so i am going to start noting cases in the media of extreme, redundant, or incomprehensible qualification. i notice this with regard especially to contemporary politicians: they will issue a decisive-seeming sentence with three qualifications which make the actual assertion amount to nothing at all, or reduce it to sheer gobbledygook. ok first case, daily beast:

For years critics have claimed Edgar Bronfman Jr. is a buffoon managing his family company, Seagram, and taking over Warner Music, but a new book proves that he might be the man to save the music industry.

now there could be cases in which you could prove that something might be the case: that ducks can mate with humans, for example: i didn't know that was possible! even that is not the parallel case. this is more like proving that barack obama and lady gaga might be the same person, which would follow - if it does follow - from metaphysical speculation rather than any actual facts. at any rate: to prove that i myself might be the person to save the music industry is unnecessary and trivial: to prove that i am the person to save the music industry will be extremely difficult until i actually seize control of the music industry, which, you know, i can prove might be possible.