President Donald Trump yesterday walked back Monday’s ill-advised comments regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election. Sort of.

With the likes of Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Brit Hume, Laura Ingraham, our humble shop, and countless other allies criticizing his embarrassing misstep, Trump had little choice. But his explanation was less than satisfying.

After implying in Helsinki that he believed Vladimir Putin’s denials of election meddling more than U.S. intelligence assessments confirming that meddling, Trump said Tuesday:

I have full faith and support for America’s great intelligence agencies. Always have. And I have felt very strongly that, while Russia’s actions had no impact at all on the outcome of the election, let me be totally clear in saying that — and I’ve said this many times — I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place.

But then he gave away that he might not really mean it, saying, “Could be other people also; there’s a lot of people out there.”

To drive home his favorite point, he continued, “There was no collusion at all.”

That last point is key. We believe the Helsinki press conference was a case of disparity between what the media said and what Trump heard. When journalists say “meddling,” he hears “collusion.” That’s largely because the Leftmedia, in obvious service to Democrats, deliberately conflates the two things. Talkingheads insist the meddling was collusion. Trump is left to either discuss the nuanced reality that meddling occurred without collusion, or to dismiss the whole thing as a “witch hunt” out of hand.

Trump doesn’t do nuance, so he usually chooses Door #2 — even if he frequently uses the word “collusion” along with “witch hunt.” Or, as political analyst Byron York puts it, “The president clearly believes if he gives an inch on the what-Russia-did part [of the investigation] — if he concedes that Russia made an effort to disrupt the election — his adversaries, who want to discredit his election, undermine him and force him from office, will take a mile on the get-Trump part.”

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argues, “Trump seems constitutionally incapable of distinguishing what ought to be his undeniable legitimacy as president from the fact (it is a fact) of Russia’s influence operation during the campaign.”

Back to Trump’s explanation Tuesday, which soon veered into the unbelievable. In Helsinki on Monday, he said, “[Putin] just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.” Tuesday, he clarified, “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.”

And after having said, “Could be other people,” that’s especially unconvincing.

To be sure, Trump has good reason to distrust U.S. intelligence when its leaders have been so clearly on the side of Hillary Clinton and Democrats. But as president, he must move beyond his ego and grievances to advocate the whole truth — to be crystal clear about what the Russians did and why they did it. That would be to sow confusion and undermine the candidate they and everyone else thought would win: Hillary Clinton.

As far as policy toward Russia, the bottom line, as we’ve said all along, is that his actions have been good. His rhetoric Monday unquestionably did damage, but as long as the correct policies remain in place, it will largely blow over.