OnPolitics Today: It's only words

Tuesday, July 17

(FILES) In this file photo taken on May 25, 2018 US President Donald Trump smiles after addressing the US Naval Academy graduating class on May 25, 2018 in Annapolis, Maryland. US President Donald Trump on Monday asserted an "absolute right" to pardon himself, once again lashing out at a probe into possible collusion with Russian election meddling and obstruction of justice. / AFP PHOTO / Nicholas KammNICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images ORIG FILE ID: AFP_15L8A4

Would vs. would not

Also in today's edition: The NRA won't have to report all of its contributors anymore

Happy Tuesday, OP fam, and welcome to this edition of "Did President Trump Really Mean to Say What He Said?"

Keep up with the latest, get your friends to subscribe and let's go.

And words are all I have

Did it really just come down to a contraction?

After nearly 24 hours of backlash from people on both sides of the aisle, President Donald Trump said he misspoke during his news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As USA TODAY's John Fritze reports, when Trump said he couldn't see any reason why Russia "would" have been involved in the U.S. presidential election, what he meant to say was "wouldn't."

"I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't,'" Trump explained, speaking at the White House. "The sentence should have been, 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia.'"

"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."

That explanation may not be good enough for congressional GOP leaders, who are unequivocally saying that Russia meddled in 2016 and are looking for ways to counter the president further. And whatever the president meant, election experts worry that his words could embolden hackers looking to disrupt the upcoming midterm elections.

To take your heart away

Want to anonymously donate to some tax-exempt organizations? You're in luck.

USA TODAY's Fredreka Schouten reports that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced this week that his agency would no longer force some of those organizations, including politically active groups such as the National Rifle Association, to identify their contributors to the IRS.

The change drew protests Tuesday from campaign finance watchdogs, who say it strips the government of its ability to scrutinize those donations and could lead to foreign interests illegally infiltrating U.S. elections through advocacy groups.

"This is the theater of the absurd," said Fred Wertheimer of the watchdog group Democracy 21. "By limiting donor disclosures to the IRS, they have limited any ability to prevent Russia and Russian oligarchs to launder unlimited, undisclosed and illegal contributions through advocacy groups into federal elections."

Elsewhere in politics

•	Trump's comments disputing Russian meddling in election felt in close Senate races across the nation
•	Republicans press social media giants on anti-conservative 'bias' that Dems call 'nonsense'
•	Obama warns of 'politics of fear and resentment and retrenchment,' never mentions Trump by name
•	Republican in heart of Ohio's Trump country resigns over summit with Putin
•	Four states sue over federal tax reform law capping state, local deductions