So if they haven't connected all of the "dots" 1/6th of the way through making their case, then it must mean that there is no case to be made?
So not only did they present some very clear evidence already, but this was the first session of six with half of it devoted to describing the evidence they plan on showing over the next 5 sessions. Coming to the conclusion that there's "no evidence" that Trump was as the center of this not only demonstrates an astounding level of ignorance of the available information in the public domain but also an unsettling desire to come to conclusions that are in direct contradiction to the reality of the first hearing.
Finally, Congress doesn't get to charge anyone with a crime, and the DoJs investigation (as well as the investigation in Georgia) is still ongoing. So I'm not really clear on what point you're trying to make here.