Connect with us

homepage news

Biden may need to lay down law with service chiefs to allow trans service

McConville, Berger on the record against lifting ban

Published

on

Joseph Biden may need to lay down the law with Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger on transgender service. (Photos public domain)

Chief among Joseph Biden’s plans to reverse President Trump’s anti-LGBTQ policy initiatives is undoing the transgender military ban, but with at least two military service chiefs on the record as being hesitant — if not outright opposed — to the change, that may require a more substantial effort than expected.

Reversing the transgender military ban, which was implemented administratively under Trump, could be done easily with another administrative change. After all, the policy of open service initiated by former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter under former President Obama could simply be duplicated.

However, if the military service chiefs resist, a change that could in theory be done on Day One during a Biden administration may be prolonged.

Douglas Wilson, who served as Pentagon chief of public affairs under Obama and was the first openly gay person confirmed by the Senate for a senior defense role, predicted in an email to the Washington Blade “there would likely be some pushback,” but said it wouldn’t be impenetrable.

“Before the Trump ban, there had been general overall acceptance of the Ash Carter policy, which — while initially internally controversial — was essentially accepted over time,” Wilson said. “[I’m] not sure in these times if this would be the issue on which chiefs would fall on their swords in opposition to Biden’s change. I would think they would be expecting it if Biden wins.”

Unlike other presidential appointments, who customarily resign their positions at the end of a presidential administration, the service chiefs under Trump would continue serving in their roles if Biden wins the election and stay in place after he takes the White House.

A look at the confirmation hearings for the military service chiefs reveals their mixed views on transgender service. The Army chief of staff is on the record in opposition to transgender service and the Marine Corps commandant has expressed hesitation. Meanwhile, the uniform leaders for the Navy and Coast Guard have signaled they’d welcome transgender service. In between is Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, who has chosen his words very carefully.

The service chief most clear about objecting to transgender military service is Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville. In a May 2019 questionnaire prepared by the Senate Armed Services Committee, McConville responded in the negative when asked if transgender military service in the Obama years had impact on unit cohesion or morale.

“In my experience, a service member with a medical condition who has been non-deployable for multiple periods of significant duration could negatively impact readiness – especially in a high-demand, low-density [military occupational specialty],” McConville said. “Non-deployable soldiers can negatively impact a unit’s force readiness, especially smaller units or in highly specialized areas with a very small population.”

Those remarks — generalized and based on a hypothetical framework — fly in the face of comments before that time from service chiefs, who each affirmed to the Senate Armed Services Committee that transgender service didn’t impair unit cohesion.

Hesitant about transgender military service in his confirmation hearing was Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger, who in April 2019 hedged by denying any negative impact on unit cohesion, but expressing concern about “gender dysphoria,” often a defining characteristic of being transgender.

“I am not aware of any specific impacts,” Berger said. “Gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition. Treatment of any medical condition can impact readiness.”

Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley chose his words carefully during his confirmation hearing in July 2019 under questioning about transgender service from Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).

“I don’t believe there’s anything inherent in anyone’s identity to prevent them from serving in the military,” Milley said. “It’s about standards, not an identity.”

Although Milley said he sees no problem with transgender troops, he also tempered that by saying service members need to meet the military standards, which currently bar transgender service.

“I think that, in my view, we’re a standards-based military, as you point out,” Milley said. “We’re concerned about the deployability and effectiveness of any of the service members.”

“So if you meet the medical, behavioral health, the conduct standards and physical standards, etc., then it’s my view that you should be welcomed in,” Milley added.

The Navy appears to have the service chief most amenable to transgender service. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday affirmed in August 2019 during his confirmation hearing he sees no problem in any capacity with allowing transgender people in the military.

“I am unaware of negative impacts on unit or overall Navy readiness as a result of transgender individuals serving in their preferred gender,” Gilday said.

Just last week, the Navy granted its first-ever waiver under the transgender ban to an officer facing discharge, allowing her to stay after she sued to remain in the service. The waiver, however, was granted by the acting secretary of the Navy, who would be expected to resign at the end of the Trump administration.

Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Karl Schultz, who pledged last year a “dedicated campaign” to increase diversity in his service, in April 2018 also dismissed concerns about transgender service in his confirmation hearing.

“I am not aware of any disciplinary or unit cohesion issues resulting from the opening of the Coast Guard to transgender individuals,” Schultz said.

Although the Coast Guard technically isn’t a service because the Department of Homeland Security, not the Defense Department, has jurisdiction over it, it has a tradition of following the personnel policy set by the Pentagon, including on transgender service.

The incoming Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Charles Brown, is in the middle of his confirmation process and hasn’t yet publicly commented on transgender service. The service chief for the newly created Space Force, Chief of Space Operations Gen. John Raymond, wasn’t asked about the issue before his confirmation.

Will Biden put his money where his mouth is with his campaign pledge and lay down the law with the service chiefs?

Jamal Brown, national press secretary for the Biden campaign, reiterated the presumptive Democratic nominee’s commitment to the transgender community in response to the question from the Washington Blade.

“Joe Biden believes that ‘bigotry is bigotry, prejudice is prejudice, and hate is hate, no matter where we find it,'” Brown said. “Transgender Americans should have the right to serve the country they love and, in this time of a global pandemic, our nation should be tapping the talents and skills of every person who is willing to serve.”

Brown also affirmed Biden would direct the Pentagon to implement openly transgender service, but didn’t disclose anything about process or timing.

“As president, Biden has made clear that he will direct the U.S. Department of Defense to allow transgender service members to serve openly, receive needed medical treatment and be free from discrimination,” Brown said. 

Tension between a U.S. president and the military service chiefs over LGBTQ military service has occurred before. In 2010, when legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was moving through Congress, Obama left implementation to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates broadly speaking, but on one occasion made his position clear with the service chiefs.

At the time, not all the service chiefs were on board with repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Marine Corps Commandant James Conway opposed allowing openly gay people in the military and warned gay and straight service members shouldn’t share housing.

But Obama delivered the service chiefs an ultimatum: Accept the change or resign.

As revealed in a 2014 report from BuzzFeed, then-Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp recalled Obama being unwilling to compromise with service leaders during a meeting in 2010 over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,’” Papp said. “I cannot divulge everything he said to us, that’s private communications within the Oval Office, but if we didn’t agree with it — if any of us didn’t agree with it — we all had the opportunity to resign our commissions and go do other things.”

There were no resignations. When “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed and Obama, then-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta certified the military was prepared, each of the services implemented openly gay service. Conway, still in charge of the Marine Corps, conceded afterwards there were no problems with the change.

Amanda Simpson, deputy assistant defense secretary for operational energy under Obama and the first openly transgender woman presidential appointee, told the Blade she doesn’t think implementing transgender service “would need to come down” to Biden giving service chiefs an ultimatum.

“I cannot speak to what a President Biden would enact, but I would encourage a first step to return to the policy that was in place and working at the end of the Obama-Biden administration allowing open transgender military service,” Simpson said.

Simpson added she thinks a President Biden would be a strong commander-in-chief and would direct the military staff accordingly.

Would the service chiefs keep to their views they expressed on transgender service during their confirmation hearings or would they agree to Biden’s plan to implement it? The Space Force didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to comment and spokesperson for the Navy and Air Force flat-out declined to comment.

Maj. Craig Thomas, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps, told the Washington Blade the service would implement any change directed under a new administration — but would provide its recommendation if asked by defense leadership.

“The simple answer is if the DOD changes the policy, the Marine Corps will abide by it,” Thomas said. “If the secretary of defense seeks input from the services, the Marine Corps would provide its recommendation. However, once a decision is made, we follow the guidance set forth by our civilian leadership.”

Asked a follow-up question on what the recommendation of the Marine Corps would be, Thomas declined to answer the hypothetical and said as of now “there is no recommendation or additional discussion.”

“Moreover, in my previous response I was speaking generically about DOD passing any new policy,” Thomas said. “Sometimes they ask for input and sometime it’s not needed. The key point is once a decision is made, the services carry it out to the best of their abilities.”

Lisa Novak, a Coast Guard spokesperson, said the service will follow the policy set by the Pentagon, but also praised transgender service members.

“The Coast Guard’s policy has always aligned with the Department of Defense’s policy concerning transgender military service,” Novak said. “There are many transgender service members serving today with honor and distinction. The Coast Guard will continue to treat all service members with the respect and dignity that they deserve.”

An Army spokesperson deferred entirely to the policy set by the Pentagon on the issue.

“The Army executes Department of Defense military personnel policy, including policy on military service by transgender persons,” the spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon continues to enforce the transgender military ban as implemented by former Defense Secretary James Mattis. The Defense Department has insisted the transgender military ban is not a ban, but a medical-based policy applying to all service members, pointing out they’re free to identify as transgender and remain in the armed forces.

Nonetheless, current policy — which the Pentagon implemented after Trump tweeted in 2017 he’d ban transgender service members “in any capacity” — requires the discharge of any service member who’s diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a defining characteristic of being transgender, or seeks transition-related care. Individuals with a history of gender dysphoria can only enlist if they’re willing to serve in accordance with their sex designated at birth.

The policy has an exemption to allow transgender service members to continue serving if they came out when open service was instituted in 2016 under the Obama administration. Additionally, the policy allows senior defense officials to grant waivers to transgender individuals facing discharge wishing to enlist in the armed forces.

Jessica Maxwell, a Defense Department spokesperson, declined to comment on the speed with which it could reverse course and implement transgender service under a Biden administration.

“The department speculates on neither future election results nor potential changes from those results,” Maxwell said.

At the end of the day, if Biden is elected president, he would become commander-in-chief and the service chiefs would be bound to his orders. Any Biden order to lift the transgender military ban would supersede their objections.

Aaron Belkin, director of the San Francisco-based Palm Center, said the implementation of transgender military service — regardless of whether Biden or Trump is in charge — would be easy to accomplish.

“All of the service chiefs testified in 2018 that inclusive policy for transgender personnel worked, and the very good regulations spelling out that policy remain in effect, even though they have been superceded by Trump’s ban,” Belkin said. “Because inclusive policy remains in effect, the next administration can seamlessly and immediately end the Trump ban by canceling the regulation that contains it. Literally, this should take a day or two, and it doesn’t matter who’s running DOD.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

homepage news

Equality Act, contorted as a danger by anti-LGBTQ forces, is all but dead

No political willpower to force vote or reach a compromise

Published

on

Despite having President Biden in the White House and Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, efforts to update federal civil rights laws to strengthen the prohibition on discrimination against LGBTQ people by passing the Equality Act are all but dead as opponents of the measure have contorted it beyond recognition.

Political willpower is lacking to find a compromise that would be acceptable to enough Republican senators to end a filibuster on the bill — a tall order in any event — nor is there the willpower to force a vote on the Equality Act as opponents stoke fears about transgender kids in sports and not even unanimity in the Democratic caucus in favor of the bill is present, stakeholders who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity said.

In fact, there are no imminent plans to hold a vote on the legislation even though Pride month is days away, which would be an opportune time for Congress to demonstrate solidarity with the LGBTQ community by holding a vote on the legislation.

If the Equality Act were to come up for a Senate vote in the next month, it would not have the support to pass. Continued assurances that bipartisan talks are continuing on the legislation have yielded no evidence of additional support, let alone the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster.

“I haven’t really heard an update either way, which is usually not good,” one Democratic insider said. “My understanding is that our side was entrenched in a no-compromise mindset and with [Sen. Joe] Manchin saying he didn’t like the bill, it doomed it this Congress. And the bullying of hundreds of trans athletes derailed our message and our arguments of why it was broadly needed.”

The only thing keeping the final nail from being hammered into the Equality Act’s coffin is the unwillingness of its supporters to admit defeat. Other stakeholders who spoke to the Blade continued to assert bipartisan talks are ongoing, strongly pushing back on any conclusion the legislation is dead.

Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the Equality Act is “alive and well,” citing widespread public support he said includes “the majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents and a growing number of communities across the country engaging and mobilizing every day in support of the legislation.”

“They understand the urgent need to pass this bill and stand up for LGBTQ people across our country,” David added. “As we engage with elected officials, we have confidence that Congress will listen to the voices of their constituents and continue fighting for the Equality Act through the lengthy legislative process.  We will also continue our unprecedented campaign to grow the already-high public support for a popular bill that will save lives and make our country fairer and more equal for all. We will not stop until the Equality Act is passed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), chief sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, also signaled through a spokesperson work continues on the legislation, refusing to give up on expectations the legislation would soon become law.

“Sen. Merkley and his staff are in active discussions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to get this done,” McLennan said. “We definitely see it as a key priority that we expect to become law.”

A spokesperson Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had promised to force a vote on the Equality Act in the Senate on the day the U.S. House approved it earlier this year, pointed to a March 25 “Dear Colleague” letter in which he identified the Equality Act as one of several bills he’d bring up for a vote.

Despite any assurances, the hold up on the bill is apparent. Although the U.S. House approved the legislation earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn’t even reported out the bill yet to the floor in the aftermath of the first-ever Senate hearing on the bill in March. A Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic aide, however, disputed that inaction as evidence the Equality Act is dead in its tracks: “Bipartisan efforts on a path forward are ongoing.”

Democrats are quick to blame Republicans for inaction on the Equality Act, but with Manchin withholding his support for the legislation they can’t even count on the entirety of their caucus to vote “yes” if it came to the floor. Progressives continue to advocate an end to the filibuster to advance legislation Biden has promised as part of his agenda, but even if they were to overcome headwinds and dismantle the institution needing 60 votes to advance legislation, the Equality Act would likely not have majority support to win approval in the Senate with a 50-50 party split.

The office of Manchin, who has previously said he couldn’t support the Equality Act over concerns about public schools having to implement the transgender protections applying to sports and bathrooms, hasn’t responded to multiple requests this year from the Blade on the legislation and didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who declined to co-sponsor the Equality Act this year after having signed onto the legislation in the previous Congress, insisted through a spokesperson talks are still happening across the aisle despite the appearances the legislation is dead.

“There continues to be bipartisan support for passing a law that protects the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Annie Clark, a Collins spokesperson. “The Equality Act was a starting point for negotiations, and in its current form, it cannot pass. That’s why there are ongoing discussions among senators and stakeholders about a path forward.”

Let’s face it: Anti-LGBTQ forces have railroaded the debate by making the Equality Act about an end to women’s sports by allowing transgender athletes and danger to women in sex-segregated places like bathrooms and prisons. That doesn’t even get into resolving the issue on drawing the line between civil rights for LGBTQ people and religious freedom, which continues to be litigated in the courts as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day now to issue a ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to determine if foster care agencies can reject same-sex couples over religious objections.

For transgender Americans, who continue to report discrimination and violence at high rates, the absence of the Equality Act may be most keenly felt.

Mara Keisling, outgoing executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, disputed any notion the Equality Act is dead and insisted the legislation is “very much alive.”

“We remain optimistic despite misinformation from the opposition,” Keisling said. “NCTE and our movement partners are still working fruitfully on the Equality Act with senators. In fact, we are gaining momentum with all the field organizing we’re doing, like phone banking constituents to call their senators. Legislating takes time. Nothing ever gets through Congress quickly. We expect to see a vote during this Congress, and we are hopeful we can win.”

But one Democratic source said calls to members of Congress against the Equality Act, apparently coordinated by groups like the Heritage Foundation, have has outnumbered calls in favor of it by a substantial margin, with a particular emphasis on Manchin.

No stories are present in the media about same-sex couples being kicked out of a restaurant for holding hands or transgender people for using the restroom consistent with their gender identity, which would be perfectly legal in 25 states thanks to the patchwork of civil rights laws throughout the United States and inadequate protections under federal law.

Tyler Deaton, senior adviser for the American Unity Fund, which has bolstered the Republican-led Fairness for All Act as an alternative to the Equality Act, said he continues to believe the votes are present for a compromise form of the bill.

“I know for a fact there is a supermajority level of support in the Senate for a version of the Equality Act that is fully protective of both LGBTQ civil rights and religious freedom,” Deaton said. “There is interest on both sides of the aisle in getting something done this Congress.”

Deaton, however, didn’t respond to a follow-up inquiry on what evidence exists of agreeing on this compromise.

Biden has already missed the goal he campaigned on in the 2020 election to sign the Equality Act into law within his first 100 days in office. Although Biden renewed his call to pass the legislation in his speech to Congress last month, as things stand now that appears to be a goal he won’t realize for the remainder of this Congress.

Nor has the Biden administration made the Equality Act an issue for top officials within the administration as it pushes for an infrastructure package as a top priority. One Democratic insider said Louisa Terrell, legislative affairs director for the White House, delegated work on the Equality Act to a deputy as opposed to handling it herself.

To be sure, Biden has demonstrated support for the LGBTQ community through executive action at an unprecedented rate, signing an executive order on day one ordering federal agencies to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County to the fullest extent possible and dismantling former President Trump’s transgender military ban. Biden also made historic LGBTQ appointments with the confirmation of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of health.

A White House spokesperson insisted Biden’s team across the board remains committed to the Equality Act, pointing to his remarks to Congress.

“President Biden has urged Congress to get the Equality Act to his desk so he can sign it into law and provide long overdue civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ Americans, and he remains committed to seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible,” the spokesperson said. “The White House and its entire legislative team remains in ongoing and close coordination with organizations, leaders, members of Congress, including the Equality Caucus, and staff to ensure we are working across the aisle to push the Equality Act forward.”

But at least in the near-term, that progress will fall short of fulfilling the promise of updating federal civil rights law with the Equality Act, which will mean LGBTQ people won’t be able to rely on those protections when faced with discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. bill to ban LGBTQ panic defense delayed by Capitol security

Delivery of bill to Congress was held up due to protocols related to Jan. 6 riots

Published

on

New fencing around the Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented some D.C. bills from being delivered to the Hill for a required congressional review. (Blade file photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A bill approved unanimously last December by the D.C. Council to ban the so-called LGBTQ panic defense has been delayed from taking effect as a city law because the fence installed around the U.S. Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented the law from being delivered to Congress.

According to Eric Salmi, communications director for D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who guided the bill through the Council’s legislative process, all bills approved by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor must be hand-delivered to Congress for a required congressional review.

“What happened was when the Capitol fence went up after the January insurrection, it created an issue where we physically could not deliver laws to Congress per the congressional review period,” Salmi told the Washington Blade.

Among the bills that could not immediately be delivered to Congress was the Bella Evangelista and Tony Hunter Panic Defense Prohibition and Hate Crimes Response Amendment Act of 2020, which was approved by the Council on a second and final vote on Dec. 15.

Between the time the bill was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and published in the D.C. Register under procedural requirements for all bills, it was not ready to be transmitted to Congress until Feb. 16, the Council’s legislative record for the bill shows.

Salmi said the impasse in delivering the bill to Congress due to the security fence prevented the bill from reaching Congress on that date and prevented the mandatory 60-day congressional review period for this bill from beginning at that time. He noted that most bills require a 30 legislative day review by Congress.

But the Evangelista-Hunter bill, named after a transgender woman and a gay man who died in violent attacks by perpetrators who attempted to use the trans and gay panic defense, includes a law enforcement related provision that under the city’s Home Rule Charter passed by Congress in the early 1970s requires a 60-day congressional review.

“There is a chance it goes into effect any day now, just given the timeline is close to being up,” Salmi said on Tuesday. “I don’t know the exact date it was delivered, but I do know the countdown is on,” said Salmi, who added, “I would expect any day now it should go into effect and there’s nothing stopping it other than an insurrection in January.”

If the delivery to Congress had not been delayed, the D.C. Council’s legislative office estimated the congressional review would have been completed by May 12.

A congressional source who spoke on condition of being identified only as a senior Democratic aide, said the holdup of D.C. bills because of the Capitol fence has been corrected.

“The House found an immediate workaround, when this issue first arose after the Jan. 6 insurrection,” the aide said.

“This is yet another reason why D.C. Council bills should not be subject to a congressional review period and why we need to grant D.C. statehood,” the aide said.

The aide added that while no disapproval resolution had been introduced in Congress to overturn the D.C. Evangelista-Hunter bill, House Democrats would have defeated such a resolution.

“House Democrats support D.C. home rule, statehood, and LGBTQ rights,” said the aide.

LGBTQ rights advocates have argued that a ban on using a gay or transgender panic defense in criminal trials is needed to prevent defense attorneys from inappropriately asking juries to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression is to blame for a defendant’s criminal act, including murder.

Some attorneys have argued that their clients “panicked” after discovering the person against whom they committed a violent crime was gay or transgender, prompting them to act in a way they believed to be a form of self-defense.

In addition to its provision banning the LGBTQ panic defense, the Evangelista-Hunter bill includes a separate provision that strengthens the city’s existing hate crimes law by clarifying that hatred need not be the sole motivating factor for an underlying crime such as assault, murder, or threats to be prosecuted as a hate crime.

LGBTQ supportive prosecutors have said the clarification was needed because it is often difficult to prove to a jury that hatred is the only motive behind a violent crime. The prosecutors noted that juries have found defendants not guilty of committing a hate crime on grounds that they believed other motives were involved in a particular crime after defense lawyers argued that the law required “hate” to be the only motive in order to find someone guilty of a hate crime.

Salmi noted that while the hate crime clarification and panic defense prohibition provisions of the Evangelista-Hunter bill will become law as soon as the congressional review is completed, yet another provision in the bill will not become law after the congressional review because there are insufficient funds in the D.C. budget to cover the costs of implementing the provision.

The provision gives the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the Office of the D.C. Attorney General authority to investigate hate related discrimination at places of public accommodation. Salmi said the provision expands protections against discrimination to include web-based retailers or online delivery services that are not physically located in D.C.

“That is subject to appropriations,” Salmi said. “And until it is funded in the upcoming budget it cannot be legally enforced.”

He said that at Council member Allen’s request, the Council added language to the bill that ensures that all other provisions of the legislation that do not require additional funding – including the ban on use of the LGBTQ panic defense and the provision clarifying that hatred doesn’t have to be the sole motive for a hate crime – will take effect as soon as the congressional approval process is completed.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. man charged with 2020 anti-gay death threat rearrested

Defendant implicated in three anti-LGBTQ incidents since 2011

Published

on

shooting, DC Eagle, assault, hate crime, anti-gay attack, police discrimination, sex police, Sisson, gay news, Washington Blade

A D.C. man arrested in August 2020 for allegedly threatening to kill a gay man outside the victim’s apartment in the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood and who was released while awaiting trial was arrested again two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill another man in an unrelated incident.

D.C. Superior Court records show that Jalal Malki, who was 37 at the time of his 2020 arrest on a charge of bias-related attempts to do bodily harm against the gay man, was charged on May 4, 2021 with unlawful entry, simple assault, threats to kidnap and injure a person, and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon against the owner of a vacant house at 4412 Georgia Ave., N.W.

Court charging documents state that Malki was allegedly staying at the house without permission as a squatter. An arrest affidavit filed in court by D.C. police says Malki allegedly threatened to kill the man who owns the house shortly after the man arrived at the house while Malki was inside.

According to the affidavit, Malki walked up to the owner of the house while the owner was sitting in his car after having called police and told him, “If you come back here, I’m going to kill you.” While making that threat Malki displayed what appeared to be a gun in his waistband, but which was later found to be a toy gun, the affidavit says.

Malki then walked back inside the house minutes before police arrived and arrested him. Court records show that similar to the court proceedings following his 2020 arrest for threatening the gay man, a judge in the latest case ordered Malki released while awaiting trial. In both cases, the judge ordered him to stay away from the two men he allegedly threatened to kill.

An arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in the 2020 case states that Malki allegedly made the threats inside an apartment building where the victim lived on the 2300 block of Champlain Street, N.W. It says Malki was living in a nearby building but often visited the building where the victim lived.

“Victim 1 continued to state during an interview that it was not the first time that Defendant 1 had made threats to him, but this time Defendant 1 stated that if he caught him outside, he would ‘fucking kill him.’” the affidavit says. It quotes the victim as saying during this time Malki repeatedly called the victim a “fucking faggot.”

The affidavit, prepared by the arresting officers, says that after the officers arrested Malki and were leading him to a police transport vehicle to be booked for the arrest, he expressed an “excited utterance” that he was “in disbelief that officers sided with the ‘fucking faggot.’”

Court records show that Malki is scheduled to appear in court on June 4 for a status hearing for both the 2020 arrest and the arrest two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill the owner of the house in which police say he was illegally squatting.

Superior Court records show that Malki had been arrested three times between 2011 and 2015 in cases unrelated to the 2021 and 2020 cases for allegedly also making threats of violence against people. Two of the cases appear to be LGBTQ related, but prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not list the cases as hate crimes.

In the first of the three cases, filed in July 2011, Malki allegedly shoved a man inside Dupont Circle and threatened to kill him after asking the man why he was wearing a purple shirt.

“Victim 1 believes the assault occurred because Suspect 1 believes Victim 1 is a homosexual,” the police arrest affidavit says.

Court records show prosecutors charged Malki with simple assault and threats to do bodily harm in the case. But the court records show that on Sept. 13, 2011, D.C. Superior Court Judge Stephen F. Eilperin found Malki not guilty on both charges following a non-jury trial.

The online court records do not state why the judge rendered a not guilty verdict. With the courthouse currently closed to the public and the press due to COVID-related restrictions, the Washington Blade couldn’t immediately obtain the records to determine the judge’s reason for the verdict.

In the second case, court records show Malki was arrested by D.C. police outside the Townhouse Tavern bar and restaurant at 1637 R St., N.W. on Nov. 7, 2012 for allegedly threatening one or more people with a knife after employees ordered Malki to leave the establishment for “disorderly behavior.”

At the time, the Townhouse Tavern was located next door to the gay nightclub Cobalt, which before going out of business two years ago, was located at the corner of 17th and R Streets, N.W.

The police arrest affidavit in the case says Malki allegedly pointed a knife in a threatening way at two of the tavern’s employees who blocked his path when he attempted to re-enter the tavern. The affidavit says he was initially charged by D.C. police with assault with a dangerous weapon – knife. Court records, however, show that prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office lowered the charges to two counts of simple assault. The records show that on Jan. 15, 2013, Malki pleaded guilty to the two charges as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

The records show that Judge Marissa Demeo on that same day issued a sentence of 30 days for each of the two charges but suspended all 30 days for both counts. She then sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for both charges and ordered that he undergo alcohol and drug testing and undergo treatment if appropriate.

In the third case prior to the 2020 and 2021 cases, court records show Malki was arrested outside the Cobalt gay nightclub on March 14, 2015 on multiple counts of simple assault, attempted assault with a dangerous weapon – knife, possession of a prohibited weapon – knife, and unlawful entry.

The arrest affidavit says an altercation started on the sidewalk outside the bar when for unknown reasons, Malki grabbed a female customer who was outside smoking and attempted to pull her toward him. When her female friend came to her aid, Malki allegedly got “aggressive” by threatening the woman and “removed what appeared to be a knife from an unknown location” and pointed it at the woman’s friend in a threatening way, the affidavit says.

It says a Cobalt employee minutes later ordered Malki to leave the area and he appeared to do so. But others noticed that he walked toward another entrance door to Cobalt and attempted to enter the establishment knowing he had been ordered not to return because of previous problems with his behavior, the affidavit says. When he attempted to push away another employee to force his way into Cobalt, Malki fell to the ground during a scuffle and other employees held him on the ground while someone else called D.C. police.

Court records show that similar to all of Malki’s arrests, a judge released him while awaiting trial and ordered him to stay away from Cobalt and all of those he was charged with threatening and assaulting.

The records show that on Sept. 18, 2015, Malki agreed to a plea bargain offer by prosecutors in which all except two of the charges – attempted possession of a prohibited weapon and simple assault – were dropped. Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. on Oct. 2, 2015 sentenced Malki to 60 days of incarnation for each of the two charges but suspended all but five days, which he allowed Malki to serve on weekends, the court records show.

The judge ordered that the two five-day jail terms could be served concurrently, meaning just five days total would be served, according to court records. The records also show that Judge Irving sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for each of the two counts and ordered that he enter an alcohol treatment program and stay away from Cobalt.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular