You've seen [Doanld Trump] come out with a lot more specifics. He's not in hiding or smashing BlackBerry or BleachBit himself to death like we've seen Hillary do or Hillary [Clinton] throwing her stuff, you know, under the bus. She's not showing presidential leadership qualities.

I want to protect our constitutional right to bear arms in a legal and thoughtful way with background checks that also don't want people to get shot and murdered, but it doesn't mean that you can't own a gun.

Is it more important to make sure that you have another Clinton or a woman in the White House than it is to have somebody who is a morally sound character and judgment?

It's unnecessary to make that, you know, strong of a statement. Let the facts, let the case, you know, and the evidence there speak for itself. You want to be careful that you're not poisoning the jury pool.

When a reporter files a piece about Republican that slams Republican or law enforcement or hypes up climate change, there's no attempt to expose their bias, to look at their background. And then when you find out later that they usually have a bias.

What I do see is the right from the beginning that [Donald] Trump had an interest and was very persuasive in terms of talking about the veterans and needing to make changes there.

We in US need active intelligence: people being on the streets, people being able to stop and ask questions of individuals that they suspect to put it together. Why wouldn't we be wanting to get some information that could actually prevent a terrorist attack, especially since we have so many individuals fighting that have passports coming back and spreading jihad.