This is the article about Amanda Ungaro, the reason behind Melania’s statement.

  • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    If we only accept evidence with people with pure motives, we’re screwed even worse than we already are. A lot of evidence comes from people with ulterior motives: snitch testimony, plea bargains, defensive blackmail. And the legal system is set up to examine the truth of those claims, keeping in mind the biases of the source.

    And it’s also worth keeping in mind that people going against Trump often face death threats, and seem to have a higher risk of deaths under weird circumstances than the population at large (Brunel and Epstein, for example). So, even if Amanda Ungaro’s motives are pure (which I doubt), there would still be good reasons for her to keep her mouth shut.

    • ClownStatue@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Exactly. Same mentality is used when going after drug cartels, and the like. You have to begin by understanding that you’re going to be dealing with people who were OK with what is/was going on. Fortunately, evil people don’t tend to be loyal to one another for very long, and that’s usually their biggest weakness from a “getting what they deserve” standpoint.