Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Topaz]

As a juror in the court of public opinion, I would say that Ford hasn't come out and said anything because apparently, his lawyer said not to BUT, IF I've done nothing wrong , then I would sure as hell stand up and say, I did nothing wrong. If I did do something wrong, of course, I would try to hide it and avoid answering questions. The saying . "a picture is worth a thousand words" well if Ford doesn't explain this picture, he's as guilty as Duffy. Say anyone got $100,000 to buy the video and see and if it not real, then take to the police and charge the makers with fraud, if it isn't.

[Guest Kenneth]

There are innumerable examples of people proclaiming their innocences only to be found guilty - Ford is claiming that the allegations are false even though the media is reporting that there is a video. So either he's telling the truth or he's expecting that the video will never become public fodder...

His brother speaks the truth though when he says that the media is hounding the family in a scandalous manner - I've never heard of a mayor and his family being stalked the way that our Royal Family is. This has been going on long before this and really it deminishes their credibility.

[Guest American Woman]

Say anyone got $100,000 to buy the video and see and if it not real, then take to the police and charge the makers with fraud, if it isn't.

From what I'm reading, the price tag is $2000.00. Odd, isn't it, that Ford himself isn't buying it if he has something to hide? Also, if the Toronto Star thinks it's authentic, why aren't they buying it?

As a juror in the court of public opinion, I would say that Ford hasn't come out and said anything because apparently, his lawyer said not to BUT, IF I've done nothing wrong , then I would sure as hell stand up and say, I did nothing wrong.

He did say that he didn't do anything wrong. ...the mayor slammed the Star report as a smear job and called it “ridiculous,” while his lawyer Dennis Morris called the reports “false and defamatory.”

Edited May 22, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Kenneth]

Almost 2 years ago I was taking a class and went out for drinks afterwards. After several pints a classmate told me that one of his lawyer buddies represents Ford and that he has serious drug issues. He wouldn't say much about the subject, just that both his lawyers and the press are aware of the problems. At the time he likened it to the Tiger Woods sex scandal. He said a lot of people know about Ford's drug problem and it was just a matter of time until a smoking gun would surface. I wish I took the story a little more seriously back then and probed him for some more info.

Complete BS.

[Black Dog]

There are innumerable examples of people proclaiming their innocences only to be found guilty - Ford is claiming that the allegations are false even though the media is reporting that there is a video. So either he's telling the truth or he's expecting that the video will never become public fodder...

His brother speaks the truth though when he says that the media is hounding the family in a scandalous manner - I've never heard of a mayor and his family being stalked the way that our Royal Family is. This has been going on long before this and really it deminishes their credibility.

Surrrrrrrre it couldn't possibly be the fault of the guy who spends more time managing crisis communications than running the city, now would it? How do other politicians handle hostile media?

In any case, this scandal has just cost Ford his most important role: coach of Don Boscoe's football team.

[silver72]

Is it fake or not, can one tell if its is? The answer....http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/05/21/f-video-forensics-analysis.html

.

[Mighty AC]

Complete BS.

When told that Ford has serious drug issues that will soon come to light, I really didn't know (or care) if the story was true. However, now it seems the tale had some substance to it.

[Boges]

Doug Ford came out today and said the allegations are false. People want the mayor to come and say the allegations are false. It would appear he's lawyered up and trying not to comment.

Some would see that as an admission of guilt, but it's not, he did say it's all ridiculous.

Now if he did call a press conference and deny deny deny, would that be enough for everyone unless a video does end up being released? I doubt it would.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Boges

[WWWTT]

Another victim of the court of public opinion.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/05/22/mayor_rob_ford_dismissed_as_football_coach_at_don_bosco.html

WWWTT

[Guest Kenneth]

When told that Ford has serious drug issues that will soon come to light, I really didn't know (or care) if the story was true. However, now it seems the tale had some substance to it.

You have absolutely no way of verifying the claims that you've made, yet you have still chosen to anonymously make them on a public message board. So that why I consider your story to be "complete BS".

Here's how Judge Judy would respond to your post:

[Boges]

Another victim of the court of public opinion.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/05/22/mayor_rob_ford_dismissed_as_football_coach_at_don_bosco.html

WWWTT

An official from the school said it had more to do with all the media coverage he was attracting to the school.

Timing is rather odd though.

[WWWTT]

I believe this explanation.

This is probably just too much for this Catholic school to continue to bear.

WWWTT

[BubberMiley]

You have absolutely no way of verifying the claims that you've made, yet you have still chosen to anonymously make them on a public message board.

Of course he has a way of verifying them. He has the testimony of three professional journalists who have put their reputations on the line, backing up what he said to the letter.

[Boges]

Of course he has a way of verifying them. He has the testimony of three professional journalists who have put their reputations on the line, backing up what he said to the letter.

Well since everything is speculative, you could have reporters colluding to making up the idea of a video that doesn't exist. If a video that never existed never comes out then you can just say the appropriate price was never offered to these "drug dealers" and they deleted the video. Never to be seen again. No one can prove or disprove that they made up the allegation. But the damage would have already been done.

I'm shocked it's been almost a week and no one, other than these 3 reporters has seen the video yet.

Again I'm making up this theory and have no evidence to support any of it. Also the fact that Mayor Ford has largely kept his mouth about the issue this week isn't really helping his case. Even the "conservative" media is starting to turn on him because he refuses to comment.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

Well since everything is speculative, you could have reporters colluding to making up the idea of a video that doesn't exist.

It could also be a fake video.

If a video that never existed never comes out then you can just say the appropriate price was never offered to these "drug dealers" and they deleted the video. Never to be seen again. No one can prove or disprove that they made up the allegation. But the damage would have already been done.

A lot of damage is being done here. It doesn't seem to matter that only three reporters from the the Star, if I'm getting that correctly, have seen the video on an iPhone. Just the existence of such a video is not evidence of its authenticity.

I'm shocked it's been almost a week and no one, other than these 3 reporters has seen the video yet.

I feel the same way. And I'm also surprised that no one has come up with the $200,000 asking price.

the fact that Mayor Ford has largely kept his mouth about the issue this week isn't really helping his case. Even the "conservative" media is starting to turn on him because he refuses to comment.

He's clearly stated that it's bogus. I think keeping his mouth shut is the right thing to do. The more he says about it, the more people can take his words and twist and misrepresent them and the more he comes across as 'methnks thou doth protest too much.' I've often thought that if only politicians would ignore some of the ludicrous claims out there that the tendency to make them would lessen.

[BubberMiley]

It could also be a fake video.

I believe Jon Stewart said it best when he said that no, "that would be some James Cameron sh*t."

A lot of damage is being done here. It doesn't seem to matter that only three reporters from the the Star, if I'm getting that correctly, have seen the video on an iPhone.

You're not getting it correctly. The editor of Gawker, who is so invested in Canadian politics he thought the "Justin Trudeau is a faggot" reference in the tape was directed at Pierre Trudeau, saw it and wrote the infamous Gawker article. CNN began investigating it, at which point the Star decided that the story was already out there so they could now ethically tell the world what they knew: Two weeks earlier, two Star reporters also saw the video but chose not to write about it because they couldn't absolutely verify its authenticity without possession of the tape, and it's against basic journalistic ethics for them to actually buy the tape. But the two Star reporters who saw it have no doubt in their minds it was Ford in the video. Maybe Ford has already bought it and that's why you haven't seen it yet. I have a feeling it will come out soon though, and then defences will have to revert to the old "it might not really be crack in the pipe" line.

[Black Dog]

Well since everything is speculative, you could have reporters colluding to making up the idea of a video that doesn't exist. If a video that never existed never comes out then you can just say the appropriate price was never offered to these "drug dealers" and they deleted the video. Never to be seen again. No one can prove or disprove that they made up the allegation. But the damage would have already been done.

I'm shocked it's been almost a week and no one, other than these 3 reporters has seen the video yet.

Again I'm making up this theory and have no evidence to support any of it. Also the fact that Mayor Ford has largely kept his mouth about the issue this week isn't really helping his case. Even the "conservative" media is starting to turn on him because he refuses to comment.

If it's completely false, made up, whatever, Ford can sue.

That he hasn't come out and said as much is interesting.

I feel the same way. And I'm also surprised that no one has come up with the $200,000 asking price.

They're working on it.

He's clearly stated that it's bogus.

No he hasn't.

I think keeping his mouth shut is the right thing to do. The more he says about it, the more people can take his words and twist and misrepresent them and the more he comes across as 'methnks thou doth protest too much.' I've often thought that if only politicians would ignore some of the ludicrous claims out there that the tendency to make them would lessen.

This is the completely the opposite of what a good crisis communications manager would tell his clients. You don't get away from bad news by ignoring it, especially something like this. In this case, the less he says, the more people are going to believe it to be true. Either Ford doesn't know that, which makes him a dope or the recipient of bad advice, or the allegations are actually true.

[Guest American Woman]

I believe Jon Stewart said it best when he said that no, "that would be some James Cameron sh*t."

I didn't realize that #1 Jon Stewart saw the video and #2 that he's such an expert that he could determine the authenticity of the video by viewing it on an iPhone.

You're not getting it correctly.

I most definitely am getting it correctly.

The editor of Gawker, who is so invested in Canadian politics he thought the "Justin Trudeau is a faggot" reference in the tape was directed at Pierre Trudeau, saw it and wrote the infamous Gawker article. CNN began investigating it, at which point the Star decided that the story was already out there so they could now ethically tell the world what they knew: Two weeks earlier, two Star reporters also saw the video but chose not to write about it because they couldn't absolutely verify its authenticity without possession of the tape, and it's against basic journalistic ethics for them to actually buy the tape. But the two Star reporters who saw it have no doubt in their minds it was Ford in the video.

Doesn't mean the video wasn't faked, just as I said. I have no idea why you think I'm not getting it correctly.

Maybe Ford has already bought it and that's why you haven't seen it yet. I have a feeling it will come out soon though, and then defences will have to revert to the old "it might not really be crack in the pipe" line.

Sure. Maybe that's it. Maybe Ford has already bought it, and those who made it are just keeping quiet about that little detail.

But do speculate away - as I said, one needn't actually have any proof of anything to do a lot of damage ....

[Guest American Woman]

In this case, the less he says, the more people are going to believe it to be true. Either Ford doesn't know that, which makes him a dope or the recipient of bad advice, or the allegations are actually true.

Since when has a politician defending himself actually made people change their minds? First of all, the accusations are still out there. They're out there forever. There are people who will always seize on that, and people who will believe it every time it's trotted out. He said it was a crock, enough said. If it's true, so be it. If it's not, I think not giving it the time of day beyond what he's already said isn't such a bad way of reacting to it. As I said, anything he says can, and will be, used against him - and there's always going to be enough people to believe whatever twist is put on his words. We see it all the time. I really believe that if people would ignore this kind of crap we'd see a lot less of it. But - it gets exactly the attention that's desired, and people are jumping on the bandwagon regardless of proof, or lack thereof.

And as for the "working on it" regarding coming up with $200,000 - it's not exactly a fortune. No one has been able to come up with $200,000?? I would be surprised if this video ever sees the light of day. As for journalistic integrity, there are plenty of media outlets that wouldn't think twice about integrity - and have paid for information/photos that they have published, and have paid a lot more than $200,000.

Edited May 23, 2013 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

I didn't realize that #1 Jon Stewart saw the video and #2 that he's such an expert that he could determine the authenticity of the video by viewing it on an iPhone.

In the real world, CGI Rob Ford is not a compelling defence.

I most definitely am getting it correctly.

You said it's based on three Star reporters seeing it. It's based on one Gawker editor seeing it and reporting on it, and two Star reporters stating they saw it as well.

[Rue]

Of course he has a way of verifying them. He has the testimony of three professional journalists who have put their reputations on the line, backing up what he said to the letter.

That is called hersay evidence. You are relying on second hand evidence. You want to take the word of who exactly? You claim jourmalists? Really? A journalist only reports first hand evidence. He does not present second hand evidence. It is unacceptable journalism to state, I have no proof just take my word for what I think I saw. That is not evidence.

What you have is a Toronto Star editor claiming he was given a video tape of Ford. If he in fact saw a video what did he see? Do you know? How do you know the video was not fake, i.e., Ford's head was superimposed on someone else's?

That's why I said, wait for the actual video so it can be tested and verified. Until then you have butkiss. As it is the need to have to pay a bunch of dug pushers for the tape should really set off a red flag. Their very reason for disclosing it is tainted by direct financial gain.

If and when a tape is proven to exist and it had this evidence, then its damning. But until then its just more smeers. There is a thing called due process. Surely we are more than a lynch mob.

[Rue]

Since when has a politician defending himself actually made people change their minds? First of all, the accusations are still out there. They're out there forever. There are people who will always seize on that, and people who will believe it every time it's trotted out. He said it was a crock, enough said. If it's true, so be it. If it's not, I think not giving it the time of day beyond what he's already said isn't such a bad way of reacting to it. As I said, anything he says can, and will be, used against him - and there's always going to be enough people to believe whatever twist is put on his words. We see it all the time. I really believe that if people would ignore this kind of crap we'd see a lot less of it. But - it gets exactly the attention that's desired, and people are jumping on the bandwagon regardless of proof, or lack thereof.

And as for the "working on it" regarding coming up with $200,000 - it's not exactly a fortune. No one has been able to come up with $200,000?? I would be surprised if this video ever sees the light of day. As for journalistic integrity, there are plenty of media outlets that wouldn't think twice about integrity - and have paid for information/photos that they have published, and have paid a lot more than $200,000.

I too doubt the video will ever surface. The question now though is do the police compel the Toronto Star Editor to reveal his drug pusher sources as the video technically could be proof of the commission of a crime/ The Star Editor was quick to claim the video is genuine. If it is, then its grounds for evidence for the commission of the crime and the Star Editor could be aiding aiding and abetting a crime or specifically a controlled substance violation under the appropriate federal drug law.

[BubberMiley]

That is called hersay evidence. You are relying on second hand evidence. You want to take the word of who exactly? You claim jourmalists?

I am not a court of law. I believe hearsay evidence from journalists all the time. Everybody does.

And I don't believe anybody would be fooled by a video with Rob Ford's head superimposed on top of somebody else's enormous body.

I was skeptical that it was real at first (because maybe it's a dead-ringer look-alike imitating him in a grainy dark video), but Ford's lawyer's reaction, saying that you can't prove it was really crack in the pipe, convinced me he was guilty.

[Mighty AC]

You have absolutely no way of verifying the claims that you've made, yet you have still chosen to anonymously make them on a public message board. So that why I consider your story to be "complete BS".

Here's how Judge Judy would respond to your post:

You're a lonely man aren't you Kenny?

[Black Dog]

That is called hersay evidence. You are relying on second hand evidence. You want to take the word of who exactly? You claim jourmalists? Really? A journalist only reports first hand evidence. He does not present second hand evidence. It is unacceptable journalism to state, I have no proof just take my word for what I think I saw. That is not evidence.

I pity your clients, stuck with a lawyer who doesn't understand what hearsay evidence is. In this case, we have direct first person accounts from the three reporters who viewed the video. That's not hearsay.

What you have is a Toronto Star editor claiming he was given a video tape of Ford. If he in fact saw a video what did he see? Do you know? How do you know the video was not fake, i.e., Ford's head was superimposed on someone else's?

We have three separate and detailed accounts of what they saw. the Star in particular took pains to note they could not verify the videos contents.

That's why I said, wait for the actual video so it can be tested and verified. Until then you have butkiss. As it is the need to have to pay a bunch of dug pushers for the tape should really set off a red flag. Their very reason for disclosing it is tainted by direct financial gain.

That makes no sense. You want them to slap it up on youtube?

If and when a tape is proven to exist and it had this evidence, then its damning. But until then its just more smeers. There is a thing called due process. Surely we are more than a lynch mob.

Another person confused between public opinion and the courts. Sorry dudes, but there's just too much smoke here. Pun intended.