Guest Editorial: The Motivation Is Political


This is the biggest bunch of victim blaming crazy conspiracy theory I've ever seen from a liberal. Who is their right mind actually believes this guy didn't commit these heinous acts after this editorial? Like there is some right wing conspiracy to put a REPUBLICAN in place as mayor of Seattle? Who would believe that is even a possibility? Murray needs to go, he has NO proof of any "conspiracy" and won't ever have any. Why would a Tacoma attorney give a flying F about who the mayor of Seattle is?
Resign now, Ed. You were a mediocre State Rep and Senator. You've been a terrible Mayor. You're not a bright man. You're also thin-skinned, vindictive and quite possibly a sexual predator. Do Seattle a favor and just go away.
I was told by a Safe Seattle reader that comments had been closed on this article, so this is a test.
This is absurdly offensive, and alone gives enough reason to note vote for Murray ever again.

Criminals don't deserve to be believed about abuse? Cool. Murray needs to go away now.
Well, I guess this Editorial didn't pan out. With great anticipation I will look forward to the Mayor's next one.
Guilty until proven innocent amirite guys? This makes me terrified to have a penis when mere accusations cause people to call for your head on a pike. Settle the fuck down and give the mayor some due process. You'd want the same if it were you being accused.
Since time seems to be of the essence, wouldn't it just be faster and simpler for all parties to submit to a lie detector test by a neutral, qualified party and put an end to any 'false allegations'? Seems a lot less invasive than the previous examination must have been. All these words in this editorial are meaningless to me; comes across as someone disassociated from the true issues and just trying distract by spreading blame about 'how the story was dispersed'. I really hope these accusations are not true; because, it breaks my heart to think that a rising politician could think that his own sexual gratification was more important than respecting and valuing another human being, especially a trusting and vulnerable child that just wanted to be cared about. Personally, I find that far more important than any political career.
"He has a history of making false allegations against other guardian figures."

[citation needed]
Lots of words, and no denials of the key factual allegations made by the plaintiff.

What's "the accusation" that is denied? Probably only how much should be paid to the victim.
"To this day, the identity of the accuser (DH) is unknown to me."
That many, huh?
"I won't make any further public comment ... unless my accuser has a well-written piece written in the local LGBTQ paper ... in which case I'll call up by neoliberal buddy Dan Savage and have him publish an op-ed with the comments section disabled."
So far it's Murray 1, Trolls 0.
Even if all that Murray claims is true, and really I have no doubt of it, that doesn't mean that he isn't a terrible mayor who deserves to be called to account for his actions in office. He hasn't seen a thing he doesn't want to tax, the hard-core unreachable homeless are out of control, ill-timed construction has downtown in gridlock, and our city is slowly becoming a cesspool.

Throw him out. It doesn't matter if his sexual past is clean as the driven snow. He's awful.
I wonder if Mayor got his attorney's blessing to write such a ramification-prone editorial.
As Mayor you need to answer to the press. This is not a private matter, the public needs confidence that inquiry can be made and WE can gauge your honesty in the matter.

Staging a paid advocate to shield you from questions and utilizing the editorial section in a booster publication to push your story is inadequate.

The city council, afraid of the consequences if you are truly innocent, has passed the buck to a civil case that is tangential to the court of public opinion. We need to have confidence in your character. Because of the city council's cowardice the press needs access to question the veracity of your story. Grant the press access or resign.

@9, as much as I have defended Murray, and I had given him reasonable doubt, I think he did a bad job in denying the allegations.

Murray, doesn't address the allegations head on. He should had stated that he never had sexual relationship with underage teens, or abuse his relationship as a legal guardian. Instead, he rambled on about the press and extortion, and he had to announce he doesn't have weird moles on his genitalia. He needed an editor for his piece. Also attacking the Seattle Times seemed to be deflection.. The best way to address this is head on with a succinct piece, solely focused on the lawsuit, and a brief dismissal of the previous allegations..
Since The Stranger isn't interested in the details, we shall have to get them from - GASP - The Seattle Times.
A Portland man’s effort to sue Seattle Mayor Ed Murray a decade ago over alleged sexual abuse foundered because of statute of limitations issues — not credibility concerns, the man’s attorney said Thursday.

Brian Williams, the former attorney for Jeff Simpson, who pursued the lawsuit in 2007, said he found his client’s story believable. He also located a second man, Lloyd Anderson, who alleged that as a teen he had been paid by Murray for sex.
Here's the thing, Ed.

It's not the shock of your life; as you were accused twice before by other young men; in Portland, Oregon. It's number three, and you've denied it before.
So let's go with "innocent until proven guilty." We can do that.

You're also claiming that your entire mayorship has been positive, which, frankly, isn't true. At best, you've done a mediocre job and at worst you've screwed the city over in both affordable housing and the issue of homelessness. So regardless of your actual career as a politician, you can claim that nobody is going to edge Mr. Murray out because he's gay.

Sure, that's fine, but then you claim victimhood by saying because you're gay, this MUST be politically motivated by the people who don't want gay rights in America. You've also failed to note that a major component of the campaign that placed you as mayor focused on the fact that you WERE gay, and you counted on the liberality of Seattle to propel you to the victory seat. I voted for you; I personally would have preferred Mike McGinn, who I saw practicing what he preached every day by riding his bike home on the same commute I had - back to Greenwood. McGinn showed up, and you got the impression he was there because he cared; not because he wanted the seat of power.

You have NEVER given me that impression. Quite the contrary, in point of fact.
But the issue of your sexuality as a mayor isn't something I want to think about. Frankly, I don't want to read about the epidermal topography of your nutsack. I don't want to know what you do in bed. I don't CARE.

I'd rather treat it as an accusation of a sex crime - which it is.

Unfortunately, you're not doing that.

You're using the same playbook Donald Trump used when he denied that he engaged in bad behavior with women throughout his life - sexual harassment and rape, blackmail, and outright denial.

You're blaming the victim. You're lambasting the media for trying the case in the public eye - then do the exact same thing by smearing the accusers with an accusation of political motivation.

You're saying "Because he's a criminal with a criminal history you should believe me, not some guy who wanted to get me to pay for emotional damages due to the quite real trauma that sex abuse victims endure for their entire lives."

Frankly, Mr. Murray, you have engaged in some of the slimiest politics I've seen while in public office.

If you'd kept your fingers off the keyboard, maybe, just MAYBE I might have thought, "Okay, no merit to the accusation."

But instead, you immediately framed the multiple reports of alleged sexual abuse by an adult of minors as political posturing by thine enemies.

My god, sir.

You ARE Donald Trump.

And I simply no longer believe a thing you say.
Mr. Mayor, Do you know a man named Jeff Simpson? Did you not hear about his story in the news last night? Maybe you simply forgot to deny Jeff's allegations in your Stranger "editorial" this morning? Or maybe this piece you did here today is the first of a series?
There's another thing that just really, REALLY bothers me about Murray's editorial.

Where Murray says "I would never suggest that those with criminal histories cannot be victims of abuse."

And then once the reader goes, "Oh, well, even though the previous sentence said he thinks his accuser's criminal background is relevant, he just said he wouldn't suggest that," Murray goes on to say:

"Rather, his criminal history proves he cannot be trusted. He has been convicted of numerous crimes of dishonesty, including identity theft, fraud, false emergency reporting and forgery, in addition to numerous convictions related to robbery, theft, unlawful use of weapons, delivery of controlled substances, criminal conspiracy and even attempted kidnapping."

So in other words, Murray says, "I'd never suggest it. I'm just outright STATING, straight up, that because my accuser has got a criminal record it can't possibly be true. Honestly, I'm hoping by couching my statement in some positive language, nobody is going to call me out on the fact that I just tried to softball the most egregious example of Victim-Blaming since the Catholic Church blamed those sinful altar boys for tempting their pedophile priests."

The fact remains that the accusations have remained constant since they occurred in the 1980s. The man who accused Murray of sexual abuse in the lawsuit is NOT the man who is suing Murray now. And Murray is still acting like a flat denial and smear campaign against the individuals who say Murray sexually abused and raped them as teenagers and children will succeed.

Resign, Mr. Murray. Resign now, because the one thing this city doesn't need is a sexual predator in office who hides behind a thin shield of simultaneous victim-blaming and victim-shaming.
Last note, and while it's one of the most distasteful subjects, it's also relevant. Why relevant? Because Murray brought it up. And he brought it up here by alluding to it.

Namely, the notion that Murray doesn't have a mole on his nutsack, and therefore the accuser from thirty years ago is lying, as that's his primary identifying feature.

Murray is hinging his entire legal argument on why this should all go away and why it's totally disproven that he COULDN'T be the abuser of the man in the lawsuit known as D.H. - that there was a mole on his nutsack (scrotum, in polite terms) when last D.H. saw it.

His defense team has had a medical exam done of Murray's nutsack. They've gone over his nutsack (scrotum) with a fine tooth comb and found absolutely no evidence of a mole or blemish matching the description, and there's no medical record of a mole removal, so it can't POSSIBLY be true.

Except it can. Even the most cursory Google search of the phrase "Can a mole just disappear?" shows dermatologist websites, the Mayo Clinic, several dermatology clinics and other experts saying that they can, especially with age.

So in other words, Murray might not have a mole on his nutsack. Murray also may not have ever been in a position to note whether he had a mole on his nutsack, and it's also possible that over thirty years of active or inactive work with said mole, it either just grew out of the mole phase and dropped off (which moles can and often do), or it migrated, or Murray used a home Mole and skin tag Removal Kit (available at Amazon for $22.95 plus shipping and handling, search "Micro TagBand Skin Tag Remover Device").
There's no reason to believe that Murray is actually telling the truth, or lying. In point of fact, if the mole in question DID just vanish (as moles, skin tags, and other skin blemishes often do over time), Murray wouldn't be lying about whether he currently had a mole on his nutsack. He'd just be lying about whether he did quite some time ago.

Moles, like freckles, sunburns, and nonmalignant melanomas are not permanent. They aren't like tattoos, or the scars left from years of sexual abuse as a child.
Gay men have been slandered as abusers for political advantage and monetary gain over and over. Ed Murray is innocent, and there is ZERO evidence against him since the accusations, never credible, have been proven false. The Seattle Times behaved shamefully in this matter and has lost all claim to objective coverage.
@JimDeBlasio that's true. However, it's a truly cynical political operative who would claid that the allegations have been proven false as nothing of the sort has yet happened in this case. In no possible circumstances can you say that, because NOTHING has been proven or disproven in a court of law. Stating otherwise indicates that the person claiming so is just leaping to the defense of a politician regardless of their guilt or innocence based exclusively on their sexual identity.

That is a criminally cynical viewpoint that flirts dangerously close to being that of a rape apologist - were the victims women and the accused Bill Cosby, or Donald Trump, it's doubtful the same reaction would be heard quite so vocally and quite so quickly.

Take sexuality and gender out of the equation, and you're left with the disturbingly clear playbook strategy of victim-blaming used by every sex offender held to account for their actions who happens to be in the public sphere as celebrity or politician.

And not to put too fine a point on it, so is the declaration of innocence and claims of proof before any such thing happens by partisan supporters more invested in the success of their [insert category of specialized sexual/political/racial identity] candidate than in holding said person to account for their actions.
More to the point, claiming that the Seattle Times lost all objective coverage is akin to hearing Trump supporters claim that the New York Times is part of a conspiracy against him, and about as convincing.

In short, saying what you said indicates to me you're less interested in the truth and more interested in keeping the narrative of the Gay Mayor intact - regardless of whether said Mayor is guilty of raping vulnerable teenagers.
@22, Can you give an example of a gay (or straight) politician who was falsely accused of child molestation? I'm not trying to be an asshole, I just can't think of an example of a politician who was falsely accused of molesting a child.
@25: the most obvious example is the Franklin sex ring allegations of the late 80s and early 90s in Omaha, Nebraska. However, those allegations were very quickly investigated and dismissed, and two of the accusers were charged.
That, however, is the only public allegation in a criminal or civil proceeding, and dates, similarly, from nearly 30 years ago.

That doesn't prevent people from using it as an example of false accusation in defense of the accused, or in using it as the basis for the argument that the accusers are lying because they are, for example, criminals, because everyone knows criminals always lie.

That, of course being the same rationalization the average vigilante mob uses to justify hanging a suspected thief.
@23, don't forget Bill Clinton.
Mr. Mayor . . . just have your speech writer look this over: "Disparagement and false accusation have become frequent in our politics. Public figures are regularly wrongly derided and purposefully misconstrued in the service of someone's political or economic agenda. The specious claims made against me are baseless. And they are hurtful not only to me and my loved ones--they erode further the civil governance in which we participate. They are not only false, but corrosive to our body politic. In full recognition of the damage done to Seattle's citizens by the wanton distraction fabricated by a deplorable few, I find no choice but to, effective immediately, resign from the job that was the greatest privilege of my life--to resign from the position of Mayor of the great City of Seattle. It is my fervent and singular wish that our citizens receive the focused, determined attention they deserve from their government officials. Making way for that objective was--and remains--my true intention. Thank you."
@Malachi, thanks for taking the time to lay that out.
Wow this is pathetic.
"will continue building upon the many accomplishments we have achieved together during my time as mayor, including reforming the police department, building more affordable housing, raising the minimum wage, closing racial disparities in our public schools, addressing homelessness, and so much more"

Let's address some of these shall we? You did not "reform the police Department", the DOJ oversaw that initiative along with Chief O'Toole. Building more affordable housing? How? Where? You and the city council have skewered small-time landlords with these draconian rental rules as "evil capitalists" when all we want is to protect our most valuable investment. You've let developers run ripshod over this once great city and build multiple ugly overpriced concrete boxes. And what of the $3.4 million left on the table for developerst to pay towards this so-called "affordable housing"? And that is what was just reported. How much more money has been "lost"? How much more money has been squanderd in feel good projects like Pronto, painted crosswalks, special-interest groups. The homeless issue - laughable! You make zero effort to separate the truly needy citizens who want to get out of their situation and instead open Seattle to every "urban camper", meth head, felon, and sex offender who wants to pitch a tent and leave their human waste, garbage, and used needles everywhere. This city is turning into a complete dump with your feel good policies, anti-small business stance, and lack of fiscal responsibility. It is time for a change, you have failed the rest of your constituency beyond Capitol Hill who you were elected to represent (remember them?)
@Malachi - ditto @30 - good work.
@17 Try again. The Stranger was the first to report that. Check the timestamps.……
One thing that stood out to me was that he claims of one of the accusers that his "criminal history is very relevant. [...] his criminal history proves he cannot be trusted." Even though he's paid his debt to society.
Yet he claimed last year that "Too many of our residents face life-long barriers to housing due to their criminal histories long after they have served their sentences and paid their debt to society".…
So he thinks a criminal history shouldn't bar you from housing, that landlords should be forced to subject themselves to untrustworthy tenants, but that the same criminal history should bar you from being taken seriously as a plaintiff when you sue the Mayor?
"So he thinks a criminal history shouldn't bar you from housing, that landlords should be forced to subject themselves to untrustworthy tenants, but that the same criminal history should bar you from being taken seriously as a plaintiff when you sue the Mayor?"

Everybody needs a place to live. Nobody needs to sue the Mayor for things he may or may not have done decades ago.

I hope this resolves your confusion. You're welcome.
"Everybody needs a place to live. Nobody needs to sue the Mayor for things he may or may not have done decades ago."

'Tis true. But this is simple supply and demand. Hey, I would totally love to live in Medina in a waterfront enclave because I want to. Reality states that I cannot. The Seattle housing prices have become astronomical, this we can agree on. Part of life, move on. There are cheaper alternatives on the outskirts.
Whether or not these accusations are true, the fact is that the deep and old-money business community is angry about Murray's taxation policies in Seattle over the years. Ed Murray came in as an outsider to these interests and in many ways is still an outsider. The Times is their mouthpiece, and they found an opportunity to depose the person that family friends absolutely despise. Be careful what you wish for.
"Again, assume for the sake of argument that my accuser is not telling the truth."

How the fuck did we go from I believe the victims to for the sake of argument lets just believe the victim is a liar???

Also Simpson clams that the absue was one of the things that lead him to drugs/crime. Whereas the mayor is just pointing to his criminal record as a reason to dismiss the man. No clue if he did it or not, but its not unreasonable that childhood sexual abuse causes a person to turn to drugs/crime.

Honestly no clue if the mayor is guilty or not, and the mayor should get a fair trial, but damn does this response from the mayor seem like it's putting the victim on trial while brushing past simpsons accusations.

Honestly this is fucked up.
"Hey, I would totally love to live in Medina in a waterfront enclave because I want to. Reality states that I cannot. "

Have you been denied because of your criminal record?
re: "Nobody needs to sue the Mayor for things he may or may not have done decades ago."
Assuming the allegations are true, it's every bit as much his right as housing is.
The statements Murray has made aren't compatible. If you can dismiss a lawsuit's credibilty based on a past criminal history, surely you should be able to deny a tenant. But really, neither should be allowed.
I don't live in your city; I'm a Canadian. I read your letter. I'm very confused; after I finished your letter; I became very confused. I don't occured to you and what was allegedly said. Good luck/bonne chance...
Unlike the mayor, at least Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, Robert Bentley, and Donald Trump didn't pay for it.
"Have you been denied because of your criminal record?"

That's a big negative there, tensor. Economics. I simply cannot afford to live in Medina on my income. This is called reality. While yes, people deserve a place to live, nobody has the "right" to live in Seattle... same as I do not have the "right" to live in Medina. Seattle has become unaffordable for many - we get that. Solution? Well gollly gee -
there are cheaper areas such as Lynnwood, Everett, Kent, etc. Additionally, one must work for said place to live - or have we reached a point to where every lazy snowflake is simply awarded a free roof over their heads? Doubt it - this is what's called being an adult and taking responsibility.

I trust this clears things up
The Mayor deserves the right to be presumed innocent, imagine for a moment you were in a similar position. That said, I do take issue with his assertion that his administration has made progress, particularly in the area of homelessness. I don't believe the Mayor understands the deep frustration most residents feel when they pass by blue tarp camps strewn with garbage, can't get the police to remove someone sleeping in their building doorway, find someone camping in their garage, or get pan handled to death daily. This cuts across every voter demographic. While most would gladly vote in support of (tax) solutions, few seem to believe this Mayor has the management and strategy chops to make it happen.
1) "Again, assume for the sake of argument that my accuser is not telling the truth." I believe the phrase you are looking for is "innocent until proven guilty."
2) The Mayor says that he does not know who this person is and that seems a bit hard to believe since he also tells us that he has faced this before. I'm sure he has some inkling.
3) Just because law enforcement declines to prosecute does NOT mean an event did not happen. It means they do not have enough evidence - at that time - to take it to court. Cases are revisited when new evidence becomes available (see all the guys who get out of prison because of the ability to check DNA).
4) I know the Mayor and his lawyer believe that they have slam-dunk proven that the accuser's description of the Mayor's anatomy is wrong and that's the end of it. It would have been better to have an independent doctor do that work and I suspect if it goes to court, that's what will happen (a la Michael Jackson).
5) It is true that having an accuser with a long criminal background especially around crimes of truth (like theft, forgery, etc.) does have to be taken into account. But I'm with CM Sawant that victims of sexual abuse seem to sustain far more scrutiny of their lives than many other victims of crime. That's also an important point to keep in mind.

Lastly, the Times editorial board does claim to operate separately from the reporting side (although that line is more and more blurry, see their education reporting). I would agree with the Mayor on this one - a little soon to be telling him to not run.
"Assuming the allegations are true, it's every bit as much his right as housing is."

I didn't speak to whether or not the accuser has a right to bring his lawsuit; of course he does. I merely noted he did not need to file the suit. By contrast, everyone needs a place to live, so the comparison of the two is not valid.

"The statements Murray has made aren't compatible."

Describe the incompatibility. Provide quotes from him, and show how they contradict each other.

"I simply cannot afford to live in Medina on my income."

That's not relevant. The question is, were you denied even the opportunity to live in Medina, no matter what your income, because of your criminal record? The latter would be an example of what Murray was talking about when it came to persons with criminal records.
I have to say, I don't believe Murray. I have a feeling that the majority of both his colleagues and the people don't either, even if most are being polite about it. He has the same right as every other American to be considered innocent until proven guilty, absolutely. These past court cases that he had no doubt hoped would remain buried; he really hasn't addressed them at all other than to say they're false and to accuse his accusers of political conspiracy. I would think a truly innocent man in his position would want to quickly if not aggressively take these specific claims head on, himself, to proclaim his innocence. Instead, with the exception of his simple denial regarding the D.H. case, Murray just remains silent or vague at best if he's not hiding behind his spokesman and attorney. I believe him, however, when he says this has been 'The shock of his life.' Not because it's unimaginable that he could be accused of such a thing, but because he's probably had a lingering fear deep down that this would return to haunt him, which over the years may have started to subside. Until a few days ago when his past returned like a freight train through his living room. A shock to be sure. And now he can only cry conspiracy as he's up against the wall with what will probably turn out to be undeniable evidence or at least perceived by everyone as such and that's enough. What is it now, three accusers so far? This has only just begun. Who knows what else will come up, or who else will speak out. Cosby case in point. He shouldn't even waste the people's or even his own time and money running for reelection. As for stepping down; a mayor should always be willing to do what's best for the city/people. I don't know, perhaps it will simply come down to how much public shaming and quiet disgust from colleagues et al he can take from this loudly preceding him.
Incidentally, I had a mole/growth that was under my arm about four inches out from my armpit that after over 25 years recently decided to fall clean off. I can't even tell where it was located now. Furthermore, if Murray was regularly engaged in sexual acts with drug users, which I believe all three of his accusers have admitted to being, who's to say that it wasn't an STD that this D.H. saw on Murray's anatomy 30 years ago?
"These past court cases..."

Which court cases are those?

"...what will probably turn out to be undeniable evidence..."

After thirty years? Murray's doctor just swiftly provided evidence contrary to the only physical evidence claimed in the suit.

" least perceived by everyone as such and that's enough."

How far do we lower the bar before we admit the evidence just isn't conclusive?

"What is it now, three accusers so far? This has only just begun."

Three accusations, all at least thirty years old. Sounds like it's already ended.

"He shouldn't even waste the people's or even his own time and money running for reelection."

So, that's how we choose our elected officials now? Any accusation and they're done? Why do we citizens not get a say in who our mayor might be?
Re: "I merely noted he did not need to file the suit. By contrast, everyone needs a place to live, so the comparison of the two is not valid."

I see you're not being sincere, you're playing semantic games. You could just as easily make the equally outlandish claim that a person doesn't *need* to rent a place to live, they could buy, or live on the street. And you'd be just as confused with that statement, too. But it's consistent with your "thinking", if it could be called that.

As far as the incompatibility, I supplied the quotes in the earlier post. If you can't see the incompatibilty, that's not my problem. I'm confident the average reader can.

The third point you make, about affording to live in Medina, was not my comment, so please don't imply it was by including it in with comments I did make.
I think we need to start checking places like where the sun doesn't shine to see if we can find the Mayors Mole!
Saturday April 23 the mole hunt starts at Westlake Mall, all the way to City Hall. Mr. Mayor we will help you find your mole. ha ha ha ha
I wonder if Amazon sells moles? Next day delivery?
"'re playing semantic games."

No, I'm merely noting that there was no need to file this lawsuit, whereas shelter is a basic human need. The original comparison conflated these two dissimilar ideas.
Ed, people know about your various dermatology procedures. Don't you think that they knew the mole might not still be there when they drafted the court documents? You made your privates the headline. You're an embarrassment of the highest order. If you really wanted to disprove these claims, you'd have ordered your lawyers to take D.H.'s deposition already. It's not hard to discredit someone who claims a 4-5 year relationship that didn't exist. If lawyers are afraid and don't think they can do that, get better/real lawyers.
Yeah the last thing Murray wants to do is do anything that would draw this out, such as deposing DH. He's terrified of what else may surface. He wants to get the case thrown out without having to go any more near it than he has to. And as far as I know, he hasn't even acknowledged Simpson's accusations, who evidently at one point sought to sue Murray for sodomy. A documented history of a relationship between Murray and Simpson has been revealed, and yet Murray remains silent in the face of those accusations. Or perhaps Murray and his attorney just haven't yet figured out how they're going to spin his response. He's not going to be able to deny knowing Simpson. I don't presume to know the dynamics of their relationship, but Simpson really came across as someone who had once trusted and relied on Murray, was used by Murray, and ultimately left behind by Murray years ago. The ball's now in Murray's court.
"Don't you think that they knew the mole might not still be there when they drafted the court documents?"

If by "they" you mean the plaintiff's attorneys, then it was their mistake to include such equivocal evidence in their filing. (Of course, it is the only physical evidence they cite in a story that is otherwise about riding the #7 bus to Broadway, so maybe they just went with the best they had, excruciatingly weak though it was.)

"You made your privates the headline."

No, the attorneys for the plaintiff did that, as you seem to have acknowledged in your first line.

"You're an embarrassment of the highest order."

That line applies to the attorneys who filed the suit, as you seem to have acknowledged in your first line.

"If you really wanted to disprove these claims,"

It is not the job of the accused to disprove anything; it is entirely the job of the accuser to prove the accusations. Murray merely provided evidence which cast doubt upon the only evidence cited in the lawsuit which could tie him to his accuser.

Absent such evidence, there seems little point in the plaintiff proceeding towards a trial. Unless, of course, the entire purpose of the suit is to cause political damage to Mayor Murray.

"He's not going to be able to deny knowing Simpson."

Given that Simpson repeatedly moved into Murray's residence, it would indeed be impossible for anyone to deny they knew each other. The question becomes what the total of their interactions were, and they seem to have been amicable until Simpson began attempting to blame Murray for Simpson's many problems, decades after they stopped living together. (Simpson's interactions with Rev. Hutcherson, a well-known anti-gay preacher, seem to have had something to do with Simpson's decision to attack his one-time benefactor.)
"If so, and there is absolutely no truth in these allegations, the lawsuit and the story printed, then why not immediately get his lawyers on the task of bringing a cause of action for slander and libel against the partie(s), lawyer's and The Seattle Times!"

Because the lawsuit has yet to be decided. If it gets laughed out of court, then Murray may have the ability to pursue his accuser and his accuser's enablers. (HIs status as a public figure makes this more difficult than if he were a private citizen on the receiving end of this treatment.)
"The mere fact he is a public figure makes no difference what so ever."

Don't know much about how these things work in the American system of law, do we?