John Yoo writes for National Review Online, September 11, 2014

Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. … This power should  allow the president to attack countries and terrorist groups to prevent them from harming the U.S., even if not with an imminent attack.

John Yoo quoted in Daily Journal, (registration required), August 26, 2014

“I am not sure why a single judge—no matter what his position in the Judicial Conference—can speak on behalf of the entire judiciary on a matter of the constitutionality of a bill.”

John Yoo quoted in San Francisco Chronicle, August 11, 2014

“You have a president who basically has tried to reverse the major elements of the Bush policies, not just on terrorism, but on foreign policy. Under which administration is America’s situation better off?”

John Yoo interviewed on WSJ Live, Opinion Journal, June 26, 2014

“I think it’s a rebuke to President Obama, but, at the same time, this decision plays the delicate task of trying to preserve presidential power for the next president. It still says that the president has this power to appoint lower executive branch officials during recess, but that President Obama stretched the power too far, even too far for all nine members of the Supreme Court.”

John Yoo writes for National Review and cited in The Washington Post, March 25, 2014

“Senator Paul is drunk on the publicity of pulling a stunt like speaking in Berkeley as a libertarian Republican. He’s getting a lot of praise for venturing into the lion’s den (as it were). . . . Paul was clever to raise the single issue on which his extreme libertarian views would find a sympathetic reception from a young crowd who were about anywhere from five to eight years old at the time of the 9/11 attacks and believe they have more to fear from the NSA wiretapping their smartphones (for what possible purpose?) than another terrorist attack.”

John Yoo interviewed on Fox News, February 22, 2014
“It’s a natural outgrowth of the policies that the Attorney General and the Obama Administration are pursuing by trying to use the civilian domestic criminal justice system to try terrorists and pirates.”

Laurent Mayali and John Yoo quoted in the Daily Journal, February 20, 2014 (registration required)
-Berkeley Law professor Laurent Mayali, one of the center’s co-directors, said the prime minister’s involvement, along with the high number of Berkeley alumni in the Korean legal system, will allow for a two-way conversation between the two communities. “It’s really a joint enterprise,” he said.

-Yoo, the other co-director, said the former prime minister was already providing guidance during his first visit to the center, speaking at an internal conference the university held on territorial disputes between China, Japan and Korea. “Obviously, having somebody who’s in the room who’s been a part of the head of the government, giving the perspective of Korea, to understand the problem, the facts, and so on—for us it’s invaluable,” Yoo said.

John Yoo cited in Naver, February 19, 2014
The former prime minister Kim Hwang-Sik (photo) and Professor John Yoo describing the plans for the UC Berkeley Korea Law Center in the former prime minister’s office at Berkeley School of Law.

John Yoo quoted in Los Angeles Times, December 28, 2013
John Yoo … said Pauley had followed the Supreme Court’s previous rulings about what sorts of information the Fourth Amendment protects. By contrast, “Judge Leon tried to escape” what the high court had previously ruled, Yoo said in an email. “It is up to the Supreme Court, not a trial judge, to decide whether to overrule” its previous case, he said. “The conflicting decisions,” he added, “seem guaranteed to send the issue to the Supreme Court for the last word” unless the D.C. Circuit overrules Leon’s decision.

John Yoo interviewed by Wall Street Journal Online, December 17, 2013

“We are quite accustomed to companies and government being able to analyze and sort through all of that information without us thinking it has some kind of Fourth Amendment constitutional protection.”