Classic response; All CAPS and though you are holding a
smoking gun, someone else is at fault. 1st year Law nonsense.
ie:
"A smoking gun is a clear piece of evidence. A babysitter who's trying to figure out which kid ate the last chocolate cupcake might consider one child's frosting-smeared face to be a smoking gun."Too bad "Full Disclosure" is not a requirement with this transaction.
The evidence seems clear cut when one team greatly benefits at the expense of another on multiple occasions in an immediate scenario. It is hard to imagine a situation with any of the trades in question that Cleveland remotely benefits. The trades barely equal the 50% mark in terms of even being allowed. Trades ideally benefit both parties, or at least show a semblance of balance. None of the trades seem to demonstrate this.
Feel free to explain how Cleveland might benefit from any of these?
