Consider that a key component of lawfare is to district shop for an appropriate federal level judge to issue a nationwide injunction. If Trump doesn't comply with these lawful court orders, then he can be considered to be in contempt of court. Trump has consistently complied with the respective courts until it reaches SCOTUS to avoid any real, meaningful impeachment charges.
So, let's ask this question: how did the judiciary assert this particular constitutional role? Madison v Marbury of course. OK, here's the big reveal: how come Trump doesn't judge shop for someone to issue an impeachment injunction directed at the House? (Lack of due process, abuse of power, bill of attainder, et al as the causes of action.) After all, the progs have already established the necessity of abiding by court decisions. Second, what happens if the House violates the court order?
Well, here's where it gets interesting. Congress - as a purely political body - has impeachment and removal power. What about the executive? He can't impeach, but he is the CIC and the chief law enforcement order. What happens if you/I were to ignore a court order? That's right, the executive police power comes into play. So, what would be the charges? How about seditious conspiracy?
Let's review: some federal district judge issues a nation wide injunction against House impeachment process. House ignores, Trump orders arrests, as is his constitutional right & duty. See where this is going? Live by lawfare (the sword), die by lawfare (the sword).
I don’t know why people keep harping on this “take Congress to court” angle. Federal courts have no business getting involved in most disputes between different branches of government, and a sitting President shows real weakness when he pursues legal avenues instead of just standing up and acting like a leader by using the powers vested in him under the U.S. Constitution. Seeking an injunction in Federal court right now is like asking Judge Judy to please tell Nancy Pelosi to stop being mean.