Golf clap for theory, but let's face it, the only times articles of impeachment have ever been voted on in Congress have all been for political reasons and not for actual Constitutional violations.

Andrew Johnson was impeached for a violation of the Tenure of Office Act (which was passed over his veto) which required Senate approval for the sacking of any executive officer -- including the Secretary of War. (Modern Supreme Court jurisprudence would not allow such restrictions on cabinet level positions directly related to the traditional executive powers, like the exercise of war. A 1926 case later noted in dicta that the Act would've been unconstitutional if challenged.)

In other words, Johnson was impeached for breaking an unconstitutional law. Furthermore, the text of the law was vague enough that it's hard to tell whether he actually violated it or not, given that the Secretary of War wasn't appointed during his tenure, and was fired after his one month grace period hold-over.

The real background of the fight was Johnson's headbutting with Congress over the Reconstruction. He favored an easier process for the Southern states to be readmitted. Congress favored a very harsh Reconstruction and passed laws repeatedly over his veto. The real debate was largely over his politics and not his acts.

Similarly, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about getting a blow job. The Constitution limits impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but the latter term is undefined. Again, the real question here was not any abuse of power by Clinton but pure power politics and an attempt to tarnish the opposition to the majority party in Congress.

Impeachment cannot happen without an opposing party in majority control and with enough spine to stand up unless the President does something REALLY egregious. Otherwise, if he's just pushing the borders of executive power, as long as he does it in a way that his party likes, then impeachment cannot be triggered.