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.

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

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

The president sets the tone. He creates the atmosphere, and that can be enlightened, progressive, or it can be intimidating, depending on what the president's agenda is. I think the other dimension of this that I worry about is impacts overseas with friends and allies, many of whom are very, very concerned about America's position in the world and whether or not it's going to continue its leadership, which has been the prevalent condition since World War II.

I don't think the intelligence community itself institutionally is losing its focus; it will continue to do its job; continue to be vigilant on all issues that are besetting us. I think the greater danger is just the preoccupation of the policy community, and how much attention they pay to what the intelligence community is telling them.

If we - particularly, if we peremptorily attack North Korea - that without deliberation, that North Korea will reflexively unleash all the rocketry and artillery - which they're pretty good at, by the way - on Seoul, and do as they vowed many times, to convert Seoul into a sea of fire. So, if we do something like this, this will have cataclysmic results.

Trump is very skillful at identifying - even if he can't quite get it clear, or precisely describe it - but that's what he wants to do, is always have something to use against people, even if it's distorted.