Any hint of a presumption of innocence is rape culture?

The idea of Politicians "stepping down" whenever an accusation is made is absurd. In this reality Jon Grant's opponent could hire some stooge to accuse Mr. Grant of an impropriety and he'd then be expected to step down. What an idiotic idea.

I think that Mr. Grant's promotion of this "process" demonstrates his incompetence for public office and he should end his campaign today.

Very well articulated Mr. Grant. This is the kind of integrity we need in our politics.

I have tried, and am still trying, to give the mayor the benefit of the doubt. As we all should. But we have to be consistent with Donald Trump's and Bill O'Reilly's accusers as we do with Ed Murray or going back to Bill Clinton's accusers. The party affiliation and political ideology of the politician or celebrity is immaterial.

I'm glad we don't need to have a trial for sex crimes. Now we can move forward and kill anyone accused of sexual misdeeds and skip that entire legal thing.

If I accuse Heidi Groover of raping me will she be forced to resign from The Stranger?

@2 No, obviously

"However, [Mayor Murray]'s actions to publicly attack the character of alleged survivors of abuse only serve to perpetuate rape culture."

That's pretty clearly put. This is a particularly well written statement.

This is nothing more than the actions of a desperate man. We've seen time and again that Grant will say absolutely anything in order to get votes (for instance, demanding that the City of Seattle end it's relationship with Wells Fargo despite the fact that Grant's personal mortgage continues to be with Wells). With the entrance of Sara Nelson into the P8 race, Grant knows that he has very little hope of making it past the primary. Grant doesn't care about this issue, he just wants the publicity that he knows that Heidi will give him.

@7: An honest hypothetical question, if someone accused you of rape, and you knew for a fact it was false, would you just be quiet and let it play out as people just assumed you were guilty, or would you try to prove to people it was false in any way you could?

There are a few cases, but the narrative that there are false accusers out there willing to go through the glare of publicity, having their name and integrity bashed around, jeopardizing their careers and privacy, and even if they have unsavory legal counsel, that they're doing it for the publicity, revenge of some sort, or eventual payouts is simply not true.

End the city's misery first Ed Murray. Then you can concentrate on legal troubles.

Jon Grant,
You should step down.

@11
But even his lawyer admits that DH has had...issues...so what does he have to lose by being accused of having...issues?
It would be like accusing Trump of dishonesty...everyone knows it.

@10 i personally would. unless i'm dragged in front of a judge and a jury of my peers, i don't have to say a thing about any accusation. in fact, i don't even have to say anything in my own defense in court if i'm charged with a crime. it's the prosecution's job to prove me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

in this case, the mayor has not been charged, he's not on trial, and there's a reasonable doubt (at least in my mind). our rule of law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. in this case, everyone's willing to condemn the mayor as guilty because he's been proven silent.

@13: His (DH's) privacy, a soiled reputation and ability to earn a living, and more.

@10
That's tough to answer because it'd have to involve imagining being accused of rape *and* there being some credibility to the accusation (such as the Seattle Times deciding there is enough circumstantial evidence to report the accusation to the whole city).

If there's no circumstantial evidence, and/or your alibi is indisputable (general "you"), then I feel like you could win in the court of public opinion without acknowledging anything about your accuser, much less attacking them personally. I believe Conor Oberst mostly pulled this off in response to a apparently credible but later easily proved false accusation a few years back.

@14
I think the issue is that the mayor has been far from silent.
We can absolutely treat the mayor as innocent of sexual assault while also thinking he's being weirdly shitty about being accused by this person in particular.

Murray should step down for attacking his accuser's character, because that's evidence of something wrong with... Murray's character? So is Grant going to withdraw from his race for attacking Murray's character?

There are literally no rules to this game.

The people claiming to speak for survivors are making a mockery of the idea of treating survivors with respect, especially those who appear to be exploiting them for their own gain. Murray's political opponents, or anybody with an obvious ulterior motive, should not pretend to be attacking Murray on behalf of sexual assault survivors. The most sincere thing you could do to be a true advocate against rape culture is to withdraw, resign, and distance yourself from any political or other kind of personal gain. Then go forth, with clean hands.

Not willing to give up any of that? Then step away from the microphone, and let someone else speak for rape survivors.

Are those standards to rigid for you? Then get off your high horse, let Murray defend himself in court and in the mayor's race any way he reasonably can, and make your own case for whatever you support without pretending you're holier than anybody else.

@17 - And would you make exactly the same arguments if Murray had an "R" next to his title instead of a "D", correct?

We have no obligation to consider the mayor innocent until proven guilty. THAT principle concerns a court trial, and even then, we go to great lengths to encapsulate the presumption of innocence to the trial process. We don't let dangerous people who are charged but not convicted roam free as if they are PURELY innocent. It would be an unanswerable paradox if people where "just innocent' until proven guilty. How could the government require attendance at a trial?
Stop believing we should proceed as if the Mayor is purely innocent. Three people who voice witness to his behavior is compelling evidence.
It is very likely that the Mayor is guilty based on three testimonials alone, but his actions accentuate that guilt.
He is guilty of lying: "I have no assets."
The court of public opinion is exactly where we judge whether or not our leaders are fit for office.
We should ALL demand he resign. More importantly, the Council should convene to investigate the Mayor for moral turpitude as that is his due process as described in the city charter.
The supporters of the mayor demonstrate a lack of moral and intellectual integrity.
If he is innocent, it is incumbent for him to prove it to us, we would expect nothing less in other relationships we all have.

@19
is that comment supposed to be sarcastic? if not, you're just plain ignorant. one of the key principles of the criminal justice system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. period. full stop. doesn't matter if you are mayor or a some guy just off the turnip truck. a person can't be convicted just because. the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

and speaking of, we routinely let people who have been charged with a crime, but not convicted, to roam free; it's called released on bail. if you can't get bail, you stay in jail. not that the mayor has been charged with anything. a basic understanding of the criminal justice system would really help your comprehension.

@19 One problem this has nothing to do with the criminal justice system. This is a civil case.

"Seattle has been rocked by the disturbing allegations of rape and abuse against Mayor Ed Murray."

No, Seattle has been pretty calm. I live in town, work in town, and have received visitors from out of town. No one has asked about this. Many of my co-workers are new to town, and they know I've been here for awhile. None of them have asked me about it either. This has been a matter for the political class to chatter about, not for actual voters to care.

"For weeks many of us have assumed the Mayor would step down and address the accusations as a private citizen."

You and your unspecified number of unidentified fellow assumers have been proven wrong. Maybe you can come to terms with your error, form a support group, and move on to be wrong about other parts of other people's lives?

"Instead he has dug in his heels and publicly called into question the character of his accusers, pointing to their criminal history and “troubled” past as proof of their untrustworthiness."

In other words, he's pointed to the central issue which would face a real jury in an actual civil trial, since there is currently absolutely no evidence of any kind whatsoever to support any of the accusations against him.

"This is almost the textbook example of why abuse survivors rarely step forward."

It's also a textbook example of how an innocent person might respond to accusations he knows to be untrue.

"To be clear, I believe our Mayor is entitled to due process and should not be tried in the court of public opinion."

Clear enough. We have an election in the Autumn, and the most accurate public opinion poll possible will, with binding results, pass judgment on Murray. No need to do anything else at this time, then?

"I am calling on Ed Murray to resign as Seattle’s mayor and address these allegations as a private citizen."

Don't like being proven wrong, do we?

"Silence is the currency of rape culture which will continue to perpetuate itself if we don’t speak out."

You're free to speak out against rape culture all you like. What is your evidence tying Murray to rape?

"Currently only one community leader has called on Mayor Murray to step down."

(Funny -- I thought I had read somewhere that Seattle had been "rocked" by this. Was that claim just overheated flatulence, perhaps?)

"We should not subject other survivors of abuse to the continued trauma of this case playing out in the press."

You might want to tell that to the plaintiff's lawyers, one of whom has been posting comments here on Slog.

@20 Bail is often denied, and the whole idea of bail is that action is taken that is REAL AND MATERIAL prejudice of a person based on evidence. IT IS YOU who needs some idea of how society regards the principle "innocent till proven guilty", not I.
You are misconstruing what innocent till proven guilty means, and what forum in society that it applies too, and how you yourself apply it. YOU mean to say you have no judgment of any one you have ever interacted with, UNLESS they have been proven to be guilty of a criminal trial?

If you were to suffer some transgression at work, and you complained to your boss, would it be right for your boss to shrug it off and say "well, innocent till prove guilty?"

The Mayor is most certainly held at different standard than those of a private citizen.

If this occurrence was more timely in the timeline, and the Mayor was working at a youth center, or the Catholic Church, if he wasn't separated from the youth, they most certainly would be found culpable as an institution, if they refrained from taking action. They could not absolve themselves from culpability, like you expect all of us to do, by saying: "innocent till proven guilty."

It is you that do not under stand how the presumption of innocence is applied in our society, or even what it means.

AGAIN, we do not decide who is employed or who holds political office by a criminal trial. Stop saying we owe him the burden of proof standard of a criminal trial OR the process itself. WE DON'T. We are morally suspect if we do not exercise judgment considering there is real observable evidence to consider.

And the mayor is accorded due process as described by the Seattle City Charter, the council is just too cowardly and morally corrupt to enact this.

@18

"I'm a Democrat because my father was a Democrat, and my grandfather was a Democrat."

"What if your father was a horse thief and your grandfather was a horse thief, what would you have been then?"

"In that case, I guess I'd have been a Republican."

"Bail is often denied, and the whole idea of bail is that action is taken that is REAL AND MATERIAL prejudice of a person based on evidence."

Bail may be denied if the court decides the accused is a flight risk. Denial of bail is not any kind of statement by the court on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Your claims about these ideas would have a lot more credence if you ever betrayed any understanding of how our courts actually work. For example:

"And the mayor is accorded due process as described by the Seattle City Charter, the council is just too cowardly and morally corrupt to enact this."

Do you really believe the City Council should interpose itself into the matter of a lawsuit between a private citizen and the Mayor? Have you any idea how the courts would treat such interference in their area of authority? How could discovery and trial even happen if the City Council is holding hearings which would require the same persons as the trial at the same time?

Oh, and if you're going to throw accusations of moral corruption at our City Council for their letting our courts do their job, you could at least quote the sections of our City's Charter which supposedly empower them to investigate and pass judgment upon our Mayor for a private matter which allegedly took place decades before he held that office. So far, you have utterly failed to support your repeated claim with actual words from the document you cite.

@25 The City Charter is there for the public to read, no need to cite it, whether I cite It or not it is there. Silly.
Judgment occurs before the conclusion of a trial. This is natural and logical. Flight risk or what ever, that's fine, but it IS JUDGMENT.
I have some experience with how justice works. It seems you are way over confident in you own expertise.
OF COURSE the city council should immediately investigate the mayor. This isn't dine and dash, or a traffic dispute. It is serious. They should take it seriously. The Mayor's convenience in addressing his personal civil suit isn't the concern of the City. The quality of the person we have as the mayor is the City Council's business, it is their job!

The Mayor is subject to the judgment of the City Council, it is codified in our charter and natural to our civics as a country.

Absent the council, We the people will judge him, and harshly enough, demand action before an election. That is the most important court in a democracy, in regards to who our leaders are, the court of public opinion.

@18: I'll take that as no.

So you really are a person of no integrity.

Guy's got a Joker smile working there.

"@25 The City Charter is there for the public to read, no need to cite it, whether I cite It or not it is there. Silly."

There's no doubt Seattle has a City Charter. The doubt is if it says what you claim it says. Absence citations, and relevant judicial rulings, that doubt remains, and so we don't have to accept your claims, silly.

"Flight risk or what ever, that's fine,"

Which is totally different than a presumption of guilt, but we can all now see you don't care.

"The quality of the person we have as the mayor is the City Council's business, it is their job!"

The City Council does not elect the Mayor, we citizens do. We can render our judgment at the next election.

"The Mayor is subject to the judgment of the City Council, it is codified in our charter and natural to our civics as a country."

The first two clauses are claims you have yet to validate, and the last is your opinion (albeit stated as if it were an actual, verified fact). No one has any reason to believe any of it.

"We the people will judge him, and harshly enough, demand action before an election."

Actually, almost no one has demanded action before the election. Had you read the post, you would have understood this:

"Currently only one community leader has called on Mayor Murray to step down."

"That is the most important court in a democracy, in regards to who our leaders are, the court of public opinion."

The "court of public opinion" is not you, and the most reliable measure of public opinion is at the election. Good luck with that.