So you're arguing that that the Democrat's entire case is based on how they're interpreting a few words. I see this completely opposite. I think Trump's entire defense HAS to be based on how you interpret those words. There's a ton of circumstantial evidence painting a pretty grim picture, outside of the transcript.
I see the defense of Trump right now is to point at the transcript and say "that might be inappropriate but not impeachable." I'm OK with that stance if we're in a vacuum, but we're not. We have substantial reporting indicating that multiple administration officials were concerned about Giuliani's work in Ukraine, concerned about events leading up to the call, the call itself, and actions after the call. There is ample justification for an investigation.
Now, if the inquiry can't validate the public reporting through testimony and evidence, then he won't be removed. However, that investigation cannot be carried out properly without reasonable cooperation from the White House.