Even Trump's closest defenders in the Senate said that.
I understand the sentiment and there is some merit to this point of view. I'm not trying to dismiss the dispute right off the bat. However, there are two problems with a criterion based on dissatisfaction.
The first problem is perhaps the less foreceful. The power to impeach specifically refer to crimes and misdemeanors and, prior to the current case, all cases involving the impeachment of president involved criminal charges. You might find this to be a less interesting point, but it's absolutely fair to point out that Democrats have set a new precedent and there is always some danger in setting new precedents.
The second problem in my opinion is far more serious. I will concede right away that you can absolutely have legitimate misgivings about how much Donald Trump can be trusted with executive authority in the comming years. However, what do you think would happen if you gave a list of hypothetical scenarios to strangers and asked them whether or not they constituted either "obstruction of congress" or "abuse of power"? I think you would get a lot of very different answers. I am not saying that the social norm, the ethical standard you wish to enforce here has no merit. What I am saying is that the grey area around the line you're trying to draw is too easy to manipulate. If Donald Trump committed purjury, we would be having a very different conversation: it's a clear line and the dispute would center around facts, not around how far the president is allowed to go. And that is the problem. People who dislike the president will say that he clearly crossed a line and people who like him will say that the line must be further because others before him did far worse.
If you lived in a world where Democrats and Republicans agreed on a strict limit to executive powers and observed high standards of moral behavior, I would completely agree with you: that was going too far. But in the current context, going after Trump for anything short of something really horrible is going to be perceived as highly partisan. To Republican voters and even to many moderates, the whole process looks like Democrats trying to circumvent the electoral process.
This reminds me of an appearence Jordan Peterson made on Real Time with Bill Maher. At one point, he asked other people to imagine for the sake of the argument that they eventually get Donald Trump for unethical behavior or even perhaps for a crime and they successfully impeach him. What exactly can you say to the dissafected Trump supporters? It's certainly not the same Democrats who spent the last 4 years demonizing them as nazis, white nationalists and hateful bigots that are in any position to address their concerns. The reason Donald Trump exists is because he actually picked up on legitimate concerns and issues. Whether you agree or not with how he tackles them is irrelevant. The point of the matter is that he listened to people who have been spat on their face for decades by well-to-do ubranites who mock their faith or insult them everytime they express concerns about their culture and values...
Can you honestly say you're going to make America a better place by going after Donald Trump with procedural tricks? As far as I can tell, Democrats are throwing a hail marry, hoping they can get rid of him and face a less potent player comes 2020.
