Rob Ford crack-smoking video is "gone"

Discuss

35 Responses to “Rob Ford crack-smoking video is "gone"”

  1. Dan Hibiki says:

    guess we’ll have to wait till someone finds the dead hooker in rob Ford’s van.

  2. Jarrod Henry says:

    I kinda think this is obvious.  Follow me here:  (If this video exists)

    Somali crack dealer video tapes Rob Ford.
    Somali crack dealer contacts Rob Ford, blackmails him.  
    Rob Ford lowballs the offer.
    Somali crack dealer contacts Toronto Star.
    Toronto Star blows it wide open, causes shit for Somali crack dealer/family/community.
    Rob Ford contacts Somali Crack Dealer, makes offer to buy tape.
    Somali Crack Dealer delivers tape to Ford, makes exchange.
    Ford’s staff resigns.
    Somali crack dealer tells Gawker the tape is “gone.” 

    The time all fits from when Gawker lost touch with the crack dealer, and when the staffers quit, and everything.    Face it.  These guys were blackmailing Rob Ford, and he paid up before anyone else.  Deal’s done.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      The Star sat on it while deciding what to do, Gawker is the one who blew it open, without the intention of securing the evidence in a timely fashion, despite being perfectly capable of doing so.

      • Jarrod Henry says:

        Well, Gawker blames the Star for that. The Star blames Gawker.

        Either way, the thing people seem to forget is that this guy admitted to them both that he went to the mayor first.  :P

        • Funk Daddy says:

          Yeah, excepting that Gawker was the first to publish on it.

          Except for that I guess John Cook has a point. After all, if The Star had published on the story first, then clearly they would have been the ones to do so. 

          So I guess you are right? Huh?

    • mappo says:

      What is this “video tape” of which you speak?

    • Félix Desrochers-Guérin says:

      To add to all of that, people higher up the drug dealing food chain probably don’t think outing a wealthy and powerful client is good for business, and we all know how those people handle things that aren’t good for business.

  3. galaxies says:

    FTFA: “It’s gone could mean many things.” 

    Uh, actually, what it means is Ford’s team paid a higher sum of money to the blackmailers for the video than those who wanted to publish it ever could have come up with! Duh! I’m sure this exchange of funds took place within hours of this scandal becoming big news. It is equally silly to assume that reporters (or the public) ever could have amassed enough money to get the video, as it is to assume it is fake, or not Rob Ford. 

    The Ford team was the target of the blackmail attempt the whole time. The only purpose of “offering” the video to the public was to light a fire under the Ford team, to show them that the blackmailers meant business, and probably to extort a higher sum than would’ve been possible without a public outcry. 

    I feel really sorry to those who gave money to the video release kickstarter, because it was a utter pipedream from day one that the video would make it to the public. It is POSSIBLE in the future it will be leaked, but there wasn’t even a slim chance it could be ‘purchased’, because that was not who the blackmailers were trying to get money from! 

    The only reason there is a video of Marion Berry smoking crack is because authorities KNEW he was a drug user & went out of their way to sting him, therefore the video of that sting (conducted by public officials) enters the public record. Should RCMP investigate & sting Rob Ford now that there is reasonable suspicion he is a drug user? For sure! But the public’s efforts are better put to work pressuring Canadian law enforcement to actually nail this idiot than to find some magic video…

    • L_Mariachi says:

      If these Somalian “power brokers” found out the crack dealer’s identity, I’m sure Ford paid a lot less than the asking price. Plus the gratuity of not having the guy killed. 

    • Funk Daddy says:

      Wait a minute, you say it is silly to assume that the public could have raised enough money, even though they did raise the asking price?

      But we can safely assume that Fordeux paid for the video? Also we can assume that there was never an intention or chance of it being made public? Also assume that Fordeux was the only possible customer ever? BUT then we can also assume it will be leaked someday?After assuming it could never be made public?

      Assumptions Gone Wild? I assume you keep using that word. I assume the word does not mean what you think it means.

      • Jarrod Henry says:

        I don’t think it’s too far an assumption at all.  Remember the initial statement the owners of the video made?   That they wanted six figures, and they had contacted the mayor?   

        As for the “asking price”, this is a bidding war.  There IS no “asking price”, there is a number Gawker made up that was arbitrary and six digits and in their minds “enough” to purchase the video.  

        Clearly, it was not.   And someone else bought the tape.

        • Funk Daddy says:

          More assumptions again?

          My point was pedantic, you ask for contradictory assumptions in the same screed, it was silly sounding to read what you wrote, first accusing some of assuming then following with assumptions of your own, lather rinse repeat. You are comedic.

    • jacklaughing says:

      “I feel really sorry to those who gave money to the video release
      kickstarter, because it was a utter pipedream from day one that the
      video would make it to the public.”
      Gotta agree. The whole idea that this video would become public once it’s “existence” was leaked was a real longshot. I don’t know Gawker’s financial resources for something like this, but if they ever really had an opportunity to buy this video then they blew it. I think Gawker knew they weren’t likely to get the video and ownership of it was going to invite all sorts of legal hassle, so they mined the story for all the page views they could and that is that.

      Gawker should be ashamed for how they handled this.

      • Gilbert Wham says:

        There’s a canny few things Gawker should be ashamed for…

      • ChrisLeBeouf says:

        I believe they were completely up front about the risk and will most likely donate the proceeds to charity should the goods not be delivered.

  4. It’s too bad, politically, for rob Ford that he is Canadian. If he were and American, he would be the front runner in both parties for the white House. Wait, maybe it doesn’t matter that he is Canadian. He could simply alter his birth certificate and claim to be American. If so, he would be a shoo in for the presidency and Americans would finally have a competent hand on the button of all our Nuclear weapons. ROB FORD FOR PRESIDENT. ROB FORD FOR PRESI………

  5. Echo says:

    It seems strange to me that Ford supporters lack the objectivity to apply Occam’s Razor and see that 2 independent media outlets witnessed the video depicting Rob Ford high, incoherent, and probably smoking drugs. This conspiratorial rhetoric is really strange, given that his staffers said really insane things about him and the video, and how the police ransacked his office.

    • Jarrod Henry says:

      Occam’s razor says to me that this was a fantastic pageview setup for Gawker and a wonderful story without evidence by a paper that has had it in for Rob Ford forever.    

      These two “witnesses” to the video are not exactly unbiased news agents.  

      The net worth of Gawker’s owner is between $100,000,000 and $300,000,000.  And we’re to believe they couldn’t come up with $200,000 for a story of this magnitude?

      (Given that, I think the video probably exists/existed, but.. that’s not based on any evidence)

      • Snig says:

        Checkbook journalism is often considered a dubious approach, especially when dealing with dubious characters.  Also, it establishes a precedent that people will then expect fabulous amounts of money for stories.  

        • grimc says:

          Gawker was happy to participate in checkbook journalism; they just didn’t want to be the ones paying for it.

      • Funk Daddy says:

        Hold on there pardner, you are willing to tar two reporters on the basis of association?

        The Star has been critical of every administration ever, that it has criticisms does not mean it “has it in” for this one. If Fordeux don’t like the criticisms perhaps they should pull their heads out of their respective asses.

        • Jarrod Henry says:

          I’m willing to do that, yes, in lieu of evidence to the contrary.    I’m not willing to take two people’s words when those people are clearly biased.   I’m going to need MORE than that.   I generally don’t believe drug dealers , especially when drug dealers are supposedly selling out their own supposed clients and blackmailing them.  That says a lot to me about credibility and character.

          We had the opportunity to get the MORE, but then the video is “gone.”   So where does that leave us in terms of evidence?  Two biased reporters who have seen this video, and crackdealers who have definitely attempted to blackmail someone they say is their client.

          • Funk Daddy says:

             You’re laughable,

            Please demonstrate the bias before/while demanding it exists.

            No one has asked you to take their word for it, not even them or The Star.

            You don’t believe drug dealers, generally, but especially (in the same breath) when they are selling out or blackmailing their own clients, who can be blackmailed by them because… Yeah.

            No one has presented a lack of evidence as evidence in this matter, it was not two biased reporters but rather 2 reporters you feel are biased (without evidence) and also the editor of Gawker, John Cook, who must also be biased I guess, since he insists he also clearly identified the Mayor as the one sucking down cokesmoke in the video.

            You ought to check your head with the differences between “think” and “believe”

          • foobar says:

            How long do you have to train to stretch your credulity that far?

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            How do you know that they’re crack dealers unless you’ve personally purchased from them? Or do you simply choose to believe only those things that bolster your own view?

          • Jarrod Henry says:

            The Star and Gawker both said they were. Unless of course they were lying.  In which case, they might have been lying about the whole darn thing, right? 

      • Echo says:

         I think Carly Simon wrote a song about your response to my post.

  6. grimc says:

    Gawker made the story about the video of Rob Ford smoking crack instead of Rob Ford smoking crack. No video? No story. Gawker is just a better written TMZ with the delusion that they’re serious journalists.
    Want proof? John Cook’s latest piece is about why adults shouldn’t use butt wipes.

    • ChrisLeBeouf says:

      If “serious journalism” wasn’t complete putty in the hands of government and corporate interest, maybe Gawker would be less popular. 

  7. rocketpj says:

    Ford’s ongoing ability to stay in his seat is amazing to me.  Were he a lefty he’d have been hounded out of town 5 years ago, like 25 scandals ago.  (For evidence note the still living utter falsehood that Jack Layton and Olivia Chow lived in social housing while city councillors – which they didn’t and yet which still gets mentioned all the time).

Leave a Reply