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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?