• Davel23@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “There isn’t enough to impeach” implies that there actually is some evidence, instead of just GOP delusions.

    Edit: I should have been clearer. By saying this the way they did, they are sending the message to their audience that there is evidence, just not enough to convict. While there is no evidence at all.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s not enough evidence to convict you of raping and murdering a dozen puppies yesterday.

    • SatanicNotMessianic
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. It’s delusions.

      “High crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t mean “serious crimes.” It doesn’t mean felonies. It’s the political equivalent of what we call “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.” That may be a literal crime, of course, like the multiple Hatch Act violations during the Trump administration. It could be the appearance of accepting bribes from foreign officials when they rent your real estate at exorbitant prices. It could be trying to overthrow an election. It could be strong-arming a foreign leader to manufacture dirt on your political opponent. There’s a lot of latitude there.

      High crimes means that a public official, in their capacity as a public official, betrayed the public trust.

      “High,” in the legal and common vocabulary of the 17th and 18th centuries of “high crimes,” is the activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that is not shared with ordinary persons. A high crime can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors,” used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or demanding criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover an extensive range of crimes.

      What they’re saying is that they have bupkis. Zilch. Nada.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, first off, a lawyer can find evidence for everything, even if it’s flimsy af.

      Chemtrails? Everyone sees the white dust from air planes.

      Flat earth? Well if earth is underneath me, and the ground is flat…

      So there might be some teeny tiny evidence for that, but obviously not enough for any solid case.

      Also consider the fact that “not enough evidence” can also mean none at all. That’s not mutually exclusive.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, there’s definitely no evidence, but when the Republicans are saying they “don’t have enough evidence” you know that they are reaching. They’re willing to accept wild leaps of logic based on the flimsiest of foundations, but even they are admitting that it isn’t enough for impeachment.