I hope that the states are taking seriously their obligations to harden the cybersecurity around the election infrastructure that Americans rely upon and need.

I'll never forget what a Catholic priest told me; he said, "If you try to padlock the door, you have to give people an alternative path - an alternative, safer path. You can't padlock, and you shouldn't padlock a burning building."

President Trump talks about extreme vetting, and we actually do have extreme vetting when it comes to refugee resettlement. Refugee resettlement is the most thorough, cumbersome, multilayered vetting system we have for the admission of anyone to the country.

The Secret Service hates to complain about something. They're secret by nature. They're not boastful; they don't like to be in the limelight. And therefore, they need middle management, i.e., a Cabinet-level person, to be their advocate, to Congress, to the White House, to ensure that they have adequate funding.

There's a lot of sensitivity about federal involvement in elections around the country. I think that it would be appropriate to consider - whether there should be some basic federal minimum standards to the cybersecurity around the election infrastructure. We have federal standards for aviation security, for auto safety, for a lot of things, and elections are pretty important in the country.

I think that the potential for homegrown terrorist attacks is something that we have to be very concerned about, because, in many respects, it's harder to detect when you have an independent actor who may be living in our midst, in our own communities.

And we need a president who is a uniter, not a divider; who can lower the temperature, not raise the temperature. And I wish President Trump would spend more time trying to go beyond his immediate base to reach people, and use the presidential microphone to try to bring people together, instead of the rhetoric that seems to divide us.