That process is kind of the point with some considerations about each of the steps.
- Timing on the transition from step 4 to 5 is critical.
- How fine grained is the control moving from steps 2 to 3 to 4? Can this be forced by someone trying to rush the process.
- What powers and advantages are gained at step 2 beyond what is already possible before starting step 1?
All of this is about backing into when to start step 1. As I mentioned, if magically we were at step 5 today (before being quote edited that it doesn’t work this way, which clearly I knew because I referenced “magic” being involved). If step 5 happens to soon, there will be an entire 2020 campaign on “totally exonerated” when the Senate doesn’t convict.
That leads to question 2, if someone else can force the timing on this, or just being in step 2 for to long dulls public opinion forcing a move to step 5. Then the house loses control of the timing.
Finally, question 3 about what extra powers are gained by starting the impeachment process. If they can investigate all kinds of things and issue subpoenas already, what else is gained? If there’s nothing to gain other than starting the clock, then it’s better to wait until you have a big headstart developed. A headstart that is hopefully a mountain so large that the result of steps 5-8 isn’t a forgone “totally exonerated”.
They can’t (or aren’t willing to) enforce subpoena today. They should solve this before moving up from “everyday normal house investigations” to “advanced level impeachment investigations”, or what’s the point, they’ve already lost. We’ll have months of ignored subpoena, all noise and no substance, a party line vote in the house, move to the senate for a party line vote, and head into the election with “totally exonerated by the Senate”.
That’s Nancy’s problem to solve. Clearly not an easy one, and we’re all going to disagree with whatever playbook she uses.
