How do you solve a problem like Donald Trump? Impeachment isn't the answer. Yet.

After digesting special counsel Robert Mueller's report and watching Attorney General William Barr’s Senate testimony, I’ve concluded, among other things, that Barr is simply wrong. I’m convinced that a reasonable prosecutor could charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice.

But that’s something of a red herring. Whether Trump’s actions were actually illegal or merely unacceptable is beside the point. The question is, what do we do about it? Should the president be impeached?

That’s certainly what some people, outraged by his conduct in office and insisting he must be held to account, are demanding. But I’m far more concerned about minimizing damage to our democratic institutions and our political fabric than I am about punishing anyone. And impeachment isn’t a punishment. Rather, it’s the ultimate safeguard protecting those institutions from the worst kinds of malfeasance. Punishment is reserved for criminal law, and the president is answerable for all of his acts once he’s out of office, no matter how that occurs. 

Read more commentary:

Trump administration could leave Congress no choice but an impeachment inquiry: Rep. Lieu

William Barr lied to Congress about the Mueller report. He should resign: Adam Schiff

2020 litmus test: All Democratic candidates should call for Trump impeachment proceedings

The real question isn’t whether Trump should be punished for obstruction. It’s whether impeaching the president is the best way to protect our democracy from further harm.

I’m not convinced. It’s true there would be an undeniable satisfaction in finally “doing something” to push back against Trump’s behavior in office. But impeachment would also be extremely disruptive and divisive. Worse, it would be little more than a gesture. The House probably would have the votes to impeach (or charge) him. But absent some stunning new revelation, the GOP-run Senate just isn’t going muster the two-thirds majority necessary to convict and remove the president. It might not even try the case, a constitutional nightmare all on its own. 

A B-list celebrity desperate for attention

I’m also not convinced that Trump “merits” impeachment. Yes, the president has behaved outrageously in office, from attempting to interfere with the Mueller investigation to pressuring the attorney general not to prosecute Republicans. But it’s a little bit like when someone living in a memory care facility goes on a shoplifting spree. Everyone can see this is very wrong and that steps must be taken to ensure it never happens again. But it’s all kind of sad and maybe isn’t best resolved through formal legal channels. 

The truth is that the president is incredibly inept. Trump doesn’t so much represent the banality of evil as he does the evil of banality. He continues to behave like a B-list celebrity desperate for attention and with one eye on the judgment of his fans — rather than as the president of the United States with one eye on the judgment of history. He’s incapable of understanding the serious responsibilities with which he has been entrusted. The reason he publicly advocates things like politicizing the Justice Department is because he simply doesn’t understand why that would be wrong. But this makes him less dangerous to our fundamental institutions rather than more. It’s hard to subvert what you don’t understand.

So I don’t think impeachment is the answer. But we can’t just ignore the problem, either. What we — and Congress — need to do is take steps to limit the damage by empowering the people around the president to do their jobs ethically. The message is, “There will be accountability, so mind what you do.” People near the president know right from wrong even if Trump does not. Knowing there will be a reckoning, where the faithful will be rewarded and the guilty exposed, will go a long way in helping these people do the right thing.

This means congressional oversight and lots of it. Trump has made it increasingly clear he’s not happy about this. Nonetheless, congressional oversight is written into the Constitution, and complying with it is part of the president’s job. Every parent knows that the way to handle a 3-year-old throwing a tantrum isn’t to give in. And make no mistake, Trump's blanket refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas and oversight efforts is not a reasoned defense of presidential prerogative. It’s a tantrum. It’s now the job of Congress to make sure that the president eats his peas.

Let's honor defenders of democracy

The flip side of vigorous oversight is rewarding those who step up to defend our democratic institutions despite the pressure they face. Congress — at least the House — should pass resolutions commending people like former White House counsel Don McGahn, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn and, yes, even former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Other organizations who believe in our institutions should do the same.

This isn’t about Republicans and Democrats or even liberals and conservatives. You can reject Sessions’ politics while still cheering him for his steadfast defense of an independent and apolitical Justice Department. When we honor people who have served in the military, we don’t ask about their politics before we thank them for their service — because their service to this country transcends politics. The same principle applies here. 

There might come a time when Trump becomes even more of a danger than he is now and impeachment will need to be reconsidered. We aren’t there yet. But that doesn’t mean we can relax. President Andrew Jackson and abolitionist Wendell Phillips are among the many who have said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Phillips added, in 1852, that "Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot."

That's good advice and certainly worth a try. The president won't like having Congress peering over his shoulder, but it's far better, both for Trump and for America, than the alternative.

Chris Truax, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, is a Republican and an appellate lawyer in San Diego.