During the public hearings of the January 6 Select Committee, we've heard quite a bit of hearsay testimony from witnesses. For instance, in the June 16 hearing, Mike Pence's Chief of Staff Greg Jacobs testified about Pence's statements to Trump that he wouldn't try to subvert the election, and about a number of statements by Trump attorney John Eastman.
I know this isn't a trial, so the normal rules against hearsay evidence don't apply, but wouldn't it be better to get these statements from the horses' mouths? Have the "horses" refused to appear before the committee? While I know there are lots of Trump loyalists who have been defying subpoenas, Pence seems to be proud of his action surrounding the cerification of the election results, so I think he would be willing to testify as to what he was thinking at the time.
Are there good political reasons to investigate like this? Or does it make better TV? (I know that keeping it interesting to the public has been an important consideration of the public hearings — they hired a TV producer to oversee them.)