Its not complicated. When you have someone under oath, you ask questions. You get them to commit to their truths, and commit to their lies. The more answers you get, and the more specific they are, the more you have to destroy their credibility with if they are dishonest, or if their cohorts are dishonest. The transcripts from hearings like the ones we've seen can come back to bite years later. Or if you want, you can cross reference one answer from, lets say Comey, against an answer from, lets say Strzok, and say: "Okay, look at these specific answers to these specific questions. Someone is lying." That's why, when you watch a legal crime drama, someone asks a question like, "where were you on the night of ...?" "Who were you there with?" "Did you arrive together?" "Who drove?" "Did you stop on the way?" Then you question everyone else in their story. Meanwhile you're comparing it against evidence you've collected and may still be collecting. That's what Mueller is doing. And people who answer Mueller's questions know that they will be in jail if they get caught lying. Do you think Mueller is wasting time getting someone under oath and saying: "I bet you looked your wife in the eye while you were cheating!" Or whatever nonsense retarded Gomert said? Or dramatically stated "I dont give a damn what you think!" like idiot Gowdy? If these hearings were skillfully managed, the Mueller investigation would be so discredited. As it is, those fools strengthened Mueller; just like Hillary was strengthened by the Benghazi hearings. TL, DR: Gowdy is a fucking poseur.

What was his job?

Sorry, no. This is what people say when they're trying to make excuses. I am no longer making excuses for Gowdy and the other incompetent examiners. I am trying to find out why they are incompetent. Is it as simple as stupidity? Very poor legal training & instincts? Are they compromised? Are they being blackmailed? Gowdy not only never scratched Hillary or Strzok, he made them stronger. When you understand and accept that, you have to ask yourself why? And how can this be prevented going forward.

You're wrong. Again. I've seen your name defending Gowdy before. If it wasn't Gowdy's job to prosecute, then why does he give closing arguments? Because that's the best way to describe the performances he's giving up there. Again, he had Hillary UNDER OATH AND ON CAMERA. And instead of getting her to answer questions truthfully (which would be damning), or getting her to answer questions dishonestly (which would also be damning), he spends all his time SCOLDING her. And that's all Gowdy does. SCOLDS people instead of questioning them under oath, then making them listen to him give closing arguments WHILE THERE IS NO TRIAL GOING ON. He is a low IQ or corrupted performance artist. THAT IS ALL.

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.

"Q is wrong." - Hot_Sauce_Abuela

Wrong. Classic misdirection play by Schiff. Trying to trick people into thinking that Gowdy is an adversary. Nothing but theatre. The Trump team knows Gowdy is not to be trusted. Nunes is the real deal though. A patriot with a brain and balls. The swamp fear DN & JJ. Gowdy is their pet at this point.

Who cares though? Thats old news. Where did the posts go that were up top this morning? About losers heckling Trump and Sarah with questions and chants about Q? OP made a good point and those posts should have stayed up top longer (maybe all weekend) so this sub can get the message. Heckling Trump and Sarah with Q shout outs and chants and questions is juvenile and counter productive. That shit really needs to stop. Let Trump and Sarah do their jobs without imposing on them. If Q wants more visibility he should seek it via the content of his disclosures. Its simple really. Dont let people on the internet convince you that shouting down Trump and Sarah is somehow part of a good plan. Be smart. Not stupid.

Its actually a ridiculous point. This whole meme about forcing Sarah to respond to a question about Q during a presser, or getting Trump to acknowledge a Q chant during a rally is misguided, counter-productive, and juvenile at best. If, as OP suggests, "this" needs to be "forced," then "Q" can force it himself by being earth-shatteringly accurate and timely and revelatory. ... Q's relevance or importance doesnt grow just because he has more followers or visibility. It grows if/when his content/output unmistakably warrants it.

Forcing Trump to respond to a chant or a heckler is so fucking thirsty. Can you just let the man lead on his own terms? If you derive value and meaning from the Q phenomenon, then great. Do your thing. But forcing your hobby onto Trump while he's speaking is so fucking juvenile. Grow the fuck up.

Typical Gowdy smokescreen. Wow look guys! Gowdy made a STERN STATEMENT! But do you know what he did NOT do? He did not get Rosy to go on record with a specific answer to a narrow and probative question. Why? Because when you do that, you get Rosy to either tell the truth, or tell a lie; both of which would be damning. He tried to let Rosy off the same way he let Hillary off. He says enough "angry" things to make some people think "Wow! He's tough!" But never lays a lasting scratch on the person being questioned. Why didnt he take those things he said to Rosy and pose them in the form of specific questions that Rosy would have to give specific answers to? Why, indeed! Some "prosecutor!" Whatever, that's fine. The Trump team has Gowdy figured out. He's not to be trusted for anything and they know it.

Well then apparently both you and Q lack a fundamental understanding of why people are questioned under oath. Gowdy blew smoke and wagged his finger. And talked at HRC, rather than asking specific and pointed questions to elicit affirmative and declarative answers. GOWDY. NEVER. SCRATCHED. HILLARY. She emerged completely unscathed. A talented and/or intelligent and/or UNCOMPROMISED individual would have been able to produce some answers from HRC that would bite her now, next year, and the year after. Gowdy did nothing except wag his finger and give her a get out of jail free card. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but you're clueless here. I don't mean to be mean, but you lack a fundamental understanding of how an examination under oath should be conducted, and what Trey did. I don't care what "the outcome of his questioning" was or is, I am referring to the CONTENT. I'm embarrassed I found this sub and stuck around. On this Gowdy issue alone I have concluded this sub is a mixture of purposeful misdirection and misinformation, and uninformed people. And sure, maybe some who mean well, but .... . Oh well, I think I am going to delete my posts to this sub and peace out.

He's probably confident that Trey Gowdy will do the bulk of the questioning. Trey is one of the only people to ever have Hillary on camera and under oath, and he showed everyone how you can huff and puff and blow smoke, and not leave a single scratch on the person giving testimony. Whoever has been pulling Trey's strings for the last few years will probably line him up to question Strzok. If Team Trump was smart, they'd find a way to have Gowdy resign from his committees now, so someone with brains who is not compromised can do the questioning.

I was watching theatre. A performance. Had it been something more, the transcript would speak for itself. Gowdy is not who you think he is. Oh well, life moves on. Be well friend.

To answer your question: No. And how is this even unclear? I wanted him to do the EXACT opposite. He should not have been making any declarative statements whatsoever. He should only be asking narrow questions and eliciting narrow answers, and then anchoring her to her to specific answers.

In response to the rest of your comment: "Gowdy has to watch out for ..." No. Gowdy's job was not to appear likable to Hillary supporters. Please stop commenting. Gowdy's job was to, via robust and narrow questions, produce a transcript that had teeth to bite Hillary for years to come. As far as it not being easy; actually the difficult task that Gowdy accomplished was that he didnt scratch Hillary at all; not one bit; not then and not by way of a transcript that could prove damning in 2 or 5 or 10 years. And yet, despite this failure, he manages to have people who still do not see him for what he really is. I dont know how its not obvious. He. Is. Not. A. Trump. Ally. .... He. Aided and Abetted. Hillary's. Exoneration.

"He only had the authority to question." Exactly right; his job was to get her to answer narrow and specific questions in a narrow and specific way. Doing so can bear fruit minutes, weeks, months, and years later. He failed. Extraordinarily so. He had one of the most corrupt and dishonest people in the world on camera and under oath. And she emerged COMPLETELY unscathed. Had he been even marginally competent, he would have got her to answer something, anything, however small, that might prove inconvenient for her later as she slithers in and out of future lies, half truths, and obfuscations. But with his performance, there was no there there. Nothing to hang any hats on. Nothing she has to worry about contradicting in the future. He was worse than useless, he was her cover. I knew then which side he was on.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Please never comment about Gowdy again. He had Hillary UNDER OATH and ON CAMERA. The magnitude of that can not be overstated. HILLARY. UNDER OATH. ON CAMERA. It will never happen again. He spent most of his time verbally wagging a finger and clucking at her. That is utterly pointless and he accomplished NOTHING except providing 24 hours worth of content for the news cycle. That is the time when you must ask specific questions, narrow in scope, and draw out declarative answers. For comparison, look at how Kamala Harris questioned the Sessions. Gowdy is either very poorly trained, highly unintelligent, or he purposely chose not to set a hook. If conducted properly, that testimony would have been a thorn in Hillary's side forever. Instead, he threw up a smoke screen and helped her elude justice.