Impeachment is often understood as a punitive measure. When the president (or any other federal official) breaks their constitutional oath, Congress can step in and deprive the person of the office. But the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report, released on Tuesday, makes clear that it can be a preventative one as well.

“Having witnessed the degree to which interference by a foreign power in 2016 harmed our democracy, President Trump cannot credibly claim ignorance to its pernicious effects,” the report says. It notes, as many others have, that Trump’s infamous July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy came one day after special counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress on his findings in the Russia investigation. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the committee, has cited that realization as a key moment that pushed him in favor of impeachment proceedings. Tuesday’s report by the committee’s Democratic majority mirrors his concern about its implications.

“With this backdrop, the solicitation of new foreign intervention was the act of a president unbound, not one chastened by experience,” the report says. “It was the act of a president who viewed himself as unaccountable and determined to use his vast official powers to secure his reelection.” That is, the Democrats make a case for impeaching Trump not just to punish him for past sins against the republic, but because he will keep committing similar sins unless Congress stops him.

The 300-page report is almost 150 pages shorter than Mueller’s massive tome. The House Judiciary Committee will find it useful when drafting articles of impeachment, as its members now plan to do in the coming weeks. It is more lively, readable, and unsparing of the president than the former FBI director’s ponderous account of his team’s findings, to be sure. But the committee’s report was still clearly written by former prosecutors, not Agatha Christie. Conveying its conclusions to the public will take more effort.



Is it enough to impeach Al Capone for tax evasion?

Another force shaping the report is the ongoing debate among House Democrats about the pace and the scope of the impeachment inquiry itself. Should lawmakers wait for the courts to vindicate their subpoenas against top presidential aides? Or should they use the White House’s refusal to cooperate as proof of obstruction and not pin their hopes on Chief Justice John Roberts? Should other instances of presidential misconduct—obstructing Mueller’s inquiry, funneling government funds to Trump’s family business, igniting a humanitarian crisis on the border, and more—be included? Or is it enough to impeach Al Capone for tax evasion?