Considering all of the threats any person testifying had received prior, and all of the rhetoric from POTUS at the time, this is kind of a thin argument.
And they didn't have time to organize corroborating evidence? So you're telling me they are going off half cocked? Organize the evidence, and present it so no one can refute her testimony. You don't just get her testimony, present it and then figure out the facts later. They had plenty of time to verify her claims beforehand.
Edit: Maybe I'm not understanding your POV entirely. If you see things differently from that can you explain so I have a better understanding of your position?
I think they've 100% vetted her information. We know that this hearing was unscheduled and was pushed forward due to security concerns about the witness. The committee also shared that they've been dealing with similar cases of witness tampering. So clearly there was a deadline with receiving this public testimony.
Normally when the committee has presented testimony in hearings, they have also presented additional evidence to corroborate that testimony. We've seen instances where there are interviews with other corroborating witnesses, text message exchanges, surveillance footage, and even the witnesses own words from private depositions.
The committee did present footage from Hutchinson's private depositions, and there was at least one instance of contemporaneous notes, but other types of corroborating evidence seemed to be lacking in this session. For example, you might expect an incident report from the SUV event. Or perhaps deposition footage from Ornato or Engel.
I think it's important to remember that the committee is interviewing witnesses with different levels of participation and constraints. Some witnesses are volunteering, some are being compelled by subpoenas, some have challenged their subpoenas and have been charged with contempt, others have been exempt from contempt charges due to executive privilege or client-attorney privilege. I don't know if Engel or Ornato were compelled to testify, but I think it's normal for SS to be covered by executive privilege. It could be that they had conditions on their testimony.
A lot of the topics that were covered today invovle witnesses that are have very little collaboration with the committee, including Pat Cipollone and Mark Meadows. I believe they both provided testimony off the record, and Meadows provided documents with conditions.
It could be that some witness testimony or evidence cannot be released publicly because it is being used in active investigations by the DOJ or state attorneys. We know that the DOJ has been reaching out to open an information channel with the House committee, and since this testimony was unplanned there might be evidence they can no longer share publicly.
We know that this hearing was spurred by new evidence. It could be that there was supporting evidence that still needs to run through legal channels to be shared publicly, but the constraints of the witness testimony might have pressured them to move forward without being able to present that evidence. And remember, they aren't just trying to keep Hutchinson testifying publicly, they want to get to Meadows and Cipollone while the fire is hot. And maybe there's some internal politics with that.
I know that's a lot, but I hope it explains what I was thinking.