I agree, with the exceptions of Radcliffe and Gowdy. They seemed prepared for this circus.
“I agree, with the exceptions of Radcliffe and Gowdy. They seemed prepared for this circus. “
Yeah.....kinda.
But only one level deep. They (Radcliffe & Gowdy-—I did not hear Radcliffe, only Gowdy) *DID* manage to fall into a couple of Dem traps they did not foresee very well. And I found that disappointing. Not Darrell Issa disappointing but disappointing nonetheless. I hope they can deliver the goods. Strzoks’ explanations for “no bias” were beyond ludicrous; but it is not a matter of ridiculing your deponent (questionee) —— you have to induce them to contradict themselves within their answers; and not with a 4-layer conundrum like Gowdy thinks he’s really clever putting together. For example, Gowdy never asked “how can an unbiased investigator fail to question the primary suspect in a criminal investigation?” Or perhaps”except in cases where the prime suspect was later found dead or could not be located, have you ever conducted or heard of an investigation where suspect #1 was not questioned?”
Changing the wording “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” I have always thought was perfectly meaningless from a probative standpoint. So asking Strzok when he did that is just asking to be driven off into the weeds with an entirely plausible “I don’t recall”. That, therefore, is not a skillful line of questioning. As far as I am concerned.