony complaints during the Obama administration?

    Hiding with the other socialists I would suppose.

  34. “As Trump himself notes, the corrected sentence is ungrammatical, since it contains two negatives. Whether this is truly what the president intended to say is anyone’s guess. ”

    Actually, you can truly tell that it was NOT what the president intended by looking at the full context of what the president said. He is now just backpedaling. In full context he stated that he found President Putin’s argument that Russia did not involve itself in US elections to be “very powerful.” Apparently, it was so persuasive that it even caused the president to state the opposite of what he believed.

    1. KGB tactics, brilliant!

    2. Dave what was the “involvement”?

  35. Trump should apologise to Russians for committing acts of war against them; immediately end sanctions; and pull out of NATO. Then he should thank their investigators for unmasking a criminal conspiracy, awarding them with medals and cash prizes voluntarily donated by patriotic Americans. Instead, Trump continues the policy of unjustified aggression against Russia and most of the world while the blood thirsty Dems and Reps insult him as being cowardly and weak for not being as belligerent as they’d like. What a crazy world!

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

    Go suck a dick you fuck’n dimwit!

    Sorry, I said the word ‘dick’ instead of ‘Richard’.

  37. Decent job by the resident Trumpanzees to defend Trump whlie pretending not to defend Trump while having Trump’s dick shoved up their asses.

  38. How many of the posters on this thread are Russians stirring up discontent?

    1. I bet all of them. I mean great post. Really original.

  39. The walk-back came across as lame. The alternative would have been to permit his detractors to carry on with the longest temper tantrum in the history of Western Civilization. Next week, new crisis.

  40. Trump and the Russians colluded to do exactly nothing since 2016. Since the Fake News TDS brigade now insist they have very, very serious evidence that Trump has something extremely improper going on with Vlad, consider:

    Is it hacking when it is so easy it’s like taking candy from a brain dead baby? If so, what actions were uniquely illegal in common human experience, and where is the physical proof (hardware and software that Hillary ordered destroyed to cover up her own crimes can not be resurrected as ghostly evidence against any Republicans, BTW.) Where is the DNC server? Much of what Russians do is probing for weakness and for useful info, which is investigative journalists used to do before they became full time Fake News shills and became intellectually lazy as well as dishonest.

    The TDS brigade constantly screams that Trump disrespects and dishonors our intelligence services. No, just the Clapper and other Obama embeds left in it, who BTW, bent over double backwards to give the Russians absolutely everything they wanted (and these things Putin really wanted and continues to want) such as the Uranium One deal and the highly unsatisfactory Iran Nuclear Treaty.

    The USA got less than stinking nothing out of those deals. They were not in our national interest. Obama wanted them as monuments to his Nobel Peace Prize glowing aura. The Fake News Obama adulators cast no shade that direction!

  41. Gosh. Who’d a thunk anyone so blessed by hands-on televangelists could turn out to be fallible?

  42. I really don’t know how Democrat party voters can sleep at night, knowing that Putin may steal an election at any moment.

    Do they ever stop pooping?

  43. I don’t see a dimes worth of difference between:

    “I don’t see why it would have been Russia”


    “I don’t see why it wouldn’t have been Russia”

    Someone hacked the DNC servers, most likely Russia, and disclosed a whole steaming pile of cowshit, but most likely not bullshit.

    There isn’t much more than that.

    I can remember way back when we used to run enormous intelligence operations against the USSR, China, the Eastern bloc just to find out what was really going on and disclose it. It’s never pretty, but we’ve never lived in a glass house ourselves.Sent

  44. Right on cue a bunch of people defending Trump. Not sure if this site is infected with Russians or morons but either way it’s pretty sad.

  45. I doubt much Russian influence.

    Just homegrown, gullible, downscale, disaffected right-wing goobers masquerading as libertarians.

  46. Oh yes, I’m a Trump defender, As Putin said, his agents made nothing in those emails up. I believe him. We should be grateful that foreign agents at least do anymore what mainstream media refuse to do, and that is deep investigative reporting on Democrats, especially if their names are Clinton or Obama.

    Many of the Russians are not so much spies as they are gangs probing for weakness, for something that can be exploited for further value, sold to either American party, used for blackmail in the future.

    The difference in 2016 is that Hillary and her cohorts at the DNC were incredibly unconcerned and incompetent at rudimentary cyber security. Hillary deliberately did her public and private business as Sec. of State on a laughably insecure throw-away server because she was lazy and in a hurry. She needed to amass a pile of cash for her intended presidential run and she needed to do it fast with no pesky FOIA requests or government records requirements getting in her way.

    She didn’t give a damn about her personal secrets or national top secrets sloshing about in her loose channel. As Colin Powell says: “Hillary f-cks up everything she touches.”

    1. Having the falling down B.S. (Blake Shelton) syndrome may have something to do with it.

    2. She used a private server to avoid FOIA. That apparently worked but her server had zero cyber security so every hacker in the universe probably has her emails.

  47. This is the kind of viewpoint you can only get from Reason! Or CNN, or NBC, or the Huffington post (okay, that one might be a bit of an exaggeration), but also from Reason!

  48. Does this mean he’s going to stop calling the investigation a witch hunt?

  49. So why do we trust our alleged “intelligence” agencies? Lets see Russian meddling ONLY became a problem when Trump won.

    Remember Obama ridiculing Trump for suspecting there may be election meddling in October 2016. Then holy fuck everything changed because Trump won! Like magic.

    Then in early 2017 we have then FBI director Comey accepting a third party report of the DNC server hacking rather than being bothered actually inspecting the server. And the third party report proved NOTHING other than the attacks may have come from Russia and used malware that Russians and OTHERS had previously used. Wow! slam dunk. Try that one with your local law enforcement sometime.

    And of course then we have the constant chirping that its irrefutable that the Russians meddled or at least attempted to meddle but did not affect votes.

    No shit, what a fucking revelation! Lets see they do it all the time and we do it all the time only we don’t even try to hide it. See Obama and Bibi and Brexit.

    So no I don’t trust our “intelligence” agencies at all. Some fucking evidence please! What a shit show.

  50. Sometimes something just clicks, you know?

    Until yesterday I thought Trump and his useless spawn were merely colossal morons who got duped into abetting a Russian plot. Characters like Manafort wormed their way onto the campaign not because Trump actively wanted Russian help, but because he is easily manipulated. He was the vessel with which Russians brought distrust and chaos to American democracy.

    Now I think the only narrative that makes sense is that Trump actively participated in the Russian plot, knew he was cheating to win, and did so because his baby-like emotional issues wouldn’t permit him to lose. I think there was collusion. I know that this contradicts the very strong case Trump has made on his behalf: “No collusion,” but put all the pieces together. It only all makes sense if they were participating from the beginning.

    1. You think that something crazy makes sense. Of course you do. You are a funking idiot.

      1. And you think the entire American intelligence apparatus is lying… for some reason.

        1. Almost every “fact” that they’re basing their opinion on is publicly known. It is POSSIBLE that the Russians did some of the things they are accused of, even probable. The DNC hack however doesn’t seem to be one of them from all known evidence. It’s a shot in the dark at best.

          It’s like getting your car stolen, somebody saw a guy break your window so you say “Well, if it was a man… It must have been a black man! Because black guys steal cars!” It’s just blaming it on the brotha because they’re the one you WANT to think stole your car. Couldn’t have been some Asian guy who has a blow habit, or a white meth head… No, had to be the usual suspect, right?

          There is literally nothing that specifically fingers them AT ALL. They just WANT it to be Russia, so that’s who they say did it.

          They did likely do bot stuff and a few grand in political ads… WOW. Big deal.

          And zero has been found linking Trump to direct activity in anything. If the Russians helped him out a bit, I really don’t think he had anything to do with it, or even knew it was happening.

  51. I’m probably too late , this thread is likely over. Still, it amazes how tech savvy libertarians continue the line that the Internet Research Institute was an incompetent but state run attempt to “sow discord” or “manipulate” the election.
    Because, you see, Russians are “genetically predisposed ” to that sort of thing.
    That the IRI was a private clickbait operation, that was purely commercial, designed to make money, not sow discord, seems to elude libertarian commentators, while independent analysts can make that determination readily.
    Reason might change their mind about Putin if they knew he was pro immigration? Maybe? Putin favors Asian workers visa free entry to work. You think Reason and other Neo liberal libertarians might stop and investigate Putin in a more favorable light if they knew he was pro immigration?
    Nah, he still doesn’t crusade for gay marriage, so never mind .

  52. I am Trump fan but before that an admirer of the original populist crusader from the Platte River valley, William Jennings Bryan (not so much the Scopes trial, but he was still eloquent!) At only age 36(!), famous for his Cross of Gold speech, WJB became not only the Dem nominee for POTUS in 1896 but endorsed by the Populist Party and the Silver Republicans.

    WJB set the rails on fire, inventing whistle-stop campaigning and delivering over 500 speeches to huge cheering crowds. McKinley scarcely left his house in Ohio and delivered few speeches. In Butte, MT, WJB incited the audience into thunderous applause. Miners there dug a ton of nearly pure silver a day which became dollars at the mint down in Denver. That was the inflationary coin of the day, the debtor’s friend. Nevada loved WJB as well.

    McKinley won in 1896, and again in the rematch in 1900. Then a 2nd generation Polish foe of gold, corporations, and imperialism assassinated him. In 1912 WJB supported Woodrow Wilson, who won and made him Sec. of State. WJB then single-handedly kept the USA out of immediate war when the Lusitania was sunk and resisted being dragged into that mess until the end.

  53. Anyone who watched the news conference understands that Trump is lying through his teeth about “would” vs “wouldn’t.” Today he backtracked on Tuesday’s backtracking on Monday’s statement. Confront Trump with recorded evidence of something he has done, he proceeds to deny that it ever happened and/or blame it on someone else.

    Trump confirms almost everything that George Orwell wrote in 1984. “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

  54. Drumpf has contradicted and reversed himself on this subject two more times since this article was written. He appears to be unable to keep his story straight and is just responding with whatever his gut says or he thinks the listener will want to hear at the moment. This looks like early stage dementia to me.

  55. Everyone should know everything he says is a bunch of BS anyway. Just claim it was a negotiating tactic

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.