> 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

> 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.