As Donald Trump strode onstage to deliver remarks at a Lexington, Kentucky "Keep America Great” rally on Monday night, home viewers might have noticed that his campaign made good on his plan to introduce "Read the Transcript" T-shirts into America's politico-sartorial discourse.

It's a move that GOP ad-man Rick Wilson said could be attributed to the 45th president being "a f**king moron", or, as one more generous GOP source put it, "proof that Donald Trump will turn anything and everything into something he can sell."

But it's also proof of his imperviousness to reality.

Nearly six weeks into the House-led impeachment inquiry, aides say Trump remains convinced that Americans will absolve him of anything untoward if they'd just "read the transcript" of his self-described "perfect call" with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (which is not a verbatim transcript and may, according to one witness, have been altered to omit key details).

Of course, polls taken over the last eight weeks shows that as more and more Americans read the "transcript" that inspired the shirts, more and more Americans have become increasingly supportive of Democrats' investigation.

However, it's no longer the only "transcript" Americans can read if they want to judge President Trump's actions for themselves.

Over the past 24 hours, House Democrats have released four transcripts — yes, actual verbatim transcripts — of interviews with numerous administration officials, conducted by both Republican and Democratic members and staff on the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight Committees.

In over 1,200 pages, the transcripts document depositions by former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, State Department Senior Advisor Michael McKinley, former Ukraine Special Envoy Kurt Volker, and Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland.

And if Americans study these new transcripts closely, it’s unlikely they’ll be as convinced as Trump thinks they’ll be that the president never did anything wrong.

Donald Trump refuses to rule out government shutdown if Democrats continue impeachment inquiry

Under questioning from Democratic interlocutors, witnesses like Sondland — a wealthy hotelier who Trump named as ambassador to Brussels after a million-dollar donation to his inaugural committee — first denied discussing any sort of "quid pro quo" with Ukrainian officials. But on Monday, Sondland's attorneys submitted a sworn statement by which he corrected the record to specify that he had, in fact, delivered such a message (and by doing so, avoided a perjury charge).

Yovanovitch's testimony told a chilling tale of a career foreign service officer being awakened in the dead of night by her boss, who insisted that she get on the next plane home for her own safety. And the transcript of McKinley's deposition showed how another State Department veteran tried and tried to keep anything from happening to Yovanovitch, only to resign in disgust after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo thrice ignored his entreaties.

A former deputy Watergate special prosecutor told me that Republican complaints about witnesses not being allowed to be accompanied by government lawyers brought back memories of the scandal surrounding Nixon.

"This is exactly what happened in Watergate,” he told me, “…that [White House Counsel] John Dean was actually present for every single FBI interview — so they could coordinate the coverup basically, so they could make sure that people weren't off the reservation and were sticking with the party line that the White House had nothing to do with the break-in at the Democratic National Committee.

"It just reeks of Watergate and what Nixon did with John Dean in terms of coordinating White House witnesses so that they could keep everybody in line so that they would all lie about what was going on."

Nick Akerman, a veteran federal prosecutor, was decidedly not impressed with Republicans' performances in the last couple of weeks as shown in the transcripts.

"The Republicans didn't even go at the actual crime itself and what occurred. They were either focused on the same old conspiracy theories that somehow Ukraine was involved [in 2016] or that somehow [Joe] Biden did something wrong, or on the process itself, even though all of them had the right to cross-examine on the actual subject matter," he said. "They didn't come close to doing anything that advanced any claim that Trump did something that wasn't extortion or bribery. None of them touched that, because they couldn't — these people are asking just the craziest questions.

"The idea that the President of the United States is relying on this kind of conspiracy theory, non-fact-based sort of stuff is pretty scary."

Akerman added that even just the first two transcripts could give Democrats enough evidence to present a compelling case for impeachment.

"They've already got pretty amazing evidence that shows bribery and extortion — what more do you need at this point?" he asked. ”Now they've got this whole other crazy defense about there's no corrupt intent, but these guys haven't done their legal researching and corrupt intent under the law means improper purpose. And when you're using the levers of government and monies appropriated by Congress to further your own re-election effort and use it to try and bribe and extort a foreign government, I mean, what more improper purpose can you get? My God, I wish I had this case in a regular criminal court. I could go crazy with it."

Another person with experience conducting Congressional investigations — former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh — was equally unimpressed with his former colleagues’ performance, which he said demonstrated "an utter lack of seriousness on the part of the Republicans."

But the "lack of seriousness" wasn't necessarily their fault, Walsh said, since the overwhelming volume of evidence and the number of credible witnesses means they really don't have much to defend Trump with.

"Upon reflection, I thought, what could they have asked? What lines of questioning could they have gone down? For both of those witnesses, what they had to say was fairly clear and fairly damning," he said. "I think Republicans are going to have this problem...in every transcript. There isn't really anything, which is why their lines of questioning come off as just silly and comical.”

When I asked Walsh, a current GOP presidential candidate who served on the House Oversight Committee during his time in the House, if Republicans' plans to augment the Intelligence Committee with Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan would help them make a case for Trump's innocence in public hearings, he just laughed.

"It is an admission — by the Republicans — that Devin Nunes is an utter joke and so far in over his head," he said, adding that Nunes is "not serious" and would "utterly embarrass" the GOP in public hearings.

But Walsh wasn't sure adding Jordan, a favorite of the President's who is known for his aggressive questioning of witnesses and never wearing a jacket, would make a difference.

"I've got a lot of affection for my friend and colleague Jim Jordan, but Jim Jordan will just be a sharper, more presentable Devin Nunes," he said. "He's not going to question anything of substance, he's going to be there to more effectively make Trump's distraction-process case."

Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Show all 26 1 /26 Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Donald Trump Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails - a key factor in the 2016 election - may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why. EPA Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal The Whistleblower Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, Trump and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable. Expected to give evidence to Congress voluntarily and in secret. Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal The Second Whistleblower The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower. Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Rudy Giuliani Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As Trump’s personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the president’s enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a “shadow” foreign policy. In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on Trump’s behalf and has called himself a “hero”. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Volodymyr Zelensky The newly elected Ukrainian president - a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident - is seen frantically agreeing with Trump in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House. With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation. He says there was no pressure on him from Trump to do him the “favour” he was asked for. Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with Trump in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin. AFP/Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Mike Pence The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later. However, Trump announced that Pence had had “one or two” phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with Trump’s actions. It has been speculated that Trump involved Pence as an insurance policy - if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Rick Perry Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didn’t even want to. The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas - although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year. Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Joe Biden The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election. Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Biden’s son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done. However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant. Reuters Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Hunter Biden Joe Biden’s son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, Trump has yet to produce any evidence of corruption and Biden’s lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal William Barr The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to Trump with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up Trump’s preoccupations with the Biden’s and the Clinton emails. Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a “cover-up of a cover-up”. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Mike Pompeo The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call - but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time. He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works. Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was "in the loop" and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president. AFP via Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Nancy Pelosi The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: “The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.” Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Adam Schiff Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry. He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a “parody” of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with Trump and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call. He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint. The Washington Post awarded Schiff a “four Pinocchios” rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement. Reuters Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October. Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine's gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by Trump allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts. Reuters Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal William Taylor The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff – later identified as diplomat David Holmes – overheard a phone conversation in which Donald Trump could be heard asking about “investigations” the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against Trump’s opponents, saying: “It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support." Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal George Kent A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump’s personal lawyer, of leading a “campaign of lies” against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Marie Yovanovitch One of the most striking witnesses to give evidence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald Trump while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack “very intimidating”. Trump had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: “She’s going to go through some things.” Yovanovitch said she was “shocked, appalled and devastated” by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation. REUTERS Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Alexander Vindman A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his evidence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment. One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to Trump’s 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. Trump later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Jennifer Williams A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it “unusual” because it focused on domestic politics in terms of Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Kurt Volker The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving evidence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without evidence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraine’s reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Tim Morrison An expert on the National Security Council and another witness on the Republican list. He testified that he did not think the president had done anything illegal but admitted that he feared it would create a political storm if it became public. He said he believed the moving the record of the controversial 25 July phone call to a top security server had been an innocent mistake. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Gordon Sondland In explosive testimony, one of the men at the centre of the scandal got right to the point in his opening testimony: “Was there a quid pro quo? Yes,” said the US ambassador to the EU who was a prime mover in efforts in Ukraine to link the release of military aid with investigations into the president’s political opponents. He said that everyone knew what was going on, implicating vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo. The effect of his evidence is perhaps best illustrated by the reaction of Mr Trump who went from calling Sondland a “great American” a few weeks earlier to claiming that he barely knew him. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Laura Cooper A Pentagon official, Cooper said Ukrainian officials knew that US aid was being withheld before it became public knowledge in August – undermining a Republican argument that there can’t have been a quid pro quo between aid and investigations if the Ukrainians didn’t know that aid was being withheld. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal David Hale The third most senior official at the state department. Hale testified about the treatment of Marie Yovanovitch and the smear campaign that culminated in her being recalled from her posting as US ambassador to Ukraine. He said: “I believe that she should have been able to stay at post and continue to do the outstanding work.” EPA Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Fiona Hill Arguably the most confident and self-possessed of the witnesses in the public hearings phase, the Durham-born former NSC Russia expert began by warning Republicans not to keep repeating Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. In a distinctive northeastern English accent, Dr Hill went on to describe how she had argued with Gordon Sondland about his interference in Ukraine matters until she realised that while she and her colleagues were focused on national security, Sondland was “being involved in a domestic political errand”. She said: “I did say to him, ‘Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, this is going to blow up’. And here we are.” AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal David Holmes The Ukraine-based diplomat described being in a restaurant in Kiev with Gordon Sondland while the latter phoned Donald Trump. Holmes said he could hear the president on the other end of the line – because his voice was so “loud and distinctive” and because Sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear – asking about the “investigations” and whether the Ukrainian president would cooperate. REUTERS

One current Oversight Committee member, Rep. Jamie Raskin, appeared to echo Walsh's sentiments regarding the weakness of the GOP defense.

"The President has run out of excuses, defenses, and alibis as far as I can tell, so our Republican colleagues have been pretty much defenseless against the overwhelming weight of testimony being offered by seriously credible witnesses," Raskin said. ”Our GOP colleagues basically have nothing except some discredited old conspiracy theories and some idle conjecture about the Bidens, but none of that lays a glove on the case against the President that has emerged. This was a political shakedown of the Ukrainian government by [Trump] and his henchmen… executed against the interests of the United States and the policies of the State Department."

Raskin said he wasn't sure if Republicans have even settled on a strategy for defending the President: ”I hope their strategy would be to look for the truth and defend the constitution, but there appears to be some sense that their role is to defend the President rather than the constitution. That seems like a conceptual error, and perhaps a career mistake on their part.

"Perhaps there is a method to this madness, but I perceive basic disarray on the GOP side. They are experiencing cognitive dissonance because they are ending up defending a president who has undermined our national security, sided with the tyrant of Russia and attacked our career foreign service officers.

"That's a tough position for them to be in," he continued, adding that the GOP's desire to unmask the anonymous Intelligence Community whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment probe "is both absurd and pernicious."