top of page

No evidence becomes no direct evidence? So what's next?

We could go all the way back to the proven false claims that Joe never even discussed business with Hunter. How many layers of this onion has been peeled off.


  • Joe never discussed business with Hunter

  • Joe may have discussed it with Hunter, but was never involved with any of Hunter's business associates

  • Joe may have had interactions with Hunter's business associates, but they just talked about the weather.

  • Joe may have talked about more than the weather, but there is no evidence that he actually did anything tangible.

  • Well Joe might have done some tangible actions (such as have a prosecutor fired), but there is no evidence that he benefitted from these actions.

  • There may be evidence that he benefitted from his actions, but there is no "direct evidence" that he benefitted (as in no money directly went to his personal bank accounts).

I suppose the next logical move when "direct evidence" is provided will be that Joe has not been found guilty in any court of law. Or perhaps he has not confessed? I am not sure where you end up drawing the final line or if there really is a final line that can be crossed here. But this has become little more than a real life example of a Monty Python skit.


23 views
bottom of page