Dear Stranger readers,
2020 is finally behind us, but our recovery is just beginning. Reader support has ensured that our dedicated and tenacious team of journalists can continue to bring you important updates as only The Stranger can. Now we're imploring you to help us survive another year. Ensure that we're here to ring in our upcoming 30th anniversary by making a one-time or recurring contribution today.
We're so grateful for your support. Thank you.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Sign up for the latest news and to win free tickets to events
Buy tickets to events around Seattle
Comprehensive calendar of Seattle events
The easiest way to find Seattle's best events
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
The Mayor's op-Ed was shockingly tone-deaf and sad. For him to not even acknowledge his relationship to these men is very troubling and yet he has no problem in saying don't trust THEIR word.
Why should I trust his?
This story is being perpetuated by outlets that describe one accuser as "a teddy bear of a man" while asserting the mayor should step down (but they're not rushing to judgement).
There are some sketchy details to this case and I'd hope The Stranger would do more investigative journalism rather than just post what the court of public opinion thinks. The city deserves at least that much. Simply telling the mayor to step down, especially if innocent, does the city no good in the long run.
Danni stands on an Everest of moral high ground,
The Mayor wallows in a Marianas Trench of dissimulation and hypocrisy...
With headlines like this one, seems like he's going to be guilty for not responding and guilty for responding. I think it's also important to realize, the mayor has not been convicted of anything. He's been accused. It might be worth considering that the emotions of Seattle citizens, especially those who've tragically experienced sexual abuse, might possibly be getting preyed on here.
"Again, assume for the sake of argument that my accuser is not telling the truth."
He didn't address his relationship with Mr Simpson, he just attack his criminal record and ask people to believe him "for the sake of argument". Honestly was shocked he wrote that and was shocked the stranger published it.
@5 go try making a false accusation that is similar in believability to this one. Not so easy. You'll need a time machine for one thing.
This is not just one free-standing accusation, at this point. Murray has only entangled himself further into the long history of accusations by his clumsy blaming.
But a scientific poll would show his support dropping like a rock. He's done. Pack your bag Ed. Good riddance.
As to this op-ed, good on her.
The truth is this mayor is terrible. This city has gone to shit under his "leadership," and we should have been able to get rid of him based on his craptastic record alone. But Seattle does the politics of personal destruction way, way better than it does actual politics and real discussions.
Try to go to a council meeting sometime, it's all special snowflakes that want to be heard, and no one listens to the actual experts.
Actually "judgement" is a perfectly acceptable spelling, although more common in British usage.
In short, he's proven he doesn't have the competence to be handle the hot seat, much less answer for his actions or himself.
He was never a good choice for mayor; he's so much less good now. It's time for Murray to go.
No, the merits (or lack thereof) of this suit should be decided by the court, and the merits (or lack thereof) of Mayor Murray's performance in office should be decided by us citizens at the next election. Anything else is a flat denial of justice.
This was an even faster "not saying, just saying" since Ed Murray's "I'm not gonna suggest their background means they're lying...but their background means they're lying" editorial.
I'm not saying I believe Ed Murray. But, good god. Why the hell can't we, the public (and Danni is the public...she has exactly as much information on this case as the rest of us readers), let it ride a little longer rather than getting our pitchforks out within a week of the accusations. The immediate "burn the witch" reaction is scary as fuck.
@31 I think he should have stopped commenting after the second comment he made (which came after he promised to stop commenting). at this point it's become ridiculous. I bet he'll release yet another statement just to finish off any chance he had at winning re-election.
No. The lawsuit is bankrolled by Jack Connelly's law firm in Tacoma. Connelly ran as a candidate for our legislature in 2012, opposing gay marriage; then-Senator Ed Murray opposed Connelly's candidacy. Connelly has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to at least one recent anti-transgendered rights Initiative. Contrary to the title of this editorial, the motivations do matter, especially when they appear to be an attempt at political revenge by a failed anti-gay politician against a successful gay one.
I say your gone this week.
Actually, the lawsuit claims sex below the age of consent and payment therefor, not anything to do with children.
"...that may go on for years?"
Bill Clinton is still one of our most popular political leaders, and that's what he had to do during his time in office.
"It's only going to get worse, not better. Not Ever!"
Unless the suit is withdrawn or dismissed and he's re-elected, all of which may yet easily happen.
"I say your [sic] gone this week."
Care to put your money where your mouth is?
That means everyone. Anyone.
Including Dan Savage and Danni Askini and Sydney Brownstone.
No, you would pay consequences if you lost your bet. I'm guessing you'll just ignore your prediction if it fails. (If your prediction fails, will you stop making predictions on this topic? Or will you refuse to practice the same accountability you're demanding of Mayor Murray?)
Bill Clinton won both.
You really ought to practice what you preach:
"Two successful attorneys with no anti LGBT bias are representing the gay victim..."
Two attorneys who are in the pay of an anti-LGBTQ activist and failed candidate who opposed gay marriage -- a candidate who lost a political battle to Ed Murray.
"Why would anyone think some random Tacoma attorney gives one crap about who the mayor of Seattle is?"
Jack Connelly is not some "random" attorney, he's an anti-LGBTQ activist and failed candidate who opposed gay marriage -- a candidate who lost a political battle to Ed Murray.
"Get over your ridiculous far fetched conspiracy..."
I'm talking about the actions of one person. That is, by definition, not talking about a conspiracy.
"...read the complaint."
I did. To which part do you refer? The riveting section about riding the Metro #7 bus?
"Murray did it..."
No, that is what the attorneys who are in the pay of an anti-LGBTQ activist and failed candidate who opposed gay marriage -- a candidate who lost a political battle to Ed Murray -- must demonstrate in a court of law. So far, all they've got is a story about riding a bus.
"The Lawyers are not claiming they are the victims of sexual abuse, their clients are."
For obvious reasons, I never wrote the attorneys were claiming to be victims of sexual abuse. I noted their client (note: singular) has told them a story about riding a bus, and they are getting all of their money for the lawsuit not from that client (note: singular), but from an anti-LGBTQ activist and failed candidate who opposed gay marriage -- a candidate who lost a political battle to Ed Murray.
Contrary to the title of this post, motivation matters. When we citizens of Seattle decide whether or not this lawsuit should have any bearing on our judgment of Mayor Murray's performance in his office, we are fully and completely entitled to consider the motivation(s) of the person paying for this lawsuit. That person is Jack Connelly of Tacoma, an anti-LGBTQ activist and failed candidate who opposed gay marriage -- a candidate who lost a political battle to Ed Murray.
The one Murray mentioned in his editorial:
"...firm anti-LGTBQ positions – positions which led me as a senator and chair of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee to refuse to support Connelly when ran for the state Senate in 2012."
Connelly lost the election, in part because of Murray's opposition. This is all public knowledge, despite your wild claim that I have "NO" evidence for it.
"Not everything is a conspiracy or has some ulterior motive."
I have said nothing about a conspiracy. I have noted the single individual bankrolling this lawsuit has a history of opposing gay rights in general, and of opposing Murray in particular. Those facts are relevant when we consider this lawsuit.
"...call people you've never met anti LGBT..."
If they publicly oppose gay marriage and fund anti-LGBTQ-rights Initiatives, then yes, I will call them anti-LGBT. Please let me know what problem you have with that.
He has condoned sweeps of encampments which have forced people onto the streets without decent shelter. He has condoned police brutality of the most desperate and poor people. Is this someone we can trust?
As opposed to what, Straight Men, who are never ever ever, not ever, attracted to much much *much* younger women?
I don't like Murray one bit. I would vote for my cat this November before I vote for him. But that is based on his policies, not accusations from the past. As much as I want him gone, I want him gone for the right reasons and through the correct process (whether that be electoral or judicial).
The mayor has condoned and ordered brutal sweeps of the homeless encampments and caused great suffering for the most poverty stricken people. This is very, very, wrong and wrong to ignore this.
In the cult of unreason, there are no winners. We don't have to wait for a trial. You're guilty until proven guilty. We can never prove that you're innocent. Step down.
Also:
The writer's past isn't relevant to this case, as difficult as that may have been for them. Except, of course, as it pertains to increasing their political clout. Did they witness these alleged crimes? Did a victim confide in them? No.
One of my big beefs in this matter is not only how Murray has handled this by dodging the fact of whether he knew these men, but his disgusting attempts to shame the accuser(s) by mentioning their criminal history. While it does make one question the validity of the accusers story, it also points right to the fact that these people were very troubled and vulnerable. Newsflash Ed... people were NOT shocked to learn that these men had troubled pasts. That's what makes them ideal victims of all kinds of abuse!!! Predators prey on people like that for this very reason. To me, it is similar to someone raping a sex worker. The rapist does it knowing that the likelihood of a prostutute reporting a rape and the accusation being actively investigated and prosecuted is slim. For Murray's attorney to say that "you can't trust the accuser when he tells you his name" due to his criminal past is deplorable. Both he and Ed should be ashamed of themselves.
Moving on....
My second issue is the fact that there has been little mention of prior accusations. (And they are there.) This is not the first time Ed's been in the situation, it's just the first time it's ever gotten this much attention. I can't speak for everyone but my life experience tells me that where there's smoke....there is usually fire. Just sayin'.
Lastly, the op-ed written by Murray for the Stranger is more of him bitching and whining about the Seattle Times than it is addressing allegations. Stories about people get published every day at a moment's notice. Just because you're the Mayor DOES NOT mean that you get extra time before a story hits the news to try and smooth the sheets or pull strings to stop it. You may be the Mayor (albeit a bad one) but you're still just another dude when it comes to freedom of the press.
Do us a favor Ed......leave office. Then leave town!!
Here we have the stars in perfect alignment - showing two sides of a dynamic I have struggled to define and demonstrate.
Danni Askini was doing a damn fine job for the first half of this op-ed until Askini called for Seattle Mayor Ed Murray to step down. Askini was 100% irresponsible talking out of both sides their mouth - When finally during the last half of this piece called for Mayor Ed Murray. This political grandstanding. Askini has political ground in large part via Mayor Ed Murray's notable mention and awards.
Askini sees the writing on the wall and could not resist jumping in the spotlight. Askini is (I contend) doing the kinda thing I have predicted and exclaimed for well over a year now. Askini is a desperate opportunist pliable to the political winds.
It is in my personal opinion reckless and unfair for the Stranger to provide a platform to Danni Askini and Mayor Ed Murray in effect inducing a "Bitch-O-Thon" of sorts. It is not productive in a practical sense. However its provided a ploy for them both to undress themselves and show their azz.
I hope Mayor Ed Murray now sees clearly who Danni Askini is 360. Askini jumped the gun calling for Mayor Ed Murray to step down without a proper trial and being found guilty. Askini contradicts themselves over and over and over again. This was a delicious display highhanded dysfunctional dissension within the LGBTQ community and top political leaders. They will eat each other alive.
As it happens I am a casualty of their inability to advocate for victims by both Danni Askini and Mayor Ed Murray. Still I have decorum and respect not to be so audacious as to declare the Mayor to step down.
I (who identifies as LGBTQ) have accused Danni Askini of being a fraud based on my issues being deliberately neglected for a year. Which have now spiraled into a total disaster for me and total loss. While Askini was out chasing the gold rings for their own personal agenda. Askini has since now provided a myriad of limp wristed excuses in an attempt to cover their tracks.
Who is Danni Askini? On what grounds does Askini have the authority to judge and direct Mayor Ed Murray to do anything let alone step-down? Danni Askini is a puffed up highfalutin LGBTQ socialist activist claiming to be an advocate for victims rights and safety.
I strongly speculate that Danni Askini is a mouthpiece for Kshama Sawant in many cases - This, just might be the biggest one yet!
You mock the justice system we enjoy if you believe that what we grant to protect innocent people is what we grant for holders of jobs or employment.
HIs civil trial is not what will determine if he is mayor or not, The public will. If it has any sense, it may ask him to resign just for the lack of character for hiding in the lengthy and not timely enough civil trial proceedings. If we get to question him, press and/ or city council, it may reveal enough evidence to the public to pass guilt.
NO, he has no right to just leave the accusation to his civil trial business in regards to who associates with him or entrusts him with responsibilities, whether public or private employer, or public office. It the mayor just wants to leave the allegations to the courts and avoid public scrutiny into his guilt or innocence he will have to resign.
If the accusations are false - and Murray explicitly knows if they're false or not - then it's an entirely appropriate course of action.
The "not timely enough civil proceedings" are the fault of his accuser, who took a mere thirty years to file his complaint -- just in time for our current election season! Wow, what a coincidence!
"Public opinion is the forum that we judge our leaders suitably for office. We do not leave it to courts of law."
So if an officeholder gets convicted of a felony, no problem, he can stay in office and continue to draw a paycheck from our tax dollars if he's popular enough?
"You mock the justice system we enjoy if you believe that what we grant to protect innocent people is what we grant for holders of jobs or employment."
You mock the justice system if you think the presumption of innocence belongs only in the courts. If you were now accused of date-rape by a woman you'd dated decades ago in college or high school, would you resign your job, quit your career, on the strength of her accusation alone?
My employer may not believe or disbelieve that one accusation you suggested I might suffer, or
they may not care. Three? They might ask questions. But yea, I think the Mayor should definitely resign.
You make little sense in your constant defense of an increasingly poor behaving mayor. Political loyalty at any cost to your own character? Unfortunately it appears you are not the only one in my life long home of Seattle.
Even you recognize this isn't true:
"There is sometime contracts and described administrative process, when denied, would be subject to due process and equal protection complaints."
Damned right there would be hell to pay if an employee who had served faithfully and honestly for over twenty years was suddenly fired on nothing more than thirty-year-old rumors. That's a huge wrongful-dismissal lawsuit just begging to be awarded.
"Court trials are not how we decide who are politicians are, that's simply the truth."
Around New York and Chicago, federal prosecutors have made entire careers out of removing local elected officials from office and placing them in prison. So, we Americans have indeed used court trials to decide who our politicians are. (Maybe if you had any actual evidence of wrongdoing by Murray, you could understand this.)
(Also, that's twice in one paragraph in which you've accused me of lying for my having made statements which are demonstrably true.)
"Different jobs and of course politicians are held to a much higher standard and NOT afforded the protections we afford others in society."
That's your opinion. Whether an officeholder is "held to a much higher standard" depends upon the judgment of the electorate. You reject even that:
"I think the Mayor should definitely resign."
So, we citizens of Seattle are to be denied the choice of Mayor that we made, based upon what, exactly? Three decades-old accusations, including one where the accuser has yet to show he's ever even met Murray. That you won't hold yourself to the same standard tells us all we need to know:
"My employer may not believe or disbelieve that one accusation you suggested I might suffer, or they may not care. Three? They might ask questions."
I didn't ask you that. I asked if you would resign from your job, abandon your career, on nothing more than an accusation made by someone who has presented no evidence to support it. You have now declined to answer. Your non-answer tells us everything we really need to know about all of the high moral dudgeon you keep shouting here.
"There is the evidence of three testimonials. That is a lot of evidence."
Assertions are not evidence, and assertions made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
"That is a complete disregard for possible victims, and any victims anywhere."
How about to victims of groundless accusations? Why do you completely disregard them?