Trump's novel comparison of Kavanaugh to the Saudi state nicely illustrates the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: there was direct evidence against Kavanaugh but only circumstance evidence against the Saudis. A thread:
In the case of Kavanaugh, there was a witness who says that she actually observed the sexual assault in full — namely, Dr. Ford. This was direct evidence sufficient to ground a conviction for sexual assault if Kavanaugh had been charged at the time:
With the Saudis, we don't yet have anyone on record testifying to the elements of the alleged offense. We have only evidence that strongly suggests guilt, such as that Khashoggi entered the consulate and apparently did not leave and that the consulate is controlled by the Saudis.
A conviction can be based wholly on circumstantial evidence if "the circumstances ... are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence", Wilson v. State, 319 Md 530 (1990), but this is a stringent standard. With direct evidence, only one credible witness is required.
It's impossible to guess what Trump meant by his analogy, but based on the foregoing, one possible interpretation is that Trump thinks Kavanaugh is more obviously guilty than the Saudis, because there is direct evidence against the former but not against the latter.
