Seven transgender women have been killed this year. Democrats want Jeff Sessions to investigate.

Transgender killings on the rise: ‘This is just so crazy’

2015 has been a year of milestones for transgender Americans, from the coming out of Caitlyn Jenner to the decision to allow trans men and women to openly serve in the military.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico But underneath the banner year lies a dark truth: A higher profile for transgender Americans hasn’t translated into greater protection. In fact, just the opposite. According to transgender advocacy groups, at least 13 trans women have been killed so far this year. Eleven of the 13 victims have been women of color. And four of the deaths have come in just the last month. That makes this year even deadlier for trans women than 2014, which was already the highest on record. “We are at a crisis at this point,” Raffi Freedman-Gurspan from the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Al Jazeera.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The latest trans woman to be identified as a victim is Shade Schuler. Dallas police discovered her body in a vacant field July 29, but she was so decomposed that it took two weeks to identify her. The 22-year-old was wearing a black wig, sunglasses and fake fingernails with diamond studs on them when she died, the Dallas Morning News reported.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico It’s not yet clear how Schuler died. The same can’t be said for most of her fellow trans victims. Many have been ruled homicides, and some are suspected hate crimes. Amber Monroe was found shot to death in Detroit on Aug. 8. The 20-year-old had been targeted before. “She’s been shot 2 or 3 times. But this time she didn’t make it,” friend and transgender rights activist Julisa Abad told Fox 2 Detroit. “I’ve witnessed people pushed out of cars, shot, robbed — not a good environment at all.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Monroe’s killing occurred less than three weeks after two more alleged murders of trans women. On the morning of July 21, India Clarke was found beaten to death in a park in Tampa. Police said she had also been shot in the head and arm. Clarke’s slaying was a rarity in that her alleged killer was quickly caught. On July 29, the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office arrested 18-year-old Keith Gaillard. The two had a “personal relationship,” officials said, and Gaillard’s DNA was found underneath Clarke’s fingernails as well as on a condom at the scene. “I’m not glad, because [India’s] gone,” her friend, Charles Thomas, told the Tampa Bay Times. “But I’m glad they did investigate it and her life mattered enough for them to try to find who harmed her.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Two days after Clarke’s killing, Kenton Craig “KC” Haggard was brutally slaughtered in Fresno in a case activists are calling a hate crime. (Fresno police say there is “no evidence” Haggard was targeted because she was trans.) It was before dawn on July 23 when someone in a tan SUV called Haggard from across the street. In her knee-length dress and white cardigan, Haggard walked over and leaned into the car. Minutes later, however, a knife flashed out from the window, slashing Haggard above her shoulder-length hair and spraying her blood in the street. The 66-year-old stumbled and later died at a local hospital, The Washington Post reported last month.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico [ _Was the victim in brutal Fresno killing a transgender woman? ‘We may never know.’_ ]    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Even as 2015 has proved a groundbreaking year for transgender Americans, with Jenner making international headlines and the Armed Forces ending its ban on trans service members, violence against the community has increased. The evidence is more than anecdotal. Although hate-motivated violence against LGBT Americans dropped precipitously in 2014, similar violence rose 13 percent for transgender people, according to a report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico According to NCAVP, America’s transgender minority is by far the most at-risk population when it comes to being victims of violence. The reasons are complex but can be traced to lingering stigmas attached by many to transgender people, Sasha Buchert, staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center, told Yahoo Health. Only 18 states have nondiscrimination policies towards trans individuals, meaning that “in 32 states you can be fired for just being who you are,” she said.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico That discrimination puts many trans people in a precarious position where they can’t get the documents they need and sometimes turn to more dangerous, off-the-books employment, Buchert told Yahoo. “These same individuals are then often the targets of the violent hate crimes and murders previously mentioned, made additionally vulnerable for either being sex workers or being perceived to be sex workers,” she said.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Even worse, trans victims, their families or their friends often have to fight law enforcement to recognize their preferred gender. Take the most recent trans death: victim No. 13 this year. Shade Schuler apparently chose to live life as a woman, but Dallas police described her as a man. Supporters took to social media to praise the woman they called Ms. Shade. “Rest in power, sweet angel,” one wrote.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico But many more expressed their anger at the continued killing of trans women in America. “This is just so crazy,” wrote another Shade supporter. “It seems like you can’t go one week without finding out another sister was murdered.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico  _Correction: Citing another news source, an earlier version of this article misspelled the name of an activist from the National Center for Transgender Equality. Her name is_ _Raffi Freedman-Gurspan. Also, Amber Monroe was not a student at Wayne State University,according to school officials._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Democrats haven’t decided about joining Benghazi probe

As Congress left Capitol Hill for a two-week recess on Friday night, it remained unclear whether Democrats will participate in the newly minted House committee to investigate the Obama administration’s handling of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) announced a roster of seven Republicans — primarily comprised of members loyal to the GOP leadership — who will serve on the committee, which is charged with determining whether the State Department responded to the attacks properly. Democrats have decried the committee’s creation, and the caucus remains torn over whether its members should participate. The panel, Democrats say, is a politically motivated witch hunt. The Republicans named to the committee were Reps. Susan Brooks (Ind.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Mike Pompeo (Kan.), Martha Roby (Ala.), Peter Roskam (Ill.) and Lynn A. Westmoreland (Ga.). The roster notably excludes many of the Republican caucus’s most vocal members when it comes to the controversy over the Benghazi attacks. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) will chair the panel. The attacks — in which four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, were killed — occurred just weeks before the 2012 presidential election. Initially, the State Department blamed the attacks on a controversial YouTube video that had sparked protests throughout the Middle East. That proved to be an incomplete — if not inaccurate — explanation for the attacks. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of purposely crafting dishonest talking points in order to insulate the president from criticism in an election year. That furor was reignited this month when a conservative watchdog group obtained new State Department e-mails about the attack — e-mails that had previously been withheld from the House committee investigating the matter. Some Democrats have called for a boycott of the new committee, while others favor appointing at least one Democrat to serve on it. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said that the committee membership should be split 50-50 to be fair, but the House GOP leadership rejected that and created a panel with seven Republicans and five Democrats. Democrats took issue with several other provisions of the committee, saying that under the current rules, Gowdy, as chairman, could subpoena and interview witnesses without consulting Democratic members. Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who had previously declared that Democrats should not participate, told reporters Friday that no Democrat should be named to the panel if it is going to function as a “kangaroo court.” It is unclear when Democrats will decide on whether, or to what extent, they will participate. “We’ve made a fair offer, we hope they appoint members,” said Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman. “At this point, it’s time to get to work.” Dozens of Republican House members had petitioned the House leadership to be considered for a spot on the committee, which is seen as a potential springboard to stardom on the right. Boehner and other members of the GOP leadership were careful in crafting a roster that includes no bomb-throwers and one they can argue is a serious investigative body and not a partisan noise machine. “This investigation is about getting answers for the families of the victims and for the American people,” Boehner said in a statement. “These members have each demonstrated a commitment to this goal, and I have confidence that they will lead a serious, fact-based inquiry. As I have expressed to each of them, I expect this committee to carry out an investigation worthy of the American lives lost in Benghazi.”

We desperately need more women judges, so why aren’t we getting them?

In early Egypt, in ancient Rome, in Renaissance Europe and outside most 21st-century American courthouses, justice has been represented by that woman with a sword, scales and a blindfold. You know her, right? Lady Justice. But funny how inside the courtrooms? There are not many Lady Justices to be found. The majority of this country’s population is represented by only three female justices on the nine-member U.S. Supreme Court. Activists are pressing President Obama to nominate a women of color to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly last month. But Senate Republicans — overwhelmingly male — have vowed to block any nominee, of any gender, color or qualification. Nice, right? The Supreme Court’s gender diversity is actually a little better than a lot of benches. In the highest state courts across the country, only 29 percent of judges are women, according to the National Association for Women Judges. Is this because we simply don’t have women qualified for judicial appointments? Of course not. Take the example in Virginia. The cartoonish resistance to female judges played out there yet again this week, when Republicans finally won an ugly partisan battle to dump a nonpartisan, high-quality female judge for the state Supreme Court. Justice Jane Marum Roush, who deftly presided over the Beltway sniper trial, had a distinguished 22-year judicial record in Fairfax County. She came recommended by a Republican. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) appointed Roush to a seat on the Virginia Supreme Court that opened while the legislature was out of session last summer. She became the third woman among seven justices. And that should have won McAuliffe praise. Instead it touched off a political firestorm, pitting the governor against Republican members of the House of Delegates, who refused to make her temporary appointment permanent. No reason given, no interviews done, no formal complaints filed. At first, it looked as though this might just be partisan politics, a sucker punch to McAuliffe. If he wanted her, the Republicans didn’t. But throughout the political showdown, it’s been raining men in Virginia — a parade of male candidates for the job, not a female candidate in sight. They tried to pick their own guy, Court of Appeals Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. But he didn’t appeal enough to get a passing vote. Then they tried to throw a cherry bomb — former attorney general Ken Cuccinelli (R) — into the mix. Cuccinelli, one of Virginia’s most polarizing politicians, recently lost the gubernatorial race. But Cuccinelli withdrew from the contest Wednesday, after “prayerfully” considering the run. On Thursday, though, the House Republicans handed a 12-year judgeship to Stephen R. McCullough, a state Court of Appeals jurist who worked in the attorney general’s office under Cuccinelli. He breezed through his 20-minute interview on Wednesday. Yup, 20 minutes. Judge Roush served with an impeccable and impartial record for 22 years, then served on the Supreme Court for nearly a full year. Her opponents never gave a reason to get rid of her. But a 20-minute interview — which was shorter than my son’s preschool interview, shorter than the grilling a candidate for a fast-food job gets — was enough for yet another white male to sit on the state Supreme Court. Why all these machinations to keep Roush off the bench? Because of politics? Roush was backed by a Republican, so no. Because of diversity? Alston is African American, so no. Because they didn’t want an activist, unabashedly partisan judge in the mix? Cucinnelli is vociferous in his politics, and Roush is not, so no. Because they wanted someone with more courtroom experience? McCullough was just getting out of law school when Roush was serving her fifth year as a Virginia judge, and he didn’t make it onto the bench until 2011, so no. Is it because Roush is a woman? Well, unless their real hangup is they simply don’t want people whose last name begins with R, her gender is about all that’s left for them to object to, right? “It’s because we’re not in the back rooms yet,” Penny J. White, a law professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, told me when Roush was fighting to keep her job last fall. White knows something about this, having served on the Tennessee State Supreme Court. “When those backroom deals are made, it’s mostly men making those decisions.” And some of the same forces are in play as President Obama tries to fill the seat left open by Scalia (R). (Oh, wait, we’re not supposed to place that R behind a judge’s name? Scalia made me forget). The Notorious RBG — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — has her ideas about what this president and the next president should do. “People ask me sometimes, ‘When do you think it will be enough? When will there be enough women on the court?’ ” she once said in a speech. “And my answer is when there are nine.” Nine? Yup. Because until 1981, when Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed by a Republican icon, President Ronald Reagan, there had always — ALWAYS — been nine men. Think about it. For 192 years, nine men had the last, legal word across the land. Why not nine women? Let’s get started. **Twitter: @petulad** **Read more Petula Dvorak:** The ‘Trump Effect’ is contaminating our kids — and could resonate for years Police officers are killed dealing with domestic violence and other problems we ignore  How abortion opponents secretly bought a Va. abortion clinic to deceive women Our 10-year-old decided to give ice hockey a try. What we encountered was dreadful.

D.C. police probe recent attacks on gay, transgendered but say only one hate-related

A string of recent attacks involving gay and transgender victims in Washington has caused jitters among advocates, who fear that hate crimes are on the rise, but it has also revealed the challenge of identifying such incidents — and uncovered tension over whether victims’ sexuality should be identified at all. The attacks include a homicide, a sexual assault, a shooting and a stabbing, and District police say they are investigating only one as a possible hate crime. At the urging of advocates, however, D.C. police have identified three of six recent victims as transgender. Some advocates agree that several of the incidents, two of which occurred Saturday, were most likely not motivated by sexual orientation. But they say all should be highlighted because a vulnerable group is involved and the public should know what’s happening. Others disagree. Diane Davis of Temple Hills, the aunt of recent homicide victim Malika Stover, was angry when advocates distributed a funeral notice that read: “Shooting claims life of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] victim.” Stover, 35, who was a lesbian, was not killed because she was gay, Davis said. “She was a person, not a label,” said Davis, who thinks her niece was slain in a June 22 robbery of a dice game near her childhood home in Southeast Washington’s Barry Farm. “That funeral statement contradicts what I think happened.” Hassan Naveed, co-chairman of the group Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence, said generating publicity about such crimes is important. “People see transgendered as a target,” he said. “People will attack certain people because they perceive them as being weak. We want people to realize that it is happening.” D.C. police, accused in the past of being insensitive or indifferent to the gay and transgender community, now pay close attention. A gay and lesbian liaison unit investigates all cases with even a hint of suspected bias. The task force is examining all six recent attacks. And there are legal ramifications to the attention: A hate crime conviction in the District can lead to punishments up to 11 / 2 times the maximum penalty. Assistant D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham said five of the six attacks since June 21 are not considered hate crimes. Four of the cases involved transgender victims, and police in three of them listed their sexual orientation in news releases. “Advocates in that community seem to think offenses are not taken as seriously as others, and they ask that we” list the sexual orientation, Newsham said. “They say they want that information out there, and we accommodate them.” Police did not list the homicide victim, Stover, as gay. Ruby Corado, who runs a volunteer center for transgender women, said all crimes against that community should be considered hate crimes. She spoke of a transgender woman who was stabbed at least 11 times June 21 in an abandoned building in Southeast. Police said the incident occurred during an argument over money for sex. But advocates who have spoken to the victim said the attacker stabbed the woman after friends laughed at him for being with a transgender person. Police have made an arrest in that case. “The woman told me, ‘I know what hate is, I looked at evil in his eyes,’ ” Corado said. “If you want to kill somebody, you shoot them once. You don’t stab them so many times.” She said transgender women are “not leaving their houses because they are afraid of being the next victim. That’s what hate does.” District police say the number of hate and bias crimes has dropped 18 percent this year compared with last year, with the latest numbers available through the end of May. Newsham said the only recent attack being investigated as a possible hate crime occurred June 27 at Eastern Avenue NE. Police said a transgender woman was shot about 6 a.m. during a robbery of a purse. The police report said one of the gunmen pulled or knocked off the woman’s wig, then shot her once in the buttocks as she ran away. In that case, Newsham described hate as a “borderline motive” and said detectives are continuing to investigate. Other attacks, including the two latest ones Saturday, are not considered hate crimes, Newsham said. A transgender woman was shot and injured during a robbery about 4 a.m. near Fifth and K streets Northeast, and another transgender woman was sexually assaulted after she accepted a ride from a man in the 300 block of 61st Street NE. “The District has a significant number of gay, lesbian and transgendered” residents, Newsham said. “If you compare the number of crimes that have occurred involving that community to others it would be a very small percentage. . . . There’s certainly no pattern here.” Davis, the aunt of slaying victim Malika Stover, said Stover came out as gay in her late teens and was well known in the city’s lesbian community. Davis said that Stover’s mother died when she was a teenager and that she never knew her father. Stover dropped out of school before the ninth grade but later got her high school diploma and was working as a driver for MetroAccess, which provides public transportation for the disabled. A Metro spokeswoman confirmed she was an employee. Davis said her niece had a longtime partner with two grown children. She lived on Alabama Avenue in Southeast Washington, in a house once owned by her grandmother. Before working for Metro, she drove rental cars to different offices up and down the East Coast. Stover wasn’t shy about her sexual identity, Davis said. On the night she was killed, she was in her old neighborhood, on Stevens Road, playing dice and gambling. “She grew up in the neighborhood where that went on all the time,” Davis said, saying she does not think the motive in her niece’s killing to be anything other than robbery. “She was good at it.” Stover will be buried Wednesday after a service at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Suitland. She would have turned 36 on Friday.

Black lives matter — including black women’s, activists remind nation

Weeks after Trayvon Martin was killed in Sanford, Fla., in 2012, a Chicago police officer fatally shot an unarmed 22-year-old black woman in the head as he fired into a group in the early hours of a March morning. Not long after Michael Brown, 18, was killed in Ferguson, Mo., last summer, a 21-year-old black woman was found dead in a Pagedale, Mo., cell after being picked up on warrants over a dispute she allegedly had. She had hanged herself with her T-shirt, authorities said, adding that they had video because of cameras in the facility. The case is now closed. And in February, before Freddie Gray died from injuries sustained while in the custody of Baltimore police in April, a 37-year-old black female inmate just down the road in Fairfax County, Va., died several days after being shocked with a stun gun. At least six officers were present as the mentally ill woman — hands cuffed, feet shackled and head hooded in a spit mask — was Tasered four times. A medical examiner’s ruling that “excited delirium” was the cause of death has been controversial. Rekia Boyd. Kimberlee Randle-King. Natasha McKenna. Their names and their stories — as well as those of other black women who have been killed by police or died while in their custody — are the focus of several days of activity this week meant to highlight what some activists say has been missing from the national discussion on race and criminal justice: Black women are dying, too, not just black men. They are killed during traffic stops, die in police custody, become “collateral damage” in the war on drugs, and, in situations that intertwine loss and incredulity, can be killed in their homes after they or someone else has sought police help in a crisis. “Yet black women who are profiled, beaten, sexually assaulted and killed by law enforcement officials” are too often invisible. And that invisibility can intensify when sexual orientation and gender identity — such as transgender women — are involved. Those conclusions are in a policy brief titled “#SayHerName: Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women,” set for release Wednesday. The work is co- authored by the African American Policy Forum, a think tank focused on economic and gender inequality, and the Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies. The brief’s release coincides with a vigil in New York’s Union Square. The brief and vigil are coordinated with a day of action planned for Thursday in 11 cities. Those events are organized by Black Youth Project 100, #BlackLives Matter and Ferguson Action. “If we are going to be serious about changing the relationship between black people and the police, we have to tell the full story,” said Charlene Carruthers of BYP100. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, among the authors of the brief and a co-founder of AAPF, said, “Women from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, women who have left children behind, women . . . who had mental health issues” will be remembered Wednesday. Crenshaw is a law professor at UCLA and Columbia University, and is credited for her “intersectionality” theory, which examines how forms of bias interact. National data collection on police fatalities has been difficult because local authhorites report them voluntarily to the federal government. Better collection is among the calls for reform. The #SayHerName” brief, which includes cases such as those of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones, killed in a Detroit drug raid, and Mya Hall, a transgender woman killed in Maryland — is not comprehensive. It is a precusor to a more deeply researched report. “Our goal was simply to illustrate, by way of cases easily discoverable through an Internet search, the reality that black women are killed and violated by police with alarming regularity . . . and the ways in which this reality is erased from our demonstrations, our discourse and our demands,” the document notes The “#SayHerName” campaign was launched last year, about the time that Tanisha Anderson and Tamir Rice were killed by Cleveland police within weeks of each other. Tamir, 12, was shot as he played with a pellet gun in a park. Anderson, 37, battled bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Her family called police to help take her to a hospital, but she was thrown to the ground by an officer when she began to struggle. She never recovered, and her death was ruled a homicide. The family is pursuing a wrongful-death suit. “People rightfully held up Tamir’s name [at protests], but for reasons we couldn’t understand, people did not hold up Tanisha’s name,” Crenshaw said. “It’s about time,” Harvey Volzer, the attorney for Natasha McKenna’s family, said about a focus on black women. “I can’t in my wildest dream believe that she’s the only black woman who has had this happen to her. . . . And no one has covered this from this angle.” Martinez Sutton, the older brother of Rekia Boyd, said he plans to go to the vigil. Working with activists in Chicago, he has campaigned to keep his sister’s story in the media and has traveled to Geneva to tell her story. BYP100 has also been working to bring attention to her case. So has Crista Noel, a Chicago activist who, after being beaten by an officer in 2009, co-founded Women’s All Points Bulletin, a group that aims to protect women against police violence. “When it comes to women, ‘marginalized’ isn’t even the word for it,” she said. “We use the term ‘invisible.’ ” Patrisse Cullors, one of the three women who co-founded #BlackLivesMatter, is aware of the irony that — in light of Trayvon Martin’s case — they provided the framework for a movement that has swept the country yet have found women’s stories almost erased from it. There is a long history of focusing on black men while losing the stories of black women, she said. Rosa Parks, for example, risked her life investigating the gang rapes of black women years before she refused to give up her bus seat, Cullors and others have noted. That history of injustices against black women and their resistance to it gets “disappeared” Cullors said, This time, she said, she and others are determined to make sure that no longer happens. _The Charlene Carruthers quote has been corrected to reflect use of the term “black people” rather than “African American”._

Do Democrats owe their Senate majority to women?

This election has already been likened to 1992, a year when so many women were elected to office that it became known as “The Year of the Woman.” A historic number of women will take their seats in the U.S. Senate. Now comes news from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University that women’s votes made the difference in the outcomes of several high-profile races that helped Democrats retain control of the Senate. The center took a close look at seven hotly contested Senate races and found that men voted for the losing Republican candidate, while a majority of women cast their ballots for the winning Democratic candidate. “The composition of the United States Senate in the 113th Congress would look very different if it were not for the votes of women in these races,” said Susan J. Carroll, senior scholar at the center. “Women and men preferred different candidates and women’s preferences prevailed.” So which senators owe their seats to women? Here’s what the Center for American Women and Politics had to say:   Democrats Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey (Penn.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) were all elected because of the votes of women, according to the center’s review of exit polls. In Connecticut, men split their votes evenly between Democrat Chris Murphy and Republican Linda McMahon, while women showed a clear preference for Murphy. In the two U.S. Senate races where Republican candidates made controversial comments about rape, women’s votes played important roles in the victories of the Democratic candidates. In Indiana, a majority of women voted for Democrat Joe Donnelly, while a majority of men cast ballots for Republican Richard Mourdock. In contrast, in Missouri, a majority of both men and women voted for Democrat Claire McCaskill, although women were 7 percentage points more likely than men to vote for McCaskill. Some of the largest gender gaps were in races where Democratic women won, including incumbent Sens. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), who won the votes of 72 percent of women compared to 59 percent of men, and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), who ran against a Republican woman and won the votes of 77 percent of women and 59 percent of men. Senate newcomers Warren won 59 percent of women and 47 percent of men; Baldwin won the majority of women, with 56 percent of their votes, but only 46 percent of men voted for her. This data leaves one question: What do these outcomes mean for the next woman to run for the White House? _Krissah Thompson is a National Staff Writer for The Washington Post._

A family gathered for a gender reveal party. Then men burst in and began shooting.

Just outside of Cincinnati, in a long flat house, a family gathered Saturday to learn the sex of their newest member.    “They shot all of us,” a man told a dispatcher from inside the house, just before midnight, as children screamed in the background.    No one involved has been identified, and no arrests were reported Sunday. As investigators moved through the house the next day, a WCPO reporter saw a downcast woman on crutches outside.  She said she had been shot in the leg and lost the baby.  In 911 calls from Saturday, dispatchers try again and again to figure out how many in the house were shot.  “A whole lot,” says a man who reported he was bleeding himself — maybe from the stomach; he wasn’t sure. “I just seen two people walk by, I looked outside, the next thing I know they just ran in and just started shooting,” he said. A woman sobbed uncontrollably into the phone. “Please stop screaming so I can help you,” the dispatcher said. “I want an ambulance please,” said the woman. “My husband’s dying.” And when the police spokesman addressed reporters hour later, he said the responding officer had no more success counting the victims.

Rep. Farenthold of Texas says he would challenge female GOP senators to a duel — if they were South Texas men

These days, many Washington politicians are unafraid to take verbal shots at one another over legislative discord, whether it’s on social media or on cable network shows. But long gone are the days when politicians would threaten to settle rivalries with duels. So it was a throwback when Rep. Blake Farenthold, a Republican from Corpus Christi, Tex., on Friday criticized some Republican “female senators from the Northeast” for their opposition to efforts to pass a health care overhaul. Then, he said, “if it was a guy from south Texas I might ask him to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style.”  Farenthold, who has experienced a fair share of controversies over women’s issues and his interactions with women, did not mention any of these senators by name. But three Republican female senators have been key holdouts from the GOP’s current Obamacare “repeal and replace” proposal:  Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). However, the only senator from the Northeast among the three is Collins, a centrist who vocally opposed the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act for cutting Medicaid in ways she says would hurt rural and vulnerable Americans, as The Washington Post reported.  “And as I far as I know,” she later added, according to the Associated Press, “dueling is illegal in every state. He’ll be disappointed, I guess.”  “That being said,” he added, “I’m extremely frustrated with Senate Republicans who are breaking their promise to the American people to repeal and replace Obamacare.” During the 1800s, duels were one of the most common causes of violent death for legislators, according to the Atlantic. In 1831, Spencer Pettis, a House member from Missouri, was shot and killed in a duel with Thomas Biddle, an Army officer, on a Mississippi River sandbar known as “Bloody Island.” In 1838,  a Kentucky member of the House, William Graves, killed Rep. Jonathan Cilley of Maine. Following his death, Congress passed a law prohibiting duels in the District of Columbia. Still, in 1859, another deadly duel ensued in California: The state’s chief justice, David Terry, shot and killed Sen. David Broderick (D-Calif.) in a duel south of San Francisco spurred by a dispute over slavery. Farenthold’s remarks were not the first time the congressman has come under fire for comments involving women.  “That would be bad,” Farenthold said. “I would have to consider it.” He later apologized for his “failure to immediately condemn anyone who would say something as outrageous as they like raping women.”   When he first ran for Congress, a photo circulated of Farenthold smiling for the camera wearing rubber ducky pajamas standing next to a young waitress in lingerie.  On Monday, across social media and news stories, the duck pajamas appeared once again.

Women seek to expand their numbers in the Senate

Source: Center for American Women and Politics A new breakdown by the Center for American Women and Politics shows that in this year’s midterms women in the Senate have a chance to expand their ranks beyond a historic 20 seats.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Four female members of the Senate are running for reelection this year: Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). In all, 29 women (13 Democrats and 16 Republicans) currently are running for Senate, down from the 36 female candidates who ran in 2012 and 2010. More women could enter Senate races in the next months. West Virginia will in all likelihood send a woman to the Senate for the first time, as it appears that two women will face off in the general election — Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) and Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, a Democrat.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University In Michigan, Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land (R) looks strong, and if she wins in the fall the state would have an all-female Senate delegation, like three other states: California, New Hampshire and Washington. Hawaii also could have both its Senate seats held by women if Rep. Colleen W. Hanabusa (D) wins the Democratic primary contest  against Sen. Brian Schatz, who was appointed to fill the seat once held by the late Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, who died in 2012. The Aloha State’s other seat in the upper chamber is held by Sen. Mazie Hirono, also a Democrat. “Not only do women hold a record 20 seats in the Senate, they make up 30% of the majority caucus and hold significant committee leadership positions,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University in an e-mail statement. “Whether it’s working to shut down the government shutdown, negotiating a bipartisan budget deal or changing the way the military deals with sexual violence, the women Senators are wielding power and getting things done.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University

Truth and transgender at any age: Readers tell us their own stories

Scores of readers responded to “Truth and Transgender at 70,” which appeared in The Washington Post in late April. The story recounted the journey of a transgender woman named Kate Rohr and how her marriage of nearly 48 years not only survived her transition but also was strengthened. The overwhelming majority of emails were positive. In the article, The Post asked any readers who are transgender to share their own experiences of coming out. Specifically, we wanted to know who or what finally compelled individuals to tell family, friends and colleagues. About 130 people answered. They range in age from 21 to 75, live on at least three continents and span the professional spectrum, including police officer, technology entrepreneur and Air Force veteran. They variously identified themselves as transfemale, transmale and “genderless,” “gender fluid,” “non-binary” or “neither.” A surprising number said they’d been accepted and even welcomed by family, friends and co-workers. Yet some admitted to depression and suicide attempts as well as past drug and alcohol problems. Some also acknowledged being victims of violence. One 48-year-old transgender man, who identifies and dresses as male but has not yet had “gender affirmation” surgery, recounted how he’d been attacked and threatened with death because he used the woman’s restroom at a truck stop. After barely escaping, he wrote, “I came out to everyone but my biological family the same day because I was so angry.” The following are among the stories and memories — many poignant, all thoughtful — that we received. The individuals are named as they permitted.        www.lovinglaineoutloud.wordpress.com http://billieannejeansblog.apps-1and1.com http://sorelcoward.com.au/sorel_transition.html www.christine.nl

Bill Clinton’s strained comparison of diplomatic deaths in different administrations

Republicans have held numerous hearings over the 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador. Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a frequent target of those hearings, and her husband clearly is irritated by the attention. What’s he talking about when he refers to “ten different instances”—and is this a relevant comparison?            Going down the list, one can see that three of the victims are not actually “diplomatic personnel,” but worked for the Army, Navy or the Forest Service. But they are on the AFSA plaque so perhaps that’s a debatable point. Two of the deaths resulted from the same attack, so the number of “instances” total nine, not 10. But that’s obviously a bit nitpicky. There are two larger questions to consider: Were there actually “zero” Republicans who expressed outrage? And is this even a relevant comparison? We reviewed the news clips concerning these deaths. As mostly one-off incidents, they generally did not inspire much commentary beyond homage for the dead.  So Clinton is clearly wrong when he claims that “zero” Republicans were outraged about the attacks during the Bush presidency. The other question is whether Clinton is comparing apples and oranges. He compares Benghazi to “ten different instances” during Bush’s presidency. Benghazi was a single event—an attack on a diplomatic post in which four Americans died. Most of the deaths during Bush’s presidency took place away from the embassy grounds. Moreover, to make an apples-to-apples comparison, one must look at all deaths from attacks during Obama’s presidency. Besides the four killed in Benghazi (Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, CIA operatives Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods), these are names on the memorial plaque who did not die overseas from natural causes (heart attack) or events such as an earthquake or car accident:     So that adds up to at least eight dead in five instances. At this point in Bush’s presidency, there was also eight dead, in seven different instances, as two of the deaths took place in the later half of Bush’s second term. Matt McKenna, a spokesman for the former president, issued the following statement: “What’s most important is we learn from these losses rather than use them to score cheap political points or as a vehicle for gotcha journalism, as you’re doing today.” In service of a dubious comparison, Clinton exaggerated when he claimed that there was “zero” Republican outrage about the deaths of Americans under Bush’s watch. At least one of the deaths led to congressional hearings and a government report. That’s not the same level of attention as the myriad Benghazi probes, but it is more than zero. Moreover, in making his claim, Clinton ignores the similar one-off attacks that have killed diplomatic personnel during Obama’s presidency, making it an unbalanced comparison.

Black Lives Matter organizers hold rally in D.C. for black trans women

Venus Selenite, 25, moved to D.C. from Louisiana seven months ago to begin her transition to a woman. Selenite, a black queer trans woman, says that since that time, she has been harassed on the streets and the Metro. One time, a man on a bike chased her for two blocks in Columbia Heights, trying to make sexual advances on her. “I’ve been harassed on the street and the Metro. I’ve started to carry a knife in my purse,” said Selenite. “Every time a trans woman has been killed, I have fallen on my bedroom floor in tears.” Selenite was one of about 150 people who participated in a rally on Franklin Square downtown Tuesday evening, calling for an end to the violence of transgender women in the country, particularly black transgender women. Nearly 20 transgender women have been murdered across the country in 2015, most of them women of color.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The idea of the rally, which was organized by Black Lives Matter activists, was to call on black men to join the fight to stop violence against transgender women in the country. Queer and transgender women, the protesters emphasized at the rally, have been at the forefront of the Black Lives Matter fight nationwide. “Black men need to to show up. We have to do more, we have to do better,” said Aaron Goggans, a black male and member of the regional chapter of Black Lives Matter, noting that only a small portion of the rally attendees were black men. “We need to put ourselves on the line like they put themselves on the line for us.” The event in D.C. was one of a handful of Trans Liberation Tuesday rallies throughout the country. Supporters also gathered in Houston, Brooklyn, Dayton, Los Angeles, Nashville and San Francisco. In D.C., protesters carried signs with the names and faces of murdered transgender women under the hashtag #sayhername. Together, they said the names of Elisha Walker, Islan Nettles, Kandis Kapri and the other transgender women who have been murdered, releasing balloons for each of them. Afterward, participants moved from the park and rallied in downtown streets. “We don’t give [trans women] the same decency and respect to even uplift their names in the same ways they have uplifted our names and our stories,” said Preston Mitchum, one of the co-organizers of the rally who serves as the policy co-chair at the Black Youth Project 100. “We want people to recognize that black trans women exist and that they should not experience violence. ”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

A GOP Senate majority? Just wait for 2014

The GOP's path to a Senate majority appears to be getting tougher -- first thanks to Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) comments about "legitimate rape" and now with multiple polls showing key races in Massachusetts, Virginia and Wisconsin shifting toward Democrats. But even if Republicans don't pull it off in 2012, watch out in 2014. Seriously. While the map was difficult for Democrats this year, it's murderous in 2014. Here's the breakdown: - 20 Democrats will be up for reelection, compared to 13 Republicans. - 12 of those 20 Democrats come from either red states (six) or swing states (six). - Only one of the 13 Republicans comes from a state that isn't red, and that's Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), whose seat is basically safe unless she retires. Top GOP targets are likely to include Democratic Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Al Franken (Minn.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) and Kay Hagan (N.C.). Five of the nine are first-term senators, and Republicans have already got a strong potential candidate against Johnson, with former governor Mike Rounds launching an exploratory committee last week.) Republicans could also have a chance at winning the seats of Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), particularly if either of them (both are in their 70s) retire. And Virginia could also be a target under the right circumstances, but right now Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) is very popular. On the Democratic side, besides Collins's seat, about the only apparent target is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and even he will start as a significant favorite to win reelection. Given that Republicans appear likely to at least narrow the Democrats' 53-to-47 margin in the Senate this year, 2014 should afford them a huge opportunity to either re-take the majority or expand it if they can win the chamber this year. Now, this comes with all the caveats you would expect this far out: 1\. Things change. A lot. Just 20 months ago, Republicans were licking their chops over the _2012_ map. With opportunities in red states like Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota and Missouri and in swing states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia, it appeared back then that the Senate was about to go red. Today, the GOP's path appears tougher than ever. 2. Candidates matter, and so does incumbency. Many of the Democrats facing reelection in red states in 2014 have track records of survival in tough states. Pryor, Landrieu, Baucus and Johnson have all served multiple terms and won't be pushovers. That said, American politics is increasingly a red-vs.-blue game, with longtime incumbent Republicans in blue areas losing in spades in 2006 and 2008 and many longtime incumbent Democrats in red areas falling in 2010. Under this more parliamentary regime, it should be tougher for even a Democrat with lots of incumbency in a red state to survive. And when those incumbent Democrats retire -- as Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) have the last two years -- it's the GOP's seat to lose. 3. Though Republicans have great maps in 2012 and 2014, they will in turn face a brutal map in 2016. The GOP will have to defend seats in blue states like Illinois and Pennsylvania and swing states including Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Florida. Just as big Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008 make those classes ripe for GOP pickups in 2012 and 2014, the big GOP gains of 2010 make that class very tough for Republicans to defend in 2016. In other words, no matter who wins the majority this year, Republicans will have a great chance to hold it after the 2014 election, and Democrats will have a great chance to try and even the score in 2016.

Republicans on Benghazi panel seek to grill Hillary Clinton — softly

Come Thursday morning, only seven Republicans will get a chance to grill former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton about the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi. The rest of Washington’s Republicans can only share advice: Please, please, don’t mess this up. “Find out what happened,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the first Republicans to demand a special investigation. “There’ve been self-inflicted wounds, but I don’t think they change the fundamental facts.” Those wounds have come to define the Select Committee on Benghazi, which — as Democrats do not tire of pointing out — is in its 17th month investigating the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, at a diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the committee’s chairman, has been dragged into an increasingly bitter argument with the committee’s Democrats. But now, even Republicans are offering guidance — and expressing anxiety — about how the committee should proceed on Thursday to avoid an overreach that could help the Democratic presidential hopeful and backfire on the GOP. The case of nerves began in early October with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s petard-hoisting candor about how Clinton’s “numbers are dropping” thanks to the committee — a seeming acknowledgment of political intent that Democrats seized on to discredit the committee’s work. “Listen, there was a really misinformed statement that was made,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “But if you look at the work of the committee, it’s never been targeted at her personally or at her e-mails. It’s always been about four Americans who died.” That point has been obscured in the wake of McCarthy’s gaffe, capitalized on by Clinton allies who could scarcely believe their luck. In an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday, just 29 percent of voters called the committee “fair and impartial.” Thirty-six percent called it “unfair” and unduly partisan. Republicans outside of the committee are frustrated with its recent results. They are also nervous about a repeat of the Planned Parenthood hearings, which many of them believe amounted to a lost chance to score points against the abortion provider over controversial videos that have captivated conservatives. Even Clinton allies cite the Planned Parenthood hearings as a model for how the secretary could navigate the Benghazi hearing Thursday. “We’ve heard from many members of the House who are embarrassed that its committees and oversight have become a joke under Speaker [John] Boehner,” said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative Judicial Watch, who argued that watchdog groups such as his have gotten more vital information than Gowdy’s Benghazi committee. In recent interviews, Gowdy has lashed out at colleagues for undermining him — and media for parroting his critics. “It’s not lost on me that the uptick in criticism is [happening in] the two weeks before she’s coming,” Gowdy told Politico. “I don’t think that that is a coincidence; it’s an attempt to marginalize and impugn the credibility of the panel that’s going to be asking her questions.” Gowdy’s Democratic critics appear to have rattled him, most recently after the committee’s majority mistakenly claimed that Clinton’s e-mail outed a CIA contact. Gowdy cried foul in a public letter to Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the ranking Democrat on Benghazi panel. “I am envious of your staff’s ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend,” he added. Democrats were not amused. “Those of us who are concerned about Benghazi, and we ought to be, are concerned about making our embassies safer,” said Sen. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.). “A hearing like this — it’s not really about the issue at all. The entire discussion about Benghazi, since I got here in January 2013, has been focused on blame.” On and off the committee, Republicans were hopeful that they could investigate the errors of Clinton’s State Department without the appearance of politics. “It’s not our fault that she was secretary of state,” Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Ga.), a committee member, said Tuesday morning on CNN. “This isn’t about Hillary. She just happened to be there as secretary of state when this occurred. If John Kerry had been there, we’d be looking at John Kerry.” Not every committee member has evaded the politics. In an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) suggested that Clinton got “most” of her foreign intelligence from political ally Sidney Blumenthal, an attack line that wasn’t true. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) argued in an interview with The Washington Post that Blumenthal was relevant only as an example of who did and did not have access to the secretary at key moments. “I find it really odd that Sidney could e-mail her about Libya and the ambassador to Libya couldn’t,” said Graham, who is running for president. “Don’t make speeches — ask questions. That would be my advice to the committee. Try to find out what happened, in a coherent fashion, before and after the attack. Put facts on the board: How many requests for additional security were made, how many were denied, and why they were denied? How could the secretary of defense know about deterioration in Benghazi but not the secretary of state?” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who was the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when it produced one of the first and quickest Benghazi reports, suggested that the committee can get what it needs if it simply focuses on the decisions not to reinforce security at the American diplomatic outpost. “A lot of legitimate questions should be asked about the requests for increased security,” Collins said. “One of the patterns that we found, dating back to the [1998] attacks in Nairobi, that there had been repeated requests for beefing that up and they had been ignored.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a GOP White House hopeful who has said that the Benghazi disaster “disqualifies” Clinton from the presidency, said that the witness needs to explain why so many nervous cables from the ground were ignored. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), now the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, hoped for the same thing. “We’ve seen the cables asking for additional security measures,” he said. “Where did those stop? Who saw those? We’ve never gotten to the bottom of that.” Johnson’s view of a Clinton interrogation is unique. In 2013, both he and Paul used perches on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ask why the State Department initially suggested that the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound was spontaneous, a protest gone wrong. As Johnson prodded Clinton, she accused him of being frivolous. “What difference at this point does it make?” asked an agitated Clinton. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.” At the time, Clinton was seen as the winner of the exchange. But in the years since, “what difference does it make” has turned into a bumper sticker — a way for conservatives to say that Clinton was callous when asked about the biggest failure of her tenure. “My guess is that she regrets saying it,” Johnson said wryly, raising his arms to imitate how Clinton answered him. “Half the pictures I see of her, she’s in that green jumpsuit with the black glasses. She was glaring at me at that moment.”

Boehner names Republican members of Benghazi probe panel

House Speaker John A. Boehner announced the seven Republicans who will work on the newly minted House Select Committee on Benghazi, tapping a diverse set of members that excludes many of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's handling of the 2012 attacks. Boehner tapped Reps. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.), Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.).They join Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who was named chairman of the committee last week. The roster notably excludes many of the Republican caucus' most vocal members when it comes to the ongoing investigation into whether the Obama administration correctly handled the 2012 attacks. “This investigation is about getting answers for the families of the victims and for the American people. These members have each demonstrated a commitment to this goal, and I have confidence that they will lead a serious, fact-based inquiry," Boehner said in a statement. "As I have expressed to each of them, I expect this committee to carry out an investigation worthy of the American lives lost in Benghazi." Democrats remain openly divided over whether they will participate in the committee. Some members have called for a Democratic boycott of the committee, while others favor appointing at least one Democrat to serve on the panel. The Democratic caucus will huddle Friday afternoon in hopes of making a final decision on whether to participate. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday morning that family members of two of the four Americans killed in the 2012 Benghazi attacks have voiced opposition to the formation of the select committee. "(They) have called us and said: Please don't take us down this path again," Pelosi said.

After Orlando, spotlight on how Congress handles LGBT issues in defense bill

The Republican senator who once campaigned against gays serving openly in the military is now the civil rights community’s greatest bulwark against undoing LGBT protections in this year’s defense policy bill. Democrats and LGBT rights advocates will be keeping a close eye on Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) during upcoming negotiations on the defense measure. House and Senate leaders could clash over language concerning whether religious organizations with federal contracts should be exempt from nondiscrimination orders covering gender identity and sexual orientation.  The shooting incident Sunday that killed 50 people in a popular Orlando gay bar and dance club will only increase the attention on how Congress deals with LGBT issues and could have a big impact on defense bill negotiations,  But how the House and Senate resolve their differences over the issue remains unclear and McCain’s opponents will likely not give him much wiggle room to compromise over these issues on the campaign trail, where the GOP’s most influential congressional voice on military matters is facing a fierce challenge from Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick. “In Arizona, independent voters are key to winning reelection. . . and this is a good swing issue,” said Human Rights Campaign political director David Stacy. “[McCain] could be the decider here.” As of last week, McCain did not appear to be feeling much political pressure, suggesting that LGBT rights and whether women should be subject to the draft are not likely to be a big source of contention during negotiations with the House.  On Sunday, McCain issued a statement extending condolences to the families of the victims. “As we learn more information about this tragedy, we must remain steadfast in our commitment as a nation to acknowledge the threats we face and do everything we can to root out terror,” he said. The Obama administration has already threatened to veto both the House and Senate defense bills over several provisions, including the complaint that the House bill “would make it easier to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” McCain has not traditionally been a standard-bearer for better integration of women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals in the military. Six years ago, McCain led the Senate opposition to a repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, a provision that was tucked into that year’s defense policy bill. He never reacted warmly to President Obama’s plans to open all combat roles to women, and he has been similarly circumspect about plans to allow transgender troops to serve openly. But over the same period, McCain also stepped forward as one of the few Republicans willing to vote for legislation preventing employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and he spoke out against a bill in Arizona to allow businesses citing religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians. He was also one of the first senators to call for including women in a potential draft, once combat roles were opened to women – a provision he incorporated into the Senate’s version of the defense policy bill. Democrats are now looking to McCain to hold the line against efforts from House Republicans to keep their language on LGBT people and the draft in the final bill. “That would be a flip that we would take advantage of, absolutely. Because to go from being fair to swallowing your words, in this campaign, I think would be hard,” said Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) “It would leave an opening for Kirkpatrick to just call him on the hypocrisy.” Even before Sunday’s shooting, Kirkpatrick had lobbed terms such as “shameful” and “cowardly” at the House GOP for their efforts to block measures guaranteeing nondiscrimination for LGBT federal workers. While Arizona is widely considered a red state, conservative ideology does not always dominate public opinion when it comes to social issues. Polling done last year by the Public Religion Research Institute shows a majority of Arizona residents favored nondiscrimination laws on sexual orientation and gender identity and opposed religious exemptions from such laws. Even conservative Republicans acknowledge that the political climate in Arizona makes it difficult for McCain to acquiesce to the House’s take on social issues during a close election. “I’m afraid that the elections and the fear of them has a profound influence on the committee,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). The calendar could save Republicans from an inconveniently-timed fight over contentious social policy language in the final bill. Once the Senate passes its version of the defense bill later this month, it will be working against the clock: With only a few legislative days in July, it is unlikely that lawmakers finish negotiations on the defense bill before the August recess and McCain’s August primary. Then Congress spends just a few weeks in Washington in September before jetting off for the election. In years past, this schedule has delayed final votes on the defense bill until well into the post-election lame duck period. But activists do not plan to wait for the negotiations process to finish before pressuring lawmakers to commit to a position on these social issues. “Absolutely we are going to hold members accountable; we are going to make sure their constituents know how they voted,” said Stacy, adding that “if this is still pending over the course of the August recess, we have a lot of independent lobbying we’ll be doing then.”

Nominating women won’t solve Republicans’ gender gap problem

Republicans are likely to nominate women in four of their top-targeted Senate races this year -- something they hope helps them appeal to elusive female voters and close the so-called "gender gap." But if history is any guide, they should keep expectations low. In fact, recent elections with Republican women candidates have wound up with very average gender gaps on Election Day. First, a little historical refresher. While much has been written about the Democratic accusations of a GOP "war on women" and how Republicans are struggling with women, there is very little evidence to suggest this is some kind of new phenomenon. Since 1980, presidential campaigns have on average produced a 15-point gender gap. That is, the difference between Democrats' advantage among women and Republicans' advantage among men is generally 15 points. So, for example, Democrats win women by 8 points and Republicans win men by 7 points: 8+7=15. Here's how that looks: In 2012, Mitt Romney's gender gap was 18 points (+7 among men, -11 among women) -- again, not that far off the average -- and the average gender gap in Senate races was 17 points. Now, using 15-17 points as the baseline gender gap, we looked at eight marquee Senate races between 2006 and 2012 in which Republican nominated a female candidate. According to exit polls and the last available pre-election polls (where exit polls were not available), the average gender gap for women in these eight races was ... wait for it ... about 15 points (14.5, to be exact). In addition, with the exception of Katherine Harris's huge loss in Florida in 2006 (in which she was widely disliked), none of the eight women have narrowed the gender gap even to single digits. The closest was former Hewlett-Packard head Carly Fiorina in the 2010 California Senate race. According to exit polls, Fiorina lost men by 3 points and women by 14 -- an 11-point gender gap. Now, eight races is not a huge sample, and things could change with a larger data set. We wish there were more data, but Republicans nominate far fewer women for high office than Democrats. There is a little good news for Republicans, though, and that is that their current crop of women appears to be running ahead of the traditional gender gap -- at least according to the most recent polls. But these are _early_ polls, and history suggests it will be hard for them to maintain such tight gender gaps.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday

First ISIS, now Emily’s List: Va. GOP senator is a popular political target

RICHMOND — For the first time, Emily’s List is targeting a sitting state lawmaker — and Virginia state Sen. Richard H. Black has earned the dubious honor. The national political action committee is putting Black “on notice” for his opposition to Medicaid expansion, equal rights for women and access to abortion. One of the most conservative members of the General Assembly, Black (R-Loudoun) faces a challenge in the fall from Democrat Jill McCabe, a pediatrician who was endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia on Tuesday. “Senator Black has made it clear that his top priority is to turn back the clock on women and families across Virginia,” said Emily’s List President Stephanie Schriock. She added: “Dick Black is one of the worst when it comes to policies that are dangerous to the people he was elected to represent.” Black, a former Marine combat pilot, took the slight in stride, noting that earlier this year, a magazine published by the Islamic State put him on its enemies list. “I am the only state legislator who has also been targeted by ISIS as well,” he said in a phone interview Tuesday. “I wear those as a badge of pride.” Emily’s List backs female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights. The powerful political action committee zeroed in on Black’s seat as an opportunity to flip control of the Virginia Senate, where Republicans have a one-seat majority. Last month, the group released a list of more than a dozen members of Congress that it would also work to fire, including U.S. Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), who last year won the seat long held by former Republican congressman Frank R. Wolf. Black has a long history of controversial behavior, which continued last week when the Supreme Court affirmed gay couples’ right to marry in all 50 states. “The gay community is quite militant. They’re not content to let people be and let people make their own decisions,” Black told NBC 4 in Washington. “It launches an attack on the Christian churches across the nation.” Those words are part of a pattern of controversial actions and statements over the years. In 2002, during debate on a bill to lift Virginia’s ban on prosecuting spousal rape, Black, then a member of the House of Delegates, said: “I do not know how on Earth you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape where they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth, there is no injury, there’s no separation or anything.” The next year, he made headlines when he sent tiny pink plastic models of a fetus to fellow legislators ahead of a vote on an abortion bill. Schriock derided Black’s comments as “unacceptable and out-of-touch.” But the criticism hasn’t made him think twice. “I’m not a fan of Emily’s List. As you know, I am firmly pro-life, and I intend to remain that way regardless of Emily’s List’s position,” Black said. What if the progressive group succeeded in changing his mind? “Then,” he said, “you would probably know that the world had turned upside down.”

Eliminate gun loopholes for domestic abusers

The debate over measures to reduce gun violence poses a cruel paradox. The most effective steps are politically unthinkable and likely unconstitutional. More restrained approaches, such as tighter background checks and reduced ammunition magazine sizes, have proved maddeningly impossible to maneuver through the political process and are open to the charge that they would not stop the killing. This critique is correct but unpersuasive. With hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, small tweaks will not stop the carnage; certainly no single tweak alone will. Yet that is an argument for achievable half-measures, not for paralysis. And despite the otherwise gridlocked politics of gun control, there may be a sliver of political hope for proposals to address a relatively small but especially heartbreaking aspect of the problem: the lethal mix of guns and domestic abuse. Since the 1990s, federal law has barred those convicted of domestic abuse from legally buying guns. But existing law suffers from a “stalker gap,” a “boyfriend gap” and a “restraining-order gap.” Individuals convicted of misdemeanor stalking offenses are not barred from passing background checks and buying guns. In addition, abusers who are not married, do not live together or do not share a child — those in dating relationships — aren’t covered by the ban. More controversially, although abusers subject to permanent restraining orders cannot legally possess or purchase guns, no such prohibition applies in situations where only a temporary order is in place. In other words, the protections are lowest at precisely the point when women are in the greatest danger. The numbers demonstrate both the gender gap in the nature of violent crime and how deadly these loopholes may be. As to the gender gap: Women are less likely than men to be the victims of violent crime, but when they are, the perpetrator is far more likely to be someone they know. Between 2003 and 2012, one-third of female murder victims were killed by a male intimate partner, compared with 2.5 percent of men, according to figures analyzed by the Center for American Progress. More than half of these killings were committed with guns. The numbers are staggering: 6,410 deaths, slightly fewer than the total number of U.S. troops who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, according to a study by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, having a gun in the house increases the risk of intimate-partner homicide by eight times compared with households without guns — and 20-fold when there is a history of domestic violence. As to the loopholes: One study of female murder victims in 10 cities found that 76 percent of women murdered by a current or former intimate partner experienced stalking in the preceding year. The share of victims killed in dating situations is rising; nearly half of those killed by intimate partners in 2008 were murdered by boyfriends, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. And in the 17 states that have expanded gun prohibitions to those subject to temporary restraining orders, overall intimate-partner homicides fell by nearly one-fifth. Nor do violent abusers simply turn to other methods when deprived of guns; according to Michigan State University criminologist April Zeoli, prohibiting those subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having guns reduces not only firearm homicides but also murders by other means. Could confronting domestic violence be an exception to the general gridlock on gun violence? Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group co-founded by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords after the Tucson shooting, has launched an effort to push for federal and state changes. In Congress, a proposal by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that would close the stalker and boyfriend gaps just attracted a Republican co-sponsor, Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk; a companion bill in the House, by Michigan Democrat Debbie Dingell, is also backed by a Republican, Robert Dold of Illinois. A separate proposal, by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would also bar those subject to temporary restraining orders from having guns, subject to later review. Unsurprisingly, if sadly, the National Rifle Association opposes even the Klobuchar-Dingell bill, saying it would “turn disputes between family members and social acquaintances into lifetime firearm prohibitions” and “manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as ‘domestic violence’ and ‘stalking’ simply to cast as wide a net as possible for federal firearm prohibitions.” Tell that, please, to the father of a daughter murdered by her boyfriend. Tell it to the sister of a young woman killed by a man who plea-bargained his stalking offense down to a misdemeanor. Emotional manipulation? Please. At that, the NRA has no parallel. _Read more fromRuth Marcus’s archive, follow her on Twitter or subscribe to her updates on Facebook._ **Read more on this topic:** Fareed Zakaria: Change your gun laws, America The Post’s View: The argument against common-sense gun control crumbles E.J. Dionne Jr.: How America can free itself from guns Colbert I. King: I’m a gun owner. The NRA doesn’t speak for me. Charles Krauthammer: Another massacre, another charade

The Daily 202: Leftward lurch in Democratic gubernatorial primary reflects the transformation of Virginia

The Cabinet meeting was quickly lampooned by many, including the Senate’s top Democrat, in a fairly elaborate troll: And this searing critique from the Weekly Standard's editor-at-large: From acclaimed presidential biographer Jon Meacham: From Mitt Romney's chief strategist: A comment from Ivanka Trump during her Fox and Friends interview yesterday raised some eyebrows:  Senate Democrats registered their discontent that they have been shut out of health care negotiations. Many remembered the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, who were murdered one year ago yesterday: Loved ones, lawmakers and journalists wished former President George H.W. Bush a happy 93rd birthday. And a House Democrat attempted to memorialize the president's famous Twitter misspelling through legislation.             The president's children are becoming his most steadfast surrogates on television. Stephen Colbert interviewed Oliver Stone. Seth Meyers talked about Melania and Barron Trump's move to the White House--and mocked Sean Spicer in the process.

Republican women say ‘War No More,’ but the men keep shooting their mouths off

There were a couple of problems right off the bat when would-be Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina and the top Republican woman in the House, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, sat down with conservative interest groups Monday afternoon to refute the notion that the GOP is waging a “war on women.” First, there was the name of the gathering in the Capitol complex, “War No More,” which implicitly acknowledged that there _has_ been a war on women, as Democrats allege. Then there was the matter of the emcee, Penny Young Nance, the chief executive of Concerned Women for America. On Fox News last month, she criticized the children’s movie “Frozen,” of all things, for making men seem useless. She said the animated film — which features princesses and a singing snowman named Olaf — empowered women at “the cost of tearing down men” and argued that boys should be taught that “we want to raise heroes. We want to raise real men.” Next there was the question of timing. Earlier this year, House Republicans caused an uproar when, in one of the first acts of the new Congress, they attempted to pass an antiabortion bill that would grant exceptions to a rape victim only if she reported the assault to police. Republican women rebelled, and GOP leaders pulled the bill. In the weeks since then, Republican officeholders across the land have been demonstrating that if there isn’t a Republican war on women, there are a lot of loose cannons. In recent weeks, Republican state legislators have described a pregnant woman as “the child’s host” rather than a mother (in Virginia), called women a “lesser cut of meat” (South Carolina), likened Planned Parenthood to the Islamic State terror group (South Dakota), proposed legislation outlawing yoga pants (Montana) and suggested that it is not rape when a man has sex with an unconscious woman if he is in a relationship with her (Utah). To combat the war-on-women meme, the conservatives brought out some big guns: Their “War No More” backdrop was a poster of the famous photo of female World War II aviators in front of a B-17. But the conservatives lacked a consensus battle plan. Nance, the moderator, speculated that the Democrats’ war-on-women allegations from 2012 and 2014 will return. “If we actually do in 2016 see the top of the Democratic ticket as Claire Underwood, I mean Hillary Clinton — I keep getting those two mixed up — I think this is going to be back,” Nance said, referring to the fictional “House of Cards” first lady. McMorris Rodgers, whose name card spelled her name “Rogers,” chuckled at the Underwood-Clinton joke. Sabrina Schaeffer, director of the Independent Women’s Forum, said she’s concerned that the war-on-women charge “still will resonate” because “the right simply doesn’t take gender differences seriously enough.” But pollster Kellyanne Conway argued that “the war on women died in 2014.” She attributed the problem to “some over-the-top comments by a couple of Republicans running for Senate” in 2012. Alas for the GOP, the gender gap preceded Senate candidate Todd Akin, and the comments have continued since then: the Idaho legislator who asked last month whether a gynecological exam on a woman could be conducted by having her swallow a camera; the New Hampshire legislator who said a Democratic congresswoman would lose because she’s “ugly as sin”; another New Hampshire legislator who argued that men make more than women because “they don’t mind working nights and weekends” or “overtime or outdoors”; the Arizona GOP official who said women on Medicaid should be sterilized; and the New Mexico congressman who endorsed this biblical view: “The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice.” At the same time, Republicans have taken up hundreds of bills in state legislatures restricting abortion, and Democrats have sought to highlight Republican opposition in Congress to the Violence Against Women Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act and other bills. So how to disarm the war-on-women allegation? Conway suggested Republicans go beyond “waist-down” issues to talk to women about security and health care. And she said that women “really enjoy humor.” For example: her quip that she could work on a Republican presidential campaign, even though she has four kids, because “I don’t have a boyfriend.” Fiorina, by contrast, said that what women need is an end to seniority-based pay. “Feminism means we will have arrived when every woman has the opportunity to choose her own life, whether she chooses to home-school her kids or be a CEO or anything in between,” the former tech executive said. McMorris Rodgers, for her part, said the answer was “to be reminded of the greatness that Ronald Reagan had us believe in America, each one of us, and I think that has to be our message.” That probably won’t end the war — but it beats complaining about “Frozen.” **_Twitter: @Milbank_ ** _Read more fromDana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook._ ****

Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act

THE FIRST TIME Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in 2000, it expanded the reach of the law, better meeting the needs of older victims and disabled individuals. The second renewal brought programs for teen victims of domestic and sexual abuse. This year, 61 senators have co-sponsored a reauthorization that would further improve the law’s effectiveness and meet the changing needs of victims. Let’s hope that bipartisan support — a fixture in the law’s history — does not fall prey to presidential politics and the increasing stridency concerning which party best represents women’s issues. Enacted in 1994, VAWA has twice been reauthorized by Congress with unanimous Senate support. This year Senate Republicans opposed the bill in the Judiciary Committee because of provisions that extend protections to gays, lesbians, transgendered people, Native Americans and battered immigrant women. They essentially accused Democrats of using the cloak of battered women to force approval on what they see as controversial social issues. “Maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told the New York Times. Mr. Sessions and other Republicans on the committee voted for an alternative version that they characterized as a clean reauthorization without unnecessarily political provisions. A comprehensive committee report convincingly details gaps in current programs as identified by law enforcement officers, victim-service providers, judges and health-care professions. No one — gay or straight, man or woman, legal or undocumented — should be denied protections against domestic abuse or sexual violence. The proposed changes are by no means radical. They include a provision that would bar a shelter from turning away a lesbian who has been beaten by her female partner and adjustments in funding formulas to better address the needs of male victims of domestic and sexual violence. Some changes, such as increasing the number of temporary visas for battered immigrant women, are supported by law enforcement. And the need to do more to protect Native American women is supported by a regional survey by University of Oklahoma researchers that showed that three out of five Native American women had been assaulted by their spouses or partners and a nationwide survey that found that one-third of all Native American women will be raped in their lifetime. The impact of this landmark law, as Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said last week in urging its passage, has been “remarkable,” with the annual incidence of domestic violence decreasing by more than 50 percent since its passage. In addition to addressing unmet needs, the bill consolidates programs and cuts the authorization level by more than $135 million a year, to $695 million. Democrats and the White House are right to push for approval. ****

These are all of the other political glass ceilings that still haven’t been cracked

Besides the vice presidency — which has had two major-party female candidates — there are four Cabinet or designated Cabinet-level positions that have yet to be occupied by a woman. They are defense secretary, treasury secretary, secretary of veterans affairs and White House chief of staff. (There are other top government positions, such as FBI Director, director of the National Security Agency and other top intelligence jobs that have always been male. The chief justice of the United States has never been a woman.)   But their numbers are dwarfed in the reports by contenders who are male — and mostly white. Naming a Cabinet with diversity, said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, “is an opportunity for [Trump] to show that he's willing to go outside of those same white men that he has been surrounding himself with.” She notes that's particularly important because “these are the first decisions we will get to see him make about how he is going to shape his administration.” Meanwhile, 21 states have never sent a woman to the U.S. Senate. Female candidates in three of those states — Arizona, Utah and Pennsylvania — lost this year, and only one loss, of Democrat Katie McGinty's to Republican Patrick J. Toomey in Pennsylvania, was close. Three new women will join the Senate in 2017, and notably, one is biracial, one is Thailand-born, and one is Latina: Kamala Harris, Tammy Duckworth and Catherine Cortez Masto, respectively. Yet with two female senators retiring, the total comes to 21, just one more than currently serves. Walsh said progress is slow. “Part of the challenge is the pace of change is reflected in the pace of change in the number of women running. We aren't seeing big breakthroughs” in how many women run. Women fare slightly better in the House of Representatives. Only two states — Vermont and Mississippi — have never sent a woman there; Delaware will drop off that list with its election of Lisa Blunt Rochester, its first female and African American representative, this week. Meanwhile, 23 states have not yet elected a woman to be governor, and those numbers did not change this year. Walsh says the same gender stereotypes that women face about leadership in top roles such as chief executive — or the presidency — have held back the number of women in state chief executive jobs, too.  “A majority of women did pull the lever for a woman to be the chief executive of the country. For me that is a breakthrough, and hopefully it will also be meaningful for women chief executives in the states, too.”

Women make historic gains in the U.S. Senate

Women ruled the ballot boxes on Tuesday night. For the first time in history, women will hold 20 seats, a record number from the current 17, in the U.S. Senate. From Massachusetts to Hawaii, women made significant gains on a night when the war on women became a referendum. In Massachusetts, Democrat Elizabeth Warren defeated incumbent Republican Scott Brown to become the first female senator in that state’s history. In Nebraska, Republican Deb Fischer beat Democratic native son, Bob Kerrey, and became the first full-term female senator in that state. A tough race faced incumbent Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, in Missouri against Rep. Todd Akin. His words in August about a woman’s body shutting down against pregnancy during a legitimate rape came back to haunt him on Election Day. But women made history on other fronts, too. Democrat Mazie Hirono in Hawaii beat Linda Lingle to become the first Asian-American woman in the Senate. In Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin became the first openly gay U.S. senator when she beat former governor Tommy Thompson in an open seat. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, in North Dakota won against one-term U.S. Rep. Rick Berg. Berg conceded Wednesday afternoon. And what can be said about New Hampshire? Except wow. The Granite State elected an all-woman delegation on Tuesday night. The state already had two female senators – Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Kelly Ayotte – but now two Democratic women – Carol Shea-Porter and Ann McLane Kuster – will represent New Hampshire in the House of Representatives. The state also elected Maggie Hassan, who will be the country’s only female Democratic governor. That’s girl power to the nth degree. In 2012, roughly half the 33 Senate races had a viable female candidate – another record number. In two of the races, women faced off against each other (Hirono and Lingle in Hawaii; and Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who won reelection, against Republican Wendy Long in New York.) Twenty years ago, 1992 was declared the year of the woman. That’s when women won a record six Senate seats. According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers, the number of women running for Congress beat previous records in this election. “Not since the so-called ‘Year of the Woman’ in 1992 have we seen such a leap in the number of women stepping forward to contend for congressional seats,” CAWP director Debbie Walsh said earlier this fall. “Many of the same factors are in play – the crucial first election after reapportionment and redistricting, news events underscoring the need for women’s voices in policymaking, and a presidential election year generating political excitement.” With more women in Congress, men may have greater difficulty passing anti- woman bills when they have to look their female colleagues in the eye and justify their reasoning. Female senators could – and likely will – introduce more legislation that benefits women’s rights and needs. For all the gains on Tuesday night, women still want something else – a female president. Before the end of President Barack Obama’s acceptance speech, Hillary2016 was trending on Twitter. Many pundits have talked about Warren or Gillibrand possibly making a White House run. With more women in leadership positions, the vision of a female president becomes easier to imagine. When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, the idea of a female president seemed so novel. When Sen. John McCain picked then- Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate that same year, the choice seemed daring. After last night, the Oval Office seems well within reach. _An earlier version of this story misstated the number of women who will be in the Senate. It has been corrected._ _Suzi Parker is an Arkansas-based political and cultural journalist and author of “Sex in the South: Unbuckling the Bible Belt.” Follow her on Twitter at @SuziParker_

Va. GOP shouldn’t claim the diversity mantle just yet

The Republican Party of Virginia is promising to pump $100,000 into races in a bid to draw women and minorities. I hate to break it to my friends across the aisle, but while the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) paints a rosy picture of the Republican bench, the Virginia GOP has a long way to go before it can claim to be the party of “diversity.” An RSLC board member claims that “while the Democrats run mostly white men in key Virginia races this year, the Republicans’ impressive slate of qualified, conservative and diverse men and women running for the House of Delegates is reflective of where our party is today.” What? Has he looked at a single Democratic candidate running for the House, or any office for that matter? Let me first stress that diversity is not just about numbers. It’s about policies that help women, people of color and Virginia families of every socioeconomic level get ahead. But if numbers are the game the RSLC wants to play, it loses. Handily. In House races, statistics don’t lie: • Democratic women in contested seats: 17; Republican women in contested seats: 4. • Democratic people of color in contested seats: 9; Republican people of color in contested seats: 5. On the Senate side, the problem is even more dire — there was greater diversity in the Democratic primary for the 29th District Senate seat in Loudoun County than Republicans have in their entire caucus. • Democratic women in contested seats: 7; Republican women in contested seats: 3. • Democratic people of color in contested seats: 4; Republican people of color in contested seats: 0. Diversity is about more than appearance, but one glance at a picture of the respective Democratic and Republican caucuses shows how utterly upside-down it is to claim that Republicans, not Democrats, are the party of diversity. For starters, six of 67 members of the House Republican Caucus are either women or people of color. That’s 8 percent of the caucus. Women and minorities make up a majority of the House Democratic Caucus. On the Senate side, while Democrats have slightly more than half of the caucus represented by women, people of color or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, there’s only one Republican senator who is not a white male. The Republican Party consistently struggles with issues of insensitivity, from the Republican Party of Virginia chairman’s anti-Semitic joke at a rally to anti-woman and anti-immigrant insults from presidential contenders. On the policy side, the most recent General Assembly session saw Republican legislation to exclude Virginia’s “dream” children from in-state tuition and to further restrict women’s health-care decisions. Republicans continued to block expanding Medicaid to 400,000 uninsured Virginians. This last one really hits home, as the Commonwealth Fund reported that Virginia ranked second-worst among states for the number of vulnerable minorities who had to go without health care in the past year because of the high cost. And the GOP’s prized recruits want more of the same. We must always work to become more inclusive and improve the diversity of thought, background (socioeconomic and otherwise), perspective and experience. The Democratic Party is committed to that at every level of recruitment, as well as every aspect of policies and ideas the party pushes forward. The Virginia GOP wants you to look at a few candidates and forget about any of the substance or policy that the party espouses. Finding a few women and candidates of color is a nice first step. But if Virginia’s Republican Party wants to truly be the party of the future, it needs to earn it with words, actions and policies. A party isn’t diverse just because it says so. **Read more about this issue:** Catherine Rampell: In business, diversity pays Andrew Kohut: The numbers prove the Republican Party is estranged from America Harold Meyerson: In modern GOP, the old South returns Greg Sargent: The demographics of 2016 look brutal for Republicans

Can Republican senators get to 60 seats in 2018?

The GOP’s strong 2016 election showing raises a crucial question: Do Republicans have any chance of netting eight Senate seats — and a filibuster-proof majority — in 2018? The upcoming Senate class is unusually unbalanced. Only eight Republican Senate seats are up for election in 2018, compared with 25 Democratic seats (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats). Ten of those Democratic seats are in states carried by Donald Trump. By any measure, Democrats are on the defensive in the next fight for Senate control. A three-seat Democratic midterm gain, which would give the party a majority, looks virtually impossible given the seats up this cycle. A net change of eight seats would be large by historical standards but not unprecedented. Swings of at least eight Senate seats have occurred in four of the last 17 midterm elections — 1958, 1986, 1994 and 2014 — and in six of the last 34 elections (going back to 1950).  The sitting president’s party has gained Senate seats in only four of the past 17 midterms, and each time the gain has been minuscule — one seat in 1970, 1982 and 2002, and two seats in 1962. History, then, is not on the GOP’s side. But since 2016 was something of a “black swan” election and Donald J. Trump remains a wild card, it’s probably premature to dismiss the possibility that 2018 could produce another unusual outcome. The only Republican Senate seat at risk as the cycle begins is in Nevada. GOP freshman Dean Heller was elected in 2012 when he squeezed by Democrat Shelley Berkley in a photo finish, 46 percent to 45 percent. This year, Democrat Hillary Clinton carried Nevada narrowly in the presidential race, so you can bet Democrats will go after Heller with everything they have. A number of Republican senators could find themselves facing primary challenges, including Jeff Flake of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas. Utah’s Orrin Hatch may retire. But at this very early point, there is no reason to believe that any GOP-held seat other than Heller’s will be at risk, even if there are Republican retirements or messy primaries. On the other hand, five Democratic senators in the class represent states normally classified as anywhere from leaning Republican to strongly Republican: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. Two other states are pure swing states: Florida and Ohio. And three states often lean Democratic but were carried by Trump last month: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. (Both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin currently have one Republican senator.) Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) was a surprising winner in 2012 after popular veteran incumbent Richard Lugar (R) was upset in the GOP primary and the eventual Republican nominee, Richard Mourdock, stumbled through an underwhelming campaign. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) looked headed for defeat four years ago until her GOP challenger, Todd Akin, started talking about rape in a way that offended many in the Show Me State. She won reelection easily against the inept Republican. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) proved to be strong campaigners who localized their races, while Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) emphasized his conservative views on issues from guns to coal in a state that has become very Republican in federal elections. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who won by 21 points in 2012, seems like a difficult target, but Robert Casey Jr., who won by nine points, and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who beat a former GOP governor by only five points, appear to be softer incumbents. As always, the crucial question in any election is turnout — and the makeup of the electorate. That will be doubly so in 2018, since overall turnout drops during midterm elections. Midterm electorates usually look more Republican, with whites and older voters constituting a larger percentage of voters. Since Trump won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote by more than two percentage points and 2.8 million votes, his victory was all about the combination of states he won. If he can energize his supporters in normally swing states and even Democratic-leaning states he carried this year, he could have a huge impact on the Senate midterm elections. Since the president-elect is still weeks from being sworn in, it’s impossible to know how he will be viewed in 2018. If he is widely seen as successful, he could turn out to be a considerable asset for Republican Senate hopefuls in states with competitive contests. If he is seen as a disappointment, or worse, voters will use the midterm elections to send a message of dissatisfaction to him and his party. In that case, Trump would be an albatross around the neck of Republican nominees in states that he was not expected to carry in 2016, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, as well as in states where the Republican label is not a disadvantage. Trump voters’ strong commitment to the president-elect suggests that they’ll stand by him over the next two years. He has shown an ability to blame others (the media, Democrats, etc.) when he gets into political trouble, and that could help him rally supporters in 2018, even if his job approval numbers are relatively weak and a majority of Americans are unhappy with the direction of the country. Election cycles invariably look very different when they begin and when they end. Retirements, primary fights and results, political events in the nation’s capital, and economic and foreign-policy developments all impact voters. We simply can’t know what voters will be thinking 23 months from now. Nevertheless, the Senate already bears watching — not to see whether Democrats can retake the body in 2018, which seems unlikely now, but to see whether Republicans can strengthen their hold on the Senate and strengthen the hand of President Trump.

Four letters the GOP has shied away from after Orlando: LGBT

After a tragedy, it's expected of members of Congress to issue statements. Most offer condolences or thoughts and prayers. Some register an immediate call for political action of one kind or another. And after the Orlando massacre on Sunday, Republicans and Democrats immediately disagreed on that course of action, with Democrats focusing on guns and the GOP on terrorism.  This was a tragedy, of course, that occurred at a gay nightclub. Whether the shooter was motivated by homophobia is something that investigators are still trying to determine. Omar Mateen is reported to have visited gay chat rooms, used gay dating apps and even frequented the club where he killed 49 people, Pulse.  On Thursday, Trump even argued the LGBT community "is starting to like Donald Trump." But the Republican Party more broadly has just demonstrated how much less certain it is about invoking those four letters. And perhaps nothing is more illustrative of that than the Republican National Committee itself.  By Monday, that sentence was gone:  You can tell a lot about politicians not just by the causes they advocate, but by the issues they talk about at all and the words they use to do so. In the aftermath of the Orlando mass shooting, Democrats were quick to embrace an LGBT community that has embraced them at the ballot box. Republicans, though, continue to find themselves conflicted between a socially conservative base and a country that is moving quickly to the left on issues such as gay marriage and even acceptance of LGBT people more broadly.

The top 10 Senate races of 2016 — now featuring more Trump!

This is the first ranking of our Senate races since Donald Trump became Republicans' de facto nominee. It's the moment Senate Democrats have been waiting for -- the chance to pin down vulnerable Republican incumbents as supportive of a guy who calls some Mexican immigrants rapists, who wants to ban Muslims from immigrating to this country temporarily and who has made many derogatory comments about women.  Eight of the top 10 races we think are likely to change parties are Republican-held. In two of Republicans' rare offensive opportunities this cycle -- in Colorado and Nevada -- the party is mired in primaries. Meanwhile, Democrats got their preferred candidate through a tough primary last month in Pennsylvania, and their preferred choice in Florida is ahead by double digits. As a result, at least five of the races below are toss-ups, which means the Senate majority is very much in-play. And Senate Democrats are confident that if it's a jump ball on election night -- especially with Trump at the top of Republicans' ticket -- they'll win the tip. We shall see. For now, all these races and then some are worth keeping an eye on: To the line! (As usual, No. 1 on this list is the most likely to switch parties, and the races are ranked from there.)

A witness for the GOP gender gap

If the gender gap becomes a chasm that swallows Republicans this fall, it will be no fluke. It will, however, have something to do with Sandra Fluke. She’s the Georgetown University law student who was blocked by chairman Darrell Issa from testifying about contraception before his House government- reform committee this month. The result was an embarrassment of a panel in which five men testified against an administration plan to expand birth control coverage. Now Democrats are turning Fluke into a feminist martyr. On Thursday, the student was surrounded by dozens of cameras as she sat before a pseudo- committee chaired by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a rump session designed entirely to exploit the Republicans’ mistake. “Following your rejection by the Republicans from the panel,” Pelosi declared, “we’ve heard from over 300,000 people saying we want women’s voices to be heard.” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) went an order of magnitude higher. “You certainly speak for millions,” he said. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)revised that further. “I know you’re speaking for tens of millions of women,” she informed Fluke. “Can you think of any reason why [Issa] would be so adamant that your voice should not be heard?” “Chairman Issa’s head,” the young woman replied, “is somewhere I don’t want to go.” It is tempting to speculate that Issa’s head contains some regret that his hearing, which was supposed to be about an assault on religious freedom by President Obama, instead became a symbol of Republicans trying to take the pill away from women. This is not a good position for Republicans. In a poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University, voters by 82 percent to 12 percent said it is not wrong to use birth control. Most Republicans say they have no interest in banning contraception and are focused on the narrower question of whether religious organizations should be forced to provide it. But judging from the reporters standing in the aisles to hear Fluke (the House Recording Studio’s refusal to broadcast the pseudo-hearing generated even more media attention), Republicans are losing the perception war. “We almost ought to thank the chairman [Issa] for the, shall we say, lack of judgment that he had to arouse, to raise the awareness,” Pelosi said at the session, “because it’s been very hard over the years to convince people that the fight here has been about contraception.” Actually, Pelosi might want to consider getting a bulk pack of thank-you cards. She should address some to Gov. Bob McDonnell and Republican legislators in Virginia who finally backed down from a much-ridiculed attempt to require women seeking an abortion to submit to an invasive “trans-vaginal ultrasound” probe. Cards should also be sent to GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who believes that contraception hurts women, objects to the Supreme Court’s protection of birth control, complains about “radical feminists” encouraging women to work outside of the home and doubts the worth of having women in combat. This all has the potential to widen the gender gap in Democrats’ favor. A Pew Research Center poll this month found that men, by 54 percent to 40 percent, favored the birth-control exemption for religious groups, while only 42 percent of women favored it, with 48 percent opposed. Democrats are doing all they can to cement their advantage among women. They packed Thursday’s hearing with friendly spectators and displayed a poster-size photo of the men testifying at Issa’s hearing. The 24-year-old Fluke spoke with poise as she described a friend at Georgetown who was taking birth-control pills to control ovarian cysts but had to stop because the cost was too high. “She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result,” Fluke said. “She’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause.” Cummings invited her to comment on Issa’s description of her as an “energized” college student lacking qualifications. “Well, I will confirm that I was energized,” Fluke said. As for her qualifications, “I’m an American woman who uses contraception. . . . That makes me qualified to talk to my elected officials about my health-care needs.” It was just the spectacle the lawmakers had planned. “If we had gone to central casting to find a representative to speak for American women,” Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) told Fluke, “we could not have done better than you.” Moments later, the lawmakers joined the audience in the unusual act of standing to applaud a witness. It was quite a performance. The question is why Republicans keep giving their opponents so many opportunities to put on a show. **_danamilbank@washpost _ ** **More from PostOpinions:** Rachel Maddow: The GOP war on birth control Ruth Marcus: Santorum’s birth-control flip-flop Kathleen Parker: The trials of Saint Santorum Michael Gerson: Obama’s epic birth-control blunder

In Virginia, Republican-led committee kills transgender ‘bathroom bill’

RICHMOND — A Virginia lawmaker blasted fellow Republicans as cowards Thursday for rejecting his bill to regulate the use of bathrooms and locker rooms in schools, highway rest stops and other government-owned buildings. “You campaign one way and come down here and kill things silently,” Del. Robert G. Marshall (Prince William) fumed at members of a GOP-controlled House subcommittee after they used an unrecorded voice vote to dispatch with his bill. He said their actions were “disgusting.” Marshall had proposed legislation similar to what passed with great controversy in North Carolina last year. His bill would have required people to use the restroom that corresponds with the gender on their original birth certificates. He softened the measure somewhat as the House General Laws subcommittee took it up in an afternoon hearing, proposing an amendment to strike the word “original” from the legislation. The amendment would have allowed those who undergo sex-reassignment therapy or surgery and who have their birth certificates changed to reflect that to use the bathroom associated with their gender identity. “If someone goes through the process of changing their sex — I don’t think it’s very smart because such people have very high rates of self-harm. That’s documented, not from me,” he said. “But if they go through that, fine. Let them use that bathroom.” Marshall said the purpose of the bill was to protect women and girls from predatory men who might pretend to be transgender to gain access to areas where women are undressed. Dubbing his bill the “Physical Privacy Act,” Marshall bristled at its more common description as the “bathroom bill.” He said his main concern was not bathrooms, where stalls provide a measure of privacy, but public locker rooms, where women could be forced to undress and shower in full view of men who claim to be transgender. A handful of conservative and liberal activists testified for and against the measure. Then, with no discussion among the subcommittee’s five Republicans and two Democrats, Del. Barry D. Knight (R-Virginia Beach) moved to lay the bill on the table. The action kills the bill unless the subcommittee reverses itself within a week’s time, Marshall said. One member, Del. Thomas C. Wright Jr. (R-Lunenburg), raised a finger in a manner that seemed to indicate he opposed the motion. The vote tally was unrecorded, as is typical for voice votes. Subcommittee members continued with their meeting after the vote and were not immediately available for comment. “They don’t even want to defend their oath,” Marshall said later. “That’s disgusting.” Marshall had never expected the bill would become law, at least not under Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), who had vowed to veto it if it got to his desk. But he hoped to pressure Republican leaders to let it get to the floor of the House. One of the most vocal conservatives in the General Assembly, Marshall has often accused Republican leaders of killing his social-issue bills to avoid controversy. _An earlier version of this article erroneously reported that Marshall used the word “disgusting” to describe the legislators, rather than their actions. The story has been corrected and updated._

Loretta Lynch stays in limbo as Senate prepares to take up other matters

The Senate had two things to do this week — pass a bill cracking down on sex slavery, and vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be attorney general — and it did neither of them. So barring an eleventh-hour weekend compromise, Lynch, who would become the first black woman to serve as attorney general, will wait until at least mid-April before a confirmation vote is held, extending an unusually long wait that Democrats have tried to turn to their political advantage by portraying the delay as tied to Lynch’s race and gender. At a Wednesday event at the Capitol, female senators and activists framed the holdup as part of a Republican “war on women,” while nearby on the Senate floor, the second-ranking Democrat said Lynch is being “asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar” — an unmistakable reference to civil rights icon Rosa Parks. But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) showed no sign of caving to Democrats’ demands, announcing his intention Thursday to move on to the federal budget on Monday, thus pushing back the Lynch nomination until after a two-week recess set to begin Thursday. In separate interviews Friday, President Obama and Eric H. Holder Jr., the sitting attorney general, called on Republicans to act. “This is our top law enforcement office,” Obama told the Huffington Post. “Nobody denies that she’s well-qualified. We need to go ahead and get her done.” Said Holder to MSNBC, “The notion that we would be here, where we are deadlocked about a woman who is unbelievably qualified . . . is almost inconceivable to me.” Adding to the pressure to confirm Lynch was Rudy Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York who, like Lynch, served as a federal prosecutor. “Republicans torture Democrats, Democrats torture Republicans, and who started it, only God knows,” Giuliani said Friday, lamenting the confirmation process in a conference call with reporters. “And it’s now become the Hatfields and McCoys, and I think it’s really depriving us of good people in government.” In this case, the Democrats have in large part tortured themselves. Democratic leaders in the Senate have admitted they could have moved on the nomination during the lame-duck session after the November election, when they still held the majority. Instead, they chose to focus on confirming judges to lifetime appointments. The more recent obstacle has been the Democrats’ failure to address a controversial antiabortion provision tucked into an otherwise innocuous bill addressing human trafficking before it reached the floor. McConnell is delaying the Lynch nomination until the anti-trafficking bill is completed as leverage to break the Democratic opposition to the abortion language. “Democrats decided to yank their support for an anti-slavery bill for one simple reason: Because far-left lobbyists said they needed to, not because the American people said so,” McConnell said Thursday. Later in the day, senators floated compromises aimed at breaking the deadlock that has gummed up the upper chamber’s floor for nearly two weeks, but key players have stopped short of embracing any deal. The antiabortion language, a version of the “Hyde amendment” that has long been attached to appropriations bills, would prevent a new compensation fund for trafficking victims from being used for abortions. Democrats cried foul, arguing that those who have been forced into the sex trade in particular should not be subject to such restrictions. And they said the anti-trafficking bill would extend the abortion restriction to “non-taxpayer funds” — in this case, fines from convicted traffickers — for the first time. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the bill’s lead author and the majority whip, suggested Thursday that the abortion provision could be left in the bill but the fund could be made “subject to appropriations” to overcome Democratic objections. “Now that we’ve made a proposal to them to give them what they’ve asked for and still preserve the 39-year limitation on the use of public dollars for abortion,” Cornyn said, “can they take yes for an answer?” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Cornyn fix “does not solve the problem” and suggested the Senate take up a House bill that passed last year that avoided the abortion debate entirely by authorizing the victims fund through standard taxpayer revenue rather than tapping offender fines. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) came to the Senate floor late Thursday afternoon with a solution along those lines. Their amendment does not include any specific antiabortion language, but it makes the victims fund subject to appropriations — and hence application of the standard Hyde amendment. Cornyn said he was not inclined to completely remove the antiabortion provision from the bill, even if it is all but certain to be applied during appropriations. And a leading Democrat, Patty Murray of Washington, also threw cold water on the compromise, saying, “I will not support an alternative that expands harmful restrictions on women’s reproductive rights, including this latest proposal.” A third consecutive day of votes to break the Democratic filibuster failed Thursday, with Republicans two short of the 60 votes necessary to close debate and move forward. Before the Senate adjourned, Cornyn said that if no compromise was reached Thursday, discussions would continue through the weekend. If enough senators agree to move forward with the anti-trafficking bill, it and the Lynch nomination could conceivably be brought to a vote late Monday by unanimous consent, leaving enough time to take up the budget before the recess. Lynch’s confirmation is not assured, largely because of her defense of Obama’s executive actions on immigration.Several GOP senators — including mainstream conservatives such as Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee — said this week they would oppose the confirmation for that reason. On Friday, Giuliani and former FBI director Louis Freeh, who served presidents of both parties, said they were lobbying Republican senators to back Lynch, whom they hailed as a well-qualified nominee and a distinguished prosecutor. “Look, the nomination is being held up for political reasons,” Freeh said. “The fact of the matter is, she supports the immigration policy of the president. What nominee would come before the Senate for the attorney generalship who did not support the policy of the president?” Obama, in the Huffington Post interview, declined to join the suggestions that race and gender bias might figure into the delay. “I don’t know about that,” he said, instead pointing to “Senate dysfunction” and GOP “stubbornness.” Holder, speaking to MSNBC, blamed “D.C. politics, Washington at its worst.” Added Obama, “The irony is, of course, that the Republicans really dislike Mr. Holder. If they really want to get rid of him, the best way to do it is to go ahead and get Loretta Lynch confirmed.”

Maryland man arrested in transgender woman’s killing in D.C.

A Maryland man was arrested Thursday in the July killing of a transgender woman in Northeast Washington, police said. On July 4, 22-year-old Deeniqua Dodds, born Gregory Dodds, was shot in the 200 block of Division Avenue NE. She died July 13. Dodds’s killing drew attention as some wondered whether she was targeted because of her gender and whether the slaying was a hate crime. Police announced that they arrested Shareem Hall, 22, of District Heights, Md., in Dodds’s killing. He was charged with first-degree felony murder, police said. “The arrest was swift in this case and the motive appears to be robbery,” D.C.’s interim police chief, Peter Newsham, said at an afternoon news conference on his first day since former police chief Cathy L. Lanier’s departure. Newsham said it did not appear that Dodds, who was a sex worker, and Hall knew each other. He did not explain how Hall was linked to the crime. Asia Baker, a friend of Dodds’s who was at the news conference, described her as an extrovert. “It’s a shame she had to lose her life this way, but we are happy that she can probably rest in peace now,” Baker said. However, Baker did say some were skeptical that Dodds was not targeted because of her gender. “The ‘T’ is very silent in LGBT,” said Bela Muney, another friend of Dodds’s. “They slide us under the rug. Most of our crimes go cold.” Dodds is not the only transgender person slain in the D.C. area this year. In April, a transgender woman was killed in a hotel in Rockville.

Katrina vanden Heuvel: A new ‘Year of the Woman’?

A little more than 20 years ago, Anita Hill sat before a panel of 14 U.S. senators, all male, who aggressively questioned her claim that she had been sexually harassed by then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. As the nation watched the hearings, riveted and repulsed, one Washington state senator couldn’t help but ask herself: “Who’s saying what I would say if I was there?” The answer? No one — there were only two women in the Senate at the time and neither was on the Judiciary Committee. And so, in 1992, Patty Murray, the self-proclaimed “mom in tennis shoes,” laced up and ran for U.S. Senate. The Anita Hill effect spawned the “Year of the Woman,” when 19 women won seats in the House, and four women, including Murray, won in the Senate. Two decades later, a slew of Republican attacks on women, women’s health and women’s economic futures might just turn 2012 into another “Year of the Woman.” To understand why, it’s worth recapping this year’s parade of anti-women horrors. News broke in late January that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer foundation would stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings for low-income women. After facing the wrath of its supporters for politicizing women’s health — while Planned Parenthood was showered with donations — Komen quickly reversed its decision. In February, House Republicans organized a hearing on access to contraception— but neglected to invite any women to testify. In a stunning echo of the Anita Hill moment, a group of five men, mostly religious clergy, shared their “expertise” about the issue. And when Georgetown Law student and women’s health advocate Sandra Fluke protested being left off the panel, Rush Limbaugh hurled crude and cruel comments at her. The same day, Foster Friess, a major supporter of Rick Santorum’s presidential bid, told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that he didn’t understand the fuss over insurance coverage for contraception. “Back in my days, they’d use Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly,” he said, leaving Mitchell speechless on live television. Also in February, the Virginia House of Delegates tried to pass a measure requiring women to undergo a medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion— a procedure that is exactly as invasive as it sounds. After a nationwide uproar, legislators passed a scaled-back, but equally unnecessary and insulting, ultrasound bill, which Republican governor Bob McDonnell signed into law. The kicker came in August, when Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin said in a TV interview, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing [pregnancy] down.” Many top Republicans initially distanced themselves from Akin and his false, degrading remark. But he called their bluff, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee recently suggested that it will likely back his campaign against Democratic senator Claire McCaskill. The Republican establishment’s revived support of Akin isn’t surprising. This is a party whose convention platform called for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, with no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. In stark contrast, Democrats held one of the most pro-women conventions in history. Besides Michelle Obama, the Democrats featured as speakers Cecile Richards, Sandra Fluke, Sister Simone Campbell, Tammy Baldwin, Donna Edwards, Jennifer Granholm, Elizabeth Warren and more, and the convention platform stood up for women’s health, women’s rights and women’s economic futures. The more openly feminist convention increased enthusiasm among the women voters that Democrats rely on, driving President Obama’s post-convention bounce. Meanwhile, the Republican convention skirted the fact that Mitt Romney has been, as Sen. Edward Kennedy famously said, “multiple choice” on abortion. Republicans didn’t mention Paul Ryan’s co-sponsorship of Todd Akin’s personhood bill. And Ann Romney, the convention’s ambassador to women, was unable to rise above platitudes. No wonder there’s a sizable gender gap in this election. In Ohio, a recent poll found 60 percent of likely female voters favored Obama, compared to 35 percent for Romney. In Virginia, Obama holds a 19-point lead among women voters. And women in Pennsylvania support Obama by 21 points over Romney. Many of the most exciting Senate races are being waged by progressive Democratic women — Warren in Massachusetts, Baldwin in Wisconsin, Mazie Hirono in Hawaii, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota. These Democrats can win if they support women’s health while also safeguarding the social safety net. “Social issues matter in the gender gap,” Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center recently told NPR, “but the real big dividing lines are what government should be doing for the poor, the elderly, and the size of the safety net.” Mitt Romney’s callous dismissal of 47 percent of Americans might be just as damaging to the party as Todd Akin’s views on rape. As polling in this election suggests, good, fair, progressive policies can be good politics — for women, for Democrats and for the country. President Obama will only win if the gender gap holds. Democrats will only hang onto the Senate if candidates such as Warren and Baldwin win. And a focus on women’s economic needs could result in the biggest surprise of all – Democrats retaking the House of Representatives. If women voters have their way, 2012 will be more than another “Year of the Woman.” It will be a year in which Americans — members of both the 47 and the 53 percent — reject the GOP’s “you’re on your own” economics, and affirm a commitment to one another for a shared, fair, and healthy future. **Read more from Opinions:** Eugene Robinson: Todd Akin’s comment brings ‘war on women’ back to prominence The Post’s View: How is denying health services to the poor ‘a win for women’? Christopher H. Smith: The real war on women Kathleen Parker: Laura Bush’s fight for women

At vigil, transgender homicide victim’s family urges hate-crime prosecution

One year after being killed in Northeast Washington, JaParker Jones is missed so much that the victim’s younger sisters often sleep in Jones’s bed to feel their sibling’s presence. Jones’s family said the pain of the loss is increased by the absence of a hate-crime charge against the suspect. Jones, 23, was a transgender person. “We’re seeking justice. Presently, justice is not forthcoming,” Alvin Bethea, Jones’s stepfather, said at a vigil held Saturday on the anniversary of the killing. Jones, 23, who identified as a female and went by the names Deoni and Logan, was stabbed in the 4900 block of East Capitol Street NE last Feb. 2. Gary N. Montgomery has been charged with murder in the death, but officials have found no clear motive for the attack. In an interview, Bethea said the family believes that Jones’s transgender identity led to the stabbing. The family plans to call on federal officials to take over the prosecution, he said. “We do believe the elements of a hate crime are present,” Bethea said. In a statement, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District declined to discuss specifics citing the ongoing prosecution. But spokesman Bill Miller said prosecutors are “committed to pursuing hate/bias enhancements when investigations warrant.” About 75 people, including Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) and D.C. Council members Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7) and David A. Catania (I-At Large), stood in the cold Saturday to mourn Jones and to speak against hate attacks. Gray urged the filing of impact statements with his office to go to prosecutors in such cases to help ensure that “the punishment fits the crime” when “a heinous act like this is committed.” Activists for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community have often criticized the District’s response to hate-motivated attacks. Jones, who had worked at a sandwich shop and a hair salon, was remembered as smiling, loving and giving. Jones’s stepfather said Jones had planned to provide home care for the aged. Jones’s mother, Judean Jones, and sisters Jaylin, 16, and Jaquander, 22, sobbed silently. Alexander asked that Jones’s loving spirit be used to combat hate. Catania said the death was clearly a hate crime. “There is no other explanation,” he said.

Virginia journalists shot were the seventh and eighth killed in the U.S. since 1992

A television reporter and news videographer were shot and killed Wednesday during a live report in southwest Virginia, sparking a manhunt in the region.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The two people who were killed — Alison Parker, a 24-year-old reporter, and Adam Ward, a 27-year-old cameraman and videographer — became the seventh and eighth journalists killed in the United States while working or for reasons related to their work since 1992, according to records kept by the Committee to Protect Journalists. They are the first journalists believed to be killed since Chauncey Bailey, a newspaper editor in Oakland, was shot and killed in 2007 on his way to work. Bailey, 57, was the editor of the Oakland Post, a black weekly newspaper.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Authorities said that the suspected gunman in Wednesday’s killings, Vester Lee Flanagan, is believed to be a disgruntled employee of the news station where Parker and Ward worked. _[What we know about the shooting of two journalists in southwest Virginia]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico At least 39 journalists have been killed around the world this year for reasons related to their work, according to the committee. Eleven other journalists have been killed for reasons that may have been work-related, but that has not been confirmed, the committee noted. “We do not yet know the motive of the attack that killed Alison Parker and Adam Ward, but we do know that being a journalist is potentially dangerous anywhere in the world,” Carlos Lauría, senior coordinator for the committee’s Americas program, said in a statement Wednesday. “We condemn this fatal shooting and send our condolences to the journalists’ families and colleagues.” The Committee to Protect Journalists keeps records of journalists killed in work-related situations or journalists who die in circumstances where their work may have been related. So their database does not include the death of Charnice Milton, a reporter for neighborhood publications in Washington, D.C., who was killed in May while heading to a bus after a routine work assignment.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _[Live updates on the Virginia shooting]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Worldwide, the most dangerous country for journalists so far in 2015 has been France, in large part due to the January shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a weekly newspaper. The other deadliest countries are South Sudan and Syria, according to a database kept by the Committee to Protect Journalists.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Since 1992, the year the committee began compiling records on such deaths, more than 1,140 journalists have been killed around the world. Deaths of journalists in the United States have been rare. In 1992, a former magazine editor named Manuel de Dios Unanue was shot and killed in a New York City restaurant. The following year, Dona St. Plite, a reporter and commentator in Miami, was killed. In 2001, two journalists were killed. William Biggart, a freelance photographer who died after rushing to the World Trade Center to cover the Sept. 11 attacks. Robert Stevens, a photo editor in Boca Raton, Fla., died the following month after inhaling anthrax.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico James Edwin Richards, who edited an e-mail newsletter covering crime in Venice, Calif., was shot near his home in 2000, though authorities were not sure about a motive, so the committee said it had not determined if his work was related to his death.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “I am horrified by the fatal shooting of reporter Alison Parker and videographer Adam Ward in Moneta, Va., as they went about their jobs serving their community today,” John Hughes, president of the National Press Club, said in a statement Wednesday. Hughes called the shooting “a sad and tragic reminder that journalists both abroad and closer to home put their safety at risk each day.” _This post has been updated._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

GOP finds its own ‘War on Women’

In 2012, Democrats' constant refrain that the Republican party was in the midst of a "war on women" left the GOP -- all the way up to presidential nominee Mitt Romney -- exasperated at what they called a gross mischaracterization. Now Republicans are embracing the term as a way of reminding voters of Democratic men who have cheated, sexted, and harassed. In e-mails, press releases and tweets, the Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee are highlighting a "war on women" waged by San Diego Mayor Bob Filner (harassment), New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner (sexting), and former New York governor Eliot Spitzer (prostitutes). Mentioned less often but still on the list: New York State Assemblyman Vito Lopez (harassment) and Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen (mistakenly thinking he had a daughter, calling a reporter "very attractive") among others.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University "The best tools we have as Republicans to recruit women candidates this cycle are three Democrats named Bob Filner, Eliot Spitzer, and Anthony Weiner," said NRCC spokeswoman Andrea Bozek. Democrats cry foul, arguing that their "war on women" was based in policy, not personal failings. Moreover, they say, Republicans have cheaters, johns, and alleged harassers in their own ranks: South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, Sen. David Vitter, former presidential candidate Herman Cain. "This shows Republicans are still completely ignorant about their unpopular policies with regard to women," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Matt Canter (Republicans argue that pushback from Democrats is a sign that they don't take these scandals seriously enough.)      *[WSU]: Wayne State University So is turnabout fair play for Republicans when it comes to the "war on women"? President Obama enjoyed a significant advantage with female voters last fall, but the same was true in 2008 -- prior to the anti-woman narrative pushed by his party. The "war on women" may have had more impact in Senate races; both Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.) beat Republican opponents in 2012 after Democrats highlighted the GOP candidates' comments about rape. But Weiner is likely to lose his primary. Democrats in San Diego are trying to push Filner out. Spitzer might win his race, but he'll be comptroller of New York City -- not exactly a hugely high profile gig. No one on this list is a top Republican target in 2014. Cohen, for example, is up for reelection but his Memphis-based seat is safely Democratic and his only threat is in a primary.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Republicans' hope that all of this will reflect badly on Democrats nationally and not just in those districts or states where the male elected official has been behaving badly. There's no polling on whether these scandals have had any impact on views of the Democratic Party and women, however. Democrats have long enjoyed a substantial edge in when it comes to perceptions of which side is more attuned to issues women prioritize. In a 2012 Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans said the Democratic Party cared more than the GOP about issues important to women by a 55 percent to 30 percent margin. Even one in four Republicans said so. In early 2000, in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the gap was tilted even more in Democrats' favor, 58 percent to 24 percent. Bill Clinton himself remains an incredibly popular Democratic campaigner. The whole GOP campaign may well be designed more for media consumption than for massive impact, however. As they disparage Democrats, Republicans are trying to bring some attention to Project GROW, an NRCC-led effort to recruit more female candidates.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University If Republicans make inroads with female voters next fall, it will have more to do with that effort than this war. **Fixbits:**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) won't run for the Senate. Neither will EMILY's List head Stephanie Shriock (D).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University But Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) is considering it.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Obama asked Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain to travel to Egypt.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University A government shutdown wouldn't be so bad, says Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) has dubbed her Senate campaign "Team Switch."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University A spokeswoman for Weiner apologized for a vulgar tirade.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Paul vs. Christie just keeps going.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Edward Snowden's father speaks out.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Citizens United is out with a film critical of Virginia Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Filner is being sued by the city he heads.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University **Must-reads:**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University "Obama’s plan to link corporate tax reform, jobs spending is quickly rejected by GOP" \-- Zachary A. Goldfarb and David Nakamura, Washington Post    *[WSU]: Wayne State University "As new EPA chief, Gina McCarthy vows to act on climate change" \-- Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post    *[WSU]: Wayne State University

The GOP has decided it must expand the concept of transgender

Five points Sessions should consider as he fights for his political life

Here is why:   Third, Trump should want Sessions out of the way. With Sessions sidelined, presumably his acting deputy would take over. Dana J. Boente was previously acting attorney general. He was originally nominated by President Obama in 2015, and confirmed as the 60th U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The public might be well served by such a figure leading the investigation, but Trump might prefer his own attorney general. Moreover, Sessions’s Nos. 2 and 3 picks (Rod Rosenstein for deputy attorney general and Rachel Brand for associate attorney general) have not yet had confirmation hearings, and their chance of getting through the Senate is low given the impending scandal. The Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for Rosenstein and Brand on March 7, which surely will become a feeding frenzy if Sessions is still in office.   This is significant both because it undermines Sessions’s story and because it comes from a source within Trump’s orbit. Perhaps these are signs telling him it is time to go.

Few Republicans mention LGBT community in Orlando reactions

In the first hours since the mass shooting at Orlando's Pulse nightclub, Democratic politicians have been far more likely than Republicans to note that the target seemed to be the LGBT community.  The differences were stark in the reactions from the two parties' respective leaders in Congress. In a tweet, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) referred generally to "the victims" of the shooting. In a statement released around the same time, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) repeatedly mentioned the LGBT community. "While many questions have yet to be answered, the pain of this attack in a mainstay of the Orlando LGBT community is surely magnified as our nation celebrates LGBT Pride month," she said. Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did not mention the LGBT community in his reaction. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) did, saying "that this act of hate occurred at an LGBT mainstay during LGBT Pride Month makes it all the more horrific." Neither Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) or Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) — all members of key national security committees — mentioned the LGBT aspect. In Florida, for much of the day, Republicans avoided the topic while Democrats jumped in. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), who represents much of Orlando, reacted with a token of LGBT solidarity. Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), whose 10th District covers some of Orlando's suburbs, made no such connection. Jimmy LaSalvia, a longtime Republican strategist and founder of the defunct LGBT group GOProud, said that the reaction to Orlando reminded him of why he left the party. “For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians," Cruz said. "ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it. Every human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn’t share their faith or sexual orientation. If you’re a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder." Finally, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who flew from his Miami home to Orlando on Sunday morning, addressed the threat to LGBT people at a news conference. Rubio, who is under new pressure from fellow Republicans to run for reelection to his Senate seat, linked the intolerance for gay people seen in extremist Islam to the events in Orlando. "That he targeted a location frequented by members of our LGBT community — my gut tells me that it had something to do with it as well," said Rubio. "It's part of their warped ideology, the idea that you kill people whose lifestyles you don't like."

Republicans’ Benghazi goose chase comes up empty

ON THE night of Sept. 11 and morning of Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers in Benghazi, Libya, came under attack by terrorists armed with automatic weapons, mortars and fuel to start fires. By the next morning, four brave Americans lay dead — Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; his aide, Sean Smith; and two former Navy SEALs providing security, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. It was a horrific crime whose perpetrators remain for the most part unidentified and unpunished — and a setback for U.S. foreign policy in the wider Middle East. As if all of that weren’t bad enough, the Benghazi attacks mutated into yet another of the partisan dramas that U.S. politicians — in this case Republican politicians — generate in lieu of constructive policymaking. Unable to turn the events to their advantage when they occurred, during the 2012 election campaign, Republicans have persisted in attempting to milk the “scandal” for the past four years. They have done so even though repeated previous investigations — including by a GOP-led House intelligence panel — found nothing to contradict the Obama administration’s basic account. Diplomatic security, intelligence and other preparation were inadequate in hindsight; but the violence in Benghazi was over before any effective U.S. military intervention could have been organized. Government failures before, during and after the attacks, such as they were, resulted from a combination of understandable confusion and good-faith mistakes — not conspiracy, coverup, politics or deliberate “abandonment” of U.S. personnel, as the Republican right has so often and so feverishly insinuated. And now, after two years and  $7 million, comes Tuesday’s final report of a Republican-led House select committee, which adds exactly nothing substantial to the story. It’s true that the panel’s investigation did, along the way, help trigger the revelation of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, which is a real issue. On the most sensitive point, however — Ms. Clinton’s personal culpability for what happened in Benghazi — the committee came up empty. Its report contains dozens of pages on the now- famous early statements from the administration implying the attacks were motivated by Arab-world reaction to an anti-Islamic video on the Internet. But even this exhaustive review produces no proof that this messaging resulted from a politically motivated attempt to play down terrorism, as opposed to a genuine factual dispute among State Department and CIA officials, compounded by faulty verbal formulations by then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and other hastily briefed administration spokesmen. There’s much to be learned from the fiasco in Benghazi and from the wider breakdown in Libya that followed the U.S.-aided overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi in 2011. President Obama did contribute to this mess by his refusal to support the new postGaddafi government’s attempt to build security; he and his administration, Ms. Clinton included, can rightly be held accountable for this mistaken policy. Yet for reasons best known only to themselves, Republicans have insisted on pursuing their own more inflammatory and conspiratorial version of events. Maybe someone should investigate that. **Read more on this topic:** Dana Milbank: Trey Gowdy injects Benghazi into the 2016 campaign The Post’s View: The GOP’s unfortunate Benghazi hearing The Post’s View: Benghazi debunked

That time the Senate denied Jeff Sessions a federal judgeship over accusations of racism

Back in 1986, Sessions was a 39-year-old U.S. attorney for Alabama when President Ronald Reagan's administration nominated him to serve as a federal judge. The position requires approval from the Senate. And as Sessions settled in for review by the Senate Judiciary Committee, his career in law was almost destroyed when former colleagues brought forward troubling accusations about things Sessions had said to them with regard to race. This Tuesday morning, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate committee reviewing Sessions's nomination, read a letter from more than 1,000 legal scholars at law schools across the country who questioned whether Sessions had changed since the Senate committee rejected his nomination for a federal judgeship. Sessions was adamant "This caricature of me from 1986 was not correct," Sessions responded, running down his efforts as U.S. attorney in Alabama to integrate schools, prosecute members of the Ku Klux Klan and shut down gerrymandering based on race. Of questions his critics raised about how he handled a voter rights case and prosecution of Klansmen convicted of killing a black teenager when he was U.S. attorney in the 1980s, he said: "I conducted myself honorably and properly.... I did not harbor the kind of animosity and race-based discrimination ideas that I was accused of. I did not!” The allegation that Sessions has said racially insensitive things has haunted him throughout his career. The accusations back in 1986 mostly came from (but were not limited to) Sessions's former deputy, Thomas Figures. He sent a letter to the Senate and reporters claiming his boss said insensitive things about black people, at times directly to him. Figures, who is black, said Sessions told him to be careful about what he said ''to white folks” after Figures got into a heated argument with a white colleague. And Figures testified Sessions called him “boy” on multiple occasions. Figures also said Sessions had joked about the Ku Klux Klan, saying he thought its members were “okay, until he learned that they smoked marijuana.” A Justice Department lawyer, J. Gerald Hebert, testified that Sessions had described the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union as “un-American” and “Communist-inspired.” As he has his whole career, Sessions vigorously denied that he had or has any racial prejudice. Though he didn't specifically deny making any of the comments ascribed to him, Sessions told the Senate committee he had been quoted out of context.  “I am not the Jeff Sessions my detractors have tried to create,” Sessions testified. “I am not a racist. I am not insensitive to blacks.”  Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), then the leading Democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the New York Times that after hearing Sessions's accusers out, his prospects for a nomination were “bleak” and Sessions appeared unfit for a federal judgeship.  Sessions returned home, defeated but not destroyed. He went on to become attorney general of Alabama in 1994, and just two years later he was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he has been ever since. He is quite popular in his home state: In subsequent reelections, Sessions has never won with less than 59 percent of the vote. In 2014, he ran unchallenged. In the ultimate ironic twist, Sessions now sits on the very same Senate committee that rejected him. Every so often, Sessions has reflected on that moment 30 years ago that almost destroyed his career. He told CNN in a 2009 interview that the accusations against him were “heartbreaking.” And he told Stanley-Becker this summer: “Racism is totally unacceptable in America. Everybody needs to be treated fairly and objectively.” Sessions hasn't been mired in a controversy since about his comments on race. But critics point to his voting record and the causes he has championed in the Senate to claim that Sessions harbors racial prejudice: He is one of the Senate's most hard-line anti-immigration lawmakers, and he has opposed the Voting Rights Act. The Southern Poverty Law Center's Heidi Beirich, who tracks hate speech, told Stanley-Becker that Sessions is guilty of it, and that his mere presence in Trump's inner circle is “a tragedy for American politics.”  On the flip side, anti-illegal-immigration and immigration-reduction groups congratulated Sessions on his nomination. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was among a number of Senate Republicans who quickly praised Sessions’s fitness for the job. But the then soon-to-be top Senate Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) sounded an ominous tone about Sessions: And key Senate Democrats on the Judiciary panel, such as California's Dianne Feinstein, took a much more cautious approach, essentially keeping their options open into how hard they wanted to go after Sessions for his troubles in '86. And here was outspoken liberal icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) No matter how vigorously he denies accusations of racial prejudice, it seems, Sessions has been unable to entirely live down what some of his colleagues said about him 30 years ago. And as Trump's pick to be the top U.S. law enforcement officer, the story that haunts him came roaring back to life.

In the modern history of mass shootings in America, Orlando is the deadliest

The 50 fatalities at Pulse are considerably more than the 33 victims killed during the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, or the 28 fatalities in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting in 2012. The 53 people wounded are also more than the number wounded in any other shooting, with the exception of the Aurora theater shooting in 2012, in which 58 were injured. Little is yet known about the Pulse shooter or his motives, but the shooters in a number of the deadliest mass shootings share some characteristics. All were male, with the exception of Tashfeen Malik, one of the two perpetrators of last year's mass shooting in San Bernardino. Fifteen of the shooters were white. Fifteen had shown previous signs of mental illness. All but five had obtained their weapons legally.

House Republicans remain determined to ignore women

2012 was a rough year for the Republican Party’s relationship with women. From Missouri Senate nominee Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments to the party’s efforts to cut funding for preventative care (particularly important for women seeking cancer screenings and the like) to Rep. Darrell Issa’s all-male panel on contraception mandates and religious liberty — and the subsequent attacks from Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing voices on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, whom Issa had barred from the hearing — the GOP repeatedly showed a less-than-impressive concern for women’s rights. Not surprisingly, the 2012 presidential election saw the gender gap increase from 12 percentage points in 2008 to 18 percentage points, as President Obama maintained his support among women. One would think, then, that Republicans might pause before yet again insulting half of the country. But this week showed that House Republicans, at least, remain oblivious, as they let the landmark Violence Against Women Act expire. First passed in 1994 (and drafted by then-Sen. Joe Biden), the Violence Against Women Act has helped law enforcement investigate and prosecute domestic and sexual abuse and increased the resources available to victims of those crimes. The bill was passed (and renewed in 2000 and 2005) with bipartisan support. This past April, the Senate passed the bill 68-31; though all 31 votes against were from Republicans, a number of very conservative senators supported the bill, including Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who co-wrote the bill with liberal stalwart Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). But House Republicans objected to the reauthorization’s expanded protections for LGBT, illegal immigrant and Native American victims of sexual assault. That the GOP would prioritize discriminating against illegal immigrants and LGBT people over fighting domestic and sexual abuse is outrageous yet, sadly, not that surprising, given the power of anti-gay and anti-immigrant voices in the party. But perhaps even more damning is their opposition to the Native American protections. The expansion would give tribal courts jurisdiction over domestic violence committed by non-Native Americans against Native American women. As The Nation’s Greg Kauffman writes: Yet House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) flatly refused to bring the Senate bill to a vote unless the protections for Native Americans were stripped out. Given the statistics, this negligence is disgraceful. The only reason for inaction from Cantor and others, frankly, is that many House Republicans simply do not truly care about women who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. Women, in turn, will rightly continue to shun the Republican Party. _FollowJames Downie on Twitter._

Fresh faces on Armed Services Committee

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) took a moment at the start of Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearing Thursday to call out eight senators joining the committee for the first time.Eight senators joing Armed Services Committee for firwst time The new senators are: Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah). *[WSU]: Wayne State University With the addition of those eight new members, the armed services panel now includes a record seven women. In addition to Hirono and Fischer, the following women also serve on the panel (in order of seniority): Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). (With Shaheen and Ayotte on the panel, New Hampshire is the only state whose two senators sit on the committee.) Though there are several lines of inquiry for senators to explore with Hagel, expect at least some of the women senators to focus their questions on the fate of military families, sexual abuse in the ranks and the Defense Department's plans to permit women to serve in combat roles.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University

Warren warns senators who put Sessions’s ‘radical hatred’ into Justice Department

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took to Twitter on Wednesday night to promise that she — and other Democrats — will fight back, hard, now that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has been confirmed as attorney general.  She used extremely strong language to warn that if Sessions brings “his racism, sexism & bigotry” to the Justice Department, he will hear from “all of us.” The senator then tweeted that those senators who voted to put Sessions’s “radical hatred” at Justice would also hear from the opposition. Warren, a possible 2020 presidential candidate, was presumably referring not only to lawmakers, but also to those who make up the activist base of the Democratic Party that is vigorously protesting President Trump and his policies around the country. Warren’s national profile was abruptly elevated Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning when she was blocked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) from speaking during the remainder of the Sessions debate because she allegedly had impugned Sessions’s character by trying to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King that was critical of Sessions. An outcry from Democrats ensued, spawning social-media hashtags including #letlizspeak and #shepersisted, the latter a reference to McConnell’s statement that Warren was “warned” that she shouldn’t attempt to read King’s letter but “persisted” anyway. Now, it’s Warren who is putting Republicans — and everyone else — on notice, tweeting Wednesday night:

There have been 13 Democratic politicians (or their spouses) nominated for a Grammy in the past decade, and no Republicans

To be nominated for a Grammy, you have to be a talented musician -- or a Democratic politician, apparently. Former President Jimmy Carter (D) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) were both nominated for Best Spoken Word Album for the 2015 Grammy Awards. Carter was nominated for "A Call To Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power," and Warren was nominated for "A Fighting Chance." No Republicans were nominated in the category. In the past decade, there have been 13 spoken word Grammy nominees who were current or former Democratic politicians or the wife of a politician. In that time, there have been zero Republicans nominated in that category. Since 2006, Carter has been nominated four times; President Clinton, President Obama, and Sen. Al Franken have each been nominated twice; and Michelle Obama and former Vice President Al Gore have been nominated once. Warren tweeted Friday that she was "tickled to be nominated." Next year, Carter and Warren will be up against James Franco, John Waters, Joan Rivers, and Gloria Gaynor in the category.

Senate Republicans’ hard lesson: No women, no health-care bill

Women, in other words, were notable bookends in Republicans' inability to pass a health-care bill. After Senate Republicans' second version of a health-care bill collapsed Monday under the weight of more than a dozen senators (male and female) who had concerns, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) decided to just vote on repealing Obamacare without a replacement.  But before McConnell could even play chicken with these (mostly male) senators, by lunchtime Monday, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) shut that down. “I did not come to Washington to hurt people,” Capito tweeted. “I do not think that it’s constructive to repeal a law that is so interwoven within our health care system without having a replacement plan in place,” Collins said in a statement. “I cannot vote to proceed to repeal [Obamacare] without reform that allows people the choice they want, the affordability they need and the quality of care they deserve,” Murkowski said. In the Senate's incremental world, three no votes is enough to stop a bill from even getting a chance for a full vote. By lunchtime Monday, Republicans' efforts to unwind Obamacare was dead again, less than 12 hours after it had already died. And it was Senate Republican women, originally left out of the process, who killed it. Let's rewind to explain why the Senate's five Republican women weren't originally involved in crafting a health-care bill. Republican leaders have been trying to write a bill that could pass an ideologically divided Senate since May, when House Republicans barely passed a controversial — and largely unpopular — piece of legislation. Senate leadership promptly threw that in the trash. Instead, Republicans set up a group of about a dozen lawmakers to come up with something more moderate. None of them were women. Republican aides stressed that the group was soon opened to any GOP senator who wanted to participate. Leaving women out of the negotiations for legislation that affects half the population in a very intimate way was a huge optics blunder for Republicans. It underscored the party's lack of diversity, especially in the Senate, where 47 out of 52 Republicans are men. Just last year, Collins had told researchers for a report about women in Congress that as a woman in this nearly all-white-male world, she has to fight harder to get recognized.  But leaving out women soon turned into a political problem for Republican leaders, too. McConnell retreated behind closed doors to write the legislation, and soon, even the members of the original working group didn't know what was in the legislation. They unveiled a bill in June that received immediate skepticism from about a dozen senators, including Collins, Murkowski and Capito.   Female Republicans' concerns were much the same as their male colleagues' concerns about the legislation: It would have cut Medicaid too much. It raised premiums on the elderly and sick. It left rural hospitals without a safety net. Murkowski and Collins said they wouldn't vote for a bill that defunded women's health-care through Planned Parenthood. “This bill would make sweeping and deep cuts in the Medicaid program, which has been a safety-net program on the books for more than 50 years,” Collins told ABC News on Sunday. If there's a lesson in all this, it's that when trying to overhaul a major social program, perspectives matter.

The Jeff Sessions battle ahead

Within an hour of the announcement that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) would be the president-elect’s pick for attorney general, Democratic groups were fully mobilized. From an immigrants rights group: “Sen. Sessions’ nomination to attorney general is more evidence to why the Trump agenda must be fought. Individuals, local officials, and others must commit to non-cooperation at every level for the sake of our families and our democracy.” From Democracy for America: “The handful of people who might be even less equipped than Jeff Sessions to dispense justice on behalf of the American people typically spend their weekends wearing pointy hats and burning crosses. Jeff Sessions was too racist to become a federal judge.  In the 1980s.” The statement continued, “The idea that Jeff Sessions might become Attorney General is a genuine threat to our country and the lives and safety of people of color, Muslim Americans, women, and working families. We urge Democrats in the U.S. Senate to do everything in their power to air Jeff Session’s record of bigotry and derail his confirmation as Republicans work to jam it through.”   Republicans strongly deny Sessions is a racist, and point to his efforts to equalize penalties for crack and powder cocaine, a position which disproportionately benefits African Americans. What’s all the shouting about and will it stop Sessions? Sessions’ confirmation hearing will be the first big fight of the new administration. (If Rudy Giuliani gets the nod for secretary of state, that’ll be the second.) It is being waged just after an election in which Hillary Clinton failed to fully turn out the Obama coalition — African Americans, Hispanics, young voters, etc. This provides Democrats with the opportunity to re-energize their base and begin to chip away at the approval of a new president. We don’t mean to suggest this is not a legitimate fight or that Democrats aren’t sincerely opposed to Sessions. Trump’s assumption that he could get anyone through the Senate may prove to be accurate, but had he done more consulting he might have found that Sessions is like a red flag in front of a bull.  If we can expect the vast majority of the Senate Democrats to oppose Sessions, attention will then shift to the Republicans, the large majority of whom will certainly support him. Obvious targets are moderate Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) (one of the few Republicans up for reelection in 2018).  Sessions, like Mike Flynn, is not a conciliatory pick or one that will win Trump plaudits from his critics on either side of the aisle. It is a base-engaging pick, a divisive pick, critics would say, on both sides. In all likelihood Sessions will be confirmed on close to a party-line vote; the question is how big a toll it will take on an administration barely getting its feet wet.

The Jeff Sessions battle ahead

The Jeff Sessions battle ahead

The Jeff Sessions battle ahead

The Jeff Sessions battle ahead

The Jeff Sessions battle ahead

Even if Democrats win the Senate in 2016, their majority is unlikely to endure

If we are being honest, the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is effectively over. Which means that the big fight over the next 15 days is for control of the Senate, where Democrats need a net gain of four seats to retake control. That prospect is looking more and more likely of late — thanks in large part to Trump’s collapse at the top of the ticket, a fall that appears to be dragging down the likes of Richard Burr in North Carolina, Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Joseph J. Heck in Nevada. What few people talk about — but should — is that this could be a very short-lived majority for Senate Democrats, as the 2018 field is remarkably bad for them. The numbers for that year are stunning: 25 Democratic or Democratic-affiliated independents are up for reelection, compared with just eight Republicans. That’s as lopsided an election cycle as you will ever see. But a look inside the numbers makes the Democrats’ challenge in 2018 all the more daunting. Fully 20 percent of the 25 Democratic seats are in states that then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney carried in 2012 (and even Trump is likely to carry on Nov. 8): Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. All five Democratic incumbents in those states are expected to run for reelection, a prospect that gives Democrats a chance in each. But with 2018 looking almost certain to be the first midterm election of a Hillary Clinton presidency, it’s hard to see how her party avoids major losses in red states. Some important historical context: In the first midterm election of President Obama’s term, in 2010, Democrats lost 63 House seats and six Senate seats. In Bill Clinton’s first midterm as president, in 1994, Democrats lost 54 House seats and eight Senate seats. George W. Bush was the exception, with his party gaining eight House seats and two Senate seats in 2002, although that election was heavily influenced by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. While those five states are deeply endangered for Democrats in 2018, they are far from the only possible Republican targets. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has said he plans to run for reelection, but retirement rumors still swirl. Even if he stays put, he could face a very competitive race. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) cruised to a victory in 2012, but the Buckeye State’s natural competitiveness suggests he will face a serious Republican opponent. Wisconsin, too, where Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D) is in her first term, could see a real race. Then there is the wild card of Virginia. Sen. Tim Kaine’s likely ascension to the vice presidency will force Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to appoint a replacement. That person will serve until November 2017, when he or she — Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott is the leading name — will face a special election for the remaining year of Kaine’s term. Whoever wins that special election will have to run again for a full six-year term in November 2018. While Democratic problems are everywhere on the map, Democratic opportunities are few and far between. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) is an obvious target given the state’s competitiveness at the federal level. But after that, the pickings get very, very slim. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) might be a Democratic opportunity, given the state’s increasing competitiveness in 2016. But Flake has been one of the most outspoken anti-Trump voices within his own party and will not be easily caricatured as a Trump Republican. In short: Even if Democrats win the Senate in 2016, it could be a blink before they are back in the minority. Which means that a President Hillary Clinton will have two years to work with a friendly Senate before things get much, much tougher for her in Congress.

The LGBT community feels the effects of ‘straightwashing.’ They’re angry about it.

“It makes me very sad and angry that our country can’t seem to grasp the fact that we are all humans and only want to enjoy our freedom like everyone else without fear of death,” Claudia Robbins, a 65-year-old lesbian, posted on Facebook. As I’ve talked and texted with dozens of LGBT people after last week’s mass shooting at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, I witnessed that only a portion of their rage is directed at the shooter. Much of it is focused elsewhere: on our politicians. The media. The gay-haters. Sometimes, even on our own well-intentioned friends, because they don’t understand our fear, or what it means to be LGBT. Here’s some of what I’ve been told: “I’m angry at all who were quick to offer ‘thoughts and prayers’ but who did nothing supportive for the victims while they were alive,” Todd Brown, a gay man, posted on my page. Steven Soto, a 21-year-old Latino college student, said, “I’m angered by the narrative as it stands now. If you look at the New York Times, listen to people on the street, they’re talking about the shooter, guns, [fear of Muslims], but not that Pulse is an LGBTQ place and these were queer people.” Soto said he felt “erased.” Whatever the gains in “acceptance” over the past two decades, too many in the LGBT community — especially in places such as Orlando where sexual orientation and skin color both come into play— “live in apprehension if not outright terror of straight people,” one queer activist posted. Indeed, in the aftermath of the shooting, it was hard for some to acknowledge that angle, or even use the word “gay.” The Republican National Committee issued a statement denouncing “violence against any group of people simply for their lifestyle or orientation.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other politicians did not mention LGBT people in their comments. “They ignore and reject the reality that LGBT are part of life in America today,” Jimmy LaSalvia, a Republican strategist and founder of the defunct group GOProud, said to my colleague David Weigel last week. “The media are ‘straightwashing’ this attack — downplaying or even omitting the fact that the shooting was a crime of hatred against the LGBT community,” said John Becker, an activist in Washington. People magazine doesn’t mention LGBT people or people of color in its cover language: “Mass Murder in Florida: Faces of Orlando.” When asked to comment, editorial director Jess Cagle, who identifies as gay, emailed: “On the cover, we really wanted to show the faces of dozens of victims, and in order to do so we had to keep verbiage to a minimum.” Thankfully, there are those who used their position to buck this trend. Owen Jones, a gay columnist in the United Kingdom, walked off a live Sky News set after the host argued that the attack was not anti-gay and kept saying the massacre was “carried out against human beings.” Yes, they were human beings, as were the nine African Americans murdered in a Charleston, S.C., church a year ago, when the national conversation did not shy away from saying why those individuals were targeted. So, why the difficulty in calling this rampage an anti-LGBT attack? Before abruptly leaving the set, Jones said defiantly, “You don’t understand, because you’re not gay, okay?” And there it is: intolerance and hate around the globe. Gay people are thrown from buildings in the Middle East, gutted with machetes in Jamaica, and in the Unites States are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other minority group. Even our best allies don’t always seem to understand this, as they celebrate our victories in civil marriage and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” One of my closest friends, a strong LGBT ally, texted me last weekend that “people lose sight of the fact that the dead are individuals first, before they are gays or Hispanics or any collective.” No, I replied, “These people were specifically targeted for who they were.” My friend texted back: “I’m sorry we live in a world where you live in fear because of who you are.” Yes, we are still taunted, beaten and killed. Still, sorrow, fear and even anger do not make a strategy for acceptance, for equality. “We have to advocate for laws and policies that protect the most vulnerable who are often the targets of hate as well as legislation to end gun violence,” explained Nancy Petty, a lesbian minister at Raleigh, N.C.’s Pullen Memorial Baptist Church. Soto told me he will speak up even more in the future: “I continue to be out, I continue to be visible, and I continue to live my life as best as I can.” We need to tell our stories out loud so that no LGBT person has to say: “You don’t understand, because you’re not gay.” Our foes — and friends — need to hear us. Join him for a chat online at washingtonpost.com on June 21.

Democrats fear that Trump has barred key federal workers from speaking to them

Democrats in Congress are accusing the Trump administration of ordering officials in federal departments and agencies to withhold information they need to carry out their duties, such as preparing for committee hearings. Party leaders say officials have routinely provided documents and detailed explanations of programs in the past, but now at least two ranking Democrats on congressional committees say their staff members were told directly by workers in agencies that they could no longer speak with them. The issue started in January and grew into such a concern that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) to track Democrats’ correspondence to the executive branch that have gotten no response. So far, Sarbanes said, there are more than 100 cases from the House. “House Democrats have sent more than 100 letters to the Trump administration seeking answers to urgent questions … and received no response,” said Ashley Etienne, a spokeswoman for Pelosi’s office. “If there is a concerted effort by the Trump administration not to respond to House Democrats … we will take appropriate action to address it.”  Although responding to letters from lawmakers in the opposition party is a common courtesy practiced by previous administrations, they don’t always respond to every one. Each of the letters Sarbanes shared with The Post were written in March, and some appeared to require time for an adequate response. A few of the letters seemed political in nature, such as a March 2 letter from Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, questioning Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States and calling on Sessions to resign. But most sought answers or action seemingly on behalf of constituents. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) asked the administration on March 7 to maintain a $9 billion fund to fight opioid and prescription drug abuse in the United States. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) asked Sessions to investigate the slayings of transgender women around the country as hate crimes. Rep. Annie McLane Kuster (D-N.H.) asked the Secretary of Defense James Mattis for information on reports that up to 30,000 Marines were under investigation for sharing and commenting on obscene photos of female Marines. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and other Democrats in California’s congressional delegation called on President Trump to declare a major disaster in the state after storms caused mudslides and overflowing reservoirs. Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), the ranking minority member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, released an angry statement after meeting with officials at the General Services Administration in March. Carper wanted to know whether the use of public land by a Trump hotel in Washington financially benefited the president. At the end of a list of complaints, Carper stated that “I am even more disturbed by the explicit statements made by GSA officials during this briefing that, beginning on Jan. 20, 2017, the Trump administration changed GSA’s long-standing practice of providing certain documents requested by minority members of Congress. “During the briefing,” Carper continued, “agency personnel stated that its new practice only assures that such documents will be provided to the committee’s chairman.” Both congressional chambers and their committees are controlled by Republicans, putting Democrats at a disadvantage that did not exist during previous administrations. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said a similar thing happened when he asked his staff to gather information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of Interior last month. Grijalva was stunned when his chief of staff informed him that the staffer tasked with retrieving the information from a congressional liaison office was turned away.  Department of Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift denied that Fish and Wildlife workers have been silenced. “There is no gag order,” Swift wrote in an email last week. “The office of congressional and legislative affairs for both Interior and Fish and Wildlife has been in regular contact with both the majority and minority staff. They have supplied information for a number of requests, and Interior officials have consistently testified at hearings, including yesterday.” Grijalva’s office responded that the “contact” Swift mentioned was personnel who “told us directly they have been order by the Office of the Secretary not to answer our questions about hearings at which administration witnesses are not present, and have refused to answer … questions.” Without guidance from Fish and Wildlife, Democrats on a Natural Resources subcommittee said they were powerless to refute claims from witnesses called by Republicans who said the Endangered Species Acts cost projects millions of dollars as a result of delays.  “Nearly 100,000 projects had to undergo time-consuming and expensive consultation even though none of them would likely jeopardize a listed species or its habitat,” said Jonathan Wood, a staff attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation. “In many cases, project approval would improve conditions for a threatened species while also bringing much needed economic development to rural America,” said Doug Stiles, general manager of the Hecla Mining Company of Idaho. The statement, emailed by committee spokeswoman Molly Block, didn’t list the species or areas that Wood and Stiles referenced. Unlike Fish and Wildlife experts, neither of the witnesses are scientists who have expertise in animal habitat and the impacts of development on species. With no experts present, Grijalva had no idea if their statements, which could influence future legislation, carried any truth. “Is it true that the ESA is responsible for an economic downturn?” Grijalva asked. “Or are they scapegoating the ESA with the intent to limit it or make it toothless? What’s the reality? This limits our ability to counter those points because you don’t have an agency there that has the information this decision should be based on.”

Meet the White House’s first transgender staffer

The White House has appointed its first openly transgender staff member. Raffi Freedman-Gurspan has been hired as an outreach and recruitment director for presidential personnel in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, LGBT groups and the White House said Tuesday. Freedman-Gurspan "demonstrates the kind of leadership this administration champions,” Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Obama, said in an e-mailed statement confirming the appointment. "Her commitment to bettering the lives of transgender Americans -- particularly transgender people of color and those in poverty -- reflects the values of this administration." In a news release, National Center for Transgender Equality Executive Director Mara Keisling said: "President Obama has long said he wants his administration to look like the American people. I have understood this to include transgender Americans. A transgender person was inevitably going to work in the White House.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico "That the first transgender appointee is a transgender woman of color is itself significant. And that the first White House transgender appointee is of a friend is inspiring to me and to countless others who have been touched by Raffi’s advocacy." _[Girl Scouts choose transgender girls over $100,000 donation]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Freedman-Gurspan recently called for state and federal officials to do more to address a recent wave of trans homicides. "We are at a crisis at this point," she told Al Jazeera America earlier this month. Noting that there had been 33 trans women killed in the United States over the past two years, she added: "At this point … we really would like to see some kind of response from [state and federal] authorities."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _[Was the victim in brutal Fresno killing a transgender woman? ‘We may never know.’]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Freedman-Gurspan's previous job was at the National Center for Transgender Equality, where she worked as a policy adviser for the Racial and Economic Justice Initiative. In that role, she also urged the government to release undocumented transgender immigrants who cannot be adequately protected from sexual violence in detention. "To really end the suffering transgender detainees face, the Obama Administration must release transgender detainees for whom being in detention makes them a target of sexual assault and violence," she said in a June statement.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _[8 critical facts about the state of transgender America]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The trans advocacy group announced the White House appointment Tuesday, in a press release containing several statements from the leaders of other LGBT organizations. "We’re celebrating because this is an important milestone for the transgender community, but we’re also thrilled that Raffi Freedman-Gurspan, an incredibly smart, talented, and committed professional, will now be working for the American people," said Aisha Moodie-Mills, president and chief executive of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Institute. Added Courtney Cuff, president and chief executive of the Gill Foundation: "As the first openly transgender person to work for the White House, Raffi’s appointment is another important step toward ensuring our federal government fully includes the voices and experiences of our communities." A handful of openly trans individuals have worked in the current administration, but not as a White House staff member. Two of them -- Jay Davis at the Environmental Protection Agency and Amanda Simpson, executive director of the U.S. Army Office of Energy Initiatives -- participated in a White House video supporting a ban on conversion therapy earlier this year. Other trans administration officials, according to the NCTE, have included Dylan Orr, a former special assistant at the Department of Labor; Chloe Schwenke, senior adviser for LGBT policy and senior adviser to the Bureau on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance; and Shawn Skelley in the Department of Defense. Obama also appointed trans attorney Shannon Minter to the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships in June. **MORE READING:**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Transgender in Maine: What life looks like for women who transitioned over age 60_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Transgender in the military: A Pentagon in transition weighs its policy_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Meet Kristin Beck, a transgender former Navy SEAL running for Congress_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _For transgender teens and teachers, acceptance could be two words away_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Transgender at five_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

2015 was a grim year for American gun violence

ONE-YEAR-OLD Maleah Williams was in her mother’s arms on Christmas Day in a parking lot where other children were playing with their new toys when she was shot in the head in a drive-by shooting. The Chapel Hill, N.C., toddler died three days later. What made her death even more hideous is that it wasn’t an anomaly. Twenty-six other people — including the owner of a barbershop in Alabama, a Texas grandfather and a young couple in Ohio — were shot and killed on Christmas Day 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive. It counted 63 other people injured by gun violence in a tally that didn’t include suicides. In all, as The Post’s Christopher Ingraham observed, more people died in the United States on Christmas Day from shootings than the number of people killed in gun homicides in an entire year in Austria, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Estonia, Bermuda, Hong Kong and Iceland combined. What sets the United States apart from these other countries is, of course, our irresponsibly lax policies on gun ownership. Weapons with military features that are designed for war are legally available to civilians. Any controls that do exist to try to prevent them or the more ubiquitous handgun from falling into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them are weak and easy to circumvent. The result is that the United States has more guns than other developed countries, and that translates into more homicides, accidental shootings and suicides. That Maleah was one of nearly 700 children under age 12 who were killed or injured in gun violence in 2015 is a national disgrace. That there were 2,671 other children between ages 12 and 17 who were killed or injured is a further abomination. A series of horrifically high-profile shootings in 2015 — 14 dead and 21 wounded in San Bernardino, Calif.; three dead and nine injured in Colorado Springs; nine dead and seven injured in Roseburg, Ore.; five dead and two wounded in Chattanooga, Tenn.; nine dead in Charleston, S.C. — have brought new attention to the issue of gun violence. President Obama, previously discouraged by his inability to get Congress to enact even modest reforms in the wake of the massacre of Connecticut schoolchildren in the weeks before another Christmas, rediscovered his voice on the issue. The Democratic candidates for president are talking about the need for gun control, something long seen as toxic to anyone on the campaign trail. Some states are exploring ways they can impose better limits. And there is encouraging work being done by gun-control advocates, such as Everytown for Gun Safety, in building grass-roots support by emphasizing the damage caused by gun violence. Its recently announced partnership with the National Basketball Association aims to be a counterbalance to the oversize influence of the National Rifle Association. 2016 is set to start; we hope for meaningful action so that it won’t end like other years, with another grim year-end tally cataloguing the lives needlessly lost because of guns and easy access to them. **Read more on this topic:** Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg: How to protect gun rights while reducing the toll of gun violence E.J. Dionne Jr.: The conservative evasion on guns Fareed Zakaria: Change your gun laws, America The Post’s View: The argument against common-sense gun control crumbles The Post’s View: America’s deadly game on guns

House panel finds no intelligence failure in Benghazi attacks

An investigation by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee has concluded that the CIA and U.S. military responded appropriately to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, dismissing allegations that the Obama administration blocked rescue attempts during the assault or sought to mislead the public afterward. After a two-year probe that involved the review of thousands of pages of classified documents, the panel determined that the attack could not be blamed on an intelligence failure, and that CIA security operatives “ably and bravely assisted” State Department officials who were overwhelmed at a nearby but separate diplomatic compound. The committee also found “no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support,” rejecting claims that have fed persistent conspiracy theories that the U.S. military was prevented from rescuing U.S. personnel from a night-time assault that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The House panel faulted preliminary assessments by the CIA and other agencies on what had caused the attacks and motivated militants, leading to erroneous public assertions by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the assault had erupted from a spontaneous protest. The White House effort to assemble her talking points was deemed “flawed.” But overall, the panel’s findings were broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of events. Previous investigations have reached similar conclusions, but the House committee’s report may be seen as more credible by critics of the administration’s handling of Benghazi because the panel is controlled by Republicans. “We concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes,” the ranking Republican of the committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.) and ranking Democrat Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), said in a jointly issued statement. “Their actions saved lives.” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the committee, expressed “hope that this report will put to rest many of the questions that have been asked and answered yet again” about the Benghazi attacks. The investigation involved a review of thousands of pages of intelligence assessments and internal administration e-mails, as well as interviews with senior intelligence officials, security personnel and eyewitnesses to the attacks. Earlier this year, the United States captured one of the militants accused of orchestrating the attacks in a raid in Libya. Ahmed Abu Khatalla now faces trial in the United States. In addition to Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and CIA security contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were killed. The committee concluded that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks, and that militants with links to al-Qaeda were involved. But more than two years later, it said, “the intelligence was and remains conflicting about the identities, affiliations, and motivations of the attackers.”

Openly gay Air Force investigator and NYPD detective among six killed in Afghanistan

An openly gay Air Force investigator and a New York City police detective were among those killed in this week’s Taliban attack, the deadliest insurgent assault on U.S. troops in Afghanistan in at least three years and a sign of mounting militant violence there. Air Force Maj. Adrianna Vorderbruggen, 36, died in Monday’s attack, which took place when an explosive-laden motorcycle detonated near a group of American troops conducting a patrol near Bagram, according to the Pentagon, which on Tuesday released the names of the soldiers who died. Hepner said that Vorderbruggen and her partner, an Air Force veteran named Heather Lamb, had been advocates for repealing the ban on gays in the military, a rule known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that was lifted in 2011.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Hepner met Lamb when both women were canvassing members of Congress in support of repealing the law. “Heather and Adrianna worked toward the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t tell,’ not just for their family, but for all military families,” Hepner said. According to her LinkedIn page, Vorderbruggen attended the U.S. Air Force Academy and George Washington University. In 2010, she began working as a special agent for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, a federal law enforcement arm of the Air Force that investigates felony-level crimes in the United States and overseas. Prior to the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Vorderbruggen, like other partners of gay service members at that time, was forced to conceal much of her home life, Hepner said. When Lamb was preparing to give birth to the couple’s first baby, shortly before the law’s repeal, Vorderbruggen “had to secretly schedule her leave to coincide with Heather being in labor,” her friend said. The Military Partners and Families Coalition, which advocates for the families of gay and transgender service members, had a baby shower for the couple, with gifts including camouflage booties. Hepner, who is married to Brig. Gen. Tammy Smith, the first openly gay or lesbian general in the U.S. military, is a co-founder of the organization. The year after their son Jacob’s birth, Vorderbruggen and Lamb were married at the Botanical Gardens in Washington DC, Hepner said. A few months earlier, Vorderbruggen was one of a number of active duty service members who took part in a saber arch at Hepner and Smith’s wedding. Hepner described the couple as family-focused. “They loved that little boy and their family loved them,” she said. Monday’s attack brings the number of American service members killed in Afghanistan operations this year to 21. While President Obama is seeking to limit the role of U.S. troops in Afghanistan as foreign forces withdraw, ten of those killed died because of hostile military activity. Joseph Lemm, a New York City police detective and Technical Sgt. in the U.S. Air  National Guard, was also among the soldiers killed. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that Lemm, 45, “embodied the selflessness and bravery of the U.S. Armed Forces and the NYPD.” Lemm, who was married and had two children, had worked for the New York City Police Dept. for 15 years, and became a detective for the Bronx in Jan. 2014, according to New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton. Lemm had served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another victim was Staff Sgt. Peter Taub, 30. In the District on Tuesday, flowers piled up outside of Bub and Pop’s, a sandwich shop where Taub’s mother and brother are owner and chef. “Our family is just devastated, grief-stricken,” said Arlene Wagner, Taub’s mother. “My heart goes out to the five other families that are experiencing the same thing. People can’t possibly know what this is like unless they’ve experienced it.” Wagner said that her son had a three-year-old daughter whom he adored and a wife who is expecting another child. “He will have a child that he will never see now,” Wagner said. Breaking down in tears, she said, “It’s just really, really hard because I expected him to come home.” She said Taub made the decision in his 20s to join the military, after growing up admiring his grandfather who served in World War II and an uncle who was in the Air Force. “He was committed to the safety of the country,” Wagner said. “He really was doing important work over there when this happened, to ensure the safety of other military personnel. I think he’s a hero.” She said she was looking Tuesday at a photograph taken of her son after he finished basic training. He told her that he tried to look serious enough for the momentous occasion. It was one of the only images of him that didn’t show him grinning. “He had the best smile in the world.” Chester McBride, 30, from Statesboro, Georgia, was also among those killed. According to the Statesboro Herald, those who knew him described McBride as a quiet young man. He was the starting defensive back for Statesboro High’s varsity football team when it won a state championship in 2001.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “We are so proud of this young man for his service to our nation,” Statesboro mayor Jan Moore said in an emailed statement. “This brings a war that that is worlds away to our doorstep.”

Sorry, Senators. An independent panel is the best way to investigate Benghazi.

The drumbeat has started. On Wednesday, three Republican senators formally asked their colleagues to create a select committee to investigate the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. Congress has every right to look hard at what went wrong with U.S. security in Benghazi, and lawmakers have raised valid questions about the troubling events. But recent history suggests that the most important investigation won’t take place on Capitol Hill. It will be conducted by an independent commission that has already been established, albeit with much less fanfare. This commission, which may report as early as next month, will be most likely to produce the definitive account of the Benghazi attack and shape the long- term U.S. response to it. Select committees make for good theater and often uncover important facts. But in the national security arena, the independent commissions that have probed the most shocking security lapses — including the 2001 attacks and several devastating bombings of U.S. embassies — have a better record of conducting impartial investigations and bringing about landmark reforms. This past week’s events follow a pattern that is familiar to me after studying every national security commission created in the past three decades. After weeks of Republican criticism of Obama administration statements about what happened in Benghazi, Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte introduced a resolution to create a select committee composed of four Republican and four Democratic senators. Graham and McCain, in arguing the need for such a high-powered, high-visibility effort, invoked the select committees that investigated the Watergate and Iran-contrascandals, implying that Obama administration officials may have acted unethically or criminally. Using more superheated rhetoric, McCain added that he wanted the committee to investigate everyone up to and including the president. Graham asserted that Obama had “failed as commander in chief before, during and after the [Benghazi] attack.” These comments suggest that the Republican senators have prejudged the investigation’s outcome, a conclusion that is only strengthened by their statements that they will do everything in their power to stop U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice from becoming secretary of state if Obama nominates her. In this partisan context, Senate Democrats have little incentive to agree to establish a select committee. Even if such a panel were named, it would fracture quickly along party lines. A better approach is already in place. Under a 1986 law, the secretary of state must convene an independent commission, called an accountability review board, to investigate any incident involving loss of life or destruction of property at a U.S. mission abroad. Accordingly, in September, Hillary Rodham Clinton appointed a five-member panel led by Thomas Pickering, a highly regarded former senior State Department official. Independent commissions are often scorned as institutions that do nothing more than help politicians defuse political pressure. But my research shows that this conventional wisdom is wrong. Yes, elected officials sometimes appoint commissions to deflect attention, but in the wake of disasters, these panels typically publish hard-hitting accounts of government shortcomings. They are also usually more capable than congressional committees of producing proposals that gain broad bipartisan support. Consider the response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In 2002, the House and Senate intelligence committees jointly investigated those strikes, but their probe was riven by partisan disagreements about whether to press the George W. Bush administration for access to principal witnesses and documents. Media coverage of the report focused on dissenting opinions by no fewer than nine lawmakers, and its recommendations were largely ignored. By contrast, the independent 9/11 Commission’s unanimous proposal to establish a director of national intelligence was quickly enacted into law, resulting in the intelligence community’s most significant overhaul in six decades. An earlier independent commission, led by retired Navy Adm. Bobby Inman, charted the way after a spate of deadly bombings at U.S. Embassies throughout the Middle East in the early 1980s. The Inman panel inspired the creation of the first professional security service within the State Department and the establishment of new security standards for the construction and protection of diplomatic facilities. Those standards, which include requirements that buildings be set back at least 100 feet from the nearest street and protected by substantial barriers, are still known as the “Inman standards,” in recognition of the panel’s impact. The next major bombings of U.S. Embassies occurred in 1998, when al-Qaeda-led attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, in Kenya and Tanzania. A new commission led by William Crowe, another retired admiral, took the executive branch and Congress to task for having failed to provide the money to fully implement the Inman standards, and called for $1.4 billion per year in new spending to complete the job. Crowe’s dogged advocacy led the administration and Congress to adopt the panel’s recommendations. Since then, most U.S. diplomatic facilities have been “Inmanized,” to use the lingo of some department officials. There’s every reason to expect that the Pickering panel’s report on Benghazi will have a similar outsize impact. The other commission members include Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Catherine Bertini, a former undersecretary for management at the United Nations; Richard Shinnick, a former head of State Department building operations; and Hugh Turner, a retired CIA operations officer. Since all five commission members have distinguished, nonpartisan records of public service, their report will be insulated against accusations of bias, and the Obama administration and Congress will have strong incentives to adopt their proposals. Those recommendations will surely include steps to plug security holes, and rightfully so. But the country would be well served if the commission also considered how to strike the proper balance between diplomatic security and openness. The natural tendency after an act of terrorism is to focus entirely on bolstering security, as the Inman and Crowe panels did. But the long-term result of those earlier reforms has been mixed. Yes, successful attacks on U.S. missions overseas have become less frequent, but at the cost of turning many missions into inaccessible fortresses. Diplomacy has an element of risk, and it’s much harder to project a message of freedom and democracy from behind high walls that say, “Keep out.” Many Foreign Service officers in the 1980s resisted the Inman proposals because they feared that the security upgrades would make it much harder to conduct diplomacy effectively. Those fears have been validated. Today, our best diplomats continue to recognize that they need to spend much of their time outside embassies to build partnerships with civil society and enhance America’s image. This kind of outreach is particularly important in countries such as Libya that are experiencing dramatic political change. Yet such countries also tend to be relatively dangerous, presenting stark trade-offs between diplomatic security and diplomatic success. In the wake of the Benghazi attack, it is politically difficult for a public official to argue for doing anything other than tightening security. But the members of the Pickering panel are no longer in government and therefore have more leeway to assess and explain the real trade-offs we face. The commission’s report may represent our best opportunity to forge a new public understanding of how to protect our diplomats while allowing them to meet with local people in the places where they live, work and congregate. **tama@american.edu ** **Jordan Tama** , an assistant professor of international relations at American University’s School of International Service and a former senior congressional aide, is the author of “Terrorism and National Security Reform: How Commissions Can Drive Change During Crises.” _Jordan Tama, an assistant professor of international relations at American University’s School of International Service, is the author of “Terrorism and National Security Reform: How Commissions Can Drive Change During Crises.”_

Baltimore’s transgender community mourns one of their own, slain by police

BALTIMORE — They strutted under a red, white and blue streamer draped from a storefront tax office and in the glow of a neon sign that said, “Open,” even though it was dark inside. Mykel, Shannen, Buttacup, Esha. For years, this spot at North Charles and 22nd streets, near the main train station, has been the hub of Baltimore’s transgender prostitution scene, a nightly choreography of cliches — heels too high, shorts too short, shirts too tight, wigs too big, makeup too heavy. Now, one of their friends is gone, and another is injured. Mya, on the streets since 2009, was killed and a newcomer, Brittany, was injured when officers opened fire Monday after the pair allegedly crashed into a guard post at the National Security Agency, 28 miles away. In the early moments, the incident had the Washington region on alert, with fears that it could be terrorism or another type of planned attack. But in the end, authorities said the pair were in an SUV stolen from a man who had picked them up the night before. They mistakenly took a restricted exit and panicked when they saw police. Officials identified them by their legal names: Ricky Hall, 27, who went by Mya, and Kevin Fleming, 20, or Brittany. When police initially noted that the two were dressed in women’s clothing, it seemed a strange twist. Later, authorities made a point to say that the garb had not been meant as a disguise. Now, their friends in Baltimore’s historic Old Goucher neighborhood, many with questions about the encounter with law enforcement, are in mourning. Death, they say, comes too often, too young and too easy to a transgender population marginalized by a society that they say forces some to resort to prostitution, or what they call becoming “survivor sex workers.” “They are being driven to their deaths,” Bryanna A. Jenkins, 26, who runs a transgender advocacy group, said while on a tour of the neighborhood. “Out here, you can be attacked. You can be raped. You can be arrested for being trans.” Several transgender prostitutes interviewed as they worked Charles Street early Friday described Hall as a sweet jokester who let others stay in her motel room when she had one, enjoyed dressing in skirts and kidded her friends. “A lot of people envied her,” said Mykel Caldwell, 21. But a woman calling herself Buttacup, who is 26 and moved to Baltimore from Fairfax County, said that Hall hit the streets in 2009 and soon became hardened — “drugs, bad men, bad decisions.” Buttacup reflected a fatalism that mirrored others who were interviewed, saying: “Mya didn’t want to change. She thought she was perfect, and she died.” Authorities had earlier theorized that Hall and Fleming were trying to evade capture because there were drugs in the Ford Escape, which authorities said they stole from the 60-year-old who had taken them to a pay-by-the-hour motel south of the city, in Elkridge, Md. But Maryland court records show that Hall also was facing new limits on her freedom and potentially several years of prison. She had violated terms of her probation four times since an assault conviction in 2012 — piling up a steady stream of arrests and convictions for punching a woman and stealing her methadone in Old Goucher, shoplifting skirts from stores in the Hampden neighborhood, hitting a jail guard with a stick and soliciting a male undercover police officer for a $40 sex act on Charles Street. Hall had recently been placed in Maryland’s Violence Prevention Initiative, the state’s strictest probation monitoring. She failed to pick up a court-ordered electronic monitoring bracelet that would have required her to live in a transitional housing facility that helps people recover from drug abuse and other problems. A spokesman for the state prison system said officials had requested an arrest warrant for Hall hours before she was killed. Many details of Hall’s background were unclear. Court records show she grew up in Owings Mills, a suburb northwest of Baltimore, and once worked delivering pizzas. Her 78-year-old grandmother is listed as a contact on many official forms; when reached at her two-story brick rowhouse in Northeast Baltimore, she declined to comment. It was not clear whether Hall has other close relatives. A mug shot from Baltimore police shows Hall with groomed eyebrows and heart-shaped tattoos trailing under the right eye, and wearing a disheveled wig. According to court records, Hall lived in a variety of places in Old Goucher, including what is now a vacant rowhouse and a group home for homeless teenagers. The community, roughly 40 square blocks, boasts 1800s Victorian rowhouses and was home to three Baltimore mayors during the 19th century. Plans are in the works to plant 300 trees. Kelly Cross, 36, the head of the community association, said he wants to build on an adjacent arts district that is trying to remake a dangerous corridor by getting Harvard students to set up studios and bring in a private collection of contemporary art. Cross said transgender prostitution has abated in recent years but remains a stubborn problem. Prostitution, he said, used to be the focus of every community meeting. “I decided that my focus would be on trying to change the condition of the neighborhood,” he said, “as opposed to chasing people around from one block to another.” He said the prostitutes “are a symptom of a weak neighborhood, a lack of businesses, a lack of economic vitality.” The neighborhood has two methadone clinics, a center for battered children, housing for the homeless. On Thursday, the shelter where Hall once lived had a sign on the front door promoting a job fair: “Convicted felons welcome.” Cross said the services moved in because of the need, but he also said they have a negative impact in that “they feed off each other. . . . Before you know it, you have this ecosystem of people struggling.” Jenkins, the transgender advocate, said she met Hall briefly about two years ago when she worked with a group passing out condoms and trying to help the prostitutes with housing and legal matters. “Mya had a hard life,” Jenkins said. “She just wanted to have a job, a life, a home. Just the simple things.” The hospital where authorities said that Fleming was being treated deny having anyone there by that name, and the FBI did not make the name public and will not discuss a medical condition. Two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the investigation identified Fleming as the injured person. Fleming’s family could not be reached. Amy J. Thoreson, spokeswoman for the Baltimore field office of the FBI, said Friday that no charges had been filed against the second person in the car. On the street early Friday, the women hustled for tricks as cars slowed for drivers to survey the scene. Shannen, one of the women working Charles Street, declined to share her last name. “None of us want to live like this,” she said. “But we learn lessons in life, and we die.” The women were just as interested in posing questions as answering them. Who claimed Hall’s body? What did her parents say? How many times was she shot? Why did the police have to shoot her? Most of all, they felt isolated from the normal ritual of grief as they mourned together on Charles Street. Asked Buttacup, a tear running down her cheek, “Will she have a proper funeral?”

Is it terrorism or mass murder? That depends on our biases.

James T. Hodgkinson, the man who shot five people at a Republican baseball practice Wednesday, including a member of Congress, harbored ill will toward President Trump and the GOP. So was Hodgkinson a terrorist? Legally and morally, we see intent as the best way to distinguish terrorism from mass murder. Federal law defines terrorism as certain violent acts “that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government.” But because Hodgkinson is dead and did not declare an aim to dethrone the House majority to which his victims belong, we can only speculate about his motives. Like so many other killers in recent years, it’s impossible to know what his specific goals were, because he didn’t tell anyone. We know that these people intended to commit murder, but not why. And if we assume we know — as in the case of Syed Rizwan Farook in San Bernadino or Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson — it’s probably because of our preexisting stereotypes or our partisanship. Mass killings look the most like terrorism when their perpetrators seem the most alien from the Judeo-Christian, white majority. That’s no way to judge a crime. We need a new way to classify these attacks. Public labeling of mass shooters as terrorists since 9/11 has been anything but consistent. In 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10 people in the Washington area using a high-powered rifle concealed in their car; Muhammad received the death penalty because the shooting spree was treated as terrorism under Virginia law. Army psychologist Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and wounded more than 30 others at Fort Hood in Texas in 2009 and was denounced as a terrorist in some news reports as well as in a bipartisan Senate committee report. And in 2015, Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 and injured 22 others in San Bernardino, an act that President Barack Obama condemned as terrorism. On the other hand, Loughner, who killed six people at a public gathering for then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011, was generally described as a mentally ill “gunman” who had written anti-government posts online, rather than as a terrorist. Some other mass shooters of the same time frame — including Seung Hui Cho, who murdered 32 students and faculty members at Virginia Tech in 2007; Doug Williams of Mississippi, who made racist comments at work and later killed five co-workers, four of whom were African American; and Steven Kazmierczak, who fatally shot five people at Northern Illinois University in 2008 — were called mentally ill, racist or simply murderous, thanks to their murky motives, though their deranged ideas about the world left a similar body count. Even Dylann Roof, who murdered nine African American churchgoers in South Carolina in 2015 and left a white-supremacist treatise, was not widely labeled a terrorist. He was convicted of hate crimes and murder , not terrorism. As far as the prosecutions go, perhaps it doesn’t matter whether reporters and ordinary Americans regard a perpetrator as a terrorist or as a mass murderer. The t-word opens the door to certain charges that would not otherwise be available — such as federal terrorism charges under Title 18, Chapter 113 of the U.S. Code — but one need not be convicted as a terrorist to face the death penalty or life imprisonment, the harshest punishments. Roof did not face terrorism charges but will still die by lethal injection. Sorting all of this out was much easier when terrorists reliably took credit for their actions and issued rationales. The primary goal of most terrorists in the 1970s, for instance, was to gain publicity for their causes, with violence (actual or threatened) as a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman has noted that left-wing European groups’ “use of violence historically has been heavily constrained,” and even their right-wing counterparts used violence “based not on some pathological obsession to kill or beat up as many people as possible but rather on a deliberate policy of intimidating the general public into acceding to specific demands or pressures.” In the United States, the Weathermen embarked on a campaign of planting bombs in public buildings to call attention to their opposition to the Vietnam War and their support of the Black Panthers. But after a bombmaking accident killed three of the group’s members, they began to provide advance warning so that targeted buildings could be evacuated. Even as terrorism became more lethal in the 1980s, one could generally discern the goals of the attackers. When a suicide truck bomber plowed into the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers, the attack was aimed at driving American forces out of Lebanon. And it worked: President Ronald Reagan withdrew the remaining U.S. troops within a few months. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, terrorism morphed into something more savage and, sometimes, more ambiguous. In 1993, Ramzi Yousef, a nephew of future 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, organized a plot to blow up a truck bomb under the World Trade Center. It killed six and injured more than 1,000 but fell far short of what he’d wanted: for one tower to crash into the other, killing as many as 250,000 people. Yousef claimed credit afterward, demanding that the United States cease supporting Israel and interfering in the Middle East. Two years later, Army veteran Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, set off a truck bomb next to the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including 19 children. Although McVeigh could be accurately characterized as an anti-government extremist, he issued no warnings or demands. (Perhaps he would have made some public statement later, but a highway patrol officer detained him on a routine traffic stop, and he was identified as the perpetrator during his time in custody.) Since then, the direction of terrorism has split into two fairly distinct arcs. One is mega-terrorism aimed at killing large numbers of victims in spectacular ways, such as the 9/11 attacks; airliner-targeting plots, including unsuccessful ones by “shoe bomber” Richard Reid and “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; and the liquid-explosives plot foiled by the British in 2006. (These would-be bombers did not announce their intent before they were stopped.) The other is small-scale ground attacks, typically carried out with firearms and sometimes small explosives, often by lone wolves. But as the devastating attacks in Mumbai in 2008 (death toll: 164) and Paris in 2015 (death toll: 130) demonstrate, even firearms-based plots can rack up high casualty counts. What these arcs share is the lack of any apparent purpose beyond mass murder and possibly some vague notions about attacking the West. Arguably, the post-9/11 version of terrorism doesn’t even fit the statutory definition anymore. They may scare the public, even terrorize it in the colloquial meaning, but unspoken demands and unclaimed credit do not convey any purpose behind the violence. Public declarations are now rare, and without them there is no agreed-upon norm for categorizing these attacks. The recent mass shooters who have generally been called terrorists — Fort Hood’s Hasan, San Bernardino’s Farook and Malik, and Beltway sniper Muhammad — were all identified as Muslims. In a study I conducted in 2012, more than 15 percent of the news about Hasan included the term “terrorist” or “terrorism,” while just over 2 percent of the news about Loughner, a white man, included one of those terms. My study found a disparity based on race and religion that was not limited to mass shooters; in the same study, I examined news coverage of two bombings — one carried out, one attempted — about 30 miles apart, with similar conclusions. This discrepancy poses two dangers. First, the assumption that mass shootings are terrorism when perpetrated by Muslims but not by others may lead law enforcement and the public to overlook threats posed by non-Muslims. For instance, civil rights lawyer and former FBI agent Mike German, who infiltrated white supremacist groups, has argued that the domestic threat posed by right-wing extremist groups is as great as, if not greater than, that posed by Arab or Muslim terrorists, and yet has been largely ignored by the FBI. A report by the Government Accountability Office tallied 106 killings perpetrated by right-wing extremists in the United States from Sept. 12, 2001, to the end of 2016, more or less equal to the 119 by Muslim extremists in that time. While the exact number in each category may change slightly depending on how we classify individual attacks, the point is that there’s close to parity in the danger posed by each group. Second, it’s possible that law enforcement and other decision-makers will acknowledge and respond to this singular focus on Muslims by overcompensating in the opposite manner so as to appear nondiscriminatory. The Fort Hood shooter, for example, had repeatedly drawn complaints from fellow soldiers for appearing to justify terrorist attacks against Americans in the Middle East. The FBI was even aware that Hasan had been in email contact with al-Qaeda provocateur Anwar al-Awlaki. It is one thing to avoid racial or religious stereotyping but another to ignore red flags for fear of being perceived as bigoted, as appears to be the case with Hasan. Yet this tension is inherent in stereotype-based law enforcement. One first step toward resolving the question of “what is terrorism?” — at least in the colloquial sense — is to stop focusing so much on the perpetrator’s perceived intent and to look more at the effects of the violent act. Today, attackers such as Hodgkinson, Hasan, Rizwan, Malik, Loughner and Roof have one thing clearly in common: Even if it’s not clear why, they want to kill as many people as possible. That should be enough to call them all terrorists. **_Twitter: @TungYin_ ** Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

These states are opening the door to bathroom wars

You could argue the bathroom wars never took a break. North Carolina is currently the only state in the nation that puts restrictions on which public restrooms and locker rooms transgender people can use. It came at a cost: Its GOP governor arguably lost his job over support for the bill, and businesses from PayPal to Bruce Springsteen to the NBA took their business elsewhere. But some conservatives aren't backing down from what could yet again be the hottest social issue debate of the year: A month into 2017, lawmakers in at least 11 states have filed legislation to close off certain bathrooms to transgender people.  Bills have also been filed (or carried over from 2016 legislative sessions) in Alabama, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. The Wyoming bill is the first of its kind in the state, and it would make it a crime of public indecency to use a bathroom or changing facility designated for the opposite sex.  Some context here: Thousands of bills are filed in state legislatures every year; most of them don't become law. In 2016, lawmakers in more than 20 states considered bathroom legislation. Only one law was enacted.  This year, Republicans have total control in 25 states; a slight uptick from 2016 and an opportunity for some social conservatives to push for laws they say protect people's privacy, religious values and traditional family norms. Gay rights groups have assumed the fight stance.  A report released Monday by the Human Rights Campaign said the national gay rights group is "bracing for a repeat of the 2015 and 2016 sessions." In 2016, the Human Rights Campaign tallied that legislators in 38 states filed 250 bills that the gay rights community viewed as restricting their rights. But perhaps North Carolina is serving as a cautionary tale for Republican leaders in some states, who are greeting the notion of the bathroom wars arriving in their state with trepidation and even outright hostility.    Progressives aren't counting on GOP fear of political retribution as a backstop, though. They point out that Bevin joined the lawsuit challenging a federal regulation under President Barack Obama that students will be able to use the bathroom of their choice.   On Monday evening, the Human Rights Campaign jumped on the routine archiving of the State Department's website under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, which had the effect of also archiving his official apology for the mass firing of gay people from the U.S. government in the 1950s. Earlier in the day, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he wasn't sure whether Trump would roll back Obama-era protections for LGBT federal government and contract workers. "With each passing hour, the Trump administration continues to show the extent of their contempt for the enormous progress made over the past eight years," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement. With a Republican White House, Republican Congress and Republican majorities in many states, the question becomes what sort of moves gay rights advocates can expect now.

Virginia’s GOP male lawmakers are gifted at antagonizing women. And they’re at it again.

Bad news, Virginia: The boys are back in town. The latest move to come out of a male-dominated state legislature that once wanted to vaginally probe women seeking abortions is as boys-club as it gets. It starts with an accomplished and respected judge, Justice Jane Marum Roush. This is the woman who masterfully managed a Beltway sniper trial, whose 22-year judicial record in Fairfax County is straight down the middle and who came recommended by a Republican. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) appointed her to the state Supreme Court this summer to fill a vacancy, when the legislature was out of session. Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax) had recommended her. This happens. It’s happened before. And usually — at least, as far as the past 100 years go — the legislature approves a judge for a 12-year-term once it is back in session. But this time, the House of Delegates decided to pick a fight and refused to let Roush stay. Last month, House Republicans refused to make her temporary appointment permanent and said they will do the same with the second temporary appointment McAuliffe announced this week. Why is this so bad? Because it’s a ruthless partisan play, a potshot at McAuliffe that could wind up taking down a highly qualified woman. The Washington Post’s Laura Vozzella has chronicled the infighting that this battle has created in a legislature that is just 17 percent female. Yes, you read that right: In Virginia, 24 of 140 lawmakers are women. According to Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax), the Republicans going after Roush are being complete jerks. “Their objections came at the last minute and on the fly,” she told The Post last month. “They had no process. They did no interviews. They posted no advertisements. They didn’t involve the public. They didn’t request input from all members of the General Assembly. It isn’t even clear if they considered all of their own caucus. . . . The majority party refused to interview a sitting justice for her own position.” No one can come up with any good reason to oust Roush. When you finally have another woman on the bench (thanks to Roush, there are now three, in a squad of seven), and you decide to kick her out for no good reason, it doesn’t speak to common sense or fairness. “It’s because we’re not in the backrooms yet,” said Penny J. White, a law professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. She knows something about this, having served on the Tennessee State Supreme Court. “When those backroom deals are made, it’s mostly men making those decisions.” You’ll see a few women in those stern portraits of esteemed state justices across the land. A couple of pearl earrings here and maybe a bold, doily collar there among all those black judicial robes. Women are 51 percent of the population but occupy only 29 percent of the seats in the highest courts across the country, according to the National Association for Women Judges. A few states have many women serving on their high courts. California and, interestingly, Tennessee have women in the majority. But in most states, men dominate the judiciary. A handful of states did not have a woman on the bench until this century. It’s much better than it was a decade ago, White said, and far, far better than it was in the 1990s. With women making up 45 to 55 percent of most law school classes, more female judges will inevitably be appointed. “But what continues to happen — with Virginia being the present case in point — is that politics interfere with quality-based appointments in a number of different ways,” she said. “With male-dominated legislatures, and with women being few in number and having fewer natural allies historically in the behind-the-scenes political dealmaking, qualified women jurists face higher hurdles than their male counterparts.” Bingo. In addition to the state’s having a less diverse bench, the roadkill in all this political maneuvering would be Roush. She loses big time if she gave up her seat in Fairfax only to have her Supreme Court appointment killed because the boys couldn’t play nice in the backroom. And Virginia residents, who deserve a Supreme Court that reflects the state’s population, will lose big time, too. **Read more Petula Dvorak** : Lessons from a 16-year-old’s ‘on fleek’ life — and her extraordinary death A basketball tournament disqualifies a team because one player is a girl. In 2015 Frigid offices, freezing women, oblivious men Passengers watched a killing on a Metro car. Should they have intervened? Genius Girl, a Harvard-Stanford admissions hoax and elite college mania.

Men who had guns but weren’t shot by police: Guess what many have in common?

So far this year, 509 people have been shot and killed by police in the United States, according to The Washington Post’s Fatal Force database. Most had guns, and most were white, but a quarter were black — a disproportionate number, given the country’s African American population. Yet police officers frequently arrest suspects armed with guns who have shot and killed one or more people, who have shot at or killed cops, who have threatened men, women and children. And they arrest them without incident or loss of more life, according to the letter of the law. I did a bit of research and found plenty of examples. And, not surprisingly, lots of those gunmen were white. To read more examples, visit my Facebook page. **Twitter: @petulad** **Read more Petula Dvorak:** An 11-year-old buries her mother after hearing the gunshots that killed her A home that looks perfect, until bigotry rears its ugly head Frigid offices, freezing women, oblivious men: An air-conditioning investigation McDonnell may be in the clear with the court, but the public is another story

A transgender candidate takes on Virginia’s ‘minister of private parts’

Traffic. Schools. Jobs. Getting to their jobs, so back to traffic. That’s what Northern Virginia voters want to talk about when a transgender woman with a rainbow headscarf and slashing black eyeliner knocks on their door. Which is weird. Because given all the legislation proposed in the Virginia General Assembly on these constituents’ behalf, you would think the conversations would be nothing but bathrooms, abortions and sex when someone such as Danica Roem shows up. Roem, 32, has made history, becoming the first openly transgender candidate to win a state primary in Virginia. Now, the Democratic nominee is trying to unseat her polar opposite in the 13th District: 25-year incumbent Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William). And she believes she can win exactly because she has little interest in talking about sex, body parts or gender identity — the meat and potatoes of Marshall’s public life. In a rapidly developing part of the state that desperately needs a traffic czar, Marshall instead styles himself as Virginia’s self-appointed “Minister of Private Parts.” He belongs to the party of small government, yet his legislative record is all about people’s sexual and reproductive behavior. Over the course of his career, he has questioned the intelligence of women who use long-term contraception, argued that some incest is voluntary, pushed for women to be legally required to have transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions, suggested that children born with disabilities are the punishment for women who have had abortions, worried that U.S. troops would catch sexually transmitted diseases if they had to serve alongside gay men and women, called for transgender service members to be kicked out of the military and authored a vicious transgender bathroom bill that would allow the government to dictate where someone can pee. Marshall’s ironically named Physical Privacy Act was based on his fear that men and boys would pretend to be transgender to infiltrate bathrooms and locker rooms used by women and girls. “Some guys will use anything to make a move on some teenage girls or women,” he said. And here comes his opponent in a district that backed Democrat Hillary Clinton over Republican Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election: a transgender woman who sings in a metal band, has a boyfriend and doesn’t make it a point to talk about any of it. “Traffic. Jobs. Schools, in that order,” Roem said about her platform and her issues. “And equality.” “Of course. I put equality on there because,” and she gestured along the length of her royal blue sheath dress, “this race will be different.” She doesn’t shy away from her identity. The scarf she wears when she canvasses is a big, fat pride rainbow. The story of her transition and medical treatments is on her Web page. But, unlike her opponent, she doesn’t think Manassas residents stay awake at night worrying about which bathroom she should use. She isn’t running because she’s transgender and wants to fight Marshall’s craziness. No, she is running because of what she learned at work. Roem is a local news reporter. And for about a decade, she has spent thousands of hours at local government hearings and meetings, poring over planning and zoning documents, proposed legislation and bids for public works projects. She’s a policy nerd. You try to get a quick yes or no about an issue, and instead you get the memorized 25-year history of a traffic corridor, with the pinpoint details of costs, dates, traffic studies, estimates, rates and efficiencies. She’s not big into talking points or 140-character sound bites. “Wow. I’m impressed, you really know your details,” said Denise Coleman, 28, after she opened her door to Roem’s barrage of details on traffic. Roem wasn’t there to talk about behind-closed-doors morality or to fight a culture war or to get Coleman to understand the two-decade, gut-wrenching journey of a transgender woman. Nope. Roem did a straight-from-memory deep dive into why Coleman’s commute sucks and how it can be fixed. And Coleman loved it. “That’s what I’m talking about,” Coleman said. “This is what matters.” Roem was on a roll. “Think you’d like a yard sign?” she asked. “Well, not really,” Coleman said, looking down at her feet, avoiding Roem’s eyes. “My mom lives here, and, you know, she’s Catholic.” Roem talked about all the Catholic education she has had — 13 years — but didn’t push it. She hasn’t been positioning herself as some sort of standard-bearer for LGBT rights. In fact, it wasn’t until that bizarre Trump tweet last week that called for a ban on transgender service members in the military that Roem went on the offensive on the issue. “For our president, who opted out of serving in the military, to attack transgender people for being unfit to serve . . . is the height of hypocrisy,” Roem told my colleague, Fenit Nirappil. “Transgender military members . . . have done more to serve and protect their country than Donald Trump ever will.” Roem got a $50,000 donation from Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, who chairs the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and was in Washington when Trump issued his military ban. “You, my dear, are on everyone’s lips across the nation,” said Pam Northam, wife of Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam, when she visited Roem’s headquarters in Manassas for an ice cream social Sunday afternoon. “I’m such a fan, I couldn’t wait to meet her,” Northam confessed to me after she and Roem hugged, smiled for the camera and talked about the knots in their stomachs both get before knocking on each door they hit. Before heading out for Sunday evening’s door-knocking — they’ve hit 16,000 doors so far, and Roem leaves a personal, handwritten note for each constituent she doesn’t get to talk to — she met with her staff to get a field report. “Is anyone talking about the transgender ban?” Roem asked one of her organizers, Brad Chester. “Not really,” Chester said. “Maybe one person. Power lines, people really wanted to talk about power lines.” And she headed out for another round of discussion about traffic, schools, property values, jobs. The transgender thing didn’t come up. Because, really, who cares? (Almost no one.) **Twitter: @petulad** **Read more Petula Dvorak:** This woman’s name appears on the Declaration of Independence. So why don’t we know her story? Frigid offices, freezing women, oblivious men: An air-conditioning investigation The newest exhibit on the Mall? Fear of young African Americans The flag had hung in the Kennedy Center for years. Just one problem: It was wrong.

House Republicans sharply question chairmen of panel probing Benghazi attack

House Republicans investigating last year’s deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Thursday badgered a former U.N. ambassador and a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman over their review of the Obama administration’s handling of the matter. GOP members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee asked why former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials weren’t questioned during the inquiry overseen by Thomas Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullen. They chaired an independent panel that reviewed the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Their report last year harshly criticized the State Department for its security posture in the months before militants stormed the Benghazi facility. But House GOP members said it was incomplete and lacked independence. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) called the report by Pickering and Mullen a “whitewash” and asked why Clinton and Tom Donilon, then President Obama’s national security adviser, weren’t interviewed. Pickering said they weren’t involved in Benghazi security decisions. “If the secretary wasn’t involved, I must be on another planet,” Mica replied. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) later asked Mullen if he interviewed Obama. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) accused Mullen of tipping off Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, about the investigation. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) argued with Mullen about U.S. or allied military assets that the Utah congressman insisted could have been mobilized during the attack. Pickering, who was President George H.W. Bush’s U.N. envoy, and Mullen, the top U.S. general under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, defended their efforts. “We had unfettered access to State Department personnel and documents. There were no limitations,” Mullen said. “We received the full cooperation of all witnesses and every State Department office. We interviewed everyone we thought it was necessary to interview. We operated independently and were given freedom to pursue the investigation as we deemed necessary.” In advance of the hearing, House Democrats released an 80-page report that concluded the U.S. military wasn’t ordered to “stand down” during the Benghazi attack — rejecting an assertion repeated as recently as Wednesday by several Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Mullen’s successor as top U.S. general, rejected the stand-down claim at a Senate hearing in June. The Republican-led House Armed Services Committee endorsed that position after a classified hearing with other senior officials in July. Mullen rejected the charge as well multiple times Thursday, saying it would have been impossible for any military assets to make it to Benghazi in time to make a difference. The Democratic report also defended the conduct of Pickering and Mullen. However, Democrats found significant fault with the State Department for establishing Benghazi as a “temporary post” without the full security of an embassy or consulate. That could provide at least some ammunition for criticism of Clinton as she gears up for a potential presidential run in 2016, given that she would have been involved in approving a U.S. mission in the largely lawless city after Libya’s 2011 civil war. ** Associated Press  **

In the Loop: Obama lags on judicial confirmations

What is that creaking sound? Ah, yes. That’s the window starting to close on folks still hoping to put on those black robes before the Senate takes off for the holidays in December. The good news is that, if you’re one of the nine nominees — seven for district judgeships, two for appeals courts — who have already reached the Senate floor, you’ve got a decent shot at confirmation before the Senate recess. That’s especially true for the seven who got unanimous votes in committee. An additional 10 nominees have had hearings and are awaiting only a committee vote to get to the full Senate, which should happen by early next month. That’s plenty of time to make it to the floor. The Senate Judiciary Committee, which usually takes up three or four district judgeships and one appellate judgeship at each hearing, may have time to approve as many as 27 more nominees to go to the full body, for a total of 46. But here’s where it gets tricky. Controversial nominees, meaning those approved by the committee largely with Democratic support, will have a tough time getting through in the rush to adjourn. And even those with substantial GOP support may have trouble getting pushed through in the Senate’s traditional end-of-the-year wrap-up. That’s because the wrap-up tradition appears to have fallen victim to the increasingly bitter partisanship on the Hill. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman **Pat Leahy** (D-Vt.) has previously noted that the GOP left 17 noncontroversial judicial wannabes on the floor in 2010 and 18 in 2011. The nasty fights over the shutdown and the debt ceiling aren’t likely to have done much for comity. Meanwhile, a new report by the liberal Alliance for Justice finds that as of Sept. 25, **President Obama** , after an extraordinarily slow start, has moved way ahead of **George W. Bush** on nominations. Obama has made 271 nominations, compared with 240 for Bush II at this point in his presidency. But only 75 percent of Obama’s nominees have been confirmed, compared with 90 percent for Bush. At this point, Bush had put 215 judges on the bench, while Obama has put on 203. In the first term, Obama deftly improved on the Democrats’ policy of minimizing their impact on the federal judiciary by appointing the oldest judges ever, going back to the **Jimmy Carter** administration, the report found. Obama’s confirmed appeals judges are on average nearly four years older than Bush II’s and 4.7 years older than **George H.W. Bush** ’s. (The average age of more recent nominees, however, is significantly lower.) At this point, Democrats have edged ahead in the number of appointees on the 179-member U.S. courts of appeals, the report found. The percentage of Republican-appointed appeals judges — 61.3 percent when Bush II left office — has dropped to 49.4 percent, the report found. Republicans maintain a thin lead of 50.3 percent of the nation’s 678 federal district judges. When last we checked in on career diplomat **Bob Blackwill** , the former ambassador to India who abruptly resigned his post as the White House’s top official on Iraq policy, was at a D.C. lobbying firm. That move, in November 2004, came after then-national security adviser **Condoleezza Rice** scolded him over an incident in which he was alleged to have verbally abused and physically hurt a female embassy staffer during a visit to Iraq in September. At the Kuwait airport, Air France told Blackwill, who was rushing to return home, that he was not on the flight manifest. Blackwill allegedly grabbed the embassy aide’s arm. There were conflicting accounts of what happened, but Rice, we were told, wanted to ensure that Blackwill treated his subordinates appropriately. (One official said at the time that the incident and Blackwill’s later departure were unrelated.) When he was in India, Blackwill was dinged by two State Department inspector general’s reports about his management and the plunging morale among embassy staff members. Blackwill, widely considered a brilliant guy, was a “prickly, demanding boss,” our colleague **Bob Woodward** wrote in his book “State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III,” and “often referred to himself as Godzilla.” Well, he seems to be doing quite well these days, judging from an e-mail we got from him Wednesday. He’s now an “international council member” at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “I am pleased to share with you a paper I recently wrote entitled, ‘Ideal Qualities of a Successful Diplomat,’ ” the e-mail says. “Drawing from my experiences in the United States government at home and abroad, I outline fifteen characteristics that I believe are fundamental for successful diplomats.” The generally harmless bromides — “write well and quickly . . . be verbally fluent and concise . . . study history” — include an instruction to “prudently speak your opinion to power.” Blackwill adds: “But choose your dissenting moments wisely.” And if you really object to the policy, “don’t whine. Resign.” Nothing about treating your subordinates well? **With Emily Heil** The blog: washingtonpost.com/   in the loop. Twitter:@intheloop.

Feinstein calls Benghazi panel a ‘hunting mission for a lynch mob’

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Sunday criticized Republicans for opening a fresh inquiry into the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted that all questions have been answered about the matter. "I think it's ridiculous. I think it's a hunting mission for a lynch mob," Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "State of the Union." She was responding to a question about the committee that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) recently tasked with investigating the attacks. "There have been four major reports. We spent a year and a half on a report. We held hearings. Thousands of pages were reviewed," Feinstein said. In an appearance on NBC News's "Meet the Press," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus accused former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton of trying to "sweep Benghazi under the rug." "If you want any evidence of that, ask the families of people who lost their sons in Benghazi. They've talked plenty about what happened in Benghazi," Priebus said.

Republicans do remember that women vote, right?

When will Republicans stop their vagina monologue? March is federally recognized as Women’s History Month, and Republicans have been celebrating the occasion in a most unusual style: with a burst of interest in women’s private parts. On Thursday, the Senate took up an amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would allow employers to deny women birth-control coverage if the employer found contraception morally objectionable. About 100 miles south of Washington on that same day, Virginia legislators passed a measure requiring a woman to be offered an ultrasound image of her fetus before aborting it. The legislation, which opponents say could also require some women who have miscarriages to be offered ultrasonic images of their dead fetuses, is the successor of a bill that would have required women to undergo an invasive “transvaginal ultrasound.” Still on Thursday, the industrious Virginia House of Delegates also approved legislation bestowing rights on people, including a father, to bring a lawsuit over the death of the fetus. On Wednesday, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, a powerful influence among Republican lawmakers, described as a “slut” the law-school student invited by House Democrats to testify in support of birth control. “It makes her a prostitute,” Limbaugh said of the woman, blocked last month by House Republicans from testifying on what became an all-male panel. “She wants to be paid to have sex.” On Tuesday, Oklahomans held a protest at the state capitol to oppose a bill, passed by the state Senate and now being taken up by the House, that would bestow “personhood” on fetuses — one of many such efforts across the nation. Democrat Judy McIntyre, one of just four women in the 48-member state Senate, was so upset that, according to the Oklahoman newspaper, she held a protest sign proclaiming: “If I wanted the government in my womb, I’d [expletive] a senator.” Democrats think they have a political winner in the Republicans’ fascination with reproduction at a time when economic production is what voters have in mind. The party is raising money with a petition against the “Republican War on Women,” and 11 Democratic women running for the U.S. Senate are using the occasion to launch a fundraising tour. They are attempting to tie together everything from last year’s effort to defund Planned Parenthood to the proposed repeal of Obamacare (which expanded coverage of mammography and birth control). And Obama campaign strategists tell me they are confident that the two leading Republican presidential candidates, a Mormon and a devout Catholic, will have difficulty beating the rap that the party is obsessed with reproduction. Evidence that the Republicans realize they’re in a pickle: Mitt Romney spontaneously flip-flopped on his initial opposition to the Blunt amendment, which would also provide employers with a moral opt-out from other elements of Obamacare. Romney first said that “questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.” But he quickly reversed himself in favor of the amendment, aligning himself with Rick Santorum, who has voiced doubts about the constitutional protections for birth control. More evidence: After championing the Blunt amendment, Republican leaders backed away from their demands for a vote on the provision. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), an early proponent of the amendment after hearing about the issue during a Catholic Mass, disappeared from the debate. So Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) wound up forcing a vote on the provision, which was narrowly defeated Thursday afternoon. “Today, the Senate will vote on an extreme, ideological amendment to the bipartisan transportation bill,” Reid said, kicking off Thursday’s debate. “This amendment takes aim at women’s access to health care.” The Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell (Ky.), made no mention of birth control in his reply, countering that “it is not within the power of the federal government to tell anybody what to believe, or to punish them for practicing those beliefs.” Most other Republicans followed McConnell’s lead in avoiding mention of contraception. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), however, said the provision in the health-care law requiring preventive medical coverage for women is “questionable policy,” and he accused the administration of “deferring to its feminist allies” by mandating contraceptive coverage. After the amendment went down to defeat, its sponsor gave a General MacArthur. “I’m confident this issue is not over,” Blunt said. “It won’t be over until the administration figures out how to accommodate people’s religious views as it relates to these new mandates.” The monologue will continue. **_danamilbank@washpost.com _ ** **More on this debate from PostOpinions:** Kathleen Parker: Limbaugh owes Georgetown student an apology Greg Sargent: Pelosi rips Limbaugh for ‘slut’ remark Rachel Maddow: The GOP war on birth control Ann Telnaes: Mitt Romney’s stance on the Blunt amendment The Post’s View: Virginia’s ultrasound overreach

In Prince William County, the death of a young police officer

AT LEAST 14 police officers have been killed in the line of duty across the United States this year. Officer Ashley M. Guindon , of the Prince William County Police Department, who died Saturday, was the latest. All those deaths are tragedies for their departments, their communities, and their families and friends. Officer Guindon, 28, died just a day after she’d been sworn in as a brand-new officer. She was the first female officer to be killed on the job this year, and without a doubt the least experienced; the other 13 had an average of more than 16 years in uniform. But no amount of experience would have immunized Officer Guindon from the gunfire that struck her down late Saturday, when she responded to a domestic-disturbance call along with two veteran officers. All three were shot as they approached or tried to gain entrance to a single-family house in Woodbridge. The alleged gunman, Army Staff Sgt. Ronald Williams Hamilton, who works at the Pentagon, apparently opened fire without warning and at close range. Inside the house, his wife, Crystal Hamilton, had already been shot to death, police said. The other two officers who were injured — Jesse Hempen, 31, and David McKeown, 33 — had been on the force for eight and 10 years, respectively. In all likelihood, they had responded to many such domestic calls. As police officers do everywhere, they had risked danger again and again in the course of their daily duties. They had come away unscathed, until Saturday. Many Americans have been demanding more accountability from law enforcement, especially since the shooting death of a young black man in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014. They are well within their rights to do so, and police departments nationwide would do well to heed those demands. Americans would also do well to bear in mind the array of perils that officers manage and confront regularly — and with professional competence and personal courage so much of the time. Counties, cities and neighborhoods rely on police for that expertise and proficiency, and rarely remark on it. It is an assumed necessity, a sine qua non of a civilized society. We take men and women in uniform, as well as the hazards they encounter, as givens. That’s a mistake, as Officer Guindon’s unwarranted death reminds us. Police and other law enforcement officers take an oath to serve and protect; implicit in that is that they willingly take risks, and often enormous ones, that the rest of us would be loath to face. Officer Guindon was young, eager, ambitious, passionate about police work, admired as “a professor’s dream” by one who taught her in college. The people in Prince William, as all of us, are poorer for her loss, and indebted to her and others who serve and protect. **Read more about this topic:** Petula Dvorak: Police officers handle the problems we ignore

Two years, $7 million, still no smoking gun on Clinton and Benghazi

The House Select Committee on Benghazi released its long-awaited findings Tuesday and concluded that . . . well, it looks as though they’re going to have to empanel another select committee to iron out the dueling conclusions reached by various members of the committee. The panel members spent two years and $7 million to come up with the last word on what happened in Libya in September 2012, when four American personnel were killed. They had vowed to best the seven prior congressional investigations and the Obama administration’s own probe. Instead, they ended their investigation this week with three more competing reports: one by committee Democrats, one by Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and the committee’s Republican majority, and one by a rump group of conservatives on the panel. There’s still no smoking gun from Benghazi — just a lot more smoke. Had Gowdy found evidence that the military could have saved the lives of the four Americans? “I don’t know,” Gowdy said. Had he proved that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acted on political motives? “I don’t have a background in the ‘why,’ ” Gowdy demurred. Do his findings support the allegation on bumper stickers and T-shirts across the land claiming “Clinton lied, people died”? “You don’t see that T-shirt on me, and you’ve never seen that bumper sticker on any of my vehicles,” Gowdy replied. Gowdy went out of his way not to mention Clinton in his opening statement at a news conference Tuesday. He said he would be “shocked” if people concluded the report is about her. Unfortunately, at least two of the six committee Republicans sharing the stage with Gowdy had a dissenting view. Rep. Mike Pompeo (Kan.), who wrote a separate report with Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), proclaimed Clinton’s actions during the Benghazi attacks “morally reprehensible” and said relatives of the slain “have every right to be disgusted” with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. NBC’s Luke Russert asked Gowdy about that “morally reprehensible” allegation. “You read the report, you will not see any of those quotes,” the chairman replied. But Pompeo stepped to the microphone and said he “absolutely” believes Clinton’s behavior was morally reprehensible — something he believes “in my heart.” If having a legitimate probe was the goal, Gowdy was probably doomed from the start. He launched with a show of fairness. But Republicans, including Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), eventually confessed the panel’s political aims. Democrats grew more antagonistic, and Gowdy, after promising his report was “not going to come out in the middle of 2016,” released his report just before the political conventions. Gowdy apparently lost hard-liners on his own panel. Pompeo and Jordan, in their rival report, alleged that Clinton’s State Department was “seemingly more concerned with politics and Secretary Clinton’s legacy than with protecting its people in Benghazi,” and they said the Obama administration was “so focused on the next election that it lost sight of its duty to tell the American people the truth.” They faulted Clinton for a “lapse in judgment that may well haunt our nation for years to come.” And they thought it “plausible” to conclude that she forced Americans to stay in dangerous conditions because “to leave Benghazi would have been viewed as her failure.” Pompeo, at Tuesday’s news conference with Gowdy, added that Clinton chose “to put political expediency and politics ahead of the men and women on the ground.” If Republicans leveled wild accusations, Democrats went the other way, issuing their own report categorically asserting that the Pentagon “could not have done anything differently” to save those killed, that “Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi,” that intelligence assessments “were not influenced by political considerations” and that officials “did not make intentionally misleading statements.” Between the reckless accusations and the nothing-to-see-here defenses, there was one obvious truth: “There does not appear to be a smoking gun,” CNN’s Dana Bash informed her viewers before Gowdy entered the room. Nor even a warm slingshot. The few revelations the panel advertised as “new” — that no military assets had been deployed to Benghazi, that embassy security staff had been ordered to change uniforms, that Clinton had been planning a visit to Libya — had mostly been uncovered in previous investigations. Gowdy, with slicked gray hair, lavender tie and fitted suit, offered what sounded like an excuse for the absence of a bombshell. “It is always better to be the first committee to investigate, and it is always better to investigate as contemporaneously to an incident or to an event as can be done,” he said. “Our committee did not have the luxury of either one of those.” Too bad they didn’t think of this two years and $7 million ago. **_Twitter: @Milbank_ ** _Read more fromDana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook._ **Read more about this topic:** Josh Rogin: House Benghazi report: Clinton was planning a trip to Libya before the attacks Jennifer Rubin: How Republicans blew it on Benghazi The Post’s View: Republicans’ Benghazi goose chase comes up empty E.J. Dionne Jr.: Kevin McCarthy’s truthful gaffe on Benghazi

Democrats partner with political newcomers aiming to create anti-Trump wave in 2018 midterms

A wave of first-time candidates eager to fight President Trump and his young administration plan to challenge House Republican incumbents, giving Democratic Party leaders hope that they can capitalize on the anger and intensity at grass-roots protests and town hall meetings across the country this year. At least 15 declared candidates or contenders on the verge of announcing have emerged in districts that Democrats must win to take back the House, including in several districts where the party did not seriously compete in 2014 or 2016, according to party officials. Democrats need 24 new seats to retake control of the House — a tall order that no party leader publicly says is possible, at least not yet. Still, less than 100 days into Trump’s presidency, the early interest gives Democrats a chance to compete more aggressively in districts where they haven’t fielded challengers in recent cycles — and perhaps chip away at the GOP’s seven-year control of the House. “This is unprecedented,” said Stephanie Schriock, president of Emily’s List, the progressive organization that trains and recruits women to run for political office. During the 2016 cycle, her group spoke with about 900 women interested in running for school board, state legislature or Congress. This year, they’ve heard from more than 11,000 women in all 50 states — with a few dozen seriously considering House races, she said. Democratic strategists are trying to take advantage of the groundswell of engagement. They have moved initial staff to key districts they are targeting, including several in California, Virginia and Texas. In a bid to pick up as many as five more seats from Republican incumbents in California, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has moved its eight-member western regional political team to offices in Irvine, Calif. — the first time the team has been permanently stationed outside of Washington since 2000. The goal is to defeat Reps. Mimi Walters, Edward R. Royce, Dana Rohrabacher, Steve Knight and Darrell Issa, all of whom won reelection last year in districts that Hillary Clinton won. And they are actively recruiting candidates in the most competitive districts. Staff at the DCCC — responsible for electing more Democrats to the House — say they’ve spoken with more than 300 potential candidates in 70 districts nationwide, a figure that they believe will allow the party to compete in several long-held Republican districts like the one in Georgia where the first round of a special election this week earned outsized national attention. Congressional Republicans cautioned that the Democrats’ activity includes no evidence of an advantage in next year’s midterm elections. They noted that Democrats have to focus more on recruiting because they control less of the map and need to make gains. And they caution that early recruits might not line up with the demands of Democratic voters. Democrats “are getting a bit out front of themselves in not recognizing that their candidates are going to have difficulty getting through primaries,” said Jesse Hunt, national press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Their base is demanding all-out destruction and candidates with rigid ideology whose sole purpose is to oppose Donald Trump and the Republican agenda. That’s going to run up against some of what Washington Democrats want to do.” NRCC officials said they have spoken with more than 100 potential candidates about challenging Democrats, especially in a handful of Midwestern districts that could become vacant as Democratic incumbents retire or seek higher office. And so far, Republicans retain a financial advantage in this election cycle despite Democrats’ apparent enthusiasm advantage: While the DCCC raised $31 million in the first quarter — including 120,000 online donations from first-time givers — the House GOP’s campaign arm raised $36 million. Liberal activists and Democratic organizers said the key ingredient this year is the grass-roots urgency, but the hope is to combine that with organizing heft. In the fierce battleground of Northern Virginia, Democratic State Sen. Jennifer Wexton is a prime example. A former prosecutor, Wexton was wooed by Democrats in 2016 to challenge Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), but she declined — and the two-term lawmaker prevailed in one of the most expensive and competitive House races last year. On Friday, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report declared Comstock’s seat a “toss up” after Wexton decided to jump in — a decision that resulted partly from conversations with fellow Democrats and partly from attending the Women’s March on Washington and other protests that opened her eyes to the extent of the outrage spurred by Trump’s election. “I’ve never seen anything like that it my life, it was amazing and very inspiring,” Wexton said. “I went to Dulles Airport during the Muslim ban and same thing there. All the people who had come out to protest in solidarity with immigrants and the volunteer attorneys who were there. I mean that was amazing.” A scientist in California, military veterans in Colorado and Virginia, Latino activists in Florida and Texas ,and women business executives in several states are making similar decisions. Cristobal Alex, president of the Latino Victory Fund, which trains Latino Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, said that at this same point two years ago, the group had held “just a handful” of conversations with potential congressional candidates. This year, he’s talked to 12 potential candidates about challenging Republican congressmen in Texas, Florida and Virginia. Thanks to his anti-immigrant rhetoric and plans to build a border wall, “Donald Trump is the best Latino political organizer in history,” Alex said. “I’ve never seen anything like it” added physicist Rush Holt, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a former Democratic congressman from New Jersey. Holt said he used to get one or two inquiries a year from fellow scientists interested in entering politics. But in the past five months, more than a dozen people have reached out. “There’s a widespread and deep concern that there is an eroding appreciation of science,” Holt said. “That didn’t start in November, but now it’s reached a crescendo.” The landscape is different in the Senate. Republicans have a distinct advantage in 2018, when 25 Democrats will be defending Senate seats, including 10 in states that Trump won last year. But Republicans are struggling to find candidates to challenge Democrats next year. Several prominent, well-funded contenders in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Montana, Indiana and elsewhere have declined to launch Senate campaigns. Democrats, hoping to win Senate races in Arizona and Nevada, also have yet to find recruits. The National Republican Senatorial Committee declined to comment on its recruiting plan. But one national GOP strategist, who like many contacted declined to be named publicly for fear of retribution from the White House or congressional leaders, said that concerns with Trump’s sagging popularity are a leading factor for wary Republican candidates. “Presumably, if you’re running as a Republican in 2018, you’re running to implement his agenda,” said the operative. “There are a lot of Republicans who are uneasy with big elements of Trump’s agenda and you’re seeing that reflected in challenges with candidate recruitment.” In the House, the recent focus by Democrats on Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, an Atlanta-area seat until recently held by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, is part of a plan to more actively support candidates in Republican-held districts that last year voted for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and had never voted to elect former president Barack Obama. Beginning in February, the DCCC began hiring field staffers in 20 districts — a mix of perennial swing districts in Florida, Colorado, Iowa, New York and Pennsylvania, plus GOP-held districts that voted for Clinton in California, Texas and Kansas. While staffers are usually hired or deployed in these areas, the party started doing it two weeks after Trump’s inauguration in response to the grass-roots-level organizing that sparked large marches, airport protests and rowdy town hall meetings. Several of these fresh Democratic recruits will face battle-tested, well-funded GOP incumbents who can rely on national Republicans or well-funded super PACs for financial support. Such backing has helped suppress support for previous Democratic opponents, who may have earned early buzz and support but fizzled closer to Election Day. Potential recruits say that the DCCC is cautioning potential candidates that competing in dozens of new Republican-friendly districts will be expensive and could stretch resources. “They were realistic. They’re not selling a false bill of goods,” said Miguel Solis, a Dallas school board member who had considered running against Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), but declined because of family commitments. He said he had nearly a dozen conversations with senior Democratic lawmakers about the race. “The numbers suggest it can be done, but it’s going to take a significant coalition of independents, moderate Republicans and a significant turnout of Democrats to win it,” Solis said. In some cases, it also requires getting past primaries in expensive media markets. At least two other Democrats who are expected to run against Sessions, a former NFL player and former State Department official, will face just that. That isn’t stopping many Democrats from jumping in. In Colorado, the DCCC is working with Jason Crow, an attorney and former Army Ranger who has decided to challenge Rep. Mike Coffman, a perennial Democratic target. Crow said the decision was clear for him. “If we’re not okay with the state of affairs in D.C., and if we’re not okay with the direction of our country,” he said, “we’re not going to fix it by electing the same kind of people with the same way of thinking than we’ve had in the past.” In addition to Crow, several military veterans are planning to run as Democrats. In the San Diego area, Josh Butner, a former Navy SEAL, is challenging Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R), who is a Marine. In central Virginia, former Marine Roger Dean Huffstetler is running against Rep. Thomas Garrett (R). Sarah Kaplan and Jenna Portnoy contributed to this report.

In fatal shootings by police, 1 in 5 officers’ names go undisclosed

One evening last September, Pamela Anderson’s 33-year-old son was threatening her and needed to go to the hospital for medication to control his schizophrenia. She called police to her apartment on Chicago’s West Side, as she’d done many times before. Her previous calls had ended peacefully. But that night, an officer shot and killed James in front of her, saying he lunged at police with a box cutter. Anderson remembers the face of the Chicago police officer who killed her son. But she doesn’t know his name. The department won’t identify him or the officers involved in eight other fatal shootings in 2015, saying an agreement with the police union prevents the disclosures. “I need to know,” Anderson said. “If he’s got any kind of heart, he’s got to feel the pain I feel.” Nationwide, 210 people were fatally shot last year by police officers who have not been publicly identified by their departments. In 2015, police in the United States shot and killed 990 people, according to a Washington Post database of fatal police shootings. The vast majority of those killed by police were armed with guns or had attacked or threatened officers or civilians. The Post is continuing to track fatal shootings in 2016, recording more than 250 through March. The Post is also filing open-records requests seeking additional information about each shooting, including information about the officers involved, data that is not tracked by any federal agency. For 2015, reporters obtained the names of officers responsible for 780 of the 990 shootings. In about 600 shootings, officers’ names were disclosed by police departments in news reports. In a handful of cases, names came to light through lawsuits or leaks to the news media. Where the names remained unknown, The Post contacted the departments and requested the officers’ identities. In 145 fatal shootings, the departments declined to release the names to The Post, citing pending investigations, state or federal records laws, agreements with police unions or department policies. In another 65 fatal shootings, the departments did not respond to multiple requests for information. Since a grand jury in Missouri declined to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in 2014, the public has demanded more accountability and transparency from police. Knowing an officer’s name, for example, may reveal whether that officer has been involved in prior shootings or has been sued over the use of force. Last year, after reviewing fatal shootings by Philadelphia police, the Justice Department urged departments to release information on critical incidents, including shootings, within 72 hours. The Justice Department report said public mistrust was partly due to the police department’s “lack of transparency” in officer-involved shootings. A presidential task force last year also said that “agencies should communicate with citizens and the media swiftly, openly, and neutrally” about serious incidents. Neither report specified that officers’ names should be released, but officials involved said that the intent of both reports is that departments disclose them. Some police officials argue that officers’ names should be withheld until investigations into shootings have been completed. Among departments that declined to release officers’ names, pending investigations were the most commonly cited reason, accounting for about 60 fatal shootings. __Other departments said the names should never be released. In 22 shootings, departments said their policies prevented public disclosure. In an additional 17 killings, police officials said they release the names only if the officers are criminally charged. In 14 fatal shootings, police officials said that releasing the names __ would endanger their officers. In 32 other shootings, departments gave a range of reasons for not disclosing the names, including that they were not subject to public-records laws. Policing experts say there is little consensus among departments on the release of information after an officer fatally shoots someone while on duty. Nearly 700 departments had fatal shootings by officers in 2015, a small portion of the more than 18,000 agencies nationwide. “I think police chiefs and departments have a wide variety of responses, and we have not found any model policies or standards,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, which advises police chiefs around the country on policy issues. In Chicago, the department releases the names of officers only if they are charged criminally in shootings, a concession the city’s police union negotiated more than two decades ago. Similar rules apply in states such as New Jersey. In the District of Columbia, the Metropolitan Police Department said its practice is to withhold the name of anyone involved in a shooting by police, including witnesses or victims. The only time a name is released is if that person is charged with a crime or is deceased, police said. Federal agencies, whose officers killed 33 people last year, say they are prohibited by the federal Privacy Act from releasing the name of any agent unless that person has been charged with a crime. In California, the courts have ruled that officers’ names are public record except where there have been threats against departments or officers. “The name creates that true accountability,” said Sheriff Joseph Lombardo of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, which for decades has publicly identified officers involved in all shootings. “Once the name is put to the person or the act, it’s very hard for an organization to avoid the tough questions about that individual’s past.” Police chiefs who favor disclosure have faced a backlash from police unions, which have increasingly appealed to lawmakers to prohibit or delay the public release of the names of officers involved in shootings. In a handful of states, the tension has pitted the public, police and state lawmakers against one another in a struggle to pry loose the officers’ names or keep them secret. The release of officers’ names is typically governed by state open-records laws. The laws in most states give departments wide discretion to withhold information for a variety of reasons, including exemptions for material used in investigations and restrictions on releasing personnel records. In Oregon, lawmakers in the state House in February passed a bill that would have allowed police departments to withhold for 90 days the names of officers who have received threats. The bill, which stalled in a state Senate committee, was proposed after a bounty was posted online for the state trooper who in January killed Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, 54, a leader of the group of anti-government activists who occupied buildings at the remote Malheur National Wildlife Refuge at the start of the year. The author of the proposal, a 31-year police veteran turned legislator, said the law was designed to be used sparingly. “I can’t think of a single instance in my time as a cop where I would have used this,” said Jeff Barker, a Democrat from Aloha, Ore. In Phoenix, police unions objected when the department there released the name of the officer who fatally shot Rumain Brisbon, 34, in December 2014. Officer Mark Rine said he thought Brisbon was holding a gun, but the object turned out to be a pill bottle, according to police. After the department identified the officer, the Arizona Police Association, a trade group for police, pushed a bill that would have required police departments to wait 90 days before identifying an officer involved in a shooting. A version of the legislation passed in the state House but was vetoed by Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) in March 2015. Ducey said he was swayed by police chiefs who said they wanted to be able to name officers more quickly to address public demands for transparency. Rine could not be reached for comment. In February, state lawmakers in Virginia defeated a bill that would have made the names of all police officers exempt in all circumstances from disclosure under the state’s public-records law. Some lawmakers and police union officials had argued that the dangers officers faced from the release of their names outweighed the public’s right to know. “The culture is not one of respect for law enforcement anymore. It’s really, ‘How, how can we get these guys? What can we do?’ . . . Police officers are much more in jeopardy. There’s no nefarious intent behind the bill,” State Sen. John A. Cosgrove Jr. (R-Chesapeake), who sponsored the bill, told The Post in February. **** The battle over names is also playing out in Pennsylvania, where then-Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey decided last July to begin identifying any officers involved in shootings within 72 hours. “It tells the public you have nothing to hide,” said Ramsey, who served as deputy superintendent in Chicago and police chief in the District before taking over in Philadelphia. “When you’re reluctant to release the names, it builds mistrust.” Ramsey, who retired last year, has been on both sides of the disclosure debate over a long career. He said his views evolved while he was chairing President Obama’s task force on policing and heard citizens talk about high-profile shootings by police. But just hours after Ramsey announced that he would follow the task force’s recommendation to quickly release officers’ names in his own city, the local police labor union, the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, filed an unfair-labor-practice charge, saying that Ramsey had made the change without negotiating with the union. The matter is pending. The union went further, pushing a bill on the issue in the state legislature. The proposal would bar the release of officers’ names unless they are criminally charged in shootings or if the release of the information would put the officers or their families at risk. The bill passed the House in November but is stuck in a Senate committee. Union officials declined to comment. Ramsey, who as a young police officer shot and killed a person during a drug raid, said it is unrealistic to think there is anonymity when an officer pulls the trigger. Police unions **** seem to have two standards for disclosure, Ramsey said. “When the action of an officer is deemed to be heroic, there’s not any pushback from the union on releasing a name,” he said. ****In more than 30 shootings, departments contacted by The Post refused to release officers’ names as a matter of policy. In the District, police used to identify officers involved in fatal shootings, Ramsey said. That practice ended after Ramsey resigned from the D.C. department in 2006. “We never release the names of anybody involved in a shooting, not the officers, not witnesses, not suspects, unless they are deceased or charged with a crime,” said Lt. Sean Conboy, a D.C. police spokesman. Conboy said that has always been the practice and that he is unaware of a time when the department disclosed officers’ names. That policy has left Norma Shorter with unanswered questions. Shorter’s great-niece Marquesha McMillan died in October in a shootout with police after she and a male companion allegedly tried to rob Morris Miller Wines and Liquors in Northwest Washington. Police said that when they arrived, McMillan, 21, began shooting at officers, reloading her gun twice. Officers returned fire, killing her. Her accomplice was arrested and slapped with federal robbery and gun charges. Shorter, 63, said she is struggling to understand how her great-niece — a once-diligent college student and star basketball player — ended up in a gunfight with police. When McMillan died, Shorter said, she was nearly halfway through a degree in exercise science at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore but had stopped classes and was working part time as a custodian at FedEx Field in Landover. Shorter said that a week after the shooting, she visited the police station in the district where McMillan died and asked for a meeting with the commander. She told police that she wanted to find out whether the officers involved had a history of using deadly force. After she waited for a half-hour, she said, a desk officer told her that nobody would meet with her. “I asked, ‘When will you know something?’ ” Shorter recalled. “They said, ‘Ma’am, we can’t tell you that.’ ” Shorter, who works for the federal agency that oversees probationers and parolees, said she does not blame the officers for reacting at the scene of the shooting but wants to know whether they could have avoided killing her great-niece. “We haven’t even found out how many officers it was,” she said. “If I were to find out anything, it would make me feel better.” In Wichita, Santiago Quintero waited for more than a year before learning the name of the officer who shot and killed his son John Paul Quintero in January 2015. On the night he was shot, John Paul had been drinking and celebrating his 23rd birthday at his home when he got into a fight with another man. Santiago Quintero called 911, telling the operator that both men were brandishing knives. By the time police arrived, Quintero and John Paul were sitting in a Chevrolet Tahoe talking. Police ordered them out of the vehicle. Santiago Quintero said he yelled to police that the two were unarmed. John Paul was belligerent, police said, and an officer attempted to subdue him with a Taser. Police said John Paul was reaching for his waistband when an officer then shot him twice with her patrol rifle. Quintero disputes the account, saying his son was shot almost immediately after being shocked with the Taser. “My son had his hands up,” Quintero said. “He had no weapon.” The FBI has been investigating the case, according to the Sedgwick County district attorney. Wichita police do not release the names of officers involved in “critical incidents” except at the police chief’s discretion, according to the department’s published policy. Four months after the family filed suit over the shooting, the officer’s name was included in documents the family obtained as part of litigation, according to the family’s lawyer. In 1994, when Wichita released the names of two officers after a fatal shooting, one of the officers sued the city. Wichita police identified officer Terry Fettke after he killed a man who shot and wounded another officer. Fettke’s suit alleged that shortly after his name was disclosed, pamphlets were circulated that called for retaliation against him. He claimed that the police department had violated its own policy. Fettke lost the case when the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the city had no obligation to withhold his name. “As officers, we choose to sacrifice our daily existence to keep people safe,” Fettke recently told The Post. “We’re looking for a little protection back in our own direction.” ********A credible threat against officers involved in a fatal shooting can be a strong argument against releasing their names. In more than a dozen cases, departments told The Post they would not release officers’ names because of safety concerns. California generally requires departments to disclose the names, but the law provides an exemption: Police must show that an officer’s life would be endangered. In a 2014 ruling, the California Supreme Court said that in shootings by police, “the balance tips strongly in favor of identity disclosure.” That case began when the Los Angeles Times sought the names of two Long Beach officers who in 2010 shot and killed a man who they thought was holding a gun. The object turned out to be the spray nozzle of a garden hose. The city said it would release the names, but before it did, the Long Beach police union asked a judge to intervene. The California Supreme Court ultimately said police departments should release names unless they can show “particularized” threats against officers. In Oakland, Demouria Hogg’s family has been fighting for more than nine months to get police to tell them who shot and killed the 30-year-old father of three last summer. The shooting occurred on the morning of June 6 after Hogg was seen unconscious in a BMW parked on a highway offramp. Police called to the scene said they saw a handgun on the passenger seat next to Hogg. Officers said they tried for an hour to wake Hogg, eventually smashing the passenger-side window with a metal pipe. When Hogg awoke, one officer shocked him with a Taser, and the other fatally shot him, police said. Hogg’s family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in October. In Hogg’s case, the department is not releasing the names “due to receiving verified, credible threats against the officers,” Officer Marco Marquez, a spokesman for the department, told The Post. In West Virginia, the Monongalia County Sheriff’s Office would not tell Christie Cathers’s family who fired into her car and killed her in June 2015 because people had threatened the deputies on social media, the sheriff said. The shooting happened after the 45-year-old mother of three disappeared from her home in Morgantown. Her husband told emergency dispatchers that his wife might be having a mental breakdown. There were reports that Cathers had brandished a knife. Deputies soon found Cathers’s Dodge Avenger and pulled her over. They approached her car on foot, but she drove toward them. One deputy jumped out of her way while another fired into her vehicle but missed her. After a brief car chase, a deputy caught up with her again and opened fire as she drove past, striking her in the head and killing her, according to police news releases and a lawsuit filed by her family. In November, a grand jury found that the shooting was justified. Lawyers for the family said they were able to discover the names of the deputies involved, but Sheriff Kenneth “Al” Kisner said the family is speculating. “I know they did not get any information from our department,” Kisner said. Monongalia County reveals officers’ identities on a case-by-case basis, he said. Greg Farmerie, the father of Cathers’s children, said in a statement to The Post: “My kids, Christie’s husband and her family, as a whole, deserve a better, more transparent process.” In the only other fatal shooting by the sheriff’s department in 2015, Kisner has not identified the deputy who killed David Romanoski in November as officers served a search warrant. ****Police unions have been a powerful voice against releasing the names of officers in fatal shootings. In Chicago, police in 2015 shot and killed nine people. The department has not publicly identified any of the officers, who are covered by the collective bargaining agreement with the union. The contract prohibits the department from identifying an officer to the media unless the shooting results in criminal or administrative charges. An officer who killed two people in one shooting disclosed his own name when he sued the estate of one of those he killed, citing emotional trauma. The department disclosed the name of a police commander involved in a third shooting because he is not protected by the union contract. The department withheld the name of another officer involved in the same shooting. “Just because an officer is involved in a fatal shooting doesn’t mean that the officer has done anything outside of protecting their own life and the life of their partners,” Dean C. Angelo Sr., president of the Fraternal Order of Police Chicago Lodge No. 7, told The Post. Chicago police have refused to identify the officers publicly, even as activists and others have demanded greater police accountability after the October 2014 fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald, a 17-year-old African American armed with a knife. In November, police released video of an officer shooting McDonald 16 times as the teen was walking away. Hours earlier, prosecutors named Officer Jason Van Dyke when they filed a murder charge against him in the fatal shooting. In the following weeks, protests brought the city to a standstill. “The political backlash from the city’s decision resulted in my client being improperly charged. This was a tragedy, not a murder,” said Dan Herbert, Van Dyke’s attorney. In December, Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) fired the police superintendent, saying public trust in the department had “eroded.” He also vowed to implement reforms that would make the department more transparent. Emanuel declined to comment. The mayor’s promise has made no difference for Pamela Anderson, 52, who said she still does not know the name of the Chicago officer who killed her son at their home in September. Her adult son James lived with her and struggled with his mental illness, she said. He enjoyed spending time in his room watching “Soul Train,” listening to Run DMC and eating noodles, she said. He had never used drugs or been in jail, she said. Anderson said she called an emergency dispatcher when her son stopped cleaning himself and had become increasingly confused. She told the dispatcher that her son had threatened her, was mentally ill and needed to go to the hospital. The dispatcher asked whether her son was armed. She told the dispatcher that James had a box cutter in his pocket but would not use it. “You don’t need to come here with no guns or nothing,” she told the dispatcher, according to a transcript of the call. It was not the first time Anderson had made such a call. James had lived with her in Chicago’s Humboldt Park neighborhood for more than two years. On at least five occasions, emergency workers had come to their apartment to assist him when he had stopped taking his medication or was neglecting his personal hygiene. He would always go to the hospital without a struggle, Anderson said. James was in his bedroom listening to music when officers arrived that September night, according to a lawsuit Anderson has filed over his death. Officers met Anderson on her porch, where she told them James had no history of violence. One officer, with his gun drawn, knocked on James’s bedroom door, the suit states. Anderson contends that she pleaded with the officer to put his gun away, telling him that James was not a danger. Police said James emerged from his room holding the box cutter and approached in a threatening manner. Officers said that they used a Taser on him but that it had no effect. Police said James moved toward them, and one officer opened fire, killing him. Anderson said James had nothing in his hands and that he was shot seven times. “I don’t want to be mean to him. I want to know what was on his mind,” Anderson said of the officer who shot her son. “I want to talk to him.” Steven Rich, Julie Tate, Jennifer Jenkins, John Muyskens and Peter Hermann contributed to this report. This article was produced in partnership with the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, where Derek Hawkins, Kate McCormick and Ashley Balcerzak are students. Students Karol Anne M. Ilagan, Andrew Kreighbaum and Samantha Hogan also contributed to this report.  About this story: As part of The Post’s 2015 effort to tally police shootings, researchers and reporters tracked the names of officers as they appeared in news reports. If the officers’ names had not been made public, reporters called police departments to request the names. Departments were contacted in nearly 400 of the 990 fatal police shootings last year. Shootings sometimes involved multiple officers. Only shootings in which no officers’ names were released were counted as undisclosed. If a department declined to release an officer’s name but the identity was publicized through other avenues, The Post considered it disclosed. The Post received no response from departments in 68 fatal shootings. Reporters contacted those departments at least three times over several weeks. For shootings in 2016, The Post is filing open-records requests with each department involved, seeking a range of information about the officers and circumstances.

Kelly: ‘This time must be different’

Former astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), told a Senate committee on Wednesday morning that "this time must be different," calling for stronger gun laws in the wake of a string of mass shootings.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Kelly, a retired Navy officer who flew four times in space, has become the country's best-known spokesman for gun control, following the January 8, 2011, shooting that nearly killed his wife. Giffords was shot in the head as she held a constituent event in a supermarket parking lot in Tucson, Ariz. Six others were killed, before alleged gunman Jared Loughner was stopped as he sought to re-load. Kelly spoke after a brief opening statement from Giffords, who he said is still partially blind, and struggles to walk. He took her hand to help lead her from the room, and then returned a few minutes later to be a witness himself.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University In Kelly's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he took pains to cast himself--and his wife--as political moderates, and longtime gun owners. "We take that right very, very seriously, and we would never, ever give it up," Kelly said. But Kelly urged the committee to seek to fix the "matrix of failure and inadequacy" that underlies every gun death. He suggested three potential actions: Kelly, who founded a group called Americans for Responsible Solutions with Giffords, had previously said he wanted a new ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. In this hearing, however, he stopped short of calling explicitly for those measures. Instead, Kelly called for a "careful and civil conversation" about whether those items should face greater regulation.

Was the victim in brutal Fresno killing a transgender woman? ‘We may never know.’

In the early-morning hours of Thursday, a person in a tan SUV beckoned Kenton Craig Haggard over to the vehicle. Wearing a knee-length dress and a white cardigan, Haggard crossed the street. Leaning toward a passenger-side window, Haggard’s shoulder-length hair grazed the neckline of the dress. Minutes later, the person in the vehicle struck out with a knife, stabbing Haggard in the neck. Haggard stumbled, bleeding in the street and later dying at a hospital in the Central California city of Fresno. LGBT activists say Haggard’s brutal killing was the 11th so far this year of a transgender woman — and the second in just three days.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico But as far as the Fresno Police Department is concerned, the 66-year-old victim is male — not female. The case has highlighted the challenges of investigating violent crimes against transgender people, who, in the early stages of transitioning, might keep their identities secret from even the closest people in their lives. They live in fear of being themselves, advocates say. And when they are victimized, law enforcement is often slow to acknowledge their true identities, leaving potential avenues of investigation untouched and also making it more difficult to track violence against transgender people. “We have a tremendous problem of under-reporting of hate crimes against trans people — and all hate crimes,” said David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT advocacy group. _[Girl Scouts choose transgender girls over $100,000 donation]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The Fresno Police Department said it is investigating all leads to determine who committed the horrific crime, but there is “no evidence” that the victim was transgender or that Haggard was killed for that reason. “We have no information that this victim identified as transgender,” Lt. Joe Gomez, a spokesman for the Fresno Police Department, told The Washington Post. “And in fact, the information that we do have from people he lived with is that he did not.” “It’s not pertinent in the crime,” Gomez added. Furthermore, Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer referred to the victim repeatedly as “Mr. Haggard” in a press conference Saturday — a decision that has infuriated activists rallying to bring attention to the killing. “She was out ‘test-driving’ her female attire in the early morning, where she could be herself and not be bothered; I am convinced of that,” said Karen Adell Scot, founder of TransCare, which provides aid to people transitioning in the Fresno area. “She was newly transitioning.” _[8 critical facts about the state of transgender America]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The last time Jeff Haggard saw his cousin, it was about a year and a half ago, in a brief, chance meeting. He had no idea that his cousin might have been transitioning. “He seemed like the Kenton I’ve always known since I was a kid,” Jeff Haggard said. His cousin was always “kind of a loner,” who never married and had no children, Jeff Haggard said, noting that when he first read about his cousin’s killing, it was in the local news. Gerald Haggard, Kenton Haggard’s brother, confirmed to The Post that his only sibling had been killed. Kenton Haggard worked as a security guard for years until he retired recently — no longer able to keep up with the physical demands of the job, Gerald Haggard told The Post. A few months ago, neighbors at the apartment complex where Kenton Haggard lived called his brother, who lives about an hour away, to report that Kenton Haggard was “cross-dressing and walking down the street,” Gerald Haggard said. “These incidents were all in the day.” “I knew that he was cross-dressing,” Gerald Haggard told The Post. “We never had a conversation about transgender or changing.” In fact, they spoke last week, hours before Kenton Haggard was killed. But Gerald Haggard said the conversation centered on daily life and the subject of transitioning never came up. “I was concerned for my brother, but for his whole situation as far as his financial health, etc.,” he said. “The least of my concerns had to do with the new cross-dressing. The new cross-dressing was not high on my list of worries or concerns.” He added: “If he wanted to voluntarily talk about it, then that would have been fine. If he didn’t want to talk about it, then it was his freedom to do what he wanted.” _[Transgender in Maine: What life looks like for women who transitioned over age 60]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The complexities of this case have also divided LGBT advocates, who express varying degrees of wariness about assuming a person’s gender identity — one way or another. According to LGBT advocate Chris Jarvis, some in the trans community have suggested that if a man is dressed as a woman “and it’s not Halloween,” they should be assumed to be trans. “That’s not necessarily true,” said Jarvis, founder of Gay Central Valley, which operates the Fresno and Merced LGBT community centers. “It could be that this person was a cross-dresser and not trans. It’s difficult to say that.” “Without K.c. here to tell us, we may never know.” Typically, LGBT activists prefer to identify someone based on the person’s preferred gender pronoun. But Haggard’s case has raised the complex question of what happens when a person is killed before that preference is clear to the people around them. According to Fresno Police, statements from relatives and roommates gave no indication that Haggard identified as a woman. That isn’t uncommon for people newly transitioning, activists say. “If someone wants to come out as transgender, nine out of 10 times they lose their family,” said Scot, the TransCare founder. “Many will lose their jobs. Many will be shunned, ostracized, hated. “We’re afraid. It’s terrifying. We know who we are. The gender dysphoria drives us forwards. It’s either transition or die.” Despite the statements from family and friends, Haggard’s attire that night — a dress, jewelry and a cardigan — is a clear sign that Haggard identified as a woman, Scot said. According to activists, there is also evidence online that Kenton Craig Haggard recently began using the name K.c. Haggard on Facebook. In one post on what appears to be Haggard’s Facebook page, Haggard reviewed a local bar four months ago using that name:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico “Hey calling TG girls amber says we can hangout there. C U there K.c. Haggard,” the message read. “‘TG girls’ is transgender girls, absolutely,” Scot said. She added that somebody who works at the Fresno LGBT Community Center recalled seeing Haggard at group meetings for trans people in recent months. Police have said that based on the part of town where the killing occurred, along with the victim’s dress, they believe Haggard might have been involved in prostitution, according to the Fresno Bee.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico That suggestion has irked Scot, who said there is precious little evidence for police to make those assumptions either. “There’s an assumption, with no evidence, that she was a sex worker,” Scot said. “This is what we face as transgender people all the time. We face a bias against us by law enforcement, but we are assumed not to be transgender and yet we are assumed as sex workers. “Why would they assume one and not look at the evidence for another.” Police have said that they are looking for a suspect who they believe is a Hispanic male in his late 30s who also hired a prostitute in the hours after the killing. Dyer, the Fresno police chief, said the FBI is assisting in the investigation.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico READ MORE: _Transgender in the military: A Pentagon in transition weighs its policy_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Meet Kristin Beck, a transgender former Navy SEAL running for Congress_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _For transgender teens and teachers, acceptance could be two words away_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Transgender at five_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Feinstein says GOP abusing Benghazi report to blame Clinton

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Republicans are taking her committee's Benghazi report out of context to blame Hillary Clinton. Feinstein said that some senators and media reports are misconstruing the report, which was released Wednesday, as an indictment of Clinton and proof that she was culpable for the deaths of four Americans at the mission in Benghazi. "This is patently false," Feinstein said in a statement. "The report approved on a bipartisan basis says no such thing. As a matter of fact, Secretary Clinton is not mentioned a single time in the 58-page bipartisan section of our Benghazi report."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Clinton is mentioned once later in the report, in the section where six of the panel's seven Republicans say she is "ultimately" responsible for the lack of security at the mission and that her actions "clearly made a difference in the lives of the four murdered Americans and their families."    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Feinstein said those comments are out of line. "I regret that the ‘Additional Views’ of the report adopted solely by six members of the Republican minority unfairly criticizes Secretary Clinton," she said.

The media is taking a beating on Trump’s foreign trip

When Trump paid a visit to the Western Wall on his first day in Israel, female journalists were restricted to an area with a worse vantage point than that available to their male counterparts. Quoting a pool report, the New York Times's Glenn Thrush noted on Twitter that this was not the first time female reporters have been disadvantaged on the president's multi-stop foreign trip.  Also on Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson participated in a news conference in Riyadh without notifying American journalists of the event. Only foreign reporters attended and had opportunities to ask questions. The State Department later furnished a transcript to American journalists.  In a vacuum, any one of these incidents might be somewhat understandable. Maybe the Trumps were just trying to make small talk with the Netanyahus. Maybe the administration feels compelled for diplomatic reasons to acquiesce to certain gender norms in foreign countries. Maybe the Tillerson news conference was a genuine oversight. Taken together, however, the episodes fit into a pattern of disregard for a free press. Occurring overseas, they send a particularly strong signal to the rest of the world that the Trump administration does not value independent media.  Think about that. The leader of the Soviet Union stood up for American female journalists on a foreign trip 58 years ago. The president of the United States seems unwilling to do the same today.

Five myths about Sen. Jeff Sessions

__ Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has been the subject of intense debate ever since Donald Trump nominated him to be attorney general. His critics argue that he could lead a radical rollback of civil rights policies, while supporters defend his record as more moderate. Sorting the truth about Sessions from the hyperbole isn’t easy. Sessions has been called a “threat to civil rights” and “unfit ” for his post, largely because of what critics see as his “alarming history of opposing civil rights” and support of policies that reinforce discrimination and produce “racist outcomes.” In reality, he isn’t an outlier among Senate Republicans. Yes, Sessions’s voting record shows that he is a consistent opponent of expansive civil rights legislation. So are many of his colleagues. During the 114th Congress in 2015 and 2016, for instance, the advocacy group Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights tracked 21 key Senate votes; Sessions opposed the group’s position every time, and he did the same in the previous Congress. However, this is not unusual within the Republican Party. In the 114th Congress, Sessions was one of 16 senators, all Republicans, to receive a score of zero, and one of 18 GOP senators in the 113th Congress. And Sessions is no less popular among African American voters than most other Republican lawmakers are. According to the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study conducted by researchers at Harvard University, the average approval rating for Republican senators among their African American constituents was 27 percent. Sessions’s approval rating was 25 percent, the same as for Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). That’s certainly low, but it doesn’t make Sessions an outlier. The Trump transition team and its allies have tried to argue, on the other hand, that Sessions is a civil rights champion, citing several cases he handled as a U.S. attorney and as Alabama’s attorney general. As a New York Post editorial put it, “Sessions desegregated schools and successfully prosecuted the head of the state Ku Klux Klan for murder — then, as the state’s attorney general, saw the killer executed.” On his radio show, Sean Hannity even went so far as to proclaim that Sessions’s civil rights record is “second to none .” These claims are exaggerated. Sessions was involved as a U.S. attorney in the investigation of Henry Hays, a Klan member suspected of lynching Michael Donald in Mobile, Ala., in 1981. But as the Atlantic noted, the principal players in the case say that Sessions merely played a “supervisory role.” The case was not prosecuted by Sessions; it was prosecuted in state court, which is where Hays received the death penalty. Sessions had become Alabama’s attorney general by the time Hays appealed his sentence. He opposed the appeal, and Hays was executed in 1997. Perhaps the most significant exaggeration involves Sessions’s role in desegregating Alabama’s schools. There is no record that he ever filed such a case, and he certainly did not participate in “20 to 30” such cases, as he once claimed in 2009. Sessions was involved in a handful of voting rights cases while he was a U.S. attorney. But his role was relatively minor. Much of the opposition to Sessions’s nomination revolves around his record on immigration policy. Reports have predicted that he would lead a crackdown on illegal immigration, perhaps involving mass deportations . Sessions has a long record as a crusader against both legal and illegal immigration, constantly pushing Congress to pursue harsher border security and immigration measures. If he is confirmed, though, his ability to do what his critics fear will be constrained by the federal bureaucracy, local law enforcement officials and even Republicans in Congress. Most federal immigration enforcement falls to another Cabinet agency, the Department of Homeland Security, which contains both U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The attorney general does have important relevant powers: The immigration court system is part of the Justice Department, for example, and Sessions would be able to appoint immigration law judges. In recent years, though, only 25 percent of deportations have been processed through immigration courts. The vast majority have come via DHS and don’t require a court appearance. Only about half of the cases that do go through immigration courts result in a removal. Meanwhile, “sanctuary cities” around the country, which don’t enforce federal immigration laws, have promised to resist any attempted crackdown, even if Sessions threatened to cut federal grants to their police departments. It may be impossible to increase deportations dramatically, anyway, no matter what Sessions might prefer. The Obama administration already deported a record number of people, earning President Barack Obama the sardonic title of “deporter in chief” among immigration advocates. The undocumented population has decreased. And House Speaker Paul Ryan indicated recently that Congress won’t go along with mass deportations of undocumented immigrants who don’t have criminal records. “The war on drugs is coming back” under Sessions, Slate predicted in November. Similar warnings have appeared in Politico and Newsweek . As a U.S. attorney, Sessions had a reputation for aggressive prosecution of drug offenses. And in the Senate, he has pushed for tougher enforcement of drug laws. Federal drug enforcement may become a higher priority under Sessions than it was under Obama’s attorney generals. But bringing back a full-scale war on drugs — a la Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign — isn’t likely. Critics fear that Sessions would go after the marijuana industry in the states that permit medical marijuana (28 states and the District) or recreational uses (eight states and D.C.). Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department chose not to pursue most individual recreational users in states that had legalized marijuana, instead focusing on preventing distribution to minors or across state lines. During his confirmation hearing, Sessions described the current solution for dealing with inconsistency between state and federal laws, crafted by former attorney general Eric Holder, as “truly valuable.” He added that more comprehensive enforcement of federal marijuana laws in these states is “a problem of resources for the federal government” — suggesting that it’s not worth the cost. Sessions could influence other federal drug policies: He would have broad discretion to redirect resources and shape prosecution and sentencing practices in ways that could lead to a significant increase in federal prison sentences for drug offenders. But as USA Today points out, Sessions has “reversed course on harsh drug sentence policy” in recent years, working with Democrats to co-sponsor legislation to reduce disparities between punishments for crack and powder cocaine, which led to significantly longer sentences for black drug offenders than for white ones. Sessions’s allies say his record doesn’t show any particular antipathy toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. He is “a respecter of the law,” a Washington Examiner column argued. A post on the conservative blog Power Line said Sessions shouldn’t be criticized for attempting to block an LGBT conference at the University of Alabama in 1996, because as the state’s attorney general, he was just enforcing a law against using state funds or facilities for activity that promoted “actions prohibited by sodomy and sexual misconduct laws.” The senator’s record of opposing gay rights, however, is clear. Unlike on the question of racial inequality, where there are some examples of Sessions moderating his positions, there is no evidence that he has softened his opposition to rights for gays and lesbians. He has a long history of opposing every important piece of legislation aimed at expanding such rights. He was one of the most vocal opponents of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include attacks on people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBT people are the most likely to be targets of hate crimes, and as attorney general, Sessions would be in charge of enforcing this law. While he told the Senate that he now sees same-sex marriage as settled law that he will uphold, he co-sponsored the State Marriage Defense Act of 2014, which would have allowed a state’s definitions of “spouse” and “marriage” to supercede the federal definitions. And he is currently a co-sponsor of the First Amendment Defense Act, which groups like the ACLU say would “open the door to unprecedented taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT people” by prohibiting the federal government from taking action against groups that refuse to serve gays and lesbians. **Twitter: @rfording** Five myths is a weekly feature challenging everything you think you know. You can check out previous myths, read more from Outlook or follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

Here are the eight Trump Cabinet picks Democrats plan to target

Democratic senators plan to aggressively target eight of Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees in the coming weeks and are pushing to stretch their confirmation votes into March — an unprecedented break with Senate tradition. Such delays would upend Republican hopes of quickly holding hearings and confirming most of Trump’s top picks on Inauguration Day. But Democrats, hamstrung by their minority status, are determined to slow-walk Trump’s picks unless they start disclosing reams of personal financial data they’ve withheld so far, according to senior aides. Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that Democrats will home in especially on Rex Tillerson, Trump’s choice for secretary of state; Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), his pick for attorney general; Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), tapped to lead the Office of Management and Budget; and Betsy DeVos, selected to serve as education secretary. There’s also Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and oversee changes to Obamacare, who is expected to be attacked by Democrats for his support for privatizing Medicare. Andrew Puzder, a restaurant executive set to serve as labor secretary, will face scrutiny for past comments on the minimum wage, among other policies. Steve Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs partner set to serve as treasury secretary, and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to lead the EPA, will also be the focus of Democratic attacks, aides said. “President-elect Trump is attempting to fill his rigged cabinet with nominees that would break key campaign promises and have made billions off the industries they’d be tasked with regulating,” Schumer said in a statement Sunday confirming his caucus’s plans. “Any attempt by Republicans to have a series of rushed, truncated hearings before Inauguration Day and before the Congress and public have adequate information on all of them is something Democrats will vehemently resist. If Republicans think they can quickly jam through a whole slate of nominees without a fair hearing process, they’re sorely mistaken.” Absent from the Democratic hit list are retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis, the pick for defense secretary; South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, whom Trump has nominated to serve as ambassador to the United Nations; and John Kelly, a former Marine general and Trump’s selection to lead the Department of Homeland Security, signaling that all three should expect little trouble from Democrats. Senate confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin next week, when the Judiciary Committee is set to hold two days of hearings with Sessions, and the Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to hold a one-day, two-part hearing with Tillerson. But Schumer has told McConnell that he wants at least two days of hearings for each of these eight nominees, including at least one panel made up of witnesses that can speak to the pick’s past record, aides said. At each hearing, members of the committee would get at least 10 minutes to ask questions, with no limits on multiple rounds of questioning, if requested. Democrats also want hearings for each of these eight nominees to be held on separate weeks, with no more than two Cabinet picks sitting for a hearing in the same week. That would mean that Tillerson’s and Mattis’s hearings could happen in the same week, but not the hearings for Price and Mulvaney, aides said. That’s already not set to happen and Republicans have scoffed at Schumer’s proposal, noting that the New York senator went along in 2009 when the Senate unanimously confirmed seven of President Obama’s Cabinet nominees on Inauguration Day and five more later that week. “It’s curious that they’d [Democrats] object to treating the incoming president’s nominees with the same courtesy and seriousness with which the Senate acted on President Obama’s nominees,” Antonia Ferrier, a McConnell spokeswoman, said in an email. “Our committees and chairmen are fully capable of reviewing the incoming Cabinet nominations with the same rules and procedures as the same committees did with President Obama’s nominations.” Despite early vows to cooperate with Trump and his new government, Democrats have been troubled by a lack of personal disclosure by Cabinet choices that they say mirrors Trump’s refusal to disclose personal financial information during the presidential campaign. Tillerson angered Democrats this month when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he stood ready to provide only “tax return information” for himself and his wife for the previous three years. That means it’s possible Tillerson isn’t willing to provide complete tax returns — a break with past nominees. The “unprecedented” personal wealth of Trump’s nominees warrants the delays, one senior Democratic aide said. One other potential stumbling block: Nominees are required to obtain certification from the Office of Government Ethics before a confirmation vote, something most Obama-era picks had achieved before their confirmation hearings. So far, Democrats say, most Trump picks haven’t done so. “If they want to get confirmed by Inauguration Day, that timeline doesn’t work,” the aide said. “Obviously if you’re worth billions, it takes a lot longer.”

Katrina vanden Heuvel: Progressives are missing on the surveillance state

Last week, tea party-backed Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) set the progressive world abuzz. No, not with his usual retrograde positions on abortion, gay marriage or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (he was against it before he was for it) — but rather with an op-ed in the New York Times, demanding that the Obama administration release its legal argument justifying the use of a drone to kill Anwar al- Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, without trial. Paul vowed to filibuster the nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit of former Justice Department official David Barron, who helped write memos supporting said argument. Paul’s strong libertarian principles have always differentiated him from many of his Republican colleagues. It is, therefore, not all that shocking for him to speak out against a president he dislikes on a policy he disdains. Yet his outspokenness has many liberals and leftists asking a legitimate question: Why aren’t there more Democratic voices opposing the surveillance state? Protecting civil liberties should be a critical piece of the progressive platform, but too many establishment Democrats and progressives have been silent on this issue simply because one of their own is in the White House. Some Democrats in Congress have taken bold stands. Longtime civil-liberties champion (and former House Judiciary Committee chair) John Conyers has worked to limit the National Security Agency’s collection of bulk telephone data. Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Adam B. Schiff of California have probed the administration’s drone and surveillance programs. Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California is pushing to prevent the NSA from weakening online encryption. In the Senate, Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy of Vermont has held oversight hearings questioning excessive surveillance. Even Dianne Feinstein of California, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and normally a committed defender of the intelligence community, finally spoke out after discovering that the CIA spied on Senate staffers. And last week, Sens.Mark Udall of Colorado and Ron Wyden of Oregon sent a letter to Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., strongly criticizing a “culture of misinformation” that has resulted in “misleading statements . . . about domestic surveillance.” And Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has proposed a bill limiting FBI and NSA spying. Still, too many Democrats and even progressives are reluctant to challenge the Obama administration, either because they don’t want to criticize a besieged president or because they’re focused on other priorities. As they stay silent, a host of troubling policies, including the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process, the prosecution of record numbers of journalists and whistleblowers, the unaccountable growth of the surveillance state and the vast expansion of the drone program, are proliferating unchecked. To combat the spread of these policies, we need not just outraged rhetoric but also serious, concrete actions to seek accountability. And we need more progressive elected officials who are willing to fight for change. We need leaders such as Shenna Bellows, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Maine. In her eight years leading Maine’s American Civil Liberties Union, Bellows has consistently worked across the aisle, bringing together unlikely allies to pass marriage equality, to restore same-day voter registration in the state and to make Maine one of only two states to establish cellphone privacy protections in the wake of the recent NSA spying revelations. Bellows is an eloquent, vocal champion of progressive values across the board. But she is particularly focused on what she calls “the surveillance industrial complex.” “I just disagree on the amount of intrusion that is acceptable in our private lives,” she recently told MSNBC. Bellows wants to repeal the USA Patriot Act and release the CIA’s 6,000-page report on torture practices after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She has expressed an interest in working with Paul and others on anti-surveillance legislation. According to polls, Bellows has a tough race to unseat incumbent Susan Collins , a Republican. But she is leveraging her considerable organizing skills. And while Collins has vastly more money in her campaign coffers, Bellows — who recently earned belated support from Emily’s List and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — outraised Collins in the last quarter of 2013. Bellows has been called “the woman who could be the future of progressive politics in America.” While this overstates the case, her unwavering commitment to civil liberties gives hope that progressives will soon have a champion who can help lead a transpartisan fight to rein in the national security state’s unconstitutional overreach. _Read more fromKatrina vanden Heuvel’s archive or follow her on Twitter._ **Read more:** Eugene Robinson: Obama’s immoral drone war Dana Milbank: A human face for drone victims Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning The Post’s View: Senate Democrats should quit stalling on two judicial nominees

Congressional women key to giving gun victims the vote they deserve

*[WSU]: Wayne State University When President Barack Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress in his State of the Union address, a record 101 women listened as elected members of Congress. Though he didn’t mention it until well into his speech, the issue of gun violence was omnipresent. Green ribbons honoring the victims of December’s Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting were visible on the lapels of Democrats as well as Republicans. Some  wore black or white ribbons in support of gun-control advocacy groups. More than “two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun audience,” according to the president, had been invited to hear him call for action to “protect our most precious resource — our children.” Many believe that having so many women in Congress may change the tone and pass measures that will help reduce the gun violence that kills about 1,000 people every month in this country.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Several of the women have a personal connection to gun violence, including Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Jackie Spier (D-Calif.) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Freshman Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.) doesn’t have a personal connection with violence, but has the distinction — or call it a privilege — of representing Newtown, the home of the elementary school where 20 kids and six of their teachers were killed by a gunman last December. Then there is Gabrielle Giffords, the former Democratic representative from Arizona who was in the audience and whose career was shattered when she was shot in the head by a mentally ill gunman in a Tucson parking lot in 2011. Each of these women has been battered, bruised and beaten by gun violence in one form or another. Their collective presence at Obama’s speech projected a visible stand against gun violence. McCarthy’s credibility on gun issues is unquestioned. She was elected to Congress in 1996 after her husband was shot dead on the Long Island railroad in 1993. McCarthy has sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that would ban the sale of high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, prohibit the online sale of ammunition, and require background checks for firearms sales at gun shows.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Senator Dianne Feinstein, like McCarthy, has an unfortunate personal connection with gun violence. She became mayor of San Francisco in 1978 after a gunman evaded the metal detector at San Francisco’s City Hall — by crawling through a window — and killed Mayor George Moscone. Feinstein was elected to the Senate in 1992. Two years later, she sponsored the now-expired federal assault weapons ban. She introduced a new Assault Weapons Ban in January that would ban military-style assault weapons and high- capacity magazines.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) was shot during the Jonestown massacre in 1978 in Guyana, while traveling as an aide to Rep. Leo Ryan on a fact-finding mission. Ryan was assassinated in the attack. Speier is one of 12 vice chairs of the Congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, which recently released its 15 policy principles designed “to reduce gun violence while respecting second amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Esty, a freshman lawmaker from Cheshire, Conn., had only recently won her seat when she found herself trying to comfort the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. The site of those shootings, Newtown, lies in her Connecticut district, and she has become the victims’ voice in Congress. Esty has joined the congressional task force developing policies to prevent gun violence. Finally, although Gabrielle Giffords can no longer can vote in Congress, the former Arizona congresswoman may still hold the most powerful voice on gun violence in the country. The nation was riveted when she haltingly told Congress last month that “too many children are dying from gun violence. Too many children.” Last month, Giffords and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, launched a new advocacy group, Americans for Responsible Solutions.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Obama didn’t make any bold promises Tuesday night about reducing gun violence. He left that job to Congress, saying that members could vote no if they wished, but they had to at least hold a vote on the many gun-control bills now before them. Obama told Congress that the parents of the 15-year-old girl Hadiya Pendleton, who marched in his inaugural parade and was tragically shot and killed just over a week later in Chicago, deserve a vote. Obama said Gabby Giffords deserves a vote, and the families of Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek, Blacksburg, and “countless other communities ripped open by gun violence” all deserve a vote. These votes can happen. And there are women in Congress who can help make them  happen. The men in Congress can and will help pass these measures. But with a record number of women in Congress, and with so many of them having such a personal connection to gun violence, 2013 may be the year Congress finally adopts meaningful measures to reduce gun violence. _Joann Weiner teaches economics at The George Washington University. She has previously written for Bloomberg, Politics Daily, Tax Analysts and worked as an economist at the Treasury Department. Follow her on Twitter:_ _@DCEcon_ _._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University

A horrific murder has awakened Brazil’s transgender community

SÃO PAULO, Brazil — Dandara dos Santos, a 42-year-old transgender woman from a northern Brazilian slum, begged for mercy as a group of men bashed her over the head with rocks.  Dos Santos's gruesome killing has shaken Brazil and sparked a national conversation about the rising number of murders of transgender people. The video, seen more than 170,000 times, horrified Brazilians and was widely shared by celebrities and LGBT organizations, who called for greater protections for one of Brazil’s most marginalized groups. Several public officials have also condemned violence against sexual minorities. But even as the transgender movement gains more support, it is also clashing with Brazil’s religious and patriarchal roots.   But while same-sex marriage is legal in Brazil and homosexuality has been decriminalized, there is no national legislation punishing hate crimes against people because of their sexual orientation. When they are reported, LGBT organizations say, such crimes are often ignored by authorities. The influence of Brazil’s rising evangelical movement is one of the biggest obstacles blocking a hate crimes law. An endorsement from a popular minister can generate a wave of donations and votes that can decide an election. As a result, a strong Christian lobby — making up nearly one-fifth of legislators — has emerged in Brazil’s Congress. That lobby has been fighting sexual anti-discrimination laws, which they see as hindering their freedoms of expression and religion. They have already stopped anti-LGBT hate crimes bills several times, but activists are hoping dos Santos’s case renews demand for the law. “The video shocked society. It generated a commotion,” said Sayonara Nogueira, a researcher at Rede Trans. “And unfortunately in Brazil, laws often happen after a commotion.” In 2006, Brazil passed the Maria da Penha law, an anti-domestic violence law named for a woman who was paralyzed after her husband shot her in a highly publicized case. Organizations like Rede Trans are hoping that dos Santos’s brutal murder will serve a similar purpose.  “Dandara’s murder shocked people because the perpetrators made the grim decision to film it. That’s the only reason we are seeing this repercussion,” said Toni Reis, the director of the LGBT Alliance. “The sad reality is that what happened to her is a commonplace act. We see it every day.” But to effect real change, LGBT groups in Brazil need to parlay the sympathy generated by dos Santos’s murder into political action, on scale with their opposition. “I have faith,” Reis said. “Our opposition is organized but the barbarity of this crime has everyone speaking out.”

One election bright spot for Democrats: Women of color

The Congress that voters cobbled together Tuesday is a mixed bag on the diversity front: Women held more or less even in their representation (about 20 percent of Congress), which is not a representative ratio. But the women who did get elected are more diverse than ever. Some results were still coming in as of late Wednesday, but it looked like the Senate will gain one new female senator and the House of Representatives will lose one female lawmaker. (The number of female governors will drop by one.) The story of 2016 is a pickup here for women, a drop-off there. All told, an election featuring the first female major-party presidential candidate didn't have much of an impact on the number of women in politics. “For all of the talk of this being a change election, it was not a change election for women in politics,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the nonpartisan Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University. “We just aren't seeing enough of them.” Tuesday did include some bright spots for women of color who ran for office. Come January, there will be a record number — 38 — women of color serving in Congress (35 Democrats, three Republicans). Democrats elected three new women of color to the Senate — Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada, Tammy Duckworth in Illinois and Kamala Harris in California. And several of these new members of Congress are notable firsts: Cortez Masto (D), who won the open Nevada Senate seat, will be the nation's first Latina senator.  By winning California's open Senate race, Harris (D) will be the first Indian American to serve in the U.S. Senate and just the second African American woman to serve in it. Further down the ballot, one of House Democrats' biggest upsets came via a woman of color: Stephanie Murphy (D), a daughter of Vietnamese immigrants, knocked out 12-term GOP incumbent Rep. John L. Mica in Florida's 7th Congressional District. In Nevada — a state that was a bright spot for Democrats at almost every level — Democrats put up an all-female ballot in a suburb of Las Vegas, right down to county commissioner. And New Hampshire will once again be represented by an all-female congressional delegation. (Although with GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte's loss, Republican women take a hit, going from six to five female senators.) There were more victories for women of color even further down the ballot. Via a New Mexico state legislative race, Democrats elected the first Somali American lawmaker. And in Kentucky, Democrats elected the first female state legislator in that state in 20 years.  The victories were a bright spot for Democrats in an otherwise dark election. House Republicans didn't add any women of color to their congressional roster, but they managed to help reelect Rep. Mia Love in Utah, who in 2014 became the first black female Republican in Congress. And Republicans' most senior woman in the House is Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), who in 1989 became the first Latina elected to Congress. Rep. Jaime Lynn Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) also won reelection. But when you zoom out, you see that women are still vastly underrepresented in politics — as they have been for decades and will continue to be. In 2016, women make up half the U.S. population but just under 20 percent of Congress.  Women in politics must also consider the lasting effect of Hillary Clinton's loss. Walsh thinks it could discourage other women from jumping in. “If Hillary Clinton could prevail, I thought it would send a message that she weathered all these attacks and got elected,” Walsh said. “And I thought we would have a president who would use her bully pulpit in part to talk about the importance of more women being engaged in the political process. ... But that's not what happened.”  “If the goal is political parity, doing it in increments of five is going to take a very long time.” In 2016, women didn't even make it that far. But the women who did win are more diverse than ever, so that's something.

Democrats, here’s how to block Trump’s worst nominees

Senate Democrats want to defend as much of their agenda as possible but do not want to arouse the ire of the GOP and lose the filibuster. If they want to escape with their political lives and even win a few rounds, they need to start thinking creatively. There will be only 19 (!) Democratic senators next year who have served before President Obama was elected — when a Democrat was not in the White House — so for the majority of them, this will be an entirely new experience. First and foremost, Democrats must stop thinking of the GOP majority as insuperable. If, as expected, the GOP wins the Louisiana seat, there will be only 52 Republicans. On any given vote, even one to dispense with the filibuster, the Democrats need a measly two senators to break ranks. Democrats should understand that Republicans are an unruly lot, far more easily goaded into dissension and dysfunction than are Democrats. (Surely they remember the 2013 shutdown.)   On some fights, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate and proponent of sound government, will be Democrats’ best ally. Sometimes the strongest partners will be hawks such as Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). At other times, it may be a conservative up in 2018 who fears a primary challenge (e.g. Deb Fischer of Nebraska) or a dicey general-election race (e.g. Nevada’s Dean Heller). And some Republicans will announce their retirements, making them less susceptible to White House pressure. Democrats also must pick their battles. A secretary of state or an attorney general is worth a knock-down-drag-out fight if the nominee is terrible in their eyes — and there might be better alternatives (from their perspective). It doesn’t mean they that have to vote for bad nominees, but trying to knock out a nominee is an entirely different undertaking. Repeatedly crying wolf over “the worst nominee in the history of the republic” is counterproductive. In addition, Democrats should recognize that sometimes it is best to have an objectionable nominee in a position where he could do less damage. If the thought of Giuliani at the State Department or the Justice Department causes them to break out in a cold sweat, they should count their lucky stars if he winds up at Homeland Security. It is also helpful to keep in mind that hearings serve multiple purposes. They can elucidate helpful concessions, embarrass the White House, make the GOP senators squirm and undermine that person’s authority if he does get confirmed. The GOP did not stop Chuck Hagel from becoming defense secretary, but they sure banged him up and arguably lessened the White House’s confidence in him going forward. Finally, losing is okay. Well, it stinks, but get used to it. That’s the lot of the minority party. Today’s defeats (just like court dissents) can sow the seeds for later victories. The burden of defending the indefensible is now the GOP’s problem. Democrats can take the high ground, operate on principle and reclaim a robust role in the confirmation process. That’s nothing to sneeze at.

In a party that has been reluctant to adopt them, convention speakers embrace LGBT rights

CLEVELAND — Donald Trump reaffirmed his support for the rights of lesbian, gay, transgender and queer people Thursday night — a striking statement to the national convention of a party that has been reluctant to do so, in such a forceful, public way. A week after the Republican Party adopted a platform viewed as anti-gay, Trump and businessman Peter Thiel emphatically spoke about the need to include and protect LGBT people, an indication that some in the party are willing to move away from the culture wars and broaden the reach of the party. "I am proud to be gay," Thiel, who co-founded PayPal, said during a speech Thursday night. "I am proud to be a Republican. But most of all, I am proud to be an American." Gay rights have been a contentious issue within the Republican Party, whose platform reaffirms support for traditional marriage, nods to the controversial practice of gay conversion therapy and, when talking about last month's terrorist attack in Orlando, fails to mention it happened at a gay nightclub. The convention has highlighted the many contradictions the party now has on gay rights. It adopted the platform, but invited Thiel to speak. Many in the party have supported laws, spearheaded by Republicans, requiring transgender people to use the bathroom that corresponds with the sex shown on their birth certificates — but the convention featured a brunch whose keynote speaker was transgender activist and Republican Caitlyn Jenner. Despite this, the remarks from Thiel and Trump were greeted with applause — and a shrug from some in the arena, including people who described themselves as very socially conservative. "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I believe that everyone should have their rights and everyone should be protected," said Perry Hooper Jr., a delegate from Montgomery, Ala. The party also now has a nominee who has shown little appetite for litigating social issues. Trump has long expressed support for the LGBT community but does not support same-sex marriage. After North Carolina passed a law mandating that people use the bathroom that corresponds with the sex on their birth certificate, Trump said it should not have been passed. He later said states should be able to pass the laws they want. “I live in New York. I know many, many gay people. Tremendous people," Trump said in 2011. In the wake of the shootings in Orlando, Trump made overtures to the LGBT community. His remarks were similar Thursday; he spoke of protecting gay and lesbian people from terrorists. "I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology," Trump said, talking about how the Islamic State executes gay people. Trump seemed to be taken aback by the applause he received. "And I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you," he said. Thiel also received a warm reception. He said that the party needs to stop litigating the culture wars and that the debate over transgender bathroom laws is a distraction from the pressing problems facing the country. "Who cares?" he asked of the bathroom issue. Lisa Askey, a 50-year-old from Chandler, Ariz., said she thought Thiel's statement was "fantastic." "It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is," said Askey, whose husband is an alternate delegate. "I think it's really exciting that more gays and lesbians in the party are feeling comfortable coming forward." Askey said she was not surprised that Thiel received a warm reception. "I think it would be shocking to the outside world how many young gays are in our party," she said. "I see a lot more openness." South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford said he was waiting for Thiel to be booed. But it never happened. "I'm glad," he said. "What Thiel said, I don't know if you'd have heard that at a Republican convention in years back." Sanford said he believes politics has finally caught up with public opinion. According to the Pew Research Center, 63 percent of people surveyed said homosexuality should be accepted by society. "I think the reason it wasn't a big thing is because civil society is always ahead of politics, and politics has finally kind of caught up. You look at the way opinions on gay marriage has changed, it's been so rapid," Sanford said. But the party still remains opposed to same-sex marriage. Only 39 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independent voters support same-sex marriage, according to Pew. Bonnie Ward, a delegate from Ohio, was surprised to hear that the party had invited an openly gay man to speak, although she missed the speech and didn't realize it had happened until informed by a reporter. "We treat those people fairly and, yes, it's fine" that he spoke, Ward said. But that doesn't mean the party should change its definition of marriage. "I know we love those people, we love those people. But I know in my heart what's biblical. And biblically, it's not right. Do you love those people? Yes, you love them. But I live by my faith, and I live by my Bible, and I know what's a sin, and that's one of them," Ward said. Many gay Republicans have been feeling conflicted over the past week. The platform, they said, is anti-gay. But they are optimistic about the direction in which the party is moving, with many delegates offering support and young people in the party not caring about gay rights as an issue. Trump's statement Thursday night made some even more optimistic. "It was so encouraging to hear him stand up strongly and proudly for the LGBT community — and even boldly added the Q," said Rachel Hoff, a delegate from the District. Trump's prepared remarks had said LGBT, but he added the Q for "queer" while delivering them. "It was an important moment … and seemed really well received from where I sat. Let's hope our party moves in this direction," Hoff said. William Rayborn, a delegate from Alabama, thinks Republicans are moving in that direction. "I think we can have all of our conservative values and still be inclusive and kind," he said.

Newtown and the fog of incomplete information

Four hours after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn, a designated spokesman, armed with talking points provided by law enforcement or informed by media reports, might have said all or most of the following: All of the above statements, published within hours of the shooting, are wrong. I cite these misstatements not as a knock against the media or the law enforcement sources that fed journalists these accounts. An unimaginable tragedy exploded in our midst. Many were slaughtered within easy reach of our global communications center, with no language, time or cultural barriers. And yet, in the early stages, people got a lot of it wrong. Days later, the motive of the suspected gunman, Adam Lanza, remains unknown. Now switch to Benghazi, a world away. In the fog of an armed assault, four are left dead in restricted space with local sources limited by language and reliability. Yet, when the Washington account of the attack, presented five days later and based upon official talking points, turned out to be inaccurate on certain points, charges of lying and attempts to mislead were flung around in Washington with reckless abandon. “I don’t trust her,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. With all the investigative resources at our disposal, we still don’t have the full Sandy Hook story, three days later. Another headlong, and heedless, rush to judgment.

David Ignatius: Senate intelligence report takes GOP tirades about Benghazi head-on

The Senate intelligence committee made headlines this week by reporting that the 2012 attack in Benghazi was preventable. But frankly, we knew that. The deeper message of the bipartisan report was that Republicans in Congress wasted a year arguing about what turned out to be mostly phony issues. The Republican Party’s Benghazi obsession was the weird backdrop for foreign- policy debate through much of last year. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) used it as a pretext for blocking administration nominations. Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) used the issue to impugn the integrity and independence of a review conducted by retired Adm. Mike Mullen and former ambassador Thomas Pickering. Driving the Republican jihad was a claim, first reported in October 2012 by Fox News, that CIA personnel had wanted to respond more quickly to the Benghazi attack but were ordered to “stand down,” perhaps by political higher- ups. Although this claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials, it was repeated by Fox News at least 85 times, according to a review by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters. This barrage fueled Republican charges that the Democrats were engaging in a coverup. The Senate intelligence report addressed this inflammatory charge head-on. “The committee explored claims that there was a ‘stand down’ order given to the security team at the annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the mission compound, the committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the chief of [the CIA] base or any other party.” The Senate panel also rejected the insinuation, made repeatedly by Republicans, that the Obama administration failed to scramble available military assets that could have defended the Benghazi annex and saved the lives of the four American victims. “There were no U.S. military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi,” the report says flatly. “The committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel . . . prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.” These are bipartisan findings, mind you, endorsed by the panel’s Republican members as well as Democrats. GOP members offered some zingers in their additional minority views, but the Democrats rightly credited their colleagues for standing up to the right-wing spin machine: “We worked together on a bipartisan basis to dispel the many factual inaccuracies and conspiracy theories related to the Benghazi attacks.” The Obama administration’s supposed coverup on Benghazi became a crusade for leading Republicans. A low point came when Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a report last September questioning “the independence and integrity of the review” by the Mullen-Pickering group. These were extraordinary charges to make against a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former ambassador to six countries — especially since Issa didn’t present any conclusive evidence to back up his allegations. The Republican tirades about Benghazi were unfortunate not just because they were based on erroneous speculation but also because they distracted policymakers from the real challenge of framing coherent policy in the Middle East. Sometimes, it seemed as if Benghazi finger-pointing was the only issue that leading Republicans cared about. In fact, the Senate intelligence report echoes many of the themes of the earlier report by the Accountability Review Board, which noted “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies.” Warnings about deteriorating conditions in Benghazi were ignored; proposals to add more security there were rejected; even as evidence mounted of al-Qaeda’s growing power in Benghazi, the State Department failed to respond adequately. The Senate report makes clear that some important security mistakes were made by Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the courageous but sometimes incautious diplomat who was among those who died in the attack. Perhaps the silliest aspect of the Benghazi affair was the focus on the errant “talking points” prepared for Congress, which cited incorrect intelligence about “spontaneous demonstrations” in Benghazi that wasn’t corrected by the CIA until a week after the points were delivered on Sunday talk shows by Susan Rice, then U.N. ambassador. Rice is still under a cloud because she repeated the CIA’s “points” prepared at Congress’s insistence. Next time, the Senate report notes, the intelligence community should just tell Congress what facts are unclassified — and let the legislators do the talking. _Read more fromDavid Ignatius’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook._ **Read more about this topic:** Erik Wemple: More ‘stand down’ fallout for Fox News Jennifer Rubin: Can Hillary Clinton survive Benghazi? The Post’s View: Justice after Benghazi David Ignatius: In Benghazi timeline, CIA errors but no evidence of conspiracy Dana Milbank: Whistleblower’s yarn fails to tie Benghazi lapses to politics Michael Hirsh: Five myths about Benghazi

Police Withhold Videos Despite Vows of Transparency

But officers investigated in fatal shootings are routinely given access to body camera footage. Story by Kimberly Kindy, Video by Zoeann Murphy Autumn Steele and her husband, Gabriel, were fighting again, so he called 911. A police officer sped to their home, pulled out his gun and then — frightened by the family dog — opened fire, killing Autumn with a bullet to her chest. Since the Jan. 6 shooting, Steele’s family has battled police in Burlington, Iowa, to see 28 minutes of body camera video recorded by the two officers who responded that day. Police have declared the videos confidential, saying the shooting was tragic but reasonable, given that the dog “attacked.” State investigators have released a 12-second clip from the videos, but Steele’s relatives say it raises more questions than it answers. “I deserve to know what happened to my daughter. The public deserves to know,” said Steele’s mother, Gail Colbert. “How can they keep this from us?” In the turbulent year since Michael Brown’s death sparked protests in Ferguson, Mo., and beyond, politicians, law enforcement officials and community activists have seized on body cameras as a vital reform capable of restoring transparency and trust to police interactions with the public. But in Burlington and elsewhere around the country, police and other officials are routinely blocking the release of body camera videos while giving officers accused of wrongdoing special access to the footage. Nationwide, police have shot and killed more than 750 people since January, according to a Washington Post database tracking every fatal shooting. Of those, The Post has found 49 incidents captured by body camera, or about 6 percent. Just 21 of those videos — less than half — have been publicly released. And in several of those cases, the footage, as in Burlington, was severely cut or otherwise edited. Meanwhile, virtually all of the 36 departments involved in those shootings have permitted their officers to view the videos before giving statements to investigators, The Post found. Civil and human rights groups fear that access could help rogue officers tailor their stories to obscure misconduct and avoid prosecution. “What point is there of even doing this if they are going to be treated this way? Why even spend the money on these cameras?” said Burlington Mayor Shane McCampbell, who has called on police to release video of the Steele shooting. He noted that police promised greater openness last year when they petitioned the city to buy body cameras. If the videos “are going to be a secret, no one is being held accountable,” McCampbell said. “And that was the point.” While individual police departments are adopting rules on the local level, police chiefs and unions are lobbying state officials to enshrine favorable policies into law. In 36 states and the District this year, lawmakers introduced legislation to create statewide rules governing the use of body cameras, often with the goal of increasing transparency. Of 138 bills, 20 were enacted, The Post found. Eight of those expanded the use of body cameras. However, 10 set up legal roadblocks to public access in states such as Florida, South Carolina and Texas. And most died after police chiefs and unions mounted fierce campaigns against them. Police officials defend that effort, saying overly lax rules could end up helping criminals. Jury pools could be tainted by the general release of video evidence, making it difficult to win convictions. Eyewitnesses and informants may be reluctant to come forward if there’s a chance they were caught on a video that may be publicly released. Other people caught on camera may file lawsuits claiming police violated their right to privacy. “If you have a kid who drank too much on his 21st birthday and the police are called, do you really want video of that kid, sick and throwing up, to be on YouTube for the rest of his life?” said Richard Beary, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and chief of the University of Central Florida’s police force. Those arguments prevailed in Los Angeles this spring, when the city’s police commission adopted one of the most restrictive policies in the nation. Now, anyone who wants a body camera video from the Los Angeles Police Department will likely have to ask for it in court. “A judge should be making this decision,” said Craig Lally, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the local police union. “They can listen to all sides of the argument, weigh everyone’s interests and determine if there really is a public interest at stake.” Civil rights organizations say policies that restrict access subvert the promise of body cameras. “If police departments and law enforcement become the sole arbiters of what video the public gets to see, body cameras will go from being a transparency and accountability tool to a surveillance and propaganda tool,” said Chad Marlow, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “Are we going to let that happen?” **Unreliable footage**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Despite the growing popularity of body cameras, fatal police encounters are still rarely documented by department-owned video. Only about a third of the nation’s 18,000 police departments have acquired body cameras, and some issue the devices only to a few officers. Last month, the Obama administration announced $23 million in grants to expand the use of the cameras, with the goal of enhancing “transparency, accountability and credibility” in police encounters with the public, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said. But even when a camera is present, things can go wrong. The cameras typically attach to an officer’s lapel or eyeglasses, and they can fall off during struggles or be angled away from the action. And police acknowledge that one of their biggest challenges is getting officers to turn the cameras on. Most departments require officers to flip the switch just before they engage a member of the public — while making a traffic stop, for example, or responding to a 911 call. In more spontaneous encounters, officers are required to activate their cameras as soon as it is safe. Once an incident is over, the cameras are turned off. The devices typically store footage automatically and are often tamper proof, meaning officers cannot edit or delete video without being detected. Problems with activation also have plagued cameras mounted on patrol car dashboards — so-called dashcams — which have been standard equipment since the 1990s. “Activating the cameras: This gets to the heart of transparency,” said Ken Wallentine, vice president of Lexipol, a company that police departments subscribe to for help in crafting model police policies. “Oversight from the video can’t happen if there is no video.” **‘Show it to us. Release it.’**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In the 36 departments where body cameras captured an officer-involved shooting this year, policies for releasing the video vary dramatically. Five departments say they will never release video without a court order. Five say they will always release the footage. The rest fall somewhere in between, saying they release videos at the discretion of the police chief or local prosecutor, or when investigations are complete. In some places, policies seem to be in flux. Consider the case of Brandon Lawrence, 25, of Victoria, Tex. In April, shortly after the Victoria Police Department started its body camera program, two officers equipped with cameras approached Lawrence’s apartment. An Afghanistan war veteran who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, Lawrence had gotten into a fight with a neighbor and believed the man was coming to kill him, according to family and witnesses. Someone called 911, police knocked on Lawrence’s door and he opened it holding a machete. By all accounts, Lawrence was disoriented. The officers repeatedly asked him to drop the blade; Lawrence repeatedly asked the officers to identify themselves. The officers said they opened fire because he advanced toward them, pinning one of them against a car. The next day, Lawrence’s mother and stepfather drove 13 hours from Carbondale, Ill., to look for answers. They found a giant bloodstain on the lawn, just outside the apartment. “How much advancing could Brandon have done if he died just five feet from his front door?” said Lawrence’s stepfather, Bryce Jacquot. “If they have video proof that their actions were righteous, show it to us. Release it.” Local reporters have also petitioned to see the videos. In July, Victoria City Attorney Thomas Gwosdz said it would be released “when the investigation is over. The city’s practice and policy is that it is not confidential at that point.” Now, however, Gwosdz says the videos may never be publicly disclosed. He is asking the Texas attorney general to determine whether its release would violate the privacy rights of surviving family members. Lawrence’s mother and stepfather continue to seek full disclosure. Lawrence’s father, Bryon, said the videos are “nobody’s business.” Lawrence’s wife, Yasmine, has declined interview requests. Meanwhile, Greg Cagle, an attorney for the two officers, insists the videos “100 percent support what the officers said happened.” Last month, a grand jury declined to bring criminal charges against the officers. **Keeping evidence a secret**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The Burlington, Iowa, video policy falls into the most restrictive category. Burlington city and police officials said if it had been up to them, no video of Autumn Steele’s shooting would have been released. But the Iowa Department of Public Safety was called in to investigate the shooting, and state officials put out a 12-second excerpt. On the day of the shooting, Steele, 34, had been released from jail on a domestic violence charge for hitting Gabriel with a spatula, according to a police report. Violating a court order, she returned home, and Gabriel called police. The wobbly video opens with officer Jesse Hill running toward the Steeles on a snowy sidewalk outside their home. Autumn is chasing Gabriel, who is carrying their 3-year-old son, Gunner. Their dog, Sammy, a German shepherd-collie mix, trails behind. As Hill approaches, Autumn yells, “He’s got my kid!” Hill orders her to stop. Sammy starts barking and the dog disappears from view. “Get your dog!” Hill yells. Before anyone can respond, Hill fires two shots while falling backward into the snow. The camera points briefly to the sky. Gabriel stops running and turns to his wife: “He shot you?” Autumn slumps to the sidewalk. The excerpt ends there. Nearly 28 additional minutes of video were recorded that day, and Steele’s mother believes it would tell her much that she wants to know. What did Hill say after firing the shots? Did Sammy bite him, as Hill claimed? And what did Hill do to try to save Steele’s life? “How can you kill people and keep any of that evidence a secret?” Colbert said. Hill told investigators he was forced to shoot because Sammy attacked him, and that he accidentally hit Steele. But Gabriel Steele and a neighbor who witnessed the shooting said Hill was blaming the dog to justify his own reckless behavior. In February, both men testified at an animal control board hearing called to determine whether Sammy should be euthanized. “As soon as that officer seen my dog, he pulled his weapon,” Gabriel Steele testified, periodically choking back tears. “That man stepped backward on the snow and he slipped. . . . That was when he fired his weapon twice because he had his finger on the trigger.” The neighbor, Ed Ranck, testified that Sammy “startled” Hill, who overreacted. “The dog basically jumped and put his paws on [Hill],” Ranck said. “I think it was more a playful action because he did the same thing to [Autumn Steele].” Hill did not show up for the hearing. A different officer testified that Hill had been treated for a dog bite but presented no evidence. “In the past, when we’ve had a bite like this, we have photographs of the bite,” said board Chairman Mark Cameron. The board voted unanimously to let Sammy live. Burlington police declined to comment on the case, as did Hill. Beyond labeling the videos confidential, Holly Corkery, an attorney representing the city, also declined to discuss the case, saying city officials believe “litigation is imminent.” **Embracing disclosure**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Some departments have embraced disclosure. In Muskogee, Okla., police released an unedited 10-minute video six days after one of their officers shot and killed a man outside Old Agency Baptist Church, where a wedding was underway. “It’s nice to be out in front of something. We are usually the last with these things,” said Deputy Police Chief Chad Farmer. The shooting occurred in January after Terence Walker, 21, told his former girlfriend he “had a bullet with her name on it.” The woman took shelter in the church, and the pastor called 911. The video begins as Officer Chansey McMillin pulls into the church parking lot and begins to pat down Walker. Suddenly, Walker breaks free and starts running down a two-lane road. Walker has a gun, which he drops twice. As he retrieves it, he turns toward McMillin with the gun in his hand. McMillin raises his own gun and shoots Walker five times. As Walker rolls into a drainage ditch, Pastor Andre Jones rushes into the frame, yelling, “Don’t shoot no more!” Rumors quickly spread about the shooting: Walker was unarmed. McMillin killed him, execution-style, as Walker lay bleeding in the street. But threats of civil unrest subsided once people saw the video. Farmer knows it may not always turn out that way. Still, he said, the department “will continue to release the videos. That’s our policy. That’s not going to change if we think it isn’t going to make us look good.” **Seeking accountability**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In most fatal shootings where there is body camera evidence, the officers involved have been allowed to view the footage before talking to investigators. This spring, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck urged the Los Angeles Police Commission to adopt that practice as official policy. The practice is becoming standard nationwide, thanks in part to a 2014 report funded by the Justice Department and prepared by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). The report says prior review will “lead to the truth,” and that officers will have to “account for their actions, regardless of what the video shows.” Beck’s proposal provoked a heated debate, in part because of the March 1 shooting of Charly Leundeu Keunang, 43, a homeless man who lived in an orange tent on skid row. Police say Keunang was a robbery suspect who became dangerously combative when confronted and tried to grab an officer’s gun. Witnesses say Keunang was not dangerous, and that police created a volatile situation by beating on his tent and swarming him when he emerged. Two police body cameras captured the altercation. Officers who fired shots at Keunang were allowed to see the video. Non-police witnesses were not. Civil rights attorneys and community groups argue that the practice could aid corrupt officers in covering up misconduct. “If you are going to concoct a story that isn’t true, it is awfully helpful to know if you will or will not be contradicted by your body camera video,” said Marlow of the ACLU. Attorney Dan Stormer, who represents the Keunang family in a $20 million claim against the LAPD, said the practice could help police discredit witnesses who disagree with the official account. “If you get to see the video and you know exactly what happened, you can totally destroy someone else’s credibility who has a less firm view of what took place,” Stormer said. Before the commission, Beck dismissed such concerns. “The officers cannot alter the video,” he said. “The video shows what it shows.” In April, the commission voted with Beck, 3-1. Commissioner Robert Saltzman was the lone dissenter. “Research shows that watching videos affects memory. It alters it,” Saltzman said. “If they watch it first, we will miss what the officer’s perception was at the time they used force and why they felt force was necessary.” PERF Executive Director Chuck Wexler agreed, saying his position has shifted since the group issued its report. In an interview, Wexler cited academic research showing that video can “essentially erase and record over” an officer’s memory. “If [police] are going to review the video, other [eyewitnesses] should be allowed to see it, too,” Wexler said. “How can they expect to have any credibility if they keep it to themselves?” **‘More harm than good’**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico This year, lawmakers in dozens of states entered the debate, introducing bills often intended to supersede restrictive local policies. California Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D) was among the first. She offered AB66, a measure that proposed dozens of new regulations, including a provision that would bar officers from viewing videos before giving statements or writing reports. “The policies need to be fair not only to police officers, but to the public,” Weber said. The California Police Chiefs Association took aim at that provision. When the measure came before the assembly’s privacy committee, dozens of uniformed police chiefs descended on the state capitol, telling lawmakers that AB66 was a “gotcha” bill aimed at stripping officers of their badges should their statements not align with the videos. In the hearing room, the chiefs lined up to declare their opposition. Committee members were soon at their microphones, saying they, too, were worried about the bill. Weber was stunned. Weeks earlier, she had added protections for honest officers with imperfect memories — at the request of police lobbyists. “This was not a ‘gotcha’ thing,” she told the committee. Still, Weber backed down, granting officers the right of review they were seeking, and the privacy committee approved the measure. But the fight wasn’t over. Two weeks later, police lobbyists sought prior review of dashcam video as well. This time, Weber said no. “I’ve never seen lobbying at this level,” she said. “The bill that got out of the committee is not the bill I wanted.” So Weber tucked AB66 in her dead-letter box and refused to let it proceed. As amended, she said, “it would do more harm than good.” Lawmakers in other states also rewrote or killed body camera measures under pressure from police lobbyists. According to a Post analysis, only 20 of 138 proposals were enacted. A handful of those created new requirements for police, such as mandating use of body cameras. Most gave police the authority to establish their own rules — or gave them greater power to keep videos secret. Texas, for example, passed SB158, which created more than a dozen new obstacles to public access. Sen. Royce West (D), the former prosecutor who authored the law, calls it a “national model,” noting that it provides $10 million to expand the use of body cameras in the state. West said studies show that the mere presence of cameras significantly reduces police use of force and citizen complaints. But the ACLU calls the law “a mess.” One of its most controversial provisions bans the release of video shot in a “private space.” West said that provision extends to footage from traffic stops: “When someone is in their car, we consider that to be a private area.” Citizens can appeal to see such a video. But the law requires every person who appears in it — and is not an accused felon — to sign off first. Civil rights groups have complained about the substance of the law, as well as the process West used to draft it. When West was unable to attend meetings, for example, he often let Dallas Deputy Police Chief Gary Tittle take over. “To say I was the unofficial co-chair of the working group would be appropriate,” Tittle said. He called the law “a very good balance for the people of Texas and law enforcement.” **‘I want justice’**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In Iowa, where Autumn Steele was killed, lawmakers proposed a series of body camera bills, including one that would have made videos public record as soon as any criminal investigations were concluded. Strongly opposed by police organizations, the measure died when the legislature adjourned in June. Now Steele’s mother says she feels “stuck.” The family is considering a lawsuit. “I want justice,” Colbert said. Referring to officer Hill, she added: “I want [his] badge. [His] job.” For now at least, that seems unlikely. In February, a local prosecutor cleared Hill of wrongdoing. In March, he returned to patrol duty. He faced no disciplinary action. _Jennifer Jenkins and Alice Crites contributed to this report._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Senate is losing its lions

The Senate is losing its lions. Jay Rockefeller’s retirement from the Senate, which the West Virginia Democrat announced Friday morning, is the latest in a series of departures — by death, defeat or choice — that has rapidly sapped the world’s greatest deliberative body of many of the personalities that dominated the institution, and American politics, for the better part of three decades. Since the 2008 election, here is just a sampling of the senators who have gone: Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), John Warner (R-Va.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Arlen Specter (R-then-D-Pa.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and, of course, Vice President Biden (D-Del.) Virtually every major moment you can think of in the Senate over the past 50 years happened because of the men and women listed above. These are senators about whom books have been written and about whom many more will be written. They are people who will be remembered as prime movers in the chamber. In their place are a huge number of newcomers who have replaced not only the lions, but also backbench members in recent elections. Since 2008, 40 — yes, 40 — new senators have been elected — 20 Democrats and 20 Republicans, a remarkable bit of symmetry. Some have quickly made their marks. For Republicans, Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) was on the shortlist to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick, while Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) is regarded as one of the front-runners for the 2016 GOP nomination. (Of course, that is using the Senate as a springboard rather than a destination in and of itself.) On the Democratic side, Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.) has been entrusted with leading the party’s campaign arm in the 2014 election, while Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) has emerged as a leading centrist voice in a chamber increasingly devoid of them. Still, no one would dispute that the Senate is not filled with the sort of major figures that roamed its halls even a decade ago. The bigger question is why. Some of the change is, of course, natural attrition. The Senate has never been a particularly youthful institution and death comes for us all — as it did for the likes of Kennedy, Byrd and Inouye in recent years. The last World War II veteran serving in the chamber is New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D), 88. But it’s also clear when looking at who has left, and why, that the Senate — and the process to get there — is fundamentally different than in decades past. Take Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), a respected voice on foreign policy, who had comfortably won reelection for several decades. In 2012, however, he underestimated the seriousness of a challenge from his ideological right. Lugar lost the primary, while the man who beat him, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, lost the general election to now-Sen. Joe Donnelly (D). (Two years earlier, Utah Sen. Bob Bennett (R) lost his own reelection bid in much the same manner.) Or Snowe, who despite facing no serious opposition in 2012, decided not to seek reelection, citing the “atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies [that] has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.” To be clear, none of the examples cited above — with the possible exception of Snowe — are perfect cases against the Senate. Lugar never went home to Indiana, which badly hurt him. Bennett fell victim to a nominating process dominated by conservative activists. But the totality of the departures — regardless of the reason — has clearly made the Senate a place of smaller statesmanship and decreased national sway than in years past. The loss of so many long-standing senators also has robbed the Senate of much of its institutional wisdom and sense of self. The intractability that has dominated Senate proceedings in recent years — and led to aggressive efforts to change filibuster rules — seems to be directly traceable to the fact that the Senate we once knew — and the men and women who populated it— are gone. Of course, all lions were cubs once. And there are already signs that some of the newly elected senators are in it for the long haul. But it’s hard to dispute that the golden age of the Senate is passing — if it has not passed already.

Gang member who killed transgender woman he was dating is first to be sentenced under federal hate crime law

Joshua Vallum, 29, a member of the Latin Kings gang, pleaded guilty to fatally beating and stabbing 17-year-old Mercedes Williamson, whom he had dated. Vallum admitted that he killed Williamson because she was transgender and because he feared reprisal from other members of the gang, which forbids homosexual relationships. The case marked the first time that federal prosecutors have used the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act to charge someone for targeting a transgender victim, according to the Justice Department. “Today’s sentencing reflects the importance of holding individuals accountable when they commit violent acts against transgender individuals,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “The Justice Department will continue its efforts to vindicate the rights of those individuals who are affected by bias-motivated crimes.”       When the Justice Department announced in December that Vallum had pleaded guilty to hate crime violations, LGBT rights groups lauded the department’s actions.

2012 election was chock-full of firsts

We saw lots of firsts in the 2012 election, with most of them having to do with the religion, sexual orientation and gender of winning candidates. Below are the ones we have cobbled together. What did we miss? The comments section awaits. (And we will include the best ones in future updates.) First president since Great Depression to be reelected with unemployment rate above 7.2 percent: Barack Obama First openly gay person elected to the Senate: Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) First Buddhist elected to the Senate: Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) First Asian-American woman elected to the Senate: Hirono First Japanese-born person elected to the Senate: Hirono First Hindu elected to Congress: Rep.-elect Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) First openly bisexual person elected to Congress: Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) _(Correction: Sinema leads by 1.6 percent with 100 percent of precincts reporting, butsome ballots are still being counted, and the race has not officially been called.)_ Most women in the Senate: 20 First major-party caucus that isn't a majority of white men: House Democrats (expected to include 60 women, 43 African-Americans, 27 Latinos and 10 Asian-Americans) Highest number of members of the LGBT community elected to Congress: 7. They are: Baldwin, Sinema, Reps.-elect Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and reelected Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.). First state to elect an all-woman House and Senate delegation and governor: New Hampshire First state whose people voted to legalize gay marriage: Maryland and Maine (tie) First state to legalize the sale and use of recreational marijuana: Colorado and Washington state (tie) First woman elected to the Senate in state history: Massachusetts (Elizabeth Warren), Hawaii (Hirono), North Dakota (Heidi Heitkamp) and Wisconsin (Baldwin). And Nebraska elected its first female (Deb Fischer) to a full term. First time there have been no all-male state legislative chambers: South Carolina state Senate elected a woman.

2012 election was chock-full of firsts