Not necessarily. If the shit hits the fan, there will be massive leaks. They could disclose Donnie has an indictment against him. Also, from my understanding that's still what the argument is about. Some even think you shouldn't even be able to label him as an unidicted co-cospirator.
Did you look at the articles? The first one, for example, uses a constitutional clause to argue it. The second one draws up some hypotheticals to show some of the absurdity over the "absolute" interpretation. There's more -- I was hastily posting. There's a ruling from
Schick v. Reed that says the following:
"Additionally, considerations of public policy and humanitarian impulses support an interpretation of that power so as to permit the attachment of any condition which does not otherwise offend the Constitution."
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/419/256.html
If it's something that can lead to impeachment, there's also no reason to think that the judiciary has to enforce it.
One good thing about the Democrats taking HOR is that they'll make the emoluments case more ironclad and Donnie will have to divest or resign to not violate the Constitution.
It'll cause a shitstorm with everyone else, though, and they'll lose the more independent voters. I think you're also assuming Trump's alleged crimes won't be that wild when that seems to be the direction this is going in. But we'll see.