The Democrats Think They Have a Choice on Impeachment. They Don’t.

Although the midterms are still five days away, it’s hard to blame some Democrats for already discussing what to do if they win at least one chamber of Congress. Out of power for nearly two years, the party is on the verge of what could be a historic wave election. A majority in the House of Representatives is all but assured. The Senate is far less certain, but polls are giving Democrats cause to dream about winning in some of the unlikeliest places: Texas, South Carolina, even Mississippi.

Of course, even if the party were to win majorities in both chambers, there’s only so much it can do with its new power: A Senate majority would still require the Democrats to secure a handful of Republican votes to overcome the filibuster, and Donald Trump will still be president, with the power to veto whatever he pleases. But there’s one area in particular where the Democrats can put Republicans on their heels: accountability.

Some Democrats, however, are already antsy about just how much accountability they should pursue. Former vice president—and 2024 loser—Kamala Harris laid out this point of view in an interview with Substacker Aaron Parnas on Tuesday:

“I think that going in the direction of impeachment is not a good idea,” Harris warned. “We have limited resources, and I think the energy and the resources need to be put into accountability, need to be put into investigations. And that’s where the time should be spent.” Harris knows what she’s talking about: She was a senator when, during Trump’s first term, that GOP-controlled chamber twice acquitted him on impeachment charges, after the Democratic-led House had impeached him. “I was in the Senate for the last go-round, and the votes aren’t there,” she said. “I think after the election, we all have to just also agree that our attitude has to be to get stuff done.”

Harris characteristically doesn’t quite lay out what she really means. But it’s easy enough to understand. If there aren’t the votes in the Senate to convict—and remove—the president or one of his Cabinet members, then impeachment by the House can be politically damaging. Even with compelling impeachment hearings and a well-managed trial—which Democrats put on in 2019 and 2020—failure to convict can put off voters who dismiss it as political theater. That’s why Harris keeps emphasizing the need to “get stuff done.”

The failure of Trump’s 2019 impeachment, in particular, likely hurt Democrats, sending the message that they were more interested in attention-grabbing stunts aimed at damaging the president than they were at accomplishing things that made people’s lives better. Impeaching Trump this time is perhaps even more fraught. Trump is term-limited and leaving office in two years anyway. What’s the point? Moreover, Americans today are even more frustrated with the political establishment than they were before the pandemic, and have little patience for politicians who aren’t focused on fixing the economy.

To disarm their impeachment power would a bitter pill for Democrats, and one that flies in the face of the conventional wisdom in some corners: that a successful impeachment is its own reward because it highlights the Trump administration’s abuses and generates intense media attention. But as Harris sees it, if the goal is to continue to build political power—and to win back the White House in 2028—then impeachment is simply unhelpful.

Harris’s remedy, however, suggests that Democrats advising caution and deliberate action haven’t really thought through their plan. For one thing, the Democrats will have few opportunities to “get stuff done” that will immediately affect people’s lives, and anything they do accomplish will require Trump’s signature. Her emphasis on investigations seems to acknowledge this, because that is one avenue the Democrats can pursue with just one majority in Congress and the subpoena power that comes with it.

There is so much wrongdoing in this administration that it almost creates its own challenge. The president could be conceivably investigated for his corruption, management of the Iran war, ties to Jeffrey Epstein, desecration of the capital … the list goes on and on. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, the president’s adult sons and son-in-law Jared Kushner—all could (and should) be investigated for a host of offenses. There is a lot to investigate, whether or not you impeach.

But that’s the problem. Trump has made billions of dollars during his presidency. He has worked to obscure his ties to Epstein, his late friend. He is mismanaging one ruinous war while appearing to help Russia fight another one. Those are just a few of the things that Democrats could pursue. It is fair to describe all of them as potentially impeachable. Indeed, any investigation into Trump’s conduct in office—whatever that conduct is—would likely produce impeachable offenses.

Harris’s idea that the party can simply run these investigations, uncover damaging evidence, and then—presumably—move on to other scandals is simply not plausible. The party’s base is fed up and insistent that Democrats “do something” about Trump and his cronies, which is to say that people want to see them stopped and punished. It’s hard to imagine that investigations alone will be enough to satisfy this bloodlust, even if Democratic voters know that there is no chance of convicting and removing Trump.

The squeamishness from establishment figures like Harris is understandable. It may even be reasonable. But it’s not plausible—the party’s base will not tolerate it, and the evidence the Democrats in Congress uncover will demand it. The fact that many Democratic leaders haven’t faced this reality yet suggests they still don’t understand the political dynamics of the moment. But it will dawn on them soon enough, and the likely result is that the only U.S. president to be impeached multiple times will see his record padded.