Are you under oath?
Maybe just say, "yes sir, already done, thanks, all hail our big-pharma overlords."
Regarding "If one is dirty so is the other" equating to "If one is clean, so is the other". Well if Q said that, ok fine. But I do not believe it can be infered…
For example: Is there a teacup in the rings of Saturn? Probably not, but you cannot say for sure until you check. That's why athesim in illogical too; because you cannot prove negative. That's why you have to prove guilt in court, not innocence. Same idea.
It think it's different in criminal law. If they are in cahoots, assigning guilt to one means the other is also implicated, sure.
However, the innocence of one party does not immediately vindicate the other of all wrong doing.
Make sense?
I have been here since the beginning. And yes, you are absolutely correct for a pure math-logic scenario. 100%.
When we are talking about guilt vs. innocence tho there are different standards is what I am getting at. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. It's all about mens rea; malicious intent.