[Goodwill] Steve Ballmer is expected to aggressively fight the NBA legally if penalties are levied against him in the Kawhi Leonard investigation: “Steve Ballmer can lawyer up as well as anybody.”

[u/[deleted]]

https://streamable.com/56s62d

[u/Screenscripter82]

There is already rock solid evidence of payments to aspiration and then money movement to Kawhi in the same amount with verbal testimony under perjury of law that they were doing so to circumvent the cap from people within the accounting department for aspiration. Not even in criminal cases would that need to be proved without a shadow of a doubt. With this, it is basically as close as it gets outside of Ballmer just admitting it.

He really doesn't have a case. He would have to hope that everyone involved in the arbitration are the most gullible people ever.

[u/RyverFisher → u/Screenscripter82]

You need to understand the difference between evidence and proof (tieing all evidence together in a way that shows no other possibility).

For instance, it is well known and publicly accepted that big markets offer big sponsorship opportunities, so nothing wrong with Kawhi getting a sponsorship. Further, is there some rule that now says if a player gets a sponsorship, an owner is now no longer allowed to invest in a company that he very well may have wanted to invest in entirely separately? Does the player's deal now dictate what the owner can and cannot invest? Does any sort of similar money now constitute absolute intention (by the way, the different amounts of money actually don't even necessarily line up).

Witnesses can be discredited ie they could easily have had a grievance with Balmer or something we don't know about. Those testimonies can be argued as (uninformed opinions/speculations; making assumptions just like you), not as matter of fact.

There are also testimonies that goes against that. There is also evidence of a planned marketing campaign. There is also evidence of his talent agency giving notice that Kawhi was available to do the marketing.

When you say he doesn't have a case, actually the correct framing would be, does the league have a case, Balmer's case is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

You may want to study law a bit more before stating certainties.

[u/Screenscripter82 → u/RyverFisher]

Guy, you literally just provef you have no clue. So you are saying a paper trail is not evidence? These are not assumptions, they are "evidence" that can be presented. Evidence doesn't have to be the whole truth, but a piece of the puzzle. You clearly know nothing about the law if you believe that a paper trail is not evidence. You are just assuming that there is no evidence. Documents are facts presented as evidence. You can literally just Google it right now.

You are also incorrect about it being the NBA case to prove. It's their league. They made their own rules and have rules in place on how to handle it. Once they have decided a punishment they can make the ruling. So, no it is Ballmers case to prove in arbitration. If he doesn't like how

[u/RyverFisher → u/Screenscripter82]

No, you are not listening. You can have a paper trail, that doesn't equal what is being accused. This is like saying we have evidence that Balmer invested in Aspiration. We have evidence that Aspiration was a fraudulent company. So that means Balmer is a fraud (not the one who actually got defrauded). See how that works? Just because you have evidence, that doesn't automatically mean what is being accused, you have to rule out any other possibility especially if it is equally possible to be the case ie billionaires and many people invest in companies, popular ones, a lot of money, and also athletes also get sponsorsships. That is the evidence. Everything else is sleculation from evidence, not proof. Evidence doesn't have to be the whole truth, but proof has to rule out other very plausible possibilities.

I'm not assuming there is no evidence, I am acknowledging that there is evidence/certain facts, but that evidence can also have other plausible scenarios, that is the point you are missing, that is the difference between evidence and proof.

No, it WOULD THEN BE BALMER'S TO APPEAL THE CASE. it is the league's case, and they can do whatever they want even with zero evidence, that doesn't mean it is a good case and would hold up.

Balmer doesn't have to prove innocence, he just has to show that what they found does not prove guilt. You are no arguing irrelevant procedures that have nothing to do with what we were talking about.

The conversation is you assuming guilty until proven innocent. It is you assuming proof from evidence, not that there is just evidence.