COC Alberto Gonzales

all right and welcome back to calling out controversy here on wbcr 8.3 the saint tonight we have a very special guest with us tonight it's um Alberto Gonzalez the former Attorney General of the United States who is now the dean at brendas law school so um Dean thank you for being with us sure but just a a slight correction I'm the dean at Belmont law school nville oh sorry my my my bad I mixed you up with another person we had coming on later today my apologies there no problem and um so don't you start us off by talking a little bit about yourself just tell us a little about who you are uh I'm a Texan I grew up in Texas and uh I was in private practice about 13 years before going into government service when George W Bush was elected governor of Texas um and uh was a general counsel then became Secretary of State they went on the Texas Supreme Court and then when Bush was elected president of the United States I became the White House Council did that for four years during the president Bush's first term and then I was appointed nominated and confirmed as attorney general and did that for about three years during Bush's second term and presently I'm the Dan Belmont law school in Nashville Tennessee so you're the former Attorney General you're now a Dean at a law school so for those who might not know because everybody kind of sees the attorney general like in the past we've had attorney generals like Bill bar or Eric Holder and people today kind of gotten this convoluted vision of what the attorney general is so coming from somebody like yourself who's been in that position what is the attorney general really well the Attorney General by Statute is charged to provide legal advice for the executive branch and and to prosecute uh investigate and prosecute violations of federal law uh I think that confusion sometimes people have about the position of the Attorney General is that unlike most cabinet of positions the Attorney General wears two hats uh on the one hand the attorney is um the person who is primary responsible for promoting and pushing forth uh the president's law enforcement policies and priorities uh you know the Pres the Attorney General is part of the president's team the Attorney General goes to the cabinet meetings the president United States campaign to the American people on the set of law enforcement policies and it's the the job of the Attorney General to make sure those are carried out now the Attorney General also wears another hand however and that is uh as a chief investigator and prosecutor of the United States with respect to Federal offenses and here is where you want the Attorney General to be totally independent of the White House and totally independent of political considerations and um um you know that's where criticism that arises often times with respect to attorney general is a perception that perhaps someone has put you know their thumb on the scal someone at the White House or the president has put their thumb on the scales and has affected decisions being made at the Department of Justice everyone I think would like to think that the Attorney General is and the Department of Justice is pursuing Justice without regard to any political considerations personal considerations it's all about following the evidence and Prosecuting wrongdoing so that's the role of the Attorney General um you have about 11,000 people that work at the Department of Justice many major very important agencies report up to the attorney general including the FBI DEA Marshal Service all federal prisons are run by the Attorney General you every Federal process when they appear before the in federal court on behalf the United States all of those people work for the Attorney General so another thing that's come up lately over the past few presidencies and espe and even coming out of bush presidency is that people fear the attorney general has become politicized that's kind of become the president's besides their Chief Council the president's top lawyer and some people have grown majorly concerned about that you had Bill bar you had Eric Holder a lot of people kind of accused them of being either president or President Obama's top lawyer like you had um them going after certain cases that the president would have wanted them to but then kind of ignoring other ones um you have some people saying that they Eric Holder for instance didn't go after the IRS or the gun running to Mexico and you have people saying that bill bar kind of this a similar thing with Trump do you see kind of actions like that or do you see it kind of from a different way well all you know there are a lot of a number of considerations that go into which cases to investigate and prosecute you know the department ultimately does have limited resources and beginning with the US attorneys officer in Nashville at every us attorney position and all these agencies like the you know um within the Department of Justice there's always has to be a priority in terms of which cases to investigate and which cases to prosecute and the president for example if he believes it's important to have civil rights prosecutions that'll be conveyed to the attorney general the Attorney General will convey that to the line people within the Department of Justice and and so there will be a priority there that doesn't mean that you ignore everything else but there's a priority there and the Attorney General himself will have his or her own priorities and so um it may appear that perhaps you know there's favoritism uh the fact that something's not investigated but often times it's because there there are uh limitations with respect to um resources for the department but but obviously there is serious concern about the department being politicized and often times it's because of actions and statements made by the department leadership and not by the career folks people need to understand that over 99% of the people that work in the Department of Justice are career individuals Republicans and Democrats often times they don't care who the Attorney General is or who is the president their job is to Simply make sure that Justice is achieved and they go to work every day day in and day out behalf of the American people it's a less than 1% the leadership that often times you know they they make DEC decisions they make pronouncements that sometimes people view as controversial or they question why you know the department is heading a particular direction uh and I I think that's particularly for the Department of Justice it's problematic because again it's it's important in the arena of Investigations and prosecutions that the department be be not viewed as politically motivated or somehow politically affected but simply doing their job without regard to political uh repercussions or outcomes um and one of the primary responsibilities of the Attorney General is to protect the reputation of the institution uh it's important for the institution it's also important for the career individuals that that work there every day um so yes I'm aware of the fact the department has sort of taken a hit I think uh in recent administrations uh based upon decisions and pronouncements by the leadership but um I'd like to think that overall the department is doing its job day in and day out now I kind of have two questions for you I'm going to kind of try try my best to merge into one now in the past we've also had on um another Bush top official during his tenure which was Christy Whitman the former EPA administrator and she kind of had a similar answer to you where it's kind of like the equilization of the EPA for instance because she was the EPA administrator was similar to the attorney generals where it was just coming from the top everybody who worked below was not really as politicized as the people at the top and you kind of also see as you said that like the Attorney General's agenda in some ways is conveyed by the president not fully but in some regards do you also see as the Attorney General being compromised by Congress and the senate or is it just by the view points of the media or public or just how it's conveyed by the president in the low staff numbers and funds um I'm not sure that I understand the question are you're asking whether or not the agenda the work of the department is is some way influenced by Congress is that your question um yeah part of it do you believe that it's been compromised by Congress or you think it's just that it's been able to remain as independent as possible from Congress well of course we talk about different branches of government and there is there has to be a separation uh a divide between um the Department of Justice and Congress obviously you know the Judiciary Committee has oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice and so uh at least um twice a year I would go up to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the same with respect to the house Judiciary Committee and testify about the work of the department and of course Senators would have their own concerns about what they're reading what they're hearing in terms of the department being perhaps politicized Senators will ALS and members of Congress will also have their own uh priorities uh hearing from their own constituents back home in terms of what should you know why is this happening why isn't this being investigated and they and they'll ask the Attorney General about that and often times you know particular our local manner the Attorney General there in the hearing won't have an answer unless they've been prepped for the question in advanced and so you tell the member or the senator you know happy to look at that and and then go back to the department and you'll you'll direct you know someone on your team to to take a look at it and and then we'll file report back with the member of Congress or with the senator so um you know the the the role of the oversight by the Congress is extremely important one of the things that I've learned is that that oversight the ability of both the media and the Congress to check actions of the executive banch is extremely important in our system of government uh otherwise you have a concentration of power which I think is unhealthy I think the framers were very wise in distributing power both horizontally between three branches of federal government and also vertically between the federal and state governments and uh I think that's very very important so yes of course there's department is influenced by what Congress thinks and and one main reason that I haven't spoken about is because the Appropriations you know you congress makes the appropriation so you want to you want to satisfy Congress that that the money that is appropriate is being spent wisely but there is of course um that relationship is important but but clearly there's a divide between the branches of government okay and then there's another question I had for you that was given to me by a couple professors here who I told told about the interview and they had one question for you entirely pretty much is with the increasing power of the presidency especially over the past few terms and as we go into the new Biden Administration coming out the Trump Administration are you worried that especially after the past few presidents that the executive branch is becoming way too powerful well what I worry about yes I I'm surprised um about the failure of Congress to exercise Authority it it had I mean um I I remember when I was White House Council and going up to the hill and meeting with members of congress with senators and explaining what we were things that we might want to try to do or or were doing and them responding back well you can't do that uh we don't want you to do that or that's you know that's um that that's infringes upon the authority of Congress the prerogatives of Congress or or the Senate and so they were very very protective of of their power and and recognizing that there there was three equal branches so yes I do worry about that we have to remember um you know the president United States is the most powerful person in the world it's incredible per that person has incredible power and I think most American citizens would sleep better at night knowing that that power is constrained by the Constitution that there are limits to that power that that power won't be abused for personal political financial gain and I I I worry sometimes that people have lost confidence in the ability uh uh of other branches to check to adequately check the president United States now one thing that I want to caveat to that is you know in times of war and Times of um conflict or threats to our country and to our security we looked at the Executive Branch the framers intended the executive branch to sort of be the commanderin-chief and to deal with na security threats and obviously that that that power is um is checked to some degree by Congress uh but but clearly you know depending on the circumstances there is a shifting of balance between security and Liberty and often times like after we saw in 911 you have a very assertive president United States taking action consistent with with his power under the Constitution and then of course as time and circumstances change then there's much more desire to see you know more protection of Liberties and and there is a questioning more questioning by Congress as to why the executive needs to take certain action so there's always a shift depending on circumstances about the power and the exercise of Power by the executive branch which we've seen from the beginning of this uh this country okay and then when you look into the future of the Attorney General position with everything you just said the next Attorney General is going to be Merrick Garland depending on whether or not he gets confirmed which most likely he will how does the nomination of merri Garland make you feel more comfortable about that or do you still kind of feel the same way that just one nomination won't change anything oh I have confidence that I mean I don't know Meritt Garland I just know him by reputation I I think that his nomination sends it sends um the right signal I think President Biden wanted to reassure everyone that that um uh the Department of Justice is going to be making decisions based upon facts and not based upon who's being who's being investigated and I think for that reason he wanted someone that was totally independent um of the campaign certainly uh of politics which he has been because of the fact that he's been a federal judge for so many years and I think he said that and and he found someone who also not was not not only independent but someone in a previous life has had experience working within the Department of Justice so he's not going to be coming into this you know without any kind of background without any kind of understanding of the how the department works and of course he's going to be surrounded by the best and the brightest and they're there to support him and I you know yes I I believe that he will be confirmed and I think he'll do a good job I really do I think he he will work hard in trying to restore whatever whatever people negative things people may feel about the department presently I I think he work very very hard to reassure them that the department is acting the way that that our framers is intended that people when they created the department I'm not the framers but when when Congress created the Department of Justice they they Envision in my judgment sort of an independent Watchdog independent investigator independent prosecutor uh again with respect to you know specific cases but also understanding that the president United St president United States is entitled to have an attorney general who is part of team and will help the president carry out the president's law enforcement policies and priorities we're here with abto Gonzales on wbcr 8.3 Saint calling out controversy and so I want to kind of move on to now a little bit of your tenure in the chair of the Attorney General you were attorney general for a few years as you said during the Bush Administration one thing that people have kind of gained through um I want I don't really want to say just pop culture but kind of also maybe a little bit of news coverage was that the Bush Administration and Bush presidency and the Attorney General were kind of playing second fiddle to Dick Cheney and his lawyers David Addington in particular and this may come from stuff like the movie Vice and everything it's kind of painted Dick Cheney's full control of the White House and everything um yeah I okay question for people in the audience is that fully true or is that just a bunch of baloney it's a b that's a bunch of baloney you know I obviously in the beginning of the administration I I think it's fair to say that Dick Cheney uh his opinions were were uh were important and uh you know you had someone who had a great deal of experience in Congress experience uh as Secretary of Defense and of course uh you know that first year we were attacked and the 911 attacks happened and so obviously dick chain had influence on a president who was you know had limited experience on the foreign stage But as time passed I think I think it's fair to say that that as President Bush acquired more experience um I think that that influence Wayne quite frankly and the truth of the matter is you know I di Cheney understood that he was vice president he wasn't he's very much institutionalist and he wasn't elected to make these decisions you know he would always be very forceful and expressing his opinions uh and what was always never shy about um telling you that you're wrong um but at the end of the day you know he understood who was going to make the decision and once the the president makes the decision and and it wasn't consistent with with what Dick Cheney recommended he would salute and say yeah you know yes sir let's do it let's go uh so yeah the notion that these decisions were made these major decisions particularly in the war on terror were were made by Dick Cheney or heavily influenced he had he had a say like like we all did we we we all had our say but at the end of the day those the the major decisions as you would want and and might expect they were made by by by President Bush and um one of the things I always admired about Bush was his ability to make decisions you know the presidency is about making decisions one after another after another and you can't imagine how hard the decisions are they're incredibly difficult oftentimes you have to make them with little time and you have to make them sometimes with imperfect information and I always admired the fact that he was willing to make the tough decisions and then you move on why because the next big decision is waiting right outside the opal office door you don't have time to hand ring or wonder whether or not you're making a mistake and be or being concerned about being criticized for whatever decision you make uh I think it's one of the things I really learned about him to Be an Effective uh executive you've got to be willing to make a decision and you've got to be willing to make a decision and you move on yeah because I'm a family friend of mine is a um was a former lawyer for Bush during the 2000 recount and he told me that pretty much that whole entire Viewpoint of the kind of given in pop culture is kind of incredibly false and that I mean yeah Dick Cheney was vice president he'd have a lot of power as vice president but he wasn't he wasn't pulling the strings as everybody tends to think he was no and honestly people who think that or say that I mean it really ins insulting to George W bush uh you know he believe me I mean he he was a decision maker there's no question about it yeah and also um he the same lawyer also told me that pretty much the media portrayal of bush is also completely off well yeah I you'd have to be more specific in terms of what he's portrayed you know I've got very strong view views about about George W bush as a person as a as a chief executive as a leader as a husband even yeah obviously I'm biased uh and so people are GNA you know kind of roll their eyes if I say anything positive about George W bush in those roles but yeah I have a great deal of regard and affection for him in in many areas well the media portrayals that be talking about would be kind of like the ones for example on like SNL with will frell or Frank Kendo where he kind of portrayed as like a toddler almost and you know I I never watched all that uh my sons would finally ended up telling me that I was subject of some ridicule listen that's all that's television that's that's comedy so and you know what Bush would laugh would laugh at something like that I'm sure one of the things that's another thing I always admired about him he had his mother's personality and has his mother's personality and he was always willing to laugh at himself I think that's very important in a leader because you know what you're not perfect you're going to make mistakes and I think I I'm not suggesting that with the it's a serious mistake you make in the white house that you laugh about it what I'm saying is you know just you can't take yourself too seriously all the time otherwise you know I I just think it's not healthy so I always and it eases tension during the very difficult times to have someone like that um it's something that I think that makes made him even more effective quite frankly in those tough times and I and I agree with you so why don't we move on to some of the more um for boting and controversial parts of your tenure attorney general the first of which being um guant o Bay which is closing or pretty much close to closing what is your now looking back to your time as Attorney General on the time that guo bay opened during the Bush Administration do you have a different Viewpoint of it now because many people today kind of view guant Bay as um kind of something that's avoiding the Constitution as a stain as a horrible thing on our reputation abroad do you still have a similar Viewpoint to when it open or has your View kind of evolved on it or changed I don't know you know guantan bay was um established uh in terms of house DET as a Detention Facility I think sometime in 2002 because we were capturing people in Afghanistan and um we had to do something with them and there was a great deal debate within the n security Council about well what should we do we thought about bringing everyone back into the United States but but we quickly discarded that idea because we had just been attacked and we felt the American people would not tolerate us bringing terrorist into within our borders so that was gone we thought about U well what about build putting them in a facility in Afghanistan as are being captured we we didn't feel we could there was a facility there nor could we build a facility in time that would be secure enough there will always be a danger about the security of the guards but also the security of um the and security of the um of the inmat so that was gone we thought about perhaps maybe in an adjoining country that was quickly discarded as well we even thought about maybe putting on the floating Battleship you know just have a battleship car just floating around and and felt no that's not a good idea and then finally we decided on guano Bay the the nasr council decided on that and made the recommendation to President Bush and he accepted as the best of a bunch of bad a bad uh you know utions and the the goal there was just was simply detain people and and to question them and he made the decision that they would not be entitled to Geneva Convention protections as a prisoner of war because they had not fought consistent with the Geneva Convention uh there they were they were enemy combatants is their designation if they' had been designated as prisoners of War we couldn't question them at all and the sign's name rank serial number of Social Security and so obviously in a war on terror information is very valuable currency and our ability to question to ask even the simplest question to bribe them by giving them a Twinkie that would be prohibited in the Geneva conventions and so we just felt it wasn't appropriate to to provide that kind of um that kind of protection and um and so part of the reason for Guantanamo was to detain people we had captured because we couldn't kill them once you they surrender they're captured it's against the laws of war to kill them and of course it's inhumane and we would never do that but the other reason to for guantan was to have a place where we could gather information that would be helpful in successfully Prosecuting the war on terror and over time of course it became controversial uh listen President Bush wanted to close Guantanamo he did shortly you know within a year or two I think it's fair to say he wanted to close Guantanamo but we could never give him an adequate alternative that would ensure the security of the United States yeah you remember that President Obama his first day in office I believe was certainly in the early days talked about one of my first priorities of closing monano it never happened why because no one could give him a good alternative uh guanto existed because it was necessary it existed because it was also lawful and so I you know this notion also that Guantanamo helped recruit more uh terrorists you know than anything else we did did it's just false Listen People hated the United States Al-Qaeda hated the United States before Guantanamo you have to remember that World Trade Center bombings the bombings in Africa and of course the attack on 911 they hated us and and you know Guantanamo did not increase that hate I don't think it contributed at all to any kind of animosity toward the United States and and you know I I I regret that people may have a conception of Guantanamo uh but so those are the facts as I remember them you also have the attack on the USS Cole but going into as you said that you think or you believe that guanto bay did not Recruit new terrorists I kind of have two questions going off this B ask the first one is that some people refer to institutions that the United States had in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan like Abu gray for instance which has become not notorious or inFAMOUS for other reasons had has kind of become looking back as they like to refer to as a Jihadi University that the jihadist in there kind of networked with each other and this is where possibly where Al baghdadi and Al zakari came out with the um for um foregoing plans of Isis or what would become Isis do you see any in issues with those or is it kind of just like you kind of see those as kind of like it just happened and even if we didn't have Abu grabe or other Institution it would have happened anyway I obviously this is just pure speculation I I think it would have happened anyway because there there there were groups and there individuals that that simply hate the United States and hate our values and hate what we stand for so I think it would have happened you know Abu greb is another instance of I think there's just a huge misconception uh about what happened there you know um the treatment by these guards particular group of guards on a night shift in a particular cell block uh that was unique a very unique circumstance not for the purpose of gathering intelligence people think we you know this was about enhanc interrogation techniques on a group with a group of um of inmates no these people were just Knuckleheads these guards were just Knuckleheads this is all for fun for their own pleasure it never should have happened everyone people were held accountable for it but nonetheless you know it a it stained the Bush Administration I remember the morning that the news was going to break Jim uh Jim hayes The General Counsel at DOD called me to tell me what was happening we knew immediately what this would do to the Bush Administration the perception of the Bush Administration what it would do to our efforts to interrogate individuals around the world the notion that you know we mistreat people intentionally this is part of a plan but again this was a group of individuals who were doing what they shouldn't be doing and you know it was U very regrettable and I think it made it more difficult to carry out the war on terror and you know I wish it hadn't happened but the notion that it it was in any way authorized or condoned by the Bush Administration is just absolutely false and we're here with Dean Alberto Gonzalez um wbcr 8.3 s calling out controversy I have one more question on this topic and then we're gonna move on to the next one and one thing that keeps on coming up when talking about Guantanamo or these sites is the Hanes memo and using the terminology enhanced interrogation vers versus torture when talking about stuff like water boarding or other such methods what was the reasoning behind using wording such as enhanced interrogation versus what many would call torture well you have to remember that torture is against the law and we have to be precise in talking about techniques because it certain te certain actions are in fact un lawful and if you're going to prosecute someone for engaging unlawful conduct you know that conduct has to be clearly defined and whether we like it or not you know the torture statute is pretty vague and you can have conduct that is inhumane degrading and it not be const to torture and and and we get that from from memos uh that the United States submitted in connection with our adoption of the convention Against torture because for other countries their definition of torture we the United States back in the rean administration believe was just too broad and so we we took an understanding and a reservation when the treaty was adopted to make it clear that only conduct that shocks the conscience depending on the circumstance would constitute torture everything else we may not like it if we want to if we want it to Outlaw it we can do that but but everything else cruel and Humane to dein treatment would not constitute torture and you know the Department of Justice issued a series of of memos trying to Define give you know give guidance to the people particularly at the CIA but also at DOD in terms of the times of the types of actions that they could engage in in order to get information again some people describe it as well you wanted to give them a road mapap in terms of engaging in torture no what we wanted to do is to give them restrictions on what was allowed within the box and if they perform within the box as outlined in the legal opinion they would not be prosecuted for torture people may disagree about where the lawyers drew the Box the lawyers being the lawyers primarily at the Department of Justice you know many of these um I'm often this may sound like a self-serving statement but I'm often tagged with the person responsible for you know many of um the controversial decisions on the war on terror made during the Bush Administration they were all made during the time I was in the White House they were made by the department of justice under John Ashcraft now I was involved in discussions and decisions but at the end of the day the Department of Justice the attorney general has the final word on what is legal and what is not legal and you know and the reason for that is because they're charged by Statute to do that and because when it's challenging the courts who's going to have to defendant the Department of Justice and so uh you know these are all interrogations guantan surveillance all of these things began when I was in the White House Began with with the the approval the support of the Department of Justice saying yes if you do these activities a certain way they would be lawful if you go outside this box they're unlawful and you will be prosecuted it was very important I can't the number of times when I would have conversations with President Bush and he would he would he would look at me and say let's just make sure that what we're doing is lawful when we talked about interrogations he says we don't do torture and so you know one of the regets that I have is noce this idea that President Bush condone torture far from it he was very clear with me that we would the United States is not engage in torture and the problem we have of course is that people have different definitions of torture and torture is a crime and there are elements of that crime and if those elements aren't met then you haven't engage in torture and you won't be prosecuted and that's what that's what all that's about okay I want to move on to another topic which is government surveillence which is something that came up a lot during the presidency of George W bush and also Obama now Trump and many people didn't become aware of it until Edward Snowden and so so one question I want to start off with is do you believe Edward snow is a hero or a traitor I think you well I'm not I'm not prepared to call him either one what I'm would say is he's a criminal he violated the law and so when you C you violate the law that's not fair he has you know you're a criminal when you're when you're prosecuted and and you know convicted and so um uh but I I view him as someone who who violated the law okay cuz I I remember I've heard some people when the question comes up it kind of more or less depends on what their political views are because I went to a conference when I was in high school and we had a Homeland Security um agent come in he called Edward Snowden a giant coward and so it also kind of goes into I guess yeah everything that goes into your worldview and how you view about it because like right now I have my cell phone right in front of me many people believe or have fears that their cell phones are being recorded or listened to and that every single phone call or text message they make is being recorded by the government well it I think it's totally true your views about what he did I I think that are colored by sort of your worldview or the role of of of government and your suspicion of government the truth of the matter is a couple points I'd like to make you know people are worried about what the government knows about you but you know people like Google Amazon they they know so much more about you they know you know what you like to eat where you like to shop things kind of entertainment you like I mean it's all out there so the notion about privacy now clearly there's a difference and and the Constitution only applies with respect to what the government does the protection of privacy so you know uh you know I get that with respect to the surveillance let me just say that um as I said earlier knowledge and information is very very important currency and fighting the war on terror and and we realize I remember the meeting which George Shinn the CIA director told the president that you know we have these tools and yet but we but it's unclear whether or not we have the authorities to engage in surveillance and um and so again looking to the Department of Justice uh was there a way to do this that would be lawful and we were giving leg legal opinions by the Department of Justice that it could be done in a way that was lawful and we began sort of a secret surveillance program let me just reassure your your listeners that um that um program was approved by the attorney general in the Department of Justice the chief judge of the fisa Court was aware of what we were doing because we were presenting information in fisa applications that he had questions about well where are you getting this information so he knew what we were doing we brief the leadership in congress about what we were doing they knew about this program so all three branches of government knew what we were doing and and and it was a very important program and was very helpful in terms of gathering information I think and I think we've had people testify in fact I know we've had people testify in Congress under oath that the program the information gathered from the program was helpful in Saving American lives and preventing additional attacks against the United States so that that's sort of my introduction about about this topic okay and when you say that like Google and Amazon know more about us than the government does many people for some reason treat their phones or Google or something like it's their best friend that they can trust them with any information when in reality they send all information for ads and everything everybody has the has stories about talking about something and for three or four days after it they get keep on getting ads like I can say like oh I need to get new tires for my car and for the next week or two I'm getting bombarded with ads about tires so I mean everybody everybody has stories about that I mean you even chuckled when I said it and so it's something that it's weird I mean I remember watching a documentary in Amazon's one of Amazon's Executives said that whenever he's having a personal convers ation with somebody that's very uh something personal he always unplugs his Alexa or he always talk about how Mark Zuckerberg covers his computer camera with a Band-Aid and it's yeah it's kind of weird to think about it that way well I have I have something over my computer camera and I don't have Alex for that very reason I I'm I'm you know but it's not so much the government it's it's much more you know these private companies there's no question that today that technology and that the governments have and private companies have to gather up information synthesize this information coate this information is incredible and one of the questions I teach a nashar law class and one of the questions I ask is do you really think you have privacy today what does that look like today what does that mean today and for most people uh a younger generation we're talking about privacy against the government but you know they don't understand or they don't care you're right you know there's so much information out there the ability to gather up information and develop a footprint you know of an individual uh is there and and so that that's a little bit frightening I so I'm I'm I try to be careful about you know how I communicate I'm the same way um but I want to reassure your listeners that uh you know the government cannot the government is prohibited from listening in on conversations and unless they have a warrant uh and um so I mean that's the way it should be quite frankly there're ought to be limits on on the ability of the government to surveil individuals and and learn information about individuals so I'd like to think that that that continuing it today I'm sure it is and it's interesting to think about especially because with the current pandemic I mean I'm a grad student right now I'm getting my MBA and a lot of people who are students right now have to use Zoom or other um web services like Skype and for those you have to have your computer going and you have to have the little camera on so you can't really cover it up and it's portion because I remember I talked to one student before all this and I asked her like oh you have your camera covered up and she was like oh yeah because they're always watching you I was like oh okay and but now you have to have it if you're a student especially or even working in an office place you have to have it uncovered because then you can't get any work done because now they even require to have your camera on so I mean it's kind of something where is privacy more at stake now due to the pandemic or is it just the same as it always was well I mean I I I think there are more opportunities of course uh to gather up information today if if you have your camera on or microphone on somewh you're communicating on your cell phone there's no question about it but I I don't think I'd like to think that's not permanent and I I still today people have choices and they just have to be smart about how they communicate quite frankly and um I just think that I think most people simply forget don't care um don't view it as a serious issue um I think if you question them about protection of their privacy they would tell yeah I I want my privacy protected and yet their practice is inconsistent with that statement and I you know I just think people need to to really appreciate how easy it is now to to get information about an individual and if they don't like that I mean there are things that can be done although in an interconnected world that we live in today it's it's becoming much more difficult now we're coming close to the end we got less than a little bit less than 10 minutes so I got at most three questions left for you the first one being you said that basically in your class that you teach that you as the question is privacy possible today especially with how interconnected the world is what is your answer to that question do you believe privacy is still something that's possible or you think that now with how interconnected the world is that it's kind of something that's going to become a historical artifact I think it's um it's if not impossible very very difficult with respect to private private actors privacy is still Pro possible and necessary until we change the Constitution and our laws Visa the government I I think we should continue to insist on on privacy and that the reach of the government should be limited by you know the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress and it should require a third party actor like a like a judge issuing a warrant except in exed circumstances or times in nation security but I I I I I do believe it's it's possible and I I do believe that with respect to the government it's absolutely necessary that we have checks on the government all right and then the final two questions I have for you are one being what was your favorite thing about being a public servant or being attorney general and the second one being is there anything that you want to get off your chest or say before we end this interview well the the you know I'm I miss um the action when I left government service I had dinner I think one or two nights afterwards and with Hank Paulson that um at the time treasury secretary and we were chatting and he said you know Al he says you'll never have a job and rewarding as challenging as the job he just had and it's true I mean uh to be the Attorney General United States a cabinet secretary I mean it just doesn't get any better than that although I must say that I'm often asked if everything you ever done which did you enjoy the most probably being White House counsel because it wasn't as stressful and also if you're an American citizen and being able to work go to work every day at the White House it just doesn't get any better than that so um you know I really I really enjoyed both positions very very much but it it's the ability to make a difference and I think we're all giving god-given talents um to make a positive difference in the lives of others and I'd like to think that I did that was my service perfect no one's service is ever perfect but I I know that I did the very best I could and I'm I'm grateful and I'm most proud of the role that I played however small in making sure our country was protected uh working with President Bush and trying to keep our country um and our fellow citizens protected that's what I'm most proud of and your last question was what again if there's anything that you want to say during this interview that you haven't gotten a chance to say like you want to say but you haven't got a chance to say because either I haven't asked a question about it you know I I would say is uh be mind you know it's easy to crit to be critical of our public officials uh to Second guest our public officials and just remember that oftentimes they make decisions based on information that we don't have I'm asked all the time about Decisions by Bill bar and and my other my successors uh and sometimes I I I have questions about decisions or pronouncements but then I always remind my audience and myself I don't know what they don't know they have information I will I may never know and so if I had the same information perhaps I would make the same statement or make the same decision so just be mindful be be be respectful the other thing is you know you go into public service I I say go in with your eyes on your eyes open and your armor on it's hard it shouldn't be this hard but it is you get criticized for for what you do even if it's right but I I would do it again in a second now my wife probably wouldn't let me do it but I would because it's so rewarding it's so much fun it's why I became a lawyer is to make a difference and so you have a lifetime to make money and if you have the opportunity to serve others find a way to do that because I I guarantee you it'll make you it'll make you better in your profession but it also will make you a better person all right so Dean Alberto Gonzalez thank you for being with us this has been wbcr 88.3 say and call and calling out controversy so thank you and uh we very appreciate you coming on thanks for having me thank you