President Trump attorney Jay Sekulow on Sunday blamed "bad information" for erroneously denying that the president had a role in drafting his campaign's response to a key June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower.

Sekulow's comments came shortly after Trump tweeted earlier Sunday another acknowledgment that the meeting was "to get information on an opponent," which he characterized as "totally legal and done all the time in politics -- and it went nowhere." Trump last year said on Twitter that "most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!" Trump tweeted:

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

Senior Editor at National Review Jonah Goldberg joined Fox News Radio's Guy Benson to discuss Trump's tweet and more. 

On Trump's tweet about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting at Trump Tower: It undercuts the latest official story his team has put out. It's amazing one of the things this does by just tweeting it out it kind of takes some of the air out of the controversy because he's basically admitted it. (1:40)

On how this tweet changes narrative of collusion: I think it is collusion. The problem is as Trump's defenders want to say all the time except when they don't want to say it, collusion's not a legal term. (3:25)

On what is wrong with this meeting: My problem with all of this, it takes me back to the Clinton years, my problem is okay he may not have committed any crimes that's fine and if he hasn't we should say that. But, it was wrong to take the meeting. It was wrong to lie about it for a year in all sorts of different ways. (4:42)

On the New York Times hiring Sarah Jeong and the argument that racism against white people cannot exist: The problem is we have a whole bunch of competing interpretations of the story lines going on here. The argument that you can't be racist towards white people I think on its face is preposterous, but what the left does is they redefine racism to say only about institutional power against the powerless. And so therefore, since white people have all the power, which is obviously ridiculous, that therefore you cannot be racist toward white people. (7:00)

On being against anti-mob but also anti-double standard: It's a really tough conflicting thing and the Times has a double standard of their own because they hired and fired another person just earlier this year in February for almost the exact same circumstances as Jeong. I think what they've decided is where does this end. So, we're just going to stand by this person, I kind of respect that decision. (11:14)

Watch below: