The purpose of a closed Congressional Hearing, assuming no bonafide national security cause for secrecy, is usually to compel the witness to commit to a version of events with sufficient specificity to support a perjury conviction if they change their story. Congress Critters have staff attorneys, and investigators at Federal law enforcement agencies, to carry out the mundane discovery tasks found in civil litigation.
I would much rather have had Gowdy wielding the gavel when Huma was asked to commit to a set of facts. I agree with you that his absence is not proof that "the fix is in," but it is cause to go "hmmmm."
Agreed and I would have preferred Gowdy take on Abedin. I am just willing to cut him some slack and trust him to run his case. He’s legit. Most lawyers are idiots. He is a steely eyed litigator.
“The purpose of a closed Congressional Hearing, assuming no bona fide national security cause for secrecy...”
I would assume they did ask her about the classified emails. That would be much easier if they could use the actual classified wording of the emails instead of having to talk around things.