Would they finally act if he said that the next election won't be necessary?
The Representatives are there to legislate and have the sole power to impeach, but it is not required that they do so even in the egregious conduct of this president. He wants to be impeached - he is egging them on every way he can. The President is failing to perform his duties in enforcing the law, and we can all argue forever about whether he personally has broken the law - but to say this “procedure to prevent future breaking of the law” would be effective is only hoping for the ideal. Clinton was impeached for clear breaking of the law - he committed perjury. The Senate refused to convict and remove from office, and in the long run the Republicans were portrayed as the villains.
We can’t fall into the trap they so long for - they want so much for Obama to be impeached so that will become the main event people watch instead of the failure of his policies. The track record for impeachment of a President is not good. Need to find a clear case of breaking the law - not ignoring their duties or stretching the limits of the authority they have. Probably best to start with lower level officers (Lois Lerner would have been good, but she already removed herself from office) - “Fast and Furious” could be the model of laws broken - and impeach someone in the DOJ up to Eric Holder. Let the Senate fail to convict and remove and see if there is fallout.
In an ideal world people of honor would be serving in the Senate and would stand up for the right - but we are not in an ideal world. We can’t let ourselves be manipulated by Zero and his puppeteers. The current Senate wouldn’t convict any Democrat of anything, no matter what the evidence. After the November election, if there is a huge shift in the Senate - we will still be short of 2/3 necessary to convict, but a large enough loss could be enough to persuade some D’s that they would rather hang onto their job than further the work of a lame duck.