Redundancy of 'Mights'

Redundancy of 'Mights'

Today a person in government said (of Boris J) that they're "going to conduct an inquiry to find out whether there is any evidence that malfeasance might have been committed". No, this makes me cringe a little.  That is like saying "It's possible that it's possible".  Deniers of S4 aside (and setting aside Two-Dimensionalism), that is just an overly wordy way, that is a redundant way, of saying "It's possible," or, in today's case, that they're "going to conduct an inquiry to find out whether there is any evidence that malfeasance was committed" (or - thanks DL - that they're "going to conduct an inquiry to find out whether there is any evidence of  malfeasance").  That there is evidence that something happened does not prove, of course, that the thing happened. It is just evidence. 

Why do people speak this way?  Possibly it's just a shaky grasp of grammar; one can well-imagine the speaker, her or his eyes going vacant when speaking the sentence.  But it might also be a certain humility; one can imagine the inner dialogue: "This thing is possible; that's all I want to say and don't want anyone thinking I'm saying more than that.  Better put in 'might' or 'possible' wherever I can, just to make sure".  Or maybe both are at work.