The Stranger has no business covering this story nor the me-too movement after it was revealed that Dan Savage made Cindy Brownstone sit on this story for six months before she moved to kuow and was able to publish it. Women may have been molested or raped within that time. What do you say about that Dan Savage? What you say about that the Stranger? How about your advertising relationship? How about your friendship with him?

What about Via Tribunali? Is DM still a financial stakeholder in that business? Of course Mike McConnell, Via Tribunali's owner hasn't been identified as a rapist, just a drunk driver who engages in hit and run and physical assault. Is everyone on the Hill a violent asshole? It's like every place I have ever liked is now tainted by the reality of who is making their money from these businesses. I'm waiting on the expose on Jason Lajeunesse (also a story that will not be first reported on by the Stranger). Who else?

@1:

And of course you have evidence to back up this claim, yes?

Oh, wait. You've already deleted your account - always a sure sign of personal integrity and unimpeachable truthfulness...

I didn't delete my account it was immediately suspended for telling the truth. Sydney Brownstone herself said she was working on a story for 6 months that timeframe puts her at the stranger. It's a fact

She said that the women came forward to her while she was working at The Stranger, she received her first tip at The Stranger.

@4:

Does not equate to "Dan Savage sat on her story"; it simply means she needed more time to develop it. She left The Stranger on May 4th and the Meinert story ran on July 19th - a full two and a-half months after her departure. Hell, it wasn't until the week prior to airing that even Meinert agreed to talk to her - something anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of journalistic procedure would easily recognize to be a vital component in terms of getting all the facts, and covering all the angles to the story. Or would you have us believe that KUOW also sat on it for that long as well?

She said that it's revisionist history. She said that she had to fight the stranger to get this story published in a responsible way. You can find it on her Twitter. Hey compte I know you're a stranger Fanboy but I didn't know you were rape apologist or person who supports people who cover for rapists like Dan Savage

@8: A news outlet is not a courtroom or a police station. The Stranger has no culpability here. Re-read @6.

Hurrah! Capitol Hill hipsters who have courageously deprived wait staff and bartenders of income at Lost Lake and the Comet no longer need endure their arduous treks to their overpriced meals and drinks at other restaurants and bars — restaurants which, in some cases, were a whole block away! Sometimes even TWO!!2! Oh, the horror! Such heroism can now become the stuff of legend.

Meanwhile, despite having the word “rape” again thrown cheaply around town, there will once again be no day in court for the “accused.” (Brownstone’s story contained a female prosecutor’s careful and detailed explanation as to exactly why that is.) Unless other alleged victims both exist and are willing to support prosecution, we’ll again be left with unverifiable stories and no resolutions.

How many times did the little child cry, “wolf”?

Raindrop and Compete, listen. I know you are like the only two hardcore commenters left and you have fealty to Dan Savage. But he had a moral and community obligation to get the word out about thiscumbag and they chose not to. Period.

@10: We have libel laws to ensure morality. That's why its incumbent to take the time necessary to ensure that people are not falsely accused.

I repeat: Sydney contends that she had problems getting this expose published while employed at the Stranger, not that she needed more time. What the fuck is your problem?

I'll go eat something there if they put out a sign that says "No longer owned by Dave Meinert."

Cindy Brownstone?

Just tuning in here, and I have to say: THIS IS A TRAVESTY!! How can a man be deprived of his livelihood by a reporter crying wolf? What happened to due process? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I hope all you virtue-signaling hipsters are happy with yourselves. You could have taken this as an opportunity for a constructive dialogue about rape culture, but noooooooo - you'd rather feel all holier-than-thou towards a man who no doubt has UNEQUIVOCALLY AND PUBLICLY DENIED THE WHOLE THING!

OK, so I just want to say how deeply embarrassed I am about the prior post. I just got back to town after serving in the Peace Corps in Bhutan, in a small village with no internet. I just read a statement from this Meinert character where he didn't deny anything. In fact, he said, “I have crossed the line of respect. I think that I’ve been pushy or handsy, which we might have called it in the past, but now looking back it's more than that, and it's an invasion, and it crosses the line.”

I guess in that context, being able to sell a portion of his business assets might be seen as a very small price to pay. In hindsight, my outrage would only be justified if KUOW had retracted the story or otherwise it was proven that these five stories were in fact misrepresented. Since no such evidence has emerged as of the time of my writing, I owe everyone here an apology for sharing such a careless opinion, one which - if it were made in a more serious venue - would represent libel against the reporter, KUOW and the unnamed women, since it was made with a careless disregard for its veracity and would therefore demonstrate malice on my part.

I apologize sincerely and without reserve. I hope I can earn back some credibility here and become a respected commenter and a valued member of your community.

Hey Catalina, you Slog hag. I knew you'd pop in here somewhere. Is a spelling mistake at the only argument you have to make about this situation? Pathetic.

Hey! Maybe look inside yourself and grapple with why the fuck you decided to come out swinging in defense of a rapist before you like, I don’t know, did any research. It’s great you apologized but think hard on the fact that your instinct was to disbelieve five women over one rich white man. Your instinct was to be a rape apologist.

@18 - I know. I am going to take some time and reflect a lot on what would have led me to leap immediately to his defense. It was just stupid and wrong. Your criticism is spot on.

@11: You’re getting ahead of yourself, Raindrop dear. Meinert may or may not sue KUOW for this. (As he is a public figure, it would be difficult, but not impossible, for him to do so.)

The question before us is, do we believe Brownstone and her five anonymous sources? Last time around, I didn’t believe her five named sources. How many of her anonymous sources may be felons this time? (Or worse yet, Republicans? Meinert has been a big donor to the Democrats, and this is going to be a tough election year for the Party of Trump.)

@17: Fact-checking just isn’t your thing, now is it, dear?

Dney dear, I don't know what you're talking about. The original poster spelled "Cindy" correctly. The problem is that Ms. Brownstone's name is Sydney, not Cindy.

Perhaps your ineffectual rage and general poutiness should be directed to Our Dear Air Rights for goofing up that rather important detail in the ridiculous argument (that "Cindy" Brownstone was somehow imprisoned by Dan Savage/The Stranger for six months before she could escape to KUOW) in the first place?

Catalina, I am air rights, the first commenter. I can't comment under that username anymore because the stranger band me when I spoke the truth. What else do you have to say?

@18 - I think I have this belief that men’s feelings are more important than women’s, and I know I’ve conducted myself that way. I put myself in Meinert’s shoes first and not in the women’s. The idea that a man could be held to account for just “being a man” and pushing to get his way - it threatens me, so I instinctively attack.

But that’s not who I want to be. What kind of man wants to get his way with a reluctant partner? Where is there anything edifying in that? It’s the sexual equivalent of winning an argument by repeating yourself over and over until you wear someone down - it is something only a truly pathetic man would do. It is nothing to be proud of or defend.

I still won’t eat the cream of mushroom.

@20 how many times are you going to repeat the same lie? The sources are not anonymous. They all have names and they are all known to the police and to the journalist. They are just not know to YOU or the PUBLIC and that really pisses you off doesn't it? Rape is the only crime where the victim needs to come forward and be examined under a microscope by everyone in order to even considered being believed. Fuck you and fuck your constant repetition of the same lie. Just like Donald Trump, just because you say it a trillion times, does not make it true and it never will. That enough attention for you tonight? (See unlike other commenters who have gotten into it with you for ten or twenty or thirty back and forth comments, this is all you're going to get from me).

@26: I see what you're doing, and I approve.
@27: Dney is being a drama queen. Don't indulge them. They didn't get banned "for speaking the truth" because lo! As all can see! That comment is still there, AND they're still posting their fingers to little nubbins. That hardly qualifies as being silenced wouldn't you agree?
Meinart's a piece of work by ALL accounts and his reckoning has come due. Good. And more men like him will be facing the fruits of their actions and that's good too. I look forward to tensor tying himself in knots to defend each and every one of them. He's so transparent. I just hope he remembers to limber up before hand. Gentleman of a certain age need to be careful they don't throw their backs out.

The Stranger is obviously competing with FUX news on spin these days.

@32 Willfully giving a guy a BJ IS NOT rape.

Meinert knows the names of the 5 anonymous women. They want to remain anonymous for various reasons, including, not wanting to be known for being victims. They probably have much more going on in their lives than having been hurt by this really bad guy. They came forward to protect others. And their stories were vetted, fact checked by numerous sources, and verified several times. If the judicial system were able to facilitate justice, they would have turned to the courts. And, #34, unless you have been sexually assaulted, you would never understand. None of them willfully had sexual contact with this monster.

@31 - Thank you! Unfortunately, irony is lost on dick monsters like @20 and @34. @34 really puts @20 to shame. @20 is to sexual politics what middle-class German functionaries were to Nazism: the mild-mannered enablers. @34 is the camp doctor who blames the subject for making him run his experiments.

@35 - @34 will never listen. He doesn’t care. He’s just here to argue it’s the victims’ fault. Rapist sympathizers. They don’t outnumber fhe decent people - they just THINK they’re more vocal.

Giuseppe, I think your initial post @15 was a set up. Don't complain about trolls when you set out bait for them.

@38 - To the extent I was complaining about trolls, it was that they only take bait that looks and smells like dog food - they don’t feed on porterhouse.

Otherwise, I am done with the argument that Meinert is innocent or Sydney Brownstone is lying. No evdience exists right now to suppprt either contention, so all either does is distract.

You’re uncomfortable that Meinert is suffering consequences? Fine, but make that argument on its own merits. Resorting to “she’s lying” or “it was consensual” is lazy and dishonest and deserves all the scorn this Italian immigrant philanthropist son of a shipping magnate can muster.

@31: “I look forward to tensor tying himself in knots to defend each and every one of them.”

Which is amusing, because I haven’t “defended” anyone. All I have done is to examine, rigorously and skeptically, the evidence presented, and noted how it does not even come close to meeting any legal or even rational standard for supporting the charges made. The incandescent rage I have received in response suggests the evidence presented is indeed not equal to the charges made, and that the responders know (or, at least suspect) this.

For example:

@35: How about some citations to support any of the claims you just made?

Just for your information Giuseppe, I have absolutely no discomfort with Meinert's consequences; I'm inclined to think he is totally guilty and way beyond the five women who came forward. I do have a problem with people who take the approach of the ends justify the means, though. Of course drama is necessary in the Slog; all agreement and no trolls makes the Slog a very dull boy indeed.

@40 - Where is your citation that the five women are in fact “crying wolf?” “Crying wolf” is a bold claim. Do you have any direct evidence whatsoever that these five women do not exist in fact or that they have manufactured their stories? Not indirect evidence about what the reporter did or did not do to your liking in the past, but any evidence that in this case right here that this story is false. Any evidence at all?

@35 overstated her case, but so have you. Put up or shut up.

@42 The women are making the claim, so they have to prove it. He has not been charged nor found guilty of any crime relating to these accusations.

@41 - If drama is acceptable, then my means should be fine.

But seriously, I’ll make the pro-Meinert camp’s argument for them:

Allegations like these only belong in the criminal justice system (where they probably won’t get heard).

Or...

Men in positions of authority should be able to use their power to extort sexual favors (even though case law has found that to be a form of discrimination and therefore counter to the principle of equal protection under the law).

Or...

Libel law is insufficient to protect men from character assassination (except it is, which is why none of the men who have been the subject of public accusations like these has sued for libel - not one).

See - this is why the pro-Meinert camp has to smear the five women even when Meinert himself has all but admitted his own guilt. What they’re arguing is indefensible unless the women are lying, so they assume they are and then repeat that again and again and again.

That’s not drama - it’s a waste of everyone’s time. Have I stooped to their level? I guess. I think Slog would be better without tendentious bores. If Slog banned me and them, that might leave more space for real discussion, like how to make it more likely that crimes like those alleged are easier to prosecute. Baby step: test all the rape kits. It wouldn’t help this case, but if we create a culture where women’s allegations will be given real consideration instead of being insitutionally ignored, maybe more of these cases would wind up in the criminal justice system, just like the trolls are arguing ao inelegantly should happen.

@43 - The cows shouldn’t have been able to leave the barn, because I believe the gate was closed and latched, so I’m just going to ignore the herd in my field and insist my corral isn’t empty.

Cool logic.

Dney, it's "banned", not "band". And the only other thing I have to say is that if you are going to be a crusader, you should probably learn how to proof your posts. At least get people's names right.

Personally, I applaud Sydney for this story. A woman who can write a story like this, and get it on the largest public radio station in the region is not some shrinking daisy who is going to be cowed by Dan Savage, even if he did pressure her. If anything, the story of this story is that Sydney persevered, not that she was victimized.

@42: ‘Where is your citation that the five women are in fact “crying wolf?‘

I said nothing about any “women”. I was referring to one reporter. Said reporter has, in a previous matter involving charges of rape against a public figure, taken the dubious and self-serving claims of felons and reported them as if those claims were verified facts. Therefore, I do not believe that reporter when she now claims to have sources she won’t even name.

@47 - In other words... “I have no evidence that the five women don’t exist or that the reporter otherwise misrepresented anything about THIS story.”

I’ll correct your first post as well: “Since I choose not to believe this story, I disagree with the outcome reported here.”

You’d have more credibility if you held your posts to a more rigorous standard of logic.

@39: “Otherwise, I am done...”

The rest of us tired of your cutesy act yesterday. What took you so long?

“...the argument that Meinert is innocent...”

The presumption of innocence isn’t an “argument”, it’s a foundational principle of justice. I have complete confidence you would, if you were yourself accused anonymously of rape, discover for yourself the vital importance of this principle — and share it with the rest of us, loudly and often.

“...or Sydney Brownstone is lying.”

Who has said she is lying? (Beating down your own straw men doesn’t count as “argument” either, you know.)

Guys, you can speculate all you want, but Brownstone is pretty clear in that she thinks The Stranger sat on this story to some extent.

We're not lawyers and we're not concerned with the law (if we were, we wouldn't be taking about Meinert unless a guilty verdict came back, as he'd be innocent until then), or involvement with the stranger is personal. Did The Stranger do their part in this relationship? Or did they try to deceive us? As media, they have certain ethical obligations, regardless of the law.

@48: Before you lecture anyone else on a “rigorous standard of logic,” you might want to learn it’s not possible to prove a negative. That’s why our courts decide verdicts of “guilty” or “not guilty”, instead of “guilty” or “innocent”. That last would require proof of a negative.

Brownstone repeated as facts the self-serving claims of a felon who’d been convicted of false reporting and forgery. That’s when she knew full well anyone could check in the validity of her sources. Therefore, I do not trust her when she vouches for the validity of anonymous sources.

Feel free to tell me where my logic fails you.

@48 I get that you would like our legal system to throw out Due Process, and go right to sentencing. The ANONYMOUS accusers are making claims. Logic dictates they must prove that claim.

I was sexually abused when I was young, and my abuser had his day in court, which included testimony. He was found guilty, and did somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 years in prison. A claim was made. The individual was charged with a crime, prosecuted, then sentenced.

If these women can't do what a 7 year old was capable of doing, it raises many questions about the credibility of their claims.

@51 - You’re asking all of us to accept on your word that 1.) five women lied or 2.) a reporter made up five stories and 3.) said reporter pitched this concocted tale and 4.) KUOW did nothing to verify it and greenlighted its publication. Who needs to prove negatives when you readily believe false positives?

@52 - Did I say “throw Meinert in jail right now”? Nope. There’s where I stand on due process. You got justice through the courts - great. That is the way it should be. Does that always happen? No, but if a reporter is made aware of claims of sexual abuse against a public figure, the fact of those claims is newsworthy and can be published if they aren’t libelous, and the public is then free to draw what conclusions they may. Most of us have, and only you and this tensor character seem eager to take the accused abuser’s side. Hmm...

Unless new facts come to light or there is a libel suit or a retraction, neither of you can say Meinert is the victim of an injustice. Maybe (vety slight chance) you can say it someday, but right now, no evidence supports your doubt about the story. Sorry.

And again - Meinert denies these allegations less forcefully than you two do. In fact, he doesn’t really deny them at all.

@53 After disclosing being sexually abused at the age of 7, and having to support my claim publicly before my sexual abuser you then go on to accuse me of taking the side of an accused rapist. I'll let that soak in for a minute for people reading these posts.

I'm not making a claim. What I am saying is there is no proof aside from ANONYMOUS women. There have been ZERO charges, ZERO days in court.

In fact he does deny claims of rape--so did the man who sexually abused my sisters and I. All people have to do is go back and read his statements. He acknowledges being pushy, but whether that is at the level of rape or not is for the legal system to decide. At this point ANONYMOUS women are making claims, and there has been no charges, no guilty verdict. Hell, these ANONYMOUS women haven't even sought civil action, which has a lower threshold for success.

Um.

If I blow out my mustaches will you realize you’re still situationally anonymous too, SIS?

~retires~

@54 - By repeatedly attacking the reporting without evidence, you are in fact taking the accused rapist’s side. Sorry - that’s just true. Your status as a survivor of abuse doesn’t give you any special insight into Brownstone or KUOW’s reporting or the mindset of these five women.

Note that I accept your claim of being a survivor. I don’t know you, you are in fact anonymous, and yet I have no reason right now to question it, so i don’t.

@56 Actually it's the reporter who is not providing all the evidence.

Brownstone is reckless in their so-called reporting. The mindset of these 5 women is clear, they want to remain anonymous, but still be taken seriously in their claims.

Make you a deal, let's both disclose our real names in this public forum, where we live, etc., and to further backup my claims of being sexually abused I will give you the name of the man that went to prison for sexually abusing my sisters, and I. As well as the man who sexually abused me at 9, even though he wasn't convicted because someone snuck into his house one night, and put a bullet in his head.

I don't buy into this whole "survivor" nonsense. I have chose to NOT pathologize my sexual abuse, and instead I have worked to deal with it through therapy. I'm no longer pained by either of my experiences. If I can come forward in a public way at the age of 7, then there is no reason grown people can't do the same. Surely my stepdad, and the other child abuser I had to deal with were by far more monstrous in my 7 year old brains than if I were 4 or 5 times that age.

It's clear The Stranger is engaging in character assassination in place of the person actually being found criminally or civilly liable.

Carrying on like this, offering the names of the businesses that he has a stake in, it's clear the intent isn't to have a legal resolution, but a street justice one. I find it disgusting.

When you start accepting non legal means to get your so-called Justice, then make no mistake about it, you increase the likelihood of yourself potentially being ensnared, and whatever attempts you make at refuting the claims will fall on deaf ears because quartering the accused takes precedence over whether the claims are proven in a court of law.

If one of the Seattle Times' major advertisers was accused of rape by five women and the Times had suspended the reporter working on the story I bet we'd've never heard the end of that from the good 'ol Stranger.

Yet still 'nary a word about Mienert's financial ties to The Stranger and the conflicts of interest there.

For thousandth times you stupid piles of shit: The women are not anonymous. The police know who they are. KUOW knows who they are. The accused knows who they are.

Christ, you fucking trolls are stupid.

You could have just said no and saved us some time - your arguments remain self-debasing until you reveal to us your true character.

I will, however leave it at that, due to basic human decency and, moreover, a lack of inclination.

At this juncture I request that Chris “I am the entirety of the fabric of all possible universes” Comte joins the audience.

I would like to inform the two of you that a well-honed dirk has two exceedingly sharp edges whereas, what? A stiletto? Does not.

Due to my simple beginnings, however, I have naught but a staff to ward off the bandits and rapers.

Ah, but I digress, and will reveal the true reason for my lack of classic armament, as explained in a saying that, to my best estimation, originates in, interestingly enough, my village of origin:

“If you give a bitch a crossbow, she’ll want a glass of milk”.

Time does run short, and it is here where I must both bid you adieu and wish you a wonderful weekend.

Au revoir!

The Comet was my playground from 1979-1990. I hope this crap doesn't cost it its life..

Let's review. The story, involving a major long time Stranger advertiser and it turns out, friend of Stranger editorial director and part owner Dan Savage, comes to light only a few weeks after Sydney leaves The Stranger. Dan then pipes up and claims that when the allegations surfaced, Sydney was immediately assigned to the story, and Dan and another editor "recused" themselves from it .

Sydney then publicly scoffs at this, calling it "revisionist history" and says that in fact she had to "fight" - I believe she said for 6 months - to get this story out there. Had Dan's version been correct, why would Sydney refute it? Why wouldn't she just say yes, The Stranger in no way sat on this story - please don't make that assumption?

One would have to twist themselves into some seriously exotic pretzels to come to any conclusion other than that Sydney's story was hushed in some way or other by the paper that has for a long time taken huge ad money from the accused, who just happens to be pals with the paper's public face and part owner.

Which sucks. Which, as a longtime fan of Dan and his politics and writings and stances, is incredibly disheartening and disappointing.

@63 I think this is correct. Although I don't think the ad money was the driving factor, I assume it was the personal relationships. Whomever replaces Dave would likely continue to send ad money The Stranger's way.

@63 it's disheartening for mow than the typical reasons as well.

Dan, and to a bigger extent the progressive left, have sold themselves as morally advanced people: while Somme folks would lie and cheat to get ahead, we won't.

The more I read, the more it becomes clear that Dan and The Stranger tried to Acquire and Kill this story, the same thing Trump did with McDougal.

Dan might be criticized, demeaned, and harassed for being gay, but he's still a man of power doing what men of power do. He probably imagines that he was doing it for some greater good, or had other rationalizations. But straight up he did a bad thing and should own up to it and perhaps use this experience to reevaluate how we treat people in this society in general. The same progressive left has become very draconian in their punishments, but will they go after truly one of their own, a flag bearer of the movement?

We should also consider Dan's own roll in this "perpetrators don't deserve humanity" trend - Santorum was an earlier salvo - sure, a more innocent time, and a man who gave us precious little to indicate he deserved better - but nonetheless, it was shown that (of course) literally dehumanizing political enemies was effective. While he may not have meant for all this to happen, we should all think harder abbot what our actions mean in the future.

@63, 64, 65 - I didn’t read Sydney’s comments as implying “catch and kill.” Her comments were pretty cryptic, so leaves a lot to the imagination. It sounded more like a rpeorter who brought the lead to the editorial staff, who expressed skepticism, she kept pushing, but the new editor she was assigned to still raised concerns. Maybe they insisted on getting Meinert’s comments before publishing. I obviously am speculating.

I think everyone needs not to overreact to any part of the story we know. Anyone calling Meinert a monster is overstating their case. Anyone saying Syndey Brownstone is unreliable is overstating their case. Anyone saying The Stranger tried to kill the story is overstating their case.

Any of these things could someday turn out to be true, but based on what we know today, I personally observe the following;

A reputable news source felt the allegations were reliable enough to publish.
Brownstone and The Stranger differ on the way the story came to light or was handled - hard to say which parts of that story are in dispute.
Meinert has made statements that don’t make him sound innocent.
None of this will change my own behavior. If I want to go to the Five Point or Via Trib, I’ll make that decision on the merits of the establjshment itself. I also won’t be unhappy if Meinert has to sell his stake in every restaurant he owns, and I don’t begrudge the bands that have dropped his label.

@65 - Hopefully, the above makes clear I’m not in the “perpetrators don’t deserve humanity” camp. The only people in this saga who have struck me as sub-human are those who have tried to argue that the Meinert story has no validity at all. Brownstone doesn’t deserve the character assassination she’s gotten from the angry commenter set. I have treated some of those folks as sub-human. I’ve been disrespectful and scornful, because they aren’t arguing in good faith. I think Dan Savage would say the same thing about Santorum. The question, though, with Santorum: if you’re a public figure like Dan, is it strategically smart to pull an immature prank that alienates everyone who supports Santorum, or do you help calcify that scar into a dangerous tumor? I supposed it’s fair to ask that same question about anonymous internet commenters as well.

I respect your views, seanat and Sportlandia, but I have to say, I'm having a very hard time giving Dan and The Stranger the benefit of the doubt here. When this thing first broke, and then when Dan posted the "when friends do terrible things" bit, given that Sydney, a rape victim herself, had up and left the Stranger in the midst of the whole thing - an obvious bad sign - I waited to see what she might say in response to his post.

When she then said what she did, with the especially damning statement about her need to actually have to "fight", as she put it, "to get this story published", I mean, that sort of sealed the whole thing. I can't see a reason she would make that up if it wasn't true. And no, I see no other possible interpretation for her "revisionist history" comment, at all. Let's not kid ourselves. It's very plain, in fact, what she was saying.

One also has to look at who stands to lose were this story to come to light. Dan, part Stranger owner and admitted friend of Meinert's, would obviously potentially stand to lose monetarily and otherwise. The motive to attempt to sit on or bury this story is inarguably pretty clear. Why Dan didn't feel that it was going to be a fuck of a lot worse should it come to light that he and/or his paper tried to bury a story like this in the MeToo era, is frankly baffling, in addition to being hugely disappointing and disturbing.

One is only left to wonder why other area news outlets haven't picked up this story and run with it, like a motherfucker. It would, I would think, have the power to force a major shakeup at The Stranger, starting with, and I don't say this with any joy, the ousting of editorial director himself.

@60: For zillionth time, you self-described paragon of virtue, if these sources are not anonymous, then give us their names.

See, here’s the problem: you and the rest of the torch-waving pitchfork crowd want to accuse Meinert of rape. Not of being the pushy, entitled jackass he’s admitted to being, no; that’s not enough for you howlers. You want to call him a rapist.

But rape is a crime, so when you use the term, you bring in courts and trials, juries and evidence. You can’t have the one without all of those others. So when you cry rape, you need to provide evidence equal to the charge. And guess what? American courts don’t take testimony from anonymous accusers. So, if you want to cry rape, you have to give their names.

Which you can’t.

Case closed.

@68 - You may very well be right. It depends on the full details behind what Syndey said. I wonder if she will say more about it in the future.

@60 - I sort of agree with your point. Meinert’s release of his personally arranged polygraph results and the fact that there was an investigation says - very plainly - that the identity of at least one of the women in question is known perfectly well to Meinert and the police and Brownstone. She is still publicly anonymous, so you’re kind of playing semantics, but neither did she mail an unsigned letter to KUOW, which is what some people want to lead us to believe - that she is no better than a figment of Brownstone’s imagination.

@71: If you want to quote anyone who claimed Brownstone used imaginary sources, please do so.

My lack of belief in Brownstone’s ability to vet her sources comes from her demonstrated inability, right here at The Stranger, to vet her sources. She repeated unverifiable claims from felons as if those claims were gospel truth. Now she asks us to believe everything she tells us about sources we can’t check.

I decline.

I would now like to close-caption my comment @71 for the comprehension-impaired.

What I did not say: “Someone here said Brownstone’s sources are imaginary.”

What I did say: “Some people seem to want to lead us to believe that her sources are NO BETTER than if they were imaginary.”

I apologize for any willful misunderstanding and unnecessary comments (including this clarification) that may have resulted from my understated use of the English language. My bad.

@73: Brownstone’s previous sources were not a figment of Brownstone’s imagination. They were real persons. They made claims. Those claims came from real persons who had been convicted of real felonious crimes of deceit. There was no independent verification of those felons’ self-serving claims. Yet Brownstone repeated these unverified, self-serving claims from dubious sources as if those claims were gospel truth.

I do not know whether any of the above satisfies your tortured, invented formula, “...some people want to lead us to believe - that she is no better than a figment of Brownstone’s imagination.” And I don’t care if it does, either. This is about the specific claims Brownstone asks us to believe — not what your unidentified “some people want to lead us to believe.”

@74 - Did you read my comment @66? I’m pretty mild on this whole topic. I’m not: “Quick, tear Dave Meinert’s balls off - he is 100% guilty.” I’m also not: “There is nothing to this - leave him alone!!”

Anything any of us here know about this case is what we read, secondhand. I’m not heavily invested in it. The only thing I’m heavily invested in is the opportunity for a decent conversation that doesn’t get derailed by people who are way too invested, who seem personally offended at any of the players in the story.

Why are you so invested? Your attacks on Brownstone are vehement and incessant. Why? Are you friends with Murray or Meinert? Did she steal your job at KUOW? Are you David Meinert? Did Sydney Brownstone rape you?

I just don’t get why you are so worked up about, what is to you and me, nothing but a news story.

“The only thing I’m heavily invested in is the opportunity for a decent conversation that doesn’t get derailed by people who are way too invested, who seem personally offended at any of the players in the story.”

Same here. Meinert’s admissions of his own uninvited, unpleasant behaviors could be great basis for conversations about male entitlement, inequality of women in our society, and why I can sit here at this bar without fear of my drink getting drugged, but women have to worry about such a horrible thing. Instead, it’s about how much Meinert is or is not getting punished for a story broadcast on exactly one media outlet.

“Why are you so invested?”

For the reasons I gave: presumption of innocence. Believability of the sources. The ethics of depriving the employees of his businesses their incomes based on anonymous claims. I’ve been very clear about all of this. To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never met Meinert, Brownstone, or anyone else who is directly involved.

“Your attacks on Brownstone are vehement and incessant.”

Interesting you’d use the word “attacks” on my descriptions of what she has actually done. Do you believe my statements about her behavior have been in error? Or does accurately describing her behavior constitute an “attack”?

(And, it’s amusing to get an inquiry about personal investment from someone who has personally persued me across multiple threads, making impertinent demands.)

I have perused you across multiple threads because I ran into you in one, and I found you incredibly condescending and tendentious. Impertinent demands? Pot - kettle. I kept seeing you after that - repeating the same things over and over until you were the last voice in the thread. I decided to engage. I’ve regretted it, but seeing as I opened Pandora’s box...

Yes, your descriptions of Brownstone are in error. I read your links. I reviewed your evidence. I did more than your disposition towards other commenters warranted and more than I’ve seen you do in relation to anyone else: I kept an open mind.

I have several problems with your arguments. #1 - Sydney Brownstone was very frank about all the reasons Simpson is not entirely credible. I did not see anywhere where she said she believed everything he said. She profiled him. She did so not unsympathetically, but not uncritically. #2 - I didn’t see anywhere that Brownstone unequivocally stated Murray was gulty. #3 and most importantly - say she went too easy on Simpson. Swallowed his emissions, as you are fond of saying. That doesn’t mean the Meinert story isn’t credible and newsworthy, especially since it isn’t just Brownstone - KUOW has editorial policies that had to be met. Also, did you read it? She was able to confirm details of the first story by talking to her business manager. It was a well reported piece. And finally, #4, Meinert has largely confirmed the outline of the reporting.

Based on all that, yes, the way you’ve characterized her as completely unworthy of trust is in error. It’s grossly unfair and very much in line with what has kept women quiet for so long - the second they open their mouths to say what happened to them, they are immediately called liars.

"He still owns [...] the new Gridiron Building near CenturyLink Field [...]. The Gridiron Building's owners have not returned a request for comment about the allegations."

Is he, or isn't he, the owner?

@77: You quoted no words from Brownstone, me, or anyone else. Assertions made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, so we’re really done here.

Since I’m a fellow who likes to help, I’ll demonstrate to you how the whole source thing works.

1: Brownstone quoted Simpson with unequivocal clarity: "Nobody has ever sexually molested me besides Ed Murray. So no, absolutely no, I haven't made false allegations. There have been no investigations of sexual abuse other than him.“

(https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/04/14/25078681/murrays-2008-accuser-on-mayors-new-accusations-against-him-its-hogwash)

The Oregon CPS Report is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3893750-CPS-Sexual-Abuse-Assessment.html#document/p1

The report, starting with the title, describes Judy Butler’s investigation into two different persons. Jeff Simpson alleges that each of these two persons molested him.

Here is Brownstone, citing the report as supporting Murray’s guilt:

“@14 As for others trained on credibility, a Child Protective Services investigator found Jeff Simpson's allegations credible in 1984: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new…”

(https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/10/25557380/the-morning-news-boy-this-roy-moore-logic-sure-sounds-familiar-huh/comments/22)

If you have any quote from Brownstone explaining all this, please provide it. My use of Okham’s Razor says Simpson lied to Brownstone, who either didn’t notice, didn’t care, or hoped it would go away. No matter how you slice it, her abilities as a reporter leave much to be desired. So much, in fact, that I do not trust her when she vouches for the veracity of anonymous sources.

2: From the same thread: “Murray and his apologists did not help me.“

(https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/10/25557380/the-morning-news-boy-this-roy-moore-logic-sure-sounds-familiar-huh/comments/9)

Since someone who has done nothing wrong cannot, by definition, have “apologists,” in context, she’s accusing Murray of rape.

3: The rape allegations against Meinert depend entirely upon belief in Brownstone’s abilities as a reporter. (As for KUOW having editorial standards, well, so did Rolling Stone.)

4: It’s a really, really long way from what Meinert has said to an admission of rape. Try actually quoting what he said, and you’ll see.

@80 “We’re” done? There is no “we.” You speak for you and you alone. If YOU are done, just stop commenting.

The Butler report only names Murray. Where do you see a title with two names on it? It says “PARENTS:” but that looks to be boilerplate. I don’t see any other reference to any other allegations in the document - only against Ed Murray. Where are you seeing this horrifically, unequivocally incriminating statement?

And don’t tell me what I do or don’t have to provide in a post. Contrary to what you might think, no one made you Slog’s arbiter of logic. Based on your selective use of citations and dishonest or careless readings of source materials, the only logic you should be policing is your own.

If I missed something, quote it. Otherwise, all this has done is convinced me of what I already thought about your argument: it’s based on nothing.

@80 - And finally (I hope finally), I will gladly quote Meinert:

“I'm not trying to claim I'm an innocent guy.”

‘Meinert confirmed that he attended the gathering and entered her bedroom...’

“I've done lots of things that are wrong...”

Meinert told KUOW that he couldn’t say whether he put his tongue in the second woman’s mouth, but that he did try to kiss her and was rebuffed. “Sometimes I kiss—you know, French kiss,” he said. “So that could have been. I don't know.”

“I have crossed the line of respect,” he said. “I think that I’ve been pushy or handsy, which we might have called it in the past, but now looking back it's more than that, and it's an invasion, and it crosses the line.”

"I have been pushy and continued to make advances when I should have understood they were not welcome."

Where I’m from, “French kissing” that “crosses the line of respect” or “CONTINUING to make advances that weren’t welcome” has a name, and that name is sexual assault.

Again, I’m not saying he’s 100% guilty. I have no torch. I have no pitchfork.

I am saying: Brownstone did a perfectly good job on this story.

@81: 'The Butler report only names Murray. Where do you see a title with two names on it? It says “PARENTS:” but that looks to be boilerplate.'

It's not boilerplate, it's in plural for an excellent reason. See the blacked-out words at the end of the title? That's the name of the other foster parent whom Simpson had accused.

If you're having too much trouble reading the original document, you can look at one of the links I quoted from Brownstone, above, and it will take you to a story at the Seattle Times, which notes,

"The withdrawn case included another foster parent Simpson had accused of abuse."

So, Butler investigated two persons on Jeff Simpson's accusations; the local police investigated two persons on Jeff Simpson's accusations, and the local prosecutor refused to seek indictments against either person. Yet Simpson told Brownstone flatly, "Nobody has ever sexually molested me besides Ed Murray. So no, absolutely no, I haven't made false allegations. There have been no investigations of sexual abuse other than him.“

If you have any indication from Brownstone, anywhere at all, that she recognizes this blatant contradiction from her source, please do quote it.

"If I missed something, quote it. Otherwise, all this has done is convinced me of what I already thought about your argument: it’s based on nothing."

That's rich, coming from someone who won't (or can't) support his opinions with facts. It's your claims @77 which are based on nothing, as I have shown. (Often by quoting Brownstone!)

"I am saying: Brownstone did a perfectly good job on this story."

So, how many persons does she believe molested Jeff Simpson? She's quoted him as saying one, but she's referenced a document which claims two.

@83 - The Times said the case involved a second allegation, but where is that in the report? You assume you know what was redacted and why; but then you swore you’d been to the Showbox many a time and knew what it looked like. A pile of bricks, I tell you! And gum? Is it covered in gum?

You demand quotes. So do I. Where in the report does it say there was an investigation of a second claim? Simpson said there was only one investigation. Where does the Butler report directly contradict that?

Not that any of this actually matters. You conveniently ignore all the rest of the context (as you have to to pretend Brownstone was - at worst - only 99% right). Murray claimed Simpson had a history of false claims. Murray alleged it was all political. Murray ignored the other two people making allegations. Brownstone solicited Simpson’s comment.

You then blow that into: Brownstone believed Simpson 110%.

You’re asking all of us to believe Brownstone has zero credibility, because of one sentence from The Times and your interpretation of what’s been redacted from a report that otherwise made clear that CPS found the claim against Murray credible enough to bar him from fostering children.

@84: I see the trouble is that you cannot read — or, more likely, you simply wish not to understand what you read. Both Butler’s report and the Seattle Times article Brownstone referenced clearly contradict Simpson’s flat claim that Murray was the only one who had been investigated for molesting him. Simpson had participated in the investigations of both persons.

Thankfully, it no longer matters. Now that women willing to be named have come forward to accuse Meinert, we no longer have to rely on Brownstone’s felon-friendly word.

@85 - Hahahahahahaha. Is that the best you can do? Here, I’ll say it for you:

“I, tensor, HAVE BEEN PROVEN COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED IN ATTACKING SYDNEY BROWNSTONE’S CREDIBILITY.”

Your quibbling over-interpretation of the Butler report was a massive, fucking waste of time.

Funny how you’re avoiding the slog AM thread, you sniveling coward.

...aaaaand scene.

So ends this episode of the same pile of shit trolls making excuse after excuse for another rapist.

See you next time everyone.

@84: “Where in the report does it say there was an investigation of a second claim?”

In the title, and repeatedly throughout the report. You yourself noted it contained the word “parents” — you know, plural. For some reason, you attempted to hand-wave it away (as “boilerplate”), but you failed. Butler’s investigation, instigated by Simpson’s claims, encompassed two persons.

“Simpson said there was only one investigation.”

Wrong. Yet again, here’s what Brownstone quoted him as saying:

"Nobody has ever sexually molested me besides Ed Murray. So no, absolutely no, I haven't made false allegations. There have been no investigations of sexual abuse other than him.“

Yes, yes there “have been investigations of sexual abuse other than him.” Butler documented one in her report, and the local prosecutor mentioned the police investigation. Simpson was the sole witness in both investigations.

@86: See, that’s part of your problem. Making something up and attributing it to someone else doesn’t magically mean that person actually wrote it. It just makes you look dishonest.

@87: I have some bad news for you, Doc. Even if you are someday accused of rape by anonymous sources, I will still insist you be entitled to the presumption of innocence. You can criticize me for that all you like.

But you know what? I fully believe that if you were to be anonymously accused of rape, you would immediately discover the presumption of innocence all by yourself! (Really, I have total confidence in you on that.) You’d proclaim it as loudly and as often as have I here — heck, more so, I have no doubt.

@88 - Why are you still arguing with me here? Why don’t you bring your points of view on over to the Slog AM post where this new story was shared? Thought you’d get me alone, where I’m weak and vulnerable? I see why you admire Meinert: you share his style of intercourse.

Look - you always made too much of the Butler report, but note Simpson’s words VERY CAREFULLY, you fucking useless pedant.

“no false allegations”

“no investigations of sexual abuse other than him”

The Butler report does not contradict either of those statements. Simpson was reluctant even to make allegations against Murray. To the extent there’s an allusion to another instance of abuse, there is no confirmation it was investigated.

Even if the Butler report contradicted my statements above, it literally doesn’t matter. Murray was accused by multiple other people. Brownstone’s reporting has been vindicated. Not that it needed to be vindicated - about the only person calling it into question was one lonely angry man (I’m talking about you, FYI, you complete idiot). Okay, I guess shirtless was on your side, if you consider that a plus.

And thanks for volunteering to leap to my defense, but I don’t want it. I don’t want to be in the company of Murray or Meinert, and more importantly, I don’t need your defense. I don’t worry about being falsely accused of rape. I don’t walk around thinking women just arbitrarily target men with false accusations. Know why? When you have a clean conscience, when you are a decent person, it’s easier to have faith that other people are also decent. If your first instinct is to worry that a Murray or Meinert is a victim, you should probably think about what that says about you.

And in closing, I know I have often been prone to bursts of eloquence and even poetry in responding to your ill-intentioned bullshit, and it could be read as pretension. I hope you’ll indulge me one final time if I wax a little too lyrical.

Go fuck yourself.

Actually, don’t go fuck yourself. Just be more decent and humble.

Step 1: Admit you were wrong about Brownstone. It’s too late, but you can still try. You should have admitted your mistake in the Slog AM thread right away to salvage some credibility.

Step 2: Be more aware of the limits of your knowledge. You are often demonstrably wrong, but refuse to entertain that possibility.

Step 3: Stop acting like you know better than everyone else here and stop acting like it’s your role to bring reason to the rest of us. Listen; don’t police.

Step 4: Speak more honestly. Replace statements that imply truth with statements that imply perception and preference.

Step 5: Stop trying to tell other commenters when you’ve won and they’ve lost.

Step 6: Stop repeating the same argument over and over. Find something new to add.

Your failure to do the above is why I am rubbing your fucking nose in the Meinert case and gloating so disrespectfully in your being so so very wrong. I recognize all this as shitty behavior on my part, but you earned it with a decade of awfulness.

@89: ‘no investigations of sexual abuse other than him”

‘The Butler report does not contradict either of those statements.‘

Butler’s report directly contradicts that last statement, right from the tiitle, which specifies “parents.” (You know, plural.) Your feeble hand-waving attempt changes that not at all; it just makes you look illiterate.

“To the extent there’s an allusion to another instance of abuse, there is no confirmation it was investigated.”

On the last page of the report, Butler wishes for both former foster parents to be jailed.

“Okay, I guess shirtless was on your side, if you consider that a plus.”

Because facts, justice, reality: these are popularity contests. In your world.

“And thanks for volunteering to leap to my defense...”

Unless you’re a sock puppet for Dr. Z., I wasn’t talking to you. (Also, stating a basic principle of justice does not count as “defending” anyone.)

“When you have a clean conscience, when you are a decent person, ”

If you don’t dress like a slut, if you don’t go to bad places, if you don’t associate with the wrong kind of people, then you won’t get raped. Is that what you believe? Because nice girls can and do get assaulted, and innocent persons can and do get wrongly accused.

“If your first instinct is to worry that a Murray or Meinert is a victim, you should probably think about what that says about you.”

If your first instinct is to believe what a duped reporter like Brownstone tells you, in contravention of a foundational principle of justice, you should probably think for yourself sometime.

@90; “..,gloating so disrespectfully...”

Oh noes!! You gloated!! Not that!! Oh no for the love of Gawd not that!! Not the gloating!!1!

Get over yourself.

@91 - blah, blah, blah. You kept yakkin’ over here, while everyone skewered you over on Slog AM, where you were too chickenshit to comment. Real brave. Everyone knows you now for what you are, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

@91: Don't forget, if you aren't stretching you're never going to last tensor.

@92: Oh no! Not the skewering! (Just how good did it feel, attacking someone who wouldn’t respond? Wallowed in it, did you?)

Did you really want me to go over there and remind everyone how I’d said all along that Meinert may have been a rapist? Did you want me use Clement’s brave words to claim vindication there? Luckily for you, the choice was not yours.

Clement et al deserve credit for coming forward. Showing up and mansplaining how they vindicated my refusal to participate in your nasty rush to judgment seemed more than a little entitled, so I refrained.

Get over yourselves.

@94: LOLOLLOLOLOLLOL
Okay, sure.

But...but....there was an ‘s!’

An ‘s.’

S. S.

Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.