So although this makes no sense, since no one is on trial and the people who gave depositions basically answered questions, let's take your point to it's (ill) logical conclusion...
So the point of today was that Trump knew his lies were BS, because all of the people in his cabinet and the folks who served as advisors had repeatedly told him so. Even as despicable a person as Jayson Miller wasn't delusional enough to swallow the nonsense people like Rudy and Sidney Powell were peddling about dominion, and dead voters and every other grift they could get Trump to swallow.
So what's the counter argument- that they're lying and that they all bought into that nonsense and none of them warned him? So when Barr says he told Trump in no uncertain terms it was BS, your argument is that Barr did no such thing and is changing his story to cover his ass?
Did you see how many people in separate depositions brought up that Rudy was drunk on election night and was spouting nonsense and urging Trump to pull that stupid 3am stunt where he claimed victory? You think all of the Trumpers who told the Committee in separate depositions that they warned Trump not to do something so stupid are just lying after the fact? All of them?
You want to have someone "cross-examine" the ex-US Attorney for Northern Georgia Pak (appointed by Trump) who at Barr's request investigated all of the wacky claims being made in GA? What do you think a "cross-examination" would reveal- I knew there was no evidence but I told Trump there was? I mean there were posters on this board posting that ridiculous claim about the "suitcases of ballots", and I remember telling people at the time that had already been debunked. I knew that because it was all over mainstream news, but apparently the people posting it never saw it on any of the sources they rely on for "news"?