Think Progress Lied About Roy Moore Child Sex Abuse Decision

Think Progress’s “analysis” (being repeated everywhere now) of Roy Moore’s dissent in Higdon v. State is so egregiously false that my heart was racing in indignation over it for at least a few minutes. For the record, I’m a moderate liberal Democrat who detests the politics of personal destruction, and am increasingly alarmed by other common features of contemporary public political discourse that are actively shredding the fabric of American society, destroying too many of us “regular” folks’ filial, family, and community bonds in process.

I have to get to my paying job soon, so I’m just going to throw down a quick and dirty critique for now. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to flesh it out later (we’ll see.)

Higdon v State, the case ThinkProgress referred to, was an appeal involving charges of:
(1) 1st degree sodomy of a kid <12, AND
(2) 1st degree sodomy by forcible compulsion
These charges arose from incidents involving a 17 year old (minor) perpetrator & one child victim (BTW, ThinkProgress, the child victim was 4, not 12, as you “reported.”)  Juvenile perpetrator Higdon was convicted on BOTH counts. He appealed both convictions to the State Court of Appeals. (For readers less familiar with legal and judicial process and systems, since Lord knows I didn’t learn this stuff until law school, that’s the intermediate court between the trial court level and the State Supreme Court.)

On review, the State Court of Appeals UPHELD the conviction as to Charge 1. So that felony conviction stood. But they overturned the conviction on Charge 2 based on a 2002 State Supreme Court decision in a case called “Ex Parte J.A.P.” (initials used there as Defendant was also a minor child.) That case established precedent that limited the scope of what's defined as "forcible" compulsion when the perpetrator is also a juvenile.

The State appealed the Court of Appeals decision as to Charge 2. Higdon did not appeal the decision as to Charge 1 (1st degree sodomy of kid <12), so that conviction stood.  In other words, regardless of what the State Supreme Court decided on appeal, the juvie perp was STILL going to be a felon & likely a lifelong registered sex offender due to their abuse of the victim.

So the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals on the legal applicability of Charge 2, overruling Ex Parte JAP.  Justice Moore *concurred* (AGREED WITH) that interpretation and result.  He dissented on a more narrow point of law, which I don’t have time to get into.

So here’s the WORST irony of all.  You know that Ex Parte JAP case?  Guess which Court of Appeals Judge wrote that 2001 opinion finding that a minor can engage in forcible compulsion through an implied threat? A view the 2002 Alabama Supreme Court rejected, but came around to in 2015 with the Higdon decision?

ROY MOORE. Yep. THAT Roy Moore. Then-Court of Appeals Judge Roy Moore was right on that matter of law at least 13 years before the State Supreme Court “got it.”

Again, read the decision & dissent for yourself here. Roy Moore’s dissent even mentions that he authored the 2001 Court of Appeals decision in J.A.P. and discusses how it aligns with Alabama Supreme Court’s reasoning in ruling on Higdon.

I'm sick of political spinmeisters and their evil BS smears. Enough already.

Trump Bumper Stickers - So Many Messages to Choose From!

God bless the Internets for things like Little Green Footballs' "Trump Bumper Sticker Generator"!

I spent some quality time with this fine tool, along with a variety of wonderful, absolutely tremendous, honest-to-God Trump quotes*, and came up with an array of options with which to bedeck one's automobile, laptop, fridge, cubicle or home office bulletin board, dorm room door, or what have you.

Regrettably, some of Trump's finest work defies attempts to be boilt down into a slogan.  Efforts will continue to force these more unwieldy expressions of wisdom into 52 characters or less.

Please enjoy - and feel free to share your own masterpieces in the Comments section!

*Note - due to the 52 character space constraint, some quotes have been modified in ways that do not distort their meaning.  For example, names of individuals he was referring to have been included (China) or substituted for pronouns (eg "Ivanka" for "her") or left out if it made the slogan too long (e.g., "Lyin' Ted.")   

But now - onto the bumper sticker mock-ups!  I'd love to see Dick Morris come up with beauts like these ...

Donald Trump: The Man. The Myth. The Fraud.

Donald Trump is not who he says he is.

Trumps are gonna trump / Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0

C'mon, GOP voters.  

You can’t possibly be serious about nominating Donald Trump for President.  I know plenty of you are (reasonably) fed up with politicians who say one thing then do another.  But this man is a compulsive liar.  One analysis found that he lies, on average, once every five minutes.  He lies so much, journalists say they can’t even keep up with fact-checking it all.  His positions on major issues shift right along with his ever-changing moods.  Trump is quite possibly the least predictable Presidential candidate we’ve ever seen.  His word is infinitely less reliable than what comes from the many other politicians who’ve disappointed you so much.

“But,” I can hear you saying, “But he’s a successful businessman!  And a tough guy!  And super smart!  He tells it like it is!  He cares about working folks and putting a stop to illegal immigration!  He knows how to hire the best people!  He’ll bring jobs back to America!  And he’s even a Christian!  He’s just what we need in the White House!"

Baloney.

Donald Trump is none of the things he claims to be.

~~~

Trump is not an honest businessman.  He is a hustler and a con artist. Between alleged pyramid scheme Trump Network TM nutritional supplements, real estate education scam Trump University, shilling for nine years for pyramid scheme American Communications Network, and who knows what other as yet undiscovered scam, Trump has swindled (or helped swindle) tens of thousands of honest Americans out of their hard-earned money.  These were folks who were just looking for legitimate ways to make money, and who trusted these fraudulent business opportunities because Trump was involved with them. 

~~~

Trump is not free from special interest influence, nor is he “self-funding” his campaign.  In reality, he owes more than $265 million to a bunch of big banks, and it may be much more.  Trump has donated a mere $250,000 to his campaign, and has lent it more than $17 million.  Lending – rather than donating – the cash allows the campaign to raise money to repay him before Election Day.  His manager said he won’t seek repayment of the loan – but if that were true, wouldn’t he just donate the funds?  Trump and his staff have also told major donors they will start aggressively fundraising once he gets the nomination.

I don't believe I have been given any credit by the voters for self-funding my campaign, the only one. I will keep doing, but not worth it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2016

Iowa GOP voters were right – Trump deserves no credit for “self-funding” his campaign

Sandernistas, the "Burning Britches" You Smell Are Your Own

Screenshot of People for Sanders video

Another day, another overheated accusation from the Bernie Sanders campaign and/or the DC operatives loosely affiliated with it that Hillary Clinton is LYING AGAIN.  This time, she supposedly LIED about whether Bernie was an active contributor to the 1993-94 health care reform battle.
To hit the point home, “The People for Bernie Sanders” disseminated a little video, essentially accusing Hillary of being a “liar, liar, pants on fire.” They present all of ten seconds of video of Sanders standing in the background on a stage at a Hillary health care reform event, as if that proves their point. (Sanders campaign staff had earlier tweeted out a still from the same CSPAN footage.)

Hillary Clinton forgets where Bernie Sanders was
Hillary Clinton should really see this video
Posted by The People For Bernie Sanders 2016 on Saturday, March 12, 2016

Not trying to be snarky, but Bernie showing up at Hillary's rally at a college next door to his Congressional district wasn't exactly heavy lifting.  In the clip, she thanks those who are leaders in the effort, but she doesn’t identify Sanders as one of them. She then says that she was “grateful that Congressman Sanders would join us today from Vermont,” at which point the clip is abruptly cut off. 

Hey, Ted Cruz: An Impotent SCOTUS Makes The Founders Cry

Ted Cruz / Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0

That fine defender of the United States Constitution, Senator Ted Cruz, has spoken.  Apparently we owe it to Justice Scalia's memory to ensure that his seat on the Supreme Court remain empty for 11 months or longer. 

Okay.  Let's say we did that.  On close questions, we'd be looking at a lot of 4 to 4 decisions - meaning the Court would be unable to actually issue binding opinions on the most controversial matters that come before it.  In legalese, that scenario would reduce the Supreme Court of the United States to a nullity.  In plain English, the Supreme Court may as well not exist.

I recall Justice Scalia being very, very concerned with The Founders' intent (at least, as he conceived of it.)  Am I the only who thinks, hey, maybe The Founders REALLY liked the ideas of three coequal branches of government, which provide checks & balances against one another's power?  Am I the only one who recalls those concepts being frequent topics of discussion at the time of our founding?

Certainly, a die-hard original intent fan like Senator Cruz recalls these points being repeatedly made within The Federalist Papers.  A 4-4 SCOTUS = one branch down, Senator Cruz.

Muslim Student: Obama at Mosque Says I Am Just As American As Any Other

College student Sabah Muktar introduces President Obama in Baltimore. Source: YouTube

THIS - college student Sabah Muktar, introducing President Obama's speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore moments ago:

"And personally, [President Obama speaking at this mosque] reassures me that I, a proud, black, Muslim, African-American, am just as American, and have the obligation to fulfill my loyalty to my country, as any other."

Awesome. Awesome. Awesome. Sarah Palin and friends don't get to define "Real America." I've lived in Real America in rural Idaho, inner city Seattle, suburban Redlands (CA), a middle class Portland (OR) neighborhood, DC, "Portlandia"- like college towns, and on the Nez Perce Reservation. I've visited Real America in Montana, Tucson, Atlanta, Nashville, NYC, Ithaca, Charleston, San Antonio, Chicago, San Francisco, LA, San Diego, Boise, Pocatello, Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, Tacoma, Yakima, Walla Walla, Salem (OR), St. Louis, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Kuna, Grangeville, Mukilteo, Everett, Olympia. I haven't had an opportunity to go see Real America in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, New Orleans, Miami, Dallas, Boston, Philadelphia, rural New England, Alaska, or any number of other places on my Bucket List, but I hope to get there someday.

WaPo Misreports Friday's State Department Statement On Hillary's Emails

Sec. Clinton in India, 2011 / US Consulate Chennai, CC BY-ND 2.0

The GOP narrative around Hillary Clinton's State Department emails got an assist from a seemingly unlikely source on Friday: the so-called “Mainstream Media,” in the persons of Washington Post reporters Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, and Chris Cillizza, who writes WaPo politics blog, "The Fix.” 

Cillizza’s take on the story is, as of this writing, in the WaPo Top 5 most widely read pieces:

Unfortunately, they all read far too much into far too little.

Sayeth Cillizza:

For months, Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign have stuck to a consistent story line when faced with of classified information on the private server she used exclusively as secretary of state: She was the victim of an overzealous intelligence community bent on categorizing information as top secret or classified when it was, in fact, neither.

That defense hit a major snag on Friday when the State Department announced that it, too, had found “top secret” information on Clinton’s server — 22 emails across seven separate emails chains. The information, the State Department said, was so secret that those emails would never be released to the public.

Suddenly Clinton’s narrative of an overly aggressive intelligence community or a broader squabble between the intelligence world and the State Department didn’t hold water. Or at least held a whole lot less water than it did prior to Friday afternoon.

Only problem? The State Department said no such thing. Having heard part of the State Department’s briefing on [conservative] talk radio on Friday, I recalled it very differently.  So I looked it up.  Here’s what State Department Spokesman John Kirby actually said:

I can confirm that as part of this monthly FOIA production of former Secretary Clinton’s emails, the State Department will be denying in full seven email chains found in 22 documents, representing 37 pages. The documents are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain a category of top secret information. These documents were not marked classified at the time that they were sent. We have worked closely with our interagency partners on this matter, and this dialogue with the interagency is exactly how the process is supposed to work. As to whether they were classified at the time they were sent, the State Department, in the FOIA process, is focusing on whether they need to be classified today. Questions about classification at the time they were sent are being and will be handled separately by the State Department.  [emphasis added]

Kirby explicitly stated that the classification upgrade was per request from the Intelligence Community, not “the State Department itself.”  This is completely consistent with what Secretary Clinton and her campaign have been saying all along.  A few moments later, Kirby further stated:

These emails denied in full are among the emails discussed recently by the Intelligence Community inspector general in a letter to Congress. We will not, however, be confirming or speaking, as I said, to every detail provided in the documents or in the ICIG’s letter. One of these emails was also among those identified by the ICIG last summer as possibly containing top secret information. [emphasis added]

To be fair to Cillizza, his analysis apparently relied on reporting by two of his Washington Post colleagues, who asserted:

The Friday announcement was significant because it appeared to undercut Clinton’s argument in recent months that she was merely the victim of a bureaucratic squabble between overly strict analysts at the intelligence agencies and more reasonable reviewers at the State Department.

The intelligence community’s inspector general had previously indicated that he thought that some of the emails contained top secret material. Until Friday, however, the State Department had declined to concur with that assessment.

But this isn’t an accurate reading of Kirby’s comments.  In his initial statement and in response to numerous reporters’ questions on Friday, Kirby repeatedly reiterated that State had agreed to upgrade the emails in question at the request of the Intelligence Community.  The only slight deviation from this response came when a reporter asked whether, “you guys [at State] were prepared to release [these emails] until the intel community came in and said hey, wait a second, you can’t do that?”  To that question, Kirby replied:

No, I wouldn’t say – I wouldn’t say that, Matt. As I said we had an ongoing discussion about this traffic with them. At their request we’ve decided to make this upgrade. It is a State Department decision. We’re doing it, but we’re doing it at the request of the Intelligence Community. And we’re going to continue to coordinate and consult with them going forward.

It does seem technically accurate to say that decisions about whether to release documents in State’s possession pursuant to a FOIA request is inherently a State Department decision.  But folks infinitely more expert on this topic than I have generally supported Clinton’s contention that some agencies have a tendency to be overly cautious in making security classification determinations.  And predictably, the overly cautious entity usually wins the day, unless or until the decision is overruled in an intra-agency MDR review or on appeal to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel.

The most recent Informational Security Oversight Office report (at pdf p. 16) indicates that 62% of pages of classified materials challenged by the public via the MDR process were wholly declassified at the initial review stage, while an additional 32% of the pages were at least partially declassified on review.  That’s right: 94% of classified pages reviewed under MDR were wholly or partially declassified in response.  Of the much smaller universe of cases that made it to review on appeal to ISCAP (at pdf p. 26), 75% of the 451 documents reviewed by ISCAP were ordered declassified, either wholly or in part.  These data points would tend to support the contention that some agencies, at least, have a substantial habit of overclassifying materials.

The National Security Archive, a non-profit based at George Washington University, provided this overview of the over-classification phenomenon just a few days ago:

National Security Archive director Tom Blanton’s July 2015 Washington Post op-ed further lays out the ongoing problem of overclassification. Blanton argues that “the real secrets make up only a fraction of the classified universe, and no secret deserves immortality. In fact, essential to the whole idea of democratic government is that secret deals with dictators will come out eventually, not least to deter the worst deals from being made…I showed Congress the estimates over the years of how much gets classified that doesn’t deserve to be. Ronald Reagan’s executive secretary for the National Security Council, Rodney B. McDaniel, said 90 percent. Thomas H. Kean, the Republican head of the 9/11 Commission, said 75 percent of what he saw that was classified should not have been.”

Blanton is far from alone in pointing out persistent overclassification. The latest Information Security Oversight Office report showed that the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) continues to overrule agency classification decisions in Mandatory Declassification Review appeals nearly 75% of the time.

Of lesser import – but still worth noting – is Cillizza’s contention that Clinton’s campaign “pivoted” on the email issue, supposedly in response to the comments from State:

The Clinton team quickly pivoted. “After a process that has been dominated by bureaucratic infighting that has too often played out in public view, the loudest and leakiest participants in this interagency dispute have now prevailed in blocking any release of these emails,” said campaign spokesman Brian Fallon.

Calling for the release of the allegedly top secret emails is a smart gambit by the Clinton folks since it makes them look as if they have nothing to hide while being protected by the near-certainty that the State Department won’t simply change its mind on the release because the Clinton team asked them to.

This wasn’t any kind of “pivot.”  Secretary Clinton has been saying for almost a full year that she wants the emails released (presumably to the extent that release would not jeopardize national security):

State Department spokesman John Kirby repeatedly reiterated on Friday that State had upgraded classification of the 22 emails “at the Intelligence Community’s request.”  That sounds like simple interagency comity.  It’s too much of a stretch from there to declaring that the State Department made some kind of important, revelatory, independent determination regarding the proper classification.

No, Elizabeth Warren Didn't "Sink" Hillary Endorsement Hopes

Senator and progressive girl-crush Elizabeth Warren / Image: Ninian Reid, CC BY 2.0

The essay hit Huffington Post earlier today and is already manically careening around Facebook and other social media:

Elizabeth Warren Sinks Clinton's Hopes for Endorsement


Oh, BALONEY. 

The Elizabeth-Warren-secretly-loves-Bernie-and-hates-Hillary stories have been circulating online for months, mostly among Sanders' supporters.  And they only seem to be multiplying as Iowa draws near: "Warren in talks to endorse Bernie," "Bernie will nominate Warren for VP," "This comment from Sen. Warren PROVES she hates Hillary's guts!"  None of the stories or headlines are supported by actual evidence. 

Listen for yourself to the speech where Sen. Warren supposedly "made it clear she won't endorse Hillary":  

Obama's 2016 State of the Union - Highlights & Lowlights

Here are the highlights from President Barack Obama's final State of the Union, along with an assortment of thoughts, impressions, and cheap wisecracks inspired by the speech.   [All times Pacific and approximate.]


6:14 PM

Obama: "But tonight, I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead.  Don't worry, I've got plenty, from helping students learn to write computer code to personalizing medical treatments for patients.  And I'll keep pushing for progress on the work that still needs doing.  Fixing a broken immigration system.  Protecting our kids from gun violence. ..."

Hmmm ... Is there going to be even a single point in this Presidential litany of progress that Speaker Paul Ryan can applaud for?

Obama: "... Equal pay for equal work, paid leave, raising the minimum wage.  All these things still matter to hardworking families; they are still the right thing to do; and I will not let up until they get done."

Nope.  Not a one.

6:17 PM

Obama: "... In fact, it's in that spirit that we have made progress these past seven years.  That's how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations.  {Applause}"

Maybe Ryan can find an applause line this time around??  He's not moved by talk of recovery, though.

"That's how we reformed our health care system, and reinvented our energy sector.  {Applause}  That's how we delivered more care and benefits to our troops coming home and our veterans. {Applause} That's how we secured the freedom in every state to marry the person we love. {Applause}"

Again, nope, not so much.  Not even for the troops and veterans.  Surprising.  I thought he got a bye on ALL references to troops and veterans.  That Freedom Caucus is even more hardcore than I gave 'em credit for.


6:19 PM

Marco Rubio just looked terrified that he might be caught on camera applauding for *anything* President Obama has said.

No, Dianne Feinstein Is NOT Trying to Take Veterans' Guns

Senator Diane Feinstein / David Lee, CC BY 2.0

I love many things about modern technology.  The ease with which we can share information is absolutely amazing!  But that means it's also very easy for folks to share FALSE information.

For example, the following misinfographic ... which is a load of baloney.  

​​

Graphic altered to prevent further circulation of its nonsense.  Original had "Idiot" at the top and the fabricated quote at the bottom.

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) NEVER uttered these words, and sure as heck doesn't even think it.

After further conversation with my Facebook friend who posted this, I've been able to figure out the origin of this meme.  He argued that "it's a paraphrase of what she said."

Big Short "Market Genius" - We're Heading Toward Another Crisis

Starting young / Source: _Dinkel_, CC BY 2.0 

New York magazine recently posted an interesting interview with Michael Burry, the "market genius" depicted in The Big Short.  For folks concerned about the current state of our economy, it's a quick read and well worth it.

I don't agree with some of Burry's comments, but it's all worth considering.  What I *do* share is a concern that we in industrialized nations cannot seem to get away from our drive to produce "economic growth" at any price.  This usually results in the accumulation of obscene amounts of debt - in the public AND private sectors - until the whole system becomes completely unsustainable.  The related belief that large profits are the birthright of everyone with "enough smarts" to identify and exploit economic opportunities results in the bidding up of residential properties sales and/or rental prices until prices are beyond reach of the vast majority even WITH the aid of consumer debt (at which point, the bubble pops), downward pressure on wages and benefits paid to workers (and eroding wages/hours) coupled with increased workloads ...

We Need to Get Past Simplistic Higher Ed Policy Debates

Contemplating repaying those student loans / Francisco Osorio, CC BY 2.0 

A friend passed along this great, detailed New York Times op-ed by law prof Paul Campos, where he critically examines the prevailing conventional wisdom that skyrocketing higher ed tuition (and student loan debt) is due to eroding state support for higher education. If you, like me, are interested in these issues and missed this back in April, give it a read.

Higher education policy is one of those areas where public - and legislative - debate often boils down to painfully simplistic talking points that completely obscure the *real* sources of our problems with achieving efficient allocation of tax dollars, optimized investment in our people (or our workforce, for those who think talking about "people" is too warm and fuzzy), etc.  The old polarized arguments - We need to support education! vs. Grads make a lot of money & should pay for their own degrees! - don't cut it.

I've been suspicious of the claim that the skyrocketing tuition/fees and increasing student loan burdens are due - or even mostly due - to dwindling state support.  My suspicion is compounded by the reality that we've seen similar inflation in the private schools, who've long seemed to be in a bidding war to prove how "prestigious" they are through their pricing ... and we've seen public graduate and professional programs follow suit.

Sen. John Cornyn's A Lot of Things, But KKK Member Ain't One of 'Em

Senator John Cornyn / Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0

Today in don't believe everything you read on the Internet: anonymously-made allegations that a variety of politicians are members of the KKK.

The list of politicians allegedly involved with the KKK that was released today looks very, very dubious.  It was released by someone calling themselves @sgtbilko420.  Their Twitter feed says they're not directly involved in Anonymous, but they're sympathetic.

But their identity is anonymous - so how accountable are they, really?  I take a "trust, but verify" approach with most people who've actually earned my trust.  Those who haven't - especially anonymous folks on the Interwebs - get a "be skeptical, and investigate" response, instead.

Knoxville, Tennessee Mayor Madeline Rogero seems on the level to me (see her Facebook refutation.)  She started her career working with the United Farmworkers - an unlikely start for a seething white supremacist.  She participated in a December Black Lives Matter rally.  And here’s a picture of Rogero's multi-racial family.  Not a likely candidate for the KKK.

Also listed - the Mayor of Lexington, KY.  Who's openly gay.  And has been an openly gay politician since 2005.  In Kentucky.  Not seeing him as a KKK member.

Also listed - U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).  Who's been derided as a RINO by right-wingers for years for offenses such as: saying compassionate things about undocumented kids last year, supporting immigration reform, voting to allow a vote on Loretta Lynch’s nomination to the post of Attorney General, supporting President Obama on the need to act in Syria two years ago, and co-sponsoring the Sentencing Reform Act with Senator Corey Booker (D-NJ) and others.  I don't know John Cornyn's heart when it comes to race, but a KKK leadership role seems very, very unlikely. 

Here's a report showing the refutations of a number of those listed on the so-called "KKK list."

Additional debunking will be posted as found.

UPDATE at 4:26 PM PST:

​​

 Screen shot

Bank of England Head Makes a Conservative, Economic Case for Action on Climate Change

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has warned that firms and regulators can no longer avoid addressing global climate change / Photo: James Oxley, CC BY-ND 2.0

A few weeks ago, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who also chairs the Financial Stability Board, gave a speech at Lloyd's of London regarding the economic impacts and challenges of global climate change.  Given his audience, he also paid particular attention to how climate change has impacted the insurance industry, and will continue to do so.

Despite plenty of disagreement on the particulars he advocates, Carney made a compelling case for corporations and financial firms to stop fighting the acknowledgement of climate change and start modifying practices NOW in order to smooth the transition, reduce the ultimate cost of combating climate change and adapting to it, and avoid not just ecological catastrophe, but economic catastrophe, as well.

Trans Lives Matter, But A Below-Average Homicide Rate Isn't A "Crisis"

Kiesha Jenkins / Source: Facebook

Kiesha Jenkins was robbed, beaten, and shot to death by a group of four men a week ago in Philadelphia.  Her death brought the year-to-date count of transgender folks murdered in the US up to 20 or 21.

But as tragic and horrible as Kiesha's death was, it wasn't indicative of a national crisis or "historic rates" of transgender murder.

As discussed here a few months ago, if transgender persons were being killed at the average U.S. homicide rate, we'd likely have seen many more than 20 transgender homicide victims nationwide so far this year.  Given the best available estimates of the trans population, and 2013 CDC homicide data, an average homicide rate would have resulted in 48 transgender victims that year.  This year, it's likely that the "expected" transgender homicide rate will be even higher, as a number of major US cities have seen a dramatic increase in homicides in 2015.

Average frequency of violent crime victimization in the U.S. in 2013.  Source: FBI

A wider array of media sources are paying closer attention to homicides involving trans people this year than has been the case in years past.  Many readers, commentators, and Twitterers seem to be assuming that every murder of a trans person was a hate crime.  This assumption is not helpful, and ignores the reality that transgender people are at least as vulnerable to the vicissitudes of American life that resulted in more than 16,000 people losing their lives to homicide in 2013.