Pablo Torre: Kawhi/Clippers/Ballmer/Aspiration Thread (part 2)

[Invictus88]

I'm not sure this adds anything we can't tell from just seeing the terms of Kawhi's contract, although catching Ballmer in a lie regarding his relationship with Sanberg would help.

This new piece established 3 new important things.

1.) Direct quotes and or evidence. If a board is involved, there would be AGS minutes, etc. That is quite different from heresay evidence.

2.) Direct testimony the Clippers knew and even pushed for it.

3.) The conversation about whether Kawhi was worth it establishes that there was some level of understanding that this was a quid pro quo.

This is is all fairly devastating for the defense. This erases reasonable doubt someone might be able to claim.

1) The board being involved is not surprising given a financial decision of this level.

2) Good point, this is helpful if the executive wants to talk to the NBA, but some sort of call log or paper trail or something would still be very helpful to to corroborate the chain of events.

3) Of course this deal was idiotic if the terms we've been told about are accurate. We don't need an Aspiration exec to confirm that.

So (2) is the key but scamming scammers are going to scam, and we need evidence that Sanberg wasn't just trying to embezzle or curry favor with Ballmer without a clear quid pro quo. Demonstrating Ballmer knew about (let alone demanded) the Kawhi deal would help.

How does making a hidden deal with Kawhi that Ballmer doesn't know about magically curry favor with Ballmer?

Joe: "Hey Steve buddy! You should be REALLY happy with me right about now!"
Steve: "Why is that?"
Joe: "I can't say."

As has been stated a million times already: there is no logical reason for a scammer to freely give away millions of dollars; which is what would be happening in this case if Ballmer wasn't aware.

But you keep parroting that nonsense.

[JonFromVA]

So now is your tune changing from "I need proof from Ballmer's mouth that he did it" to "Everybody's doing it so it's really not a big deal"?

Hilarious. Just Hilarious.

Still hallucinating I see.

Which part?

All, but maybe you don't understand that discussing a topic isn't necessarily the same thing as taking a side, expressing an opinion, making a prediction, or stating a preference?

[JonFromVA]

This new piece established 3 new important things.

1.) Direct quotes and or evidence. If a board is involved, there would be AGS minutes, etc. That is quite different from heresay evidence.

2.) Direct testimony the Clippers knew and even pushed for it.

3.) The conversation about whether Kawhi was worth it establishes that there was some level of understanding that this was a quid pro quo.

This is is all fairly devastating for the defense. This erases reasonable doubt someone might be able to claim.

1) The board being involved is not surprising given a financial decision of this level.

2) Good point, this is helpful if the executive wants to talk to the NBA, but some sort of call log or paper trail or something would still be very helpful to to corroborate the chain of events.

3) Of course this deal was idiotic if the terms we've been told about are accurate. We don't need an Aspiration exec to confirm that.

So (2) is the key but scamming scammers are going to scam, and we need evidence that Sanberg wasn't just trying to embezzle or curry favor with Ballmer without a clear quid pro quo. Demonstrating Ballmer knew about (let alone demanded) the Kawhi deal would help.

How does making a hidden deal with Kawhi that Ballmer doesn't know about magically curry favor with Ballmer?

Joe: "Hey Steve buddy! You should be REALLY happy with me right about now!"
Steve: "Why is that?"
Joe: "I can't say."

As has been stated a million times already: there is no logical reason for a scammer to freely give away millions of dollars; which is what would be happening in this case if Ballmer wasn't aware.

But you keep parroting that nonsense.

You're arguing my point.

That nobody would believe Ballmer wasn't dirty is exactly how Sanberg could gain leverage and squeeze more money out of Ballmer through extortion at some point in the future (if his company didn't collapse).

That possibility needs to be dismissed with evidence before we can proceed with an otherwise circumstantial case against Ballmer. It would be foolish to ignore the depths of manipulation a scammer can plot.

[Invictus88]

1) The board being involved is not surprising given a financial decision of this level.

2) Good point, this is helpful if the executive wants to talk to the NBA, but some sort of call log or paper trail or something would still be very helpful to to corroborate the chain of events.

3) Of course this deal was idiotic if the terms we've been told about are accurate. We don't need an Aspiration exec to confirm that.

So (2) is the key but scamming scammers are going to scam, and we need evidence that Sanberg wasn't just trying to embezzle or curry favor with Ballmer without a clear quid pro quo. Demonstrating Ballmer knew about (let alone demanded) the Kawhi deal would help.

How does making a hidden deal with Kawhi that Ballmer doesn't know about magically curry favor with Ballmer?

Joe: "Hey Steve buddy! You should be REALLY happy with me right about now!"
Steve: "Why is that?"
Joe: "I can't say."

As has been stated a million times already: there is no logical reason for a scammer to freely give away millions of dollars; which is what would be happening in this case if Ballmer wasn't aware.

But you keep parroting that nonsense.

You're arguing my point.

That nobody would believe Ballmer wasn't dirty is exactly how Sanberg could gain leverage and squeeze more money out of Ballmer through extortion at some point in the future (if his company didn't collapse).

That possibility needs to be dismissed with evidence before we can proceed with an otherwise circumstantial case against Ballmer. It would be foolish to ignore the depths of manipulation a scammer can plot.

So you are saying that Sandberg threw away millions of dollars to make it look like Kawhi is circumventing the cap and to then blackmail Ballmer into paying even more money to cover it up? THAT is your theory now?



If that were ever attempted and Ballmer was actually innocent do you know what he would do? He would report it. And Sandberg and the rest of Aspiration wouldn't get one red cent (and would have lost tens of millions in the process). They'd also get sued into oblivion if his company didn't collapse.

Ballmer was giving the company tons of money -- willingly. The idea that you even need to go to the bother of an extortion scheme is just stupid.

This is the dumbest thing I have heard in a while. Considering the source I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise.

[Invictus88]

Still hallucinating I see.

Which part?

All, but maybe you don't understand that discussing a topic isn't necessarily the same thing as taking a side, expressing an opinion, making a prediction, or stating a preference?

I don't know what you are doing but I'm having a reasoned discussion based on facts / evidence that has been presented.

Your entire involvement seems to center around making lame excuses for Ballmer that don't seem to be based on any form of reasoning whatsoever. You're entitled to your opinion. Sure. But please tell me how commenting on you shifting tactics of deflection is a form of hallucination?

As the immortal Inigo Montoya once said: "I do not think it means what you think it means".

[xinxin]

Can Cuban still say that WSJ is just a podcaster ?

Like how easily he dismisses Pablo Torre to his face…


Tsk tsk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bstein14]

I see the reports that the "Clippers went to Aspiration and asked them to give Leonard an endorsement deal and that it was important for them to do so" (not exact quote but essentially what was reported) but I didn't see a source listed or who talked to mention the fact that the Clippers asked Aspiration to make that deal. Seems like a nail in the coffin if can be proven to be true.

[ForeverTFC]

I see the reports that the "Clippers went to Aspiration and asked them to give Leonard an endorsement deal and that it was important for them to do so" (not exact quote but essentially what was reported) but I didn't see a source listed or who talked to mention the fact that the Clippers asked Aspiration to make that deal. Seems like a nail in the coffin if can be proven to be true.

It's the WSJ. They're not publishing that if the source isn't legit, though it is interesting that they buried it.

[inonba]

I see the reports that the "Clippers went to Aspiration and asked them to give Leonard an endorsement deal and that it was important for them to do so" (not exact quote but essentially what was reported) but I didn't see a source listed or who talked to mention the fact that the Clippers asked Aspiration to make that deal. Seems like a nail in the coffin if can be proven to be true.

I'll remind everyone again. Ballmer already gave the league an email claiming it was Aspiration that initiated the interest in sponsoring Kawhi. As suspected, that email was manufactured to cover up intent.

How can any argue that isn't consciousness of guilt?

[BruttoNostra]

https://www.wsj.com/business/ballmer-clippers-leonard-sanberg-aspiration-49924b19?mod=mhp

We all know Ballmer and Cuban and their friends at ESPN will claim now it's worth nothing, it's an anonymous report and will not be enough for the court, just for Pablo Torre to release that the anonymous source is ready to testify.
Then Ballmer bots will claim just a testimony isn't enough, so Pablo Torre will release an email and Slack proofs of it. And we all know he had it from day 1, but, once again, decided to let Ballmer gang to incriminate themselves even more.

What court? You think this is judge judy or something.

Cuban is out there for the public narratives because the reality is Silver can do whatever he wants regardless of the evidence. So public perception is really one of the keys to this.

Nah, it was just a poor wording on my side (never saw a single minute of those Judge shows, never understood how it's even popular). Of course the NBA side of the story will be decided by Silver, but hopefully will be affected by the public opinion/narrative (without it we all know it won't be more than a slap on the wrist) - which actually isn't that different from a TV judge:)
Though the sides might meet some real judge if it also goes the path of tax fraud or something.

[165bows]

Headline says “truly” and I’m like this thing is swept under the floor boards

[Sofia]

Cuban is such a cuck

[madmaxmedia]

Watch on YouTube

I want a woman that loves me as much as Cuban loves Ballmer

To understand just how unimaginably rich Ballmer is, he has another billionaire running around as his stooge

And I thought I was doing well, but I just have millionaires running around doing my dirty work.

[Clav]

I want a woman that loves me as much as Cuban loves Ballmer

To understand just how unimaginably rich Ballmer is, he has another billionaire running around as his stooge

And I thought I was doing well, but I just have millionaires running around doing my dirty work.

Are you hiring ?

[JonFromVA]

How does making a hidden deal with Kawhi that Ballmer doesn't know about magically curry favor with Ballmer?

Joe: "Hey Steve buddy! You should be REALLY happy with me right about now!"
Steve: "Why is that?"
Joe: "I can't say."

As has been stated a million times already: there is no logical reason for a scammer to freely give away millions of dollars; which is what would be happening in this case if Ballmer wasn't aware.

But you keep parroting that nonsense.

You're arguing my point.

That nobody would believe Ballmer wasn't dirty is exactly how Sanberg could gain leverage and squeeze more money out of Ballmer through extortion at some point in the future (if his company didn't collapse).

That possibility needs to be dismissed with evidence before we can proceed with an otherwise circumstantial case against Ballmer. It would be foolish to ignore the depths of manipulation a scammer can plot.

So you are saying that Sandberg threw away millions of dollars to make it look like Kawhi is circumventing the cap and to then blackmail Ballmer into paying even more money to cover it up? THAT is your theory now?



If that were ever attempted and Ballmer was actually innocent do you know what he would do? He would report it. And Sandberg and the rest of Aspiration wouldn't get one red cent (and would have lost tens of millions in the process). They'd also get sued into oblivion if his company didn't collapse.

Ballmer was giving the company tons of money -- willingly. The idea that you even need to go to the bother of an extortion scheme is just stupid.

This is the dumbest thing I have heard in a while. Considering the source I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Surely not dumber than you putting words in the mouth of another board member and then laughing at yourself?

[JonFromVA]

Which part?

All, but maybe you don't understand that discussing a topic isn't necessarily the same thing as taking a side, expressing an opinion, making a prediction, or stating a preference?

I don't know what you are doing but I'm having a reasoned discussion based on facts / evidence that has been presented.

Your entire involvement seems to center around making lame excuses for Ballmer that don't seem to be based on any form of reasoning whatsoever. You're entitled to your opinion. Sure. But please tell me how commenting on you shifting tactics of deflection is a form of hallucination?

As the immortal Inigo Montoya once said: "I do not think it means what you think it means".

I'd suggest you go back and read what I wrote and then go back and read what you wrote, but you are intellectually dishonest in your approach.

[madmaxmedia]

To understand just how unimaginably rich Ballmer is, he has another billionaire running around as his stooge

And I thought I was doing well, but I just have millionaires running around doing my dirty work.

Are you hiring ?

Are you a millionaire?

[Clav]

And I thought I was doing well, but I just have millionaires running around doing my dirty work.

Are you hiring ?

Are you a millionaire?

not close but worth a shot hahaha

[Invictus88]

You're arguing my point.

That nobody would believe Ballmer wasn't dirty is exactly how Sanberg could gain leverage and squeeze more money out of Ballmer through extortion at some point in the future (if his company didn't collapse).

That possibility needs to be dismissed with evidence before we can proceed with an otherwise circumstantial case against Ballmer. It would be foolish to ignore the depths of manipulation a scammer can plot.

So you are saying that Sandberg threw away millions of dollars to make it look like Kawhi is circumventing the cap and to then blackmail Ballmer into paying even more money to cover it up? THAT is your theory now?



If that were ever attempted and Ballmer was actually innocent do you know what he would do? He would report it. And Sandberg and the rest of Aspiration wouldn't get one red cent (and would have lost tens of millions in the process). They'd also get sued into oblivion if his company didn't collapse.

Ballmer was giving the company tons of money -- willingly. The idea that you even need to go to the bother of an extortion scheme is just stupid.

This is the dumbest thing I have heard in a while. Considering the source I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Surely not dumber than you putting words in the mouth of another board member and then laughing at yourself?

Which words? Which board member? Please clarify what you mean so I can learn. The board has a quote tag so it should be easy to quote the words.

[Invictus88]

All, but maybe you don't understand that discussing a topic isn't necessarily the same thing as taking a side, expressing an opinion, making a prediction, or stating a preference?

I don't know what you are doing but I'm having a reasoned discussion based on facts / evidence that has been presented.

Your entire involvement seems to center around making lame excuses for Ballmer that don't seem to be based on any form of reasoning whatsoever. You're entitled to your opinion. Sure. But please tell me how commenting on you shifting tactics of deflection is a form of hallucination?

As the immortal Inigo Montoya once said: "I do not think it means what you think it means".

I'd suggest you go back and read what I wrote and then go back and read what you wrote, but you are intellectually dishonest in your approach.

Again. Please clarify what I am misrepresenting and/or how I am being intellectually dishonest so that I can learn or at least better understand what you are referring to.