> all right. it isn't a double negative, but let's make the case, okay? here is what the president said yesterday abou"> > all right. it isn't a double negative, but let's make the case, okay? here is what the president said yesterday abou" property="og:description"> > all right. it isn't a double negative, but let's make the case, okay? here is what the president said yesterday abou">
russia." sort of a double negative. >> all right. it isn't a double negative, but let's make the case, okay? here is what the president said yesterday about dan coats, okay? here's the main line where the president says the truth will be found. "i don't see any reason why it would be russia." that's what made everybody so upset. he says he meant to say "wouldn't." and as long as you take it that way, he agrees with the intelligence community, and it's all good. so what's the truth? the truth is found in what follows, okay? let's go back to this a little bit more clean. what follows? this is the best piece of proof for the president that he was a word away. why? because "but" i really do want to see the server seems to be a balancing statement. all right? so i think it's russia, but i want to see the server. that would be the best piece of proof that the president was a word away. but here's the problem. it falls away with what follows. how so? okay. "i really do want to see the server. i have confidence in both parties." do you see that? that fights the conclusiveness of believing the investigation. how? because you don't believe both