Would, wouldn’t … what does an ‘n’t’ mean?

Allow me for a brief moment to parse a few words from the president of the United States.

On Monday, he said this in response to a question about whether Russia interfered in our 2016 election: “(Putin) just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

Are we clear on that?

Then today, in the White House, the president said this: “I thought that I made myself very clear, but having just reviewed the transcript … I realized that there is a need for some clarification. The sentence should have been …’ I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia’.”

All right, back to the Monday reference. Immediately after he allegedly “misspoke,” the president then praised Russian leader Vladimir Putin for being “very strong” in his denial that Russians attacked our electoral system.

So, if he didn’t speak correctly on Monday, why did the president offer such praise for Putin’s strength of conviction that there was no meddling? He didn’t take back any of that other stuff.

Murky.