criticized your minority in the face of morrison. again, we re talking about independent agencies, so the traditional independent agencies on the one hand and the old independent council that is long gone on the other. the independent counsel regime, this committee and the congress as a whole decided was a serious mistake. senator durbins words, unrestrained, unaccountable, unconstitutional what i m concerned about, judge, is not so much whether there s members of this committee or other justices that viewed the independent counsel statues as a serious mistake but whether you view morrison v. olson and the holding there s. in morrison v. olson as you know, the court upheld a restriction on the president s power to fire the independent counsel. by a vote of 7 to 1. it s an opinion written by your
i would put the final nail in, let me go back to that question. would you vote to overturn morrison? senator, i m not going to say more than what i said before. i think what you said before is clear. i think your enthusiasm for overturning morrison is unmistakable. [protesters in the background]. i want to repeat two things, senator that are important. humphries is the precedent that stands on independent agencies generally. two is the special counsel system both in the phh decision recently and in the old georgetown law journal article, i specifically said that that is the traditional way that criminal investigations proceed
independent counsel statute and the independent counsel statute doesn t exist anymore, that s why justice kagan felt free to comment about morrison as well. what i ve said repeated times here, on investigation and indictment of a sitting president, i have never taken a position on it and number,2 it s important to underscore the justice department for 45 years, this is the justice department, not me, the justice department for 45 years has taken the position in written opinions that a sitting president may not be indicted while in office but it has to be deferred, not immunity. and randy moss, head of president clinton s legal counsel, wrote an opinion on that. he s a president obama appointed judge in d.c. i m not saying i agree with that or disagree with that. i m saying that s the view for 45 years. so before a case like this would
special counsels, which i have distinguished multiple times over the years. so i m just concerned that i m having difficulty getting what i think is a clear and decisive answer from you on a number of things. would you overturn morrison, what is your view of executive theory. is it appropriate for a president to fire a special counsel investigating him. i m just going to come back to a decision that you rendered this year, this phh decision. i urge folks that are having any interest in this or trouble following it to read your decision in this case. because you lay out you embrace this theory of the executive that the executive has all the power of the executive branch, which is directly relevant to the question whether a special prosecutor should be fired at will be i the president or could be protected from being fired by the whims of the
took my lead from her comment. i cited her comment many times in speeches i have given. that statute is real important to be clear here and you know this so everybody understands, that statute hasn t existed still good law, is it not? the holding by the supreme court in morrison v. olson even though the independent statute has passed into history, morrison v. olson is still good law? your own circuit said so this year? i think the humphries executor that s yes or no. the d.c. circuit held this year where you wrote a dis-september that morrison v. olson is still good law, correct? i think they were a playing humphreys or they said and i quote morrison is binding and valid how it applied humphries