People keep saying if impeachment doesn't start by Labor Day, end of the year, etc., it's dead

[StarfishSaver]

But what does that mean?

What do they mean by "start impeachment"?

What would happen once "impeachment starts" that isn't happening now?

[elleng]

1. Doesn't mean anything,

especially because an impeachment inquiry has already begun.

[Mike 03]

2. Maybe the hearings and investigations would take on a sense of urgency

as if they are pointing towards a goal. I heard a Rep say something like, "We want to finish this by Christmas" but that sounded rather silly to me. Imagine how it will drive Trump out of his mind to have this Inquiry ongoing constantly. Why rush it? I think they should just keep investigating and not limit it to the Mueller Report but go down every path and completely exhaust this administration. It's like a drawn bow and arrow. Once the arrow is fired, it's just over. So I hope they never take the vote and just keep driving him to the brink of insanity. There are so many avenues to pursue, like his finances and money laundering, the inauguration scandal, etc..

[StarfishSaver]

3. What do you mean by "sense of urgency"?

And what would that look like? Hearings would go faster? McGahn, Hicks, et al, would be more likely to testify?

And Nadler has clearly stated the goal: to determine whether to recommend Trump be impeached.

I agree that the ongoing investigations will drive him bonkers.

[empedocles]

4. Multiple investigations going on at the same time - may confuse trump

even more.

[Mike 03]

6. Yes, and hopefully totally overwhelm his legal staff.

I never really believed, as some people said, that he was "begging to be impeached." Look at his behavior over the last four days. I think it will be a nightmare for him and his lawyers.

[Mike 03]

5. Yes, the committees will be able to access information that the administration

has denied them previously, because they will have this power of investigation that they didn't have before they opened the Inquiry. But people watching, instead of thinking "this is just another hearing" might think "this is part of the Impeachment investigation into whether or not Trump committed crimes." Hopefully it would be taken more seriously and get more coverage in the news.

Also, I should have written in my post, the reason for not taking the vote is that it will be defeated in the Senate and Trump will claim victory. That can't happen if they never actually take the vote but just keep investigating until the election. But my opinion is probably a bit strange. Most people here would probably be happy if the House of Reps did take the vote soon.

[Disaffected]

7. I don't believe

your opinion is strange at all, in fact, such a scenario makes a good deal of sense. Concluding the investigations b/f the election has not nearly as much advantage. I'd bet that has been Pelosi's plan since the outset.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. And to "determine whether to recommend trump to be impeached". Will Nadler

have to reach a published/broadcasted conclusion? If he says YES to move forward on impeachment - no problem. If he says NO - trump will exalt that - just like he would any other course of action. They may have inadvertently created the same outcome as an actual full-throated, formal impeachment - but without the benefit of forcing Republicans to explain a NO vote ( that they accept his behavior) - and without the benefits of having the general public and the world hearing a simple concise itemization of his crimes - some for the very first time.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. It means FORMALLY starting the impeachment process.

Not saying something similar to "well we are investigating to determine IF there's enough evidence we may or may not proceed."
Funny not so funny outcome is that if Nadler's committee decides there isn't enough evidence to write up articles, we are in the exact same place as we would be if there was an actual impeachment and the world could see in a concise and simple list the crimes Trump committed (so far). As all the anti-impeachment forces said - no to impeachment because he will declare exoneration. What will happen IF Nadler declares there wasn't enough evidence?