This dude is a little attack dog. And he got some results..
It would appear the biggest news nobody will hear from this 'hearing' was that Admiral Mullen gave a heads-up to Hillary's State Dept lawyer that soon-to-be witness Charlene Lamb was not going to come across well (or something).
His innocent explanation requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Everyone knows it should not be appropriate for an "independent" investigator to be providing back-channel updates to a department head on the status of a review of something that occurred under that department head, that is if they want anyone to believe it's an independent review. They decided early on that Hillary played no part in the decision-making, so they could keep that channel open. Which smacks of a fix.
Another nugget Gowdy pulled out was that Hillary was compelled by the 1998 ARB review--crafted during her husband's presidency after AQ terrorists bombed the African embassies--to personally review security at high-threat diplomatic posts. She has repeatedly claimed that she wasn't aware of the situation or involved in the decisions, yet Gowdy pointed out that she should have been according to that previous ARB and Mullen became mumbly-mouthed in his response--of course they didn't ask her about it because they determined she wasn't involved. That should be a wow.
But what difference, at this point, does it make? The entire process is a red herring anyway. It would be like the CIA Director and White House Chief of Staff being chosen to investigate 9/11. Yes, they found some internal problems but nobody has been punished in the government, the victims still don't have closure and no terrorists have been caught. And the politicians got away with lying after the fact. Yet everybody keeps saying move on.
Scott Johnson at Powerline sums up the situation nicely. He's right--this would be a big story under any other administration.