One of the downsides to being a lawyer is how easy it is to become annoyed by people misunderstanding and/or misusing legal terminology — particularly if it involves a high-profile, highly-debated matter.
So it was that I found myself annoyed (more than usual) when the Democrat talking point regarding the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden went out and had seemingly sentient beings loudly proclaiming there was “no evidence” of any wrongdoing on the part of the president.
The number of people who struggle with the definition of “evidence” is annoying.
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 13, 2023
To which I say: No evidence, my rear. There’s plenty of evidence. There are bank records, and suspicious activity reports, and texts, and photos, and emails, and phone calls, and witness testimony, and millions of dollars paid to multiple Biden family members by foreign nationals. That’s all evidence. Now, you can debate the credibility of the evidence, or the weight of it. You can question whether it meets the requisite burden of proof to warrant impeachment.
What you can’t do is stick your fingers in your ears or over your eyes, sing “La, la, la,” and contend that there is no evidence to warrant further investigation into Hunter’s shady business dealings and the president’s potential involvement in them.
My statement on the extreme Republican road to impeachment: pic.twitter.com/CNLVPOaOeZ
— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) September 12, 2023
Well, not if you want to lay any claim to being a rational, intellectually honest actor, at least.
This “Moore to the Point” commentary aired on NewsTalkSTL on Friday, September 15. Audio included below.
