Top 47 Quotes & Sayings by Alberto Gonzales

I have fully cooperated with the investigation and before the grand jury, and I'm quite confident at the end of the day that we'll know what facts are in this particular case.

I want to be clear. No company is too big to be prosecuted. We have zero tolerance for corporate fraud, but we also recognize the importance of avoiding collateral consequences whenever possible.

I guess I would use my son's word: cool. It was cool to work in the White House.

This is a very highly charged investigation. People are very interested in this, and we've got a prosecutor, a very well respected prosecutor who's been looking at this issue, this investigation for a long time.

I will be the first to admit I am not perfect and I make mistakes.

I'll leave it to others to try to determine whether or not that was unfair or not. I'm not the nominee.

I think what we ought to be focusing on is that we are on path for the release of 75,000 pages of documents in connection with John Roberts' work in the White House, as in the counselor's office and as his time working as an assistant in the office of the attorney general.

I'm, you know, having begun my public service in state government. I very much respect the authority of states to make the decisions to provide for its citizen - the safety and welfare of its citizens.

I feel very confident that that information should be sufficient for the members of the Senate to make an informed decision about John Roberts' qualifications.

We respect the role of the Senate. We respect the authority of the Senate to look at the qualifications of Judge Roberts, and at the end of the day I'm optimistic that if given a fair hearing and a fair opportunity, that he will be confirmed.

You do the best you can, looking at precedent, in trying to anticipate where the Supreme Court is going to draw the balance between the protection of civil liberties and protecting the national security, and in some cases, we guessed wrong.

In this job, you're going to make decisions. You'll say things that some people are going to love them, some people are going to hate them. It's just part of the job.

Our hearts and prayers go out to the people in London and in Egypt. We're very concerned about it. We are providing our expertise to aid in the investigation in London.

I respect very much the role of the media in our society; I think they can be very, very helpful. They serve as a very useful check, sort of a watchdog over the actions of the government, and I respect that.

The Department of Justice is a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

Ever since we've had electronic communications, and particularly during a time of war, presidents have authorized the electronic surveillance of the enemy.

Well, first of all, let me say that - let me remind your viewers that I am recused from this investigation, and what I said this weekend is not anything new.

There are, for example, exemptions in FOIA in which the government can withhold certain kinds of information, and the courts have recognized that there is certain documentation that do deserve protection, that certain privileges do apply and do deserve protection.

Jim, I'm not aware of any formal requests from the Senate Judiciary Committee for these kinds of documents.

Well, there is an attorney-client privilege here that needs to be respected, and it's a privilege that has been found to be worthy of protection by our courts.

Michael Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security, they have the primary responsibility of ensuring that our ports are secure.

We're talking about the lawyers for the United States of America. And I think it's very, very important that the lawyers be comfortable being very candid and open about their views on very sensitive issues affecting the United States.

But the Congress has made the determination that certain kinds of information can be protected even though the American people may want to have access to information.

In order to win the war on terrorism, we have to win the war of information. Information is so very, very valuable. This is an important tool in gathering up information.

I really enjoyed my time in state government. I thought we made a difference. I liked being a part of that effort. I had a different experience in Washington.

At the end of the day, you realize that this is important stuff, but it isn't as important as how my kids feel about me. That's how I'm going to measure my success - not how I did as counsel to the president or as attorney general. How did I do as a dad?

I respect very much the role of the media in our society; I think they can be very, very helpful. They serve as a very useful check, sort of a watchdog over the actions of the government, and I respect that. But there is a competing interest, and that is the ability of prosecutors to get information that may be absolutely essential to assist them in the investigation of illegal wrongdoing. And so you've got these two competing interests. I believe that the current policy at the Department of Justice reflects a careful balancing of those interests.

The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.

Listen I don't expect an apology from men like Chuck Schumer, and I would put him and other individuals who were attacking me at the top of the list contributing to the low, low public perception of Congress, the integrity of Congress quite frankly.

In the job of a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, you're going to make decisions. You'll say things that some people are going to love them, some people are going to hate them. It's just part of the job. And so I respect the right of individuals to have strongly held opinions and to express those opinions in our country.

The FBI director's probably spent a great deal of pressure to go either way - you know, to have said something, to not have said something. And, you know, he made the decision this was the right way to go. You know, I'm not going to second guess him without knowing all the information related to the investigation.

Sometimes you may make an announcement about an investigation and then you turn out not to do anything about it, but nonetheless it adversely affects someone's life.

Meth is a national problem to the extent that it's not limited to one state; it's not limited to one region of the country. As to whether or not it requires a national solution, I'm not sure we're there yet, but that's something that's certainly being debated on the Hill; it's certainly something that we're discussing within the administration and that will continue.

Am I worried about additional attacks in this country? Of course I'm worried about it. We expect the American people to go on living their lives as normally as possible. But it is a post-9/11 world, and the United States government is doing everything we can do to ensure that another terrorist attack does not occur here in this country.

I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror.

America is my home - I believe in her promise and I will do what I can to secure that promise for future generations of our children. America is great - not because of our military might or our economic strength - but because of the greatness of Americans, and I welcome the opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder, side by side with all of you to preserve our heritage rich in "liberty and justice for all."

We haven't seen a situation where you have the FBI director talk about an investigation side by side with the attorney general who confirms, yes, I accept the recommendation of the FBI director.

We do have certain protocols in place with respect to doing the investigation by the FBI. And then prosecutors at the Department of Justice are the ones who ultimately make the decision as to whether or not to move forward with prosecution of a crime.

We really haven't seen much of the attorney general or people from the Department of Justice. So it's very consistent with the way this investigation has been handled, and that is that the decisions have been made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I think that, you know, state and local governments play a critical role in the protection of this country and the protection of certain systems like our mass transit system. And we share information daily with our state and local officials. I think it's one of the reasons that we are safer today and I have every confidence that, in developing its policies, that the New York transit authorities have considered the legal considerations they should be considering in making these kinds of decisions and in formulating this policy.

I have lived the American dream. Even my worst days as attorney general have been better than my father's best days.

In my judgement, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.

Access to information and freedom of access to it may seem like a fundamental right but there are many people who think, rightly or wrongly, it is for your own good that it is hidden.

There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away.

Let me just say that anything that I say about what's going on at Justice is pure speculation. Obviously, you know, I'm just going based on my experience as the attorney general, but, yeah, surprised because typically you don't talk about investigations. And it kind of surprised me that that letter went out, and I suppose that the reason for it is because we're in the middle of a presidential campaign. But nonetheless, I think it would be contrary to typical protocol.

I understand we have, you know, a very unique situation, a very volatile election, two very high-profile candidates. You want to be very careful about what you do. But, you know, my sense is always - this is with respect to any decision maker - and that is you have procedures in place, when you follow those procedures, you're more likely to get the right outcome and you're less likely to be second guessed simply because you have the procedures and you take away the argument that there are politics involved if you follow the procedures.

We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected Judiciary inferior to Congress or the President in making policy judgments. That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.