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.

UPDATED: Saul Alinsky, The Arrest Of Roger Stone, And The Uses Of Power

Reader Jim W. has drawn my attention to a NYT article about the "perp walk":

Parading the accused and the condemned before the citizenry is an age-old tactic used by those holding power. The most famous example goes back some 2,000 years, when a Jewish preacher from Nazareth was forced to trudge painfully to Calvary. William Wallace, the Scottish independence leader, experienced it being dragged through London before his execution in 1305. French monarchists, during the revolution, endured it as well in the tumbrels carrying them to the guillotine.

That sort of public shaming has not disappeared, even if conducted in 21st-century America with less brutality. The modern version is known as a perp walk. As in days of old, a criminal suspect is displayed in front of a fevered crowd — composed now not of the howling masses but of camera and microphone holders pushing and shouting in sweaty pursuit of the best possible lens angle.

The article notes that in 1999 a federal judge in NY ruled that the perp walk was unconstitutional unless it had some "legitimate law enforcement objective or justification":

Judge Schwartz said the walk was intended to humiliate ... and had ''no legitimate law enforcement objective or justification.'' ...

The perp walk, though, seems almost certain to survive Judge Schwartz. 

The author was right, of course. Intimidation and humiliation by the Leftist establishment will always be with us. In place of the "perp walk", behold: the SWAT raid in the hours of darkness!