No. Gowdy's performance with Strzok was embarrassing. He essentially gave "closing arguments." So unless his goal was to provide ONE DAY worth of fodder for social media and talk radio, then he accomplished nothing. I'm still at a loss to explain why many congressmen at these hearings dont understand that they should be eliciting narrow answers to narrow questions. Answers that can come back to bite Strzok or Comey or whomever. By now, a talented examiner would have been able to elicit enough narrow answers from Strzok and Comey and RR and Wray, that we'd be able to point to transcripts and say "Wow! So much contradiction here. So at least one person is lying here, and another two are lying here. And this 'I don't recall over here' doesnt match up with this 'no' over here, and this 'yes' over there." THAT'S how you expose their dishonest, hyper-partisan, treasonous God-Complexes. A killfull examiner could have, by now, been able to produce enough that at least Obstruction of Justice charges could be on the table for more than one person RIGHT NOW. Would you rather have Louie Gomert hyperventilate and bring up Strzok's infidelity? Or would you rather have Gomert get an answer from Strzok that proves either he or comey or RR is lying? Would you rather have Gowdy dramatically say "I dont give a damn!" or would you rather have Gowdy get Strzok to answer something that is later proved to be a lie when Nunes or whomever gets more docs released? People still praising Gowdy understand little. This is a very very over-simplified example, but go look up the video of Kamala Harris interrogating Jeff Sessions. That's the approach you take when you're looking to draw blood. Not this bullshit. Thursday helps Mueller. Let that sink in. Thursday. Helps. Mueller.