let s get to the few minutes i have left the questions of investigation. this is also something you ve written about, spoken about and related to this issue, i think. back in georgetown, on a panel in 1998, you said and i quote it makes no sense at all to have an independent counsel investigate the conduct of the president. if the president were the sole subject of a criminal investigation, i say no one should be investigating that. is that still your view, that if there s credible evidence that a president committed crimes, no one should investigate it? that s not what i said, senator. two things on that. one, the independent counsel you re referring to there is just important because people forget this, is distinct from the special counsel system. it s very important. i specifically in that georgetown law journal approved of the traditional special counsel system. the traditional special counsel system has a special counsel that can be fired at
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