All in all, it was a fine day for the majority. Henry Hyde lived up to billing, a good-natured and dignified presence. When he joked with the young committee clerk after he messed up a vote count— "See me after class"— it captured perfectly his gentle school-master manner. Also deserving credit is Tom Mooney, the committee staff director who is a longtime Hill veteran and rose to what must be the highest-pressure occasion of his career. Republican members were well-briefed and prepared, in contrast to other scandal hearings in recent years. Another factor working in the majority's favor was the sheer majesty of the proceedings, which reinforced the seriousness of the matter and helped keep things from deteriorating into the partisan slugfest Democrats would have preferred.

Yes, the vote was along party lines, but it is the nature of the expectations game that this had already been discounted. Now the game moves to the full House. House Democrats are privately saying that as many as 80 Democrats will vote for an inquiry Thursday or Friday. This is almost certainly an attempt to place the bi-partisan bar unrealistically high. A more realistic Democratic vote count is around 30. And that's enough to give a bi-partisan imprimatur to the continued work of Hyde, Schippers, and the rest of the Judiciary Committee.

The Briefing on Schippers
We don't want to be guilty of a David Schippers lovefest, but here it goes.

In a jam-packed briefing with the Washington media today, Schippers explained his approach to reviewing Ken Starr's referral, and again demonstrated that Starr's work is in able hands. Schippers, 68, has about 40 years of experience as a prosecutors and it shows. Challenged at one point by redoubtable Greta van Sustren when she misstated a legal point, he handled her with ease (Roger Cossack take note).

Schippers' answers to dozens of questions were confident and straightforward, with so little spin he appeared motionless in contrast to veteran Capitol Hill staff lawyers. Here are some of the highlights:

--Schippers emphasized the independent judgment he was asked to bring to the IC's evidence. He said that he shared an early draft of yesterday's presentation with Chairman Hyde for the purpose of confirming that it was organized in a suitable manner---but his findings were entirely his own.

--Reporters wanted to know why 15 alleged charges by Schippers, when Ken Starr's referral included only 11? Nina Totenberg asked if he weren't slicing the evidence like "bologna" to make as many counts as possible. Schippers explained that he took a fresh look at Starr's material and found 15 different possible crimes under federal law. He believes that he and his staff "could have been harsher" with respect to what Starr's evidence revealed, but they took "the straight down the middle approach."

--Some questions revealed the press' deep suspicion about the conspiracy charge that Schippers added to Starr's allegations. Schippers explained that he reviewed all the evidence in light of criminal statutes, and highlighted behavior that suggested possible criminal offenses--like consipiracy. He noted that the significance of a conspiracy charge is that if the charge is proved, a statement made by one conspirator is admissible against another conspirator. So, Monica Lewinsky's clear suborning of perjury with Linda Tripp could be laid at the feet of Bill Clinton.

--What about Ken Starr's count number eleven, the abuse of power charge? Schippers found the charge "fully documented" by Starr, but thinks it should be looked at during the inquiry.

--When asked whether he believed that Monica Lewinsky's statement that "no one had asked her to lie" was exculpatory, he replied that in his experience the no-one-asked-me statement is a "term of art." He told the media that he had former clients sitting in jail insisting that "no one told them to lie"---but someone had told them what to say.

--Given the evidence he reviewed, Schippers said that if he were a federal prosecutor, he would "take it to the next step" and investigate possible crimes. What about the Starr's report being "one-sided" because there has been no cross-examination of witnesses? "Defendants don't cross-examine during an investigation," he explained.

--Although Schippers repeatedly explained that it's not his job to define what is an impeachable offense, in response to a question about whether or not the President's conduct was "private," he asked, "If lies about sex are O.K., where do you draw the line?"

--Finally, Schippers declared that Ken Starr's office had done "a magnificent job of investigation." Word is that, so far, the admiration is mutual.