• Davel23@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    20
    Ā·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    ā€œThere isnā€™t enough to impeachā€ 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
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      9 months ago

      Thereā€™s not enough evidence to convict you of raping and murdering a dozen puppies yesterday.

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      Ā·
      9 months ago

      No. Itā€™s delusions.

      ā€œHigh crimes and misdemeanorsā€ doesnā€™t mean ā€œserious crimes.ā€ It doesnā€™t mean felonies. Itā€™s the political equivalent of what we call ā€œConduct Unbecoming an Officer.ā€ 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. Thereā€™s a lot of latitude there.

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

      ā€œHigh,ā€ in the legal and common vocabulary of the 17th and 18th centuries of ā€œhigh crimes,ā€ 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 ā€œhigh crimes and misdemeanors,ā€ 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 theyā€™re saying is that they have bupkis. Zilch. Nada.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      Ā·
      9 months ago

      Well, first off, a lawyer can find evidence for everything, even if itā€™s flimsy af.

      Chemtrails? Everyone sees the white dust from air planes.

      Flat earth? Well if earth is underneath me, and the ground is flatā€¦

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

      Also consider the fact that ā€œnot enough evidenceā€ can also mean none at all. Thatā€™s not mutually exclusive.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      Ā·
      9 months ago

      Oh, thereā€™s definitely no evidence, but when the Republicans are saying they ā€œdonā€™t have enough evidenceā€ you know that they are reaching. Theyā€™re willing to accept wild leaps of logic based on the flimsiest of foundations, but even they are admitting that it isnā€™t enough for impeachment.