Determining the facts in a criminal trial (or just in general in life) is one of the hardest things in the world to do if the circumstances involve competing self-interests. Scientists have it way easier because while nature may be obscure there is no agency actively trying to spin the facts.
In human affairs there’s always an alternate narrative that can be created, sometimes more than one, which appears, on the surface, to explain the facts. This is true even in the case of impeachment, where the possible punishments, unlike a criminal trial, are merely political.
The task then is to weigh the alternative explanations and see which one most likely describes what actually happened. Which is further complicated when you’re evaluating a conspiracy because conspirators rarely document what they’re doing. It’s only in comic books that the bad guy stops and explains the secret plan. Although Trump comes closer to following the comic book model than anyone I’ve ever previously come across.
Is every single thing said by every single witness during the impeachment hearings true and correct? No. But it doesn’t need to be. Because way more than the minimum is consistent, plausible, and against at least some of the self-interests of the people testifying to support the impeachment charges.