Some of the Republican-invited witnesses at the GOP’s first impeachment inquiry hearing cast doubt on whether there was enough evidence to support an impeachment of President Biden. Jonathan Turley…
“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.
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.
“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.
There’s not enough evidence to convict you of raping and murdering a dozen puppies yesterday.
A lack of evidence is not evidence.
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.
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.