Kathleen Kane has stirred her share of political controversy as Pennsylvania’s first elected Democratic woman attorney general. But none of her actions or inactions has amounted to an impeachable offense.

Even if Rep. Daryl Metcalfe appears to think they do.

Metcalfe, of Cranberry Township, chairs the House State Government Committee, which is scheduled to conduct a hearing Tuesday on an impeachment resolution against Kane for her refusal to defend the state’s gay marriage ban. The committee also will review Kane’s decision not to prosecute four Philadelphia lawmakers — all Democrats — who were recorded by a confidential informant while taking cash from an undercover agent.

Metcalfe, a Republican seeking re-election in this month’s spring primary, filed the resolution against Kane in October. He accuses the attorney general of misbehaviorin office after Kane declined to defend the state and Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, in a federal lawsuit to overturn the gay marriage ban.

It was after Metcalfe filed the resolution that Kane became embroiled in the second incident: her refusal to prosecute the four legislators. Metcalfe said this week the committee will examine Kane’s decision to end the legislative sting case. When a Philadelphia Inquirer story exposed the case, Kane defended her action saying the case was legally flawed and had untertones of racism.

Metcalfe indicates he could schedule a committee vote on impeachment, depending on how the hearing goes. If that were to happen, a resolution approved by the full committee would move to the full House.

But that’s a tough sell.

Kane might or might not be culpable for misjudgment. Her decisions might have been politically motivated. But it’s clear she studied the cases, considered the options and made decisions she’s willing to defend, however questionable they might seem — and they do appear questionable.

But they’re not criminal. And if her decisions stirred the odor of political motivation, they did so no more than Metcalfe’s decision to file his resolution to consider impeachment.

Kane surely realizes her decisions not to pursue these cases have damaged her political reputation. There’s a lot of fence-mending she’ll have to do with Pennsylvania voters if she expects to salvage her political future. And the voters ultimately will judge Kane’s conduct.

But Kane should not be forced to defend herself in any impeachment proceeding. Metcalfe’s hearing will generate compelling political drama but little else.