This little phrase is something which liberal “journalists” ( that is PR writers for the globalist and progressive liberal ideology ) have latched onto. The little phrase is used to discredit anything which they don’t agree with, without evidence, if I can put it that way!
This is a little example, from the New York Times, in an article about some off-stage (not governmental) dreaming/thinking about how to “police a ceasefire or settlement” in Ukraine:
Mr. Trump has said he wants a quick settlement and in the last week has taken steps aimed at forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table: Suspending military aid and the sharing of intelligence to Ukraine, while repeatedly saying, with no evidence, that he thinks President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia wants to make a deal. [1]
They want to discredit Putin and the idea that Russia is ready to talk. So they throw in, “with no evidence”. This is a particularly egregious example because here all Trump has done, according to the text, is “think”. You do not need evidence to say that “I think it will rain tomorrow”. It is just a kind of view or opinion. Obviously, when Trump says that he thinks that Russia is ready to talk and end the war, that is based on the conversations which he and his team have had with Russia and maybe public statements by Russia officials. He hasn’t just plucked the belief out of thin air. But; you do not need to “evidence” every single opinion or view you express. People don’t do this in ordinary conversation. The demand that Trump evidences every statement he makes is simply a narrative tactic to undermine what Trump is trying to do – in this case bring the war to an end. (In passing we can note, it is always non liberals who are asked to “evidence” what they say, never liberals, who can say the most extraordinary things “without evidence”, such as a boy is in fact a girl).
In this specific case one could add a further point; Trump has no need to “evidence” his belief because the “evidence” is already there, in the public domain. The Russian side continually indicate readiness to come to the negotiating table. All the commentary I have seen is that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who walked away from the talks in Istanbul in March 2022. The talks broke down shortly after a visit by war-enthusiast Boris Johnson to Kiev and amidst allegations of war crimes, said to make talks impossible. (Like so many wars one side appears to commit an atrocity at just the right moment to support a strong call for war by the other side; think, for example, Kuwait and incubators, ‘genocide’ in Kosovo [2]). To be fair to Kiev; while Russia does talk about being willing to negotiate they also insist on their minimum non-negotiable demands. Still; they are apparently still willing to meet and talk. It is not the case as, for example, the EU’s Kaja Kallas claimed recently that Russia “has no interest in peace”. [3]
“without evidence” is one of their little media tricks to advance their war ideology. Look out for it. It is everywhere in the liberal media.
Notes