The editorial board, who endorses candidates, is totally separate from the news side of the business. We don't consult one another. They have one job to do, we have a totally different one to do. So whether the Washington Post editorial board endorses Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is meaningless to me.

As for whether what happened in Britain improves[Donald] Trump's chances of winning, I don't think so. He has the same chances; we may just be more aware of what they are now.

I see no issue with [Donald] Trump spending 48 hours in Scotland.Whether accidental or intentional, the fact that he was there when Britain voted to leave the EU was a good thing for him.

[Donald] Trump won fair and square! He got 13.3 million votes. He won all over the country. He won when the race was crowded and when it was a one on one against Ted Cruz. There's just no reasonable way to keep Trump from the nomination while insisting that the will of the Republican voter is being respected.

For me, I focus on trying to get it right and be as fair as possible. There's not much else I can do. People will believe what they want - facts be damned.

A lack of transparency that fuels the idea that she is either hiding something or simply not someone to be trusted.

Being freaked out doesn't mean you can fix what you perceive to be the problem.