Will Impeachment By Innuendo Work?

This evening sundance identifies Pelosi's impeachment strategy as "impeachment by innuendo." I agree that that's a pretty good description. The proof, as always, is in the pudding--will it work? Here is sundance's description:

Both Trump-Russia (obstruction) and Trump-Ukraine (corruption) have similar footprints because they both held the same end-goal purpose, impeachment. 

Trump was framed for stealing a horse; Trump was subsequently accused of trying too hard to avoid hanging for it. Mueller eventually conceded that Trump didn’t steal the horse; however, by then the focus was on his efforts to avoid hanging.  Eventually Mueller testified; it surfaced there was never a horse to begin with… Impeachment was stalled.

I luv that metaphor!

We would be well served to avoid focusing on the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, and subsequent anonymous whistle-blower complaint narrative, to understand their objective. 

The background facts are not the priority for those who are constructing the impeachment articles.  Like the Russian horse, the Ukraine horse never existed. Pelosi’s political committee needs center around exploiting a manufactured corruption narrative. 

The primary objective of Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings and Eliot Engel is not the material within the anonymous CIA ‘whistle-blower’ complaint.  The priority is the use of the complaint as a vehicle. The complaint was fabricated to deliver an outcome in the same way the Steele Dossier was fabricated to deliver an outcome.

I believe this strategy will not work. The reason is related to sundance's comparison of the Ukraine Hoax to the Steele Dossier hoax. The Steele Dossier based impeachment effort came, in my opinion, dangerously close to succeeding. The near success had nothing to do with the actual non-factual narrative propagated through the Steele Dossier. Rather, the near success was based on Trump's supposed obstruction of a non-factual narrative--as sundance puts it, the horse that never existed!

That lynching was definitvely put down by Bill Barr.


The Steele Dossier hoax had, IMO, the advantage over the Ukraine Hoax in that the narrative's propagation actually began before the election. Thus, in a narratival sense, Trump brought the Russia Hoax narrative into office with him.

That's the difference--and it's a major one. The Ukraine Hoax is manufactured from equal parts new fiction and recycled Russia Hoax innuendo, but it's essentially a new creation. As such, it's competing with a new narrative that has widespread currency: a remarkably successful presidency, with significant achievements in both domestic and foreign affairs, combined with exoneration of Deep State innuendo. The most recent Kavanaugh hoax is certainly another factor. The public can only take so much innuendo before it demands: Where's the beef? That's the intertia that the Ukraine Hoax is up against. The Dems are in the position of the little boy crying 'Wolf!' all too often.

With virtually each passing hour it seems, more discrediting facts are coming to light. The initial public reaction may have been, yeah, go ahead with your impeachment inquiry--that's the presumption of legitimacy and fairness. But time is running out.

Saul Alinsky, evangelist of the Left, famously warned: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” The unholy trinity of the House--Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff--have dragged out impeachment for so long that the process itself has become a drag on impeachment. Trump's brilliant tactic of full disclosure sooner rather than later has put them on the defensive. In the current environment the Dems cannot afford failure.