Spiderfish

I've heard the allegations made by the reporters, yes. I guess a headline like "reporters allege to have seen a difficult to fake video" isn't nearly as gripping. I'm not accusing the reporters of lying, they may have seen such a video...but I haven't.

So any conversation involving the relevance of the senate is a smokescreen? Why would Justin want to hide the Duffy senate scandal and take the pressure off of the parties involved? Or is it just a smokescreen if Conservatives talk about changes to the senate? Maybe JT should just do what he does best and keep quiet, probably be the best thing he could do for himself. It seems every time he offers his insight, he ends up having to 'clarify' his comments.

All this speculation on whether the video was faked or not, and how difficult it would be to create is predicated on the assumption that the video exists. At this point, no video has been produced, so all this discussion on the degree of difficulty and resources required to fake a video is baseless spitballing. If a video is produced that clearly shows Ford smoking up, I would be inclined to believe the allegations made, and it would shift the burdeon of proof to Ford to try and defend innocence. Haven't seen any video yet, though...

In a radio interview I heard yesterday, Doug Ford vehemently and categorically denied ever dealing drugs. He admitted to smoking pot when he was young, but was a long time ago and does not condone using drugs.

Well, we might as well put our complete trust in a rumor, why stop now? Maybe the lightbulb has finally gone off and they have come to the realization that being drug dealers and drawing massive attention to themselves was possibly not such a brilliant thing to do.

I don't think so, there's too much pressure. His allies and supporters are now starting to question his silence. I agree.

I don't think he can go much longer without addressing this. His refusal to make a statement is only compounding a bad situation.

I don't see people defending him so much as their defending the concept of innocence without proof. Without evidence, the Star allegations (and Gawker as well) is barely more than tabloid drivel. Many includng myself have said on this thread that if the evidence comes out and a conclusive video is produced Ford is in big trouble. But no evidence has been produced. I simply want to see something to substantiate and proove the allegations made (by an organization with an obvious agenda to destroy Ford) before making judgement.

Again, if it was deemed a gift or benefit, it's illegal, no question. If it's a loan, it would not be considered a gift or benefit, as there would be terms of repayment. It doesn't matter anyhow, it's a technicality that would not help either of their situation in any way. I'm just trying to figure out the logic Wright may have had in making the decision he did.

And how about using drugs? Physical evidence would be important before convicting anyone of a crime, I agree. Trying to convince some on this board is a real challenge, however. Yes, it's become obvious that it's not about evidence, but constructing the demise of Ford through conjecture. Maybe evidence is forthcoming, but at this point, is likely not neccessary to get the job done.

Who knows? As far as I'm concerned, he has two choices in dealing with this. If he's guilty of the allegations, he has to come clean and admit it, it's the only way he could possibly have a chance of surviving politically. If he's not guilty, he has to make a bold statement of condemnation against the allegations and demand an investigation, putting the onus back on the accusors (where it belongs) to prove their claim. Doing nothing is not an option at this point.

I'm sure these guys are pure as the driven snow. They likely have absolutely nothing to worry about which must be why they painted a huge target on themselves by getting caught up in the middle of something like this. If the video does come out and they can be identified, I'm sure the authorities will have no interest at all in questioning their involvement or motive, they likely have nothing to hide... I got a laugh from the first part of your comment...evidence is something you rarely concern yourself with when forming your accusations and speculations on all sorts of matters, it's pretty rich coming from you. Thanks for the chuckle.

I get what you're saying, but at the risk of sounding repetative, how do we know that this was compensation for services rendered, or a loan, reward, or advantage, or benefit in return for cooperation, assistance exercise of influence or act or ommission? I'm not defending Duffy, I'm just not sure that if it was a legitimate loan with no strings and clearly defined repayment terms, it would be illegal. It seems really strange that someone of Mr. Wright's knowlege and intelligence would knowingly offer an illegal payment to a senator.

I did, and the questions I asked were not meant to challenge. If you don't know, just say so..

Were these not the alleged drug dealers who sold crack to the mayor? I would have thought selling crack to someone, creating a video of the person smoking it, and then selling said video for a huge profit would be against the law. If they had no involvement in the mayor obtaining the crack, your point is valid, if they were involved, not so much.

Profiting from illlegal activity is a crime. This video should be turned into the authorities, as it very likely contains evidence of illegal activity if it acutally contains what it's rumored to contain.

How do you know it's being ignored? I'm sure the authorities are very interested in getting their hands on this evidence.

Because selling it would very likely open them and the buyer up to criminal charges related to proceeds of crime laws. Even if charges weren't laid, how ethical is it to give money over to criminals to help fund further illegal activity?

How have you come to the conclusion that the money was a gift or compensation for a service, cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence? Would a loan, legally drawn up between Wright and Duffy with terms of repayment defined be considered an illegal transaction? If it is, would a loan taken from a bank be considered an illegal transaction as well? What options would he have available if he wanted to repay this debt but did not have the money to do so?

It doesn't look good, I agree, but I'm not sure it's been determined it was illegal. As for speculating on any direction or knowlege by Harper, it's a valid question to ask, but jumping to the conclusion that it was most likely under his direction at this point is nothing more than speculation.

This goes back to a question I asked earlier, was this payment from Wright a gift, was it compensation for services expected or rendered, or was it a loan? This seems to be a big part of the equation, and I'm not sure it has been resolved yet. Again, if this payment had strings attached, or was payment for a service, cooperation, or exercise of influence, then it is clearly defined as a bribe. If it was a loan offered with intention to repay, and no service or expectation was offered or expected in return, then it gets a little more grey. I agree, how could he not know this was a bad idea? Even if it was legal, which is apparently questionable it was, the optics are terrible and he should have known better. Duffy should have had better judgement as well, than to accept a payment from Wright. Bad decisions were made all around in my opinion.

Well, at least you're not trying to hide your contempt. More conjecture. Deductive reasoning based on personal speculation...no, conjecture about sums it up.

So an assessment by you into the motive and mindset of Somali drug dealers has led you to the speculative conclusion that in your opinion, the video is likely real, and with this conjecture we may as well destroy the career and character of the mayor. If it turns out to be true, all good, and if it turns out to be bunk, well...too bad for him, we can add this smear to the others and build the case even further that he is incompetant. I think I will reserve my judgement until I have more conclusive information.

The audit on Pam Wallin is focused on her travel expenses, she does not even have a residence in Ottawa.

I would venture a guess that Wright "offered up" his resignation under considerable persuation by Harper to mitigate the damage and soften the blow that is surely coming next week. I don't think it's going to help, there's blood in the water and the feeding frenzy has begun. There will surely be more fallout to come. If anything good comes out of this, maybe it will generate some motivation to clean up the garbage in the Senate.