We have some commentary now. We go to National Journal and Newsweek columnist Stuart Taylor and author/journalist Elizabeth Drew for some commentary on what happened this morning and how –what Mr. Starr said and how he said it. The NewsHour’s chief Washington correspondent, Margaret Warner, is also here.

Okay, Elizabeth, how did he do?

ELIZABETH DREW: Well, I think he made the strongest possible case, which is what he went there to do, for impeachment of the president. I still think there’s a question statutorily whether that is his proper role. And in doing so, he did what prosecutors do – you bring in everything you can, and you give it the worst possible inference. I noticed a number of times, for instance, he said, "the evidence suggests." This is inferential material and circumstantial. And when you get all – in some cases he was just a little bit cute. For instance, just quickly, in talking about the job search, he said, that began after the Supreme Court ruling in the Jones case in May of ’97. Well, a lot of things happened after that. And then he says it intensified in December. But we know from the tapes, the famous tapes, that the job –

JIM LEHRER: This is the Linda Tripp tapes of Monica Lewinsky.

ELIZABETH DREW: Right. That the job search in which Lewinsky was egged on by Linda Tripp really began in October. So it’s this kind of thing – he’s making the prosecutorial case. He brings in Whitewater, even though he had to say he found no grounds for referral, therefore, impeachable offense. So when you get all done, the question still remains even if the worst possible inferences are all true, giving that, is this grounds for impeachment and removal of the president for office? He talked an awful lot of about his reverence for the law, but as we all know, this is a legal political decision that the Congress will make.

JIM LEHRER: Stuart, how do you see it?

STUART TAYLOR: I think I’d probably give him a somewhat higher grade than that. I think – in fact, I’d say, if I could put in college terms, he had a solid "A" going, and towards the end it may have slipped to "A minus."

JIM LEHRER: When he went into his bio there at the end?

STUART TAYLOR: Yes. I agree with that – that if you step back I’m not sure that the law is designed to put an independent counsel in this prosecutorial a role in an impeachment proceeding. But that bridge was crossed a while ago. Given that he’s playing that role, I thought he gave a very lucid summation of the evidence and a sort of rebuttal to the idea that sound bite – it’s all just lying about sex. And I will be very surprised if you hear any of the Democrats or the president’s lawyers knocking any big holes in his summation of the evidence. I didn’t hear him being cute in my opinion, or leaving important things out. He did draw some inferences that could be debated on things like gifts and so forth. I thought he – and I think the Whitewater stuff – I mean, Democrats have been screaming for a long time whatever happened to Whitewater, why are we just hearing about sex? Well, it seems to me it’s logic to explain whatever happened to Whitewater.

At the end I thought he slipped in two ways. One, I think it’s naÔve of him to suppose that the committee under these circumstances wouldn’t immediately make everything he sent them public, including all the seamy pornographic stuff, unless he gave them some – you know – sort of little warnings and sent it over in a plain brown wrapper or something. And second, although I’m sure it was heartfelt, I think the – I think he had already humanized himself before he got to the part where he tried to humanize himself. I think he came across as a reasonable person, not as a Torquemada, not as a sexual McCarthyite, not as a witch hunter, not as a Gestapo type, as he’s been called. And at the end, I thought he should have stopped about five minutes before he did while he was ahead.

JIM LEHRER: So you think he answered Congressman Conyers’ attack at the beginning or accusation that he was a man obsessed? What do you think about that?

ELIZABETH DREW: Well, he certainly knew that that has been an accusation about him on two grounds: one was since his report in which he repeatedly included the sexual details and a lot of people questioned whether that was necessary, and the other one, seeming obsessed with this case, for instance, and it may all be valid, the third indictment of Webster Hubbell just last week. So he knew obviously that these were criticisms of him, and he took them on frontally, which is fair enough.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, look, Margaret, let’s review what happens next. We’re going to be back at 1:45 with the committee. The two counsels now – first to cross-examine him, correct?

MARGARET WARNER: Right. David Schippers, the Republican counsel, and Abby Lowell, they’ll each get half an hour, though the chairman has said he’ll be even perhaps liberal with them.

JIM LEHRER: And then the 35 members.

MARGARET WARNER: That’s right. Thirty-five members each get five minutes, at least in the first round. And then if we’re still sitting here today, then David Kendall, the president’s lawyer, will have just 30 minutes to question Mr. Starr.

JIM LEHRER: Although Chairman Hyde said that he would have a loose gavel on the thirty minutes if Mr. Kendall – I have a feeling we’ve got more fireworks coming on that issue – but, as you pointed out, whether or not we get that far before the end of this day, whether it goes over to tomorrow, we’ll find out. Thank you all and see you again, and we will be back at 1:45 Eastern Time for the afternoon session of the Starr testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Until then, I’m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good afternoon.

The post NewsHour Impeachment Coverage: Analysis and Commentary – Starr’s Performance appeared first on Stuart Taylor, Jr..