I read much of that New Yorker article before. I found it to be particularly uninsightful and full of wishful thinking and revisionist interpretations. "High crimes" was not intended to mean things that aren't violations of the law, or however it's phrased in there. If they meant improper carriage of the office, they would have phrased it that way. A lot of time and precision was involved in the writing of the Constitution. I think it's fair to assume it means exactly what is says. Moreover, the historical precedent indicates that Congress agrees with me on this. The reality is that Trump hasn't done anything remotely impeachable.
I continue to maintain that if he leaves office it's most likely to be voluntarily. I've been saying since before day 1 that he's going to rapidly become fed up with the fact that he can't run the government as he would his company. It's going to get under his skin that he can't tell people what to do and ultimately have them do it. Over and over again we've seen this very thing coming into play - it's driving him nuts that Congress and the courts keep involving themselves in his decision-making process. He would like the rest of the government to basically help inform and carry out his decisions, much as his employees and self-appointed boards would do in a corporate setting. It's not going to work that way in government. His continued painting of Democrats as "the enemy" further underlies the fact that his perspective is that while he's the President everyone should just go along with him (it's also a very unsettling perspective on 55% of the country of which he is ostensibly the face at this point).
I still think there's a chance that ultimately this frustration will cause him to resign and go back to a world where everyone will do what he says. But as of now I have not at any point seen a road to impeachment. And I do think that as dangerous as Trump is as the President, impeaching him would be a grave miscarriage of justice.