That is good to hear but was not part of the news story I read—which wasn’t one of the ones in the google search—and the report I read was from the Saturday so perhaps prior to his clarification/retraction. I would say his retraction/clarification was provided because that “possible interpretation” was noted by more than just me.
That is good to hear but was not part of the news story I read—which wasn’t one of the ones in the google search—and the report I read was from the Saturday so perhaps prior to his clarification/retraction. I would say his retraction/clarification was provided because that “possible interpretation” was noted by more than just me.