Abusive relationship

The National Review resident legalist and former USA, Andrew McCarthy, put it perfectly in terms of what he called the "Big Hole" in the Case for Impeachment: Politics as devised by the US Founders was supposed to be abusive. Politicians and even Judges abuse power all of the time. So they set up the checks and balances system to combat and prepare against that. Did that mean impeachment for every abuse of power? Of course not. There were other ways the Constitution provided and still does for checking an abusive executive - override of veto, oversight and the power of the purse, amongst others. The fact that the Congress has signally failed to hold the President accountable on these occasions  (Obama bullying the CBO into scoring Obamacare as not creating a deficit and the Fed Chairman into doing QE3 in 2012 are just two I can think of off the top of my head) does not mean you can now use impeachment as a sort of "break glass in emergency" and thus render not only that process meaningless and dangerous at the same time but also completely distort and finish the destruction of meaningful checks and balances at the same time. 

If someone had told Madison or Hamilton to replace "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" with "Abuses of Power" they would have laughed their Federalist Papers off. For, if "Abuse of Power" were more than a political device for partisan charlatanry and revenge, not only would most Presidents have been thrown out but so would most of our PM's, one of which just abused power like stink... but the People did not care.