Bret Baier tries to clarify "indictment" remark, this gets reported as a retraction

At most, Bret Baier's 'mistake' in his initial report was not breaking down for the reader the steps of a legal process that would have to be followed before an indictment can occur; in this instance an indictment of the Clinton Foundation. But this omission doesn't change the point of his report: His sources at the FBI told him they believed an indictment would likely be the result (of the process) because in their view there was enough evidence to support one.

However, Baier's tongue created a muddle out of a straightforward clarification, which Clinton supporters made hay with by characterizing his explanation as a retraction or admittance that he'd falsely reported. Then that got turned into headlines; e.g., Raw Story's Oops: Fox anchor retracts claim of ‘likely’ Clinton indictment after conservatives sites go wild.

For all his years reporting on American political machinations, Bret Baier still doesn't seem to understand what he's up against. The only real mistake he made was interrupting the Fox anchor who tried to question him about his statements in the initial report. He should've answered her questions in as few words as possible. If she still wasn't clear, that was when he could have pitched her a few sentences.     

Live and learn.