Tomaski: ". . . I think we are doing fine with the general understanding that the information on which we are basing these discussions are being supplied by various parties with various viewpoints, all subject to later revision. At some point we should also acknowledge that all of this information will eventually be examined and adjudicated by official agencies who actually do have to comply with rules of evidence."
With the House committee hearings looming, and with the multiplicity of issues, the layers of issues, it's worth noting something about evidence in our (U.S.) system. That is: there is a difference, sometimes large, between rules of evidence, and standards for evidence. To illustrate, calling some info hearsay isn't quite meaningful. There are exemptions - carved out of the basic definition of what hearsay is - for things that ostensibly are or should be hearsay. But the rule(s) say they're "not hearsay". And then there also are many exceptions to the general rule barring hearsay, in which, indicia of reliability is a major, major factor.
The point is, if information is presented and developed in a q&a format, with persons testifying sworn and under penalty of perjury, even absent ANY formal rules of evidence, standards for evidence can still be applied. Labor arbitration is a pretty relevant example. And about the last congressional hearing I can think of where the impression of reliability seemed strong was back in 1996. Michael Chertoff, and Richard Ben-Veniste, were special counsel who questioned the witnesses (the subject was Whitewater scandal stuff, iirc). Maybe the House hearings - which now have a great deal more ground to cover, a lot more than one day with the airframer's C.E.O., should requisition two similar special counsel to conduct the questioning, not the Congress members who.....well, standards for reliability aren't their strong suit.