Well, obviously, yes. And others notably Mark Morell, former acting director of CIA has spoken about our concerns about a prosecuting attorney critiquing the judgment of intelligence analysts after the fact using what prosecuting…

I found the timing interesting given the increasing heat around the impeachment inquiry.

I was really taken aback by that. So here we're going to ask an adversary of ours, and that's what China is, who, of course, is famous for use of practicing the rule of law and we're going to ask them to investigate a political opponent.

It just shows the lengths to which this administration will go to try to discredit the entire Russia meddling.

I think it's going to be probably have a very -- to put it mildly, a chilling effect on any future whistleblower's willingness to come forward with reports of wrongdoing.

it appears is that there was great concern about the legality of what the President was doing and people apparently understood that and took the action of trying to cloister the records of that conversation as much as they could.

I thought Joe Maguire did a great job today in the, you know, the open hearing held by the House Intelligence Committee.

I believe the United States has an ethical -- moral and ethical responsibility to help to support the Ukraine who is, of course, fighting against the separatists in the southeast part of the country and still dealing with the seizure of…

It's - it's kind of bad that he now gets the reception he's getting.

To have a prosecuting attorney go investigate the analytic judgments and findings of a bunch line analysts... sends a very chilling message to the intelligence community.

It was a high confidence assessment that the preference here was, one, to damage Hillary Clinton, and two, to advantage Donald Trump.

This simply encourages them to do something they're going to do anyway.

Yes, he just said flat out Chris Wray is wrong, and Chris Wray is not wrong.

The bigger issue, of course, is potential -- as you alluded, potential compromise of some very sensitive sources and methods.

I guess if it came to a dispute between the two and I think I could predict how it would be resolved.

Well, I would hope it'd be the ladder, although I don't have -- you know, based on the history thus far, I'm not real confident in that.

I think I was really, really gratified, really pleased to see Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats' statement, which I thought was very balanced and tempered.

the narrative obviously is spying on the campaign. No, it was trying to understand what the Russians were doing.

Yes, and, you know, I find it somewhat ironic that people in the Trump administration criticize the Obama administration for not doing anything. Yet here as we're approaching 2020 and there is an ideal opportunity for the -- for President…

For one, President Obama did directly confront Putin about it and didn't ask him, hey, are you interfering in our election?

I think if it was an active collusion proven, then I think what we have here is a case of passive collusion where in some cases unwittingly to include candidate Trump himself who retweeted messages that had been planted by the Russians in…

I think, frankly, both assertions are absurd. President Obama did a lot -- most notably he directly confronted Putin and very poignantly asked him to stop the interference which is something that our current President hasn't seen fit to do.

The election turned on, listen, 80,000 votes in three states which Russian is targeted. And to me, in fact, I make that assertion in the book. I believe the Russians turned the election in Trump's favor.

I thought it was both stunning and scary. I was amazed at that, and rather disappointed that the attorney general would say such a thing.

The Russians pose a profound threat to this country, and based on the success that they enjoyed as a result of their meddling in the 2016 election, they're going to continue that.