2:04 CV 08425 TrialDay1Vol3

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Trial Day 1 Vol 3
105
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EASTERN DIVISION
- - -
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING
- - -
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS,

a nonprofit corporation,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
)
ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF
)
DEFENSE, in his official capacity, )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________)
No. CV 04-8425-VAP(Ex)
Trial Day 1
Volume III
Pages 105-231
14
15
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
16
Riverside, California
17
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
18
1:33 P.M.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THERESA A. LANZA, RPR, CSR

Federal Official Court Reporter
3470 12th Street, Rm. 134
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 274-0844
WWW.THERESALANZA.COM
Trial Day 1, Volume III
106
1
APPEARANCES:
2
3
On Behalf of Plaintiff:
4
5
6
7
8
WHITE & CASE

BY: Dan Woods
BY: Earle Miller
BY: Aaron A. Kahn
633 West Fifth Street,
Suite 1900
Los Angeles, California
213-620-7772
90071-2007
9
10
On Behalf of Defendants:
11
16
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
BY: Paul G. Freeborne
BY: Joshua E. Gardner
BY: Ryan Bradley Parker
BY: W. Scott Simpson
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Room 6108
Washington, DC 20001
202-353-0543
17
-AND-
18
UNITED STATES ARMY

Litigation Division
BY: Major Patrick Grant
Litigation Attorney
901 N. Stuart, Suite 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203
12
13
14
15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
I N D E X
2
3
Page
Plaintiff Case (Cont'd).......................
117
4
5
6
7
8
PLAINTIFF
WITNESS
NATHANIEL FRANK
By Mr. Woods
DIRECT
CROSS
REDIRECT
RECROSS
117
10
11
12
EXHIBITS
RECEIVED
13
180
154
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
Riverside, California; Tuesday, July 13, 2010; 1:33 P.M.
-oOo-
3
4
MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor, may I be heard on a
subject?
THE COURT:
Certainly.
MR. FREEBORNE:
01:33
One issue that I think is unresolved
is -- as you know, we moved in limine to exclude all testimony
that relates to animus, specifically regarding the
congressional intent in enacting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
10
think the parties are in agreement that the speech and debate
11
clause does not prohibit that type of testimony, but we would
12
respectfully submit that the precedents that we cited in our
13
motion in limine, namely O'Bryan, Mergins, and Foley,
14
specifically preclude any inquiry into elicit motive.
15
What is appropriate is inquiring into --
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. FREEBORNE:
18
THE COURT:
19
I'm looking at my ruling on the motion in limine,
20
01:33
01:34
Into what motive?

Into elicit motive.
Oh.
because I want to refresh my memory.
21
This was on a motion to exclude on the experts?
22
MR. FREEBORNE:
23
THE COURT:
24
Let me look at that so I'm current.
25
And your next witness is...
01:34
Yes.
All right.
01:34
109
MR. WOODS:
Professor Frank, Your Honor.
MR. FREEBORNE:
And just to put it in context,
Your Honor, Dr. Frank will testify about alleged improper
motive on the part of Congress and those involved in the
enactment of the policy.
renew that objection now, and specifically rely upon the
precedent that I just set forth.
We had moved to exclude that, and I
THE COURT:
Mr. Woods.
MR. WOODS:
Your Honor, we did brief this in the
10
motion in limine, and you denied the government's motion.
11
What occurred when we had the argument on this, was
12
you raised your own concern about the legislator's privilege,
13
and so we --
14
15
THE COURT:
And you briefed that.
brief.
01:35
MR. WOODS:
And I hope that satisfied your concerns.
17
THE COURT:
It did on the legislator's privilege
18
issue, which your brief addressed.
19
raised at the hearing, your brief covers that and that's fine.
And on the issue that I
But I think that the issue that Mr. -- if I
21
understand Mr. Freeborne's objection, it's to a slightly
22
different issue.
23
Is that right?
24
MR. FREEBORNE:
25
01:35
I've read your
16
20
01:34
It's two-fold.
One, O'Bryan, Foley,
and Mergins are the cases that we cite, which all recognize
01:35
01:36
110
that inquiry into elicit motive, or improper motive, that
that's improper.
What is proper is inquiring into purpose.
But we can
look to the statute and the articulated statements that are set
forth in the statute.
01:36
But, here, what I believe Dr. Frank will testify
about is that Congress was moved by elicit motive, which is
specifically prohibited under the case law.
overarching question of animus has already been addressed in
10
the Philips decision.
01:36
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. FREEBORNE:
13
THE COURT:
14
15
Moreover, the
Philips v. Perry?
That's right.
Which is a case that was decided before
Lawrence.
MR. FREEBORNE:
But Lawrence does not impact that
16
analysis, Your Honor.
17
animus is not altered by the governing standard of review.
18
Whatever impact Lawrence may have, it doesn't have any bearing
19
on that issue.
20
21
THE COURT:
01:36
Whether a statute was motivated by
Well, there's two things to keep in mind,
01:37
at least two things to keep in mind.
22
One is that, as I said at the time of the hearing on
23
the motion in limine, in a bench trial, while there's still an
24
interest, of course, in not consuming undue time in hearing
25
testimony that is ultimately irrelevant and is not going to be
01:37
111
considered by the Court, and shouldn't be a part of the record,
to the extent that there's testimony -- and the testimony that
I identified in particular as to this witness that I thought
probably would be irrelevant or inadmissible due to the
authorities you cited would be what -- the way I characterized
it at that time was anecdotal evidence, which, in the summary
of his testimony that was submitted in opposition to the motion
by the plaintiff -- I think that's the best way to characterize
it.
It's not particularly relevant, and it probably falls
10
within how you would characterize the authorities of O'Bryan
11
and so forth.
12
hearing on the motions in limine, to the extent I indicated his
14
testimony would not be admissible, to the extent that the
15
plaintiff tries to elicit that testimony, you can object on a
16
question-by-question basis.
characterized as the legislator -- I think I characterized it
19
as a legislator's privilege -- the brief that the plaintiff
20
submitted, I think, disposes of that issue.
his testimony or objecting that he shouldn't be allowed to
23
testify at all, I'd overrule that objection.
25
01:39
So to the extent that you're now objecting to all of
22
24
01:38
To the extent that I raised the issue that I
18
21
01:38
So, to that extent, the way I indicated during the
13
17
01:37
MR. FREEBORNE:
Well, what we're -- right now, I'm
addressing his -- the aspect of Dr. Frank's testimony that goes
01:39
112
to motive, both the history of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the
enactment-specific motive.
expect to be Dr. Frank's testimony.
4
5
That's a good chunk of what I
We also have overarching objections in a motion

in limine, and I'm not addressing those right now.
01:39
THE COURT:
But it's hard to differ- -- I mean, the government is
Right.
offering the legislative history.
MR. FREEBORNE:
10
Correct, Your Honor.
And to the extent that -- it goes beyond anecdotal
11
evidence.
12
be testifying that Congress as a body and those that were the
13
architects of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were uniformly motivated
14
by animus.
15
01:39
Again, now we have an expert on the stand who will
And that was specifically what O'Bryan -THE COURT:
First of all, that's -- I don't know that
16
that's a conclusion that this witness is going to offer or that
17
it would be admissible even if he offered it.
18
given that the government is offering and the government is, in
19
fact, resting almost entirely on the legislative history, it
20
seems to me that the government can hardly object to the
21
plaintiffs' offering an expert or a witness to offer testimony
22
about the legislative history.
23
side, in advance, characterizing what the testimony is.
24
really testimony -- to my understanding, it's testimony
25
regarding the enactment of the statute.
01:40
So I think,
01:40
And I'm just leery of either

It's
And given that the
01:41
113
government is resting its defense on the legislative history,
then I think the testimony regarding the enactment of the
statute is admissible, broadly speaking.
MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor, the critical distinction
that, I guess, I would ask the Court to keep in mind is the
distinction that's drawn in the case law between purpose,
looking at the statute and the statutory findings in this case,
and testimony about elicit motive, that there was some animus
specifically directed at gay and lesbian service members.
01:41
That
10
is the distinction that's drawn in the case law, and I would
11
ask the Court to keep that in mind as you hear Dr. Frank's
12
testimony here today.
13
THE COURT:
Well, keeping in mind that the issue, to
14
go back to where we all started, is "whether the policy to
15
survive constitutional scrutiny advances an important
16
governmental interest and the intrusion significantly furthers
17
that interest and the intrusion is necessary to further that
18
interest."
01:42
19
That's the question that's presented to the Court.
20
MR. FREEBORNE:
One, Your Honor, you could look at
21
the purpose, which is what we would ask you to look at; that
22
motivation is something totally improper, and it doesn't go to
23
those questions.
24
25
THE COURT:
01:41
Well, that's the issue, isn't it?
it go to those questions?
01:42
Does
01:42
114
And I understand your argument about the difference
between purpose and motivation.
necessarily, on a question-by-question basis, does the
witness's testimony go to any of the three parts of the
Witt standard that applies here?
So the question is, perhaps
01:43
And I think taking your argument as to this testimony
in that context, I think your argument really is one that
elicit motive doesn't go to whether there's an important
governmental interest -- well, let me put it another way:
To
10
sustain your objection, the Court would necessarily have to
11
find that the motive goes to none of those three parts.
12
MR. FREEBORNE:
01:43
Your Honor, our argument is that it's
13
a threshold matter, and the judiciary should not be considering
14
that type of testimony.
15
allowing that type of testimony does a discredit to our
16
democracy.
17
business, as the case law puts it.
18
supersedes --
That's what the case law says.
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. FREEBORNE:
21
It's a separation of powers issue, and

01:44
It's hazardous
So it goes beyond -- it
As to looking into motive.

That's right.
And that's our
01:44
argument, Your Honor.
22
THE COURT:
23
I think that you're really not saying anything that
24
25
Right.
different from what I'm saying.

I'm trying to focus on what this trial is about.
And
01:44
115
the trial -- I know you disagree with the standard, but in
order to decide whether testimony or evidence is relevant, you
look at what the issue is.
is.
elements in what the plaintiff must prove in order to show that
the policy does not survive constitutional scrutiny.
And so to put your objection in context, there are three
7
8
And I've just stated what the issue
01:45
So to put your argument in context, your argument is

that motive doesn't go to any of those three elements.
MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor, again, it supersedes
10
those standards in this case, it's improper.
11
extent it goes to whether or not there's a legitimate
12
governmental purpose served by the statute, the Witt panel has
13
already found that the statute satisfies that factor.
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. FREEBORNE:
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. FREEBORNE:
Moreover, to the
01:45
The first factor.

That's correct.
01:45
But there are two others.

That's right.
But our argument -- I
18
just want to be clear.
I think we are saying the same thing,
19
Your Honor, but that our argument does not depend or does not
20
rise or fall based upon the Witt standard.
21
overarching principle that has been enunciated by the Supreme
22
Court as well as the Ninth Circuit that inquiry into motive is
23
improper.
It is an
24
THE COURT:
25
So the question is, as to the testimony that's
01:45
All right.
01:46
116
elicited, does it go to motive, or does it go to something
else, at least if the Court accepts your argument.
3
4
So with that background, you may call your next

witness.
MR. WOODS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I listened to the discussion you just had with

I just want to be clear.
01:46
Mr. Freeborne.
We have briefed these
issues before, and we have shown you that even in the facial
challenge, the government cannot enact legislation based merely
10
upon animosity to those that it would affect.
11
case, the Cleburne case.
12
before, and I would like to get on with the witness instead of
13
rearguing, as Mr. Freeborne seems to want to do, all of the
14
things we've covered before.
15
16
That's the Romer
And we've briefed all of these issues
So our next witness, Your Honor, is
THE CLERK:
Do you solemnly state that the testimony
18
you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall
19
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
20
help you God?
21
THE WITNESS:
22
THE CLERK:
I do.
Please state your full name and spell it
for the record.
24
25
01:46
Professor Nathaniel Frank.
17
23
01:46
THE WITNESS:
Nathaniel Frank, N-a-t-h-a-n-i-e-l,
F-r-a-n-k.
01:47
117
THE COURT:
You may inquire.
Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WOODS:
profession or occupation.
I'm currently a researcher and professor.
What field are you researching and teaching in?
I teach in an interdisciplinary program with a historical
Professor Frank, can you please tell the Court your
10
background, and I research in gay rights.
11
12
education.
01:47
01:47
Let me begin, Professor, by discussing with you your
13
Where did you complete your undergraduate education?
14
At Northwestern University.
15
And when did you graduate?
16
1993.
17
And what degree did you receive?
18
A dual degree, in history and American studies.
19
And did you then go on to graduate school?
20
Yes.
21
Where did you attend graduate school?
22
Brown University.
23
And did you receive a graduate degree from Brown?
24
Yes.
25
What degree did you receive first?
01:47
01:48
01:48
118
A master's degree in history.
And in what year did you receive that degree?
1995.
And did you then continue your graduate education at
Brown?
Yes.
And did you receive a Ph.D. from Brown University?
Yes, I did.
And what year did you receive that degree?
10
2002.
11
And was that also in history?
12
Yes, it was.
13
Did you author a thesis as part of the requirement to
14
obtain that Ph.D.?
15
Yes, I did.
16
And what was the subject matter of your thesis?
17
It was about the meaning of work among early American men.
18
Was there a gender component to the thesis, Professor?
19
Yes.
20
gender studies.
21
22
experience, beginning in about 1995 when you received your
23
master's degree in history.
01:48
01:48
It was looked at through a prism of masculinity and

01:49
Let me next ask you, Professor, about your work
24
25
01:48
Did you begin to teach?

A
Yes.
I began to teach the year before I received my
01:49
119
master's degree.
And where did you teach?
As a teaching assistant at Brown.
And how long did you do that?
Approximately four years.
And where else have you, since you got your Ph.D., taught
history?
At New York University and New School University.
All right.
10
01:49
Let me start with New School University.
For the record, in case someone is not familiar with
11
that university, can you describe it for us, please.
12
13
20th century.
14
And what is its emphasis or focus?
15
It is now a wide-ranging university, but it started out
16
with a focus on critical studies and social sciences.
17
And how many years did you teach at New School University?
18
About six years.
19
And approximately how many courses per year on average did
20
you teach there?
21
Two.
22
Were those history courses that you taught there?
23
They were interdisciplinary, usually, with a historical
24
focus.
25
01:49
It's a university in New York City founded in the early
01:50
Can you please tell the Court some of the courses that you
01:50
01:50
120
taught at New School University.
American Revolution; a course on labor history.
Gay and lesbian history; race, gender, and ethnicity; the
Okay.
Turning next to NYU, when did you begin teaching
there?
1999.
And how long did you continue to teach at NYU?
I've taught there since then, with the exception of this
10
past year.
11
12
per year at NYU?
13
One course.
14
And was that a history department course, typically?
15
It was interdisciplinary.
16
Can you please tell the Court some of the history or
17
interdisciplinary courses that you have taught at NYU.
18
19
Visions of the Good; and Liberalism and Sexuality.
20
21
received your master's degree from Brown, did you begin writing
22
articles and other pieces?
23
Yes.
24
Can you describe generally the subject matter of these
25
pieces, please.
01:50
01:51
And, on average, about how many courses have you taught
Yes.
01:51
Work and identity in America; Liberalism:
Desire &
In addition to teaching at these universities after you
01:51
01:51
121
I wrote on labor relations.
I wrote on civil rights, gay
rights in particular, as well as the meaning of history,
morality, and contemporary culture and politics.
Have you continued to write over all of these years?
Yes, I have.
And over the years, approximately what percentage of your
writings have been devoted to gay rights issues?
About 80 to 90.
And what percentage of those writings have related to
01:52
10
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in particular?
11
Probably, again, 80 to 90 of those.
12
And what do the rest of your writings address?
13
The issues I previously stated:
14
same-sex marriage, other gay rights issues, occasionally
15
contemporary politics and popular culture.
16
THE COURT:
01:52
History, morality,
Mr. Woods, would you clarify; when you
17
asked the witness about his writings, were you referring to
18
published writings, published in peer-review journals, or just
19
writings?
20
MR. WOODS:
21
If it's all right with the Court, I'll come to that
22
01:52
Okay.
01:52
in a little bit.
23
THE COURT:
24
BY MR. WOODS:
25
That's fine.
Now, Professor Frank, have you also been affiliated with
01:53
122
something called the Palm Center?
Yes.
Can you please tell the Court what the Palm Center is.
The Palm Center is a research organization based at the
University of California, Santa Barbara, that studies gender
sexuality in the military.
Center?
In the fall of 2000.
10
And what position did you have with the Palm Center,
11
starting in the fall of 2000?
12
Communications director.
13
And how long did you have that position?
14
About two years.
15
And what did you do in the position of communications
16
director from 2000 to 2002?
17
18
to express what the Center's research was, and I spoke to other
19
scholars and other researchers and journalists about our
20
research.
21
22
years, from 2000 to 2002?
23
24
in-depth studies about the situation of gays in foreign
25
militaries; and so that was a big part of the focus, the main
01:53
And when did you first become affiliated with the Palm
01:53
01:53
I wrote policy briefs, memos, and press releases in order
01:53
What was the primary focus of your research during those
Just before I came on board, the Center had conducted
01:54
123
part of the focus.
Palm Center?
Yes.
And what was that?
Senior research fellow.
And as a senior research fellow at the Palm Center, what
did you do?
After 2002, did you have another position with the
01:54
I continued to do the same tasks that I did before, but as
10
well, I conducted greater in-depth research myself.
11
12
fellow at the Palm Center?
13
About eight years.
14
And have you recently left that position?
15
Yes.
16
When did you leave?
17
As of June 1st.
18
Over how many years, Professor, have you been researching,
19
studying, and analyzing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and related
20
issues about homosexuals in the military?
21
About 12 years.
22
And over those 12 years, have you read, studied, and
23
analyzed the available research on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell,"
24
whether it might be for or against the policy?
25
01:54
And how long did you hold the position of senior research
01:54
Yes.
01:55
01:55
124
And have you conducted interviews of people about "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" over these years?
Yes.
Can you estimate approximately how many people you have
interviewed.
Probably two to three hundred.
And can you describe generally the categories of people
that you have interviewed over these years.
01:55
Yes.
10
Scholars, military officials, officers and enlisted
11
personnel, government officials, policymakers.
12
13
have interviewed yourself personally.
14
01:55
Could you name, perhaps, a few of the key people that you
Yes.
15
Charlie Moskos would be one.
Jay Williams would be
16
another.
17
anonymously, as well as many who are named in my work.
18
Bridget Wilson.
19
And who is Jay Williams?
20
He is an academic, I believe, at Loyola University who
21
favors "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and is someone I've interviewed
22
over the years who studies the issue and other civil military
23
relations.
24
And who is Bridget Wilson?
25
She is a lawyer in private practice who is a veteran, who
01:56
Many service members who I have interviewed
Diane Mazur.
Those are a few of them.
01:56
01:56
125
has defended many service members affected by the policy.
And who is Diane Mazur?
She is a law professor at the University of Florida
College of Law, who is one of the nation's experts in
understanding the legal aspects of gays in the military.
Charles Moskos?
instrumental in advising the military and government during the
And the other person you mentioned, Charles Moskos, who is
Charles Moskos was an eminent military sociologist who was
10
period of racial integration and is credited with formulating
11
aspects of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
12
13
Tell"?
14
He was.
15
If I could direct your attention, Professor, to Exhibit 2
16
for identification.
17
It should be in the binder just next to you there.
18
Sir, I'm sorry.
19
In the first binder.
01:57
Was he the person who coined the phrase "Don't Ask, Don't
20
21
01:57
01:57
This is your expert report in this case.
Are you telling me which binder it's in?
If I could specifically direct your attention,
01:57
Professor, to Page 24 and 25 of that exhibit.
22
Do Pages 24 and 25 of the exhibit list the
23
publications that you have authored, at least as of the date of
24
your expert report?
25
Yes.
01:58
126
The report is dated January 18, 2010.
Have you authored other pieces about "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" since that date?
Yes.
I'd like to just focus on a few of the publications listed
here at this time.
On Page 25, Professor, there's a reference to a
September 2004 Palm Center report entitled Gays and Lesbians at
War:
10
Military Service in Iraq and Afghanistan Under "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell."
11
01:59
Do you recall that report?
12
Yes.
13
And can you please describe what you did in that report
14
and how you did it.
15
I was the author and researcher in that report.
16
17
01:59
01:59
Do you want me to talk about the methodology?

Q
Sure.
18
What were you studying in that report?
19
This was an effort to understand the impact of "Don't Ask,
20
Don't Tell" on gay, lesbian, bisexual service members, given
21
that much of the debate around the policy had left their voices
22
out.
23
24
heard?
25
01:59
So what did you do to try to allow their voices to be
I interviewed roughly 30 gay, lesbian, and bisexual
02:00
127
service members who had served or were serving in the wars in
Iraq or Afghanistan, and I asked them a similar set of
questions to begin to assess what impact the policy had on
their experiences at war.
MR. WOODS:
Your Honor, at this time I would like to
introduce one exhibit from the documents produced to us by the
government.
self-authenticating, Your Honor.
It is Exhibit Number 89.
I believe it's
It's a government document.
The government has unfortunately redacted the
10
information about who authored it and who this memo was sent
11
to, but the content suffices to show that what it is is the
12
government's study of Professor Frank's report that we're
13
talking about now.
14
MR. FREEBORNE:
intent is to introduce this document as substantive evidence.
16
We would object on foundation grounds, relevance grounds.
17
also, to the extent they're seeking to introduce this document
18
as a document that Dr. Frank has relied upon, it is not a
19
document that Dr. Frank relied upon.
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. FREEBORNE:
02:01
And,
According to his deposition testimony?
02:01
According to the materials that were
provided to us as being the relied-upon materials.
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. FREEBORNE:
25
02:01
Your Honor, we would object if the
15
22
02:00
All right.
Which were somewhat sketchy, but we
were told that in large part, he relied upon materials that
02:02
128
track Unfriendly Fire, which I suspect Mr. Woods will get to in
a moment.
MR. WOODS:
Your Honor, we're not offering this
document to suggest in any way that Professor Frank relied on
it.
Professor Frank's report that we're talking about is a
thoughtful piece and a thoughtful study, and it goes to his
qualifications and expertise, because the government itself has
admitted that this piece of work is thoughtful, twice in that
10
This is an admission by the government that
document.
11
02:02
MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor, it's offered, if I
12
understand correctly, as character evidence.
13
you can't offer character evidence until the character is in
14
some --
15
THE COURT:
And, as you know,
I don't think it's offered as -- well,
16
first of all, I'd have to look at it, but I don't think it's
17
being offered as character evidence because it's not being
18
offered that he has a thoughtful character.
19
20
as to the quality of --
02:03
MR. FREEBORNE:
22
THE COURT:
23
I have a habit of pausing while I'm thinking out
25
02:02
If I understand, it's being offered as an admission
21
24
02:02
Your Honor, we --
Let me just finish.
loud.
As I understand it, it's being offered as an
02:03
129
admission by the government as to the quality of one piece of
work --
MR. WOODS:
THE COURT: -- that you're questioning about at the
Yes.
moment?
02:03
MR. WOODS:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Let me look at it.
And this is 89.
Well, really, you're not offering the whole thing,
10
are you?
11
You're just offering a couple of parts of it.

MR. WOODS:
It's a very short one-and-a-half page
13
THE COURT:
(Reviewing document.)
14
So the word "thoughtful" appears in the third
12
15
document.
paragraph --
02:04
16
MR. WOODS:
Yes.
17
THE COURT:
-- and -- well, let me ask you more
18
broadly, what is it, apart from the word "thoughtful," that you
19
are relying upon that makes it an admission?
20
MR. WOODS:
That statement.
And it's in the last
21
bullet point on the second page too, which says, "Overall, I
22
believe it is a thoughtful look at this subject," and so on.
23
02:03
THE COURT:
02:04
I don't think there's -- the fact it was
24
provided by the government in discovery, that authenticates it.
25
I mean, that authenticates it.
There's not an issue with
02:04
130
authentication.
MR. FREEBORNE:
THE COURT:
But that doesn't answer the question of
whether it's an admission.
MR. FREEBORNE:
foundation.
qualifications.
8
9
Your Honor, there's more to --
Your Honor, again, there's no
02:05
They're seeking to bolster Dr. Frank's

It doesn't go to that.
THE COURT:
It's not an admission.
Just let me finish reading it.
I may
agree with you before you even argue.
10
(Reviewing document.)
11
I don't think the -- no.
The objection is sustained.
12
BY MR. WOODS:
13
14
Exhibit 2 for identification, there is a reference to a May
15
2009 Palm Center report.
Professor Frank, going back to Page 24 of your report,
16
02:06
Do you see that reference?
17
Yes.
18
And this is a work that you co-authored with other
19
individuals?
20
That's right.
21
And the title was How to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
22
Right.
23
And what work did you do on that particular report,
24
Professor?
25
02:06
I wrote up elements of the report, including a summary of
02:06
131
research that shows that the impact of lifting the ban would be
negligible; and then I edited the complete report.
Tell" lead you to write a book on the subject?
Yes.
And what is the title of the book?
Unfriendly Fire:
and Weakens America.
And when was the book published?
10
In the spring of 2009.
11
Can you please describe the work that you did that went
12
into the book that you published.
13
14
into sexuality and the military in the U.S. and abroad.
15
includes a definitive history of the formulation of "Don't Ask,
16
Don't Tell," a political history, set into a social and
17
cultural context.
18
homosexuality in America and policies within the military, ours
19
and others.
20
literature and research, quantitative and qualitative, about
21
gays in the military; and it looks at the costs and impact of
22
the policy, as well as public opinion and expert opinion about
23
the issue.
24
And is your book about 300 pages long?
25
I believe it was 350-something.
Ultimately, Professor, did your work on "Don't Ask, Don't
02:07
How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military
02:07
The book is a culmination of roughly ten years of research

It
02:07
It looks at the longer history of
It looks at an exhaustive assessment of other
02:08
02:08
132
Okay.
And does it have about 30 pages of footnotes?
Yes.
Since you published the book in the spring of 2009, have
you continued to research and analyze and write about "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell"?
Yes, I have.
In February of 2010, were you involved in another
Palm Center report called Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010:
A Global Primer?
I think so.
02:08
10
Yes, I was.
11
And what role did you play in the preparation of that
12
report?
13
14
of the report to amass information, and then edited their
15
sections, as well as including sections of my own, that were
16
both based on prior research and on contemporary research to
17
expand on those findings since the last time the research had
18
been conducted.
19
And how long did you work on that particular report?
20
About six months.
21
In addition to your teaching, research, and writing about
22
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," have you been interviewed about "Don't
23
Ask, Don't Tell"?
24
Yes, I have.
25
Can you please tell the Court some of the interviews that
02:09
I worked with six co-authors who each wrote up a section
02:09
02:09
02:09
133
you have conducted on the subject.
Yes.
I've been interviewed by NPR, BBC, BBC America;
interviewed by ABC News and CBS News, Al Jazeera English.
appeared on The Daily Show, the Rachel Maddow Show, Fresh Air
on NPR, CNN programs, and others.
programs on the subject of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Yes, I have.
10
Can you tell the Court which programs, please.
11
For 60 Minutes and an ABC News program.
12
And has your research and writing been quoted in Congress?
13
Yes, it has.
14
By whom was it quoted in Congress?
15
By Barney Frank.
16
And has your research been quoted elsewhere, Professor?
17
Yes.
18
Can you tell us where.
19
It's been quoted in the New York Times; Washington Post;
20
other press outlets; many blogs; as well as university syllabi,
21
including at West Point Military Academy, University of
22
Pennsylvania, UCLA, and others.
23
24
syllabi, can you be a little more expansive about that and tell
25
us what that's about.
I've
02:10
And have you consulted with producers of television
And I believe by Tammy Baldwin.
02:10
02:10
02:11
When you say that your work has been included in college
02:11
134
Right.
I should clarify.
The question was, was it
quoted?
assigned in course work.
before this one?
Yes.
And what was the name of that case?
Boldware v. U.S.
And when were you an expert in that case?
10
That's a good question.
11
2009.
12
13
the subject matter of your testimony.
14
15
And I testified about the presence of incentives, as a result
16
of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," for service members to lie about
17
sexual assault allegations.
18
It was, I should say, included, in terms of being
Have you testified as an expert, Professor, in any case

02:11
I believe it was the summer of
02:11
Can you please tell the Court the nature of that case and
It was about a nonconsensual sexual contact allegation.

02:12
Okay.
19
And, by the way, when did you first receive a contact
20
from our firm about serving as a possible expert witness in
21
this case?
22
I think it was December of 2009.
23
So these years of writing occurred all before you were
24
engaged to possibly be an expert in this case.
25
Right.
Before, as well as continuing after.
02:12
02:12
135
Can you please, Professor, describe for the Court the
specialized knowledge that you bring to bear on the issues in
this case.
method, methodology, that's expected of social scientists
generally.
context, as well as the events, activities, and rhetoric
surrounding the formulation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and
extensive familiarity with a great deal of the qualitative and
As a historian, I have an understanding of the historical
I have extensive familiarity with the social
10
quantitative research that has been done around gays in the
11
military.
12
13
used in both preparing your report and preparing for your
14
opinions in this case.
15
16
02:13
02:13
Can you describe or elaborate on the methodology that you
Sure.
02:13
The historical method is an effort to, as I describe
17
it, walk in the shoes of your subjects.
18
the rhetoric as well as the actions of your subjects;
19
consulting a wide array of literature and related data, earlier
20
studies and reports about what you're studying; and then doing
21
your best to recreate a context that reflects a world view of
22
your subjects, and then applying an interpretive lens to
23
explain the meaning of it.
24
expectations that involve systematic ways of gathering data and
25
looking at it critically, then having an honest, good faith
That involves studying
02:14
There are social science
02:14
136
effort to do your best to interpret what it means, and also
conveying the limitations to your research.
that is accepted within your academic community as a historian?
Yes, it is.
Are there academic standards that apply -- I think you
used the terms "qualitative" and "quantitative."
That's right.
Are you talking here about quantitative or qualitative
And is this methodology that you've just described one
02:14
10
history?
11
The research I do is qualitative.
12
Can you explain what qualitative history is, please.
13
It is a recreation of a world view that reflects the
14
people that you're studying that allows you to draw conclusions
15
about what people did, what the connections were between
16
various people's beliefs and actions and among those actions
17
and events.
18
19
sets forth the standards that one needs to apply in qualitative
20
history?
21
Yes.
22
What is that?
23
One book is called That Noble Dream.
24
And who's the author of that book?
25
Peter Novik.
02:15
02:15
And is there a book, perhaps, that historians look to that
02:15
02:16
137
Professor, because what we're talking about here is
relatively recent history, how, if at all, does that impact the
methodology that you as a historian have employed?
a historian can absorb based on whether one is studying actions
that are 200 years ago or 15 years ago, but the method is the
same.
your report and in preparing your opinions to be an empirical
It's important to be mindful of the critical distance that

02:16
Do you consider the analysis that you've undertaken in
10
examination of the evidence?
11
Yes.
12
Can you explain how you would define "empirical" in this
13
context.
14
15
observable in some sort of systematic way that allows you to
16
draw conclusions about a hypothesis.
17
18
empirical research for people who are engaged in hard sciences,
19
like biology, chemistry, or physics?
20
Yes, there are differences.
21
Can you explain your understanding of the differences,
22
please.
23
24
not physical phenomena, they're not physical matter.
25
events and rhetoric and ideas that have happened in the past.
02:16
Empirical research is the gathering of facts that are

02:16
Is empirical research for historians different from
02:17
Well, the aspects of evidence that a historian uses are
They are
02:17
138
And so there are important aspects of that fact that shape how
a historian goes about trying to recreate that world view of
people that is not current.
for identification, the list of your publications, are all of
those writings based on empirical research as you have
described it?
assessments and opinion pieces.
And going back, Professor, to Pages 24 and 25 of Exhibit 2
Well, the writings that I do encompass both empirical

They are all based on
10
empirical analyses which shape my understanding of the
11
material.
12
13
posts and things like that.
02:18
So for instance, on your list of publications, we see blog
14
Are those, for example, based on or grounded in
15
empirical research?
16
17
caveat I would make is that an opinion piece allows for
18
departures from that research, even though it takes into
19
consideration that research that empirical conclusions wouldn't
20
allow for.
21
22
are not opinion pieces or blog posts are grounded in empirical
23
research too?
24
25
02:18
02:18
They are all grounded in empirical research, but the
02:19
And the other writings on your list of publications that
That's right.
MR. WOODS:
Your Honor, at this time I would offer
02:19
139
Professor Frank as an expert on the history of "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell."
MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor, I'm not sure what that
designation means, but I'd like to voir dire the witness just
briefly.
02:19
THE COURT:
You may, although what I would allow is
that the plaintiffs' counsel may elicit opinion testimony from
the witness on the subject that he's identified.
MR. FREEBORNE:
The only reason I ask for
10
clarification, Your Honor, is that the expert report also
11
includes, for example, testimony about costs, testimony about
12
unit cohesion, that goes beyond the history as I read the
13
expert report.
14
whether -- because you will see, through voir dire, that we do
15
not have an economist before us.
16
to speak to costs.
And I'm trying to get clarification as to
So he has no qualifications
17
History is, perhaps, a different matter, although --
18
THE COURT:
19
02:20
02:20
Let me just -- excuse me for
interrupting.
20
Do you intend to elicit testimony about costs?
21
MR. WOODS:
02:20
I only intend, Your Honor, to ask him to
22
compare and contrast two reports about costs that have been
23
done.
It's a very simple --
24
THE COURT:
To compare what?
25
MR. WOODS:
Compare and contrast two reports that
02:20
140
have been done on the financial costs of "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell."
There are other costs as well.
But I think, Your Honor, as you suggested earlier, if
we just go through this on a question-by-question basis, we'll
be much better off as opposed to Mr. Freeborne speculating
about what I might or might not ask the witness based on a
20-page single-spaced expert report.
8
9
THE COURT:
02:21
I think we'll take it question by
question.
10
If I'm inclined to sustain your objection on a
02:21
11
certain area, it might be better at that time to allow you to
12
voir dire in a certain area.
13
getting into an area where I'm going to sustain objections, it
14
might be faster at that point in a certain area to allow
15
voir dire.
16
If I think that the questions are
02:21
MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor, again, we have the right
17
to make objections to the qualifications of this witness.
18
you have heard thus far is, we have an advocate, a heartfelt
19
advocate, but nothing more than that.
20
question about whether or not Dr. Frank has any peer-review
21
journals.
22
23
What
Your Honor raised the

02:21
I suspect Mr. Woods will -THE COURT:
If he has any articles published in
peer-review journals.
24
MR. FREEBORNE:
25
Unfriendly Fire is not one of those.
Okay.
And that's his
02:22
141
seminal work.
pieces, which, as Dr. Frank has just testified, are not
susceptible to the same academic standards.
publication that he has, the book, is not peer-reviewed.
was never intended to be an academic piece.
there is some benefit to voir dire in this particular
circumstance.
8
9
THE COURT:
So the one
It
So that's why
Benefit beyond what has already been
MR. FREEBORNE:
Well, Your Honor, again, specifics in
THE COURT:
Well, if we're going to get into
13
specifics, then the question-by-question basis would be more
14
efficient.
15
MR. FREEBORNE:
Perhaps the most efficient thing is
02:22
to look at the expert report, which starts with a history.
17
THE COURT:
But the expert report was attached to the
18
motions in limine, or the opposition.
19
But I know that the Court considered it in ruling on the motion
20
in limine.
I can't remember which.
02:23
21
MR. FREEBORNE:
22
believe, goes to animus.
23
Your Honor has said -- the history is essentially parts 1
24
through 4.
25
02:22
terms of, for example, the costs is just one of --
12
16
02:22
briefed and decided in the motion in limine?
10
11
The rest of these are, on the whole, opinion
THE COURT:
Your Honor, again, the history, we

We've already been heard on that, and
If it went entirely to animus, that would
02:23
142
be one thing.
2
3
MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor.
And I'm trying to break it down,
That's our objection there.
We don't believe that the methodology that Dr. Frank
has employed is recognized in any field.
qualitative research.
I know he said
It's nothing but his opinion.
Now, with respect to the absence of social scientific
evidence, which they seek to group all of the rest of his
testimony under, Dr. MacCoun will speak to the unit cohesion
10
piece.
11
wasn't involved in that study.
12
Dr. Frank will be forthright and tell you that he
been a great editor, and he may have interviewed some folks,
14
but he's certainly no expert in that field.
16
17
18
19
02:23
With respect to the foreign militaries, he may have
13
15
02:23
With respect to costs, we don't have an economist in

front of us.
02:24
And when Dr. Frank --
THE COURT:
Right.
As to the costs, on the costs,
that would be a question-by-question area.

MR. FREEBORNE:
The rest of it is sort of an exercise
20
in reading comprehension.
He has read a lot of things,
21
undoubtedly, and spouted out his opinion about them; but that's
22
hardly a methodology that the Court should accept in
23
designating an expert.
24
THE COURT:
25
Well, let me point out, there are some peer-review
02:24
All right.
02:24
143
journal articles.
Policy.
There's the Duke Journal of Gender Law &
MR. FREEBORNE:
Elaine Donnelly's piece.
5
6
THE COURT:
And that was a response to an
Well, it's still something that was
published in an academic --
MR. FREEBORNE:
see.
research.
If you read it, Your Honor, you'll
I don't think they'll even offer it as an academic

They'll just say it's a response to Elaine Donnelly.
10
It's another example of an opinion piece.
11
THE COURT:
published in a peer-review academic journal.
13
cross-examination, you can -- or at the time, and it's proper
14
for argument, you can argue its value.
On
I agree that most of the publications that are listed
16
are opinion pieces, they are articles in general media outlets
17
-- or special interest media outlets.
18
the Los Angeles Times, The Huffington Post, and other general
19
media outlets, Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and
20
many others, Lingua Franca
21
journal, if I recall correctly.
22
peer-reviewed or not.
23
24
25
02:24
As I stated, it's an article that's
12
15
02:24
02:25
But The New Republic,
-- I think that's an academic
02:25
I can't remember if it's
The book, it doesn't -- I mean, that's published by

St. Martin's Press, which is not an academic press.
But a witness need not be an academic to be accepted
02:26
144
as either an expert witness or one who -- a better way to put
it under the Rules of Evidence is one who is entitled to give
an opinion.
MR. FREEBORNE:
And that aids the Court, Your Honor.
In a nutshell, what I'm suggesting is, again, while
an heartfelt advocate, he's hardly an expert.
interviewed a lot of people.
history and plucked out statements that benefit his position.
But that's hardly a methodology.
10
11
He has
He has read the legislative
His specialty is in opinion
pieces.
02:27
THE COURT:
Well, what the rule says, Rule 702, is,
12
"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
13
assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
14
determine the fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert
15
by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may
16
testify thereto in the form of an opinion; or, otherwise, if,
17
one, the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; two,
18
the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
19
methods; and, three, if the witness has applied the principles
20
and methods reliably to the facts of the case."
21
02:26
02:27
02:27
So if you read the rule as a whole -- that's one of
22
the reasons why I prefer to refer to the witness as one who is
23
qualified to offer testimony in the form of an opinion, rather
24
than as an expert.
25
what the rule allows.
Because I think taken as a whole, that's

And we tend to think of experts as
02:28
145
scientists or someone with particular technical expertise,
whereas with the rule, if you read the rule, and the cases and
all of the authorities, it really means someone who has
specific knowledge or expertise and fulfills all of the other
requirements of the rule.
02:28
So without teaching an evidence course or denigrating
someone entirely, unlike this proposed witness, someone who has
expertise that will assist the Court in the form of, for
example, plumbing, will qualify.
10
scientific evidence.
11
knowledge of any form.
It doesn't have to be
It can be specialized evidence or
12
MR. FREEBORNE:
13
THE COURT:
14
So my point is, if you want to take -- I don't think
15
it's necessary to take the witness on voir dire at this point,
16
because I think that the foundation has been laid as to his
17
specialized knowledge, on the basis of his training, education,
18
and knowledge; and that the three other requirements, that the
19
testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, that it's the
20
product of reliable principles and methods -- he's testified
21
about the methods of historiography, essentially, not just
22
advocacy -- and, three, that he's applied the principles and
23
methods reliably to the facts of the case.
24
25
02:29
Our objections are noted.
Right.
02:29
02:29
To the extent that you disagree with that, I think

that's proper for cross-examination.
02:30
146
So the objection is overruled on that basis.
You may continue.
MR. WOODS:
BY MR. WOODS:
explain to the Court step-by-step, if you will, the history
that led to the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
8
9
10
02:30
And if I can begin by having you briefly explain to

the Court the history of service in the United States military
by homosexuals.
11
12
Professor Frank, what I'd like to do now is have you
02:30
Have you studied the historical record of how the

military has treated homosexuals?
13
MR. FREEBORNE:
14
THE COURT:
15
THE WITNESS:
16
BY MR. WOODS:
17
18
can.
19
Objection, Your Honor.
Relevance.
The objection is overruled.

Yes, I have.
02:30
Let's take this one historical period at a time, if we
Before the 20th century, how were homosexuals treated
20
in the U.S. military?
21
22
understanding of a homosexual as a discrete kind of person.
23
So, instead, it was behavior that was punished, not identity.
24
And so sodomy was punished, although it was sodomy for what we
25
today would call heterosexual and homosexual people and
02:31
Before the 20th century, there was not really an
02:31
147
everyone in-between.
prohibitions were expressed in terms of euphemisms, like
"unnatural carnal copulation," that was prohibited, rather than
even saying "sodomy."
5
6
So before the 20th century, often the
Is there anything I should do differently about this

microphone?
(Off-the-record discussion.)
THE COURT:
And I think the feedback problem has been fixed.
All right.
10
THE WITNESS:
11
THE COURT:
12
THE WITNESS:
Go ahead.
Shall I continue?
Yes.
02:33
Go ahead.
So I think the significance of that is
13
that certain kinds of acts that were often associated with what
14
we today call homosexuals were prohibited, but they were part
15
of a basket of acts, if you will, that were prohibited that
16
included any number of kinds of sexual conduct that lay outside
17
the norms of marital missionary reproductive sex.
18
BY MR. WOODS:
19
20
homosexuals in the military treated?
21
22
about the World War I era and note that these dates are never
23
precise when you're talking about an entire context of ideas.
24
25
02:31
02:33
And prior to 1917, during World War I, how were

02:33
Well, I would apply the explanation I just gave up to
Okay.
And then moving ahead to World War II, what was the
02:34
148
situation with homosexuals in the military in this country?
something that was mentioned in the Articles of War as banned
and punishable by time in military prison.
a raid of suspected homosexuals, as attitudes and ideas about
homosexuality were changing to begin viewing people who were
homosexual as a discrete person rather than simply conduct that
anybody was capable of engaging in at a moment of moral
weakness.
10
Well, as of the World War I era, sodomy itself became
In 1919, there was
And the raid in Newport was significant in changing
11
this kind of view, because it involved the military authorizing
12
entrapment by military members who had sex with suspected
13
homosexuals in Newport in order to prosecute them.
14
were put into jail.
15
Senate reprimanded the military for that kind of a raid, and
16
suggested that in the future, rather than engaging in sexual
17
conduct with suspected homosexuals, the entire class of
18
suspected homosexuals, without actually checking to assess
19
whether the people had engaged in conduct or were, in fact,
20
even homosexuals, be banned from the military.
21
the beginning of looking at a whole class of people who were
22
suspected of engaging in behavior that was considered to be
23
disruptive to the military without actually obtaining evidence
24
that those people were, in fact, homosexual or engaging in that
25
kind of conduct.
02:34
02:34
And several
But because of that kind of a raid, the
And so this was
And this meant often relying on stereotypes,
02:35
02:35
02:35
149
about nonconformity, rather than assessing whether someone was
actually engaged in homosexual conduct.
What was the situation as of approximately World War II?
By World War II -- the proscriptions against homosexuals
were complete by the end of World War II in all of the
services.
millions of potential recruits added to this need to very
quickly and sometimes imprecisely decide who might be a threat
and who wasn't, based on people's assumptions about either a
02:36
And the World War II process of screening through
10
propensity for homosexual conduct or gender nonconformity,
11
which psychiatrists at the time, and military officials,
12
believed might be dangerous to the military.
13
of the war, that proscription was complete in each service of
14
the military.
15
16
according to the historical record?
17
18
working with the military to assess the possibility of
19
disruptions in the military.
20
proscriptions and ways of looking at homosexual behavior, and
21
people suspected of engaging in that, that saw gay people as
22
mentally ill, criminals, immoral, a whole host of different
23
ideas, that by the time of the mid-20th century, began, with
24
the help of the psychiatric profession, to land on mental
25
illness.
02:36
And so by the end
And what was the basis of that proscription at that time,
02:36
The psychiatric profession became involved in advising and
There had been religious
And the idea was that gays were unsuitable because
02:37
02:37
150
they were weak or effeminate, not courageous, possibly mentally
ill, and during the Cold War, potential security risks to the
U.S.
All right.
And what was the next major development after
World War II?
created to try to uniformize the military law.
next few decades, there was relative stasis with respect to
In 1949, 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was

And over the
10
policies toward gays and lesbians, with minor alterations here
11
and there, until the end of the Carter era.
12
13
President Carter?
14
15
to show that he was not being too easy on gay people,
16
instituted, at the very end of his tenure, a Pentagon-wide ban
17
on gay people that stated that homosexual conduct was
18
incompatible with military service.
19
20
completion of the Gulf War?
21
Can you clarify.
22
Sure.
23
02:38
02:38
What happened at the end of the presidency of
President Carter, facing lawsuits and political pressure

02:38
And did anything happen in about 1991 following the

02:39
What happened after President Carter implemented this
24
ban?
25
There were a number of continued lawsuits, despite the
02:39
151
efforts by the Carter Administration, and then the Reagan
Administration that inherited that policy, to ward them off by
making the policy more uniform.
There were also a number of raids of suspected
homosexuals that stirred activism by those who opposed the
discriminatory policy.
Gulf War, was fought.
government sending known or suspected gay people to go to war,
even though they knew that they were gay, some of whom were
02:39
And, in 1991, the Gulf War, the first

And there were numerous reports of the
10
fired upon returning.
11
And what reports are you referring to there?
12
The PERSEREC -- well, the PERSEREC -- sorry -- the reports
13
involved many journalistic reports by Randy Shilts in the San
14
Francisco Chronicle; as well as -- I believe his name was
15
Wade Lambert, in the Wall Street Journal; reports in a
16
Minnesota newspaper.
17
and many that were amassed in Randy Shilts's book Conduct
18
Unbecoming.
19
20
following this ban that commenced in approximately 1981?
21
22
the historical record from Pentagon data itself shows that each
23
time, ever since records were kept, that the nation has gone to
24
war, discharge figures for homosexuality have plummeted, and
25
then they have resumed after peace time resumed.
02:40
02:40
There were several journalistic reports,
And were homosexuals discharged from the military

02:40
Well, gay people were discharged throughout this time, but
02:41
152
All right.
Let us focus next, Professor Frank, on the history of
the enactment of what became "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1993.
Have you studied and written about that?
Yes, I have.
So let's just go through the history of what happened.
02:41
What, if anything, did Bill Clinton promise during
his 1991 election campaign?
Bill Clinton promised that he would do away with the ban
10
on gays and lesbians in the military.
He at one point said
11
that he would do so by issuing an executive order ending the
12
policy, and it became one of his more visible campaign promises
13
beginning in 1991.
14
15
challenges to the ban that existed at that time?
16
Yes, there were.
17
And were some of the individuals having some success, at
18
least in some of those cases?
19
Yes, they were.
20
Can you give the Court a couple of examples of that.
21
Well, Joseph Steffan was suing his discharge as a
22
midshipman.
23
brought to attention his plight as well as a lot of the
24
research that had previously been buried about assessing gays
25
in the military.
02:41
And at the time of those promises, were there court

02:41
02:42
He did not have success in his case, but the case
02:42
153
Margarethe Cammermeyer, who was chief of nursing for
the National Guard in Washington state, was also challenging
the policy.
Keith Meinhold, who was reinstated just a week after
President Clinton won his election.
any steps towards lifting the ban on homosexual service that
existed at that time?
And she was, in fact, reinstated, as was
02:42
Shortly after his inauguration, did President Clinton take
Yes.
In fact, the discussion in his efforts to lift the
10
ban began before he was inaugurated, after he was elected.
11
after his inauguration in January, he and Secretary Les Aspin,
12
Secretary of Defense, met with members of the military and
13
political aids and so forth, to take steps toward ending the
14
ban and to begin political negotiations around that
15
development.
16
17
But
02:43
All right.
MR. WOOD:
Since we're in this historical period,
18
Your Honor, I'd like to offer into evidence now Exhibit 180,
19
which is a White House memorandum dated January 29, 1993,
20
signed by President Clinton.
21
02:43
MR. FREEBORNE:
02:43
Your Honor, we would object.
One, no
22
foundation, again; and, two, it was not identified among the
23
materials relied upon by Dr. Frank.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. MILLER:
What volume is it in?

Volume VI, Your Honor.
02:44
154
THE COURT:
Thank you.
And you're offering it for what purpose?
MR. WOODS:
Your Honor, he's not going to testify
about it.
particular point in the trial because it is relevant to show
how the policy developed.
President Clinton deciding to end discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation.
It's just a document that we're introducing at this
The policy started by
That is, of course, not where we ended up at the end
10
of that year.
11
current law evolved.
12
THE COURT:
But I'm trying simply to illustrate how the
Well, I think it has very limited
relevance, as does the testimony that the witness has just
14
given about some of the historical background.
15
extremely limited relevance.
16
background, I would admit it.
It has
But for the purpose of
17
(Exhibit 180 is received.)
18
MR. FREEBORNE:
Court addressed this at the pretrial -- an expert witness can
20
talk about what they relied upon.
21
hearsay.
22
it into substantive evidence, we would submit, is improper,
23
particularly here, again, where he hasn't even relied upon this
24
document.
But they can't -- this is
There's been no foundation laid for it.
02:46
And to offer
A witness can testify about what he
02:46
Your Honor, again -- I believe the
19
THE COURT:
02:45
That's all.
13
25
02:45
02:46
155
relied upon.
relied upon this.
upon it, that wouldn't make it admissible.
admissible on cross-examination, what he relied upon, the
document itself.
doesn't come in except on cross.
That's not all he can testify about.
He hasn't
Even if he had testified that he had relied
He can testify about it.
It's only
The document itself
But that's not the purpose for which they're seeking
to admit it.
would allow it into evidence is because it shows the historical
They're seeking to admit it, as I -- the reason I
10
evolution of the policy.
11
that purpose.
12
It's of very limited relevance, for
There is a foundation.
although I haven't heard exactly what discovery request it
14
related to.
15
discovery, that takes care of a foundational or an
16
authentication issue.
18
19
20
But if it was produced by the defense in
MR. WOODS:
Yes, Your Honor.
02:47
The Bates-stamp number
is "DOD," meaning it was produced by the Department of Defense.

THE COURT:
There isn't a authentication or a
foundation -- it's just a very limited relevance.
21
So the objection is overruled.
22
The amount that the Court is going to consider it is
23
greatly exceeded by the amount of time we've spent arguing over
24
its admissibility.
25
02:47
It was produced in discovery,
13
17
02:46
Go ahead.
02:47
02:48
156
BY MR. WOODS:
1993, what, if anything, happened with respect to his campaign
promise to end discrimination against homosexuals in the
military?
and religious conservatives and members of the military and
political members of his own party, and there was a showdown
between those forces that played out for a number of weeks,
Professor Frank, after President Clinton took office in
02:48
The President encountered unexpected resistance by social
10
through the end of January, and then beyond that.
11
02:48
Okay.
12
And how did that showdown resolve itself?
What
13
happened after that?
14
15
time-out period, which would allow Senator Sam Nunn, who was
16
the chairman of the Arms Services Committee in the Senate, to
17
conduct congressional hearings, as well as allowing the
18
Pentagon to commission studies of the matter.
19
And did the Pentagon commission studies of the matter?
20
Yes, it did.
21
How many?
22
Two.
23
And what were they?
24
One was to form a Military Working Group, chaired by --
25
well, run by senior military officers.
By the end of January, the President called for a 6-month
02:49
02:49
And the other was to
02:49
157
hire the RAND Corporation to conduct an interdisciplinary study
of the issue.
All right.
We have the RAND study already in evidence, but can
you synthesize or describe its hundreds of pages for the Court,
please.
8
9
02:49
I can try.
The RAND study was conducted by over 70 social
scientists who fanned out across the globe to study the
10
question of homosexuality in the military, in several
11
countries, as well as in the U.S. itself, using analogous
12
institutions, looking at the history of racial integration as
13
well as women in the force, cohesion theory, performance
14
theory, other kinds of data that they used to amass into their
15
500-page study.
16
17
500-plus pages long?
18
19
would be considered not germane to military service and
20
counseled that leadership would be central to ensuring that
21
that policy was implemented effectively, but that it could be
22
done with minimal interference to unit cohesion.
23
24
Group study, have you studied the workings of that military
25
working group that was charged with providing options to reform
02:50
02:50
And what were the conclusions of this RAND study that was
The study recommended a policy in which sexual orientation
02:50
With respect to the second study, the Military Working
02:50
158
the policy?
Yes, I have.
And can you explain to the Court what you've done on that
particular subject; that is, the analysis of the Military
Working Group report.
materials that the authors of the report relied on; and I have
spoken to former members of that working group to assess it.
02:51
I have read the report; I have read a good deal of the
And who was the person asked to lead this Military Working
10
Group?
11
General Robert Alexander of the air force.
12
And did he remain in that position until the report was
13
completed?
14
No.
15
And did you speak to him as one of the people you
16
interviewed as part of your work here?
17
Yes, I did.
18
And, by the way, I forgot to ask you this before, when you
19
were talking about having interviewed 200 or 300 people:
20
did you interview that many people?
21
methodology?
22
23
conclusions about the work, it's important to interview a
24
variety of people.
25
call the snowball methodology, in which you consult all of the
02:51
He left.
02:51
Why
Is that part of your
02:51
Well, certainly, to be able to draw generalizations and
There's something that social scientists
02:52
159
available experts on an issue that you can and ask for
recommendations for other people, and you keep doing so until
the same names keep coming back and you can be reasonably
satisfied that you have consulted what's called the universe of
experts.
I would add that until 1993, the military, according
to Charlie Moskos, had a ban on research into the question of
homosexuality in the military, and the military did not
cooperate with Palm Center requests to engage in research.
10
that's one of the limitations of all of the research on this
11
issue.
12
interviews.
13
And
14
15
16
And so that's another reason for the extensive
All right.
Let's go back to General Alexander, who had been
asked to leave the Military Working Group.
02:53
When you spoke with him, did he explain to you what
17
the reason was for him not staying in the position at the
18
Military Working Group?
19
02:53
MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor, objection to the extent
20
the witness is going to testify about the conversations that
21
took place.
02:53
It's pure hearsay.
22
THE COURT:
An expert may testify about hearsay.
23
MR. FREEBORNE:
To the extent it was relied upon.
24
But not substantive evidence.
25
the record that it's admitted for that purpose and not for a
We just want to make clear in
02:53
160
broader purpose, as substantive evidence.
THE COURT:
Go ahead.
THE WITNESS:
All right.
The objection is noted.
You asked me if I had spoken to
General Alexander about the reasons he left the group early.
Yes, I did.
BY MR. WOODS:
What did he say?
He said that he was considered one of the most liberal
10
members of the group and that he was beginning to warm to the
11
idea of allowing gays to serve openly, and that around that
12
time, he was tasked by Senator Nunn to testify to budget
13
hearings, making it impossible for him to continue as leader of
14
the group.
15
16
of the Military Working Group?
17
18
what sexual orientation meant when they began their work.
19
said that the Pentagon believed that it knew what the group
20
would conclude before they even began the work.
21
passion leads and rationale follows, and it would be difficult
22
to get a rational assessment of the policy from this group.
23
02:54
And what statements did he make to you about the workings
02:54
02:54
He said that members of the group didn't really understand
MR. FREEBORNE:
He
He said that
Your Honor, now we would interject
24
again our objection to any testimony that goes to animus, what
25
motivated the policy.
I believe now we're getting into that.
02:55
02:55
161
THE COURT:
It's probably a good time to take the afternoon
All right.
break.
But let me just say, to follow up on the issue
that -- and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this,
because we've already had a lot of discussion on it today.
on the line of cases that you were referring to earlier,
O'Bryan and so forth, I think you -- if I recall correctly, you
earlier quoted, almost word for word, from O'Bryan when you
10
were quoting about inquiry into congressional motives or a
11
hazardous matter.
12
MR. FREEBORNE:
13
THE COURT:
02:55
But
That's correct.
That is from O'Bryan, a quote from
14
O'Bryan.
15
context for that, the O'Bryan court begins that discussion
16
about -- the discussion goes on for about a paragraph about the
17
hazardous nature of that.
18
But earlier in that decision, to give a fuller
It opens with the following:
principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike
20
down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an
21
alleged elicit legislative motive."
22
In other words, if the statute is otherwise
23
unconstitutional and otherwise improper motive or purpose, it's
24
not enough to strike it down.

MR. FREEBORNE:
02:56
"It is a familiar
19
25
02:56
02:56
And that's an important --
A hazardous matter, too, Your Honor.
02:57
162
It goes to the separation of powers point that I raised
earlier, that co-equal branches of government are presumed to
act in good faith, and it's not the judiciary's role to say
that a body, the Executive, the Congress, acted with uniform
animus in enacting a particular policy, particularly here,
where, again, I would remind the Court that the Ninth Circuit
in Philips, regardless of Lawrence, has already said that this
statute was not guided by animus.
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, you've made your
10
objection for the record as to this trial even being conducted,
11
which I think is what that objection -- I have no other way of
12
reading that objection as a whole.
13
14
02:57
But getting back to the evidentiary objection that's

at issue here, testimony that goes only to the --
15
If you'll let me finish.
16
MR. FREEBORNE:
17
THE COURT:
02:58
Absolutely, Your Honor.
-- testimony that -- reading O'Bryan and
18
the other cases that you are relying upon, testimony that goes
19
solely to whether an otherwise constitutional statute is
20
motivated or has a purpose -- I'm going to review the language
21
in Mergins at Page 249 of the Official Reporter -- what is
22
relevant is the legislative purpose of the statute, not the
23
possible religious motives of the legislators who enacted the
24
law.
25
02:57
So to the extent that the questions that you're going
02:58
02:59
163
to be asking after the recess -- I'm trying to look at what the
last question was.
go to a subject that would be prohibited under this line of
cases.
General Alexander, correct? -- Air Force General Alexander's
reasons for leaving the working group before the report was
finished.
was finished but before the report was concluded, which may or
may not be the same thing.
10
Actually, the last question didn't really
The last line of questioning really goes to -- it's
The witness didn't testify it was before the work
So the testimony about his reasons for leaving, which
11
is -- at least so far in the testimony, is that he was given
12
other work by Senator Nunn which interfered with his ability to
13
complete this work.
14
guess to put it informally, the mindset of some of the others
15
who were working on it -- those aren't legislators, in any
16
event, the people who were working -- at least not according to
17
the testimony I've heard so far.
18
been, but not according to the testimony I've heard so far.
03:01
And then the general's description of -- I
19
MR. FREEBORNE:
20
THE COURT:
03:01
I mean, some of them may have
Your Honor --
So it may not be, in any event, relevant.
21
But until I hear all of the testimony, I don't know what I'm
22
going to consider in whatever decision I make.
23
03:00
03:02
That's why sometimes the testimony has to come in
24
before it's fully known how relevant it is.
25
if the persons that are being referred to, to the extent that
I don't even know
03:02
164
their testimony is even considered for the truth of the matter,
which at this point it isn't, are legislators.
3
4
5
So to the extent that under the authority you cited,

that is, the Mergin's case -MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor, where I believe his
testimony is going is that Senator Nunn -- Dr. Frank will
testify that there were three architects to the "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" policy, Charlie Moskos, General Powell, and
Senator Nunn.
And what Dr. Frank will testify to is that
10
Senator Nunn acted with malice towards the gay and lesbian
11
service members because he had a personal animus towards gay
12
and lesbians.
13
14
15
THE COURT:
03:03
Well, let's wait and see what the
testimony is.
MR. FREEBORNE:
That's what I said.
I just jumped in
16
at that point to say this is where we're going, Your Honor,
17
because I know his testimony.
18
MR. WOODS:
Could I say something, Your Honor?
19
THE COURT:
Yes.
20
MR. WOODS:
I have been patiently listening to
21
Mr. Freeborne constantly interrupting my examination of this
22
witness to reargue things that you have already decided.
23
03:02
03:03
03:03
You have already ruled on the government's motion
24
in limine to exclude all of our expert witnesses.
25
ruled in writing that all seven of plaintiff's proposed expert
You have
03:03
165
witnesses are qualified to offer their respective opinions; all
have demonstrated their expertise through research,
publications, experience, employment, or some combination of
these, and so on and so on.
What we are hearing now is a repetition of the same
arguments that you have already rejected.
go back and explain all of the reasons why O'Bryan and those
other cases don't work here, because we've briefed that
already.
10
And I'm not going to
I'm also, you know, listening to Mr. Freeborne
11
speculate about what Professor Frank is going to say before he
12
says it.
13
like to because of these constant interruptions.
14
we can move a lot faster if we could just go through the
15
testimony.
16
before.
And I think
He can object when a question arises and not
THE COURT:
03:04
Well, as I said, I think that a
18
question -- I've issued a written ruling on the motions
19
in limine.
20
experts are qualified to give their opinions on the subjects
21
that they were designated for, and that it's not an efficient
22
use, especially in a court trial, to allow voir dire of the
23
witness.
25
03:04
I haven't gotten anywhere as far along as I would
17
24
03:04
I said before trial that this witness and the other

03:05
The proper time for most of this argument, as to the

weight of their testimony, or even to a certain extent the
03:05
166
admissibility of it, or to the way the Court should consider
it, will be at the end of the trial, or question by question,
if those questions are asked.
and this case was a good example of that -- from the excerpts
of the depositions that were provided in connection with the
motion in limine.
opponent during a deposition that would not be asked at trial.
Sometimes questions are asked --
Questions were sometimes asked by an
So to the extent that a question was asked and an
answer was given in a deposition doesn't mean it's the same
10
question that's going to be asked by the proponent of the
11
witness's expertise at trial.
12
03:05
03:06
So again, I agree with the plaintiff, that it will go
13
quicker if we proceed on a question-by-question basis, after
14
the recess.
15
So we're in recess for 15 minutes.
16
(Whereupon, a brief recess was held.)
17
THE COURT:
You may continue.
18
MR. WOODS:
19
BY MR. WOODS:
20
21
the Military Working Group report that was commissioned by the
22
Pentagon in 1993.
23
Professor Frank, before the break we were talking about
03:06
03:23
Are you familiar with a
24
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Lee Maginnis?
25
Yes, I am.
03:24
167
Who was he in relation to the Military Working Group?
He was an advisor to the group.
colonel in the Army who had been a member of the Army Inspector
General.
conservative religious group.
What was the name of that group?
Family Research Council.
What do you understand the Family Research Council to be?
It is a conservative religious group that promotes
He was a lieutenant
And he was also simultaneously a member of a

03:24
10
traditional values.
11
12
Working Group, did Lieutenant Colonel Maginnis express any
13
views about homosexuality?
14
Yes, he did.
15
Can you explain what that was, please.
16
He wrote a series of essays that claim that homosexuals
17
were mentally and physically ill, that they were promiscuous,
18
that they suffered from things like irritable bowl syndrome
19
because of the kind of sexual behavior they engaged in.
20
based his essays on highly discredited research methods.
21
What do you mean by that?
22
He cited often to research that included sampling pools of
23
seven, but that claimed that they were generalizable
24
conclusions, and that used exclusively, for instance, data from
25
gay magazine obituaries to allege that gay people had a life
03:24
And during the time he was an advisor to the Military
03:25
And he
03:25
03:25
168
expectancy that was somewhere in the 40's.
study?
that recommended something that was very similar to what the
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy became, but with certain
impugning conclusions about gay people.
What was the end result of the Military Working Group
The result was that the group created a 15-page report
8
9
MR. WOODS:
The report, Your Honor, is already in
evidence as Exhibit 205.
10
THE COURT:
All right.
03:26
11
BY MR. WOODS:
12
I take it you've studied this report, Professor?
13
That's right.
14
Would you describe it as the result of empirical research?
15
No.
16
What did it primarily consist of?
17
It primarily consisted of opinions and assumptions and
18
reassertions of generalizations that had never been backed up
19
by empirical research and that studies had shown were not based
20
in fact.
21
22
report, Exhibit 205, to the RAND report also in evidence?
Primarily not.
And how would you compare the Military Working Group
MR. FREEBORNE:
24
THE COURT:
/
03:26
03:27
23
25
03:26
Objection; vague, Your Honor.
Sustained.
03:27
169
BY MR. WOODS:
historian, which of those two reports do you believe is better
supported by the research concluded in it?
Well, from the prospective of a social scientist and
MR. FREEBORNE:
Objection.
know what "better supported" means.
THE COURT:
You may answer.
THE WITNESS:
Again, vague.
I don't
03:27
The RAND report is an extensive
10
collection of empirical research that is far more compelling
11
than the Military Working Group, which largely did not rely on
12
empirical research and was 15 pages rather than 500.
13
BY MR. WOODS:
14
15
the analysis of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1993 other than RAND
16
report and the Military Working Group report?
17
No.
18
Prior to the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," was
19
there any other empirical research or study or analysis or
20
report that suggested that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was
21
necessary to further some military objectives?
22
No, no empirical research showed that.
23
You also mentioned that there were congressional hearings
24
on the topic in 2003.
25
1993.
03:27
Did the Pentagon commission any other studies as part of

03:28
03:28
During what months were -- I'm sorry, in
In what months did those hearings take place?
03:28
170
They took place between March and July.
Were these committee hearings first?
That's right; it was in the Armed Services Committee of
both the Senate and the House.
And who was the chairperson of the Senate committee?
Senator Sam Nunn.
And during the congressional hearings, were both sides of
the debate heard?
MR. FREEBORNE:
10
THE COURT:
Objection; vague.
Sustained.
03:29
11
BY MR. WOODS:
12
13
part of the discussion?
14
Yes.
15
Can you explain what you mean by that, "not in equal
16
proportions"?
17
18
nevertheless leading the charge opposing openly gay service,
19
which meant among other things that there was little
20
opportunity for those who supported equality in the military to
21
be heard.
22
03:29
Did both sides of the debate testify before congress as
But not in equal proportions.

03:29
Well, the more liberal party of the two in congress was
03:30
And in particular, Senator Sam Nunn removed from the
23
witness list two people when he heard that they were going to
24
testify in favor of equality.
25
Who were those people?
03:30
171
Colonel Lucian Truscott, III and Barry Goldwater.
What historical record or information do you rely on for
the assertion that Senator Nunn removed those two individuals
from the roster of witnesses?
article Parameters.
Forces to speak out during the Senate or House hearings?
This assertion was published in the peer-reviewed military
And was it possible for homosexual members of the Armed
Well, not in a way that identified their homosexuality
10
unless they were no longer in service.
11
12
statements made by any members of congress that reflected what
13
you believed to be discriminatory views towards homosexuals?
14
15
This is the
objection we've been raising this afternoon.

THE COURT:
17
BY MR. WOODS:
18
19
this again.
20
03:30
During the congressional hearings, can you identify any
MR. FREEBORNE:
16
03:30
03:31
Objection sustained.
Are statements in the congressional record -- let me try
Can you identify any statements that are published in
21
the congressional record by members of congress that reflect a
22
religious view on this issue as opposed to a view about the
23
military effectiveness of a policy?
24
MR. FREEBORNE:
25
THE COURT:
Objection.
Same objection.
Sustained.
03:31
03:32
172
BY MR. WOODS:
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," did you ever learn whether the
United States Military blocked or suppressed any studies from
coming to light at this time?
Yes.
Can you explain what you are referring to, please.
There were several studies beginning in the 1950s which
sought to assess whatever the basis was at the time for a
In your work on studying the history of the enactment of
03:32
10
homosexual exclusion policy.
And in each case, the reports
11
found that there was no basis in fact for the homosexual
12
exclusion policy.
13
military sought to keep those studies from going public, either
14
by refusing to release them or by calling them drafts so they
15
could disown them as an official military study.
16
17
evidence on which you're relying for those statements that you
18
just made.
19
20
for instance, a Government Accountability Office study, I
21
believe from 1992 or 1993, I'm forgetting which one, in which
22
the -- or it may have been earlier in the 1980s, which cited to
23
a study by PERSEREC, which is a military research center, in
24
which the head of research at PERSEREC says -- there are
25
documents in which he says 'this has exceeded its mandate and
03:32
And in several cases, members of the
03:32
And can you tell the Court, please, the information or
One is -- well, the record is empirical showing a -- in,
03:33
03:33
173
this is a draft, and we will require the researchers to redo
the research working more closely with us to constrain their
parameters.'
congress?
In support of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," yes.
And when was that?
Congress passed the bill in September of 1993, and
President Clinton signed it November 30th of that year.
And I take it, Professor, that a bill ultimately passed

03:34
10
Professor, from your historical analysis, have you
11
identified certain individuals who played influential roles in
12
the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
13
Yes.
14
Who are they?
15
One was Senator Sam Nunn.
16
was Charlie Moskos, the sociologist.
17
General Colin Powell.
18
Okay.
Another was Bob Dole.
03:34
Another
Another was
Let's start with Senator Nunn.
19
Why do you believe that -- let me strike that.
20
At the time, what was his position?
21
THE COURT:
You mean his position in the Senate?
22
MR. WOODS:
In the Senate, yes.
23
THE WITNESS:
24
Services Committee.
25
03:34
He was the chairman of the Senate Armed
03:35
03:35
174
BY MR. WOODS:
Did he oversee the hearings before that committee?
Yes.
Why was he, in your opinion, one of the most influential
people of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
MR. FREEBORNE:
Objection.
03:35
I don't believe the
witness has stated that, yet at least.
THE COURT:
MR. FREEBORNE:
10
THE COURT:
You mean assumes facts not in evidence?

Yes.
Sustained.
03:35
11
BY MR. WOODS:
12
13
of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
14
Yes.
15
Why do you have that opinion, that he played an
16
influential role in the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
17
18
surrounding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," an understanding of what
19
it means to be the chair of the Senate Armed Services
20
Committee, which means that you get to oversee and make
21
important decisions about those hearings and who testifies and
22
when, and because of his reputation as -- I believe they called
23
him "Dr. Defense" or "Mr. Defense" within his respective
24
military circles.
25
Did Senator Nunn play an influential role in the enactment
03:35
From assessing the cultural and legislative debate
Did he at that time make any statements at the time
03:36
03:36
175
reflecting a bias against homosexuals?
Yes, he did.
Can you explain to the Court, please, what the historical
record shows that he said?
MR. FREEBORNE:
THE COURT:
Same objection, Your Honor.
BY MR. WOODS:
way he conducted the hearings reflected any bias against
10
03:36
Do you have an opinion from your historical work that the
homosexuals?
03:36
11
MR. FREEBORNE:
12
THE COURT:
Objection.
Same objection.
The objection is overruled to the extent
13
that the question -- well, the witness has testified, and I've
14
allowed the witness to testify, about what evidence wasn't
15
presented on the basis of the witness's knowledge from the
16
historical record.
17
know if the witness used the word "suppress," but witnesses
18
being stricken from the witness list, et cetera.
19
03:37
But witnesses being stricken or -- I don't
So to the extent he's able to answer the question by
20
answering -- well, by answering in that manner, I would
21
overrule the objection.
22
03:38
The problem with the question, I think, is it's
23
overbroad.
I'm going to sustain the objection to that
24
particular question because it doesn't specify particular
25
actions on the part of the chairman.
03:38
176
MR. WOODS:
Okay.
BY MR. WOODS:
Senator Nunn during his conduct of these hearings that
reflected a bias against homosexuals?
Prior to the hearings, yes.
Can you describe for the Court, please, based on the
historical record?
10
Can you identify, Professor, any actions taken by
03:38
He had -MR. FREEBORNE:
Objection.
To the extent that the
11
witness has been testifying about bias again, that is
12
inappropriate.
13
THE COURT:
14
THE WITNESS:
15
his office because they were gay.
16
BY MR. WOODS:
17
03:38

He, in the 1980s, fired two people from
03:39
How do you know that?
18
MR. FREEBORNE:
19
THE COURT:
Objection.
I'm sorry, I thought the last question
20
was directed to the way the hearings were conducted.
21
witness's answer didn't go to that, so --
And the
22
MR. WOODS:
Let me try it a different way.
23
THE COURT:
Frame your question more narrowly.
24
BY MR. WOODS:
25
Besides what you've already testified about, about
03:39
03:39
177
excluding witnesses from the witness list, can you identify any
other actions taken by Senator Nunn during the course of the
Senate hearings that suggests a bias against homosexuals?
MR. FREEBORNE:
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
Yes.
03:40
He expressed -- he asserted that
gays, if allowed to be honest, would be disruptive to the
military, without any evidence.
And he said that
10
heterosexuality was morally superior to homosexuality.
11
BY MR. WOODS:
12
03:40
You mentioned another person named Charles Moskos.
13
Do you believe that he was influential in the
14
enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
15
Yes, I do.
16
And, again, who is Charles Moskos?
17
He was a well-known military sociologist who advised the
18
Government across his career on military issues, including
19
racial integration and gays in the military.
20
And did he have any relationship with Senator Nunn?
21
Yes.
22
By the way, is Charles Moskos now deceased?
23
Yes, he is.
24
And I think you've already said that he was the person who
25
coined the phrase "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
03:40
03:40
They were good friends.
03:40
178
That's right.
Have you ever interviewed Mr. Moskos?
Yes.
When?
Starting in 2000, I interviewed him many times across
eight years.
article you were writing?
03:41
Were you interviewing him for the purpose of a particular
I first was interviewing him for an article in
10
Lingua Franca Magazine.
11
12
publications that we looked at earlier on pages 24 and 25 of
13
Exhibit 2 for identification?
14
Yes, it is.
15
What particular issue were you addressing in that article
16
that led you to interview Mr. Moskos?
17
18
the debate over gays in the military.
19
Did you have in-person communications with him?
20
Most of them were over the phone.
21
Did you have e-mail or other communications with him,
22
also?
23
And e-mail, yes.
24
And did you ask him when you were speaking to him about
25
the role of unit cohesion in the discussions that led to the
03:41
Is that one of the articles listed on your list of
03:41
I was addressing the role of academics and sociologists in
03:41
03:42
179
Yes, I did.
MR. FREEBORNE:
Objection.
Again, as long as the
record is clear that this hearsay that he's now testifying
about comes in as relied-upon material and not as substantive
evidence, we have no problem.
record that is the case.
8
9
THE COURT:
But we just want to mark the
Your objection is noted.
BY MR. WOODS:
10
You can answer the question.
11
Yes, I did.
12
And did he answer your questions about the role of unit
13
cohesion and the discussions that led to the enactment of
14
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
15
Yes, he did.
16
Did you publish the article that you were working on at
17
the time of the conversation?
18
Yes.
19
And did the article include the answer that Mr. Moskos
20
gave you about your questions about unit cohesion?
21
Yes.
22
Did Mr. Moskos, while he was alive, ever dispute the
23
answer that you included in the article that you wrote that
24
included the conversation?
25
03:42
MR. FREEBORNE:
03:42
03:42
Objection; vague.
Not sure what
03:42
03:43
180
answer we're talking about.
THE COURT:
Do you want to clarify?
MR. WOODS:
Sure.
BY MR. WOODS:
when you asked him about unit cohesion and the discussions that
led to the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
03:43
Can you please tell the Court what Mr. Moskos said to you
He said, "Fuck unit cohesion, I don't care about that.
10
This is a moral issue for me."
11
12
Lingua Franca.
13
That's right.
14
While he was alive, did Mr. Moskos ever dispute the answer
15
that you reported in your article?
16
No.
17
Is it repeated again in your book?
18
Yes, it is.
19
Did you have any discussions with Mr. Moskos about whether
20
the statement would or wouldn't be included in your book?
21
Yes, I did.
22
Can you please tell the Court that statement.
23
In an e-mail correspondence, Professor Moskos said he had
24
a favor to ask me, which was to not publish the phrase, "Fuck
25
unit cohesion" in the book.
03:43
And you then wrote that statement in the article in
03:43
He acknowledged it.
03:43
03:44
181
Did he ever deny making the statement?
No.
Did you also speak to a colleague of Mr. Moskos?
Yes.
What was the name of that person?
Several.
MR. FREEBORNE:
03:44
Same objection, Your Honor, to the
extent they are going to be discussing out-of-court statements
that are hearsay, then note the record that it's being
published as relied-upon material, not in substantive evidence.
10
THE COURT:
Well, if this were a jury trial, I would
11
only once instruct the jury that they would consider this -- I
12
would only once give a limiting instruction to the jury.
13
So frankly, to stand up and make that objection every
14
time when it's a court trial, I'm really puzzled that you're
15
doing that, because it's not my first trial, and I'm really
16
aware of the distinction between what an expert relies on and
17
the purpose for which he can testify about it.
18
So your objection's noted.
19
03:44
03:45
If you want to do it
every time, you may, but it's really not necessary.
20
MR. FREEBORNE:
21
THE COURT:
03:45
You're welcome.
22
BY MR. WOODS:
23
What was the name of the person that you spoke with?
24
One was Judith Stiehm.
25
Who was Judith Stiehm at the time?
03:45
182
university in Florida.
hearings that led to the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
the hearings alongside Charlie Moskos.
Who designated her to testify?
I don't actually know.
What was her relation to Mr. Moskos?
10
I don't know that she had a relationship, except that they
11
were colleagues who studied gays in the military.
12
13
congressional hearings?
14
Yes.
15
What did she tell you about the congressional hearings?
16
She said the hearings were rigged between Charlie Moskos
17
and Senator Nunn who were friends, and that they had already
18
decided the outcomes together before the hearings began.
19
20
the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was
21
General Colin Powell.
22
I believe she was a political science professor at a
What role, if any, did she have in the congressional
She was designated as one of the academics to testify in
03:45
03:46
Did you have a discussion with Judith Stiehm about the
03:46
Another person you identified as a person influential in

03:46
What was his position at the time?
23
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
24
What role did he play in the enactment of what became
25
03:47
183
As the senior uniformed military person in the nation, he
was consulted and looked to by the nation and by congress in
particular for his counsel on how to move forward with this
issue.
And --
And by the president.
Did he testify on the subject?
Yes.
And was his testimony, in your opinion, significant or
03:47
10
influential?
11
Yes, it was.
12
Why was that?
13
For the reasons stated, that as chairman of the Joint
14
Chiefs of Staff, his responsibility is to give the President
15
and the congress, to some extent, his best advice on military
16
matters, and he had cultural significance as the senior
17
uniformed person in the nation.
18
19
General Powell's testimony on the subject?
20
21
homosexuality in the military would undermine privacy and unit
22
cohesion and morale and discipline and good order.
23
24
any evidence.
25
03:47
03:47
And can you briefly summarize for the Court
He asserted, without any evidence, that allowing open
03:47
And you said in your answer there that it wasn't based on
Can you explain what you meant by that?
03:48
184
didn't offer any; he simply asserted it.
evidence?
Not that I'm aware of.
What was it based on?
7
8
There's never been any evidence showing that, and he
So was his testimony based on any report, study or
MR. FREEBORNE:
03:48
Calls for
speculation.
THE COURT:
Sustained.
10
BY MR. WOODS:
11
12
General Powell's testimony in particular, can you explain to
13
the Court what your understanding is at least of what his
14
testimony was based on?
03:48
Based on your study of the congressional testimony and
15
MR. FREEBORNE:
16
THE COURT:
17
You may answer.
18
THE WITNESS:
19
BY MR. WOODS:
20
21
03:48
Overruled.
It was based on his personal opinion.
All right.
03:49
And when you testified that he talked about privacy,
22
when you say "it was based on his personal opinion," can you
23
explain what you mean by that?
24
25
somehow homosexuals, if known about in the military, would
He had the belief that somehow homosexuality -- that
03:49
185
constitute an invasion of privacy and would make it very
difficult for military leaders to maintain order, discipline
and morale, even though there was no evidence that ever showed
that.
Did he talk about the concept of privacy in the military?
Yes, he did.
What did he say about that?
That the military has very little privacy; that people are
forced to sacrifice privacy when they go into the military, and
10
yet somehow it was necessary to constrain the activities and,
11
in some cases, presence of gay people in order to preserve what
12
privacy there was having just said that there was barely any.
13
14
different backgrounds and have to get along?
15
16
values, people in the military had to learn to work together,
17
which is part of what military training is for.
18
19
03:50
Did he discuss how people in the military come from
Yes.
He said that, despite different backgrounds and
03:50
And in your opinion or -- I'm sorry.

Are General Powell's statements about privacy logical
20
or consistent?
21
22
privacy -- if there's little privacy in the military to begin
23
with, it's hard to understand how banning open gay people would
24
preserve it.
25
03:49
03:51
They were logically inconsistent, because if there is no
And because he said that people sacrifice privacy
03:51
186
when they go into the military, it's hard to understand why gay
people alone would have to be constricted, given that people
agree to sacrifice privacy when they enter the military.
Okay.
If I can say one more thing, it's also -- there has never
been any evidence showing that shielding people from knowledge
of gays protect people's privacy.
Thank you.
03:51
Okay.
Earlier this afternoon you said that religious
10
conservatives became involved in the debate that led to the
11
enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
12
Can you explain to the Court, please, some of the
13
religious groups or organizations that got involved and how
14
they got involved?
15
16
Yes.
03:51
03:52
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis, who we've
17
discussed previously, identified as an evangelical, was an
18
influential advisor to the Military Working Group.
19
was.
20
I believe 80 percent of the Military Working Group leaders were
21
evangelical, and that for many people who are opposed to ending
22
discrimination against gay people, it was a religious and moral
23
issue that they were casting in political terms.
24
25
history that led to the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
He said he
He said in notes that I saw in interviews conducted, that

03:52
Did you see other evidence in the congressional record or
03:52
187
about religious -- people expressing religious views?
MR. FREEBORNE:
THE COURT:
Your Honor, same objection.
Sustained.
BY MR. WOODS:
surrounding the racial integration of the military following
World War II to the discussions that led to the enactment of
MR. FREEBORNE:
Now, Professor Frank, have you compared the history
10
THE COURT:
What's the relevance of this comparison?
11
MR. WOODS:
The relevance, Your Honor, is that the
12
statements that were made about all of the reasons why the
13
military could not be integrated racially proved to be false.
14
terms were made as part of the debate about "Don't Ask, Don't
16
Tell," and the Professor can explain that.

THE COURT:
your position about that, but how is that relevant to the
19
framework of the Court's analysis of the issue before it?

MR. WOODS:
It shows, I believe, Your Honor, that the
21
policy does not advance an important Government interest, among
22
other things; that it shows that --
23
24
25
THE COURT:
03:53
Well, I understand that and I understand
18
20
03:53
Those same statements, however, couched in different
15
17
03:53
03:54
Well, again, it would have to be -- under
the test, it would have to be necessary to advance; right?

MR. WOODS:
It goes directly to these Witt factors
03:54
188
that we're talking about in this trial.
or concerns expressed about integration were expressed again
with respect to homosexuals in the military.
statements reflected bias, prejudice and not -- no legitimate
Government interest with respect to the integration of
African Americans, it's the same situation with homosexuals in
the military in 1993.
THE COURT:
MR. FREEBORNE:
Because the same fears
And just as those
03:55
Mr. Freeborne?
Your Honor, that argument -- what
10
they are trying to interject again is animus or motivation, and
11
that's just inappropriate.
12
very highly charged analogy, it's just inappropriate.
13
THE COURT:
14
You may answer.
15
THE WITNESS:
03:55
By seeking to align this with a
Yes, I have.
16
BY MR. WOODS:
17
18
military, what concerns had been expressed about the
19
consequences or potential consequences of integrating the
20
military?
21
22
disproportionate levels of disease; that they were more likely
23
to be criminals; that they would engage in sexual assaults;
24
that they would constitute a violation of privacy; that they
25
would lower the military's reputation and cause good people to
03:55
So before or at the time of the racial integration of the
03:55
There were concerns that Africa Americans had
03:56
189
leave if integrated.
something else?
evidence showing that.
What were those concerns rooted in?
That's a harder question to answer, but they certainly
seemed to reflect prejudices, given the language that they used
and what we know about people's actions at the time.
And were those concerns rooted in any evidence or study or
They were not rooted in evidence.
There never was any

03:56
10
From the perspective of a historian, did integrating the
11
military strengthen or weaken our military?
12
It strengthened it.
13
And did the arguments or fears of those who opposed open
14
homosexuals during the discussions that led to the enactment of
15
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" resemble the arguments and fears
16
expressed about racial integration in the military?
17
MR. FREEBORNE:
18
THE COURT:
03:56
03:56
Sustained.
19
BY MR. WOODS:
20
21
of the opposition to racial integration of the military and
22
compared it to the opposition to open homosexuals' service in
23
the military?
Well, have you studied both the historical underpinnings
24
MR. FREEBORNE:
25
THE COURT:
Overruled.
03:57
03:57
190
You may answer.
THE WITNESS:
BY MR. WOODS:
Yes, I have.
Okay.
What exactly have you done to study that, those two
things?
and votes and policies of both eras surrounding both issues.
Is this covered in, for example, a chapter of your book?
10
It is in some of the chapters of my book.
11
What sources of information did you use to develop these
12
comparisons that you have made in your book?
13
14
analysis and assessment of the context and impact of racial
15
integration in the military.
16
17
racial integration with specific statements made about open
18
homosexuals in the military?
19
20
although the experience of being African American may be
21
different from the experience of being homosexual, that the
22
sentiment rationale of the opposition and the fears and
23
concerns are very, very similar.
24
those fears not playing out.
25
03:57
I have studied the rhetoric and the activities and actions
03:58
The RAND study is one that has a very thorough historical
03:58
Are you able to compare specific statements made about
Oh, sure.
You can see the similarities and conclude that,
And they impact in terms of
So I think you mentioned disease as one of the concerns
03:58
03:59
191
that was expressed about racial integration.
How did that parallel something that might have come
up in the discussions that led to the enactment of "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell"?
MR. FREEBORNE:
THE COURT:
At this point, which objection is it?
MR. FREEBORNE:
I'm sorry.
Because there's been a --
The animus objection, motivation
objection.
10
THE COURT:
11
You may answer.
12
THE WITNESS:
expressing anti-gay views couched, for instance, in the
14
language of disease and observe actions they take, such as
15
votes to bridge the rights and freedoms of those people, the
16
motivation becomes relevant to the purpose of the legislation.
17
04:00
So in this case, as a historian, you can infer that
18
connection and that similarity to the historical record with
19
respect to African American integration.
20
MR. FREEBORNE:
The witness just testified about
04:00
motivation.
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. FREEBORNE:
24
THE COURT:
25
03:59
When you look at what someone says in
13
21
03:59
Is that a motion to strike?

It is.
Granted.
04:00
192
BY MR. WOODS:
Let me go back to the question, Doctor.

When people were talking about integration in the
military and expressed their concern about disease, what
disease or diseases were being discussed?
transmitted diseases come up in the rhetoric, such as irritable
bowl syndrome that I mentioned previously.
HIV/AIDS was the main disease, but many sorts of sexually
And in the discussion about crime, what came up in the
10
discussions?
11
12
more often in sexual assault, just as black people were alleged
13
to have engaged in rape more often than non-black people.
14
15
or enlistment in the military?
16
17
gays were allowed to serve or allowed to serve openly, which
18
were identical to the allegations about racial integration.
19
20
statements in the context of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
21
22
testified before congress, such as the National Association of
23
Evangelicals, chaplains in the military, former generals,
24
current generals, I believe, also expressed that.
25
04:00
04:00
That gay people were alleged to have been -- to engage far
And what was the discussion or comparison about retention

04:01
Allegations that good people would leave the military if
And who were some of the people who made some of these
04:01
There were many religious organizations, some of whom
And the Military Working Group itself, in its report,
04:01
193
mentions HIV/AIDS and says that gay lifestyle is shown to have
disproportionate ill health, even though they were not relying
on sound factual evidence.
All right.
We may have touched on this already, Professor, but
did your research about the history of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
also address the question of whether homosexuals served openly
in the military before the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell"?
10
Yes, it did.
11
What did your research and analysis show?
12
That gay people have long served in the military, and that
13
people knew about them, and that they were out to some or many
14
of their peers and in some cases superiors, and that the
15
military relaxed enforcement during times of war when unit
16
cohesion mattered most.
17
18
subjects?
19
20
lowering of discharge rates during wartime and raising of
21
discharge rates during peacetime.
22
04:02
04:02
04:02
What are the source or sources of your testimony on these
Well, pending on discharge statistics reflect that
I'm sorry.
04:03
And that's historical --
Are you asking me only about prior to
23
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" now?
24
Yes, please.
25
In addition, there were many press reports that reflected
04:03
194
interviews with service members who made statements that this
happened.
All right.
Professor Frank, based on all of the research and
study, writing and analysis you have done about "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell," do you have an opinion about what "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" was based on?
Yes.
9
10
04:03
MR. FREEBORNE:
Objection, Your Honor, to extent that
he's going to testify about motivation.
11
THE COURT:
12
13
You may answer.
14
BY MR. WOODS:
15
Let me hear the answer.
In your opinion --
16
THE COURT:
04:03
04:04
When you say "it was based on," you may
17
reword the question to be more specific.
18
BY MR. WOODS:
19
20
factors leading to the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
21
were based on the historical record?
22
23
to enact it.
Do you have an opinion, Professor Frank, about what major
Yes.
04:04
The moral animus and bias of those who had the power
24
MR. FREEBORNE:
25
THE COURT:
Move to strike, Your Honor.
Motion to strike is granted.
04:04
195
BY MR. WOODS:
Ask, Don't Tell" since it was enacted in 1993?
Yes, I have.
And initially, can you please tell the Court the
approximate number of members of our Armed Forces who have been
discharged pursuant to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
13,500.
And what source or sources of information do you rely on
Professor, have you also researched and analyzed "Don't
10
for that figure?
11
Defense Department data.
12
Since 1993, Professor, have there be any historical
13
studies or studies from any social science discipline
14
indicating that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" achieved its stated
15
Government purposes?
16
None that I'm aware of.
17
Are you aware of any book, report, or any empirical
18
analysis showing that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has worked to
19
achieve its stated goals?
20
No, I'm not.
21
Are you aware of any research showing that "Don't Ask,
22
Don't Tell" has not achieved its stated goals?
23
Yes, I am.
24
Can you identify some of that research material for us,
25
please.
04:05
04:05
04:05
04:05
04:06
196
One of the studies is one that we previously referenced
that I authored in 2004 indicating various costs to morale,
privacy, and cohesion, particularly for, but not only for, gay,
lesbian and bisexual service members.
been enforced more in times of peace than in times of war or
conflict?
Yes, it has.
Can you explain the bases of your testimony on that
Since the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," has it
10
subject?
11
12
that states that during times of war for certain reserve units,
13
notwithstanding a homosexual coming out, that person will be
14
mobilized, and the assessment of whether to discharge the
15
person will be delayed.
16
17
04:06
04:06
Well, first, there is a military document that I have seen
That's one.
04:07
There was a spokesperson named Kim Waldron at the

Pentagon who acknowledged that indeed happened.
18
There was a congressional research service study that
19
also acknowledged that phenomenon, that known gays are sent to
20
war and sometimes discharged on their return.
21
04:07
And then there were many people I spoke to who, in my
22
research, indicated that they had at times come out to their
23
peers or superiors and that superiors had ignored their
24
disclosure and continued to have them serve anyway.
25
Are homosexuals still serving openly in some situations
04:07
197
despite "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Yes.
Can you explain the information you have developed on that
point for the Court, please.
know or believe or suspect gay people in their units and
whether such knowledge is widely known in their units.
such polls suggest that large numbers do.
Well, there are polls that ask people about whether they
MR. FREEBORNE:
And
Your Honor, I object to any reference
10
to polls.
11
foundation for where these polls come from, et cetera.
12
I mean, to the polling data, he hasn't laid a
THE COURT:
04:07
04:08
That goes to
13
the weight, but go ahead.
The witness has answered the
14
question, so you may ask him --
15
BY MR. WOODS:
16
17
referring to?
18
19
Annenberg poll that suggested the same.
20
some others.
21
What year was the Zogby poll?
22
2006.
23
What year was the Annenberg poll?
24
2004.
25
Who were the people who conducted the Annenberg poll?
04:08
Can you identify, please, the polls that you were just
One is the Zogby poll, Z-O-G-B-Y.
There was also the

I believe there were
04:08
04:08
198
The Annenberg Center, I believe it's called, which is part
of the University of Pennsylvania.
And what is Zogby, the entity that did the other poll?
I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
What is Zogby?
Zogby International is a private polling firm.
Now, Professor, have you also studied the impact of "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" on the military's ability to recruit and
retain troops?
04:09
10
Yes.
11
What have you done to study, research or analyze that
12
question?
13
14
discharge figures for homosexual conduct with slots in the
15
military and certain job specifications that the military is
16
having trouble filling and found that in many cases they match
17
up so that those recruiting people for those positions that lay
18
empty wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't emptied them
19
by discharging gay people.
20
04:09
I've looked at various data points that compare the
I've also looked into the history of universities and
21
high schools that have sought to keep military recruiters off
22
campus because the military can't sign a nondiscrimination
23
guarantee, which is what those schools require of people who
24
recruit for employment.
25
Don't Tell."
04:09
04:10
And that is a result of "Don't Ask,

04:10
199
And I've looked at moral waivers that were granted to
ex-convicts and those who have lower educational and weight
standards in order to fill slots, some of which were vacated by
the discharge of people under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
All right.
04:11
Let me begin by just asking you to explain to the
Court if we have or do not have shortages of troops or manpower
in the military today?
Well, we did have shortages for many years previous to and
10
following the 9/11 attacks.
11
as a result of the 2008 recession.
12
13
do to address that?
14
15
advising, and it lowered its standards by issuing moral waivers
16
and other kinds of waivers to admit people who otherwise
17
wouldn't have qualified.
18
19
Those shortages have been lessened
04:11
And when there were troop shortages, what did the military
It gave large signing bonuses, spent enormous resources on

04:11
Okay.
You testified to some comparison about people who had
20
been discharged pursuant to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and empty
21
slots in the military, if I understood you correctly.
22
That's right.
23
What occupations were those categories in?
24
There are 161 occupations in which people have been
25
discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Some of those
04:11
04:12
200
occupations are also the ones where there were shortfalls, and
they included military intelligence, counterterrorism, supply
and logistics, military police, medical treatment specialists,
and some engineering specialties in nuclear and weapons
development.
6
7
8
9
THE COURT:
04:12
Excuse me, I want to ask a question
because I'm confused by the witness's testimony.

If I understand your testimony in answer to the last
couple of questions, first you answered that you have studied
10
the categories of classification or occupation under which
11
people were discharged under the policy.
12
THE WITNESS:
13
THE COURT:
04:12
That's right.
And then you also -- I think a couple of
14
the questions asked you about were these occupations where
15
there were shortages or shortfalls in -- I hate to use this
16
term -- manpower.
17
THE WITNESS:
18
THE COURT:
19
So essentially, are you testifying that there's an
04:13
That's right, Your Honor.
All right.
20
overlap between those two, or are you talking about two
21
separate things?
22
THE WITNESS:
23
THE COURT:
24
THE WITNESS:
25
When there's a shortfall in a certain category, the
04:13
Yes, Your Honor.
Can you clarify that for me.
Sure.
04:13
201
military has to recruit and sometimes increase their efforts to
recruit people to fill those shortfalls.
And so what I'm suggesting is that --
THE COURT:
Let's talk about, maybe hypothetically, a language
Let me ask you this.
This might help me.
specialist or military intelligence, because I think those were
both -- I know military intelligence was -- maybe that's not
the right category, I think you said intelligence analyst or
counterterrorism.
10
11
So that might be a category where there's a
04:14
shortfall?
12
THE WITNESS:
13
THE COURT:
Right.
Is it also a category, according to your
14
research, that was affected out of proportion by the discharges
15
under the policy?
16
17
18
04:13
THE WITNESS:
04:14
Your Honor, that's mostly right.
I'm
not saying affected disproportionately.

Maybe I could explain it this way, is that the same
19
categories where there were shortfalls or categories where
20
there were discharges, and that means that the homosexual
21
discharges exacerbate the military's efforts to recruit those
22
replacements.
23
terms of lowering standards to recruit shortfalls, that shows
24
you the complete picture in terms of how discharging competent
25
service members under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" exacerbates
04:14
When put with what the military has done in
04:15
202
recruitment and lowers quality.
THE COURT:
But you're not saying that -- that was my term, "out
All right.
of proportion."
You're not saying that, for example -- for example,
if there's a shortage of Farsi or Arabic or Korean speakers in
the military, and their overall discharges under the policy
include foreign language speakers, including in those language
categories, it's not disproportionate; it's just that the
10
discharges, if they include the language specialties,
11
exacerbates the shortfall, exists anyway.
12
THE WITNESS:
disproportionate, because I didn't have or run those numbers.
14
But the numbers I did put side by side were numbers
15
of discharges, say, in military intelligence and numbers in
16
which the military lowered standards to fill shortfalls in
17
military intelligence, and they were such that the military
18
would not have had to lower its standards in certain categories
19
if it hadn't emptied those slots by discharging gay and lesbian
20
people.
THE COURT:
22
Go ahead.
23
MR. WOODS:
25
04:16
04:16
21
that.
04:15
Well, I don't know if it's
13
24
04:15
All right.
I see.
Thank you.
Let me just follow up a little bit on
04:16
203
BY MR. WOODS:
which homosexuals were discharged pursuant to the policy.
What is the basis of that testimony?
Professor, you said that there were 161 occupations from
It's Defense Department data.
And you also said there were shortfalls in those
occupations.
8
9
10
11
04:16
What was the basis of that piece of information?

A
That was, I believe, also Defense Department or Government
Accountability Office data.

THE COURT:
04:16
I'm sorry, let me ask you, on your
12
question, 161 occupations that were affected by discharges, is
13
the information classified -- information that the witness
14
received and the witness testified that that was information
15
from the Department of Defense or Government -- the GAO; is
16
that right?
17
THE WITNESS:
18
THE COURT:
19
Yes.
So is the information classified by
occupation?
20
THE WITNESS:
21
THE COURT:
22
I'm sorry, let me just ask one more question.
23
24
25
04:17
Yes.
All right.
04:17
Thank you.
I want
to make sure I understand this.

So is your testimony that of the -- I think you
testified there were 14,500 -- I take it that's an approximate
04:17
204
number -- of discharges since the policy?
THE WITNESS:
It's actually 13,500.
And it's not
a -- well, that data does come from the Defense Department.
just don't know.
the discharges are ongoing today.
6
7
It's definitely within 13,000, 14,000, but
THE COURT:
Exactly.
04:18
So that's why it has to be
approximate.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Right.
But it's not a mere estimate.
And I misspoke, because I think the last
10
time at the pretrial conference we talked about a number of
11
13,400.
12
13
04:18
So, say 13,400, 13,500, they fall into 161

occupational categories?
14
THE WITNESS:
15
THE COURT:
That's right.
Thank you.
04:18
16
BY MR. WOODS:
17
18
there was any disproportionate impact.
And you were just speaking with the Court about whether
19
From your research and analysis, were there any
20
particular occupations where the impacted discharge was
21
particularly acute?
22
Yes.
23
Can you tell the Court what those were, please.
24
Arabic language speakers, medical specialists, for
25
instance.
04:18
04:18
205
Now, has there been any research or study of which you are
aware, Professor, as to whether more individuals might enlist
or stay in the Armed Forces if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were not
the law?
Yes, there has.
Can you explain to the Court what research or study you're
aware of on that subject.
at UCLA School of Law, has cross-tabulated data from the Census
Yes.
04:19
The Williams Institute, which is a research center
10
and the American Community Survey and some other surveys that
11
assess demographically numbers of people who are gay, lesbian
12
or bisexual who serve in the military and reasons for retention
13
or non-retention, and concluded that if the policy were lifted,
14
approximately 40,000 new recruits might join the military and
15
roughly 4,000 service members each year might stay in the
16
military instead of leaving voluntarily, which they now do as a
17
result of the policy.
18
19
Institute?
20
21
2007 may have been the first one.
22
updated early in 2010.
23
24
about, since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, has the
25
military seen fit to recall troops involuntarily?
04:19
04:19
And do you recall the date of this study by the Williams
There were a couple reports that were updated, I believe
04:20
I know that one of them was
And speaking of the personnel subjects we've been talking
04:20
206
Yes, it has.
Is that due to personnel shortages?
Yes.
And did you ever compare the job categories of the people
who were involuntarily recalled with the job categories of
people discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
was referring to in terms of members of the IRR, the Individual
Ready Reserve, who are people who remain subject to forcible
Yes.
04:20
I should clarify that that's the comparison that I
10
recall after their regular time of service ends.
11
people who are considered to be less cohesive because they're
12
not training regularly with their units.
13
THE COURT:
14
THE WITNESS:
And those are
04:21
Are those reserve troops?

Yes.
15
BY MR. WOODS:
16
When you say "IRR," what does that stand for?
17
Individual Ready Reserve.
18
So what conclusions did you draw from your research and
19
analysis about the IRRs and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and people
20
discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
21
22
Don't Tell" exacerbates quality problems and shortfalls in the
23
military by requiring the military to rely on less qualified
24
service members, increasing frequency of rotations, time of
25
combat and so forth to address personnel issues that are
04:21
04:21
That the discharge of service members under "Don't Ask,
04:22
207
exacerbated in part by kicking out gay people.
ask you more about that.
You also mentioned moral waivers a moment ago, so let me
Can you explain to the Court what you're referring to
about this Moral Waiver Program.
04:22
Yes.
The Moral Waiver Program is a program in the military
that waives people into the military, hence the name, who have
qualification characteristics that would otherwise disqualify
10
them, in some cases based on criminal record, which is what
11
they refer to as moral.
12
13
who were allowed to enlist in the military in the period of
14
time between 2003 and 2006?
15
Yes.
16
What did you find?
17
That there were 4,000 convicted criminals that were
18
admitted between 2003 and 2006.
19
THE COURT:
20
THE WITNESS:
21
22
Did you do any analysis of the number of convicted felons
04:23
Are those all felonies?

Yes.
Those are ex-cons.
There were
04:23
also a much larger number of serious misdemeanor cases.

THE COURT:
So when you testify about the Moral
23
Waiver Policy, it includes both misdemeanors or serious
24
misdemeanors, as well as felonies.
25
04:22
THE WITNESS:
That's right.
04:23
208
THE COURT:
criminal conviction?
Does it cover anything else other than
THE WITNESS:
The term "moral waiver" I don't believe
does.
There may be some I'm forgetting, but there are other
standards that are lowered that don't necessarily come under
the moral waivers' phrase.
7
8
THE COURT:
When you talk about "moral waivers,"
you're talking about the criminal convictions.
9
10
THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry.
As well as substance abuse.
In some cases that is criminal, I'm not sure if it always is.
11
THE COURT:
But that would be an admission.
part of a recruit, that would be an admission about substance
13
abuse?
14
THE WITNESS:
You mean where a recruit or a potential
recruit would admit that he or she had abused substances?
16
THE COURT:
Yes.
there is no criminal conviction for it and there's a moral
18
waiver, someone is allowed to enlist under the Moral Waiver
19
Policy, that would be because of an admission?

THE WITNESS:
I suppose it could be that someone is
21
found to have abused substance in the military and is allowed
22
to re-enlist and yet wasn't criminally prosecuted.
23
sure about that, but I suppose that's a possibility.
24
25
THE COURT:
/
04:24
I mean, it could be both, but if
17
20
04:24
On the
12
15
04:23
04:24
I'm not
Thank you.
04:24
209
BY MR. WOODS:
question of whether soldiers granted moral waivers are more or
less likely to be discharged for misconduct?
Yes, I am.
Can you explain the study and what its findings were?
One was written by Michael Boucai, B-O-U-C-A-I, that
concluded that people who are admitted on a moral waiver are
more likely to leave because of misconduct and are more likely
10
Are you aware of any studies, Professor, that address the
04:25
to leave before their regular contract is up.
11
04:25
I suppose that means I would have to check, either
12
because they left -- they didn't re-enlist or they were, again,
13
discharged because of misconduct.
14
15
talked about the number of discharges.
One question I neglected to ask you earlier when you

04:25
16
After "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was enacted, did the
17
number of discharges for homosexual conduct go up or down or
18
stay the same as compared to the prior policy?
19
MR. FREEBORNE:
Your Honor, objection.
We're well
20
beyond the designation as a historian now and the testimony
21
Dr. Frank is providing the Court.
22
THE COURT:
Not as to this last question.
Some of
23
the questions I asked we might have been, and I apologize for
24
that.
25
04:26
But as to this last question, no.

You may answer.
04:26
210
THE WITNESS:
They went up.
BY MR. WOODS:
discharges after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" went up?
Defense Department data.
Now, as part of your work, Professor, have you studied the
treatment of homosexuals in the Armed Forces of other
countries?
Yes.
10
Will you please tell the Court about the work that you
11
have done on that subject.
12
13
countries: Australia, Britain, Israel, and Canada, subsequently
14
also added South Africa and then did an update of that research
15
in 2010 -- that research was initially completed in 2000 --
16
which spoke to the universe of experts in those countries'
17
militaries to ask them their assessment of the policy change or
18
whether allowing gays to serve openly had undermined privacy
19
cohesion or readiness.
20
21
What is the basis for your opinion that the number of
04:26
04:26
Well, the Palm Center did four in-depth studies of four
04:27
And all concluded that they hadn't.
All right.
04:27
What role did you play in the four Palm Center
22
studies that were done in approximately 2000?
23
24
scholars and journalists about that research.
25
author in the updated study about that research.
I wrote press releases, policy memos and spoke with other
I was lead
And I
04:28
211
familiarized myself over the years with research products from
our government and those other governments, our military and
their militaries.
All right.
Let me ask you just some basic information.
Approximately how many countries today allow
04:28
homosexuals to serve in their Armed Forces?
MR. FREEBORNE:
role of a historian.
10
THE COURT:
11
THE WITNESS:
Objection.
Now we're well beyond the
04:28
Twenty-five.
12
BY MR. WOODS:
13
14
militaries?
15
16
culture, the mission and the way it operates.
17
another one.
18
19
of these countries that allow homosexuals to serve openly?
20
Yes.
21
Do our members of our Armed Forces work alongside
22
homosexuals who are in the militaries of those countries?
23
Yes, they do.
24
Do we have members of our Armed Forces fighting alongside
25
soldiers from those countries in places like Iraq and
Can you identify some of them that are comparable to our
Britain would be the most comparable in terms of the
04:28
Israel is
Canada, to some extent.
Do we have members of our Armed Forces stationed in some
04:29
04:29
212
Afghanistan?
Yes, we do.
In those foreign militaries, are homosexuals serving in
leadership positions?
Yes, they are.
And did these studies that you referenced reach any
conclusions about the impact of allowing homosexuals to serve
on unit cohesion, recruitment, and military effectiveness?
Yes.
10
Did these studies also address fears that heterosexuals
11
would resign or not enlist in the militaries of those countries
12
if homosexuals were allowed to serve?
13
Yes.
14
What was the conclusion?
15
In Britain and Canada, large studies were done asking if
16
service members would work with and be willing to live with and
17
serve with gay people if the bans were lifted.
04:29
But there was no negative impact.
18
And in both cases, large numbers -- in some cases,
19
the majority -- said they would refuse to work or serve with
20
gay people.
21
04:30
04:30
But when the bans were lifted anyway, there was --
22
there were almost no departures attributed by those militaries
23
to the change in policy.
24
25
04:29
Professor Frank, lets move on to a different subject.

Are you aware of any studies or reports on the
04:30
213
financial costs of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
MR. FREEBORNE:
This was the
area that I don't believe Dr. Frank is qualified to talk to.
He's not an economist.
THE COURT:
Well, the first question is:
aware of any such studies?
question.
8
9
THE WITNESS:
Are you
04:30
So let's just take it by that
Yes.
BY MR. WOODS:
10
How many are you aware of?
11
I believe there are at least two, probably additional
12
ones.
13
14
04:31
All right.
What's the first one of which you are aware?
15
Well, I believe there was a Government Accountability
16
Office report in the 1980s or '90s, but I'm not sure.
17
THE COURT:
18
THE WITNESS:
You're not sure of the date?

I am not entirely sure if the study I'm
19
thinking of addressed financial costs, but I believe it did, or
20
of the date.
21
THE COURT:
22
BY MR. WOODS:
23
04:31
04:31
All right.
And do you recall the conclusion of that GAO report?
24
MR. FREEBORNE:
25
THE COURT:
Your Honor, no foundation.
Sustained.
04:31
214
BY MR. WOODS:
What was the second study that you were referencing?
There was a GAO report in 2005 assessing the policy; in
particular, its financial costs.
for the Court, please.
Can you summarize the conclusion of the 2005 GAO report
MR. FREEBORNE:
of the scope of his expertise.
THE COURT:
Outside
Can you give me the designation?
Can you
10
point me to the designation that the plaintiff made of this
11
witness's expertise?
12
MR. WOODS:
It's in his report, Your Honor.
13
THE COURT:
The designation was made during
14
Do you know what page it is in the report?
16
MR. WOODS:
His report on Page 12, top half of
And as we will learn, he was personally involved in

the next study of this issue.
20
21
04:32
Page 12.
18
19
04:32
discovery.
15
17
04:31
THE COURT:
All right.
But my question is slightly
04:33
different.
22
When you designated him, what topics did you
23
designate him as an expert on or to give testimony on?
24
MR. WOODS:
I'd have to find that.
25
THE COURT:
All right.
Why don't you find that.
04:33
215
1
2
MR. WOODS:
While we're looking for that, I'll move
on to something else.
THE COURT:
All right.
BY MR. WOODS:
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on the morale and readiness of
individual members of our Armed Forces?
Yes, I have.
And can you please explain what you have done to research,
10
Professor Frank, have you also studied the impact of
study or analyze that question, please.
11
12
MR. FREEBORNE:
15
16
04:33
Again, Your Honor, objection.
Now
we're well beyond the designation as a historian.
13
14
04:33
THE COURT:
How is it beyond the designation of a
historian?
MR. FREEBORNE:
Asked him now to testify about the
experience; that's not what a historian does.
17
THE COURT:
18
MR. FREEBORNE:
04:34
Again --
Well, how so?

Your Honor, now we're talking about
19
present day.
He's getting into the nitty-gritty.
20
policy -- a historian testifies about the background, et
21
cetera, which we've heard and we've made objection to, but we
22
have the additional objection of this type of testimony.
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. FREEBORNE:
25
THE COURT:
The
04:34
That it's not long enough ago?

Your Honor, again --
I'm not being facetious.
04:34
216
What's your objection?
MR. FREEBORN:
Well, it's not what a historian does.
Looking at the present, I mean, that's not what a historian
does.
THE COURT:
BY MR. WOODS:
research, analyze or study the question of impact of "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" since its enactment on the morale and
The question was:
Can you explain what you have done to
10
readiness of individual members of the Armed Forces?
11
12
first and only studies to assess the experience of gay,
13
lesbian, bisexual service members.
14
reports about that in the press, and I have interviewed dozens
15
of people about that.
16
17
Ask, Don't Tell" has had since it was enacted on the morale and
18
readiness of members of our Armed Forces?
19
Yes.
20
Can you explain your opinion, please.
21
And, I should add, declarations in court cases that I have
22
read.
23
Yes.
04:34
04:34
The study that I authored in 2004 was one of the
I have read literature and
04:35
And have you reached any opinions about the impact "Don't
Yes.
04:35
The opinion is that the policy harms morale of
24
gay and lesbian service members by forcing them to be
25
dishonest, which in some cases makes them dissociate themselves
04:35
217
with members of the group, which cuts to the heart of cohesion
and their morale when they feel alienated and when they are
perceived as aloof by other members of their group for reasons
that can't be explained because of the policy.
So that's one of the major aspects of undercutting
morale.
are distanced from their peers, as well, often, again, for
reasons that can't be explained to them.
Not just for gay people, but straight people who then
9
10
THE COURT:
When you say "the group," you're
referring to --
04:36
11
THE WITNESS:
12
THE COURT:
13
THE WITNESS:
A unit, Your Honor.
A military unit?
That's right.
14
BY MR. WOODS:
15
16
make the statements about their homosexuality?
17
Could you repeat the question?
18
Sure.
19
20
04:36
Has the impact of the policy been to punish people who
04:36
Has the impact of the policy been to punish people

who make voluntary statements about their orientation?
21
MR. FREEBORNE:
22
THE COURT:
23
BY MR. WOODS:
24
25
heterosexual people.
04:37
Objection; leading.
Sustained.
Well, you were describing the impact on straight or

Can you explain the impact "Don't Ask,
04:37
218
Don't Tell" has had on straight people's ability to work
cohesively with others in their unit?
On straight people?
Yes.
Well, as I was saying, the product of "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell" is often to force gay people to remove themselves from
unit members, which means that straight people are often
alienated from the gay people.
04:37
Further, there are court declarations from straight
10
members of units in which service members have been discharged
11
stating that it was very upsetting to them to lose that valued
12
member of their unit, and that they believed that that had
13
undercut the cohesion of the unit.
14
15
Don't Tell" in 1993, are you aware, from your studies, of any
16
high-level military officials who have made statements about
17
whether "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has or has not achieved its
18
stated goals?
19
Yes.
20
Can you mention some of those for the Court, please.
21
Admiral Mike Mullen, the current chairman of the Joint
22
Chiefs of Staff, has said that the current policy forces
23
service members who want to serve their country patriotically
24
to lie about who they are, and that that ends up undercutting
25
both personal and institutional integrity in an organization
04:37
Now, Professor Frank, since the enactment of "Don't Ask,
04:38
04:38
04:38
219
that values honesty and integrity.
That's one example.
Okay.
Did you speak to an Admiral John Houston?
John Hutson.
Hutson, excuse me.
Yes, I did.
What discussion did you have with him about whether "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" has or has not achieved its stated goals --
well, I'm sorry, let me withdraw that.
10
04:39
Who is Admiral John Hutson?
11
12
was an assistant to the JAG at the time of "Don't Ask, Don't
13
Tell's" formulation who participated in advising the Navy on
14
that policy.
15
04:39
He's the former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, who
Okay.
16
04:39
And have you spoken to him about the effectiveness of
17
18
Yes.
19
What was the substance of the conversation?
20
He said the policy was a failure, that it had turned
21
military discipline into a joke and become the butt of jokes
22
among younger people who didn't care about sexual orientation;
23
that it was a blemish on the integrity of the military; that it
24
was an odious policy; and that it was based on prejudice and
25
fears.
04:39
04:40
220
Can you recall any other similar comments for the Court by
high-level military officials?
a report in Joint Force Quarterly saying that the military --
sorry, saying that the policy had been a failure and that it
was very costly.
That active-duty Air Force officer's name was?
Om Prakash.
Where did he publish this piece?
10
Joint Force Quarterly, which is the journal of the office
11
of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
12
Do you happen to recall the title of his piece?
13
I believe it was something like "The Ethicacy of 'Don't
14
Ask, Don't Tell.'"
15
16
article?
17
18
Defense's office, I believe.
19
Yes.
There was an active-duty Air Force colonel who wrote
04:40
That's P-r-a-k-a-s-h.
Did he receive any response from the military for that
04:41
04:41
He did win an award for the article by the Secretary of
All right.
20
And can you recall any other military officials who
21
have made statements about whether "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has
22
or has not achieved its stated goals?
23
Yes.
24
Go ahead, please.
25
Well, General Alexander said that this policy was supposed
04:41
Yes.
04:41
221
to be temporary, and that "15 years was too damn long," as he
put it.
The secretary of defense said that assertions about
the policy -- that's Secretary Gates -- were not based on fact.
And the president, who is the Commander in Chief, has
said that the policy is undermining national security.
this?
What about Colin Powell?
04:42
Has he made any statements about
Colin Powell has said that he agrees with the President's
10
plan to revisit the policy; that times have changed; that
11
congress should have a thorough review of the policy; and that
12
if the military leaders are comfortable with getting rid of the
13
policy, Colin Powell is also.
14
15
about the policy?
16
Yes.
17
Inform the Court about that, please.
18
There is a list of over 100 retired flag officers who have
19
looked at the research around this issue and signed a document
20
saying that the research doesn't give any basis for the policy,
21
and that they believe it should be overturned.
22
When was this document prepared?
23
I believe it's an ongoing set of signatures that was began
24
with 28 generals around 2008, generals and admirals.
25
04:42
Are you aware of any statements signed by retired officers

04:43
Have you, Professor, reviewed the findings included in the
04:43
04:43
222
statute, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Yes, I have.
And do you have an opinion regarding the legitimacy of the
finding that reads as follows:
homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law
that continues to be necessary in unique circumstances of
military life"?
Yes.
What is your opinion about that?
10
There is no basis for the assertion that that prohibition
11
is necessary.
12
13
MR. FREEBORNE:
"The prohibition against
Your Honor, move to strike.
04:44
04:44
Legal
conclusion.
14
THE COURT:
Motion to strike is denied.
15
BY MR. WOODS:
16
17
Professor?
18
19
issue that have found that and -- that conclusion was
20
corroborated in the Joint Force Quarterly article, as well as
21
by comments by Admiral Mullen and, to a lesser extent,
22
Secretary Gates saying there was no factual basis for the
23
policy echoing the Crittenden Report, the PERSEREC Report,
24
other military memos and the RAND report.
25
04:44
What is the basis of your opinion on that subject,
A thorough review of over 50 years of research on the
Do you have an opinion regarding the legitimacy of finding
04:45
04:45
223
No. 14 of the statute, which provides, quote, "the Armed Forces
must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose
presence in the Armed Forces would create an unacceptable risk
to the Armed Forces' high standards of morale, good order and
discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military
capability"?
Well, yes.
What is your opinion about that finding?
Well, that finding defines as a given this group of people
10
as unacceptable, so I agree with it.
Unacceptable people are
11
unacceptable.
12
13
Finding 15 in the statute, which provides the presence in the
14
Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent
15
to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk
16
to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline and
17
unit cohesion that are the essence of unit capability?
18
Yes, I do.
19
What is your opinion about the legitimacy of that finding?
20
I don't believe it to be legitimate.
21
And why?
22
Again, 50 years of studies have found no factual basis for
23
that.
24
shielding service members from the knowledge that someone is
25
gay or lesbian would preserve their privacy, and there's
04:45
04:45
And do you have an opinion as to the legitimacy of
04:46
04:46
What is the basis of your opinion?
There is no logic to or evidence for the assertion that
04:46
224
evidence that it doesn't.
And this is corroborated in a report in particular
from 2008 by a panel of retired flag officers, which includes
General Alexander, which found that there was no basis to the
assertion of unacceptable risk.
with, couldn't determine where that assertion had ever come
from.
this, have you seen whether rationales for excluding
And that panel, which I worked
Now, over the years, Professor, that you have studied
10
homosexuals have evolved or changed over the course of history?
11
Yes, I have.
12
And can you explain to the Court the different rationales
13
that existed and how they have changed over time.
14
15
assertions were made, that those who engaged in homosexual
16
conduct were criminal or unfit physically or mentally or were
17
sinners and they were unfit morally.
18
Yes.
04:47
Briefly, in the early part of the Twentieth Century,

04:47
When those were disproven or abandoned, the rationale
19
shifted to the security risk, which is something that both the
20
Crittenden Report and PERSEREC studies found to be not rooted
21
in any facts or statistics.
22
04:47
04:48
And when those were disproven, the rationale shifted
23
to unit cohesion and privacy, which are now shown to not be
24
rooted in fact, and the rationale seems to be shifting toward
25
military families not wanting this equal treatment to be in the
04:48
225
military.
enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1993, were polls of
public opinion considered?
Yes, they were.
And what did the polls at the time show?
In 1992, when the debate began, the country was roughly
split where 40-some-percent favored equal treatment, 40-
some-percent opposed it, and a small percentage didn't care or
10
Professor Frank, in the discussions leading to the
04:49
didn't know.
04:49
11
Across the course of a few months of debate, that
12
tilted so that there was a slight majority of Americans who
13
opposed equal treatment in the military.
14
15
16
Did you say how were they used?
17
Yes.
18
They were cited by some to indicate that the country was
19
not ready for this change.
20
argued, as did others, that the military should not get out in
21
front of where society was on an issue like this, and that it
22
should wait until gays were looked upon more favorably by
23
society.
24
25
enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1993?
How were these poll results used in the debate that led to
04:49
Charlie Moskos, for instance,

04:50
And had there been polls of public opinion since the
04:50
226
Yes.
Can you just first identify what polls you are aware of.
There have been numerous polls, Gallup polls, for
instance, New York Times' polls, CNN polls, the Annenberg and
Zogby Poll, although I'm sorry, those focused on military
opinion, not general opinion.
Let's stay with public opinion first.
Washington Post polls, there have been many.
et cetera.
Fox News,
10
And since the enactment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," have
11
the poll results been the same or different than the poll
12
results at the time "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was enacted?
13
They have been different.
14
How have they differed?
15
Support for gays serving openly in the military and
16
support for homosexuality generally has risen significantly.
17
In some cases it has doubled, although those polls are the
18
outlying ones, showing as much as 81 percent of the nation
19
supports openly gay service.
20
60-some-percent to 80-some-percent who favor letting gays serve
21
openly.
22
And have there also been polls of the military?
23
Yes, there have.
24
Were polls of the military used in the debate that led to
25
04:50
04:51
04:51
The range, however, is from about
04:51
04:51
227
Yes.
How were they used at that time?
Charlie Moskos and Laura Miller, who was an assistant of
his in research he was conducting while at Northwestern
University, cited such polls and wrote about such polls.
the RAND Corporation cited such polls, as did political and
social commentators.
that allowing gays to serve openly would be a disruption in the
military because so many in the military opposed letting them
And
04:52
And they were used at times to suggest
10
serve openly.
11
12
13
Yes, there have.
14
Are those the Annenberg polls and the Zogby polls you
15
referenced before?
16
17
was conducted some time in the last six months by a veteran's
18
group.
19
20
from the polls that were done before the enactment of "Don't
21
Ask, Don't Tell"?
22
They have been different.
23
Can you explain, please, for the Court how they have
24
differed.
25
04:52
And have there been polls of militaries' views since the
04:52
As well as the Military Times poll and a fourth poll that
Have the results of these polls been the same or different
And there are other polls, smaller polls and other
04:52
04:53
228
research reports, that show declining opposition to open
service by gays.
In the Military Times poll, which is not a random
sampling poll but is often cited in the media, opposition to
lifting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has come down.
now at 50 or 51 percent.
and I believe higher before that.
8
9
I think it's
It was at 58 percent for a few years
And the Zogby poll shows that the biggest category of

respondents are neutral and also shows that 72 percent of
10
service members are personally comfortable around gays and
11
lesbians.
12
13
MR. WOODS:
Your Honor, gone back to check on the
question of whether the professor's designation as an expert
15
included anything about costs.
04:54
It appears that as the case progressed, we never
17
served a separate document that was a designation of the
18
experts on the subjects in which they would testify.
19
we simply served the expert reports on counsel for the
20
government.
21
22
04:53
Thank you.
14
16
04:53
THE COURT:
Rather,
04:54
So in other words, the expert report
serves as the designation?
23
MR. WOODS:
Correct.
24
THE COURT:
Okay.
25
Why don't we take a breaking point now since we're
04:54
229
not going to finish with this witness today, since I take it
you have cross.
MR. FREEBORNE:
THE COURT:
I do, Your Honor.
That will give me a chance to read the --
it's a fairly short item that you have here on costs.
we can take that issue up tomorrow.
In fact,
MR. WOODS:
Very well.
THE COURT:
You may step down.
Then let's take up a few housekeeping matters.
10
11
Do you have an estimate as to how long your
MR. FREEBORNE:
13
relatively short.
14
guess.
Your Honor, I think it will be
But, you know, it's all relative, I would
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. FREEBORNE:
17
THE COURT:
19
Roughly a couple of hours, do you think?
So then who would be your next -- what's
your lineup for tomorrow?

MR. WOODS:
The lineup for tomorrow, Your Honor, is
Stephen Vossler, who is one of the former service members; and
21
Professor Elizabeth Hillman.
23
04:55
Probably an hour or so.
20
22
04:55
cross-examination will be?
12
18
04:54
04:55
And naturally, I have some more discovery to

introduce that may take some time.
24
THE COURT:
Is that all?
25
MR. WOODS:
I think between Professor Frank and those
04:56
230
1
2
two witnesses, that should fill the day.

THE COURT:
Let me suggest this:
Why don't we get
started at 8:30 tomorrow, but without a witness, to go through
the exhibits.
MR. WOODS:
That's fine.
THE COURT:
All right.
I'm assuming that when you say "discovery exhibits,"
is it requests for admissions or interrogatory answers, the
same as it was today?
10
MR. WOODS:
Yes.
11
THE COURT:
So we can do that without the necessity
12
04:56
of having the witness on the stand?
13
MR. WOODS:
Correct.
14
THE COURT:
All right.
15
So let's take care of that tomorrow morning at 8:30.
16
MR. WOODS:
That's fine.
17
THE COURT:
All right.
18
But the witness doesn't need to be here for that.
19
MR. WOODS:
He'll be standing by.
20
THE COURT:
So we can do that.
21
I have one question.
22
The first finding in the statute, Section 654, that
23
you asked Dr. Frank about, you didn't say what number it was.
24
The last two were 14 and 15.
25
04:56
Do you know what number that one was?
04:56
04:56
04:57
231
MR. MILLER:
It's No. 13, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Anything else?
MR. WOODS:
No, Your Honor.
MR. FREEBORNE:
THE COURT:
(Proceedings concluded.)
Thank you very much.
No.
Thank you.
We're adjourned for the day.
7
8
9
10
11
12
CERTIFICATE
13
14
15
16
I hereby certify that pursuant to section 753, title 28, United

States Code, the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of
the stenographically recorded proceedings held in the aboveentitled matter and that the transcript page format is in
conformance with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of
the United States.
17
18
19
_/S/ Theresa A. Lanza

CSR, RPR
Federal Official Court Reporter
_________________
Date
20
21
22
23
24
25
04:57
'
'90s [1] - 213:16
'this [1] - 172:25
1
1 [1] - 141:23
100 [1] - 221:18
117 [2] - 107:3, 107:9
12 [4] - 123:21,
123:22, 214:16,
214:17
13 [1] - 108:1
13,000 [1] - 204:4
13,400 [2] - 204:11,
204:12
13,500 [3] - 195:8,
204:2, 204:12
14 [2] - 223:1, 230:24
14,000 [1] - 204:4
14,500 [1] - 203:25
15 [6] - 137:6,
166:15, 169:12,
221:1, 223:13, 230:24
15-page [1] - 168:4
154 [1] - 107:13
161 [4] - 199:24,
203:2, 203:12, 204:12
18 [1] - 126:1
180 [3] - 107:13,
153:18, 154:17
1900 [1] - 106:7
1917 [1] - 147:19
1919 [1] - 148:4
1949 [1] - 150:7
1950 [1] - 150:7
1950s [1] - 172:8
1980s [3] - 172:22,
176:14, 213:16
1981 [1] - 151:20
1991 [4] - 150:19,
151:6, 152:8, 152:13
1992 [2] - 172:21,
225:7
1993 [16] - 117:16,
152:3, 153:19, 156:3,
159:6, 166:22,
169:15, 169:25,
172:21, 173:8, 188:7,
195:3, 195:12,
218:15, 225:3, 225:25
1995 [2] - 118:3,
118:22
1999 [1] - 120:7
1:33 [1] - 108:1
1st [1] - 123:17
2
2 [4] - 125:15,
130:14, 138:4, 178:13
20 [1] - 106:14
20-page [1] - 140:7
200 [2] - 137:6,
158:19
2000 [7] - 122:9,
122:11, 122:16,
122:22, 178:5,
210:15, 210:22
20001 [1] - 106:15
2002 [4] - 118:10,
122:16, 122:22, 123:2
2003 [3] - 169:24,
207:14, 207:18
2004 [4] - 126:8,
196:2, 197:24, 216:11
2005 [2] - 214:3,
214:5
2006 [3] - 197:22,
207:14, 207:18
2007 [1] - 205:21
2008 [3] - 199:11,
221:24, 224:3
2009 [5] - 130:15,
131:10, 132:3,
134:11, 134:22
2010 [6] - 108:1,
126:1, 132:7, 132:8,
205:22, 210:15
202-353-0543 [1] 106:16
205 [2] - 168:9,
168:22
20th [4] - 119:13,
146:19, 146:21, 147:1
213-620-7772 [1] 106:8
22203 [1] - 106:20
24 [5] - 125:21,
125:22, 130:13,
138:4, 178:12
249 [1] - 162:21
25 [5] - 125:21,
125:22, 126:7, 138:4,
178:12
28 [1] - 221:24
29 [1] - 153:19
3
30 [2] - 126:25, 132:1
300 [2] - 131:24,
158:19
30th [1] - 173:9
350-something [1] -
131:25
4
4 [1] - 141:24
4,000 [2] - 205:15,
207:17
40 [1] - 225:8
40's [1] - 168:1
40,000 [1] - 205:14
40-some-percent [1]
- 225:8
400 [1] - 106:20
5
50 [3] - 222:18,
223:22, 228:6
500 [1] - 169:12
500-page [1] 157:15
500-plus [1] - 157:17
51 [1] - 228:6
58 [1] - 228:6
6
6-month [1] - 156:14
60 [1] - 133:11
60-some-percent [1]
- 226:20
6108 [1] - 106:15
633 [1] - 106:6
654 [1] - 230:22
7
70 [1] - 157:8
702 [1] - 144:11
72 [1] - 228:9
8
80 [3] - 121:8,
121:11, 186:20
80-some-percent [1]
- 226:20
81 [1] - 226:18
89 [2] - 127:7, 129:8
8:30 [2] - 230:3,
230:15
9
9/11 [1] - 199:10
90 [2] - 121:8, 121:11
Case Name/number
90071-2007 [1] 106:7

901 [1] - 106:20
A
Aaron [1] - 106:6
abandoned [1] 224:18
ABC [2] - 133:4,
133:11
ability [3] - 163:12,
198:8, 218:1
able [3] - 158:22,
175:19, 190:16
abroad [1] - 131:14
absence [1] - 142:7
absolutely [1] 162:16
absorb [1] - 137:5
abuse [2] - 208:9,
208:13
abused [2] - 208:15,
208:21
academic [11] 124:20, 136:4, 136:6,
141:3, 141:5, 143:6,
143:8, 143:12,
143:20, 143:24,
143:25
academics [2] 178:17, 182:5
Academy [1] 133:21
accept [1] - 142:22
accepted [2] - 136:4,
143:25
accepts [1] - 116:2
according [7] 127:20, 127:21,
149:16, 159:6,
163:16, 163:18,
201:13
Accountability [3] 172:20, 203:10,
213:15
achieve [1] - 195:19
achieved [5] 195:14, 195:22,
218:17, 219:8, 220:22
acknowledged [3] 180:16, 196:17,
196:19
act [1] - 162:3
acted [2] - 162:4,
164:10
actions [10] - 135:18,
136:16, 137:5,
175:25, 176:3, 177:2,
date
189:9, 190:7, 191:14

active [2] - 220:3,
220:7
active-duty [2] 220:3, 220:7
activism [1] - 151:5
activities [3] - 135:7,
185:10, 190:7
acts [3] - 147:13,
147:15, 223:15
acute [1] - 204:21
add [2] - 159:6,
216:21
added [2] - 149:7,
210:14
addition [3] - 120:20,
132:21, 193:25
additional [2] 213:11, 215:22
address [6] - 121:12,
193:7, 199:13,
206:25, 209:2, 212:10
addressed [4] 109:18, 110:9,
154:19, 213:19
addressing [4] 111:25, 112:5,
178:15, 178:17
Administration [2] 151:1, 151:2
Admiral [4] - 218:21,
219:3, 219:10, 222:21
admirals [1] - 221:24
admissibility [2] 155:24, 166:1
admissible [5] 111:14, 112:17,
113:3, 155:3, 155:4
admission [9] 128:5, 128:19, 129:1,
129:19, 130:4, 130:7,
208:11, 208:12,
208:19
admissions [1] 230:8
admit [5] - 154:16,
155:8, 199:16, 208:15
admitted [4] - 128:9,
159:25, 207:18, 209:8
advance [3] 112:23, 187:21,
187:24
advances [1] 113:15
advice [1] - 183:15
advised [1] - 177:17
advising [4] - 125:9,
149:17, 199:15,
219:13
advisor [3] - 167:2,
167:11, 186:18
advocacy [1] 145:22
advocate [3] 140:18, 140:19, 144:6
Advocate [1] 219:11
affect [1] - 116:10
affected [4] - 125:1,
201:14, 201:17,
203:12
affiliated [2] 121:25, 122:7
Afghanistan [4] 126:9, 127:2, 205:24,
212:1
Africa [2] - 188:21,
210:14
African [3] - 188:6,
190:20, 191:19
afternoon [3] 161:2, 171:15, 186:9
ago [4] - 137:6,
207:2, 215:23
agree [5] - 130:9,
143:15, 166:12,
186:3, 223:10
agreement [1] 108:10
agrees [1] - 221:9
ahead [8] - 147:8,
147:11, 147:25,
155:25, 160:3,
197:13, 202:22,
220:24
aids [2] - 144:4,
153:13
air [1] - 158:11
Air [4] - 133:5, 163:5,
220:3, 220:7
Al [1] - 133:4
Alexander [6] 158:11, 159:14,
160:5, 163:5, 220:25,
224:4
Alexander's [1] 163:5
alienated [2] - 217:2,
218:8
align [1] - 188:11
alive [2] - 179:22,
180:14
allegation [1] 134:14
allegations [3] 134:17, 192:16,
192:18
allege [1] - 167:25
alleged [4] - 109:3,
161:21, 192:11,
192:12
allow [10] - 126:23,
138:20, 139:6,
140:11, 140:14,
155:9, 156:15,
165:22, 211:6, 211:19
allowed [9] - 111:22,
175:14, 177:8,
192:17, 207:13,
208:18, 208:21,
212:12
allowing [7] 114:15, 156:17,
160:11, 183:20,
210:18, 212:7, 227:8
allows [4] - 136:14,
137:15, 138:17,
144:25
almost [3] - 112:19,
161:9, 212:22
alone [1] - 186:2
alongside [3] 182:6, 211:21, 211:24
aloof [1] - 217:3
alterations [1] 150:10
altered [1] - 110:17
amass [2] - 132:14,
157:14
amassed [1] 151:17
America [4] - 120:18,
131:8, 131:18, 133:3
American [6] 117:18, 118:17,
120:3, 190:20,
191:19, 205:10
Americans [3] 188:6, 188:21, 225:12
amount [2] - 155:22,
155:23
analogous [1] 157:11
analogy [1] - 188:12
analyses [1] - 138:10
analysis [14] 110:16, 137:8, 158:4,
169:15, 169:19,
173:10, 187:19,
190:14, 193:11,
194:5, 195:18,
204:19, 206:19,
207:12
analyst [1] - 201:8
analyze [4] - 132:4,
198:11, 215:10, 216:8
analyzed [2] 123:23, 195:2
analyzing [1] 123:19
AND [1] - 106:17

anecdotal [2] 111:6, 112:10
Angeles [2] - 106:7,
143:18
animosity [1] 116:10
animus [14] - 108:8,
110:9, 110:17,
112:14, 113:8,
141:22, 141:25,
160:24, 162:5, 162:8,
164:11, 188:10,
191:8, 194:22
Annenberg [6] 197:19, 197:23,
197:25, 198:1, 226:4,
227:14
anonymously [1] 124:17
answer [21] - 130:3,
166:9, 169:8, 175:19,
176:21, 179:10,
179:12, 179:19,
179:23, 180:1,
180:14, 183:23,
184:17, 188:14,
189:7, 190:1, 191:11,
194:11, 194:13,
200:8, 209:25
answered [2] 197:13, 200:9
answering [2] 175:20
answers [1] - 230:8
anti [1] - 191:13
anti-gay [1] - 191:13
anyway [3] - 196:24,
202:11, 212:21
apart [1] - 129:18
apologize [1] 209:23
APPEARANCES [1] 106:1
appeared [1] - 133:5
applied [2] - 144:19,
145:22
applies [1] - 114:5
apply [3] - 136:6,
136:19, 147:21
applying [1] - 135:22
appropriate [1] 108:15
approximate [3] 195:6, 203:25, 204:7
Arabic [2] - 202:6,
204:24
architects [2] 112:13, 164:7
area [6] - 140:11,
Case Name/number
140:12, 140:13,
140:14, 142:18, 213:3
argue [2] - 130:9,
143:14
argued [1] - 225:20
arguing [1] - 155:23
argument [14] 109:11, 114:1, 114:6,
114:7, 114:12,
114:21, 115:7,
115:17, 115:19,
116:2, 143:14,
165:24, 188:9
arguments [3] 165:6, 189:13, 189:15
arises [1] - 165:15
Arlington [1] 106:20
Armed [18] - 170:3,
171:7, 173:23,
174:19, 195:6, 205:3,
210:7, 211:7, 211:18,
211:21, 211:24,
215:7, 216:10,
216:18, 223:1, 223:3,
223:4, 223:14
Arms [1] - 156:16
ARMY [1] - 106:18
Army [2] - 167:3
array [1] - 135:19
article [13] - 143:11,
171:6, 178:8, 178:9,
178:15, 179:16,
179:19, 179:23,
180:11, 180:15,
220:16, 220:17,
222:20
Articles [1] - 148:3
articles [5] - 120:22,
140:22, 143:1,
143:16, 178:11
articulated [1] 110:4
aspect [1] - 111:25
aspects [5] - 125:5,
125:11, 137:23,
138:1, 217:5
Aspin [1] - 153:11
assault [2] - 134:17,
192:12
assaults [1] - 188:23
asserted [3] - 177:7,
183:20, 184:2
assertion [6] - 171:3,
171:5, 222:10,
223:23, 224:5, 224:6
assertions [2] 221:3, 224:15
assess [7] - 127:3,
148:18, 149:18,
date
158:8, 172:9, 205:11,

216:12
assessing [4] 149:1, 152:24,
174:17, 214:3
assessment [5] 131:19, 160:22,
190:14, 196:14,
210:17
assessments [1] 138:9
assigned [1] - 134:3
assist [2] - 144:13,
145:8
assistant [3] - 119:3,
219:12, 227:3
associated [1] 147:13
Association [1] 192:22
assumes [1] - 174:8
assuming [1] - 230:7
assumptions [2] 149:9, 168:17
attached [1] - 141:17
attacks [1] - 199:10
attend [1] - 117:21
attention [3] 125:15, 125:20,
152:23
attitudes [1] - 148:5
Attorney [1] - 106:19
attributed [1] 212:22
Australia [1] - 210:13
authenticates [2] 129:24, 129:25
authenticating [1] 127:8
authentication [3] 130:1, 155:16, 155:19
author [4] - 118:13,
126:15, 136:24,
210:25
authored [6] 125:23, 126:2,
127:10, 130:18,
196:2, 216:11
authorities [3] 111:5, 111:10, 145:3
authority [1] - 164:3
authorizing [1] 148:11
authors [2] - 132:13,
158:7
available [2] 123:23, 159:1
Avenue [1] - 106:14
average [2] - 119:19,
120:11
award [1] - 220:17

aware [15] - 181:16,
184:5, 195:16,
195:17, 195:21,
205:2, 205:7, 209:2,
212:25, 213:6,
213:10, 213:14,
218:15, 221:14, 226:2
B
backed [1] - 168:18
background [5] 116:3, 117:10,
154:14, 154:16,
215:20
backgrounds [2] 185:14, 185:15
Baldwin [1] - 133:15
ban [10] - 131:1,
150:16, 150:24,
151:20, 152:9,
152:15, 153:7,
153:10, 153:14, 159:7
Ban [1] - 131:7
banned [2] - 148:3,
148:20
banning [1] - 185:23
bans [2] - 212:17,
212:21
Barbara [1] - 122:5
barely [1] - 185:12
Barney [1] - 133:15
Barry [1] - 171:1
based [29] - 115:20,
116:9, 122:4, 132:16,
137:5, 138:6, 138:9,
138:14, 140:6,
144:17, 145:19,
149:9, 167:20,
168:19, 176:7,
183:23, 184:3, 184:6,
184:11, 184:14,
184:18, 184:22,
194:4, 194:7, 194:16,
194:21, 207:10,
219:24, 221:4
bases [1] - 196:9
basic [1] - 211:5
basis [23] - 111:16,
114:3, 140:4, 141:13,
145:17, 146:1,
149:15, 154:7,
161:20, 166:13,
172:9, 172:11,
175:15, 203:4, 203:8,
210:3, 221:20,
222:10, 222:16,
222:22, 223:21,
223:22, 224:4
basket [1] - 147:15
Bates [1] - 155:17
Bates-stamp [1] 155:17
BBC [2] - 133:3
bear [1] - 135:2
bearing [1] - 110:18
became [7] - 148:2,
149:17, 152:3,
152:12, 168:6,
182:24, 186:10
become [2] - 122:7,
219:21
becomes [1] 191:16
began [9] - 118:25,
149:23, 153:10,
160:18, 160:20,
182:18, 205:24,
221:23, 225:7
begin [10] - 117:11,
118:24, 120:5,
120:21, 127:3, 146:8,
148:6, 153:14,
185:22, 199:6
beginning [5] 118:22, 148:21,
152:13, 160:10, 172:8
begins [1] - 161:15
Behalf [2] - 106:3,
106:10
behavior [4] 146:23, 148:22,
149:20, 167:19
belief [1] - 184:24
beliefs [1] - 136:16
bench [1] - 110:23
benefit [3] - 141:6,
141:8, 144:8
best [4] - 111:8,
135:21, 136:1, 183:15
better [5] - 140:5,
140:11, 144:1, 169:3,
169:6
between [12] - 113:6,
114:2, 136:15, 147:1,
156:9, 170:1, 181:16,
182:16, 200:20,
207:14, 207:18,
229:25
beyond [9] - 112:10,
114:17, 139:12,
141:8, 156:10,
209:20, 211:8,
215:12, 215:13
bias [7] - 175:1,
175:9, 176:5, 176:11,
177:3, 188:4, 194:22
big [1] - 122:25
biggest [1] - 228:8

bill [2] - 173:4, 173:8
Bill [2] - 152:7, 152:9
binder [3] - 125:17,
125:18, 125:19
biology [1] - 137:19
bisexual [5] 126:20, 126:25,
196:4, 205:12, 216:13
bit [2] - 121:22,
202:23
black [2] - 192:12,
192:13
blemish [1] - 219:23
blocked [1] - 172:4
blog [2] - 138:12,
138:22
blogs [1] - 133:20
board [1] - 122:23
Bob [1] - 173:15
body [2] - 112:12,
162:4
Boldware [1] - 134:8
bolster [1] - 130:6
bonuses [1] - 199:14
book [20] - 131:4,
131:6, 131:9, 131:12,
131:13, 131:24,
132:3, 136:18,
136:23, 136:24,
141:4, 143:23,
151:17, 180:17,
180:20, 180:25,
190:9, 190:10,
190:12, 195:17
Boucai [1] - 209:7
BOUCAI [1] - 209:7
bowl [2] - 167:18,
192:8
Bradley [1] - 106:13
Branch [1] - 106:12
branches [1] - 162:2
break [3] - 142:2,
161:3, 166:20
breaking [1] - 228:25
bridge [1] - 191:15
Bridget [2] - 124:18,
124:24
brief [6] - 109:9,
109:15, 109:18,
109:19, 111:19,
166:16
briefed [5] - 109:14,
116:7, 116:11, 141:9,
165:8
briefly [4] - 139:5,
146:8, 183:18, 224:14
briefs [1] - 122:17
bring [1] - 135:2
Britain [3] - 210:13,
Case Name/number
211:15, 212:15
broader [1] - 160:1
broadly [2] - 113:3,
129:18
brought [1] - 152:23
Brown [6] - 117:22,
117:23, 118:5, 118:7,
119:3, 120:21
budget [1] - 160:12
bullet [1] - 129:21
buried [1] - 152:24
business [1] 114:17
butt [1] - 219:21
BY [58] - 106:5,
106:5, 106:6, 106:12,
106:13, 106:13,
106:14, 106:19,
117:4, 121:24,
130:12, 146:4,
146:16, 147:18,
156:1, 160:7, 166:19,
168:11, 169:1,
169:13, 170:11,
171:17, 172:1, 174:1,
174:11, 175:7, 176:2,
176:16, 176:24,
177:11, 179:9, 180:5,
181:22, 184:10,
184:19, 187:4,
188:16, 189:19,
190:3, 192:1, 194:14,
194:18, 195:1,
197:15, 203:1,
204:16, 206:15,
209:1, 210:2, 211:12,
213:9, 213:22, 214:1,
215:4, 216:6, 217:14,
217:23, 222:15
C
California [3] 106:7, 108:1, 122:5
Cammermeyer [1] 153:1
campaign [3] 152:8, 152:12, 156:3
campus [1] - 198:22
Canada [3] - 210:13,
211:17, 212:15
cannot [1] - 116:9
capability [2] 223:6, 223:17
capable [1] - 148:8
care [5] - 155:15,
180:9, 219:22, 225:9,
230:15
career [1] - 177:18
date
carnal [1] - 147:3

Carter [5] - 150:11,
150:13, 150:14,
150:23, 151:1
Case [1] - 107:3
case [30] - 110:8,
110:13, 113:6, 113:7,
113:10, 114:16,
114:17, 115:10,
116:11, 119:10,
125:16, 134:4, 134:7,
134:9, 134:12,
134:21, 134:24,
135:3, 135:14,
144:20, 145:23,
152:22, 164:4, 166:4,
172:10, 179:7,
191:17, 228:16
CASE [1] - 106:4
cases [19] - 109:25,
145:2, 152:18, 161:7,
162:18, 163:4, 165:8,
172:12, 185:11,
193:14, 198:16,
207:10, 207:21,
208:10, 212:18,
216:21, 216:25,
226:17
casting [1] - 186:23
categories [10] 124:7, 199:23,
200:10, 201:19,
202:9, 202:18,
204:13, 206:4, 206:5
category [5] 200:25, 201:8,
201:10, 201:13, 228:8
caveat [1] - 138:17
CBS [1] - 133:4
Census [1] - 205:9
Center [16] - 122:1,
122:3, 122:4, 122:8,
122:10, 122:23,
123:3, 123:7, 123:12,
126:8, 130:15, 132:8,
159:9, 198:1, 210:12,
210:21
center [2] - 172:23,
205:8
Center's [1] - 122:18
central [1] - 157:20
Century [1] - 224:14
century [5] - 119:13,
146:19, 146:21,
147:1, 149:23
certain [11] - 140:11,
140:12, 140:14,
147:13, 165:25,
168:6, 173:11,
196:12, 198:15,
200:25, 202:18
certainly [4] - 108:5,
142:14, 158:22, 189:7
cetera [4] - 175:18,
197:11, 215:21, 226:9
chair [1] - 174:19
chaired [1] - 156:24
chairman [7] 156:16, 173:23,
175:25, 182:23,
183:13, 218:21,
220:11
chairperson [1] 170:5
challenge [1] - 116:9
challenges [1] 152:15
challenging [1] 153:2
chance [1] - 229:4
change [3] - 210:17,
212:23, 225:19
changed [3] 221:10, 224:10,
224:13
changing [2] - 148:6,
148:10
chaplains [1] 192:23
chapter [1] - 190:9
chapters [1] - 190:10
character [5] 128:12, 128:13,
128:17, 128:18
characteristics [1] 207:9
characterize [2] 111:8, 111:10
characterized [3] 111:5, 111:18
characterizing [1] 112:23
charge [1] - 170:18
charged [2] - 157:25,
188:12
Charles [6] - 125:6,
125:7, 125:8, 177:12,
177:16, 177:22
Charlie [8] - 124:15,
159:7, 164:8, 173:16,
182:6, 182:16,
225:19, 227:3
check [2] - 209:11,
228:13
checking [1] 148:18
chemistry [1] 137:19
Chief [1] - 221:5
chief [1] - 153:1
Chiefs [4] - 182:23,

183:14, 218:22,
220:11
Chronicle [1] 151:14
chunk [1] - 112:2
circles [1] - 174:24
Circuit [2] - 115:22,
162:6
circumstance [1] 141:7
circumstances [1] 222:6
cite [1] - 109:25
cited [9] - 108:12,
111:5, 164:3, 167:22,
172:22, 225:18,
227:5, 227:6, 228:4
City [1] - 119:12
Civil [1] - 106:12
civil [2] - 121:1,
124:22
claim [1] - 167:16
claimed [1] - 167:23
clarification [2] 139:10, 139:13
clarify [6] - 121:16,
134:1, 150:21, 180:3,
200:23, 206:7
class [2] - 148:17,
148:21
classification [1] 200:10
classified [2] 203:13, 203:18
clause [1] - 108:11
clear [4] - 115:18,
116:7, 159:24, 179:4
Cleburne [1] 116:11
CLERK [2] - 116:17,
116:22
Clinton [8] - 152:7,
152:9, 153:5, 153:6,
153:20, 154:7, 156:2,
173:9
closely [1] - 173:2
CNN [2] - 133:6,
226:4
co [3] - 130:18,
132:13, 162:2
co-authored [1] 130:18
co-authors [1] 132:13
co-equal [1] - 162:2
Code [1] - 150:7
cohesion [20] 139:12, 142:9,
157:13, 157:22,
178:25, 179:13,
179:20, 180:7, 180:9,
180:25, 183:22,
193:16, 196:3,
210:19, 212:8, 217:1,
218:13, 223:5,
223:17, 224:23
cohesive [1] 206:11
cohesively [1] 218:2
coined [2] - 125:12,
177:25
Cold [1] - 150:2
Colin [5] - 173:17,
182:21, 221:7, 221:9,
221:13
colleague [1] - 181:3
colleagues [1] 182:11
collection [1] 169:10
college [1] - 133:23
College [1] - 125:4
Colonel [4] - 166:24,
167:12, 171:1, 186:16
colonel [2] - 167:3,
220:3
combat [1] - 206:25
combination [1] 165:3
comfortable [2] 221:12, 228:10
coming [3] - 159:3,
172:5, 196:13
Commander [1] 221:5
commenced [1] 151:20
commentators [1] 227:7
comments [2] 220:1, 222:21
commission [3] 156:18, 156:19,
169:14
commissioned [1] 166:21
committee [3] 170:2, 170:5, 174:2
Committee [4] 156:16, 170:3,
173:24, 174:20
communications [4]
- 122:12, 122:15,
178:19, 178:21
Community [1] 205:10
community [1] 136:4
Case Name/number
comparable [2] 211:13, 211:15

compare [7] 139:22, 139:24,
139:25, 168:21,
190:16, 198:13, 206:4
compared [3] 187:5, 189:22, 209:18
comparison [4] 187:10, 192:14,
199:19, 206:7
comparisons [1] 190:12
compelling [1] 169:10
competent [1] 201:24
complete [6] 117:13, 131:2, 149:5,
149:13, 163:13,
201:24
completed [2] 158:13, 210:15
completion [1] 150:20
component [1] 118:18
comprehension [1] 142:20
concept [1] - 185:5
concern [2] - 109:12,
192:4
concerns [8] 109:16, 188:2,
188:18, 188:21,
189:2, 189:6, 190:23,
190:25
conclude [2] 160:20, 190:19
concluded [5] 163:8, 169:4, 205:13,
209:8, 210:19
conclusion [6] 112:16, 212:14,
213:23, 214:5,
222:13, 222:19
conclusions [9] 136:14, 137:16,
138:19, 157:16,
158:23, 167:24,
168:7, 206:18, 212:7
Conduct [1] - 151:17
conduct [15] 147:16, 148:7,
148:17, 148:19,
148:25, 149:2,
149:10, 150:17,
156:17, 157:1, 176:4,
198:14, 209:17,
222:5, 224:16
date
conducted [12] 122:23, 123:10,

124:1, 132:18, 133:1,
157:8, 162:10, 175:9,
176:20, 186:19,
197:25, 227:17
conducting [1] 227:4
conference [1] 204:10
conflict [1] - 196:7
confused [1] - 200:7
Congress [6] 109:4, 110:7, 112:12,
133:12, 133:14, 162:4
congress [10] 170:12, 170:17,
171:12, 171:21,
173:5, 173:8, 183:2,
183:15, 192:22,
221:11
congressional [14] 108:9, 156:17,
161:10, 169:23,
170:7, 171:11,
171:18, 171:21,
182:3, 182:13,
182:15, 184:11,
186:24, 196:18
connection [2] 166:5, 191:18
connections [1] 136:15
cons [1] - 207:20
consequences [2] 188:19
conservative [2] 167:5, 167:9
conservatives [2] 156:7, 186:10
consider [5] - 137:8,
155:22, 163:22,
166:1, 181:11
consideration [1] 138:19
considered [8] 111:1, 141:19,
148:22, 157:19,
160:9, 164:1, 206:11,
225:4
considering [1] 114:13
consist [1] - 168:16
consisted [1] 168:17
consistent [1] 185:20
constant [1] - 165:13
constantly [1] 164:21
constitute [2] 185:1, 188:24

constitutional [5] 113:15, 115:6,
161:19, 161:20,
162:19
constrain [2] - 173:2,
185:10
constricted [1] 186:2
consult [1] - 158:25
consulted [3] 133:7, 159:4, 183:2
consulting [1] 135:19
consuming [1] 110:24
Cont'd)....................
.. [1] - 107:3
contact [2] - 134:14,
134:19
contemporary [3] 121:3, 121:15, 132:16
content [1] - 127:11
context [12] - 109:2,
114:7, 115:4, 115:7,
131:17, 135:7,
135:21, 137:13,
147:23, 161:15,
190:14, 192:20
continue [6] - 118:4,
120:8, 146:2, 147:10,
160:13, 166:17
continued [5] 121:4, 123:9, 132:4,
150:25, 196:24
continues [1] - 222:6
continuing [1] 134:25
contract [1] - 209:10
contrast [2] - 139:22,
139:25
conversation [3] 179:17, 179:24,
219:19
conversations [1] 159:20
conveying [1] 136:2
convicted [2] 207:12, 207:17
conviction [2] 208:2, 208:17
convictions [1] 208:8
convicts [1] - 199:2
cooperate [1] - 159:9
copulation [1] 147:3
Corporation [2] -
157:1, 227:6
correct [6] - 112:9,
115:15, 161:12,
163:5, 228:23, 230:13
correctly [4] 128:12, 143:21,
161:8, 199:21
correspondence [1]
- 180:23
corroborated [2] 222:20, 224:2
costly [1] - 220:6
costs [17] - 131:21,
139:11, 139:16,
139:20, 139:22,
140:1, 140:2, 141:11,
142:15, 142:17,
196:2, 213:1, 213:19,
214:4, 228:15, 229:5
couched [2] 187:14, 191:13
Council [2] - 167:7,
167:8
counsel [3] - 139:7,
183:3, 228:19
counseled [1] 157:20
counterterrorism [2]
- 200:2, 201:9
countries [8] 157:11, 210:8,
210:13, 211:6,
211:19, 211:22,
211:25, 212:11
countries' [1] 210:16
country [4] - 148:1,
218:23, 225:7, 225:18
couple [6] - 129:10,
152:20, 200:9,
200:13, 205:20,
229:15
courageous [1] 150:1
course [10] - 110:24,
120:3, 120:13,
120:14, 134:3, 145:6,
154:9, 177:2, 224:10,
225:11
courses [5] - 119:19,
119:22, 119:25,
120:11, 120:17
COURT [159] - 108:5,
108:16, 108:18,
108:23, 109:8,
109:14, 109:17,
110:11, 110:13,
110:20, 112:6,
112:15, 113:13,
113:24, 114:19,
114:22, 115:14,
115:16, 115:24,
117:1, 121:16,
121:23, 127:20,
127:23, 128:15,
128:22, 129:4, 129:7,
129:13, 129:17,
129:23, 130:3, 130:8,
139:6, 139:18,
139:24, 140:8,
140:22, 141:8,
141:12, 141:17,
141:25, 142:17,
142:24, 143:5,
143:11, 144:11,
145:13, 146:14,
147:8, 147:11,
153:24, 154:1,
154:12, 154:25,
155:19, 159:22,
160:2, 161:1, 161:13,
162:9, 162:17,
163:20, 164:13,
164:19, 165:17,
166:17, 168:10,
168:24, 169:7,
170:10, 171:16,
171:25, 173:21,
174:8, 174:10, 175:6,
175:12, 176:13,
176:19, 176:23,
177:5, 179:8, 180:2,
181:10, 181:21,
184:9, 184:16, 187:3,
187:10, 187:17,
187:23, 188:8,
188:13, 189:18,
189:25, 191:6,
191:10, 191:22,
191:24, 194:11,
194:16, 194:25,
197:12, 200:6,
200:13, 200:18,
200:23, 201:4,
201:13, 202:2,
202:21, 203:11,
203:18, 203:21,
204:6, 204:9, 204:15,
206:13, 207:19,
207:22, 208:1, 208:7,
208:11, 208:16,
208:24, 209:22,
211:10, 213:5,
213:17, 213:21,
213:25, 214:9,
214:13, 214:20,
214:25, 215:3,
215:13, 215:17,
215:23, 215:25,
216:5, 217:9, 217:12,
217:22, 222:14,
Case Name/number
228:21, 228:24,
229:4, 229:8, 229:15,
229:17, 229:24,
230:2, 230:6, 230:11,
230:14, 230:17,
230:20
court [8] - 116:18,
152:14, 161:15,
165:22, 181:7,
181:14, 216:21, 218:9
Court [53] - 111:1,
113:5, 113:11,
113:19, 114:10,
115:22, 116:2, 117:5,
119:25, 120:16,
121:21, 122:3,
132:25, 133:10,
134:12, 135:1,
141:19, 142:22,
144:4, 145:8, 146:6,
146:9, 152:20,
154:19, 155:22,
157:5, 158:3, 161:19,
162:6, 166:1, 172:16,
175:3, 176:7, 180:6,
180:22, 183:18,
184:13, 186:12,
195:5, 197:4, 199:7,
204:17, 204:23,
205:6, 207:4, 209:21,
210:10, 214:6,
218:20, 220:1,
221:17, 224:12,
227:23
Court's [1] - 187:19
cover [1] - 208:1
covered [2] - 116:14,
190:9
covers [1] - 109:19
create [2] - 223:3,
223:15
created [2] - 150:8,
168:4
credited [1] - 125:10
crime [1] - 192:9
criminal [6] - 207:10,
208:2, 208:8, 208:10,
208:17, 224:16
criminally [1] 208:22
criminals [3] 149:22, 188:23,
207:17
critical [3] - 113:4,
119:16, 137:4
critically [1] - 135:25
Crittenden [2] 222:23, 224:20
cross [7] - 143:13,
145:25, 155:4, 155:6,
date
205:9, 229:2, 229:11

CROSS [1] - 107:7
cross-examination
[4] - 143:13, 145:25,
155:4, 229:11
cross-tabulated [1] 205:9
culmination [1] 131:13
cultural [3] - 131:17,
174:17, 183:16
culture [3] - 121:3,
121:15, 211:16
current [6] - 108:24,
138:3, 154:11,
192:24, 218:21,
218:22
cuts [1] - 217:1
D
Daily [1] - 133:5
damn [1] - 221:1
Dan [1] - 106:5
dangerous [1] 149:12
data [15] - 135:19,
135:24, 144:17,
145:19, 151:22,
157:14, 167:24,
195:11, 197:10,
198:13, 203:5,
203:10, 204:3, 205:9,
210:5
date [5] - 125:23,
126:3, 205:18,
213:17, 213:20
dated [2] - 126:1,
153:19
dates [1] - 147:22
DC [1] - 106:15
deal [2] - 135:9,
158:6
debate [12] - 108:10,
126:21, 170:8,
170:12, 174:17,
178:18, 186:10,
187:15, 225:7,
225:11, 225:14,
226:24
decades [1] - 150:9
deceased [1] 177:22
December [1] 134:22
decide [2] - 115:2,
149:8
decided [4] - 110:13,
141:9, 164:22, 182:18
deciding [1] - 154:7

decision [3] 110:10, 161:14,
163:22
decisions [1] 174:21
declarations [2] 216:21, 218:9
declining [1] - 228:1
Defendants [1] 106:10
defended [1] - 125:1
defense [6] - 113:1,
155:14, 174:23,
195:11, 221:3
Defense [7] - 153:12,
155:18, 203:5, 203:9,
203:15, 204:3, 210:5
Defense's [1] 220:18
define [1] - 137:12
defines [1] - 223:9
definitely [1] - 204:4
definitive [1] 131:15
degree [10] - 117:17,
117:18, 117:23,
117:25, 118:1, 118:2,
118:9, 118:23, 119:1,
120:21
delayed [1] - 196:15
democracy [1] 114:16
demographically [1]
- 205:11
demonstrate [1] 223:14
demonstrated [1] 165:2
denied [2] - 109:10,
222:14
denigrating [1] 145:6
deny [1] - 181:1
department [1] 120:14
Department [7] 155:18, 195:11,
203:5, 203:9, 203:15,
204:3, 210:5
DEPARTMENT [1] 106:11
departures [2] 138:18, 212:22
deposition [3] 127:20, 166:7, 166:9
depositions [1] 166:5
depth [3] - 122:24,
123:10, 210:12
describe [11] 119:11, 120:24,

124:7, 126:13,
131:11, 135:1,
135:12, 135:16,
157:5, 168:14, 176:7
described [2] 136:3, 138:7
describing [1] 217:24
description [1] 163:13
designate [1] 214:23
designated [4] 165:21, 182:5, 182:7,
214:22
designating [1] 142:23
designation [10] 139:4, 209:20, 214:9,
214:10, 214:13,
215:12, 215:13,
228:14, 228:17,
228:22
desire [1] - 120:18
despite [3] - 150:25,
185:15, 197:1
determine [2] 144:14, 224:6
develop [1] - 190:11
developed [2] 154:6, 197:3
development [3] 150:5, 153:15, 200:5
devoted [1] - 121:7
Diane [2] - 124:18,
125:2
differ [1] - 112:7
differed [2] - 226:14,
227:24
difference [1] - 114:1
differences [2] 137:20, 137:21
different [17] 109:22, 114:24,
137:17, 139:17,
149:22, 176:22,
185:14, 185:15,
187:14, 190:21,
212:24, 214:21,
224:12, 226:11,
226:13, 227:19,
227:22
differently [1] 147:5
difficult [2] - 160:21,
185:2
dire [7] - 139:4,
139:14, 140:12,
140:15, 141:6,
145:15, 165:22
DIRECT [2] - 107:7,
117:3
direct [2] - 125:15,
125:20
directed [2] - 113:9,
176:20
directly [1] - 187:25
director [2] - 122:12,
122:16
disagree [2] - 115:1,
145:24
discharge [10] 151:24, 152:21,
193:19, 193:20,
193:21, 196:14,
198:14, 199:4,
204:20, 206:21
discharged [13] 151:19, 151:21,
195:7, 196:20,
199:20, 199:25,
200:11, 203:3, 206:6,
206:20, 209:4,
209:13, 218:10
discharges [12] 201:14, 201:20,
201:21, 202:7,
202:10, 202:15,
203:12, 204:1, 204:5,
209:15, 209:17, 210:4
discharging [3] 198:19, 201:24,
202:19
discipline [6] 183:22, 185:2,
195:13, 219:21,
223:5, 223:16
disclosure [1] 196:24
discovery [7] 129:24, 155:12,
155:13, 155:15,
214:14, 229:22, 230:7
discredit [1] - 114:15
discredited [1] 167:20
discrete [2] - 146:22,
148:7
discrimination [3] 154:7, 156:4, 186:22
discriminatory [2] 151:6, 171:13
discuss [1] - 185:13
discussed [2] 186:17, 192:5
discussing [2] 117:11, 181:7
discussion [11] -
Case Name/number
116:6, 147:7, 153:9,

161:6, 161:15,
161:16, 170:13,
182:12, 192:9,
192:14, 219:7
discussions [9] 178:25, 179:13,
180:7, 180:19, 187:7,
189:14, 191:3,
192:10, 225:2
disease [6] - 188:22,
190:25, 191:14,
192:4, 192:5, 192:6
diseases [2] - 192:5,
192:7
dishonest [1] 216:25
disown [1] - 172:15
disposes [1] 111:20
disproportionate [5]
- 188:22, 193:2,
202:9, 202:13, 204:18
disproportionately
[1] - 201:17
disproven [2] 224:18, 224:22
dispute [2] - 179:22,
180:14
disqualify [1] - 207:9
disruption [1] 227:8
disruptions [1] 149:19
disruptive [2] 148:23, 177:8
dissociate [1] 216:25
distance [1] - 137:4
distanced [1] - 217:7
distinction [4] 113:4, 113:6, 113:10,
181:16
Division [2] - 106:12,
106:18
Doctor [1] - 192:2
document [18] 127:8, 127:15,
127:17, 127:18,
127:19, 128:4,
128:10, 129:12,
129:13, 130:10,
154:4, 154:24, 155:5,
196:11, 221:19,
221:22, 228:17
documents [2] 127:6, 172:25
DOD [1] - 155:18
Dole [1] - 173:15
done [15] - 135:10,
date
139:23, 140:1,
157:22, 158:3, 190:5,
194:5, 198:11,
201:22, 210:11,
210:22, 212:15,
215:9, 216:7, 227:20
Donnelly [1] - 143:9
Donnelly's [1] 143:4
doubled [1] - 226:17
down [6] - 142:2,
161:20, 161:24,
209:17, 228:5, 229:8
dozens [1] - 216:14
Dr [21] - 109:3,
110:6, 111:25, 112:3,
113:11, 127:18,
127:19, 130:6,
140:20, 141:2, 142:4,
142:9, 142:10,
142:16, 153:23,
164:6, 164:9, 174:23,
209:21, 213:3, 230:23
draft [1] - 173:1
drafts [1] - 172:14
draw [4] - 136:14,
137:16, 158:22,
206:18
drawn [2] - 113:6,
113:10
Dream [1] - 136:23
dual [1] - 117:18
due [2] - 111:4,
206:2
Duke [1] - 143:1
during [20] - 111:12,
122:21, 125:9,
147:19, 150:2, 152:7,
166:7, 167:11,
169:24, 170:7, 171:8,
171:11, 176:4, 177:2,
189:14, 193:15,
193:20, 193:21,
196:12, 214:13
duty [2] - 220:3,
220:7
E
e-mail [3] - 178:21,
178:23, 180:23
Earle [1] - 106:5
early [5] - 118:17,
119:12, 160:5,
205:22, 224:14
easy [1] - 150:15
echoing [1] - 222:23
economist [3] 139:15, 142:15, 213:4
edited [2] - 131:2,

132:14
editor [1] - 142:13
education [5] 117:12, 117:13,
118:4, 144:15, 145:17
educational [1] 199:2
effectively [1] 157:21
effectiveness [3] 171:23, 212:8, 219:16
effeminate [1] 150:1
efficient [3] - 141:14,
141:15, 165:21
effort [3] - 126:19,
135:16, 136:1
efforts [4] - 151:1,
153:9, 201:1, 201:21
eight [2] - 123:13,
178:6
either [5] - 112:22,
144:1, 149:9, 172:13,
209:11
elaborate [1] 135:12
Elaine [2] - 143:4,
143:9
elected [1] - 153:10
election [2] - 152:8,
153:5
element [1] - 222:5
elements [3] - 115:5,
115:8, 130:25
elicit [10] - 108:14,
108:17, 110:1, 110:7,
111:15, 113:8, 114:8,
139:7, 139:20, 161:21
elicited [1] - 116:1
Elizabeth [1] 229:21
elsewhere [1] 133:16
eminent [1] - 125:8
emphasis [1] 119:14
empirical [20] 137:9, 137:12,
137:14, 137:17,
137:18, 138:6, 138:8,
138:10, 138:15,
138:16, 138:19,
138:22, 168:14,
168:19, 169:10,
169:12, 169:19,
169:22, 172:19,
195:17
employed [2] 137:3, 142:5
employment [2] 165:3, 198:24

emptied [2] - 198:18,
202:19
empty [2] - 198:18,
199:20
enact [2] - 116:9,
194:23
enacted [5] - 162:23,
195:3, 209:16,
216:17, 226:12
enacting [2] - 108:9,
162:5
enactment [35] 109:5, 112:2, 112:25,
113:2, 146:7, 152:3,
169:18, 172:2,
173:12, 174:12,
174:16, 177:14,
179:1, 179:13, 180:8,
182:4, 182:20,
182:24, 186:11,
186:25, 187:7,
189:14, 191:3, 193:8,
194:20, 196:5, 216:9,
218:14, 225:3,
225:15, 225:25,
226:10, 226:25,
227:12, 227:20
enactment-specific
[1] - 112:2
encompass [1] 138:8
encountered [1] 156:6
End [1] - 130:21
end [12] - 149:5,
149:12, 150:11,
150:12, 150:16,
154:7, 154:9, 156:4,
156:10, 156:14,
166:2, 168:2
ended [1] - 154:9
ending [3] - 152:11,
153:13, 186:21
ends [2] - 206:10,
218:24
enforced [1] - 196:6
enforcement [1] 193:15
engage [4] - 159:9,
188:23, 192:11,
223:15
engaged [7] 134:24, 137:18,
148:19, 149:2,
167:19, 192:13,
224:15
engaging [5] - 148:8,
148:16, 148:22,
148:24, 149:21
engineering [1] 200:4
English [1] - 133:4
enlist [6] - 205:2,
207:13, 208:18,
208:22, 209:12,
212:11
enlisted [1] - 124:10
enlistment [1] 192:15
enormous [1] 199:14
ensuring [1] - 157:20
enter [1] - 186:3
entire [2] - 147:23,
148:17
entirely [4] - 112:19,
141:25, 145:7, 213:18
entitled [2] - 126:8,
144:2
entity [1] - 198:3
entrapment [1] 148:12
enunciated [1] 115:21
equal [6] - 162:2,
170:14, 170:15,
224:25, 225:8, 225:13
equality [2] - 170:20,
170:24
era [3] - 147:22,
148:2, 150:11
eras [1] - 190:8
especially [1] 165:22
essays [2] - 167:16,
167:20
essence [2] - 223:5,
223:17
essentially [3] 141:23, 145:21,
200:19
estimate [3] - 124:4,
204:8, 229:10
et [4] - 175:18,
197:11, 215:20, 226:9
Ethicacy [1] - 220:13
ethnicity [1] - 120:2
euphemisms [1] 147:2
evangelical [2] 186:17, 186:21
Evangelicals [1] 192:23
event [2] - 163:16,
163:20
events [3] - 135:7,
136:17, 137:25
Evidence [1] - 144:2
Case Name/number
evidence [42] 111:6, 112:11, 115:2,

127:15, 128:12,
128:13, 128:17,
137:10, 137:23,
142:8, 144:13, 145:6,
145:10, 148:23,
153:18, 154:22,
155:9, 157:4, 159:24,
160:1, 168:9, 168:22,
172:17, 174:8,
175:14, 177:9, 179:6,
181:9, 183:20,
183:24, 184:1, 184:4,
185:3, 186:6, 186:24,
189:2, 189:4, 189:5,
193:3, 223:23, 224:1
evidentiary [1] 162:13
evolution [1] 155:10
evolved [2] - 154:11,
224:10
ex [2] - 199:2, 207:20
ex-cons [1] - 207:20
ex-convicts [1] 199:2
exacerbate [1] 201:21
exacerbated [1] 207:1
exacerbates [3] 201:25, 202:11,
206:22
exactly [3] - 155:13,
190:5, 204:6
EXAMINATION [1] 117:3
examination [6] 137:10, 143:13,
145:25, 155:4,
164:21, 229:11
example [10] 138:14, 139:11,
141:11, 143:10,
145:9, 166:4, 190:9,
202:5, 219:1
examples [1] 152:20
exceeded [2] 155:23, 172:25
except [2] - 155:6,
182:10
exception [1] - 120:9
excerpts [1] - 166:4
exclude [5] - 108:7,
108:21, 109:5,
164:24, 223:2
excluding [2] 177:1, 224:9
date
exclusion [2] 172:10, 172:12

exclusively [1] 167:24
excuse [3] - 139:18,
200:6, 219:5
Executive [1] - 162:4
executive [1] 152:11
exercise [1] - 142:19
exhaustive [1] 131:19
Exhibit [9] - 125:15,
127:7, 130:14, 138:4,
153:18, 154:17,
168:9, 168:22, 178:13
exhibit [3] - 125:21,
125:22, 127:6
EXHIBITS [1] 107:12
exhibits [2] - 230:4,
230:7
existed [3] - 152:15,
153:8, 224:13
exists [1] - 202:11
expand [1] - 132:17
expansive [1] 133:24
expect [1] - 112:3
expectancy [1] 168:1
expectations [1] 135:24
expected [1] - 135:5
experience [7] 118:22, 144:15,
165:3, 190:20,
190:21, 215:16,
216:12
experiences [1] 127:4
expert [30] - 112:11,
112:21, 125:16,
125:24, 131:22,
134:4, 134:9, 134:20,
134:24, 139:1,
139:10, 139:13,
140:7, 141:16,
141:17, 142:14,
142:23, 144:1, 144:6,
144:14, 144:24,
154:19, 159:22,
164:24, 164:25,
181:16, 214:23,
228:14, 228:19,
228:21
expertise [8] - 128:8,
145:1, 145:4, 145:8,
165:2, 166:11, 214:8,
214:11
experts [8] - 108:21,

125:4, 144:25, 159:1,
159:5, 165:20,
210:16, 228:18
explain [31] - 135:23,
136:12, 137:12,
137:21, 146:6, 146:8,
158:3, 159:16, 165:7,
167:15, 170:15,
172:7, 175:3, 183:25,
184:12, 184:23,
186:12, 187:16,
196:9, 197:3, 199:6,
201:18, 205:6, 207:4,
209:6, 215:9, 216:7,
216:20, 217:25,
224:12, 227:23
explained [2] 217:4, 217:8
explanation [1] 147:21
express [2] - 122:18,
167:12
expressed [9] 147:2, 177:7, 188:2,
188:18, 189:16,
191:1, 192:4, 192:24
expressing [2] 187:1, 191:13
extensive [4] 135:6, 135:9, 159:11,
169:9
extent [25] - 111:2,
111:12, 111:13,
111:14, 111:17,
111:21, 112:10,
115:11, 127:17,
145:24, 159:19,
159:23, 162:25,
163:25, 164:3,
165:25, 166:8,
175:12, 175:19,
176:10, 181:7,
183:15, 194:9,
211:17, 222:21
extremely [1] 154:15
F
F-r-a-n-k [1] - 116:25
facetious [1] 215:25
facial [1] - 116:8
facing [1] - 150:14
fact [14] - 112:19,
129:23, 138:1,
144:13, 144:14,
148:19, 148:24,
153:3, 153:9, 168:20,
172:11, 221:4,
224:24, 229:5
factor [2] - 115:13,
115:14
factors [2] - 187:25,
194:20
facts [7] - 137:14,
144:17, 144:20,
145:19, 145:23,
174:8, 224:21
factual [3] - 193:3,
222:22, 223:22
failure [2] - 219:20,
220:5
fairly [1] - 229:5
faith [2] - 135:25,
162:3
fall [4] - 115:20,
122:9, 122:11, 204:12
falls [1] - 111:9
false [1] - 187:13
familiar [3] - 119:10,
161:18, 166:23
familiarity [2] 135:6, 135:9
familiarized [1] 211:1
families [1] - 224:25
family [1] - 167:7
Family [1] - 167:8
fanned [1] - 157:9
far [7] - 140:18,
163:11, 163:17,
163:18, 165:12,
169:10, 192:11
Farsi [1] - 202:6
faster [2] - 140:14,
165:14
favor [3] - 170:24,
180:24, 226:20
favorably [1] 225:22
favored [1] - 225:8
favors [1] - 124:21
fears [7] - 188:1,
189:13, 189:15,
190:22, 190:24,
212:10, 219:25
February [1] - 132:7
Federal [1] - 106:12
feedback [1] - 147:9
fellow [3] - 123:6,
123:7, 123:12
felonies [2] - 207:19,
207:24
felons [1] - 207:12
few [7] - 124:12,
124:18, 126:5, 150:9,
225:11, 228:6, 229:9
field [3] - 117:8,
142:5, 142:14
Fifth [1] - 106:6
fighting [1] - 211:24
figure [1] - 195:10
figures [2] - 151:24,
198:14
fill [4] - 199:3, 201:2,
202:16, 230:1
filling [1] - 198:16
financial [4] - 140:1,
213:1, 213:19, 214:4
findings [4] - 113:7,
132:17, 209:6, 221:25
fine [4] - 109:19,
121:23, 230:5, 230:16
finish [4] - 128:22,
130:8, 162:15, 229:1
finished [2] - 163:7,
163:8
Fire [3] - 128:1,
131:7, 140:25
fired [2] - 151:10,
176:14
firm [2] - 134:20,
198:6
first [20] - 112:15,
115:14, 117:25,
122:7, 125:19,
128:16, 134:19,
151:6, 170:2, 178:9,
181:15, 196:11,
200:9, 205:21, 213:5,
213:14, 216:12,
226:2, 226:7, 230:22
fit [1] - 205:25
five [1] - 211:11
fixed [1] - 147:9
flag [2] - 221:18,
224:3
Florida [2] - 125:3,
182:2
focus [9] - 114:25,
119:14, 119:16,
119:24, 122:21,
122:25, 123:1, 126:5,
152:2
focused [1] - 226:5
fold [1] - 109:24
Foley [2] - 108:13,
109:24
folks [1] - 142:13
follow [2] - 161:4,
202:23
following [5] 150:19, 151:20,
161:18, 187:6, 199:10
follows [2] - 160:21,
222:4
footnotes [1] - 132:1
force [3] - 157:13,
Case Name/number
158:11, 218:6
Force [6] - 163:5,
220:3, 220:4, 220:7,
220:10, 222:20
forced [1] - 185:9
Forces [14] - 171:8,
195:6, 205:3, 210:7,
211:7, 211:18,
211:21, 211:24,
215:7, 216:10,
216:18, 223:1, 223:3,
223:14
forces [2] - 156:9,
218:22
Forces' [1] - 223:4
forcible [1] - 206:9
forcing [1] - 216:24
Foreign [1] - 132:8
foreign [4] - 122:24,
142:12, 202:8, 212:3
forgetting [2] 172:21, 208:4
forgot [1] - 158:18
form [5] - 144:16,
144:23, 145:8,
145:11, 156:24
former [4] - 158:8,
192:23, 219:11,
229:20
formulating [1] 125:10
formulation [3] 131:15, 135:8, 219:13
forth [7] - 109:7,
110:5, 111:11,
136:19, 153:13,
161:8, 206:25
forthright [1] 142:10
forward [1] - 183:3
fought [1] - 151:7
foundation [9] 127:16, 130:6,
145:16, 153:22,
154:21, 155:12,
155:20, 197:11,
213:24
foundational [1] 155:15
founded [1] - 119:12
four [4] - 119:5,
210:12, 210:21
fourth [1] - 227:16
Fox [1] - 226:8
frame [1] - 176:23
framework [1] 187:19
Franca [3] - 143:20,
178:10, 180:12
Francisco [1] -
date
151:14
FRANK [1] - 107:8
Frank [37] - 109:1,
109:3, 110:6, 116:16,
116:24, 117:5,
121:25, 127:18,
127:19, 128:4,
130:13, 133:15,
139:1, 140:20, 141:2,
142:4, 142:10,
142:16, 146:5, 152:2,
153:23, 156:2, 164:6,
164:9, 165:11,
166:20, 187:5, 194:4,
194:19, 209:21,
212:24, 213:3, 215:5,
218:14, 225:2,
229:25, 230:23
Frank's [5] - 111:25,
113:11, 127:12,
128:6, 130:6
frank's [1] - 112:3
frankly [1] - 181:13
FREEBORN [1] 216:2
Freeborne [7] 106:12, 116:7,
116:13, 140:5,
164:21, 165:10, 188:8
FREEBORNE [93] 108:3, 108:6, 108:17,
108:22, 109:2,
109:24, 110:12,
110:15, 111:24,
112:9, 113:4, 113:20,
114:12, 114:20,
115:9, 115:15,
115:17, 127:14,
127:21, 127:24,
128:11, 128:21,
130:2, 130:5, 139:3,
139:9, 140:16,
140:24, 141:10,
141:15, 141:21,
142:2, 142:19, 143:3,
143:7, 144:4, 145:12,
146:13, 153:21,
154:18, 159:19,
159:23, 160:23,
161:12, 161:25,
162:16, 163:19,
164:5, 164:15,
168:23, 169:5, 170:9,
171:14, 171:24,
174:6, 174:9, 175:5,
175:11, 176:10,
176:18, 177:4, 179:3,
179:25, 181:6,
181:20, 184:7,
184:15, 187:2, 187:9,
188:9, 189:17,
189:24, 191:5, 191:8,
191:20, 191:23,
194:9, 194:24, 197:9,
209:19, 211:8, 213:2,
213:24, 214:7,
215:11, 215:15,
215:18, 215:24,
217:21, 222:12,
229:3, 229:12, 229:16
Freeborne's [1] 109:21
freedoms [1] 191:15
frequency [1] 206:24
Fresh [1] - 133:5
friends [2] - 177:21,
182:17
front [2] - 142:16,
225:21
Fuck [2] - 180:9,
180:24
fulfills [1] - 145:4
full [1] - 116:22
fuller [1] - 161:14
fully [1] - 163:24
furthers [1] - 113:16
future [1] - 148:16
G
Gallup [1] - 226:3
GAO [4] - 203:15,
213:23, 214:3, 214:5
Gardner [1] - 106:13
Gates [2] - 221:4,
222:22
gathering [2] 135:24, 137:14
gay [44] - 113:9,
117:10, 120:2, 121:1,
121:7, 121:14,
126:20, 126:25,
149:21, 150:15,
150:17, 151:8, 151:9,
151:21, 164:10,
164:11, 167:25,
168:7, 170:18,
176:15, 185:11,
185:23, 186:1,
186:22, 191:13,
192:11, 193:1,
193:12, 196:3, 197:6,
198:19, 202:19,
205:11, 207:1,
212:17, 212:20,
216:12, 216:24,
217:6, 218:6, 218:8,
223:25, 226:19
Gay [1] - 131:7
gays [23] - 122:24,
125:5, 131:21,
135:10, 149:25,
150:10, 152:10,
152:24, 160:11,
177:8, 177:19,
178:18, 182:11,
186:7, 192:17,
196:19, 210:18,
225:22, 226:15,
226:20, 227:8, 228:2,
228:10
Gays [2] - 126:8,
132:8
Gender [1] - 143:1
gender [5] - 118:18,
118:20, 120:2, 122:5,
149:10
General [14] 159:14, 160:5, 163:5,
164:8, 167:4, 173:17,
182:21, 183:19,
184:12, 185:19,
219:11, 220:25, 224:4
general [4] - 143:16,
143:18, 158:11, 226:6
general's [1] 163:13
generalizable [1] 167:23
generalizations [2] 158:22, 168:18
generally [4] 120:24, 124:7, 135:6,
226:16
generals [4] 192:23, 192:24,
221:24
germane [1] - 157:19
given [9] - 112:18,
112:25, 126:20,
154:14, 163:11,
166:9, 186:2, 189:8,
223:9
Global [1] - 132:9
globe [1] - 157:9
goals [5] - 195:19,
195:22, 218:18,
219:8, 220:22
God [1] - 116:20
Goldwater [1] 171:1
governing [1] 110:17
Government [8] 172:20, 177:18,
187:21, 188:5,
195:15, 203:9,
203:15, 213:15
government [19] 112:7, 112:18,
112:20, 113:1, 116:9,
124:11, 125:9, 127:7,
127:8, 127:9, 128:5,
128:8, 129:1, 129:24,
151:8, 162:2, 211:2,
228:20
government's [3] 109:10, 127:12,
164:23
governmental [3] 113:16, 114:9, 115:12
governments [1] 211:2
graduate [5] 117:15, 117:19,
117:21, 117:23, 118:4
Grant [1] - 106:19
granted [4] - 191:24,
194:25, 199:1, 209:3
great [2] - 135:9,
142:13
greater [1] - 123:10
greatly [1] - 155:23
gritty [1] - 215:19
grounded [3] 138:14, 138:16,
138:22
grounds [2] - 127:16
Group [17] - 156:24,
157:24, 158:5,
158:10, 159:15,
159:18, 160:16,
166:21, 167:1,
167:12, 168:2,
168:21, 169:11,
169:16, 186:18,
186:20, 192:25
group [20] - 142:8,
157:25, 158:8, 160:5,
160:10, 160:14,
160:17, 160:19,
160:22, 163:6, 167:2,
167:5, 167:6, 167:9,
168:4, 217:1, 217:3,
217:9, 223:9, 227:18
groups [1] - 186:13
guarantee [1] 198:23
Guard [1] - 153:2
guess [3] - 113:5,
163:14, 229:14
guided [1] - 162:8
Gulf [3] - 150:20,
151:6, 151:7
Case Name/number
H
habit [1] - 128:23
half [2] - 129:11,
214:16
hard [4] - 112:7,
137:18, 185:23, 186:1
harder [1] - 189:7
hardly [4] - 112:20,
142:22, 144:6, 144:9
harms [1] - 216:23
hate [1] - 200:15
hazardous [4] 114:16, 161:11,
161:17, 161:25
head [1] - 172:24
health [1] - 193:2
hear [3] - 113:11,
163:21, 194:11
heard [11] - 108:3,
126:24, 140:18,
141:22, 155:13,
163:17, 163:18,
170:8, 170:21,
170:23, 215:21
hearing [5] - 109:19,
110:22, 110:24,
111:13, 165:5
hearings [21] 156:17, 160:13,
169:23, 169:25,
170:2, 170:7, 171:8,
171:11, 174:2,
174:21, 175:9, 176:4,
176:6, 176:20, 177:3,
182:4, 182:6, 182:13,
182:15, 182:16,
182:18
hearsay [5] - 154:21,
159:21, 159:22,
179:4, 181:8
heart [1] - 217:1
heartfelt [2] - 140:18,
144:6
held [1] - 166:16
help [3] - 116:20,
149:24, 201:4
hence [1] - 207:8
heterosexual [2] 146:25, 217:25
heterosexuality [1] 177:10
heterosexuals [1] 212:10
high [5] - 198:21,
218:16, 220:2, 223:4,
223:16
high-level [2] 218:16, 220:2
date
higher [1] - 228:7

highly [2] - 167:20,
188:12
Hillman [1] - 229:21
hire [1] - 157:1
historian [17] 135:4, 136:4, 137:3,
137:5, 137:23, 138:2,
169:3, 189:10,
191:17, 209:20,
211:9, 215:12,
215:14, 215:16,
215:20, 216:2, 216:3
historians [2] 136:18, 137:17
historical [23] 117:9, 119:23, 135:4,
135:16, 146:11,
146:17, 149:16,
151:22, 153:17,
154:14, 155:9, 171:2,
173:10, 175:3, 175:8,
175:16, 176:8,
189:20, 190:13,
191:18, 193:21,
194:21, 195:12
historiography [1] 145:21
history [42] - 112:1,
112:8, 112:19,
112:22, 113:1,
117:18, 118:1,
118:11, 118:23,
119:7, 119:22, 120:2,
120:3, 120:14,
120:16, 121:2,
121:13, 131:15,
131:16, 131:17,
136:10, 136:12,
136:20, 137:2, 139:1,
139:12, 139:17,
141:16, 141:21,
141:23, 144:8, 146:6,
146:9, 152:2, 152:6,
157:12, 172:2,
186:25, 187:5, 193:6,
198:20, 224:10
HIV/AIDS [2] - 192:6,
193:1
hold [1] - 123:11
homosexual [20] 146:22, 146:25,
148:7, 148:24, 149:2,
149:10, 149:20,
150:17, 153:7, 171:7,
172:10, 172:11,
190:21, 196:13,
198:14, 201:20,
209:17, 222:5,
223:15, 224:15
10
homosexuality [12] 131:18, 148:6,

151:24, 157:10,
159:8, 167:13, 171:9,
177:10, 183:21,
184:24, 217:16,
226:16
homosexuals [38] 123:20, 146:10,
146:12, 146:19,
147:14, 147:20,
148:1, 148:5, 148:13,
148:17, 148:18,
148:20, 149:4, 151:5,
151:19, 156:4,
167:16, 171:13,
175:1, 175:10, 176:5,
177:3, 184:25, 188:3,
188:6, 189:14,
190:18, 193:7,
196:25, 203:3, 210:7,
211:7, 211:19,
211:22, 212:3, 212:7,
212:12, 224:10
homosexuals' [1] 189:22
honest [2] - 135:25,
177:8
honesty [1] - 219:1
Honor [89] - 108:3,
109:1, 109:3, 109:9,
110:16, 112:9, 113:4,
113:20, 114:12,
114:21, 115:9,
115:19, 116:5,
116:15, 127:5, 127:8,
127:14, 128:3,
128:11, 128:21,
130:2, 130:5, 138:25,
139:3, 139:10,
139:21, 140:3,
140:16, 140:19,
141:10, 141:21,
141:23, 142:3, 143:7,
144:4, 146:3, 146:13,
153:18, 153:21,
153:25, 154:3,
154:18, 155:17,
159:19, 160:23,
161:25, 162:16,
163:19, 164:5,
164:16, 164:18,
166:18, 168:8,
168:23, 171:14,
175:5, 177:4, 181:6,
181:20, 184:7,
184:15, 187:2, 187:9,
187:11, 187:20,
188:9, 189:17,
189:24, 191:5, 194:9,
194:24, 197:9,
200:17, 200:22,
201:16, 209:19,
213:2, 213:24, 214:7,
214:12, 215:11,
215:18, 215:24,
217:11, 222:12,
228:13, 229:3,
229:12, 229:19
hope [1] - 109:16
host [1] - 149:22
hour [1] - 229:16
hours [1] - 229:15
House [3] - 153:19,
170:4, 171:8
housekeeping [1] 229:9
Houston [1] - 219:3
Huffington [1] 143:18
hundred [1] - 124:6
hundreds [1] - 157:5
Hutson [3] - 219:4,
219:5, 219:10
hypothesis [1] 137:16
hypothetically [1] 201:5
I
idea [2] - 149:25,
160:11
ideas [4] - 137:25,
147:23, 148:5, 149:23
identical [1] - 192:18
identification [4] 125:16, 130:14,
138:5, 178:13
identified [7] - 111:3,
139:8, 153:22, 171:9,
173:11, 182:19,
186:17
identify [8] - 171:11,
171:20, 176:3, 177:1,
195:24, 197:16,
211:13, 226:2
identity [2] - 120:18,
146:23
ignored [1] - 196:23
II [7] - 147:25, 149:3,
149:4, 149:5, 149:6,
150:6, 187:7
III [1] - 171:1
ill [4] - 149:22, 150:2,
167:17, 193:2
illness [1] - 149:25
illustrate [1] - 154:10
immoral [1] - 149:22
impact [20] - 110:15,

110:18, 126:19,
127:3, 131:1, 131:21,
137:2, 190:14,
190:23, 198:7,
204:18, 212:7, 212:9,
215:5, 216:8, 216:16,
217:15, 217:19,
217:24, 217:25
impacted [1] 204:20
implemented [2] 150:23, 157:21
important [8] 113:15, 114:8, 137:4,
138:1, 158:23,
161:24, 174:21,
187:21
impossible [1] 160:13
imprecisely [1] 149:8
improper [8] - 109:3,
110:1, 110:2, 113:22,
115:10, 115:23,
154:22, 161:23
impugning [1] 168:7
in-between [1] 147:1
in-depth [3] - 122:24,
123:10, 210:12
in-person [1] 178:19
inadmissible [1] 111:4
inappropriate [3] 176:12, 188:11,
188:12
inaugurated [1] 153:10
inauguration [2] 153:6, 153:11
incentives [1] 134:15
inclined [1] - 140:10
include [3] - 179:19,
202:8, 202:10
included [10] 133:23, 134:2,
147:16, 167:22,
179:23, 179:24,
180:20, 200:2,
221:25, 228:15
includes [4] 131:15, 139:11,
207:23, 224:3
including [5] 130:25, 132:15,
133:21, 177:18, 202:8
Case Name/number
incompatible [1] 150:18

inconsistent [1] 185:21
increase [1] - 201:1
increasing [1] 206:24
indeed [1] - 196:17
indicate [1] - 225:18
indicated [3] 111:12, 111:13,
196:22
indicating [2] 195:14, 196:2
individual [2] 215:7, 216:10
Individual [2] 206:8, 206:17
individuals [5] 130:19, 152:17,
171:3, 173:11, 205:2
infer [1] - 191:17
influential [8] 173:11, 174:4,
174:12, 174:16,
177:13, 182:19,
183:10, 186:18
inform [1] - 221:17
informally [1] 163:14
information [13] 127:10, 132:14,
171:2, 172:16,
190:11, 195:9, 197:3,
203:8, 203:13,
203:14, 203:18, 211:5
inherited [1] - 151:2
inquire [1] - 117:2
Inquirer [1] - 143:19
inquiring [2] 108:15, 110:3
inquiry [4] - 108:14,
110:1, 115:22, 161:10
Inspector [1] - 167:3
instance [7] 138:12, 167:24,
172:20, 191:13,
204:25, 225:19, 226:4
instead [3] - 116:12,
146:23, 205:16
Institute [2] - 205:8,
205:19
instituted [1] 150:16
institutional [1] 218:25
institutions [1] 157:12
instruct [1] - 181:11
instruction [1] -
date
181:12
instrumental [1] 125:9
integrated [2] 187:13, 189:1
integrating [2] 188:19, 189:10
integration [15] 125:10, 157:12,
177:19, 187:6, 188:2,
188:5, 188:17,
189:16, 189:21,
190:15, 190:17,
191:1, 191:19, 192:3,
192:18
integrity [3] - 218:25,
219:1, 219:23
intelligence [6] 200:2, 201:6, 201:7,
201:8, 202:15, 202:17
intend [2] - 139:20,
139:21
intended [1] - 141:5
intent [3] - 108:9,
127:15, 223:14
interdisciplinary [5]
- 117:9, 119:23,
120:15, 120:17, 157:1
interest [8] - 110:24,
113:16, 113:17,
113:18, 114:9,
143:17, 187:21, 188:5
interfered [1] 163:12
interference [1] 157:22
interject [2] - 160:23,
188:10
International [1] 198:6
interpret [1] - 136:1
interpretive [1] 135:22
interrogatory [1] 230:8
interrupting [2] 139:19, 164:21
interruptions [1] 165:13
interview [3] 158:20, 158:23,
178:16
interviewed [16] 124:5, 124:8, 124:13,
124:16, 124:21,
126:25, 132:22,
133:3, 133:4, 142:13,
144:7, 158:16,
158:19, 178:2, 178:5,
216:14
11
interviewing [2] 178:7, 178:9

interviews [5] 124:1, 132:25,
159:12, 186:19, 194:1
introduce [4] 127:6, 127:15,
127:17, 229:23
introducing [1] 154:4
intrusion [2] 113:16, 113:17
invasion [1] - 185:1
involuntarily [2] 205:25, 206:5
involve [1] - 135:24
involved [10] - 109:4,
132:7, 142:11,
148:11, 149:17,
151:13, 186:10,
186:13, 186:14,
214:18
involves [1] - 135:17
Iraq [4] - 126:9,
127:2, 205:24, 211:25
IRR [2] - 206:8,
206:16
irrelevant [2] 110:25, 111:4
irritable [2] - 167:18,
192:7
IRRs [1] - 206:19
is.. [1] - 108:25
Israel [2] - 210:13,
211:16
issue [34] - 108:6,
109:18, 109:20,
109:22, 110:19,
111:17, 111:20,
113:13, 113:24,
114:14, 115:3,
124:22, 129:25,
131:23, 144:14,
155:16, 157:2, 159:1,
159:11, 161:4,
162:14, 171:22,
178:15, 180:10,
183:4, 186:23,
187:19, 214:19,
221:19, 222:19,
225:21, 229:6
issued [1] - 165:18
issues [10] - 116:8,
116:11, 121:7,
121:13, 121:14,
123:20, 135:2,
177:18, 190:8, 206:25
issuing [2] - 152:11,
199:15
item [1] - 229:5
itself [8] - 128:8,

148:2, 151:22, 155:5,
156:12, 157:11,
192:25
J
JAG [1] - 219:12
jail [1] - 148:14
January [5] - 126:1,
153:11, 153:19,
156:10, 156:14
Jay [2] - 124:15,
124:19
Jazeera [1] - 133:4
job [3] - 198:15,
206:4, 206:5
John [3] - 219:3,
219:4, 219:10
join [1] - 205:14
Joint [7] - 182:23,
183:13, 218:21,
220:4, 220:10,
220:11, 222:20
joke [1] - 219:21
jokes [1] - 219:21
Joseph [1] - 152:21
Joshua [1] - 106:13
journal [4] - 143:1,
143:12, 143:21,
220:10
Journal [2] - 143:1,
151:15
journalistic [2] 151:13, 151:16
journalists [2] 122:19, 210:24
journals [3] - 121:18,
140:21, 140:23
Judge [1] - 219:11
judiciary [1] - 114:13
judiciary's [1] 162:3
Judith [3] - 181:24,
181:25, 182:12
July [2] - 108:1,
170:1
jumped [1] - 164:15
June [1] - 123:17
jury [3] - 181:10,
181:11, 181:12
JUSTICE [1] - 106:11
Justice [1] - 150:7
K
Kahn [1] - 106:6
keep [8] - 110:20,
110:21, 113:5,
113:11, 159:2, 159:3,
172:13, 198:21
keeping [1] - 113:13
Keith [1] - 153:4
kept [1] - 151:23
key [1] - 124:12
kicking [1] - 207:1
Kim [1] - 196:16
kind [6] - 146:22,
148:11, 148:14,
148:15, 148:25,
167:19
kinds [4] - 147:13,
147:16, 157:14,
199:16
knowledge [11] 135:2, 144:12,
144:15, 145:4,
145:11, 145:17,
145:18, 175:15,
186:6, 197:7, 223:24
known [6] - 151:8,
163:24, 177:17,
184:25, 196:19, 197:7
Korean [1] - 202:6
L
labor [2] - 120:3,
121:1
laid [3] - 145:16,
154:21, 197:10
Lambert [1] - 151:15
land [1] - 149:24
language [8] 162:20, 189:8,
191:14, 201:5, 202:8,
202:10, 204:24
large [5] - 127:25,
197:8, 199:14,
212:15, 212:18
largely [1] - 169:11
larger [1] - 207:21
last [12] - 129:20,
132:17, 163:2, 163:4,
176:19, 200:8, 204:9,
209:22, 209:24,
227:17, 230:24
Laura [1] - 227:3
Law [3] - 125:4,
143:1, 205:9
law [12] - 110:8,
113:6, 113:10,
114:16, 114:17,
125:3, 150:8, 154:11,
161:19, 162:24,
205:4, 222:5
Lawrence [4] -
Case Name/number
110:14, 110:15,
110:18, 162:7
lawsuits [2] - 150:14,
150:25
lawyer [1] - 124:25
lay [2] - 147:16,
198:17
lead [3] - 131:4,
158:9, 210:24
leader [1] - 160:13
leaders [3] - 185:2,
186:20, 221:12
leadership [2] 157:20, 212:4
leading [4] - 170:18,
194:20, 217:21, 225:2
leads [1] - 160:21
learn [3] - 172:3,
185:16, 214:18
least [9] - 110:21,
116:2, 125:23,
152:18, 163:11,
163:16, 174:7,
184:13, 213:11
leave [6] - 123:16,
159:15, 189:1,
192:16, 209:9, 209:10
leaving [3] - 163:6,
163:10, 205:16
led [13] - 146:7,
178:16, 178:25,
179:13, 180:8, 182:4,
186:10, 186:25,
187:7, 189:14, 191:3,
225:14, 226:24
Lee [1] - 166:24
leery [1] - 112:22
left [5] - 123:14,
126:21, 158:14,
160:5, 209:12
legal [2] - 125:5,
222:12
legislation [2] 116:9, 191:16
legislative [8] 112:8, 112:19,
112:22, 113:1, 144:7,
161:21, 162:22,
174:17
legislator [1] 111:18
legislator's [3] 109:12, 109:17,
111:19
legislators [3] 162:23, 163:15, 164:2
legitimacy [4] 222:3, 222:25,
223:12, 223:19
legitimate [3] -
date
115:11, 188:4, 223:20

lens [1] - 135:22
Les [1] - 153:11
lesbian [11] - 113:9,
120:2, 126:20,
126:25, 164:10,
196:4, 202:19,
205:11, 216:13,
216:24, 223:25
lesbians [4] 150:10, 152:10,
164:12, 228:11
Lesbians [1] - 126:8
less [3] - 206:11,
206:23, 209:4
lessened [1] 199:10
lesser [1] - 222:21
letting [2] - 226:20,
227:9
level [2] - 218:16,
220:2
levels [1] - 188:22
liberal [2] - 160:9,
170:17
Liberalism [2] 120:18, 120:19
lie [2] - 134:16,
218:24
Lieutenant [3] 166:24, 167:12,
186:16
lieutenant [1] - 167:2
life [2] - 167:25,
222:7
lifestyle [1] - 193:1
lift [1] - 153:9
lifted [3] - 205:13,
212:17, 212:21
lifting [3] - 131:1,
153:7, 228:5
light [1] - 172:5
likely [4] - 188:22,
209:4, 209:9
limine [13] - 108:7,
108:13, 108:19,
109:10, 110:23,
111:13, 112:5, 141:9,
141:18, 141:20,
164:24, 165:19, 166:6
limitations [2] 136:2, 159:10
limited [4] - 154:12,
154:15, 155:10,
155:20
limiting [1] - 181:12
line [3] - 161:7,
163:3, 163:4
lineup [2] - 229:18,
229:19
12
Lingua [3] - 143:20,

178:10, 180:12
list [9] - 125:22,
138:5, 138:12,
138:21, 170:23,
175:18, 177:1,
178:11, 221:18
listed [3] - 126:5,
143:15, 178:11
listened [1] - 116:6
listening [2] 164:20, 165:10
literature [3] 131:20, 135:19,
216:13
Litigation [2] 106:18, 106:19
live [1] - 212:16
logic [1] - 223:23
logical [1] - 185:19
logically [1] - 185:21
logistics [1] - 200:3
long-standing [1] 222:5
look [12] - 108:24,
110:4, 113:20,
113:21, 115:3,
128:16, 129:7,
129:22, 136:18,
141:16, 163:1, 191:12
looked [8] - 118:19,
178:12, 183:2,
198:13, 198:20,
199:1, 221:19, 225:22
looking [9] - 108:19,
113:7, 114:19,
135:25, 148:21,
149:20, 157:12,
215:1, 216:3
looks [3] - 131:17,
131:19, 131:21
Los [2] - 106:7,
143:18
lose [1] - 218:11
loud [1] - 128:24
lower [3] - 188:25,
199:2, 202:18
lowered [3] - 199:15,
202:16, 208:5
lowering [2] 193:20, 201:23
lowers [1] - 202:1
Loyola [1] - 124:20
Lucian [1] - 171:1
M
MacCoun [1] - 142:9
Maddow [1] - 133:5
Magazine [1] 178:10

magazine [1] 167:25
Maginnis [3] 166:24, 167:12,
186:16
mail [3] - 178:21,
178:23, 180:23
main [2] - 122:25,
192:6
maintain [2] - 185:2,
223:2
major [3] - 150:5,
194:19, 217:5
Major [1] - 106:19
majority [2] - 212:19,
225:12
malice [1] - 164:10
mandate [1] - 172:25
manner [1] - 175:20
manpower [2] 199:7, 200:16
March [1] - 170:1
Margarethe [1] 153:1
marital [1] - 147:17
mark [1] - 179:6
marriage [1] - 121:14
Martin's [1] - 143:24
masculinity [1] 118:19
Massachusetts [1] 106:14
master's [4] - 118:1,
118:23, 119:1, 120:21
match [1] - 198:16
material [4] - 138:11,
179:5, 181:9, 195:24
materials [5] 127:21, 127:22,
127:25, 153:23, 158:7
matter [11] - 114:13,
118:16, 120:24,
134:13, 137:24,
139:17, 156:18,
156:19, 161:11,
161:25, 164:1
mattered [1] - 193:16
matters [2] - 183:16,
229:9
Mazur [2] - 124:18,
125:2
mean [14] - 112:7,
129:25, 143:23,
163:17, 166:9,
167:21, 170:15,
173:21, 174:8,
184:23, 197:10,
208:14, 208:16, 216:3
meaning [4] 118:17, 121:2,

135:23, 155:18
means [9] - 136:1,
139:4, 145:3, 169:6,
174:19, 174:20,
201:20, 209:11, 218:7
meant [4] - 148:25,
160:18, 170:19,
183:25
media [4] - 143:16,
143:17, 143:19, 228:4
medical [2] - 200:3,
204:24
Meinhold [1] - 153:4
member [3] - 167:3,
167:4, 218:12
members [44] 113:9, 124:16, 125:1,
126:20, 127:1,
134:16, 148:12,
153:12, 156:7, 156:8,
158:8, 160:10,
160:17, 164:11,
171:7, 171:12,
171:21, 172:12,
194:1, 195:6, 196:4,
201:25, 205:15,
206:8, 206:21,
206:24, 211:18,
211:21, 211:24,
212:16, 215:7,
216:10, 216:13,
216:18, 216:24,
217:1, 217:3, 218:7,
218:10, 218:23,
223:24, 228:10,
229:20
memo [1] - 127:10
memorandum [1] 153:19
memory [1] - 108:20
memos [3] - 122:17,
210:23, 222:24
men [1] - 118:17
mental [1] - 149:24
mentally [4] 149:22, 150:1,
167:17, 224:16
mention [1] - 218:20
mentioned [7] 125:6, 148:3, 169:23,
177:12, 190:25,
192:8, 207:2
mentions [1] - 193:1
mere [1] - 204:8
merely [1] - 116:9
Mergin's [1] - 164:4
Mergins [3] - 108:13,
109:25, 162:21
Case Name/number
met [1] - 153:12

method [3] - 135:5,
135:16, 137:6
methodology [10] 126:16, 135:5,
135:12, 136:3, 137:3,
142:4, 142:22, 144:9,
158:21, 158:25
methods [6] 144:19, 144:20,
145:20, 145:21,
145:23, 167:20
Michael [1] - 209:7
microphone [1] 147:6
mid-20th [1] - 149:23
midshipman [1] 152:22
might [14] - 123:24,
140:6, 140:11,
140:14, 149:8,
149:12, 191:2, 201:4,
201:10, 205:2,
205:14, 205:15,
209:23
Mike [1] - 218:21
militaries [9] 122:25, 142:12,
210:17, 211:3,
211:14, 211:22,
212:3, 212:11, 212:22
Militaries [1] - 132:8
militaries' [1] 227:11
Military [24] - 126:9,
131:7, 133:21, 150:7,
156:24, 157:23,
158:4, 158:9, 159:15,
159:18, 160:16,
166:21, 167:1,
167:11, 168:2,
168:21, 169:11,
169:16, 172:4,
186:18, 186:20,
192:25, 227:16, 228:3
military [144] - 122:6,
123:20, 124:10,
124:22, 125:5, 125:8,
125:9, 131:14,
131:18, 131:21,
135:11, 146:9,
146:12, 146:20,
147:20, 148:1, 148:4,
148:11, 148:12,
148:15, 148:20,
148:23, 149:11,
149:12, 149:14,
149:18, 149:19,
150:8, 150:18,
151:19, 152:10,
date
152:25, 153:12,
156:5, 156:7, 156:25,
157:10, 157:19,
157:24, 159:6, 159:8,
169:21, 170:20,
171:5, 171:23,
172:13, 172:15,
172:23, 174:24,
177:9, 177:17,
177:18, 177:19,
178:18, 182:11,
183:1, 183:15,
183:21, 184:25,
185:2, 185:5, 185:8,
185:9, 185:13,
185:16, 185:17,
185:22, 186:1, 186:3,
187:6, 187:13, 188:3,
188:7, 188:18,
188:20, 189:11,
189:16, 189:21,
189:23, 190:15,
190:18, 192:4,
192:15, 192:16,
192:23, 193:8,
193:12, 193:15,
196:11, 198:15,
198:21, 198:22,
199:8, 199:12,
199:21, 200:2, 200:3,
201:1, 201:6, 201:7,
201:22, 202:7,
202:15, 202:16,
202:17, 205:12,
205:14, 205:16,
205:25, 206:23,
207:7, 207:8, 207:13,
208:21, 211:2, 212:8,
217:12, 218:16,
219:21, 219:23,
220:2, 220:4, 220:15,
220:20, 221:12,
222:5, 222:7, 222:24,
223:5, 224:25, 225:1,
225:13, 225:20,
226:5, 226:15,
226:22, 226:24, 227:9
military's [3] 188:25, 198:8, 201:21
MILLER [1] - 153:25
Miller [2] - 106:5,
227:3
millions [1] - 149:7
mind [5] - 110:20,
110:21, 113:5,
113:11, 113:13
mindful [1] - 137:4
mindset [1] - 163:14
minimal [1] - 157:22
Minnesota [1] -
13
151:16
minor [1] - 150:10
Minutes [1] - 133:11
minutes [1] - 166:15
misconduct [3] 209:4, 209:9, 209:13
misdemeanor [1] 207:21
misdemeanors [2] 207:23, 207:24
mission [1] - 211:16
missionary [1] 147:17
misspoke [1] - 204:9
mobilized [1] 196:14
moment [4] - 128:2,
129:5, 148:8, 207:2
months [5] - 132:20,
169:24, 169:25,
225:11, 227:17
moral [14] - 148:8,
180:10, 186:22,
194:22, 199:1,
199:15, 207:2,
207:11, 208:3, 208:6,
208:7, 208:17, 209:3,
209:8
Moral [4] - 207:5,
207:7, 207:22, 208:18
morale [11] - 183:22,
185:3, 196:2, 215:6,
216:9, 216:17,
216:23, 217:2, 217:6,
223:4, 223:16
morality [2] - 121:3,
121:13
morally [2] - 177:10,
224:17
moreover [2] - 110:8,
115:10
morning [1] - 230:15
Moskos [24] 124:15, 125:6, 125:7,
125:8, 159:7, 164:8,
173:16, 177:12,
177:16, 177:22,
178:2, 178:16,
179:19, 179:22,
180:6, 180:14,
180:19, 180:23,
181:3, 182:6, 182:9,
182:16, 225:19, 227:3
most [8] - 141:15,
143:15, 160:9,
165:24, 174:4,
178:20, 193:16,
211:15
mostly [1] - 201:16
motion [15] - 108:13,
108:19, 108:21,
109:10, 110:23,
111:7, 112:4, 141:9,
141:19, 164:23,
166:6, 191:22,
194:25, 222:14
motions [3] - 111:13,
141:18, 165:18
motivated [4] 110:16, 112:13,
160:25, 162:20
motivation [7] 113:22, 114:2,
188:10, 191:8,
191:16, 191:21,
194:10
motive [18] - 108:14,
108:16, 108:17,
109:4, 110:1, 110:7,
112:1, 112:2, 113:8,
114:8, 114:11,
114:19, 115:8,
115:22, 116:1,
161:21, 161:23
motives [2] - 161:10,
162:23
move [6] - 165:14,
183:3, 194:24,
212:24, 215:1, 222:12
moved [3] - 108:7,
109:5, 110:7
moving [1] - 147:25
MR [190] - 108:3,
108:6, 108:17,
108:22, 109:1, 109:2,
109:9, 109:16,
109:24, 110:12,
110:15, 111:24,
112:9, 113:4, 113:20,
114:12, 114:20,
115:9, 115:15,
115:17, 116:5, 117:4,
121:20, 121:24,
127:5, 127:14,
127:21, 127:24,
128:3, 128:11,
128:21, 129:3, 129:6,
129:11, 129:16,
129:20, 130:2, 130:5,
130:12, 138:25,
139:3, 139:9, 139:21,
139:25, 140:16,
140:24, 141:10,
141:15, 141:21,
142:2, 142:19, 143:3,
143:7, 144:4, 145:12,
146:3, 146:4, 146:13,
146:16, 147:18,
153:17, 153:21,
153:25, 154:3,
154:18, 155:17,
156:1, 159:19,
159:23, 160:7,
160:23, 161:12,
161:25, 162:16,
163:19, 164:5,
164:15, 164:18,
164:20, 166:18,
166:19, 168:8,
168:11, 168:23,
169:1, 169:5, 169:13,
170:9, 170:11,
171:14, 171:17,
171:24, 172:1,
173:22, 174:1, 174:6,
174:9, 174:11, 175:5,
175:7, 175:11, 176:1,
176:2, 176:10,
176:16, 176:18,
176:22, 176:24,
177:4, 177:11, 179:3,
179:9, 179:25, 180:4,
180:5, 181:6, 181:20,
181:22, 184:7,
184:10, 184:15,
184:19, 187:2, 187:4,
187:9, 187:11,
187:20, 187:25,
188:9, 188:16,
189:17, 189:19,
189:24, 190:3, 191:5,
191:8, 191:20,
191:23, 192:1, 194:9,
194:14, 194:18,
194:24, 195:1, 197:9,
197:15, 202:23,
203:1, 204:16,
206:15, 209:1,
209:19, 210:2, 211:8,
211:12, 213:2, 213:9,
213:22, 213:24,
214:1, 214:7, 214:12,
214:16, 214:24,
215:1, 215:4, 215:11,
215:15, 215:18,
215:24, 216:2, 216:6,
217:14, 217:21,
217:23, 222:12,
222:15, 228:13,
228:23, 229:3, 229:7,
229:12, 229:16,
229:19, 229:25,
230:5, 230:10,
230:13, 230:16,
230:19
Mullen [2] - 218:21,
222:21
must [2] - 115:5,
223:2
Case Name/number
N
name [9] - 116:22,
124:12, 134:7,
151:14, 167:6, 181:5,
181:23, 207:8, 220:7
named [3] - 124:17,
177:12, 196:16
namely [1] - 108:13
names [1] - 159:3
narrowly [1] - 176:23
Nathaniel [2] 116:16, 116:24
NATHANIEL [2] 107:8, 116:24
nation [5] - 151:23,
183:1, 183:2, 183:17,
226:18
nation's [1] - 125:4
national [1] - 221:6
National [2] - 153:2,
192:22
naturally [1] - 229:22
nature [2] - 134:12,
161:17
Navy [2] - 219:11,
219:13
necessarily [3] 114:3, 114:10, 208:5
necessary [9] 113:17, 145:15,
169:21, 181:19,
185:10, 187:24,
198:18, 222:6, 222:11
necessity [1] 230:11
need [3] - 143:25,
149:7, 230:18
needs [1] - 136:19
negative [1] - 212:9
neglected [1] 209:14
negligible [1] - 131:2
negotiations [1] 153:14
neutral [1] - 228:9
never [7] - 141:5,
147:22, 168:18,
184:1, 186:5, 189:4,
228:16
nevertheless [1] 170:18
New [9] - 119:8,
119:9, 119:12,
119:17, 120:1,
133:19, 143:17, 226:4
new [1] - 205:14
Newport [2] 148:10, 148:13
date
News [4] - 133:4,

133:11, 226:8
newspaper [1] 151:16
next [11] - 108:25,
116:3, 116:15,
118:21, 120:5,
125:17, 150:5, 150:9,
152:2, 214:19, 229:17
Ninth [2] - 115:22,
162:6
nitty [1] - 215:19
nitty-gritty [1] 215:19
Noble [1] - 136:23
non [2] - 192:13,
205:13
non-black [1] 192:13
non-retention [1] 205:13
nonconformity [2] 149:1, 149:10
nonconsensual [1] 134:14
nondiscrimination
[1] - 198:22
none [2] - 114:11,
195:16
norms [1] - 147:17
Northwestern [2] 117:14, 227:4
note [2] - 147:22,
181:8
noted [4] - 145:12,
160:2, 179:8, 181:18
notes [1] - 186:19
nothing [3] - 116:19,
140:19, 142:6
notwithstanding [1]
- 196:13
November [1] 173:9
Novik [1] - 136:25
NPR [2] - 133:3,
133:6
nuclear [1] - 200:4
Number [1] - 127:7
number [15] 147:16, 150:25,
151:4, 155:17, 156:9,
195:6, 204:1, 204:10,
207:12, 207:21,
209:15, 209:17,
210:3, 230:23, 230:25
numbers [7] - 197:8,
202:13, 202:14,
202:15, 205:11,
212:18
numerous [2] -
14
151:7, 226:3
Nunn [16] - 156:15,
160:12, 163:12,
164:6, 164:9, 164:10,
170:6, 170:22, 171:3,
173:15, 173:18,
174:12, 176:4, 177:2,
177:20, 182:17
nursing [1] - 153:1
nutshell [1] - 144:5
NW [1] - 106:14
NYU [4] - 120:5,
120:8, 120:12, 120:17
O
O'Bryan [11] 108:13, 109:24,
111:10, 112:14,
161:8, 161:9, 161:13,
161:14, 161:15,
162:17, 165:7
obituaries [1] 167:25
object [7] - 111:15,
112:20, 127:14,
127:16, 153:21,
165:15, 197:9
objecting [2] 111:21, 111:22
objection [73] 109:6, 109:21,
111:23, 114:10,
115:4, 130:11,
140:10, 142:3, 146:1,
146:13, 146:14,
155:21, 159:19,
160:2, 160:24,
162:10, 162:11,
162:12, 162:13,
168:23, 169:5, 169:7,
170:9, 171:14,
171:15, 171:16,
171:24, 174:6, 175:5,
175:6, 175:11,
175:12, 175:21,
175:23, 176:10,
176:13, 176:18,
177:4, 177:6, 179:3,
179:8, 179:25, 180:2,
181:6, 181:13, 184:7,
184:15, 187:2, 187:9,
188:13, 189:17,
189:24, 191:5, 191:7,
191:8, 191:9, 191:10,
194:9, 194:12,
197:12, 209:19,
211:8, 211:10, 213:2,
214:7, 215:11,
215:21, 215:22,
216:1, 216:5, 217:21

objection's [1] 181:18
objections [4] 112:4, 140:13,
140:17, 145:12
objectives [1] 169:21
observable [1] 137:15
observe [1] - 191:14
obtain [1] - 118:14
obtaining [1] 148:23
occasionally [1] 121:14
occupation [3] 117:6, 200:10, 203:19
occupational [1] 204:13
occupations [8] 199:23, 199:24,
200:1, 200:14, 203:2,
203:7, 203:12, 204:20
occurred [2] 109:11, 134:23
odious [1] - 219:24
OF [1] - 106:11
off-the-record [1] 147:7
offer [10] - 112:16,
112:21, 128:13,
138:25, 143:8,
144:23, 153:18,
154:21, 165:1, 184:2
offered [7] - 112:17,
128:11, 128:15,
128:17, 128:18,
128:19, 128:25
offering [7] - 112:8,
112:18, 112:21,
128:3, 129:9, 129:10,
154:2
Office [3] - 172:20,
203:10, 213:16
office [4] - 156:2,
176:15, 220:10,
220:18
officer's [1] - 220:7
officers [5] - 124:10,
156:25, 221:14,
221:18, 224:3
Official [1] - 162:21
official [1] - 172:15
officials [6] - 124:10,
124:11, 149:11,
218:16, 220:2, 220:20
often [10] - 147:1,
147:13, 148:25,
167:22, 192:12,
192:13, 217:7, 218:6,

218:7, 228:4
Om [1] - 220:8
once [2] - 181:11,
181:12
one [60] - 108:6,
109:24, 110:22,
113:20, 114:7,
120:13, 124:15,
125:4, 127:6, 129:1,
129:11, 134:5, 136:3,
136:19, 136:23,
137:5, 140:25, 141:3,
141:11, 142:1, 144:1,
144:2, 144:17,
144:21, 144:22,
146:17, 152:10,
152:12, 153:21,
156:24, 158:15,
159:10, 160:9,
172:19, 172:21,
173:15, 174:4,
178:11, 181:24,
182:5, 186:5, 190:13,
190:25, 196:1,
196:15, 197:18,
203:22, 205:21,
209:7, 209:14,
211:17, 213:14,
216:11, 217:5, 219:1,
229:20, 230:21,
230:25
one-and-a-half [1] 129:11
ones [3] - 200:1,
213:12, 226:18
ongoing [2] - 204:5,
221:23
oOo [1] - 108:2
open [6] - 183:20,
185:23, 189:13,
189:22, 190:17, 228:1
openly [12] - 160:11,
170:18, 192:17,
193:7, 196:25,
210:18, 211:19,
226:15, 226:19,
226:21, 227:8, 227:10
opens [1] - 161:18
operates [1] - 211:16
opinion [41] 131:22, 138:9,
138:17, 138:22,
139:7, 141:1, 142:6,
142:21, 143:10,
143:16, 144:3, 144:9,
144:16, 144:23,
174:4, 174:15, 175:8,
183:9, 184:18,
184:22, 185:18,
Case Name/number
194:6, 194:15,
194:19, 210:3,
216:20, 216:23,
222:3, 222:9, 222:16,
222:25, 223:8,
223:12, 223:19,
223:21, 225:4,
225:24, 226:6, 226:7
opinions [6] 135:14, 137:9, 165:1,
165:20, 168:17,
216:16
opponent [1] - 166:7
opportunity [1] 170:20
opposed [8] - 140:5,
151:5, 171:22,
186:21, 189:13,
225:9, 225:13, 227:9
opposing [1] 170:18
opposition [7] 111:7, 141:18,
189:21, 189:22,
190:22, 228:1, 228:4
options [1] - 157:25
order [11] - 115:2,
115:5, 122:17,
148:13, 152:11,
183:22, 185:2,
185:11, 199:3, 223:4,
223:16
organization [2] 122:4, 218:25
organizations [2] 186:13, 192:21
orientation [5] 154:8, 157:18,
160:18, 217:20,
219:22
otherwise [7] 144:16, 161:20,
161:22, 161:23,
162:19, 199:16, 207:9
out-of-court [1] 181:7
outcomes [1] 182:18
outlets [4] - 133:20,
143:16, 143:17,
143:19
outlying [1] - 226:18
outside [2] - 147:16,
214:7
Overall [1] - 129:21
overall [1] - 202:7
overarching [3] 110:9, 112:4, 115:21
overbroad [1] 175:23
date
overlap [1] - 200:20

overrule [2] - 111:23,
175:21
Overruled [1] 189:25
overruled [14] 146:1, 146:14,
155:21, 169:7,
175:12, 176:13,
177:6, 184:16,
188:13, 191:10,
194:12, 197:12,
211:10, 216:5
oversee [2] - 174:2,
174:20
overturned [1] 221:21
own [3] - 109:12,
132:15, 156:8
P
P-r-a-k-a-s-h [1] 220:8
P.M [1] - 108:1
page [3] - 129:11,
129:21, 214:15
Page [7] - 107:2,
125:21, 126:7,
130:13, 162:21,
214:16, 214:17
Pages [2] - 125:22,
138:4
pages [6] - 131:24,
132:1, 157:5, 157:17,
169:12, 178:12
Palm [14] - 122:1,
122:3, 122:4, 122:7,
122:10, 123:3, 123:7,
123:12, 126:8,
130:15, 132:8, 159:9,
210:12, 210:21
panel [3] - 115:12,
224:3, 224:5
paragraph [2] 129:15, 161:16
parallel [1] - 191:2
parameters [1] 173:3
Parameters [1] 171:6
Parker [1] - 106:13
part [19] - 109:4,
111:1, 118:13,
122:25, 123:1,
127:25, 147:14,
158:16, 158:20,
169:14, 170:13,
175:25, 185:17,
15
187:15, 198:1, 207:1,

208:12, 210:6, 224:14
participated [1] 219:13
particular [20] 111:3, 121:2, 121:10,
130:23, 132:19,
141:6, 145:1, 154:5,
158:4, 162:5, 170:22,
175:24, 178:7,
178:15, 183:3,
184:12, 204:20,
214:4, 224:2
particularly [5] 111:9, 154:23, 162:5,
196:3, 204:21
parties [1] - 108:10
parts [4] - 114:4,
114:11, 129:10,
141:23
party [2] - 156:8,
170:17
passed [2] - 173:4,
173:8
passion [1] - 160:21
past [2] - 120:10,
137:25
patiently [1] - 164:20
Patrick [1] - 106:19
patriotically [1] 218:23
paul [1] - 106:12
pausing [1] - 128:23
peace [2] - 151:25,
196:6
peacetime [1] 193:21
peer [8] - 121:18,
140:20, 140:23,
141:4, 142:25,
143:12, 143:22, 171:5
peer-review [5] 121:18, 140:20,
140:23, 142:25,
143:12
peer-reviewed [3] 141:4, 143:22, 171:5
peers [3] - 193:14,
196:23, 217:7
pending [2] - 116:18,
193:19
Pennsylvania [2] 133:22, 198:2
Pentagon [8] 150:16, 151:22,
156:18, 156:19,
160:19, 166:22,
169:14, 196:17
Pentagon-wide [1] 150:16
people [92] - 124:1,

124:4, 124:7, 124:12,
136:14, 136:15,
137:18, 138:3, 144:7,
146:25, 148:6,
148:19, 148:21,
148:24, 149:21,
150:15, 150:17,
151:8, 151:21,
158:15, 158:19,
158:20, 158:24,
159:2, 163:16,
167:25, 168:7,
170:23, 170:25,
174:5, 176:14, 185:8,
185:11, 185:13,
185:16, 185:23,
185:25, 186:2, 186:6,
186:21, 186:22,
187:1, 188:25,
191:15, 192:3,
192:11, 192:12,
192:13, 192:16,
192:19, 193:12,
193:13, 196:21,
197:5, 197:6, 197:25,
198:17, 198:19,
198:23, 199:4,
199:16, 199:19,
199:24, 200:11,
201:2, 202:20,
205:11, 206:4, 206:6,
206:9, 206:11,
206:19, 207:1, 207:8,
209:8, 212:17,
212:20, 216:15,
217:6, 217:15,
217:19, 217:25,
218:3, 218:6, 218:7,
218:8, 219:22, 223:9,
223:10
people's [5] 136:16, 149:9, 186:7,
189:9, 218:1
per [2] - 119:19,
120:12
perceived [1] - 217:3
percent [6] - 186:20,
225:9, 226:18, 228:6,
228:9
percentage [3] 121:6, 121:9, 225:9
performance [1] 157:13
perhaps [5] - 114:2,
124:12, 136:18,
139:17, 141:15
period [5] - 125:10,
146:17, 153:17,
156:15, 207:13
Perry [1] - 110:11

PERSEREC [6] 151:12, 172:23,
172:24, 222:23,
224:20
person [16] - 125:6,
125:12, 146:22,
148:7, 158:9, 177:12,
177:24, 178:19,
181:5, 181:23,
182:19, 183:1,
183:17, 196:13,
196:15
personal [4] 164:11, 184:18,
184:22, 218:25
personally [3] 124:13, 214:18,
228:10
personnel [5] 124:11, 205:23,
206:2, 206:25, 223:2
persons [3] - 163:25,
223:2, 223:14
perspective [1] 189:10
Peter [1] - 136:25
Ph.D [3] - 118:7,
118:14, 119:6
phenomena [1] 137:24
phenomenon [1] 196:19
Philadelphia [1] 143:19
Philips [3] - 110:10,
110:11, 162:7
phone [1] - 178:20
phrase [4] - 125:12,
177:25, 180:24, 208:6
physical [2] - 137:24
physically [2] 167:17, 224:16
physics [1] - 137:19
picture [1] - 201:24
piece [11] - 128:7,
128:9, 129:1, 138:17,
141:5, 142:10, 143:4,
143:10, 203:8, 220:9,
220:12
pieces [8] - 120:22,
120:25, 126:2, 138:9,
138:22, 141:2,
143:16, 144:10
place [3] - 159:21,
169:25, 170:1
places [1] - 211:25
Plaintiff [2] - 106:3,
107:3
PLAINTIFF [1] -
Case Name/number
107:7
plaintiff [6] - 111:8,
111:15, 111:19,
115:5, 166:12, 214:10
plaintiff's [1] 164:25
plaintiffs' [2] 112:21, 139:7
plan [1] - 221:10
play [4] - 132:11,
174:12, 182:24,
210:21
played [3] - 156:9,
173:11, 174:15
playing [1] - 190:24
plight [1] - 152:23
plucked [1] - 144:8
plumbing [1] - 145:9
plummeted [1] 151:24
Point [1] - 133:21
point [14] - 129:21,
140:14, 142:25,
145:14, 145:15,
152:10, 154:5, 162:1,
164:2, 164:16, 191:7,
197:4, 214:10, 228:25
points [1] - 198:13
police [1] - 200:3
policies [4] - 131:18,
150:10, 190:8, 223:2
Policy [3] - 143:2,
207:23, 208:19
policy [61] - 109:5,
113:14, 115:6,
122:17, 123:24,
125:1, 125:11,
126:21, 127:3,
131:22, 151:2, 151:3,
151:6, 152:12, 153:3,
154:6, 155:10,
157:18, 157:21,
158:1, 160:22,
160:25, 162:5, 164:8,
168:6, 171:23,
172:10, 172:12,
187:21, 200:11,
201:15, 202:7, 203:3,
204:1, 205:13,
205:17, 209:18,
210:17, 210:23,
212:23, 214:3,
215:20, 216:23,
217:4, 217:15,
217:19, 218:22,
219:14, 219:20,
219:24, 220:5,
220:25, 221:4, 221:6,
221:10, 221:11,
221:13, 221:15,
date
221:20, 222:23
policymakers [1] 124:11
political [8] - 131:16,
150:14, 153:13,
153:14, 156:8, 182:1,
186:23, 227:6
politics [2] - 121:3,
121:15
poll [14] - 197:18,
197:19, 197:21,
197:23, 197:25,
198:3, 225:14,
226:11, 227:16,
228:3, 228:4, 228:8
Poll [1] - 226:5
polling [2] - 197:10,
198:6
polls [27] - 197:5,
197:8, 197:10,
197:11, 197:16,
225:3, 225:6, 225:24,
226:2, 226:3, 226:4,
226:8, 226:17,
226:22, 226:24,
227:5, 227:6, 227:11,
227:14, 227:19,
227:20, 227:25
pools [1] - 167:22
popular [1] - 121:15
position [13] 122:10, 122:13,
122:15, 123:2,
123:11, 123:14,
144:8, 158:12,
159:17, 173:20,
173:21, 182:22,
187:18
positions [2] 198:17, 212:4
possibility [2] 149:18, 208:23
possible [3] 134:20, 162:23, 171:7
possibly [2] 134:24, 150:1
Post [4] - 133:19,
143:18, 143:19, 226:8
posts [2] - 138:13,
138:22
potential [4] - 149:7,
150:2, 188:19, 208:14
Powell [6] - 164:8,
173:17, 182:21,
221:7, 221:9, 221:13
Powell's [3] 183:19, 184:12,
185:19
power [1] - 194:22
powers [2] - 114:14,
16
162:1
practice [1] - 124:25
Prakash [1] - 220:8
precedent [1] - 109:7
precedents [1] 108:12
precise [1] - 147:23
preclude [1] - 108:14
prefer [1] - 144:22
prejudice [2] - 188:4,
219:24
prejudices [1] 189:8
preparation [1] 132:11
prepared [1] 221:22
preparing [3] 135:13, 137:9
presence [4] 134:15, 185:11,
223:3, 223:13
present [2] - 215:19,
216:3
presented [2] 113:19, 175:15
preserve [3] 185:11, 185:24,
223:25
presidency [1] 150:12
president [2] - 183:6,
221:5
President [12] 150:13, 150:14,
150:23, 153:5, 153:6,
153:20, 154:7, 156:2,
156:6, 156:14, 173:9,
183:14
President's [1] 221:9
Press [1] - 143:24
press [6] - 122:17,
133:20, 143:24,
193:25, 210:23,
216:14
pressure [1] - 150:14
presumed [1] - 162:2
pretrial [2] - 154:19,
204:10
previous [1] - 199:9
previously [5] 121:13, 152:24,
186:17, 192:8, 196:1
primarily [3] 168:15, 168:16,
168:17
primary [1] - 122:21
Primer [1] - 132:9
principle [2] -
115:21, 161:19
principles [4] 144:18, 144:19,
145:20, 145:22
prism [1] - 118:19
prison [1] - 148:4
privacy [18] - 183:21,
184:21, 185:1, 185:5,
185:8, 185:9, 185:12,
185:19, 185:22,
185:25, 186:3, 186:7,
188:24, 196:3,
210:18, 223:25,
224:23
private [2] - 124:25,
198:6
privilege [3] 109:12, 109:17,
111:19
problem [3] - 147:9,
175:22, 179:6
problems [1] 206:22
proceed [1] - 166:13
process [1] - 149:6
produced [4] 127:6, 155:12,
155:14, 155:18
producers [1] 133:7
product [3] - 144:18,
145:20, 218:5
products [1] - 211:1
profession [3] 117:6, 149:17, 149:24
Professor [53] 109:1, 116:16, 117:5,
117:11, 118:18,
118:21, 121:25,
123:18, 125:15,
125:21, 126:7,
127:12, 128:4, 128:6,
130:13, 130:24,
131:3, 133:16, 134:4,
135:1, 138:4, 139:1,
146:5, 152:2, 156:2,
165:11, 166:20,
168:12, 173:4,
173:10, 176:3,
180:23, 187:5,
187:16, 193:5, 194:4,
194:19, 195:2,
195:12, 198:7, 203:2,
205:2, 209:2, 210:6,
212:24, 215:5,
218:14, 221:25,
222:17, 224:8, 225:2,
229:21, 229:25
professor [4] 117:7, 125:3, 137:1,
182:1
professor's [1] 228:14
Program [2] - 207:5,
207:7
program [3] - 117:9,
133:11, 207:7
Programs [1] 106:12
programs [3] 133:6, 133:8, 133:10
progressed [1] 228:16
prohibit [1] - 108:11
prohibited [5] 110:8, 147:3, 147:14,
147:15, 163:3
prohibition [2] 222:4, 222:10
prohibitions [1] 147:2
promiscuous [1] 167:17
promise [2] - 152:7,
156:4
promised [1] - 152:9
promises [2] 152:12, 152:14
promotes [1] - 167:9
propensity [2] 149:10, 223:14
proper [4] - 110:3,
143:13, 145:25,
165:24
proponent [1] 166:10
proportion [2] 201:14, 202:4
proportions [2] 170:14, 170:16
proposed [2] 145:7, 164:25
proscription [2] 149:13, 149:15
proscriptions [2] 149:4, 149:20
prosecute [1] 148:13
prosecuted [1] 208:22
prospective [1] 169:2
protect [1] - 186:7
prove [1] - 115:5
proved [1] - 187:13
provided [3] 127:22, 129:24, 166:5
provides [2] - 223:1,
223:13
providing [2] -
Case Name/number
157:25, 209:21
psychiatric [2] 149:17, 149:24
psychiatrists [1] 149:11
public [5] - 131:22,
172:13, 225:4,
225:24, 226:7
publication [1] 141:4
publications [8] 125:23, 126:5, 138:5,
138:12, 138:21,
143:15, 165:3, 178:12
publish [3] - 179:16,
180:24, 220:9
published [12] 121:18, 131:9,
131:12, 132:3,
140:22, 143:6,
143:12, 143:23,
171:5, 171:20, 181:9
punish [2] - 217:15,
217:19
punishable [1] 148:4
punished [2] 146:23, 146:24
pure [1] - 159:21
purpose [17] - 110:3,
113:6, 113:21, 114:2,
115:12, 154:2,
154:15, 155:7,
155:11, 159:25,
160:1, 161:23,
162:20, 162:22,
178:7, 181:17, 191:16
purposes [1] 195:15
pursuant [3] - 195:7,
199:20, 203:3
put [10] - 109:2,
114:9, 115:4, 115:7,
144:1, 148:14,
163:14, 201:22,
202:14, 221:2
puts [1] - 114:17
puzzled [1] - 181:14
Q
qualification [1] 207:9
qualifications [4] 128:8, 130:7, 139:15,
140:17
qualified [7] 144:14, 144:23,
165:1, 165:20,
date
199:17, 206:23, 213:3

qualify [1] - 145:9
qualitative [8] 131:20, 135:9, 136:7,
136:9, 136:11,
136:12, 136:19, 142:6
quality [4] - 128:20,
129:1, 202:1, 206:22
quantitative [4] 131:20, 135:10,
136:7, 136:9
Quarterly [3] - 220:4,
220:10, 222:20
question-byquestion [6] - 111:16,
114:3, 140:4, 141:13,
142:18, 166:13
questioning [2] 129:4, 163:4
questions [13] 113:23, 113:25,
127:3, 140:12,
162:25, 166:3, 166:6,
179:12, 179:20,
200:9, 200:14, 209:23
quicker [1] - 166:13
quickly [1] - 149:8
quote [2] - 161:13,
223:1
quoted [6] - 133:12,
133:14, 133:16,
133:19, 134:2, 161:9
quoting [1] - 161:10
R
race [1] - 120:2
Rachel [1] - 133:5
racial [11] - 125:10,
157:12, 177:19,
187:6, 188:17,
189:16, 189:21,
190:14, 190:17,
191:1, 192:18
racially [1] - 187:13
raid [4] - 148:5,
148:10, 148:14,
148:15
raids [1] - 151:4
raised [5] - 109:12,
109:19, 111:17,
140:19, 162:1
raising [2] - 171:15,
193:20
RAND [10] - 157:1,
157:4, 157:8, 157:16,
168:22, 169:9,
169:15, 190:13,
222:24, 227:6
17
random [1] - 228:3

Randy [2] - 151:13,
151:17
range [1] - 226:19
ranging [1] - 119:15
rape [1] - 192:13
rates [2] - 193:20,
193:21
rather [7] - 144:23,
147:3, 148:7, 148:16,
149:1, 169:12, 228:18
rational [1] - 160:22
rationale [5] 160:21, 190:22,
224:18, 224:22,
224:24
rationales [2] 224:9, 224:12
re [2] - 208:22,
209:12
re-enlist [2] - 208:22,
209:12
reach [1] - 212:6
reached [1] - 216:16
read [13] - 109:14,
123:22, 139:12,
142:20, 143:7, 144:7,
144:21, 145:2, 158:6,
216:13, 216:22, 229:4
readiness [4] 210:19, 215:6,
216:10, 216:18
reading [4] - 130:8,
142:20, 162:12,
162:17
reads [1] - 222:4
Ready [2] - 206:9,
206:17
ready [1] - 225:19
Reagan [1] - 151:1
really [12] - 112:24,
114:7, 114:23, 129:9,
145:3, 146:21,
160:17, 163:2, 163:4,
181:14, 181:15,
181:19
reargue [1] - 164:22
rearguing [1] 116:13
reason [4] - 139:9,
155:8, 159:11, 159:17
reasonably [1] 159:3
reasons [10] 144:22, 160:5, 163:6,
163:10, 165:7,
183:13, 187:12,
205:12, 217:3, 217:8
reassertions [1] 168:18
recalled [1] - 206:5

receive [8] - 117:17,
117:23, 117:25,
118:2, 118:7, 118:9,
134:19, 220:15
RECEIVED [1] 107:12
received [5] 118:22, 118:25,
120:21, 154:17,
203:14
recent [1] - 137:2
recently [1] - 123:14
recess [4] - 163:1,
166:14, 166:15,
166:16
recession [1] 199:11
recognize [1] 109:25
recognized [1] 142:5
recommendations
[1] - 159:2
recommended [2] 157:18, 168:5
record [23] - 111:1,
116:23, 119:10,
146:11, 147:7,
149:16, 151:22,
159:25, 162:10,
171:2, 171:18,
171:21, 172:19,
175:4, 175:16, 176:8,
179:4, 179:7, 181:8,
186:24, 191:18,
194:21, 207:10
records [1] - 151:23
recreate [2] - 135:21,
138:2
recreation [1] 136:13
RECROSS [1] 107:7
recruit [9] - 198:8,
198:24, 201:1, 201:2,
201:21, 201:23,
208:12, 208:14,
208:15
recruiters [1] 198:21
recruiting [1] 198:17
recruitment [2] 202:1, 212:8
recruits [2] - 149:7,
205:14
redacted [1] - 127:9
REDIRECT [1] 107:7
redo [1] - 173:1

refer [2] - 144:22,
207:11
reference [4] - 126:7,
130:14, 130:16, 197:9
referenced [3] 196:1, 212:6, 227:15
referencing [1] 214:2
referred [1] - 163:25
referring [8] 121:17, 151:11,
161:7, 172:7, 197:17,
206:8, 207:4, 217:10
reflect [3] - 171:21,
189:8, 193:19
reflected [5] 171:12, 175:9, 176:5,
188:4, 193:25
reflecting [1] - 175:1
reflects [2] - 135:21,
136:13
reform [1] - 157:25
refresh [1] - 108:20
refuse [1] - 212:19
refusing [1] - 172:14
regarding [5] 108:8, 112:25, 113:2,
222:3, 222:25
regardless [1] 162:7
regular [2] - 206:10,
209:10
regularly [1] - 206:12
reinstated [2] 153:3, 153:4
rejected [1] - 165:6
related [4] - 121:9,
123:19, 135:19,
155:14
relates [1] - 108:8
relation [2] - 167:1,
182:9
relations [2] - 121:1,
124:23
relationship [2] 177:20, 182:10
relative [2] - 150:9,
229:13
relatively [2] - 137:2,
229:13
relaxed [1] - 193:15
release [1] - 172:14
releases [2] 122:17, 210:23
relevance [8] 127:16, 146:13,
154:13, 154:15,
155:10, 155:20,
187:10, 187:11
Case Name/number
relevant [8] - 111:9,

115:2, 154:5, 162:22,
163:20, 163:24,
187:18, 191:16
reliable [2] - 144:18,
145:20
reliably [2] - 144:20,
145:23
relied [16] - 127:18,
127:19, 127:22,
127:25, 128:4,
153:23, 154:20,
154:23, 155:1, 155:2,
155:4, 158:7, 159:23,
179:5, 181:9
relied-upon [3] 127:22, 179:5, 181:9
relies [1] - 181:16
religious [12] 149:19, 156:7,
162:23, 167:5, 167:9,
171:22, 186:9,
186:13, 186:22,
187:1, 192:21
rely [5] - 109:6,
169:11, 171:2, 195:9,
206:23
relying [5] - 129:19,
148:25, 162:18,
172:17, 193:2
remain [2] - 158:12,
206:9
remember [2] 141:18, 143:21
remind [1] - 162:6
remove [1] - 218:6
removed [2] 170:22, 171:3
renew [1] - 109:6
repeat [2] - 198:4,
217:17
repeated [1] - 180:17
repetition [1] - 165:5
replacements [1] 201:22
report [56] - 125:16,
125:24, 126:1, 126:8,
126:11, 126:13,
126:15, 126:18,
127:12, 128:6,
130:13, 130:15,
130:23, 130:25,
131:2, 132:8, 132:12,
132:14, 132:19,
135:13, 137:9,
139:10, 139:13,
140:7, 141:16,
141:17, 158:5, 158:6,
158:7, 158:12, 163:6,
163:8, 166:21, 168:4,
date
168:8, 168:12,
168:22, 169:9,
169:16, 169:20,
184:3, 192:25,
195:17, 213:16,
213:23, 214:3, 214:5,
214:12, 214:15,
214:16, 220:4,
222:24, 224:2, 228:21
Report [3] - 222:23,
224:20
reported [1] - 180:15
Reporter [1] - 162:21
reports [17] - 135:20,
139:22, 139:25,
151:7, 151:11,
151:12, 151:13,
151:15, 151:16,
169:3, 172:10,
193:25, 205:20,
212:25, 216:14,
228:1, 228:19
reprimanded [1] 148:15
reproductive [1] 147:17
Republic [1] - 143:17
reputation [2] 174:22, 188:25
request [1] - 155:13
requests [2] - 159:9,
230:8
require [2] - 173:1,
198:23
requirement [1] 118:13
requirements [2] 145:5, 145:18
requiring [1] 206:23
research [77] 117:10, 122:4,
122:18, 122:20,
122:21, 123:6, 123:7,
123:10, 123:11,
123:23, 131:1,
131:13, 131:20,
132:4, 132:16,
132:17, 132:21,
133:12, 133:16,
135:10, 136:2,
136:11, 137:14,
137:17, 137:18,
138:6, 138:15,
138:16, 138:18,
138:19, 138:23,
142:6, 143:9, 152:24,
159:7, 159:9, 159:10,
165:2, 167:20,
167:22, 168:14,
18
168:19, 169:4,
169:10, 169:12,
169:19, 169:22,
172:23, 172:24,
173:2, 193:6, 193:11,
194:4, 195:21,
195:24, 196:18,
196:22, 198:11,
201:14, 204:19,
205:1, 205:6, 205:8,
206:18, 210:14,
210:15, 210:24,
210:25, 211:1, 215:9,
216:8, 221:19,
221:20, 222:18,
227:4, 228:1
Research [2] - 167:7,
167:8
researched [1] 195:2
researcher [2] 117:7, 126:15
researchers [2] 122:19, 173:1
researching [2] 117:8, 123:18
resemble [1] 189:15
Reserve [2] - 206:9,
206:17
reserve [2] - 196:12,
206:13
resign [1] - 212:11
resistance [1] 156:6
resolve [1] - 156:12
resources [1] 199:14
respect [9] - 142:7,
142:12, 142:15,
150:9, 156:3, 157:23,
188:3, 188:5, 191:19
respectfully [1] 108:12
respective [2] 165:1, 174:23
respondents [1] 228:9
response [3] - 143:3,
143:9, 220:15
responsibility [1] 183:14
rest [4] - 121:12,
141:1, 142:8, 142:19
resting [2] - 112:19,
113:1
result [7] - 134:15,
168:2, 168:4, 168:14,
198:24, 199:11,
205:17
results [4] - 225:14,

226:11, 226:12,
227:19
resumed [2] - 151:25
retain [1] - 198:9
retention [3] 192:14, 205:12,
205:13
retired [3] - 221:14,
221:18, 224:3
return [1] - 196:20
returning [1] 151:10
review [9] - 110:17,
121:18, 140:20,
140:23, 142:25,
143:12, 162:20,
221:11, 222:18
reviewed [4] - 141:4,
143:22, 171:5, 221:25
Reviewing [2] 129:13, 130:10
revisit [1] - 221:10
Revolution [1] 120:3
reword [1] - 194:17
rhetoric [5] - 135:7,
135:18, 137:25,
190:7, 192:7
rid [1] - 221:12
rigged [1] - 182:16
rights [6] - 117:10,
121:1, 121:2, 121:7,
121:14, 191:15
rise [1] - 115:20
risen [1] - 226:16
risk [4] - 223:3,
223:15, 224:5, 224:19
risks [1] - 150:2
Riverside [1] - 108:1
Robert [3] - 158:11,
166:24, 186:16
role [11] - 132:11,
162:3, 174:12,
174:16, 178:17,
178:25, 179:12,
182:3, 182:24,
210:21, 211:9
roles [1] - 173:11
Romer [1] - 116:10
room [1] - 106:15
rooted [5] - 189:2,
189:4, 189:6, 224:20,
224:24
roster [1] - 171:4
rotations [1] 206:24
roughly [5] - 126:25,
131:13, 205:15,
225:7, 229:15
rule [6] - 144:11,

144:21, 144:25,
145:2, 145:5
Rule [1] - 144:11
ruled [2] - 164:23,
164:25
Rules [1] - 144:2
ruling [3] - 108:19,
141:19, 165:18
run [2] - 156:25,
202:13
Ryan [1] - 106:13
S
sacrifice [3] - 185:9,
185:25, 186:3
Sam [4] - 156:15,
170:6, 170:22, 173:15
same-sex [1] 121:14
sampling [2] 167:22, 228:4
San [1] - 151:13
Santa [1] - 122:5
satisfied [2] 109:16, 159:4
satisfies [1] - 115:13
saw [2] - 149:21,
186:19
scholars [3] 122:19, 124:10,
210:24
school [2] - 117:19,
117:21
School [5] - 119:8,
119:9, 119:17, 120:1,
205:9
schools [2] - 198:21,
198:23
science [3] - 135:23,
182:1, 195:13
sciences [2] 119:16, 137:18
scientific [3] - 142:7,
144:12, 145:10
scientist [1] - 169:2
scientists [4] 135:5, 145:1, 157:9,
158:24
scope [1] - 214:8
Scott [1] - 106:14
screening [1] - 149:6
scrutiny [2] - 113:15,
115:6
second [3] - 129:21,
157:23, 214:2
secretary [1] - 221:3
Secretary [5] -
Case Name/number
153:11, 153:12,
220:17, 221:4, 222:22
section [1] - 132:13
Section [1] - 230:22
sections [2] - 132:15
security [3] - 150:2,
221:6, 224:19
see [8] - 130:16,
138:12, 139:14,
143:8, 164:13,
186:24, 190:19,
202:21
seek [1] - 142:8
seeking [5] - 127:17,
130:6, 155:7, 155:8,
188:11
self [1] - 127:8
self-authenticating
[1] - 127:8
seminal [1] - 141:1
Senate [10] - 148:15,
156:16, 170:4, 170:5,
171:8, 173:21,
173:22, 173:23,
174:19, 177:3
Senator [15] 156:15, 160:12,
163:12, 164:6, 164:9,
164:10, 170:22,
171:3, 173:15,
173:18, 174:12,
176:4, 177:2, 177:20,
182:17
senator [1] - 170:6
sending [1] - 151:8
senior [6] - 123:6,
123:7, 123:11,
156:25, 183:1, 183:16
sent [2] - 127:10,
196:19
sentiment [1] 190:22
separate [2] 200:21, 228:17
separation [2] 114:14, 162:1
September [2] 126:8, 173:8
series [1] - 167:16
serious [2] - 207:21,
207:23
serve [16] - 160:11,
192:17, 196:24,
205:12, 210:18,
211:7, 211:19, 212:7,
212:12, 212:17,
212:19, 218:23,
226:20, 227:8, 227:10
served [6] - 115:12,
127:1, 193:7, 193:12,
date
228:17, 228:19
serves [1] - 228:22
service [33] - 113:9,
124:16, 125:1,
126:20, 127:1,
134:16, 146:9,
149:13, 150:18,
153:7, 157:19,
164:11, 170:18,
171:10, 189:22,
194:1, 196:4, 196:18,
201:25, 205:15,
206:10, 206:21,
206:24, 212:16,
216:13, 216:24,
218:10, 218:23,
223:24, 226:19,
228:2, 228:10, 229:20
Service [1] - 126:9
services [1] - 149:6
Services [4] 156:16, 170:3,
173:24, 174:19
serving [5] - 127:1,
134:20, 196:25,
212:3, 226:15
set [5] - 109:7, 110:4,
127:2, 131:16, 221:23
sets [1] - 136:19
seven [2] - 164:25,
167:23
several [6] - 148:13,
151:16, 157:10,
172:8, 172:12, 181:4
sex [3] - 121:14,
147:17, 148:12
sexual [11] - 134:14,
134:17, 147:16,
148:16, 154:8,
157:18, 160:18,
167:19, 188:23,
192:12, 219:22
Sexuality [1] 120:19
sexuality [2] - 122:6,
131:14
sexually [1] - 192:6
shall [2] - 116:18,
147:10
shape [2] - 138:1,
138:10
shielding [2] - 186:6,
223:24
shifted [2] - 224:19,
224:22
shifting [1] - 224:24
Shilts [1] - 151:13
Shilts's [1] - 151:17
shoes [1] - 135:17
short [3] - 129:11,
19
229:5, 229:13
shortage [1] - 202:6
shortages [6] 199:7, 199:9, 199:10,
199:12, 200:15, 206:2
shortfall [3] - 200:25,
201:11, 202:11
shortfalls [8] - 200:1,
200:15, 201:2,
201:19, 201:23,
202:16, 203:6, 206:22
shortly [1] - 153:6
show [7] - 115:5,
127:11, 150:15,
154:5, 193:11, 225:6,
228:1
Show [2] - 133:5
showdown [2] 156:8, 156:12
showed [2] - 169:22,
185:3
showing [7] 172:19, 184:1, 186:6,
189:5, 195:18,
195:21, 226:18
shown [4] - 116:8,
168:19, 193:1, 224:23
shows [9] - 131:1,
151:22, 155:9, 175:4,
187:20, 187:22,
201:23, 228:8, 228:9
side [3] - 112:23,
202:14
sides [2] - 170:7,
170:12
sign [1] - 198:22
signatures [1] 221:23
signed [4] - 153:20,
173:9, 221:14, 221:19
significance [2] 147:12, 183:16
significant [2] 148:10, 183:9
significantly [2] 113:16, 226:16
signing [1] - 199:14
similar [4] - 127:2,
168:5, 190:23, 220:1
similarities [1] 190:19
similarity [1] 191:18
simple [1] - 139:23
simply [4] - 148:7,
154:10, 184:2, 228:19
Simpson [1] - 106:14
simultaneously [1] 167:4
single [1] - 140:7
single-spaced [1] 140:7

sinners [1] - 224:17
situation [4] 122:24, 148:1, 149:3,
188:6
situations [1] 196:25
six [4] - 119:18,
132:13, 132:20,
227:17
sketchy [1] - 127:24
skill [1] - 144:15
slight [1] - 225:12
slightly [2] - 109:21,
214:20
slots [4] - 198:14,
199:3, 199:21, 202:19
small [1] - 225:9
smaller [1] - 227:25
snowball [1] 158:25
social [12] - 119:16,
131:16, 135:5, 135:6,
135:23, 142:7, 156:6,
157:8, 158:24, 169:2,
195:13, 227:7
society [2] - 225:21,
225:23
sociologist [3] 125:8, 173:16, 177:17
sociologists [1] 178:17
sodomy [4] - 146:24,
147:4, 148:2
soldiers [2] - 209:3,
211:25
solely [1] - 162:19
solemnly [1] 116:17
some-percent [1] 225:9
someone [11] 119:10, 124:21,
145:1, 145:3, 145:7,
149:1, 191:12,
208:18, 208:20,
223:24
sometimes [6] 149:8, 163:23, 166:3,
166:6, 196:20, 201:1
somewhat [1] 127:24
somewhere [1] 168:1
sorry [14] - 125:18,
151:12, 169:24,
176:19, 185:18,
191:6, 193:22, 198:4,
203:11, 203:22,
208:9, 219:9, 220:5,

226:5
sort [2] - 137:15,
142:19
sorts [1] - 192:6
sought [3] - 172:9,
172:13, 198:21
sound [1] - 193:3
source [2] - 193:17,
195:9
sources [3] - 190:11,
193:17, 195:9
South [1] - 210:14
spaced [1] - 140:7
speakers [3] - 202:6,
202:8, 204:24
speaking [4] - 113:3,
178:24, 204:17,
205:23
special [1] - 143:17
specialist [1] - 201:6
specialists [2] 200:3, 204:24
specialized [4] 135:2, 144:12,
145:10, 145:17
specialties [2] 200:4, 202:10
specialty [1] - 144:9
specific [5] - 112:2,
145:4, 190:16,
190:17, 194:17
specifically [7] 108:8, 108:14, 109:6,
110:8, 112:14, 113:9,
125:20
specifications [1] 198:15
specifics [2] 141:10, 141:13
specify [1] - 175:24
speculate [1] 165:11
speculating [1] 140:5
speculation [1] 184:8
speech [1] - 108:10
spell [1] - 116:22
spend [1] - 161:5
spent [2] - 155:23,
199:14
split [1] - 225:8
spoken [3] - 158:8,
160:4, 219:16
spokesperson [1] 196:16
spouted [1] - 142:21
spring [2] - 131:10,
132:3
Case Name/number
St [1] - 143:24
Staff [4] - 182:23,
183:14, 218:22,
220:11
stamp [1] - 155:17
stand [4] - 112:11,
181:13, 206:16,
230:12
standard [4] 110:17, 114:5, 115:1,
115:20
standards [12] 115:10, 136:6,
136:19, 141:3, 199:3,
199:15, 201:23,
202:16, 202:18,
208:5, 223:4, 223:16
standing [2] - 222:5,
230:19
start [2] - 119:9,
173:18
started [4] - 113:14,
119:15, 154:6, 230:3
starting [2] - 122:11,
178:5
starts [1] - 141:16
stasis [1] - 150:9
state [3] - 116:17,
116:22, 153:2
statement [5] 129:20, 180:11,
180:20, 180:22, 181:1
statements [23] 110:4, 144:8, 160:15,
171:12, 171:18,
171:20, 172:17,
174:25, 181:7,
185:19, 187:12,
187:14, 188:4,
190:16, 190:17,
192:20, 194:1,
217:16, 217:20,
218:16, 220:21,
221:7, 221:14
STATES [2] - 106:11,
106:18
States [2] - 146:9,
172:4
states [1] - 196:12
stating [1] - 218:11
stationed [1] 211:18
statistics [2] 193:19, 224:21
statute [17] - 110:4,
110:5, 110:16,
112:25, 113:3, 113:7,
115:12, 115:13,
161:20, 161:22,
162:8, 162:19,
date
162:22, 222:1, 223:1,

223:13, 230:22
statutory [1] - 113:7
stay [4] - 205:3,
205:15, 209:18, 226:7
staying [1] - 159:17
Steffan [1] - 152:21
step [3] - 146:6,
229:8
step-by-step [1] 146:6
Stephen [1] - 229:20
steps [2] - 153:7,
153:13
stereotypes [1] 148:25
Stiehm [3] - 181:24,
181:25, 182:12
still [3] - 110:23,
143:5, 196:25
stirred [1] - 151:5
straight [6] - 217:6,
217:24, 218:1, 218:3,
218:7, 218:9
Street [2] - 106:6,
151:15
strengthen [1] 189:11
strengthened [1] 189:12
stricken [2] - 175:16,
175:18
strike [8] - 161:19,
161:24, 173:19,
191:22, 194:24,
194:25, 222:12,
222:14
Stuart [1] - 106:20
studied [13] 123:22, 146:11,
152:4, 157:24,
168:12, 182:11,
189:20, 190:7, 198:7,
200:9, 210:6, 215:5,
224:8
studies [29] - 117:18,
118:20, 119:16,
122:5, 122:24,
124:22, 135:20,
156:18, 156:19,
168:19, 169:14,
172:4, 172:8, 172:13,
195:13, 196:1, 209:2,
210:12, 210:22,
212:6, 212:10,
212:15, 212:25,
213:6, 216:12,
218:15, 223:22,
224:20
study [36] - 127:12,
20
128:7, 142:11, 157:1,

157:4, 157:8, 157:9,
157:15, 157:16,
157:18, 157:23,
157:24, 168:3,
169:19, 172:15,
172:20, 172:23,
184:3, 184:11, 189:2,
190:5, 190:13, 194:5,
196:18, 198:11,
205:1, 205:6, 205:18,
209:6, 210:25,
213:18, 214:2,
214:19, 215:10,
216:8, 216:11
studying [7] 123:19, 126:18,
135:17, 135:20,
136:14, 137:5, 172:2
subject [19] - 108:4,
118:16, 120:24,
129:22, 131:4, 133:1,
133:8, 134:13, 139:8,
158:4, 163:3, 183:7,
183:19, 196:10,
205:7, 206:9, 210:11,
212:24, 222:16
subjects [7] 135:17, 135:18,
135:22, 165:20,
193:18, 205:23,
228:18
submit [2] - 108:12,
154:22
submitted [2] 111:7, 111:20
subsequently [1] 210:13
substance [4] 208:9, 208:12,
208:21, 219:19
substances [1] 208:15
substantive [6] 127:15, 154:22,
159:24, 160:1, 179:5,
181:9
success [2] - 152:17,
152:22
suffered [1] - 167:18
suffices [1] - 127:11
sufficient [2] 144:17, 145:19
suggest [4] - 128:4,
197:8, 227:7, 230:2
suggested [4] 140:3, 148:16,
169:20, 197:19
suggesting [2] 144:5, 201:3
suggests [1] - 177:3

suing [1] - 152:21
Suite [2] - 106:7,
106:20
summarize [2] 183:18, 214:5
summary [2] - 111:6,
130:25
summer [1] - 134:10
superior [1] - 177:10
superiors [3] 193:14, 196:23
supersedes [2] 114:18, 115:9
supply [1] - 200:2
support [3] - 173:6,
226:15, 226:16
supported [3] 169:4, 169:6, 170:20
supports [1] 226:19
suppose [3] 208:20, 208:23,
209:11
supposed [1] 220:25
suppress [1] 175:17
suppressed [1] 172:4
Supreme [1] 115:21
surrounding [4] 135:8, 174:18, 187:6,
190:8
Survey [1] - 205:10
surveys [1] - 205:10
survive [2] - 113:15,
115:6
susceptible [1] 141:3
suspect [3] - 128:1,
140:21, 197:6
suspected [8] 148:5, 148:12,
148:17, 148:18,
148:22, 149:21,
151:4, 151:8
sustain [4] - 114:10,
140:10, 140:13,
175:23
sustained [13] 130:11, 168:24,
170:10, 171:16,
171:25, 174:10,
175:6, 180:2, 184:9,
187:3, 189:18,
213:25, 217:22
syllabi [2] - 133:20,
133:24
syndrome [2] 167:18, 192:8

synthesize [1] 157:5
systematic [2] 135:24, 137:15
T
tabulated [1] - 205:9
Tammy [1] - 133:15
tasked [1] - 160:12
tasks [1] - 123:9
taught [6] - 119:6,
119:22, 120:1, 120:9,
120:11, 120:17
teach [7] - 117:9,
118:24, 118:25,
119:2, 119:17,
119:20, 120:8
teaching [6] - 117:8,
119:3, 120:5, 120:20,
132:21, 145:6
technical [2] 144:12, 145:1
television [1] - 133:7
Tell's [1] - 219:13
temporary [1] 221:1
ten [1] - 131:13
tend [1] - 144:25
tenure [1] - 150:16
term [3] - 200:16,
202:3, 208:3
terms [11] - 134:2,
136:7, 141:11, 147:2,
186:23, 187:15,
190:23, 201:23,
201:24, 206:8, 211:15
test [1] - 187:24
testified [13] - 134:4,
134:15, 141:2,
145:20, 155:2,
175:13, 176:25,
184:21, 191:20,
192:22, 199:19,
203:14, 203:25
testifies [2] - 174:21,
215:20
testify [25] - 109:3,
110:6, 111:23,
144:16, 154:3,
154:25, 155:1, 155:5,
159:20, 159:22,
160:12, 163:7, 164:7,
164:9, 170:12,
170:24, 175:14,
181:17, 182:5, 182:7,
183:7, 194:10,
Case Name/number
207:22, 215:15,
228:18
testifying [4] 112:12, 176:11,
179:4, 200:19
testimony [68] 108:7, 108:11,
110:25, 111:2, 111:7,
111:14, 111:15,
111:22, 111:25,
112:3, 112:21,
112:23, 112:24,
113:2, 113:8, 113:12,
114:4, 114:6, 114:14,
114:15, 115:2,
115:25, 116:17,
127:20, 134:13,
139:7, 139:11,
139:20, 142:9,
144:17, 144:18,
144:23, 145:19,
154:13, 160:24,
162:14, 162:17,
162:18, 163:10,
163:11, 163:17,
163:18, 163:21,
163:23, 164:1, 164:6,
164:14, 164:17,
165:15, 165:25,
183:9, 183:19, 184:3,
184:11, 184:12,
184:14, 193:17,
196:9, 200:7, 200:8,
203:4, 203:24,
209:20, 214:23,
215:22
THE [200] - 108:5,
108:16, 108:18,
108:23, 109:8,
109:14, 109:17,
110:11, 110:13,
110:20, 112:6,
112:15, 113:13,
113:24, 114:19,
114:22, 115:14,
115:16, 115:24,
116:17, 116:21,
116:22, 116:24,
117:1, 121:16,
121:23, 127:20,
127:23, 128:15,
128:22, 129:4, 129:7,
129:13, 129:17,
129:23, 130:3, 130:8,
139:6, 139:18,
139:24, 140:8,
140:22, 141:8,
141:12, 141:17,
141:25, 142:17,
142:24, 143:5,
143:11, 144:11,
date
145:13, 146:14,
146:15, 147:8,
147:10, 147:11,
147:12, 153:24,
154:1, 154:12,
154:25, 155:19,
159:22, 160:2, 160:4,
161:1, 161:13, 162:9,
162:17, 163:20,
164:13, 164:19,
165:17, 166:17,
168:10, 168:24,
169:7, 169:9, 170:10,
171:16, 171:25,
173:21, 173:23,
174:8, 174:10, 175:6,
175:12, 176:13,
176:14, 176:19,
176:23, 177:5, 177:7,
179:8, 180:2, 181:10,
181:21, 184:9,
184:16, 184:18,
187:3, 187:10,
187:17, 187:23,
188:8, 188:13,
188:15, 189:18,
189:25, 190:2, 191:6,
191:10, 191:12,
191:22, 191:24,
194:11, 194:16,
194:25, 197:12,
200:6, 200:12,
200:13, 200:17,
200:18, 200:22,
200:23, 200:24,
201:4, 201:12,
201:13, 201:16,
202:2, 202:12,
202:21, 203:11,
203:17, 203:18,
203:20, 203:21,
204:2, 204:6, 204:8,
204:9, 204:14,
204:15, 206:13,
206:14, 207:19,
207:20, 207:22,
207:25, 208:1, 208:3,
208:7, 208:9, 208:11,
208:14, 208:16,
208:20, 208:24,
209:22, 210:1,
211:10, 211:11,
213:5, 213:8, 213:17,
213:18, 213:21,
213:25, 214:9,
214:13, 214:20,
214:25, 215:3,
215:13, 215:17,
215:23, 215:25,
216:5, 217:9, 217:11,
217:12, 217:13,
21
217:22, 222:14,
228:21, 228:24,
229:4, 229:8, 229:15,
229:17, 229:24,
230:2, 230:6, 230:11,
230:14, 230:17,
230:20
themselves [2] 216:25, 218:6
theory [2] - 157:13,
157:14
thereto [1] - 144:16
thesis [3] - 118:13,
118:16, 118:18
thinking [2] - 128:23,
213:19
third [1] - 129:14
thorough [3] 190:13, 221:11,
222:18
thoughtful [7] 128:7, 128:9, 128:18,
129:14, 129:18,
129:22
threat [1] - 149:8
three [9] - 114:4,
114:11, 115:4, 115:8,
124:6, 144:19,
145:18, 145:22, 164:7
threshold [1] 114:13
throughout [1] 151:21
tilted [1] - 225:12
time-out [1] - 156:15
Times' [1] - 226:4
title [3] - 130:21,
131:6, 220:12
today [9] - 113:12,
146:25, 147:14,
161:6, 199:8, 204:5,
211:6, 229:1, 230:9
together [2] 182:18, 185:16
tomorrow [5] 229:6, 229:18,
229:19, 230:3, 230:15
took [3] - 156:2,
159:21, 170:1
top [1] - 214:16
topic [1] - 169:24
topics [1] - 214:22
totally [1] - 113:22
touched [1] - 193:5
toward [3] - 150:10,
153:13, 224:24
towards [4] - 153:7,
164:10, 164:11,
171:13
track [1] - 128:1
traditional [1] 167:10

training [4] - 144:15,
145:17, 185:17,
206:12
transmitted [1] 192:7
treated [3] - 146:12,
146:19, 147:20
treatment [5] 200:3, 210:7, 224:25,
225:8, 225:13
trial [14] - 110:23,
114:25, 115:1, 154:5,
162:10, 165:19,
165:22, 166:2, 166:7,
166:11, 181:10,
181:14, 181:15, 188:1
trier [1] - 144:13
tries [1] - 111:15
troop [1] - 199:12
troops [4] - 198:9,
199:7, 205:25, 206:13
trouble [1] - 198:16
Truscott [1] - 171:1
truth [4] - 116:19,
164:1
try [5] - 126:23,
150:8, 157:7, 171:18,
176:22
trying [7] - 114:25,
138:2, 139:13, 142:2,
154:10, 163:1, 188:10
Tuesday [1] - 108:1
turned [1] - 219:20
turning [1] - 120:5
Twentieth [1] 224:14
twenty [1] - 211:11
twenty-five [1] 211:11
twice [1] - 128:9
two [23] - 109:24,
110:20, 110:21,
115:16, 119:21,
122:14, 124:6,
139:22, 139:25,
144:17, 153:22,
156:22, 169:3,
170:17, 170:23,
171:3, 176:14, 190:5,
200:20, 213:11,
230:1, 230:24
two-fold [1] - 109:24
type [4] - 108:11,
114:14, 114:15,
215:22
typically [1] - 120:14
U
U.S [5] - 131:14,
134:8, 146:20, 150:3,
157:11
UCLA [2] - 133:22,
205:9
ultimately [3] 110:25, 131:3, 173:4
unacceptable [6] 223:3, 223:10,
223:11, 223:15, 224:5
Unbecoming [1] 151:18
unconstitutional [1]
- 161:23
under [18] - 110:8,
142:9, 144:2, 163:3,
164:3, 187:23, 199:4,
199:25, 200:10,
200:11, 201:15,
201:25, 202:7, 206:6,
206:20, 206:21,
208:5, 208:18
Under [1] - 126:9
undercut [1] 218:13
undercutting [2] 217:5, 218:24
undergraduate [1] 117:13
undermine [1] 183:21
undermined [1] 210:18
Undermines [1] 131:7
undermining [1] 221:6
underpinnings [1] 189:20
understood [1] 199:21
undertaken [1] 137:8
undoubtedly [1] 142:21
undue [1] - 110:24
unexpected [1] 156:6
unfit [2] - 224:16,
224:17
unfortunately [1] 127:9
unfriendly [1] 131:7
Unfriendly [2] 128:1, 140:25
Uniform [1] - 150:7
Case Name/number
uniform [2] - 151:3,

162:4
uniformed [2] 183:1, 183:17
uniformize [1] 150:8
uniformly [1] 112:13
unique [1] - 222:6
unit [22] - 139:12,
142:9, 157:22,
178:25, 179:12,
179:20, 180:7, 180:9,
180:25, 183:21,
193:15, 212:8,
217:11, 217:12,
218:2, 218:7, 218:12,
218:13, 223:5,
223:17, 224:23
United [2] - 146:9,
172:4
uNITED [1] - 106:11
UNITED [1] - 106:18
units [5] - 196:12,
197:6, 197:7, 206:12,
218:10
universe [2] - 159:4,
210:16
universities [2] 120:20, 198:20
University [14] 117:14, 117:22,
118:7, 119:8, 119:9,
119:17, 120:1, 122:5,
124:20, 125:3,
133:21, 198:2, 227:5
university [5] 119:11, 119:12,
119:15, 133:20, 182:2
unless [1] - 171:10
unlike [1] - 145:7
unnatural [1] - 147:3
unresolved [1] 108:6
unsuitable [1] 149:25
up [19] - 130:25,
132:13, 147:21,
154:9, 161:4, 168:18,
181:13, 191:3, 192:7,
192:9, 198:17,
202:23, 209:10,
209:17, 210:1, 210:4,
218:24, 229:6, 229:9
update [1] - 210:14
updated [3] - 205:20,
205:22, 210:25
upsetting [1] 218:11
uses [1] - 137:23
date
V
vacated [1] - 199:3
vague [4] - 168:23,
169:5, 170:9, 179:25
value [1] - 143:14
valued [1] - 218:11
values [3] - 167:10,
185:16, 219:1
variety [1] - 158:24
various [3] - 136:16,
196:2, 198:13
veteran [1] - 124:25
veteran's [1] 227:17
VI [1] - 153:25
view [6] - 135:21,
136:13, 138:2,
148:11, 171:22
viewing [1] - 148:6
views [5] - 167:13,
171:13, 187:1,
191:13, 227:11
violation [1] - 188:24
Virginia [1] - 106:20
visible [1] - 152:12
Visions [1] - 120:19
voices [2] - 126:21,
126:23
voir [7] - 139:4,
139:14, 140:12,
140:15, 141:6,
145:15, 165:22
volume [2] - 153:24,
153:25
voluntarily [1] 205:16
voluntary [1] 217:20
Vossler [1] - 229:20
votes [2] - 190:8,
191:15
W
Wade [1] - 151:15
wait [2] - 164:13,
225:22
Waiver [4] - 207:5,
207:7, 207:23, 208:18
waiver [3] - 208:3,
208:18, 209:8
waivers [6] - 199:1,
199:15, 199:16,
207:2, 208:7, 209:3
waivers' [1] - 208:6
waives [1] - 207:8
Waldron [1] - 196:16
22
walk [1] - 135:17

Wall [1] - 151:15
War [16] - 126:9,
147:19, 147:22,
147:25, 148:2, 148:3,
149:3, 149:4, 149:5,
149:6, 150:2, 150:6,
150:20, 151:6, 151:7,
187:7
war [8] - 127:4,
149:13, 151:8,
151:24, 193:15,
196:6, 196:12, 196:20
ward [1] - 151:2
warm [1] - 160:10
wars [2] - 127:1,
205:24
wartime [1] - 193:20
Washington [5] 106:15, 133:19,
143:19, 153:2, 226:8
ways [2] - 135:24,
149:20
weak [1] - 150:1
weaken [1] - 189:11
Weakens [1] - 131:8
weakness [1] - 148:9
weapons [1] - 200:4
week [1] - 153:4
weeks [1] - 156:9
weight [3] - 165:25,
197:13, 199:2
welcome [1] - 181:21
well-known [1] 177:17
West [2] - 106:6,
133:21
whereas [1] - 145:2
White [1] - 153:19
WHITE [1] - 106:4
whole [8] - 116:19,
129:9, 141:1, 144:21,
144:24, 148:21,
149:22, 162:12
wide [3] - 119:15,
135:19, 150:16
wide-ranging [1] 119:15
widely [1] - 197:7
Williams [4] 124:15, 124:19,
205:8, 205:18
willing [1] - 212:16
Wilson [2] - 124:18,
124:24
win [1] - 220:17
withdraw [1] - 219:9
witness [44] 108:25, 111:3,
112:16, 112:21,
116:4, 116:12,
116:15, 121:17,
134:20, 139:4, 139:8,
140:6, 140:17,
143:25, 144:1,
144:14, 144:19,
144:22, 145:7,
145:15, 154:13,
154:19, 154:25,
159:20, 163:7,
164:22, 165:19,
165:23, 170:23,
174:7, 175:13,
175:14, 175:17,
175:18, 176:11,
177:1, 191:20,
197:13, 203:13,
203:14, 229:1, 230:3,
230:12, 230:18
WITNESS [40] 107:7, 116:21,
116:24, 146:15,
147:10, 147:12,
160:4, 169:9, 173:23,
176:14, 177:7,
184:18, 188:15,
190:2, 191:12,
200:12, 200:17,
200:22, 200:24,
201:12, 201:16,
202:12, 203:17,
203:20, 204:2, 204:8,
204:14, 206:14,
207:20, 207:25,
208:3, 208:9, 208:14,
208:20, 210:1,
211:11, 213:8,
213:18, 217:11,
217:13
witness's [6] - 114:4,
166:11, 175:15,
176:21, 200:7, 214:11
witnesses [7] 164:24, 165:1, 171:4,
175:16, 175:17,
177:1, 230:1
Witt [4] - 114:5,
115:12, 115:20,
187:25
women [1] - 157:13
won [1] - 153:5
WOOD [1] - 153:17
Woods [5] - 106:5,
107:9, 109:8, 128:1,
140:21
woods [1] - 121:16
WOODS [94] - 109:1,
109:9, 109:16, 116:5,
117:4, 121:20,
121:24, 127:5, 128:3,
129:3, 129:6, 129:11,

129:16, 129:20,
130:12, 138:25,
139:21, 139:25,
146:3, 146:4, 146:16,
147:18, 154:3,
155:17, 156:1, 160:7,
164:18, 164:20,
166:18, 166:19,
168:8, 168:11, 169:1,
169:13, 170:11,
171:17, 172:1,
173:22, 174:1,
174:11, 175:7, 176:1,
176:2, 176:16,
176:22, 176:24,
177:11, 179:9, 180:4,
180:5, 181:22,
184:10, 184:19,
187:4, 187:11,
187:20, 187:25,
188:16, 189:19,
190:3, 192:1, 194:14,
194:18, 195:1,
197:15, 202:23,
203:1, 204:16,
206:15, 209:1, 210:2,
211:12, 213:9,
213:22, 214:1,
214:12, 214:16,
214:24, 215:1, 215:4,
216:6, 217:14,
217:23, 222:15,
228:13, 228:23,
229:7, 229:19,
229:25, 230:5,
230:10, 230:13,
230:16, 230:19
word [5] - 129:14,
129:18, 161:9, 175:17
words [2] - 161:22,
228:21
workings [2] 157:24, 160:15
World [10] - 147:19,
147:22, 147:25,
148:2, 149:3, 149:4,
149:5, 149:6, 150:6,
187:7
world [3] - 135:21,
136:13, 138:2
write [3] - 121:4,
131:4, 132:4
writing [7] - 120:21,
132:21, 133:12,
134:23, 164:25,
178:8, 194:5
writings [9] - 121:7,
121:9, 121:12,
121:17, 121:18,
Case Name/number
121:19, 138:6, 138:8,

138:21
written [3] - 152:4,
165:18, 209:7
wrote [11] - 121:1,
122:17, 130:25,
132:13, 167:16,
179:23, 180:11,
210:23, 220:3, 227:5
Y
year [11] - 118:2,
118:9, 118:25,
119:19, 120:10,
120:12, 154:10,
173:9, 197:21,
197:23, 205:15
years [26] - 119:5,
119:17, 119:18,
121:4, 121:6, 122:14,
122:22, 123:13,
123:18, 123:21,
123:22, 124:2, 124:8,
124:22, 131:13,
134:23, 137:6, 178:6,
199:9, 211:1, 221:1,
222:18, 223:22,
224:8, 228:6
York [4] - 119:8,
119:12, 133:19, 226:4
younger [1] - 219:22
yourself [1] - 124:13
Z
Z-O-G-B-Y [1] 197:18
Zogby [8] - 197:18,
197:21, 198:3, 198:5,
198:6, 226:5, 227:14,
228:8
date

2:04 CV 08425 TrialDay1Vol3

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2:04 CV 08425 TrialDay1Vol3

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Trial Day 1 Vol 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS,

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

THERESA A. LANZA, RPR, CSR

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Trial Day 1, Volume III

WHITE & CASE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

UNITED STATES ARMY

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Trial Day 1, Volume III

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Trial Day 1, Volume III

Riverside, California; Tuesday, July 13, 2010; 1:33 P.M.

Your Honor, may I be heard on a

One issue that I think is unresolved

is -- as you know, we moved in limine to exclude all testimony

that relates to animus, specifically regarding the

congressional intent in enacting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

clause does not prohibit that type of testimony, but we would

respectfully submit that the precedents that we cited in our

motion in limine, namely O'Bryan, Mergins, and Foley,

specifically preclude any inquiry into elicit motive.

What is appropriate is inquiring into --

I'm looking at my ruling on the motion in limine,

Into what motive?

because I want to refresh my memory.

This was on a motion to exclude on the experts?

Let me look at that so I'm current.

And your next witness is...

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Trial Day 1, Volume III

Professor Frank, Your Honor.

And just to put it in context,

Your Honor, Dr. Frank will testify about alleged improper

motive on the part of Congress and those involved in the

enactment of the policy.

renew that objection now, and specifically rely upon the

precedent that I just set forth.

We had moved to exclude that, and I

Your Honor, we did brief this in the

motion in limine, and you denied the government's motion.

What occurred when we had the argument on this, was

you raised your own concern about the legislator's privilege,

And you briefed that.

And I hope that satisfied your concerns.

It did on the legislator's privilege

issue, which your brief addressed.

And on the issue that I

But I think that the issue that Mr. -- if I

understand Mr. Freeborne's objection, it's to a slightly

I've read your

One, O'Bryan, Foley,

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Trial Day 1, Volume III

that inquiry into elicit motive, or improper motive, that

What is proper is inquiring into purpose.

forth in the statute.

But, here, what I believe Dr. Frank will testify