And note the word process. Greg Sargent makes a good point (boldface mine):

Doing so, they think, would strengthen their hand in the courts and potentially persuade judges to move more quickly on cases such as the potential one against McGahn, while building on any momentum generated by Mueller.

If Judiciary Committee Democrats themselves believe this, then they should feel obligated to launch an inquiry.

…But Democrats I spoke with believe there’s a way to avoid this pitfall. Judiciary Democrats can say they’re formally considering drafting articles of impeachment. This could entail hearings that examine Trump’s misconduct — and feature experts on high crimes and misdemeanors and impeachment history — with an eye towards determining what, precisely, such articles of impeachment should say.

This would have the virtue of being procedurally proper, and in keeping with what history tells us about how this process is supposed to work.

It would also give Pelosi and moderates a way to respond that doesn’t politically inconvenience them or the caucus as a whole. They can say the full House is not involved in an impeachment proceeding and that the relevant committee is simply examining whether it will ultimately draft articles of impeachment.

What’s more, since this would also maximize Democrats’ legal leverage, it would also avoid the risks of inaction.

The prevalent assumption is that investigation into the many crimes and misdemeanors of a historically unpopular president are going to be costly for Democrats. While nothing is ever certain, reminding voters–and one or two news cycles isn’t a reminder, it has to be a steady drumbeat–of how horrible Trump is over the next six to twelve months probably won’t help Trump, and will likely hurt him, if for no other reason, that, at least some of the charges (e.g., emoluments) are very well grounded.

Curling up into the fetal position again isn’t going to help Democrats. As Sargent notes, the risks of inaction are very real.