This is sort of the Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids, what we are doing to Russia right now, and I don't think this is a good idea.

At least with [Hillary] Clinton, you know, there was some degree of transparency. There was some sense of what's going on here, and a lot to be very alarmed about, whether it's the - you know, the Prince Bandar and, you know, the princes of Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain, or the Russians that she enabled to acquire 20 percent of our uranium supply. I mean, really outrageous stuff. The arms deals, et., a lot of grave concern.

You don't do that while you're being paid by taxpayers to do a very difficult and full-time job, and you also do not bring Clinton Foundation interests into the domain of the secretary of state, and you do not give preferred access to your own personal clients.

If you look at the well-informed Democratic Sanders activists - I don't know if you were in Philadelphia, but there was no secret about their enthusiasm for our campaign. But once you got more remote from the super activists in the Bernie [Sanders] camp, they don't know so much about our campaign. And the question is whether they are going to have a chance to be informed.

I think we have a very critical role to play, within the spectrum of international law and human rights.

It's not possible to solve the climate crisis while we continue to expand fracking.

I think it's a sign of a gotcha political system that's looking to take down public interest candidates that they make a big deal out of a comment to a parent concerned about the exposure of young children to Wi-Fi. Now it turns out that Wi-Fi is actually untested. A large study by the NIH [National Institutes of Health] released a month ago raised serious questions about whether kids ought to be exposed, whether young children ought to be exposed to Wi-Fi. And you know, I'm not saying they should or they shouldn't but that this should be studied. Absolutely it should be studied.