3 ms·

The article specifically pointed out that the fraud charges are based on a single accusation of a former Ecuadoran judge whom Chevron moved him & his family to

by toss1 4y ago

The article specifically pointed out that the fraud charges are based on a single accusation of a former Ecuadoran judge whom Chevron moved him & his family to the United States, paid his income taxes, and had their lawyers coach him for 53 days. He since recanted his false testimony. Even if there is actually some kind of wrongdoing on Donziger's side, the blatant multi-million dollar effort to discredit him and blatantly ignore the law on Chevron's part so taints any such evidence that it should be considered worthless. The "both-sidesing" it as you are doing, you very nicely demonstrate how it's so easy to fall into the trap of being "fair" but actually siding with the wrongdoer.

Lazare 4y ago
> The article specifically pointed out that the fraud charges are based on a single accusation of a former Ecuadoran judge The article was simply incorrect to do so. Again, there was an actual film crew following Donziger around; a key scene was cut from the theatrical release because someone on Donziger's team said that what it showed was "so serious we could lose everything". > He since recanted his false testimony. He has recanted some testimony. Not all. And to be clear, the options here seem to be 1) bribed by Chevron to falsely claim he was bribed by Donziger or 2) bribed by both Donziger and later Chevron. He clearly has lied in exchange for money; now we're just trying to decide which one of his paid-for stories is true, but there's no particular reason to think any of them are true. > The "both-sidesing" it as you are doing, you very nicely demonstrate how it's so easy to fall into the trap of being "fair" but actually siding with the wrongdoer. The problem with cases like this is that there are a lot of different sides, and it's not clear any of them are "good guys", with the exception of the actual residents of Lago Agrio, who unfortunately seem likely to lose come what may. In any case, if two wrongdoers end up in a dispute, if you pick a side, you'll end up siding with a wrongdoer, yes. Which I would suggest you are, in fact, doing. Sometimes neither side is worth backing.
IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
You are right on the money but let me add even more content. - The alleged wrongdoing broke rules in US laws but are permissible (and even common) in the ecuadorean legal framework. - the alleged wrong doing took place in Ecuador, while the case was being tried in an ecuadorean court. -

by toss1 4y ago

Lazare 4y ago

> The article specifically pointed out that the fraud charges are based on a single accusation of a former Ecuadoran judge The article was simply incorrect to do so. Again, there was an actual film crew following Donziger around; a key scene was cut from the theatrical release because someone on Donziger's team said that what it showed was "so serious we could lose everything". > He since recanted his false testimony. He has recanted some testimony. Not all. And to be clear, the options here seem to be 1) bribed by Chevron to falsely claim he was bribed by Donziger or 2) bribed by both Donziger and later Chevron. He clearly has lied in exchange for money; now we're just trying to decide which one of his paid-for stories is true, but there's no particular reason to think any of them are true. > The "both-sidesing" it as you are doing, you very nicely demonstrate how it's so easy to fall into the trap of being "fair" but actually siding with the wrongdoer. The problem with cases like this is that there are a lot of different sides, and it's not clear any of them are "good guys", with the exception of the actual residents of Lago Agrio, who unfortunately seem likely to lose come what may. In any case, if two wrongdoers end up in a dispute, if you pick a side, you'll end up siding with a wrongdoer, yes. Which I would suggest you are, in fact, doing. Sometimes neither side is worth backing.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

You are right on the money but let me add even more content. - The alleged wrongdoing broke rules in US laws but are permissible (and even common) in the ecuadorean legal framework. - the alleged wrong doing took place in Ecuador, while the case was being tried in an ecuadorean court. -