Rob Ford Transgressions Thread

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

The statement has awkward wording all over the place though and it seems like something that lawyers have gone over more than a few times.

He said he doesn't smoke crack cocaine and isn't an addict - once again he doesn't say that he never has smoked crack cocaine in the past. With regards to the video he says he "cannot comment on a video that I have never seen or does not exist" (emphasis added). Once again the use of the word or changes the complexion of the sentence.

You may argue that it may be a slip of the tongue but this is a statement that took 8 days to deliver and there were undoubtedly teams of lawyers that were pouring over each word used. The statement is one that seems full of half truths rather than outright denials - although even those based on his history aren't really worth much.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

He did say there was no video

"video that I've never seen or does not exist".

Like Mean Mr. Mustard said, this "statement" was eight days in the making and no doubt had every word scrutinized. This was as definitive as they could be?

Why not "the video does not exist"? Why even bother with the "I haven't seen it" part?

Yada yada yada, talk about a pointless exercise, dissecting these words.

All I know is that if someone made allegations like this about me, I'd be pretty clear in my response. I wouldn't wait more than a week, and then come out with this kind of mealy-mouthed non-statement.

If I knew the allegations could be true, I might hide, like he's done.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The statement has awkward wording all over the place though and it seems like something that lawyers have gone over more than a few times.

He said he doesn't smoke crack cocaine and isn't an addict - once again he doesn't say that he never has smoked crack cocaine in the past. With regards to the video he says he "cannot comment on a video that I have never seen or does not exist" (emphasis added). Once again the use of the word or changes the complexion of the sentence.

You may argue that it may be a slip of the tongue but this is a statement that took 8 days to deliver and there were undoubtedly teams of lawyers that were pouring over each word used. The statement is one that seems full of half truths rather than outright denials - although even those based on his history aren't really worth much.

so where's the video? been longer than 8 days delivery...

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's not really what happened though.

If you showed that video of Calgary's mayor smoking crack with you and your dope smoking friends to the US based website, and then showed it to two reporters from the Calgary Sun, and everyone who watched its said "we saw a video of the mayor smoking crack...".

I don't believe Ford's denials because he really hasn't denied the story.

Really, what would you have said? I'm pretty sure it would be something like "there is no video of me smoking crack, because I've never done that".

It's pretty straightforward. Instead though, he ducked it for a week, acted about as guilty as possible, and then gave up a carefully worded non-denial denial that didn't say "there is no video of me smoking crack, because I've never done that".

If the guy had even said "I made a mistake, I don't do that anymore, wah wah wah", I'd say he should get to keep his job.

Unfortunately he's such an an unsympathetic character -- a hypocrite, liar, bully, and in general a world class a$$hole, that few people are going let him off the hook.

Here is word for word what was said...and yes i agree it was vetted strongly by his council.

There has been a serious accusation from the Toronto Star that I use crack cocaine. I do not use crack cocaine, nor am I an addict of crack cocaine.

Seems like he answered things pretty well to what he was accused of.

As for why he stayed quiet for a week....would you go AGAINST the advice of your attorney?

For the past week, on the advice of my solicitor, I was advised not to say a word.

Seriously, I get that he may not deserve the benefit of the doubt in the court of public opinion, but in the real world and in the court of law, this is exactly how it should play out when everything is taken in context.

Where's the damn video? That's all it would take to get this thing settled once and for all...but the Star doesnt/didnt want to pay the price that would back up their accusations? Hmmm. Interesting isnt it and very odd IMO? Does that not lend some credence to the idea that said video...isnt real? If not, why not. Especially when we have several believeing that the words of a couple reporters from one anti-Ford newspaper is all the "proof" they need?

The double standards among the left are freaking astounding to me, though that shoudnt really be what this debate is about.

Whatever this clown has done in his past has nothing to do with very serious accusations made by a very large and influential newspaper without ANY concrete proof to support it even though they had every opportunity to purchase said proof.

Its a witch hunt no matter how you slice it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Has anyone condoned Harper for that horrendous crime bill? Honest question, because as a guy who voted for Harper, I believe that was one of the worst bills I've seen passed in my lifetime. And I didn't follow CP too closely on the issue, but I thought i remember it being almost unanimous that is was terrible, and that we need to be going the other way with weed, not back to the same methods that have been disasterous in the US.

In the general population, "tough on crime" attracts votes. The silent majority probably supports the bill.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Here is word for word what was said...and yes i agree it was vetted strongly by his council.



Seems like he answered things pretty well to what he was accused of.

As for why he stayed quiet for a week....would you go AGAINST the advice of your attorney?



Seriously, I get that he may not deserve the benefit of the doubt in the court of public opinion, but in the real world and in the court of law, this is exactly how it should play out when everything is taken in context.

Where's the damn video? That's all it would take to get this thing settled once and for all...but the Star doesnt/didnt want to pay the price that would back up their accusations? Hmmm. Interesting isnt it and very odd IMO? Does that not lend some credence to the idea that said video...isnt real? If not, why not. Especially when we have several believeing that the words of a couple reporters from one anti-Ford newspaper is all the "proof" they need?

The double standards among the left are freaking astounding to me, though that shoudnt really be what this debate is about.

Whatever this clown has done in his past has nothing to do with very serious accusations made by a very large and influential newspaper without ANY concrete proof to support it even though they had every opportunity to purchase said proof.

Its a witch hunt no matter how you slice it.

That "denial"... don't you see the holes in that.

He didn't even try to say he's never smoked crack.

Regarding the "advice of my solicitor", I"d probably get a new one if he told me not to defend myself.

I'd also have my lawyer suing the hell out of people who made up lies about me.


The video might not be real, but going by Ford's reaction to it all, I'd say that the possibility certainly exists that it, umm, exists.

It seems more likely to me that this guy, who is no angel, got high one night and was too stoned to notice someone filming him, than this whole thing is made up of out thin air by the dreaded left-wing conspiracy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The statement has awkward wording all over the place though and it seems like something that lawyers have gone over more than a few times.

He said he doesn't smoke crack cocaine and isn't an addict - once again he doesn't say that he never has smoked crack cocaine in the past. With regards to the video he says he "cannot comment on a video that I have never seen or does not exist" (emphasis added). Once again the use of the word or changes the complexion of the sentence.

You may argue that it may be a slip of the tongue but this is a statement that took 8 days to deliver and there were undoubtedly teams of lawyers that were pouring over each word used. The statement is one that seems full of half truths rather than outright denials - although even those based on his history aren't really worth much.

You really didn't follow this story unless it follows your theory do you. In fact I'm afraid for your safety because your reaching so far for a mythical cookie jar that you're going to fall off of the stool and crack your head open on the ground.

The day after the story broke the evening before he called the story ridiculous, that to me is a pretty strong statement about the story itself.

Then he says I do not smoke crack and I'm not an addict of crack. Pretty clear statement to me, but people then make up some insane troll logic that he didn't deny past use. Literally clinging on to the story with a death grip.

Then you take this

"cannot comment on a video that I have never seen or does not exist"

And say that its suspicious? to me its pretty clear he hasn't seen a video or any proof, there's a rumored one floating around there, there's also a add on Canada online looking for a Rob Ford look alike smoking a cigar and puffing a cigar and chuckling into the camera. But the statement is pretty clear, he hasn't seen crap, there's no sinister wording that says he bought the video and burned it in a bum barrel, its pretty much a statement that his legal council gave him for contingencies.

On top of that I get accused of supporting Rob Ford, I really don't, but I think that this story is an interesting indictment of the power of the media, its an interesting indictment of poor journalism and sensationalist publishing. Its a really interesting story about how desparate people are that the story is true to the point of really creative word smithing and granular interpretation of statements to make them believe anything that you want.

I think Rob Ford should resign and call a new election to see if the people want him to continue as mayor of Toronto . I think in terms of his fairly well known drinking issues that he should absolutely get help. I think the guy is an absolute blowhard and buffoon. I don't know enough about his mayorial policies to comment on them.

But I also think in this case that the Gawkers and Stars of this world should to some extent get called onto the carpet for what I feel is shoddy sensationalist based journalism.

Part of this is about playing devils advocate, which I've clearly failed at. Part of this is because its an amazing and interesting story of failures on every single side of this story.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That "denial"... don't you see the holes in that.

He didn't even try to say he's never smoked crack.

Regarding the "advice of my solicitor", I"d probably get a new one if he told me not to defend myself.

I'd also have my lawyer suing the hell out of people who made up lies about me.


The video might not be real, but going by Ford's reaction to it all, I'd say that the possibility certainly exists that it, umm, exists.

It seems more likely to me that this guy, who is no angel, got high one night and was too stoned to notice someone filming him, than this whole thing is made up of out thin air by the dreaded left-wing conspiracy.

Big leap on all fronts Rouge.

Combine the story is ridiculous with I don't smoke crack nor am I an addict, and I don't see the leap to past crack smoking especially in the light of no evidence of past or present crack use.

Now I'm sure that Ford is nowhere near as eloquent, well spoken and smart as you.

There's no video and until there is a video your final statement is a what, theory, hopeful statement , , , ?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That "denial"... don't you see the holes in that.

He didn't even try to say he's never smoked crack.

Maybe he has smoked it in his past...but that does not equate to this video showing that, nor the allegation that video was taken while he was in office....i dont know. No one does except himself an anyone he may have been with if it happened.

Regarding the "advice of my solicitor", I"d probably get a new one if he told me not to defend myself.

he did defend himself, you just dont like the way he did it.

I'd also have my lawyer suing the hell out of people who made up lies about me

.

How do you know he wont?

The video might not be real, but going by Ford's reaction to it all, I'd say that the possibility certainly exists that it, umm, exists.

It seems more likely to me that this guy, who is no angel, got high one night and was too stoned to notice someone filming him, than this whole thing is made up of out thin air by the dreaded left-wing conspiracy.

All possible....but that does not equate to actual...and without concrete proof that supposedly available to them....the Star has fallen flat on their face in this thing which only fuels the school of thought that they have a vendetta against Ford and friends and are willing to lie about things (something some of their reporters have done in the past) to achieve said goals.

Its embarrassing they are being allowed to get away with it without at least a modicum of scrutiny from the public in general and the witch hunt takes precedence over holding ALL involved accountable.

[Ryan Coke]

I don't trust the media, and I could care less about Rob Ford. But watching his statement defending himself convinced me of the videos and accusations legitimacy.

His wording is very telling, and is obviously (IMO) a crafted non-denial denial.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Has anyone condoned Harper for that horrendous crime bill? Honest question, because as a guy who voted for Harper, I believe that was one of the worst bills I've seen passed in my lifetime. And I didn't follow CP too closely on the issue, but I thought i remember it being almost unanimous that is was terrible, and that we need to be going the other way with weed, not back to the same methods that have been disasterous in the US.

Ya, that was supposed to say 'condemn' instead of condone. I agree though, it was a bad bill, which is why the medias desperate attempt to frame this as "he was found with weed once, ergo he smokes crack" is just ridiculous.

[Matty81]

Ya it's all a left wing media conspiracy again, break out the tinfoil hats and switch it to fox.

The Star never reported that he smoked crack, they said someone claiming to be a crack dealer is shopping a video of what appeared to be him smoking crack.

That is actually occurring and the involved party is someone who holds significant responsibility in our society, it's the media's job is to report it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Ya it's all a left wing media conspiracy again, break out the tinfoil hats and switch it to fox.

The Star never reported that he smoked crack, they said someone claiming to be a crack dealer is shopping a video of what appeared to be him smoking crack.

That is actually occurring and the involved party is someone who holds significant responsibility in our society, it's the media's job is to report it.

Sure, and I'm with you there. If they produce a video where it appears he is smoking crack, that's obviously newsworthy. What isn't newsworthy to me is a piece about a bunch of stuff that took place 25 years ago and really has no bearing on what's going on today. That's a complete joke, regardless of whether its left or right wing. That has nothing to do with politics of defending one side in particular, its just media ethics in my view.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Big leap on all fronts Rouge.

Combine the story is ridiculous with I don't smoke crack nor am I an addict, and I don't see the leap to past crack smoking especially in the light of no evidence of past or present crack use.

Now I'm sure that Ford is nowhere near as eloquent, well spoken and smart as you.

There's no video and until there is a video your final statement is a what, theory, hopeful statement , , , ?

I don't know about "smart", but he's definitely nowhere near as eloquent or well spoken as many people who expressed an opinion in this thread, you and I included. In your words, he is a blowhard and a buffoon, after all.

Yesterday's painful "denial" of the whole thing tells us that.

I can't deny that I like to see blowhards and buffoons, especially right-wing clowns like Rob Ford, get their comeuppance.

But really, beyond his idiotic statements about cyclists, which can only be spoken by a dedicated fatass in an Escalade, I don't care about this guy. I don't live in Toronto.

I don't know the name of the mayors of Montreal or Vancouver or even Edmonton, but I know this guy's name, only because he has been an public idiot for years now.

Why we hear about this guy isn't a left-wing conspiracy. I don't think the video of him smoking crack is a left-wing conspiracy either. Some people do. I disagree. His behavior since this all came out hasn't changed that.

It really comes down to two options:

1) Gawker and Toronto Star made the whole thing out of nothing
2) Gawker and the Toronto Star didn't make the whole thing up

I think #2 is more likely.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

It was marijuana, who cares. Marijuana should be legal, I think everyone knows that. It's no worse than cigarettes or alcohol.

Regardless of what you think of marijuana and it's legality, the fact is/was, Ford has proven to have little regard for the law. He's proven to willingly indulge in illegal activity and then deny such activity.
The preponderance of evidence is mounting against this guy, it's only a mater of time.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, and I'm with you there. If they produce a video where it appears he is smoking crack, that's obviously newsworthy. What isn't newsworthy to me is a piece about a bunch of stuff that took place 25 years ago and really has no bearing on what's going on today. That's a complete joke, regardless of whether its left or right wing. That has nothing to do with politics of defending one side in particular, its just media ethics in my view.

It's completely relevant to the timeliness of the topic of his brother for sure and, more to the point, the brother duo, I think, were partly campaigning on an anti-drug platform without prior admission of earlier involvement with drugs. Definitely ties in.

I'm not a fan of stories with unnamed sources and said as much several times in the hockey forum where SUN writers are notorious for the practice in their coverage of the Flames.

Here's the difference though . . . . . In the case of the Globe and Mail, while there are no named sources in the story, their legal team in the background appears to be completely comfortable exposing the business to the potential of large damages. They appear certain, if it comes to it, they'll be able to defend the newspaper from damages in the event of a libel suit. Theyre essentially daring the Ford brother to sue them. That in itself lends credibility to the unnamed sources and further credibility to the story. In the case of SUN sportswriters, what is really at risk? Pretty much absolutely nothing. Why believe them?

Still, any story with unnamed sources as the sole foundation has a credibility risk. But there are degrees of that.

Lastly, as noted by others, if this was about Nenshi you'd be laughing your butt off. Instead, its about a couple of guys where your first gut impression is to nod your head up and down like it makes sense, because of the earlier history.

This ain't going away for the Ford brothers.

Cowperson

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I don't trust the media, and I could care less about Rob Ford. But watching his statement defending himself convinced me of the videos and accusations legitimacy.

His wording is very telling, and is obviously (IMO) a crafted non-denial denial.

What good does it do him to give a non-denial denial? If it turns out the video is real he can say "oh but I never said I didn't use to do crack" and keep being mayor because hey at least he was honest about it. Doesn't make any sense at all to me to be tearing apart his wording for individual meanings of words.

[Flames89]

So for the doubters of the video: you believe 3 journalists:
- one editor of one of the larger (albeit trashy) websites, and
- two toronto star reporters (and yes, there is no love lost between the star and rob ford)
... Have made up and lied that they saw a video of rob ford smoking crack? These 3 (likely left leaning, liberal hippies) people have staked there reputation on making up a story, that is honestly stranger than fiction?

As a TO resident (which, since I'm going into conjecture likely doesn't matter), I completely believe this video exists. I also firmly believe in the Doug ford story. Why does his matter? Because he was regarded as the "stable influence" behind rob ford. The smart one. Make fun of TO all you want, but this is a major city, and having a glorified hooligan etobicoke mafia running it is something that completely deserves to be brought to light (let alone Doug's provincial politics agenda).

Sarah Palin almost became the Vice President of the USA. Stupid can beget stupid, and performing due diligence should not be regarded as an insult to personal freedoms or democracy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames89

So for the doubters of the video: you believe 3 journalists:

Until I see it, I have doubts. Produce of end the story.

Originally Posted by Flames89

- one editor of one of the larger (albeit trashy) websites, and

You said it right there, I am allowed to mistrust that source especially when the editor says that he basically didn't know Rob Ford from Henry Ford.

Originally Posted by Flames89

- two toronto star reporters (and yes, there is no love lost between the star and rob ford)
... Have made up and lied that they saw a video of rob ford smoking crack?

A news paper with falling subscription rates and revenues that has had an ongoing war in the past, and also accused Ford of beating a one of his players up which turned out to be a lie later. You question Fords integrity fine, but there is a lot of integrity questions with the Star. Plus again no video, and an advertisement in a online classified looking for a Rob Ford look alike to star in a independent movie where he would smoke a cigar and chuckle into the camera that was placed last year.

Originally Posted by Flames89

These 3 (likely left leaning, liberal hippies) people have staked there reputation on making up a story, that is honestly stranger than fiction?

with the above credibility issues and questions. Who apparently raced to publish and go after the mayor before securing the video.

Originally Posted by Flames89

As a TO resident (which, since I'm going into conjecture likely doesn't matter), I completely believe this video exists. I also firmly believe in the Doug ford story. Why does his matter? Because he was regarded as the "stable influence" behind rob ford. The smart one. Make fun of TO all you want, but this is a major city, and having a glorified hooligan etobicoke mafia running it is something that completely deserves to be brought to light (let alone Doug's provincial politics agenda).

Good for you, and maybe being far away from Toronto and removed from the Rob Ford circus there is a lack of impartiality that you don't have.

Originally Posted by Flames89

Sarah Palin almost became the Vice President of the USA. Stupid can beget stupid, and performing due diligence should not be regarded as an insult to personal freedoms or democracy.

Huh, this makes entirely no sense, your saying that some of us are stupid for not performing the proper due diligence and wanting to see the actual proof of the act instead of believing the journalists? that makes zero sense.

Your not performing due diligence by not being suspicious of shoddy work by the Star which I think is an insult to rational thought.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know about "smart", but he's definitely nowhere near as eloquent or well spoken as many people who expressed an opinion in this thread, you and I included. In your words, he is a blowhard and a buffoon, after all.

Yesterday's painful "denial" of the whole thing tells us that.

I can't deny that I like to see blowhards and buffoons, especially right-wing clowns like Rob Ford, get their comeuppance.

But really, beyond his idiotic statements about cyclists, which can only be spoken by a dedicated fatass in an Escalade, I don't care about this guy. I don't live in Toronto.

I don't know the name of the mayors of Montreal or Vancouver or even Edmonton, but I know this guy's name, only because he has been an public idiot for years now.

Why we hear about this guy isn't a left-wing conspiracy. I don't think the video of him smoking crack is a left-wing conspiracy either. Some people do. I disagree. His behavior since this all came out hasn't changed that.

It really comes down to two options:

1) Gawker and Toronto Star made the whole thing out of nothing
2) Gawker and the Toronto Star didn't make the whole thing up

I think #2 is more likely.

You're missing the third option, Gawker and the Star were victimized by a prank.