Leaks have been around for a long time and presidents complaining about leaks have been around for a long time, including the president that I worked for.

One of the issues is, who authorized General Flynn to have these conversations with the Russian ambassador?

Well, Anderson, in my experience, generally, if there are innocent answers, they come forward pretty quickly. If they're not innocent answers, they don't come forward pretty quickly.

It is consequential that the person who helped lead that organization is now one of the -- or maybe the principal Foreign Policy adviser, National Security adviser to the President of the United States.

I think it's such a dangerous position to take because these are professionals -- most of these people I would guess all of these people are people who are career professionals within the State Department.

You want those decisions to be made purely on the basis of National Security.

I cannot imagine meetings, principals' meetings where you don't want to hear from the director of National Intelligence as you're making decisions about the National Security of the country.

You cannot do that. That is a bad idea.

There is a certain obligation on the part of the press secretary and the administration when they stand in front of a podium and they are talking not just to reporters but the American people to tell the truth.

If reporters can't trust the information that they're getting from the press secretary, if they don't feel like they're getting real, honest, true facts, then it makes it much harder for them, moving forward, to do their jobs.

It's not anti-Trump.

This is our rite of passage in our democracy and it's a distinguishing feature of our democracy.

All politics is local and the Mexican President Nieto suffered greatly for that meeting with Trump down in Mexico because he didn't challenge him on the wall.

I think he's deeply concerned about democracy. And when he thinks that there are fundamental Democratic principles at stake, that go to discrimination, free press, and so on, he's going to speak out.

You know he said, in his farewell address, that he urged young people to hitch themselves to something larger than themselves.

I think the interviews with the nominees were substantive discussions of issues.

The fact is the debate is much different now because of what Barack Obama did.

It is a moment that calls for humility if you're the president because you did not win the popular vote.

It strikes me, George Washington made the first farewell address and his message was that our greatest enemy is division, is disunity.

I think it's a dangerous thing. I personally understand that sentiment, and I think on matters of principle Democrats have to fight this administration.

I think it's important to as we interpret the meaning of this location to recognize that he not only became the president-elect in Grant Park, but his career began on the South Side, a few miles south of here, as a community organizer…

The party also has to offer something different. I think part of the problem that the Clinton campaign faced, when she had many, many ideas, but it didn't add up to anything that people could digest or feel was real.

The Democratic Party has to respond to the real problems of real people, with real solutions. It's not enough to be anti-Trump.

There was an assumption for example in Michigan that she was well ahead.

I mean just in the last couple of weeks President Obama has imposed sanctions on Russia, kicked out some of their diplomats, letting U.N. resolution condemning Israel settlement, buildings past.