Hakeem Jeffries, expected to be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives, made it clear that it was not his intention to use his majority over the next two years to seek retribution on Trump and his sycophantic enablers. Rather, he said his focus would be on “getting things done” by making life more affordable. Radley Balko makes a compelling argument about why that won’t work, and why that ignores the mandate given the Democrats by this overwhelming rejection of Trump, MAGA and the long list of people who enjoyed the fruits of corruption.

Sure, the Democrats should work with whatever sane Republicans remain in Congress to end Trump’s tariffs, get us out of the war in Iran, and do whatever else is within Congress’s power to stop this administration’s assault on the economy.

But while those policies might help curb inflation, they aren’t going to make things more affordable. You can slow the rate at which prices go up, but there’s little Congress can do to bring them down. Promising otherwise is only setting yourself up for failure.

Part of the problem is that the power of Congress to influence the economy is limited. It may hold the purse strings, at least to the extent that Trump doesn’t simply ignore Congress, do as he pleases regardless of what Congress says or does, and challenge Congress to stop him.

Another part of the problem is that so much damage has already been done that undoing it, or even ameliorating it, may be too difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to manage. Ending the war in Iran is a very important goal, but how does one accomplish an end given the untenable situation Trump created? Even something as banal as Trump’s grandiose vanity ballroom presents a quandary. The last beam went up yesterday. Should it be built, redesigned, knocked down?

And then there’s the quiet problem Jeffries and the Dems fare with their internal caucus, with the left wing wanting very different goals than the moderate liberals. The Democrats may have enough seats to be in the position of ignoring their fringe, but it’s highly unlikely that the fringe won’t scream as loud as they can to undermine the majority to exploit division.

But Radley goes on make clear that the one thing the House and Senate can do, and Trump can’t stop them, is investigate.

What Congress can do without Trump’s approval is oversight. He can’t veto oversight. And right now, it’s about all we have left. The Supreme Court has effectively told Trump and all future presidents that they can’t be prosecuted for the crimes they commit in office. The court has also made clear that the pardon power is absolute. That means the entire executive branch can act with near impunity. Proponents of the unitary executive — as the court’s conservatives are — believe the only real check on presidential power is Congress and its power to impeach. So why would you preemptively surrender the only tool you have, just hours after you’ve won?

You can do what’s necessary to protect democracy while also passing budgetary, regulatory, health care, and other day-to-day legislation. You can do both. You’re obligated to do both.

He’s right that there is an obligation of oversight. That is a critical part of Congress’ responsibility under our tripartite checks and balances system. And there is no shortage of things needing investigation, from murder on the high seas to selling pardons to the vast wealth Trump and his nepo babies (and baby-in-law) amassed in the past two years.

But is this what Americans want? Some do, no doubt, and thrill at the prospect of dragging Trump’s minions into committee rooms to answer under oath for their wrongs.

But the voters made very clear last night that they want accountability. After “affordability,” corruption was their top concern. In past elections, it wasn’t enough of a concern to make the list of concerns.

Wanting to end corruption, however, isn’t quite the same thing as wanting retribution. There is a huge need for laws limiting graft and grift, from the lowly House to the Supreme Court to the Oval Office. Preventing future corruption would go a long way in satisfying this need, even if it’s not nearly as easily done as people think. But outing, if not punishing, past corruption?

At best, this would be a circus, with performances much like those we enjoyed with Pam Bondi screaming at reps and senators alike, clutching her “burn book” to her breast while never answering a question. Is this what people want, another shitshow reminding every American of the impotence of Congress to actually make anyone answer any question?

But then, they would be under oath. There would be a Democratic chair to order the witness to answer. The subpoenas would fly, demanding both documents and appearances with little tolerance for delays, inadequate answers and lies. After all, if these witnesses fail to answer questions, fail to tell the truth, fail to appear, they can be prosecuted for contempt of Congress by the Attorney General.

Have you met Todd Blanche?

Perhaps Hakeem Jeffries, who really needs to learn to speak without constantly waving his hands about, realizes that this election wasn’t about America wanting Democrats in control, but about America not wanting Trump in control, and will be thoughtful in how he uses his newfound authority, how he herds his feral representatives, and how he controls the worst impulses of his loudest members so that Congress can not only be relevant again, but effective. It will not be an easy task, and seeking retribution might warm the cockles of the outraged left, but might well prove politically disastrous and reveal the ineffectiveness of Congress in the hands of the opposition.