the house passed two articles of impeachment regardless of what we think about it. He calls himself impeached. He’s impeached.
Neither article contained any mention of a crime or misdemeanor. The Constitution specifies that impeachment can only take place for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The “articles” are political statements. If those can be passed off as “impeachment” then the entire meaning of impeachment has been changed. Rather than being a tool to remove someone who is dangerously violating his oath of office, it becomes merely a method to express a political opinion.
I think the Supremes could shut this down on Constitutional grounds, by ruling that by definition, an impeachment must be for a crime (as the Constitution specifies).