I have sort of a visceral aversion to the prominence of the either active duty, in the case of General McMaster, or retired general officers filling political, civilian positions.

Some of you expressed surprise that I showed up-so many emails to read!

We had a general awareness, for example, of Russian use of social media - Facebook ads, use of Twitter, fake news implants - we had a general understanding of that. But now, as time has elapsed and time has gone on, I've certainly learned a lot more about the depth and breadth of what the Russians were about.

We have lots of challenges around the world, and I have no doubt the intelligence community will continue to watch them, monitor them, and report on them. The issue is, with all of our other distractions here in Washington, particularly, will the appropriate attention be paid to each one of these issues?

Obviously, what's happening in China right now is crucial, in the party congress, which as someone said has anointed a new emperor of China in President Xi. So there's the rise of China, and their active involvement in the United States internally in our business and financial realms. That certainly bears watching.

I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner.

The FBI is unique in that it straddles both law enforcement and counterintelligence.

I think Trump's presidency represents a completely different model than what we're used to. And I think to your point, yes, he is a great communicator, you know? He uses Twitter to great effect. I just wish he could stick more to the truth, because it's a very effective way of communicating directly with the American people.

There's nobody that wants the president to be successful more than I.

I think, as a professional courtesy, when the president asks you to dinner, you go.

We're talking about nuclear war with North Korea. We're talking about Russia. Does it feel like the world has shifted? Are we all just in Donald Trump's reality show now?

What I said was, ‘the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails.’ I stand by that.

We must remain mindful of the potential impact of over-correcting the authorizations of the intelligence community.