So if the unnamed source is right, then this will be easy. Someone during the testimony will ask Mr. Hicks that exact question.

Failing that, then this official (who spoke on condition of anonymity), will testify.

Until then, you have a report that has been submitted as the final word and I would guess didn’t interview Mr. Hicks or any of the other whistleblowers. We know it didn’t interview the Secretary of State.

I think it is safe to assume that Mr. Hicks knew, before he flushed his career down the tubes, what was in the report. He must have confidence that what he wants to add, is not already in the report.

I am surprised how fast everyone wants to take as fact what an “official” isn’t willing to talk about on the record. The “lack of weapons” is not going to be a secret, assuming it is true.

Now if what Mr. Hicks will testify about is already well known, but was not in the official report, then, in my opinion, there will be difficulty explaining it.