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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.